| Topic: |
Religions > Bible |
| User: |
"Pastor Dave" |
| Date: |
03 Aug 2005 12:41:07 PM |
| Object: |
CALLING BDRATZSCH |
On 1 Aug 2005 14:08:15 -0700, spake
thusly:
Pastor Dave -
You and I well recognize the other's position regarding prophetic
fulfillment, so there is little point in arguing the matter. I will,
however, offer the following - subsequent to which I shall withdraw
from this particular thread.
No, sorry, you don't get off that easy. :)
In Matthew 24:21 Jesus portrayed his coming (i.e., within the context
of the Disciple's inquiry of vs. 3) as being preceded by a time of
great tribulation, "such as has not occurred since the beginning of the
world until now, nor ever shall be."
A.D. 70 events involved the destruction of Jerusalem and slaughter of
an estimated one million Jews within a localized region. If this
represented the final fulfillment of Jesus' prediction, how then to
explain World War II wherein some SIX million Jews were slaughtered
plus an estimated 45 million others (military and civilian) throughout
the world - in addition to a world-wide carnage and destruction totally
inconceivable to A.D. 70 comprehension?
They were killed, not "slaughtered". But dead is dead.
And it was the type of tribulation that was experienced
back then that is under question. Don't remain
ignorant of history.
Since the time of tribulation preceding Christ's promised return (Matt.
24:29-31) would exceed anything ever to follow, it becomes more than a
little difficult to accept his return as an event of history.
So in other words, deny any of His words that don't
suit your understanding of that passage. Jesus
couldn't have said what He clearly did say, because
YOU don't understand how that could be, if He also
said what you quoted above.
First, let's note that your response did not deal
directly with the passages under discussion. No,
you jumped to another passage. You see, you
could not show me where Jesus said, "this is a
partial fulfillment and there will be a later, fuller
fulfillment", so instead, you jumped to another spot
in the Bible and your argument ends up being one
of pitting the Bible against itself.
Fact: Jesus said that the kingdom would not be
seen physically. He made it clear that we would
not be able to point at it.
Fact: He said this to Jews, who were looking for
the full fulfillment of the prophecy. A kingdom
on Earth,. That is clear by Jesus' response and
the fact that the Pharisees back then and even
today, are looking for an earthly kingdom. Thus,
Jesus' response dealt with what you would call,
the "full fulfillment".
Fact: There is no way around the above two facts
and for you to try to argue that there is, which is
what you're doing, is not a Scriptural argument.
Fact: You look at this the way that you do, because
of your ignorance of the Old Testament and the way
that they spoke and the language that they used.
Note this FULFILLED prophecy in Ezekiel, which
warned about the destruction of Jerusalem at
the hands of the Babylonians...
"Therefore thus says the Lord GOD: 'Indeed I,
even I, am against you and will execute judgments
in your midst in the sight of the nations. And I will
do among you what I have never done, and the
like of which I will never do again, because of all
your abominations." - Ezekiel 5:9
Well, now you have a choice to make. Was God
wrong here? I mean after all, Jerusalem was
destroyed again and what they went through was
worse.
And while the futurist denies Jesus' words, in which
He specified Jerusalem and they claim it involves
the whole world, they end up with a real problem.
Why? Because of what happened in Egypt and
what God said about it...
"Then there shall be a great cry throughout all
the land of Egypt, such as was not like it before,
nor shall be like it again." - Exodus 11:6
Now you are stuck saying that the cry in Egypt will
be greater than what happened then and you make
God a liar.
Daniel, which we both know is a Messianic prophecy,
tells us clearly about a localized destruction...
"And He has confirmed His words, which He spoke
against us and against our judges who judged us,
by bringing upon us a great disaster; for under the
whole heaven such has never been done as what
has been done to Jerusalem." - Daniel 9:12
And one more thing, can the destruction you await
be any worse than the Flood? That was global
and killed all life except eight of them. In what you
await, there will supposedly be a new heaven and
a new earth and many more than eight will be saved.
That certainly sounds better than the Flood to me.
So how do you account for that? You have some
explaining to do.
--
Pastor Dave
A person cannot be relying on Christ
if he chooses to chart his own life
course in opposition to Christ from
the very outset of his faith relationship.
