| Topic: |
Religions > Bible |
| User: |
"Wide Eyed in Wonder" |
| Date: |
03 Jun 2007 03:56:01 PM |
| Object: |
Dave, 1000 Yr Reign of Christ |
Dave,
I've posted the following to your thread a few times in the past week
with no response. Just in case you didn't see the post, here it is
again. Please, reply.....
1. Without getting too deep, I'll just point out that the earliest
church fathers after the apostles believed in the thousand year reign,
as an older post of mine to you (already) has shown...
A post of mine before...
It has been alleged at times that the concept of the Millenial reign
of Christ is a modern invention. This is to refute that. Eusebius
(3-4th century church historian and author of the following quote),
which was, at times, out of favor with the church for his beliefs.
However, St. Irenaeus (2nd century saint mentioned by Eusebius below)
was a bishop and helped craft the apostles creed. Papias (also
entioned below) was also a 2nd century Bishop.
The fact that Eusebius disagreed with Irenaeus and Papias to the point
of sladering their character below is irrelevant to the point that THE
EARLY CHURCH BELIEVED IN A MILLENIUM KINGDOM, where Christ would rule
on earth.
(from Eusebius -The Church History by Paul Maier)
"Papias supplies other stories that reached him by word of mouth,
along with some strange parables and unknown teaching of the Savior,
as well as other more legendary accounts. Among them, he says that
after the resurrection of the dead, there will be a thousand year
period when the kingdom of Christ will be established on this earth in
material form. I suppose that he got these notions by
misunderstanding the apostolic accounts, not realizing that they had
used mystic and symbolic language. For he was a man of limited
intelligence, as is clear from his books. Due to him, however, many
church writers after him held the same opinion, relying on his early
date: Irenaeus, for example, and any others who adopted the same
views."
If the thousand years is supposed to be past, I guess those of the
early church in the days didn't know it.
2. Thousand year reign items not fulfilled...
According to Revelation, by the time of the reign, ALL the rivers and
seas are supposed to be blood. ALL the vegetation is supposed to be
burned up. ALL those that took the mark are supposed to be struck
with sores that won't heal. The river Euphrates is supposed to be
dried up. A worldwide earthquake is supposed to happen that destroys
the major cities of the world, split the Jersusalem in three parts,
level mountains, destroy islands, and is accompanied with enourmous
hailstones a hundred pounds each. Needless to day, NONE of these
things have been recorded in history to have happened. In fact,
Revelation 1:7 says,
Rev 1:7 "Look, he is coming with the clouds," and "every eye will see
him, even those who pierced him;" and all peoples on earth "will mourn
because of him."
Now, the "every eye will see him" is from Zecharaiah, which we'll get
to in a minute. But, this passage says very clearly that EVERY eye
will see him, no a select few.
According to Zechariah, the Mount of Olives is supposed to split,
rivers are supposed to flow out of Jerusalem to each of the great
lakes near it, the temple's gates are supposed to be up and active, a
plague of wasting hits all who opposed Israel, and countries that do
not go up yearly to report to God in Jerusalem will get no rain.
Again, none of this is occuring.
Finally, Isaiah 65:20 speaks of a time when people will live extra
long, a believer dying before being a hundred years old will be
considered young. Yet, unbelievers won't live that long. This has
not historically happened, and it cannot refer to Heaven, since there
will be no unbelievers there and no one will die.
Ken Clifton
christiansuperhero.com
.
|
|
| User: "Wide Eyed in Wonder" |
|
| Title: Re: Dave, 1000 Yr Reign of Christ |
03 Jun 2007 09:18:56 PM |
|
|
On Jun 3, 3:56 pm, Wide Eyed in Wonder <kand...@hotmail.com> wrote:
Dave,
I've posted the following to your thread a few times in the past week
with no response. Just in case you didn't see the post, here it is
again. Please, reply.....
1. Without getting too deep, I'll just point out that the earliest
church fathers after the apostles believed in the thousand year reign,
as an older post of mine to you (already) has shown...
A post of mine before...
It has been alleged at times that the concept of the Millenial reign
of Christ is a modern invention. This is to refute that. Eusebius
(3-4th century church historian and author of the following quote),
which was, at times, out of favor with the church for his beliefs.
However, St. Irenaeus (2nd century saint mentioned by Eusebius below)
was a bishop and helped craft the apostles creed. Papias (also
entioned below) was also a 2nd century Bishop.
The fact that Eusebius disagreed with Irenaeus and Papias to the point
of sladering their character below is irrelevant to the point that THE
EARLY CHURCH BELIEVED IN A MILLENIUM KINGDOM, where Christ would rule
on earth.
(from Eusebius -The Church History by Paul Maier)
"Papias supplies other stories that reached him by word of mouth,
along with some strange parables and unknown teaching of the Savior,
as well as other more legendary accounts. Among them, he says that
after the resurrection of the dead, there will be a thousand year
period when the kingdom of Christ will be established on this earth in
material form. I suppose that he got these notions by
misunderstanding the apostolic accounts, not realizing that they had
used mystic and symbolic language. For he was a man of limited
intelligence, as is clear from his books. Due to him, however, many
church writers after him held the same opinion, relying on his early
date: Irenaeus, for example, and any others who adopted the same
views."
If the thousand years is supposed to be past, I guess those of the
early church in the days didn't know it.
2. Thousand year reign items not fulfilled...
According to Revelation, by the time of the reign, ALL the rivers and
seas are supposed to be blood. ALL the vegetation is supposed to be
burned up. ALL those that took the mark are supposed to be struck
with sores that won't heal. The river Euphrates is supposed to be
dried up. A worldwide earthquake is supposed to happen that destroys
the major cities of the world, split the Jersusalem in three parts,
level mountains, destroy islands, and is accompanied with enourmous
hailstones a hundred pounds each. Needless to day, NONE of these
things have been recorded in history to have happened. In fact,
Revelation 1:7 says,
Rev 1:7 "Look, he is coming with the clouds," and "every eye will see
him, even those who pierced him;" and all peoples on earth "will mourn
because of him."
Now, the "every eye will see him" is from Zecharaiah, which we'll get
to in a minute. But, this passage says very clearly that EVERY eye
will see him, no a select few.
According to Zechariah, the Mount of Olives is supposed to split,
rivers are supposed to flow out of Jerusalem to each of the great
lakes near it, the temple's gates are supposed to be up and active, a
plague of wasting hits all who opposed Israel, and countries that do
not go up yearly to report to God in Jerusalem will get no rain.
Again, none of this is occuring.
Finally, Isaiah 65:20 speaks of a time when people will live extra
long, a believer dying before being a hundred years old will be
considered young. Yet, unbelievers won't live that long. This has
not historically happened, and it cannot refer to Heaven, since there
will be no unbelievers there and no one will die.
Ken Clifton
christiansuperhero.com
Well?
Ken Clifton
christiansuperhero.com
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Pastor Dave" |
|
| Title: Re: Dave, 1000 Yr Reign of Christ |
04 Jun 2007 11:04:03 AM |
|
|
On Sun, 03 Jun 2007 13:56:01 -0700, Wide Eyed in Wonder
<kands00@hotmail.com> claimed:
Dave,
I've posted the following to your thread a few times
in the past week with no response. Just in case you
didn't see the post, here it is again. Please, reply.....
I didn't respond, because you have been in my kill file
for quite some time. I told you it was happening,
a long time ago. I took you out a couple of days ago
and the first message I see from you is an attack on me.
1. Without getting too deep, I'll just point out that the earliest
church fathers after the apostles believed in the thousand year reign,
as an older post of mine to you (already) has shown...
That is your claim and I showed you the opposite
in response. You didn't quote that here though,
did you.
1) I showed very early quotes, earlier than yours.
