| Topic: |
Religions > Bible |
| User: |
"Pastor Dave" |
| Date: |
02 Jun 2005 10:55:40 AM |
| Object: |
END TIMES - RANDY AND PASTOR DAVE |
On Wed, 1 Jun 2005 20:26:09 -0700, "randy"
<rkluth@wavecable.com> spake thusly:
I am truly sorry for this level of formality. It is
not a reflection on you personally. It's just that, as
I said, I do not wish for this to degenerate into a ill
willed argument. Please understand that. I am
being sincere...
One last thing. Which group are you posting from,
so that I don't accidentally exclude it when starting
the new thread, should you consent?
I'm posting from alt.messianic. I used to post on
last-days, so I'm used to discussing some eschatology.
I'll try to observe good manners, but that's expected
anyway. Why don't you just fire away, and see how
things go?
I will take this as your agreement to the guidelines.
If that is not correct, please say so.
Please state what your beliefs are, as I do not wish
to attribute a belief to you, that you do not hold.
Regardless, I'm still not sure what your position is.
You say that all prophecy was fulfilled in the 1st
century. But how does that leave room for Christ's
return?
I would suggest that we start with Jesus' with
discourse. What is your impression of what
is found in Matthew 24:1-3, for example?
--
Pastor Dave
Silence in the Face of Doctrinal Criticism is Suicide
http://www.ecclesia.org/truth/solution.html
http://tinyurl.com/ce97m
.
|
|
| User: "Pastor Dave" |
|
| Title: Re: END TIMES - RANDY AND PASTOR DAVE |
05 Jun 2005 06:47:00 PM |
|
|
On Sat, 4 Jun 2005 22:42:11 -0700, "randy"
<rkluth@wavecable.com> spake thusly:
"Pastor Dave"
"randy"
I have been very specific in answering your points. You
take too long and add too much rhetoric and commentary.
But fine, you want specific, short points? Okay, let's
just forget about the last few posts and start fresh.
Agreed?
If you spend less time trying to control others with your rules,
They are rules common to proper debate and discussion.
I.e., there is zero point in having a discussion with
someone who ignores the amount of time spent
writing and just snips out whatever demonstrates
his position to have problems.
and more time making your points, things could be much easier.
You have been deleting them. That was the reason for
having rules, which you failed to agree to and now I
see why.
If so, then here you go. Please read this and respond
to EACH AND EVERY POINT MADE. And do NOT
IGNORE ANY, NOR SNIP ANY.
You say to not be rude.
I am emphasizing, not shouting. And the rules
have not concerned you thus far, nor did you
agree to them, so trying to point out that one,
is hypocrisy.
I've already answered your questions. I snipped much of your stuff, because
your material was redundant, and I already answered it. It's rude to leave
so much for anybody else to read needlessly.
I'm not going to waste all my time trying to explain what I've already said.
I already answered your objections, point by point. If you can't see it, I
won't be able to do much better.
You did not deal with my specific statements, nor my
specific reason for posting the Scriptures I posted.
Matthew 16:27-28...
...28) Verily I say unto you, There be some STANDING HERE,
which shall NOT TASTE OF DEATH, till *_THEY_* SEE the
Son of man coming in his kingdom....
....The fact is, that He said, "SOME STANDING HERE"
WOULD NOT DIE before He returned.
I've already answered this. I'm clipping it because it's already been
discussed. You do not have to accept my answer--only understand it. You
can't make somebody accept your position. We can agree to disagree.
See above. You are simply ignoring my point. And
since you have been so long winded in the past
messages, it is not because you have already dealt
with it, as will be demonstrated below...
Jesus is saying that he as Messiah was soon to inherit his Kingdom. This
would take place at the resurrection and at the ascension. Jesus believed he
was "going to the Father" to sit on His right hand. This is not to be
confused with the "return" of Messiah. This is where Jesus takes up his life
again, and takes up his rule again...following his death.
So your belief is that He told them that only SOME
of them (at least one, but not most) would be alive,
because He was talking about His ascension, when
most (all but one) were alive? That doesn't make
any sense.