Christ as a whole person, Lord & Savior,
is the Gospel message, not simply the
fact that Christ died for sin. If you
have not made Him Lord, then He is not
your Savior (John 14:21,24).
http://www.ecclesia.org/truth/solution.html
http://tinyurl.com/ce97m
.
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: CALLING BDRATZSCH |
04 Aug 2005 11:39:53 AM |
|
|
Both Old Testament prophecy and early Church understanding convey the
concept of a culminating reign that yet awaits fulfillment. (Indeed,
the Epistle to the Hebrews was written to early Jewish believers
struggling with its delay. The emphasis of Hebrews 11 is that such hope
must not be abandoned. For just as the Patriarchs awaited a reality to
come, so also must these believers not lose hope. Nowhere does the
author suggest that they have it all wrong.)
Simply stated: To require the spiritualization of all things related -
not only in the Old but New Testament as well - simply beggars the
concept of biblical consistency.
This is further demonstrated, for example, in Acts 1:6, wherein the
Disciples' question clearly anticipates a yet unrealized manifestation
of the kingdom in terms of "restored" Davidic throne. Are we then to
understand David's kingdom as having existed in terms only of a
"spiritual" reality?
We would further point out that the Disciples' question immediately
followed Jesus' having shared with them for some forty days preceding
his Ascension, "concerning the kingdom of God" (Acts 1:30). Should it
not seem strange that at some point during this time of exposition
regarding divine purpose and reign (i.e., the "kingdom"), Jesus
apparently failed to clarify their thinking relative to this point?
Not only had the Disciples been totally taken with the concept of a
physical earthly reign throughout their years of ministry with Christ
(hence their continual arguing over position and precedence in its
administration), but Jesus had himself nurtured their thinking along
these lines: "In the regeneration when the Son of Man will sit on His
glorious throne, you also shall sit upon twelve thrones, judging the
twelve tribes of Israel" (Matt. 19:28; cf. Luke 22:30).
Given the understanding to which the Twelve were committed regarding an
ultimate earthly reign, Jesus' words at this point, had they been in
error, can be seen as little less than deceptive, or even maleficent
-if, rather than correcting their understanding at this point, he
purposely encouraged their thinking along erroneous lines.
There are many such points by means of which one might argue with you
here. In other words, it is not for lack biblical resource that I
choose not to engage in endless debate with you concerning this matter.
Finally, do you not have any other themes? It seems to me that
Scripture contains a goodly number of additional topics.
Burl Ratzsch
http://burlratzsch.blogspot.com/
.
|
|
|
| User: "Pastor Dave" |
|
| Title: Re: CALLING BDRATZSCH |
04 Aug 2005 04:55:03 PM |
|
|
On 4 Aug 2005 09:39:53 -0700, spake
thusly:
Why have you deleted my entire post? Never mind,
we know why. You could not refute it and chose
instead, to ignore it, so that you would not have to
deal with the subject, nor were you honest enough
to respond on point.
I have pasted it in again below. Be honest and stop
running away and then pretending to be honest.
Both Old Testament prophecy and early Church understanding convey the
concept of a culminating reign that yet awaits fulfillment. (Indeed,
the Epistle to the Hebrews was written to early Jewish believers
struggling with its delay. The emphasis of Hebrews 11 is that such hope
must not be abandoned. For just as the Patriarchs awaited a reality to
come, so also must these believers not lose hope. Nowhere does the
author suggest that they have it all wrong.)
The entire New Testament was written before 70 AD.
Thus, your statement is meaningless. You ASSume
that it's okay to apply it to TODAY.
The ONLY HONEST statement that can be made,
is that it was future to the writers, when they wrote
the text.
Simply stated: To require the spiritualization of all things related -
not only in the Old but New Testament as well - simply beggars the
concept of biblical consistency.
Which you do not seem to have a grasp on.
This is further demonstrated, for example, in Acts 1:6, wherein the
Disciples' question clearly anticipates a yet unrealized manifestation
of the kingdom in terms of "restored" Davidic throne. Are we then to
understand David's kingdom as having existed in terms only of a
"spiritual" reality?
Jesus said, they would receive power when
the Holy Spirit came, two verses later. THAT
is the power they were to have. Does that
sound like a physical kingdom to you?