2) What people believed afterward, doesn't matter
to me. That isn't Scripture.
3) You present these as if they are absolute proof.
Furthermore, I have shown how some of these
people have been quoted out of context and
were actually saying that Jesus had returned
in the Jewish War.
2. Thousand year reign items not fulfilled...
In your opinion, because:
1) You take every statement from a highly symbolic book
and claim they're physically literal. Every statement
that YOU CHOOSE to believe is that way, that is.
You don't look for a literal beast rising up out of
the land, nor sea, yet think that all rivers are literal
blood. You don't believe that the sword sticking out
of Jesus' mouth is literal, yet you believe that the
horse He's sitting on while it's sticking out of His
mouth is literal. You are inconsistent.
2) You believe that it means, "the whole planet".
You cannot prove that and I have shown you
what the Greek words actually mean. Your
response was to reject that and attack me.
According to Revelation, by the time of the reign, ALL the rivers and
seas are supposed to be blood. ALL the vegetation is supposed to be
burned up. ALL those that took the mark are supposed to be struck
with sores that won't heal. The river Euphrates is supposed to be
dried up. A worldwide earthquake is supposed to happen that destroys
the major cities of the world, split the Jersusalem in three parts,
level mountains, destroy islands, and is accompanied with enourmous
hailstones a hundred pounds each. Needless to day, NONE of these
things have been recorded in history to have happened. In fact,
Revelation 1:7 says,
Actually, they were. But you wouldn't believe me
if I told you how.
Rev 1:7 "Look, he is coming with the clouds," and "every eye will see
him, even those who pierced him;" and all peoples on earth "will mourn
because of him."
Now, the "every eye will see him" is from Zecharaiah, which we'll get
to in a minute.
No, we won't, because I'm not going to waste my time.
But, this passage says very clearly that EVERY eye
will see him, no a select few.
So then, if Rev 1:7 was fulfilled, then Zech was fulfilled.
Okay, fine. I'll go over this one point with you, which
will eliminate the need for going over Zechariah.
Note what it says above. It says... "even those who
pierced Him".
Now, when did they live? In the first century.
Yet it says that THEY would "see Him" coming.
Now I know people will try to say that they will
be resurrected and then see Him coming, but
that doesn't work, since He is seen coming
AND THEN the resurrection happens.
Therefore, they had to still be alive, when He came,
in order to "see Him" COMING.
You take all of these fantastic statements in symbolic
prophecy books as physically literal and then refuse
to believe the clear and simple statements of Scripture.
You try to filter the clear and simple through your
physically literal view of symbolism. And with all
due respect, this is based on ignorance of the OT
ad the symbolic language God used throughout
time, just as He "rode a swift cloud" in Isaiah 19:1
and no one physically saw Him and just as
"the Sun went dark" in Isaiah 13 and no one
saw the Sun physically go dark. And both of those
are FULFILLED PROPHECIES.
Furthermore, Rev 1:1-3 and Rev 22:10,12 show that
whatever was going to happen, it was going to happen
"shortly", for the people who first read it. It was
written to seven literal churches, that did exist then
and they would have read what John said, which is
that "THE TIME" was "at hand".
And no, it isn't "super special God time". God doesn't
experience time and if you want to try to cower
behind Peter's "1,000 years is as a day" statement,
which was only a figure of speech which meant that
time is nothing to God and again, was written to
them, in the first century, because they were getting
impatient, you go ahead. But the reality is, that you
must then apply it uniformly throughout Scripture,
or you are self contradictory. Of course, then we
would have millions of years, instead of 70 years,
for Jeremiah's prophecy and Jesus couldn't have
even come yet.
Time statements are made in MAN'S perspective,
not God's, since God doesn't experience time.
So whatever you think the end was, gee, maybe
you're wrong? It had to have happened within
a short time from when it was written, per Christ.
--
Pastor Dave
Expand and go out into the ocean of your faith.
God doesn't do His deepest work in the shallowest
part of the water.
The world says that seeing is believing.
The Bible says that believing is seeing.
Doctrine is not Scripture.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Anti-Venom" |
|
| Title: Re: Dave, 1000 Yr Reign of Christ |
05 Jun 2007 12:11:38 AM |
|
|
On Jun 4, 11:04 am, Pastor Dave <n...@nowhere.com> wrote:
On Sun, 03 Jun 2007 13:56:01 -0700, Wide Eyed in Wonder
<kand...@hotmail.com> claimed:
Dave,
I've posted the following to your thread a few times
in the past week with no response. Just in case you
didn't see the post, here it is again. Please, reply.....
I didn't respond, because you have been in my kill file
for quite some time. I told you it was happening,
a long time ago. I took you out a couple of days ago
and the first message I see from you is an attack on me.
1. Without getting too deep, I'll just point out that the earliest
church fathers after the apostles believed in the thousand year reign,
as an older post of mine to you (already) has shown...
That is your claim and I showed you the opposite
in response. You didn't quote that here though,
did you.
1) I showed very early quotes, earlier than yours.
Papias was the direct disciple of the Apostle John. NONE of your
sources go that early. So, this is a lie.
2) What people believed afterward, doesn't matter
to me. That isn't Scripture.
3) You present these as if they are absolute proof.
They are proof of what they are.
Furthermore, I have shown how some of these
people have been quoted out of context and
were actually saying that Jesus had returned
in the Jewish War.
So, you are saying Eusebius was wrong about their views?
2. Thousand year reign items not fulfilled...
In your opinion, because:
1) You take every statement from a highly symbolic book
and claim they're physically literal. Every statement
that YOU CHOOSE to believe is that way, that is.
You don't look for a literal beast rising up out of
the land, nor sea, yet think that all rivers are literal
blood. You don't believe that the sword sticking out
of Jesus' mouth is literal, yet you believe that the
horse He's sitting on while it's sticking out of His
mouth is literal. You are inconsistent.
Yes. I believe the Bible is true. You believe it is not, where you
don't want it to be. You are willing to sacrifice many verses to
contend that "soon" is literal from a man's point of view, despite the
speaker not being a man.
2) You believe that it means, "the whole planet".
You cannot prove that and I have shown you
what the Greek words actually mean. Your
response was to reject that and attack me.
ALL means ALL.
According to Revelation, by the time of the reign, ALL the rivers and
seas are supposed to be blood. ALL the vegetation is supposed to be
burned up. ALL those that took the mark are supposed to be struck
with sores that won't heal. The river Euphrates is supposed to be
dried up. A worldwide earthquake is supposed to happen that destroys
the major cities of the world, split the Jersusalem in three parts,
level mountains, destroy islands, and is accompanied with enourmous
hailstones a hundred pounds each. Needless to day, NONE of these
things have been recorded in history to have happened. In fact,
Revelation 1:7 says,
Actually, they were. But you wouldn't believe me
if I told you how.
If ALL the plants were burned up, there'd be no vegetation, today, and
we'd have historical record of that crop failure throughout the world,
which we do not. There is NO record of a worldwide earthquake at ANY
time in history. The mountains still stand. The rivers didn't dry
up. NONE of these events have occurred.
Rev 1:7 "Look, he is coming with the clouds," and "every eye will see
him, even those who pierced him;" and all peoples on earth "will mourn
because of him."
Now, the "every eye will see him" is from Zecharaiah, which we'll get
to in a minute.
No, we won't, because I'm not going to waste my time.
EVERY EYE. God's words, not mine.
But, this passage says very clearly that EVERY eye
will see him, no a select few.
So then, if Rev 1:7 was fulfilled, then Zech was fulfilled.
Okay, fine. I'll go over this one point with you, which
will eliminate the need for going over Zechariah.
Note what it says above. It says... "even those who
pierced Him".