Now Dave, I don't mean to be rude--honestly! But you just can't make me
accept your position. We can argue it till you're blue in the face. But I
have my position, and you have yours. I just happen to disagree with you on
this point. And I'm not going to agree to your rules. From my pov, they are
rules you're trying to "fix." ;)
This is where you have proved your dishonesty. You
snipped the rest of what I posted. Why? Because you
KNEW that you could NOT dismiss it. It interferes with
"your position".
Note v27 and the quote of Revelation that you snipped
above and ignored, which refutes your position above...
Matthew 16:27-28
27) For the Son of man shall COME in the glory of his
Father with his angels; and then he shall REWARD
EVERY MAN ACCORDING TO HIS WORKS.
Note: Jesus is speaking of His return and the Judgment.
That is painfully obvious to any reader. However, we
also know this by looking at Revelation 22:12, which
uses THE SAME WORDING. Note the caps in both
the above passage and the following passage...
"And, behold, I COME QUICKLY; and my REWARD
is with me, to give EVERY MAN ACCORDING AS
HIS WORK SHALL BE." - Revelation 22:12
Your turn. :) Please respond ON POINT.
I was on point the first time. If you don't agree, you don't have to get
nasty. Thankyou,
Am I supposed to be pleased with dishonesty? How is it
that you claim to have dealt with my points, when what
you have really done, is snip and ignore whatever
didn't allow you to twist Jesus's words like a pretzel?
--
Pastor Dave
Silence in the Face of Doctrinal Criticism is Suicide
http://www.ecclesia.org/truth/solution.html
http://tinyurl.com/ce97m
.
|
|
|
| User: "randy" |
|
| Title: Re: END TIMES - RANDY AND PASTOR DAVE |
05 Jun 2005 10:33:20 PM |
|
|
"Pastor Dave"
"randy"
....So your belief is that He told them that only SOME
of them (at least one, but not most) would be alive,
because He was talking about His ascension, when
most (all but one) were alive? That doesn't make
any sense.
Matthew 16:28 "Assuredly, I say to you, there are some standing here who
shall not taste death till they see the Son of Man coming in His kingdom."
Jesus said here that "some" will see the Messiah take the throne of his
Kingdom. "Some" means just what it means. Those who were alive to see the
resurrection and the ascension of Jesus indeed saw him take the throne of
his Kingdom. Judas Iscariot obviously did not see this event.
...Note v27 and the quote of Revelation that you snipped
above and ignored, which refutes your position above...
Matthew 16:27-28
27) For the Son of man shall COME in the glory of his
Father with his angels; and then he shall REWARD
EVERY MAN ACCORDING TO HIS WORKS.
This doesn't refute anything. Jesus is saying that he will ultimately bring
his Kingdom to earth (vs 27). But in order for this to happen, he has to
"come into his Kingdom," ie assume his seat in the Kingdom of God. These are
two events. Before Jesus can bring God's Kingdom to earth, he must ascend to
heaven and assume his throne in heaven.
...How is it
that you claim to have dealt with my points, when what
you have really done, is snip and ignore whatever
didn't allow you to twist Jesus's words like a pretzel?
We can continue after you understand the point I'm making above.
1) Jesus dies, is resurrected, ascends to heaven and assumes the throne of
God.
2) Jesus returns from heaven and establishes his Kingdom on earth.
Jesus referred to *both* events in the passage. They are *not* the same
event, though both speak of God's Kingdom. Before Jesus brings his Kingdom
back to earth he must assume the throne in heaven and await the end of the
tribulation period.
This refers to Jesus' return to establish his throne on earth:
27 "For the Son of Man will come in the glory of His Father with His
angels, and then He will reward each according to his works.
This refers to Jesus' assumption of his throne in heaven:
28 "Assuredly, I say to you, there are some standing here who shall not
taste death till they see the Son of Man coming in His kingdom."
Once again, Jesus is saying that he will indeed bring God's Kingdom back to
earth. But he is saying that in order to assure his disciples of this event
now, they will see him assume his throne in heaven, ie they will see him be
raised from the dead and ascend into heaven.