And did they have the Holy Spirit yet? No.
So what they said was not necessarily
correct. But the fact is, that you want the
Bible to contradict itself.
Acts 1:6 occurs before their having received
the Holy Ghost. It is foolish to build a doctrine
on an uninspired statement by the disciples.
We would further point out that the Disciples' question immediately
followed Jesus' having shared with them for some forty days preceding
his Ascension, "concerning the kingdom of God" (Acts 1:30). Should it
not seem strange that at some point during this time of exposition
regarding divine purpose and reign (i.e., the "kingdom"), Jesus
apparently failed to clarify their thinking relative to this point?
"We"? Who is "we"?
You keep saying how the Kingdom of God was discussed.
So what? Where did Jesus say it would be PHYSICAL?
And why do you keep assigning a physical reign,
for a spiritual Lord? Do you also believe that
when we are born again, that we are physically
born a second time?
Not only had the Disciples been totally taken with the concept of a
physical earthly reign throughout their years of ministry with Christ
(hence their continual arguing over position and precedence in its
administration), but Jesus had himself nurtured their thinking along
these lines: "In the regeneration when the Son of Man will sit on His
glorious throne, you also shall sit upon twelve thrones, judging the
twelve tribes of Israel" (Matt. 19:28; cf. Luke 22:30).
Where does that say, "Physically, on Earth"?
Oh, that's right, it doesn't! You like to keep
inserting things in there, that the Bible doesn't
actually say. And you failed to quote the next
verse...
"And every one that hath forsaken houses,
or brethren, or sisters, or father, or mother,
or wife, or children, or lands, for my name's
sake, shall receive a hundredfold, and shall
inherit everlasting life." - Matthew 19:29
That is a spiritual statement.
Luke 22:31-32
31) And the Lord said, Simon, Simon, behold,
Satan hath desired to have you, that he may
sift you as wheat:
32) But I have prayed for thee, that thy faith fail
not: and when thou art converted, strengthen
thy brethren.
This is a spiritual statement, not a physical one.
Was Jesus worried about Satan physically
putting Peter through a sifter? And why
did Jesus talk about praying for Peter's faith,
which is a spiritual thing?
What the Bible does say about whether or not
the Kingdom is physical, is the following...
Luke 17:20-21
20) And when he was demanded of the Pharisees,
when the kingdom of God should come, he answered
them and said, The kingdom of God cometh not with
observation:
21) Neither shall they say, Lo here! or, lo there!
for, behold, the kingdom of God is within you.
You see, you keep ignoring these passages.
Because to be honest and acknowledge them,
would spell the end for your man made doctrine.
That is why you have not addressed these
passages DIRECTLY.
Jesus said CLEARLY that it would NOT be physical.
You like to take what the disciples said, before Jesus
rose and before they received the Holy Spirit and try
to build a doctrine on those statements. The ONLY
important words for doctrine, are what JESUS HIMSELF
said, before the Holy Ghost was given.
The Pharisees here asked the same basic question
that the disciples did. AND WHAT WAS JESUS'
RESPONSE?!?!?!
Jesus said, NO PHYSICAL KINGDOM. We would
NOT be able to point at it and say, "There it is".
Why? Very simple. Because IT IS WITHIN US.
Jesus gave ABSOLUTELY ZERO indication of some
"later full fulfillment". That just does not exist in
the Bible. You added it!
You keep telling me what Jesus was trying to say,
as if you know better than He did! How arrogant!
I showed you what He DID SAY and I BELIEVE HIM!
The question is, why don't you? And why do you keep
trying to force Jesus to contradict Himself? Where
did Jesus say, "But later, it will be physical."???
WHERE DID HE SAY THAT? WHERE?
The fact is, you cannot show me one single passage,in
which Jesus said either, "physical kingdom", or "later,
full, physical fulfillment".
Given the understanding to which the Twelve were committed regarding an
ultimate earthly reign, Jesus' words at this point, had they been in
error, can be seen as little less than deceptive, or even maleficent
-if, rather than correcting their understanding at this point, he
purposely encouraged their thinking along erroneous lines.
So it is your belief, that what the disciples said
overrules what Jesus said in Luke 17:20-21?