Now, when did they live? In the first century.
Yet it says that THEY would "see Him" coming.
EVERY EYE. That is what Scripture said. Are you saying God lies?
Now I know people will try to say that they will
be resurrected and then see Him coming, but
that doesn't work, since He is seen coming
AND THEN the resurrection happens.
Therefore, they had to still be alive, when He came,
in order to "see Him" COMING.
Indeed, that is EXACTLY what Jesus said would happen. He said that He
would come as the sun comes from the East to the West. Tell me, can
you tell the sun is coming (with your eyes) before you see the first
part of it?
You take all of these fantastic statements in symbolic
prophecy books as physically literal and then refuse
to believe the clear and simple statements of Scripture.
Literal = true.
You try to filter the clear and simple through your
physically literal view of symbolism. And with all
due respect, this is based on ignorance of the OT
ad the symbolic language God used throughout
time, just as He "rode a swift cloud" in Isaiah 19:1
and no one physically saw Him and just as
"the Sun went dark" in Isaiah 13 and no one
saw the Sun physically go dark. And both of those
are FULFILLED PROPHECIES.
But Scripture didn't say that anyone WOULD see them, as it says they
WILL see Jesus come.
Furthermore, Rev 1:1-3 and Rev 22:10,12 show that
whatever was going to happen, it was going to happen
"shortly", for the people who first read it. It was
written to seven literal churches, that did exist then
and they would have read what John said, which is
that "THE TIME" was "at hand".
Now you are going to get literal? Note that you do not say "soon" or
"at hand" can be figurative, while dismissing most of the Bible to
hold to that position. I believe it is literal, from God's point of
view.
And no, it isn't "super special God time". God doesn't
experience time and if you want to try to cower
behind Peter's "1,000 years is as a day" statement,
which was only a figure of speech which meant that
time is nothing to God and again, was written to
them, in the first century, because they were getting
impatient, you go ahead. But the reality is, that you
must then apply it uniformly throughout Scripture,
or you are self contradictory. Of course, then we
would have millions of years, instead of 70 years,
for Jeremiah's prophecy and Jesus couldn't have
even come yet.
The day=1000 years is Scripture, as much Scripture as "soon" or "at
hand" is.
Time statements are made in MAN'S perspective,
not God's, since God doesn't experience time.
The statements were made by God, as such they would be "soon" to him.
So whatever you think the end was, gee, maybe
you're wrong? It had to have happened within
a short time from when it was written, per Christ.
Like I said, you call most of the bible figurative to support the
literal definition of two phrases "soon" and "at hand" from man's
point of view. Tell me, if the rest of the Bible is figurative, why
are these phrases literal. If they are literal, why is the rest
figurative?
Ken Clifton
christiansuperhero.com
.
|
|
|
| User: "Pastor Dave" |
|
| Title: Re: Dave, 1000 Yr Reign of Christ |
05 Jun 2007 07:28:52 AM |
|
|
On Mon, 04 Jun 2007 22:11:38 -0700, Anti-Venom
<writingken@yahoo.com> claimed:
On Jun 4, 11:04 am, Pastor Dave <n...@nowhere.com> wrote:
On Sun, 03 Jun 2007 13:56:01 -0700, Wide Eyed in Wonder
<kand...@hotmail.com> claimed:
Dave,
I've posted the following to your thread a few times
in the past week with no response. Just in case you
didn't see the post, here it is again. Please, reply.....
I didn't respond, because you have been in my kill file
for quite some time. I told you it was happening,
a long time ago. I took you out a couple of days ago
and the first message I see from you is an attack on me.
1. Without getting too deep, I'll just point out that the earliest
church fathers after the apostles believed in the thousand year reign,
as an older post of mine to you (already) has shown...
That is your claim and I showed you the opposite
in response. You didn't quote that here though,
did you.
1) I showed very early quotes, earlier than yours.
Papias was the direct disciple of the Apostle John. NONE of your
sources go that early. So, this is a lie.
1) No, he wasn't.
2) You are assuming that you are correct.
3) I did show you more of the word of some of them.
2) What people believed afterward, doesn't matter
to me. That isn't Scripture.
3) You present these as if they are absolute proof.
They are proof of what they are.
Which you haven't proved.
Furthermore, I have shown how some of these
people have been quoted out of context and
were actually saying that Jesus had returned
in the Jewish War.
So, you are saying Eusebius was wrong about their views?
I'm saying that he is often quoted out of context
and you know that's what I said. And I'm saying
that you're wrong about his views.
"But the things which took place afterwards, did our Saviour,
from his foreknowledge as THE WORD or GOD, foretel should
come to pass, by means of those which are (now) before us.
For He named the whole Jewish people, the children of
the City; and the Temple, He styled their House. And thus
He testified, that they should, on their own wicked account,
bear the vengeance thus to be inflicted. And, it is right we
should wonder at the fulfilment of this prediction, since at
no time did this place undergo such an entire desolation
as this was. He pointed out moreover, the cause of their
desolation when He said, "If thou hadst known, even in this
day, the things of thy peace:" intimating too His own coming,
which should be for the peace of the whole world. But, when
ye shall see it reduced by armies, know ye that which comes
upon it, to be a final and full desolation and destruction.
He designates the desolation of Jerusalem, by the destruction
of the Temple, and the laying aside of those services which
were, according to the law of Moses, formerly performed
within it. The manner moreover of the captivity, points out
the war. of which He spoke; "For (said He) there shall be
(great) tribulation upon the land, and great wrath upon
this people : and they shall fall by the edge of the sword."
We can learn too, from the writings of Flavius Josephus,
how these things took place in their localities, and how
those, which had been foretold by our Saviour, were,
in fact, fulfilled. On this account He said, "Let those who
are in its borders not enter into it, since these are the days
of vengeance, that all may be fulfilled which has been
written." Any one therefore, who desires it, may learn
the results of these things from the writings of Josephus.
"For before the setting of the sun chariots and armed troops
were seen throughout the whole region in mid-air, wheeling
through the clouds and encircling the cities" (Eusebius'
Ecclesiastical History, Book 3, Ch. 8).
"With these two signs what did the Christians in Jerusalem
and Judea do? Eusebius tells us that this is the time they
began to leave the region because of the command of
Christ and went to a city called Pella on the east side
of the Jordan River (Ecclesiastical History, III.5). They
and the apostles obtained safety from the holocaust that
soon enflamed Jerusalem and Judaea."
2. Thousand year reign items not fulfilled...
In your opinion, because:
1) You take every statement from a highly symbolic book
and claim they're physically literal. Every statement
that YOU CHOOSE to believe is that way, that is.
You don't look for a literal beast rising up out of
the land, nor sea, yet think that all rivers are literal
blood. You don't believe that the sword sticking out
of Jesus' mouth is literal, yet you believe that the
horse He's sitting on while it's sticking out of His
mouth is literal. You are inconsistent.
Yes. I believe the Bible is true. You believe it is not, where you
don't want it to be. You are willing to sacrifice many verses to
contend that "soon" is literal from a man's point of view, despite the
speaker not being a man.
Your statement only seeks to avoid what I said above.
Why would God tell a man to write a document
that says "soon" from God's time, when God
doesn't experience time?
And how would man relate to "soon", when it
isn't being used as "soon", but rather, would
be getting used as the opposite of what man
would consider "soon"? Is God out to confuse?
And why would John be told that THE TIME
is AT HAND? Think about that... THE TIME
was "at hand".
And why was John told NOT to seal the book,
because THE TIME was at hand, if it was thousands
of years off? Daniel is told to seal his Messianic
writing and about 600 years later, the Messiah
comes, unsealing the writing and John is told
not to seal his book because the time is at hand
and that means that thousand of years have to
go by? Huh? You have God contradicting
Himself. (:
You simply do not want to deal with the time
statements, because they are clear and direct.