I hope you now understand my position, whether you agree with it or not.
randy
.
|
|
|
| User: "Pastor Dave" |
|
| Title: Re: END TIMES - RANDY AND PASTOR DAVE |
06 Jun 2005 07:30:52 AM |
|
|
On Sun, 5 Jun 2005 20:33:20 -0700, "randy"
<rkluth@wavecable.com> spake thusly:
"Pastor Dave"
"randy"
....So your belief is that He told them that only SOME
of them (at least one, but not most) would be alive,
because He was talking about His ascension, when
most (all but one) were alive? That doesn't make
any sense.
Matthew 16:28 "Assuredly, I say to you, there are some standing here who
shall not taste death till they see the Son of Man coming in His kingdom."
Jesus said here that "some" will see the Messiah take the throne of his
Kingdom. "Some" means just what it means. Those who were alive to see the
resurrection and the ascension of Jesus indeed saw him take the throne of
his Kingdom. Judas Iscariot obviously did not see this event.
Where does it say, "take the throne of His Kingdom"?
Oh, that's right, it doesn't. Those are YOUR WORDS,
that YOU ADDED to it.
...Note v27 and the quote of Revelation that you snipped
above and ignored, which refutes your position above...
Matthew 16:27-28
27) For the Son of man shall COME in the glory of his
Father with his angels; and then he shall REWARD
EVERY MAN ACCORDING TO HIS WORKS.
This doesn't refute anything. Jesus is saying that he will ultimately bring
his Kingdom to earth (vs 27). But in order for this to happen, he has to
"come into his Kingdom," ie assume his seat in the Kingdom of God. These are
two events. Before Jesus can bring God's Kingdom to earth, he must ascend to
heaven and assume his throne in heaven.
Jesus said, right there in v27, that He was discussing
His coming in judgment. Nothing you say is going to
change that.
Jesus referred to *both* events in the passage.
They are *not* the same event, though both
speak of God's Kingdom.
That is your claim. The texts shows otherwise.
You however, added your own words to it and
claim that the Bible says it.
--
Pastor Dave
Silence in the Face of Doctrinal Criticism is Suicide
http://www.ecclesia.org/truth/solution.html
http://tinyurl.com/ce97m
.
|
|
|
| User: "randy" |
|
| Title: Re: END TIMES - RANDY AND PASTOR DAVE |
06 Jun 2005 05:05:55 PM |
|
|
"Pastor Dave"
"randy"
Matthew 16:28 "Assuredly, I say to you, there are some standing here who
shall not taste death till they see the Son of Man coming in His kingdom."
Jesus said here that "some" will see the Messiah take the throne of his
Kingdom. "Some" means just what it means. Those who were alive to see the
resurrection and the ascension of Jesus indeed saw him take the throne of
his Kingdom. Judas Iscariot obviously did not see this event.
Where does it say, "take the throne of His Kingdom"?
Oh, that's right, it doesn't. Those are YOUR WORDS,
that YOU ADDED to it.
I *quoted* the text above. What is says is "till they see the Son of Man
coming in His kingdom." You can also read the parallel accounts.
Mark 9:1 ¶ And He said to them, "Assuredly, I say to you that there are some
standing here who will not taste death till they see the kingdom of God
present with power."
Luke 9:27 "But I tell you truly, there are some standing here who shall not
taste death till they see the kingdom of God."
You treat me as if this is some kind of arbitrary interpretation on my part.
But it is a traditional interpretation, meaning that it isn't exclusive to
me at all. Most others see it as I see it. You are the one who is apparently
adding a different meaning.
Look at how the Scriptures see the resurrection and ascension events. They
are described as the time when Jesus assumed his heavenly power or throne.
Matthew 28:18 And Jesus came and spoke to them, saying, "All authority has
been given to Me in heaven and on earth.
And notice that when Jesus was ready to ascend to heaven, he had received
authority to give the Holy Spirit to his apostles. They were now able to see
him ascend to heaven with power, and in such a way that it amounts to
preparation for his return in power. In other words, Jesus ascends to heaven
to establish his throne in heaven. And there he manages the defeat of his
enemies on earth through the power and witness of the gospel.