Jesus said clearly it would not be physical. And
quoting a question about the kingdom, does not
mean that He is saying it is physical. In fact,
given that they were present for His, "not going
to be physical" speech, you are ASSUMING
that they were asking about a physical kingdom
in the passage you quoted.
Jesus said what He said. I know you don't like it,
but He did and He meant what He said and I do
not question His statements. You on the other
hand, try to find ways around them.
There are many such points by means of which one might argue with you
here. In other words, it is not for lack biblical resource that I
choose not to engage in endless debate with you concerning this matter.
There are ZERO points on which you can argue
with me on this. You prove that every time you
ignore what I write and snip it all and then add
your own beliefs to Jesus' words. Let us all note,
that you were unable to quote EVEN ONE
passage in this message, in which Jesus said,
"physical", or "earthly", or, "later physical
fulfillment". We all have noted that.
Finally, do you not have any other themes? It seems to me that
Scripture contains a goodly number of additional topics.
As usual, you try to escape the facts and switch
the topic. Why? Because your desire to bring
Jesus off His throne and down to you, is more
important than the truth!
Here again, are the points that you snipped and refused
to deal with. And let the reader note, that your claim
about a world wide tribulation that is going to be
worse than any recorded history, has been proved false.
Let the reader note, that your claim about WWII having
been worse than 70 AD, so it could not have been 70 AD
has been proved false.
Let the reader note, that you ended up trying to force
the Bible to be in error and contradict itself.
And finally, let the reader note, that while you end
timers like to claim that this subject isn't all that
important, that you spend most of your time reading
about that subject and send many posts on the topic.
But of course, whenever you can't deal with someone
who can refute your position, all of the sudden, you
claim the subject isn't that important.
Well I have news for you. It is that important. It
may even be of utmost importance. After all,
how does one who doesn't believe Jesus, claim
to be saved? One of us is wrong. And I pity that
person. So if I were you, I would ask myself why
you and the rest of the end timers have been utterly
unable to refute the things I've posted and why,
you people get hostile with me, for simply pointing
these things out? And why do you delete what
I write and never deal with my points head on?
There are questions you and the rest of whomever
"we" is, need to ask yourselves. Which position is
more likely to be true? The one that can defend
itself? Or the one that seems to have no defense?
Anyway, here is the restored post that you completely
deleted. Are you honest enough to deal with these
points head on?
You and I well recognize the other's position regarding prophetic
fulfillment, so there is little point in arguing the matter. I will,
however, offer the following - subsequent to which I shall withdraw
from this particular thread.
No, sorry, you don't get off that easy. :)
In Matthew 24:21 Jesus portrayed his coming (i.e., within the context
of the Disciple's inquiry of vs. 3) as being preceded by a time of
great tribulation, "such as has not occurred since the beginning of the
world until now, nor ever shall be."
A.D. 70 events involved the destruction of Jerusalem and slaughter of
an estimated one million Jews within a localized region. If this
represented the final fulfillment of Jesus' prediction, how then to
explain World War II wherein some SIX million Jews were slaughtered
plus an estimated 45 million others (military and civilian) throughout
the world - in addition to a world-wide carnage and destruction totally
inconceivable to A.D. 70 comprehension?
They were killed, not "slaughtered". But dead is dead.
And it was the type of tribulation that was experienced
back then that is under question. Don't remain
ignorant of history.
Since the time of tribulation preceding Christ's promised return (Matt.
24:29-31) would exceed anything ever to follow, it becomes more than a
little difficult to accept his return as an event of history.
So in other words, deny any of His words that don't
suit your understanding of that passage. Jesus
couldn't have said what He clearly did say, because
YOU don't understand how that could be, if He also
said what you quoted above.
First, let's note that your response did not deal
directly with the passages under discussion. No,
you jumped to another passage. You see, you
could not show me where Jesus said, "this is a
partial fulfillment and there will be a later, fuller
fulfillment", so instead, you jumped to another spot
in the Bible and your argument ends up being one
of pitting the Bible against itself.
Fact: Jesus said that the kingdom would not be
seen physically. He made it clear that we would
not be able to point at it.