And so, you literalize the fantastic and symbolize
the clear and simple.
You keep talking about how I don't believe what
the Bible says. Where does the Bible say that,
"This is Super Special God Time"???
And by the way, you said below that...
"Literal = true". That was your whole sentence.
So tell us, if it has to be literal to be true, then
why don't you take the time statements literally,
just as they read? You can't say that you do
and that they're "God time", because you don't
take the blood water as "God water", but rather,
as physical water ON EARTH.
If "literal = true", then soon must literally be soon,
since you keep quoting passages and saying that
they will literally happen to man, such as blood
rivers and Jesus riding a cloud, etc. and make all
of these things physically literal.
Therefore, if "literal = true" and you make it
physically literal TO MAN, then "soon = soon"
TO MAN and you just defeated your own argument!
2) You believe that it means, "the whole planet".
You cannot prove that and I have shown you
what the Greek words actually mean. Your
response was to reject that and attack me.
ALL means ALL.
All means all within its context. If we're standing on
a loading dock and I said to you that you had to
move *all* the boxes, would you then proceed to
move all of the boxes in the world? No, of course not!
The words do *not* mean "the whole planet".
So "all" is limited by the area being discussed.
Furthermore, since you believe that He physically
rides a cloud here, then you have a problem,
since the Earth is round and He could not possibly
be seen by everyone on Earth. Any pilot can tell
you about the line of sight issue. You cannot see
what is on the other side of the Earth. If you could,
we'd always see both the Sun and the Moon at
the same time and we would never have night!
According to Revelation, by the time of the reign, ALL the rivers and
seas are supposed to be blood. ALL the vegetation is supposed to be
burned up. ALL those that took the mark are supposed to be struck
with sores that won't heal. The river Euphrates is supposed to be
dried up. A worldwide earthquake is supposed to happen that destroys
the major cities of the world, split the Jersusalem in three parts,
level mountains, destroy islands, and is accompanied with enourmous
hailstones a hundred pounds each. Needless to day, NONE of these
things have been recorded in history to have happened. In fact,
Revelation 1:7 says,
Actually, they were. But you wouldn't believe me
if I told you how.
If ALL the plants were burned up, there'd be no vegetation, today, and
we'd have historical record of that crop failure throughout the world,
which we do not. There is NO record of a worldwide earthquake at ANY
time in history. The mountains still stand. The rivers didn't dry
up. NONE of these events have occurred.
As I said...
Rev 1:7 "Look, he is coming with the clouds," and "every eye will see
him, even those who pierced him;" and all peoples on earth "will mourn
because of him."
Now, the "every eye will see him" is from Zecharaiah, which we'll get
to in a minute.
No, we won't, because I'm not going to waste my time.
EVERY EYE. God's words, not mine.
As I said above, this is limited to its area. That is what
makes the context. Every eye where it's talking about
and as I proved to you, the Greek words do not mean,
"the whole planet".
But, this passage says very clearly that EVERY eye
will see him, no a select few.
So then, if Rev 1:7 was fulfilled, then Zech was fulfilled.
Okay, fine. I'll go over this one point with you, which
will eliminate the need for going over Zechariah.
Note what it says above. It says... "even those who
pierced Him".
Now, when did they live? In the first century.
Yet it says that THEY would "see Him" coming.
EVERY EYE. That is what Scripture said. Are you saying God lies?
I'm saying you lie.
As I said above, this is limited to its area. That is what
makes the context. Every eye where it's talking about
and as I proved to you, the Greek words do not mean,
"the whole planet".
Now you didn't answer the question. WHEN did they live?
Now I know people will try to say that they will
be resurrected and then see Him coming, but
that doesn't work, since He is seen coming
AND THEN the resurrection happens.
Therefore, they had to still be alive, when He came,
in order to "see Him" COMING.
Indeed, that is EXACTLY what Jesus said would happen. He said that He
would come as the sun comes from the East to the West. Tell me, can
you tell the sun is coming (with your eyes) before you see the first
part of it?
You're avoiding the issue.
You take all of these fantastic statements in symbolic
prophecy books as physically literal and then refuse
to believe the clear and simple statements of Scripture.
Literal = true.
Not if the statement is symbolic. But let's use your logic.
You have just said that in the sword that is sticking out
of Jesus' mouth in Revelation is a physically literal sword,
or the statement is not true. That is according to your
own logic!
<snip>
You are not dealing with what I wrote. You ask me
questions and then when I answer them, you ignore
it and repeat what you said.
And furthermore, again, why is it that if "literal = true",
that you do not take the time statements literally?
And where did John write, "Now this doesn't mean soon
to you readers" ???
Furthermore, when you hear people say, "Jesus is
coming soon!", we both know you say, "Amen!"
and that you take it as meaning soon to YOU.
My question is, why the contradiction? Why does
"Jesus is coming soon" mean soon when YOU
say it, but when you read the Bible and you see
that it said that He was coming "soon", then,
all of the sudden, "soon = almost two thousand
years later, because I want it to be about me!" ?
I will watch for one final message from you. If you
do the same thing again, then I will know that you
have not changed and just wish to argue.
You claim that I'm the one who doesn't know my Bible
and you attack me. Yet I'm not the one who can't
discuss these issues and I'm not the one who ignored
the other person's words.
--
Pastor Dave
Expand and go out into the ocean of your faith.
God doesn't do His deepest work in the shallowest
part of the water.
The world says that seeing is believing.
The Bible says that believing is seeing.
Doctrine is not Scripture.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Fred A Stover" |
|
| Title: Re: Dave, 1000 Yr Reign of Christ |
05 Jun 2007 06:26:17 PM |
|
|
"Pastor Dave" <noway@nowhere.com> wrote in message
news:aria63tfc4s90iquojj6h8lfp6tub3b26g@4ax.com...
On Mon, 04 Jun 2007 22:11:38 -0700, Anti-Venom
<writingken@yahoo.com> claimed:
<Snip inanity>
Why would God tell a man to write a document
that says "soon" from God's time, when God
doesn't experience time?
This is why you miss what scripture is saying. The Lord knows His will
understand what He saying even though the world can not: "But the natural
man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness
unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned"
(1 Cor. 2:14).
You can not discern what He is saying. You look at what is rendered into
"soon" in the English and assume it means when something will occur, when
the word coul;d have also been rendered "instantly," which would make it
obvious that it referred to how it would occur, because it didn't happen
instantly. Just like your screwy interpretation of "quickly" rendered from
"en tache," to say when He would come instead of how He would come: "For as
the lightning cometh out of the east, and shineth even unto the west; so
shall also the coming of the Son of man be" (Matt 24:27).
.
And how would man relate to "soon", when it
isn't being used as "soon", but rather, would
be getting used as the opposite of what man
would consider "soon"? Is God out to confuse?
It is not God who confuses you. He provided the means for you to receive His
Spirit and understand, but your vanity prevented your humbling yourself to
Him and you put your faith in the printed word, not His word augmented by
His voice," and chose to follow your word, accusing anyone who challenged
your word of calling God the liar. You're tthe one who says God lies and
confuses..
And why would John be told that THE TIME
is AT HAND? Think about that... THE TIME
was "at hand".
This is an hilarious example of your confusion. It has always been at hand.
It was at hand for the Old Testament prophets who were speaking of THE EXACT
SAME TIME. It was at hand for Zephaniah (Zeph 1:7), Joel (Joel 1:15, 2:1),
Ezekiel, (Ezek 36:8), and Moses (Deut 32:35). It is still at hand.