Acts 1:6 ¶ Therefore, when they had come together, they asked Him, saying,
"Lord, will You at this time restore the kingdom to Israel?"
7 And He said to them, "It is not for you to know times or seasons which
the Father has put in His own authority.
8 "But you shall receive power when the Holy Spirit has come upon you; and
you shall be witnesses to Me in Jerusalem, and in all Judea and Samaria, and
to the end of the earth."
9 Now when He had spoken these things, while they watched, He was taken up,
and a cloud received Him out of their sight.
10 And while they looked steadfastly toward heaven as He went up, behold,
two men stood by them in white apparel,
11 who also said, "Men of Galilee, why do you stand gazing up into heaven?
This same Jesus, who was taken up from you into heaven, will so come in like
manner as you saw Him go into heaven.
Remember what Matthew 16 had said? They would "see" the Son of Man coming in
his Kingdom, or they would see the beginning of the Kingdom and the power
leading to the establishment of this Kingdom. This is what happened around
the time of Pentecost. The apostles saw Jesus who had received power from
heaven, and they saw Jesus assume his throne so that he could give this
power to the apostles.
...Note v27 and the quote of Revelation that you snipped
above and ignored, which refutes your position above...
Matthew 16:27-28
27) For the Son of man shall COME in the glory of his
Father with his angels; and then he shall REWARD
EVERY MAN ACCORDING TO HIS WORKS.
This doesn't refute anything. Jesus is saying that he will ultimately
bring
his Kingdom to earth (vs 27). But in order for this to happen, he has to
"come into his Kingdom," ie assume his seat in the Kingdom of God. These
are
two events. Before Jesus can bring God's Kingdom to earth, he must ascend
to
heaven and assume his throne in heaven.
Jesus said, right there in v27, that He was discussing
His coming in judgment. Nothing you say is going to
change that.
Everybody *agrees* that v27 deals with his coming in judgment. Jesus is
saying that in order for this to take place, his disciples first have to see
him assume his throne in heaven. This is so that Jesus can give his heavenly
power to his apostles on earth, who begin to defeat the enemies of God by
spiritual means.
Jesus referred to *both* events in the passage.
They are *not* the same event, though both
speak of God's Kingdom.
That is your claim. The texts shows otherwise.
You however, added your own words to it and
claim that the Bible says it.
On the contrary, you'll find this is the normal understanding of the
passage. Your failure to recognize this shows that you are unable to read
with any depth on the subject. You'll never be able to interpret the Bible
unless you understand what it's actually saying, unless you understand how
the Kingdom and its authority relates to the Church. You're outside of the
Christian experience, and therefore read things like a blind person, unable
to know what's being said. I feel bad for you...
randy
.
|
|
|
| User: "Pastor Dave" |
|
| Title: Re: END TIMES - RANDY AND PASTOR DAVE |
06 Jun 2005 06:32:02 PM |
|
|
On Mon, 6 Jun 2005 15:05:55 -0700, "randy"
<rkluth@wavecable.com> spake thusly:
"Pastor Dave"
"randy"
Matthew 16:28 "Assuredly, I say to you, there are some standing here who
shall not taste death till they see the Son of Man coming in His kingdom."
Jesus said here that "some" will see the Messiah take the throne of his
Kingdom. "Some" means just what it means. Those who were alive to see the
resurrection and the ascension of Jesus indeed saw him take the throne of
his Kingdom. Judas Iscariot obviously did not see this event.
Where does it say, "take the throne of His Kingdom"?
Oh, that's right, it doesn't. Those are YOUR WORDS,
that YOU ADDED to it.
I *quoted* the text above. What is says is "till they see the Son of Man
coming in His kingdom." You can also read the parallel accounts.
Mark 9:1 ¶ And He said to them, "Assuredly, I say to you that there are some
standing here who will not taste death till they see the kingdom of God
present with power."
Luke 9:27 "But I tell you truly, there are some standing here who shall not
taste death till they see the kingdom of God."
You treat me as if this is some kind of arbitrary interpretation on my part.