Fact: He said this to Jews, who were looking for
the full fulfillment of the prophecy. A kingdom
on Earth,. That is clear by Jesus' response and
the fact that the Pharisees back then and even
today, are looking for an earthly kingdom. Thus,
Jesus' response dealt with what you would call,
the "full fulfillment".
Fact: There is no way around the above two facts
and for you to try to argue that there is, which is
what you're doing, is not a Scriptural argument.
Fact: You look at this the way that you do, because
of your ignorance of the Old Testament and the way
that they spoke and the language that they used.
Note this FULFILLED prophecy in Ezekiel, which
warned about the destruction of Jerusalem at
the hands of the Babylonians...
"Therefore thus says the Lord GOD: 'Indeed I,
even I, am against you and will execute judgments
in your midst in the sight of the nations. And I will
do among you what I have never done, and the
like of which I will never do again, because of all
your abominations." - Ezekiel 5:9
Well, now you have a choice to make. Was God
wrong here? I mean after all, Jerusalem was
destroyed again and what they went through was
worse.
And while the futurist denies Jesus' words, in which
He specified Jerusalem and they claim it involves
the whole world, they end up with a real problem.
Why? Because of what happened in Egypt and
what God said about it...
"Then there shall be a great cry throughout all
the land of Egypt, such as was not like it before,
nor shall be like it again." - Exodus 11:6
Now you are stuck saying that the cry in Egypt will
be greater than what happened then and you make
God a liar.
Daniel, which we both know is a Messianic prophecy,
tells us clearly about a localized destruction...
"And He has confirmed His words, which He spoke
against us and against our judges who judged us,
by bringing upon us a great disaster; for under the
whole heaven such has never been done as what
has been done to Jerusalem." - Daniel 9:12
And one more thing, can the destruction you await
be any worse than the Flood? That was global
and killed all life except eight of them. In what you
await, there will supposedly be a new heaven and
a new earth and many more than eight will be saved.
That certainly sounds better than the Flood to me.
So how do you account for that? You have some
explaining to do.
--
Pastor Dave
A person cannot be relying on Christ
if he chooses to chart his own life
course in opposition to Christ from
the very outset of his faith relationship.
Christ as a whole person, Lord & Savior,
is the Gospel message, not simply the
fact that Christ died for sin. If you
have not made Him Lord, then He is not
your Savior (John 14:21,24).
http://www.ecclesia.org/truth/solution.html
http://tinyurl.com/ce97m
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: CALLING BDRATZSCH |
05 Aug 2005 08:24:41 AM |
|
|
I don't discourse with those who stoop to levels of the vulgar and
unrefined (e.g., "You ASSume...etc.").
Good bye.
Burl Ratzsch
.
|
|
|
| User: "Pastor Dave" |
|
| Title: Re: CALLING BDRATZSCH |
05 Aug 2005 09:50:21 AM |
|
|
On 5 Aug 2005 06:24:41 -0700, spake
thusly:
I don't discourse with those who stoop to levels of the vulgar and
unrefined (e.g., "You ASSume...etc.").
Good bye.
You don't discourse with me, period. That's why
you snipped my whole post the last time and did
it again this time. You used one word as an excuse
to avoid responding. Had someone said that to
me, I would have laughed. It's a well known joke.
"You know what happens when you assume..."
--
Pastor Dave
"If you believe what you like in the Gospel,
and reject what you like - it is not the Gospel
you believe, but yourselves." - St. Augustine
http://www.ecclesia.org/truth/solution.html
http://tinyurl.com/ce97m
.
|
|
|
| User: "Rob" |
|
| Title: Re: CALLING BDRATZSCH |
05 Aug 2005 08:11:56 PM |
|
|
On Fri, 05 Aug 2005 14:50:21 GMT, Pastor Dave
<news-group-mail@nospam-tampa-bay.rr.com> wrote:
On 5 Aug 2005 06:24:41 -0700, spake
thusly:
I don't discourse with those who stoop to levels of the vulgar and
unrefined (e.g., "You ASSume...etc.").
Good bye.
You don't discourse with me, period. That's why
you snipped my whole post the last time and did
it again this time. You used one word as an excuse
to avoid responding.
Had someone said that to me, I would have laughed.
You ASSumed your insult was humorous. Are you laughing now? I trow not.
Rob
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