What makes your reading so ridiculous is that even in English it is
reidiculous. If I were to go into my shop, turn on the saw, and cut a board
in half, the hammer would be at hand, whether I used it or not. In scripture
whaty His understand is that "at hand" means it will come, not when it will
come. That is explained elsewhere.
And why was John told NOT to seal the book,
because THE TIME was at hand, if it was thousands
of years off? Daniel is told to seal his Messianic
writing and about 600 years later, the Messiah
comes, unsealing the writing and John is told
not to seal his book because the time is at hand
and that means that thousand of years have to
go by? Huh? You have God contradicting
Himself. (:
No Satan it is you have Him contradicting Himself and smiles. We who are His
know that the mystery which hadn't been revealed in the OT had been
revealed. And you miss what is sealed and is not written in the book (Rev.
10:4).
.
His,
--
www.geocities.com/fredstover7@sbcglobal.net/
Verily I say unto you, Whosoever shall not receive the kingdom of God as
a little child, he shall not enter therein. (Mark 10:15)
<)))))><
Preparing the way of the Lord.
.
|
|
|
| User: "David C" |
|
| Title: Re: Dave, 1000 Yr Reign of Christ |
05 Jun 2007 08:29:28 PM |
|
|
"Fred A Stover" <fredstover@email.com> wrote in message
news:sjm9i.11090$4Y.10205@newssvr19.news.prodigy.net...
"Pastor Dave" <noway@nowhere.com> wrote in message
news:aria63tfc4s90iquojj6h8lfp6tub3b26g@4ax.com...
On Mon, 04 Jun 2007 22:11:38 -0700, Anti-Venom
<writingken@yahoo.com> claimed:
<Snip inanity>
Why would God tell a man to write a document
that says "soon" from God's time, when God
doesn't experience time?
This is why you miss what scripture is saying. The Lord knows His will
understand what He saying even though the world can not: "But the natural
man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are
foolishness
unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually
discerned"
(1 Cor. 2:14).
You can not discern what He is saying. You look at what is rendered into
"soon" in the English and assume it means when something will occur, when
the word coul;d have also been rendered "instantly," which would make it
obvious that it referred to how it would occur, because it didn't happen
instantly. Just like your screwy interpretation of "quickly" rendered from
"en tache," to say when He would come instead of how He would come: "For
as
the lightning cometh out of the east, and shineth even unto the west; so
shall also the coming of the Son of man be" (Matt 24:27).
.
And how would man relate to "soon", when it
isn't being used as "soon", but rather, would
be getting used as the opposite of what man
would consider "soon"? Is God out to confuse?
It is not God who confuses you. He provided the means for you to receive
His
Spirit and understand, but your vanity prevented your humbling yourself to
Him and you put your faith in the printed word, not His word augmented by
His voice," and chose to follow your word, accusing anyone who challenged
your word of calling God the liar. You're tthe one who says God lies and
confuses..
And why would John be told that THE TIME
is AT HAND? Think about that... THE TIME
was "at hand".
This is an hilarious example of your confusion. It has always been at
hand.
It was at hand for the Old Testament prophets who were speaking of THE
EXACT
SAME TIME. It was at hand for Zephaniah (Zeph 1:7), Joel (Joel 1:15, 2:1),
Ezekiel, (Ezek 36:8), and Moses (Deut 32:35). It is still at hand.
What makes your reading so ridiculous is that even in English it is
reidiculous. If I were to go into my shop, turn on the saw, and cut a
board
in half, the hammer would be at hand, whether I used it or not. In
scripture
whaty His understand is that "at hand" means it will come, not when it
will
come. That is explained elsewhere.
And why was John told NOT to seal the book,
because THE TIME was at hand, if it was thousands
of years off? Daniel is told to seal his Messianic
writing and about 600 years later, the Messiah
comes, unsealing the writing and John is told
not to seal his book because the time is at hand
and that means that thousand of years have to
go by? Huh? You have God contradicting
Himself. (:
No Satan it is you have Him contradicting Himself and smiles. We who are
His
know that the mystery which hadn't been revealed in the OT had been
revealed. And you miss what is sealed and is not written in the book (Rev.
10:4).
Were you looking at yourself in the mirror when you wrote that post, Fred?
You call that Christian?
Everything and anything in culture has an evolutionary development or a
history, everything in a religion has a developmental history.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "David C" |
|
| Title: Re: Dave, 1000 Yr Reign of Christ |
05 Jun 2007 08:29:43 PM |
|
|
"Fred A Stover" <fredstover@email.com> wrote in message
news:sjm9i.11090$4Y.10205@newssvr19.news.prodigy.net...
"Pastor Dave" <noway@nowhere.com> wrote in message
news:aria63tfc4s90iquojj6h8lfp6tub3b26g@4ax.com...
On Mon, 04 Jun 2007 22:11:38 -0700, Anti-Venom
<writingken@yahoo.com> claimed:
<Snip inanity>
Why would God tell a man to write a document
that says "soon" from God's time, when God
doesn't experience time?
This is why you miss what scripture is saying. The Lord knows His will
understand what He saying even though the world can not: "But the natural
man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are
foolishness
unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually
discerned"
(1 Cor. 2:14).
You can not discern what He is saying. You look at what is rendered into
"soon" in the English and assume it means when something will occur, when
the word coul;d have also been rendered "instantly," which would make it
obvious that it referred to how it would occur, because it didn't happen
instantly. Just like your screwy interpretation of "quickly" rendered from
"en tache," to say when He would come instead of how He would come: "For
as
the lightning cometh out of the east, and shineth even unto the west; so
shall also the coming of the Son of man be" (Matt 24:27).
.
And how would man relate to "soon", when it
isn't being used as "soon", but rather, would
be getting used as the opposite of what man
would consider "soon"? Is God out to confuse?
It is not God who confuses you. He provided the means for you to receive
His
Spirit and understand, but your vanity prevented your humbling yourself to
Him and you put your faith in the printed word, not His word augmented by
His voice," and chose to follow your word, accusing anyone who challenged
your word of calling God the liar. You're tthe one who says God lies and
confuses..
And why would John be told that THE TIME
is AT HAND? Think about that... THE TIME
was "at hand".
This is an hilarious example of your confusion. It has always been at
hand.
It was at hand for the Old Testament prophets who were speaking of THE
EXACT
SAME TIME. It was at hand for Zephaniah (Zeph 1:7), Joel (Joel 1:15, 2:1),
Ezekiel, (Ezek 36:8), and Moses (Deut 32:35). It is still at hand.
What makes your reading so ridiculous is that even in English it is
reidiculous. If I were to go into my shop, turn on the saw, and cut a
board
in half, the hammer would be at hand, whether I used it or not. In
scripture
whaty His understand is that "at hand" means it will come, not when it
will
come. That is explained elsewhere.
And why was John told NOT to seal the book,
because THE TIME was at hand, if it was thousands
of years off? Daniel is told to seal his Messianic
writing and about 600 years later, the Messiah
comes, unsealing the writing and John is told
not to seal his book because the time is at hand
and that means that thousand of years have to
go by? Huh? You have God contradicting
Himself. (:
No Satan it is you have Him contradicting Himself and smiles. We who are
His
know that the mystery which hadn't been revealed in the OT had been
revealed. And you miss what is sealed and is not written in the book (Rev.
10:4).
Were you looking at yourself in the mirror when you wrote that post, Fred?
You call that Christian?
Everything and anything in culture has an evolutionary development or a
history, everything in a religion has a developmental history.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "David C" |
|
| Title: Re: Dave, 1000 Yr Reign of Christ |
05 Jun 2007 08:28:19 PM |
|
|
"Fred A Stover" <fredstover@email.com> wrote in message
news:sjm9i.11090$4Y.10205@newssvr19.news.prodigy.net...