But it is a traditional interpretation, meaning that it isn't exclusive to
me at all. Most others see it as I see it. You are the one who is apparently
adding a different meaning.
Look at how the Scriptures see the resurrection and ascension events. They
are described as the time when Jesus assumed his heavenly power or throne.
Matthew 28:18 And Jesus came and spoke to them, saying, "All authority has
been given to Me in heaven and on earth.
And notice that when Jesus was ready to ascend to heaven, he had received
authority to give the Holy Spirit to his apostles. They were now able to see
him ascend to heaven with power, and in such a way that it amounts to
preparation for his return in power. In other words, Jesus ascends to heaven
to establish his throne in heaven. And there he manages the defeat of his
enemies on earth through the power and witness of the gospel.
Acts 1:6 ¶ Therefore, when they had come together, they asked Him, saying,
"Lord, will You at this time restore the kingdom to Israel?"
7 And He said to them, "It is not for you to know times or seasons which
the Father has put in His own authority.
8 "But you shall receive power when the Holy Spirit has come upon you; and
you shall be witnesses to Me in Jerusalem, and in all Judea and Samaria, and
to the end of the earth."
9 Now when He had spoken these things, while they watched, He was taken up,
and a cloud received Him out of their sight.
10 And while they looked steadfastly toward heaven as He went up, behold,
two men stood by them in white apparel,
11 who also said, "Men of Galilee, why do you stand gazing up into heaven?
This same Jesus, who was taken up from you into heaven, will so come in like
manner as you saw Him go into heaven.
Remember what Matthew 16 had said? They would "see" the Son of Man coming in
his Kingdom, or they would see the beginning of the Kingdom and the power
leading to the establishment of this Kingdom. This is what happened around
the time of Pentecost. The apostles saw Jesus who had received power from
heaven, and they saw Jesus assume his throne so that he could give this
power to the apostles.
Where does it say, "take the throne of His Kingdom"
in Matthew 16:28?
...Note v27 and the quote of Revelation that you snipped
above and ignored, which refutes your position above...
Matthew 16:27-28
27) For the Son of man shall COME in the glory of his
Father with his angels; and then he shall REWARD
EVERY MAN ACCORDING TO HIS WORKS.
This doesn't refute anything. Jesus is saying that he will ultimately
bring
his Kingdom to earth (vs 27). But in order for this to happen, he has to
"come into his Kingdom," ie assume his seat in the Kingdom of God. These
are
two events. Before Jesus can bring God's Kingdom to earth, he must ascend
to
heaven and assume his throne in heaven.
Jesus said, right there in v27, that He was discussing
His coming in judgment. Nothing you say is going to
change that.
Everybody *agrees* that v27 deals with his coming in judgment. Jesus is
saying that in order for this to take place, his disciples first have to see
him assume his throne in heaven. This is so that Jesus can give his heavenly
power to his apostles on earth, who begin to defeat the enemies of God by
spiritual means.
That is your claim. Those words are not found there.
Jesus referred to *both* events in the passage.
They are *not* the same event, though both
speak of God's Kingdom.
That is your claim. The texts shows otherwise.
You however, added your own words to it and
claim that the Bible says it.
On the contrary, you'll find this is the normal understanding of the
passage. Your failure to recognize this shows that you are unable to read
with any depth on the subject. You'll never be able to interpret the Bible
unless you understand what it's actually saying, unless you understand how
the Kingdom and its authority relates to the Church. You're outside of the
Christian experience, and therefore read things like a blind person, unable
to know what's being said. I feel bad for you...
randy
So you believe majority opinion. That's nice.
I believe what the Bible says. Interpretation
is not necessary, when you simply read the
words as written, instead of trying to wrap
them around a presupposed doctrine,
assuming that the doctrine must be true
and therefore, Jesus must mean something
other than what He PLAINLY said.
--
Pastor Dave
Silence in the Face of Doctrinal Criticism is Suicide
http://www.ecclesia.org/truth/solution.html
http://tinyurl.com/ce97m
.
|
|
|
| User: "randy" |
|
| Title: Re: END TIMES - RANDY AND PASTOR DAVE |
07 Jun 2005 12:49:31 AM |
|
|
"Pastor Dave"
"randy"
I *quoted* the text above. What is says is "till they see the Son of Man
coming in His kingdom." You can also read the parallel accounts.