"Pastor Dave" <noway@nowhere.com> wrote in message
news:aria63tfc4s90iquojj6h8lfp6tub3b26g@4ax.com...
On Mon, 04 Jun 2007 22:11:38 -0700, Anti-Venom
<writingken@yahoo.com> claimed:
<Snip inanity>
Why would God tell a man to write a document
that says "soon" from God's time, when God
doesn't experience time?
This is why you miss what scripture is saying. The Lord knows His will
understand what He saying even though the world can not: "But the natural
man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are
foolishness
unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually
discerned"
(1 Cor. 2:14).
You can not discern what He is saying. You look at what is rendered into
"soon" in the English and assume it means when something will occur, when
the word coul;d have also been rendered "instantly," which would make it
obvious that it referred to how it would occur, because it didn't happen
instantly. Just like your screwy interpretation of "quickly" rendered from
"en tache," to say when He would come instead of how He would come: "For
as
the lightning cometh out of the east, and shineth even unto the west; so
shall also the coming of the Son of man be" (Matt 24:27).
.
And how would man relate to "soon", when it
isn't being used as "soon", but rather, would
be getting used as the opposite of what man
would consider "soon"? Is God out to confuse?
It is not God who confuses you. He provided the means for you to receive
His
Spirit and understand, but your vanity prevented your humbling yourself to
Him and you put your faith in the printed word, not His word augmented by
His voice," and chose to follow your word, accusing anyone who challenged
your word of calling God the liar. You're tthe one who says God lies and
confuses..
And why would John be told that THE TIME
is AT HAND? Think about that... THE TIME
was "at hand".
This is an hilarious example of your confusion. It has always been at
hand.
It was at hand for the Old Testament prophets who were speaking of THE
EXACT
SAME TIME. It was at hand for Zephaniah (Zeph 1:7), Joel (Joel 1:15, 2:1),
Ezekiel, (Ezek 36:8), and Moses (Deut 32:35). It is still at hand.
What makes your reading so ridiculous is that even in English it is
reidiculous. If I were to go into my shop, turn on the saw, and cut a
board
in half, the hammer would be at hand, whether I used it or not. In
scripture
whaty His understand is that "at hand" means it will come, not when it
will
come. That is explained elsewhere.
And why was John told NOT to seal the book,
because THE TIME was at hand, if it was thousands
of years off? Daniel is told to seal his Messianic
writing and about 600 years later, the Messiah
comes, unsealing the writing and John is told
not to seal his book because the time is at hand
and that means that thousand of years have to
go by? Huh? You have God contradicting
Himself. (:
No Satan it is you have Him contradicting Himself and smiles. We who are
His
know that the mystery which hadn't been revealed in the OT had been
revealed. And you miss what is sealed and is not written in the book (Rev.
10:4).
Were you looking at yourself in the mirror when you wrote that post, Fred?
You call that Christian?
Everything and anything in culture has an evolutionary development or a
history, everything in a religion has a developmental history.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Wide Eyed in Wonder" |
|
| Title: Re: Dave, 1000 Yr Reign of Christ |
05 Jun 2007 09:50:46 AM |
|
|
On Jun 5, 7:28 am, Pastor Dave <n...@nowhere.com> wrote:
On Mon, 04 Jun 2007 22:11:38 -0700, Anti-Venom
Yes. I believe the Bible is true. You believe it is not, where you
don't want it to be. You are willing to sacrifice many verses to
contend that "soon" is literal from a man's point of view, despite the
speaker not being a man.
Your statement only seeks to avoid what I said above.
Why would God tell a man to write a document
that says "soon" from God's time, when God
doesn't experience time?
And how would man relate to "soon", when it
isn't being used as "soon", but rather, would
be getting used as the opposite of what man
would consider "soon"? Is God out to confuse?
And why would John be told that THE TIME
is AT HAND? Think about that... THE TIME
was "at hand".
And why was John told NOT to seal the book,
You simply do not want to deal with the time
statements, because they are clear and direct.
You mean they are LITERAL?
I see you completely cut out my main question that I posed more than
once. Let's try this again...
If the Bible is figurative, why is "soon" and "at hand" literal. If
they are literal, why is the rest figurative?
Ken Clifton
christiansuperhero.com
.
|
|
|
| User: "®andy" |
|
| Title: Re: Dave, 1000 Yr Reign of Christ |
05 Jun 2007 10:43:52 AM |
|
|
On Tue, 05 Jun 2007 07:50:46 -0700,
in article
<1181055046.773425.205560@p77g2000hsh.googlegroups.com>,
Wide Eyed in Wonder <kands00@hotmail.com> wrote:
If the Bible is figurative, why is "soon" and "at hand" literal. If
they are literal, why is the rest figurative?
You're not supposed to notice that. It's literal when it's a
time statement that could be used to support an A.D. 70
fulfillment of prophecy (e.g. soon, this generation, quickly,
etc.). In almost all other cases (e.g. heavens and earth, no
more sorrow, no more death, no more abominations, no more
sin), its figurative (or "spiritual"), and means the exact
opposite of what it plainly states. That's basically what the
preterist system of interpretation requires.
--
Christ died for our sins, and God raised Him from the dead.
Rely on this work alone to escape hell and receive eternal
life (Jn. 3:16; 1 Cor. 15:1-3; Eph. 2:8-10; 2 Thess. 1:8-9).
©2007 www.pulpitfire.org
.
|
|
|
| User: "Wide Eyed in Wonder" |
|
| Title: Re: Dave, 1000 Yr Reign of Christ |
05 Jun 2007 10:52:03 AM |
|
|
On Jun 5, 10:43 am, =AEandy <pulpitf...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Tue, 05 Jun 2007 07:50:46 -0700,
in article
<1181055046.773425.205...@p77g2000hsh.googlegroups.com>,
Wide Eyed in Wonder <kand...@hotmail.com> wrote:
If the Bible is figurative, why is "soon" and "at hand" literal. If
they are literal, why is the rest figurative?
You're not supposed to notice that. It's literal when it's a
time statement that could be used to support an A.D. 70
fulfillment of prophecy (e.g. soon, this generation, quickly,
etc.). In almost all other cases (e.g. heavens and earth, no
more sorrow, no more death, no more abominations, no more
sin), its figurative (or "spiritual"), and means the exact
opposite of what it plainly states. That's basically what the
preterist system of interpretation requires.
Buddist logic, Christian style...right?
Ken Clifton
christiansuperhero.com
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Pastor Dave" |
|
| Title: Re: Dave, 1000 Yr Reign of Christ |
05 Jun 2007 12:54:03 PM |
|
|
On Tue, 05 Jun 2007 07:50:46 -0700, Wide Eyed in Wonder
<kands00@hotmail.com> claimed:
On Jun 5, 7:28 am, Pastor Dave <n...@nowhere.com> wrote:
On Mon, 04 Jun 2007 22:11:38 -0700, Anti-Venom
Yes. I believe the Bible is true. You believe it is not, where you
don't want it to be. You are willing to sacrifice many verses to
contend that "soon" is literal from a man's point of view, despite the
speaker not being a man.
Your statement only seeks to avoid what I said above.
Why would God tell a man to write a document
that says "soon" from God's time, when God
doesn't experience time?
And how would man relate to "soon", when it
isn't being used as "soon", but rather, would
be getting used as the opposite of what man
would consider "soon"? Is God out to confuse?
And why would John be told that THE TIME
is AT HAND? Think about that... THE TIME
was "at hand".
And why was John told NOT to seal the book,
You simply do not want to deal with the time
statements, because they are clear and direct.
You mean they are LITERAL?
Thank you for proving my point. You are
not even willing to consider my answers
and you refuse to answer even one question
and yet, demand answers from me, which
I did give.
I see you completely cut out my main question that I posed more than
once.