Mark 9:1 ¶ And He said to them, "Assuredly, I say to you that there are
some
standing here who will not taste death till they see the kingdom of God
present with power."
Luke 9:27 "But I tell you truly, there are some standing here who shall
not
taste death till they see the kingdom of God."
Where does it say, "take the throne of His Kingdom"
in Matthew 16:28?
Remember the account of Elijah's ascension into heaven?
2 Kings 2:9 ¶ And so it was, when they had crossed over, that Elijah said to
Elisha, "Ask! What may I do for you, before I am taken away from you?"
Elisha said, "Please let a double portion of your spirit be upon me."
10 So he said, "You have asked a hard thing. Nevertheless, if you see me
when I am taken from you, it shall be so for you; but if not, it shall not
be so."
Notice the key words here: "if you see me."
Jesus said the same thing to his disciples. "Some standing
here...shall...see the kingdom of God."
And how did this happen? It was in the same way that Elisha saw Elijah go
into heaven.
So you believe majority opinion. That's nice.
I believe what the Bible says....
Rather, you're trying to create a contradiction so you can believe the
version you want to believe in. I don't think you have any comprehension as
to what Jesus did when he died and then went into heaven. Perhaps you're not
truly a Christian. Remember what Jesus said, "You must be born again."
randy
.
|
|
|
| User: "Pastor Dave" |
|
| Title: Re: END TIMES - RANDY AND PASTOR DAVE |
07 Jun 2005 12:30:28 PM |
|
|
On Mon, 6 Jun 2005 22:49:31 -0700, "randy"
<rkluth@wavecable.com> spake thusly:
"Pastor Dave"
"randy"
I *quoted* the text above. What is says is "till they see the Son of Man
coming in His kingdom." You can also read the parallel accounts.
Mark 9:1 ¶ And He said to them, "Assuredly, I say to you that there are
some
standing here who will not taste death till they see the kingdom of God
present with power."
Luke 9:27 "But I tell you truly, there are some standing here who shall
not
taste death till they see the kingdom of God."
Where does it say, "take the throne of His Kingdom"
in Matthew 16:28?
Remember the account of Elijah's ascension into heaven?
2 Kings 2:9 ¶ And so it was, when they had crossed over, that Elijah said to
Elisha, "Ask! What may I do for you, before I am taken away from you?"
Elisha said, "Please let a double portion of your spirit be upon me."
10 So he said, "You have asked a hard thing. Nevertheless, if you see me
when I am taken from you, it shall be so for you; but if not, it shall not
be so."
Notice the key words here: "if you see me."
Jesus said the same thing to his disciples. "Some standing
here...shall...see the kingdom of God."
And how did this happen? It was in the same way that Elisha saw Elijah go
into heaven.
Once again, you're taking a dishonest approach.
You claim that other Scriptures shouldn't be thrown
in there and here you are, once again avoiding my
question and throwing other Scripture in there.
And you did so after completely snipping my question
and the Scripture that was the subject of the
discussion. You are not an honest man and you don't
care how badly you twist the Bible, to fit your man
made doctrine.
Once again...
Matthew 16:28 "Assuredly, I say to you, there are
some standing here who shall not taste death till
they see the Son of Man coming in His kingdom."
Jesus said here that "some" will see the Messiah
take the throne of his Kingdom. "Some" means
just what it means. Those who were alive to see
the resurrection and the ascension of Jesus indeed
saw him take the throne of his Kingdom. Judas
Iscariot obviously did not see this event.
Where does it say, "take the throne of His Kingdom"?
Oh, that's right, it doesn't. Those are YOUR WORDS,
that YOU ADDED to it. They are not found in THAT
PASSAGE, yet you claim that's what He's saying.
You however, added your own words to it
and claim that the Bible says it.
On the contrary, you'll find this is the normal
understanding of the passage. Your failure
to recognize this shows that you are unable
to read with any depth on the subject.