I answered questions and you ignored my words.
You are lying.
Let's try this again...
If the Bible is figurative, why is "soon" and "at hand" literal. If
they are literal, why is the rest figurative?
I didn't say, "the rest is figurative". And I did answer
that question. You didn't like the answer and you
snipped it and now claim I didn't say anything.
You defeated your own argument with your own
contradiction, which of course, you snipped
because I showed it to you.
There can be no discussion between us and you
will not get me to argue in circles, nor will you
drag me into a brawl, both of which are your
intent. (:
Goodbye.
--
Pastor Dave
Expand and go out into the ocean of your faith.
God doesn't do His deepest work in the shallowest
part of the water.
The world says that seeing is believing.
The Bible says that believing is seeing.
Doctrine is not Scripture.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Anti-Venom" |
|
| Title: Re: Dave, 1000 Yr Reign of Christ |
06 Jun 2007 12:38:58 AM |
|
|
On Jun 5, 12:54 pm, Pastor Dave <n...@nowhere.com> wrote:
On Tue, 05 Jun 2007 07:50:46 -0700, Wide Eyed in Wonder
<kand...@hotmail.com> claimed:
On Jun 5, 7:28 am, Pastor Dave <n...@nowhere.com> wrote:
On Mon, 04 Jun 2007 22:11:38 -0700, Anti-Venom
Yes. I believe the Bible is true. You believe it is not, where you
don't want it to be. You are willing to sacrifice many verses to
contend that "soon" is literal from a man's point of view, despite the
speaker not being a man.
Your statement only seeks to avoid what I said above.
Why would God tell a man to write a document
that says "soon" from God's time, when God
doesn't experience time?
And how would man relate to "soon", when it
isn't being used as "soon", but rather, would
be getting used as the opposite of what man
would consider "soon"? Is God out to confuse?
And why would John be told that THE TIME
is AT HAND? Think about that... THE TIME
was "at hand".
And why was John told NOT to seal the book,
You simply do not want to deal with the time
statements, because they are clear and direct.
You mean they are LITERAL?
Thank you for proving my point. You are
not even willing to consider my answers
and you refuse to answer even one question
and yet, demand answers from me, which
I did give.
I see you completely cut out my main question that I posed more than
once.
I answered questions and you ignored my words.
You are lying.
Let's try this again...
If the Bible is figurative, why is "soon" and "at hand" literal. If
they are literal, why is the rest figurative?
I didn't say, "the rest is figurative". And I did answer
that question. You didn't like the answer and you
snipped it and now claim I didn't say anything.
You defeated your own argument with your own
contradiction, which of course, you snipped
because I showed it to you.
There can be no discussion between us and you
will not get me to argue in circles, nor will you
drag me into a brawl, both of which are your
intent. (:
Goodbye.
Perhaps, your short reply is because of a question I asked in another
thread that you ALSO didn't answer. What church are you a "pastor"
of, and what theological training do you have?
Ken Clifton
christiansuperhero.com
.
|
|
|
| User: "®andy" |
|
| Title: Re: Dave, 1000 Yr Reign of Christ |
06 Jun 2007 08:17:19 AM |
|
|
On Tue, 05 Jun 2007 22:38:58 -0700,
in article
<1181108338.108053.92810@h2g2000hsg.googlegroups.com>,
Anti-Venom <writingken@yahoo.com> wrote:
On Jun 5, 12:54 pm, Pastor Dave <n...@nowhere.com> wrote:
On Tue, 05 Jun 2007 07:50:46 -0700, Wide Eyed in Wonder
<kand...@hotmail.com> claimed:
On Jun 5, 7:28 am, Pastor Dave <n...@nowhere.com> wrote:
On Mon, 04 Jun 2007 22:11:38 -0700, Anti-Venom
Yes. I believe the Bible is true. You believe it is not, where you
don't want it to be. You are willing to sacrifice many verses to
contend that "soon" is literal from a man's point of view, despite the
speaker not being a man.
Your statement only seeks to avoid what I said above.
Why would God tell a man to write a document
that says "soon" from God's time, when God
doesn't experience time?
And how would man relate to "soon", when it
isn't being used as "soon", but rather, would
be getting used as the opposite of what man
would consider "soon"? Is God out to confuse?
And why would John be told that THE TIME
is AT HAND? Think about that... THE TIME
was "at hand".
And why was John told NOT to seal the book,
You simply do not want to deal with the time
statements, because they are clear and direct.
You mean they are LITERAL?
Thank you for proving my point. You are
not even willing to consider my answers
and you refuse to answer even one question
and yet, demand answers from me, which
I did give.
I see you completely cut out my main question that I posed more than
once.
I answered questions and you ignored my words.
You are lying.
Let's try this again...
If the Bible is figurative, why is "soon" and "at hand" literal. If
they are literal, why is the rest figurative?
I didn't say, "the rest is figurative". And I did answer
that question. You didn't like the answer and you
snipped it and now claim I didn't say anything.
You defeated your own argument with your own
contradiction, which of course, you snipped
because I showed it to you.
There can be no discussion between us and you
will not get me to argue in circles, nor will you
drag me into a brawl, both of which are your
intent. (:
Goodbye.
Perhaps, your short reply is because of a question I asked in another
thread that you ALSO didn't answer. What church are you a "pastor"
of, and what theological training do you have?
Ken Clifton
christiansuperhero.com
Generally speaking, Dave's kill-file rule goes something like
this:
1) If he thinks he is winning the debate and making himself
and his views look good, he will debate any complete moron,
ad-infinitum, regardless of what kind of idiotic claims or
attacks the person makes in the process.
2) If Dave sees that he doesn't have an adequate refutation,
or that he is not able to make someone look stupid, and
himself and his views look "intelligent", that person will be
in a kill-file within a couple exchanges.
To excuse this, he will:
1) avoid the content of the person's post,
2) accuse the person of attacking him personally,
3) accuse the person of snipping "every point" he made, and
"99.9%" of his words (even if it can be documented the person
didn't snip one word of what he said).
4) Claim the person is therefore too dishonest to communicate
with
5) Simply make claims about having already refuted you, and
how he's not going to argue in circles.
*
Never be lacking in zeal, but keep your spiritual fervor, serving the Lord. - Romans 12:11
--
Christ died for our sins, and God raised Him from the dead.
Rely on this work alone to escape hell and receive eternal
life (Jn. 3:16; 1 Cor. 15:1-3; Eph. 2:8-10; 2 Thess. 1:8-9).
©2007 www.pulpitfire.org
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Anti-Venom" |
|
| Title: Re: Dave, 1000 Yr Reign of Christ |
06 Jun 2007 12:35:36 AM |
|
|
On Jun 5, 12:54 pm, Pastor Dave <n...@nowhere.com> wrote:
On Tue, 05 Jun 2007 07:50:46 -0700, Wide Eyed in Wonder
<kand...@hotmail.com> claimed:
On Jun 5, 7:28 am, Pastor Dave <n...@nowhere.com> wrote:
On Mon, 04 Jun 2007 22:11:38 -0700, Anti-Venom
Yes. I believe the Bible is true. You believe it is not, where you
don't want it to be. You are willing to sacrifice many verses to
contend that "soon" is literal from a man's point of view, despite the
speaker not being a man.
Your statement only seeks to avoid what I said above.
Why would God tell a man to write a document
that says "soon" from God's time, when God
doesn't experience time?
And how would man relate to "soon", when it
isn't being used as "soon", but rather, would
be getting used as the opposite of what man
would consider "soon"? Is God out to confuse?
And why would John be told that THE TIME
is AT HAND? Think about that... THE TIME
was "at hand".
And why was John told NOT to seal the book,
You simply do not want to deal with the time
statements, because they are clear and direct.
You mean they are LITERAL?
Thank you for proving my point. You are
not even willing to consider my answers
and you refuse to answer even one question
and yet, demand answers from me, which
I did give.
I see you completely cut out my main question that I posed more than
once.
I answered questions and you ignored my words.
You are lying.
Let's try this again...
If the Bible is figurative, why is "soon" and "at hand" literal. If
they are literal, why is the rest figurative?
I didn't say, "the rest is figurative". And I did answer
that question. You didn't like the answer and you
snipped it and now claim I didn't say anything.
You defeated your own argument with your own
contradiction, which of course, you snipped
because I showed it to you.
There can be no discussion between us and you
will not get me to argue in circles, nor will you
drag me into a brawl, both of which are your
intent. (:
Goodbye.
Since you, again, failed to answer the question. I'll answer it for
you. If "soon" and "at hand" are to be taken literally, the rest must
be taken literally, which completely destroys your view.
Ken Clifton
christiansuperhero.com
.
|
|
|
| User: "®andy" |
|
| Title: Re: Dave, 1000 Yr Reign of Christ |
06 Jun 2007 08:08:35 AM |
|
|
On Tue, 05 Jun 2007 22:35:36 -0700,
in article
<1181108136.865912.190530@o5g2000hsb.googlegroups.com>,
Anti-Venom <writingken@yahoo.com> wrote:
On Jun 5, 12:54 pm, Pastor Dave <n...@nowhere.com> wrote:
On Tue, 05 Jun 2007 07:50:46 -0700, Wide Eyed in Wonder
<kand...@hotmail.com> claimed:
On Jun 5, 7:28 am, Pastor Dave <n...@nowhere.com> wrote:
On Mon, 04 Jun 2007 22:11:38 -0700, Anti-Venom
Yes. I believe the Bible is true. You believe it is not, where you
don't want it to be. You are willing to sacrifice many verses to
contend that "soon" is literal from a man's point of view, despite the
speaker not being a man.
Your statement only seeks to avoid what I said above.
Why would God tell a man to write a document
that says "soon" from God's time, when God
doesn't experience time?
And how would man relate to "soon", when it
isn't being used as "soon", but rather, would
be getting used as the opposite of what man
would consider "soon"? Is God out to confuse?
And why would John be told that THE TIME
is AT HAND? Think about that... THE TIME
was "at hand".
And why was John told NOT to seal the book,
You simply do not want to deal with the time
statements, because they are clear and direct.
You mean they are LITERAL?
Thank you for proving my point. You are
not even willing to consider my answers
and you refuse to answer even one question
and yet, demand answers from me, which
I did give.
I see you completely cut out my main question that I posed more than
once.
I answered questions and you ignored my words.
You are lying.
Let's try this again...
If the Bible is figurative, why is "soon" and "at hand" literal. If
they are literal, why is the rest figurative?
I didn't say, "the rest is figurative". And I did answer
that question. You didn't like the answer and you
snipped it and now claim I didn't say anything.
You defeated your own argument with your own
contradiction, which of course, you snipped
because I showed it to you.
There can be no discussion between us and you
will not get me to argue in circles, nor will you
drag me into a brawl, both of which are your
intent. (:
Goodbye.
Since you, again, failed to answer the question. I'll answer it for
you. If "soon" and "at hand" are to be taken literally, the rest must
be taken literally, which completely destroys your view.
Ken Clifton
christiansuperhero.com
Correct. About the *only* thing preterism takes literally, are
a few words like "soon", "quickly", "at hand", and "this
generation". Almost everything else has to be spiritualized
until it means almost the exact opposite of what it plainly
states (e.g. "no more sin").
Even so, for instance, "quickly" can refer to the speed with
which the events occur once they begin, and is not required to
be relative to the time when they were prophesied (e.g. Luke
18:7-8).
"At hand", can carry the sense of "next" (as one city comes
after the other when you travel (e.g. Luke 19:11)), rather
than how much time must pass before an event will occur.
"Soon", also, can either refer to soon from our perspective,
or God's, and God's patience views a thousand of our years as
but a day (2 Peter 3)
Here is an example of how preterism views the meaning of Bible
words:
QUICKLY = A.D. 70
SOON = A.D. 70
AT HAND = A.D. 70
THIS GENERATION = People who lived until A.D. 70
EARTH = "Land of Israel"
WORLD = "Land of Israel"
WHOLE EARTH = "Whole land of Israel"
FOUR CORNERS OF THE EARTH = Four corners of Israel
GE = "land of Israel"
NO MORE DEATH = Figurative speech for death as usual
NO MORE SORROW = Figurative speech for sorrow as usual
NO MORE CRYING = Figurative speech for crying as usual
NO MORE PAIN = Figurative speech for pain as usual
NO ABOMINATION = Figurative speech for abominations as usual
NEW HEAVENS AND EARTH = Spiritual transition in the same old
heavens and earth
NO SUN OR MOON = Spiritual or governmental transition in the
same old heavens and earth with the same old sun and moon
ALL = ALL prophecy and ALL that was written, PERIOD...
(until someone mentions that the fulness of the Gentiles has
not yet come in, nor has every knee bowed to Christ, at which
time, "ALL" becomes "ALL" prophecy about the perousia, even
though the deliverer doesn't come out of Zion until the
fulness of the Gentiles "has come in" (Romans 11:25ff.).)
FULNESS OF THE GENTILES = "Glass" of fulness that would come
in no later than A.D. 70, which is being fed by an infinite
"pitcher" of fulness that will never finish coming in (Romans
11:25ff.).
LIKE MANNER = "Figuratively", as in Isaiah, not as they just
saw him go into heaven.
Acts 1:11 Which also said, Ye men of Galilee, why stand ye
gazing up into heaven? this same Jesus, which is taken up from
you into heaven, shall so come in like manner as ye have seen
him go into heaven.
*
Never be lacking in zeal, but keep your spiritual fervor, serving the Lord. - Romans 12:11
--
Christ died for our sins, and God raised Him from the dead.
Rely on this work alone to escape hell and receive eternal
life (Jn. 3:16; 1 Cor. 15:1-3; Eph. 2:8-10; 2 Thess. 1:8-9).
©2007 www.pulpitfire.org
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "®andy" |
|
| Title: Re: Dave, 1000 Yr Reign of Christ |
04 Jun 2007 01:01:53 PM |
|
|
On Mon, 04 Jun 2007 12:04:03 -0400,
in article <0ad863hocmq3nokod657kt4svdhr3r7ul3@4ax.com>,
Pastor Dave <noway@nowhere.com> wrote:
On Sun, 03 Jun 2007 13:56:01 -0700, Wide Eyed in Wonder
<kands00@hotmail.com> claimed:
Dave,
I've posted the following to your thread a few times
in the past week with no response. Just in case you
didn't see the post, here it is again. Please, reply.....
I didn't respond, because you have been in my kill file
for quite some time. I told you it was happening,
a long time ago. I took you out a couple of days ago
and the first message I see from you is an attack on me.
What ultimately determines whether or not you go in Dave's
kill-file, largely depends on whether or not he thinks he can
win the debate. If he thinks he's winning, and making you
look stupid, he'll debate you ad-infinitum, regardless of what
kinds of attacks you may make on him, or what ridiculous
things you may say. If he sees he will have to deal with the
truth, you are likely going into a kill-file within a couple
exchanges. This is how Dave avoids dealing with the facts
that refute his position.
--
Christ died for our sins, and God raised Him from the dead.
Rely on this work alone to escape hell and receive eternal
life (Jn. 3:16; 1 Cor. 15:1-3; Eph. 2:8-10; 2 Thess. 1:8-9).
©2007 www.pulpitfire.org
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