So you believe majority opinion. That's nice.
I believe what the Bible says....
Rather, you're trying to create a contradiction so
you can believe the version you want to believe in.
You must be looking in a mirror. It was not I, who
added the words, "take the throne of His kingdom"
to Matthew 16:28.
I am also not the one who twisted the Bible and claimed
that "some can mean most", thereby stating that Jesus
didn't have the ability to say what He meant. That was
you, my friend.
I am also not the one complaining about context and
then skipping vs 22-26 and separating v27 from v28.
That was also you.
We are done here.
--
Pastor Dave
Silence in the Face of Doctrinal Criticism is Suicide
http://www.ecclesia.org/truth/solution.html
http://tinyurl.com/ce97m
.
|
|
|
| User: "randy" |
|
| Title: Re: END TIMES - RANDY AND PASTOR DAVE |
07 Jun 2005 02:36:45 PM |
|
|
"Pastor Dave"
"randy"
Jesus said the same thing to his disciples. "Some standing
here...shall...see the kingdom of God."
And how did this happen? It was in the same way that Elisha saw Elijah go
into heaven.
Once again, you're taking a dishonest approach.
You claim that other Scriptures shouldn't be thrown
in there and here you are, once again avoiding my
question and throwing other Scripture in there.
Where did I say other Scriptures shouldn't be thrown in? I said Scriptures
should be compared with Scriptures. (and the Scriptures *command* us to do
so!) I haven't avoided a single question that examines the meaning of the
text. A couple of key questions have emerged, and a couple of issues.
On the issue of whether "some" people can mean "most," I think it's entirely
legitimate to think "some" can mean most, but not all. You don't think so.
So
we're disagreed here.
On the issue of whether other Scriptures can be brought in, I believe
bringing in a wider context is entirely legitimate. You don't. So we're
disagreed here also (although it seems that you do some skipping around
yourself).
On the issue of whether "see the Son of Man coming in his Kingdom" means
"take the throne of his Kingdom," I believe this is an acceptable
paraphrase, and apparently so do most Christians historically. However,
against the weight of history and against the weight of Christian consensus
you insist it cannot mean this. So the burden of proof is *yours,* to prove
that "coming in his Kingdom" cannot mean "take up his throne."
Where does it say, "take the throne of His Kingdom"?
Oh, that's right, it doesn't. Those are YOUR WORDS,
that YOU ADDED to it. They are not found in THAT
PASSAGE, yet you claim that's what He's saying.
"Coming in his Kingdom" simply means, paraphrased, "taking his throne." Your
failure to grasp this shows the absurdity of your position. If you're
incapable of understanding the relationship between "Kingdom" and "throne,"
then you're obviously incapable of discussing the matter.
randy
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "terry" |
|
| Title: Re: END TIMES - RANDY AND PASTOR DAVE |
04 Jun 2005 08:33:18 PM |
|
|
randy wrote in message ...
"Pastor Dave"
"randy"
Let it be noted, that once again, you have snipped
most of what I said and did not deal with the specific
points I made in what you left in. Why do you keep
doing that? How is any agreement ever to be reached,
if you do not acknowledge any of my points?
I have been very specific in answering your points. You take too long and
add too much rhetoric and commentary. Please try to stick to the subject
at
hand and make your points as brief as possible. This is just good
netiquette.
And why do you keep jumping all over the Bible,
when that is not supposed to be done?
The Bible commands us to compare Scriptures with other Scriptures. And any
passage must be understood in context. Sometimes that context is evident
in
the immediate vicinity. Sometimes the context ranges way back into Hebrew
culture. I've only be doing precisely what you've been doing, referencing
pertinent passages. If you want to be a "control freak," I'm going to have
to pass. You're not really open to change. It seems you just want a format
to preach. Don't use me... When you're ready to discuss something, and
drop
the insulting rhetoric, call me again,
randy
Randy,
Sorry for jumping in, but when you are able, I'd like to pick your thoughts
on some things within eschatology. Do not worry, I have no bone to pick or
axe to grind with this subject, it just seemed you are well read on the
subject and I would enjoy some questions and discussion with you. Not
debate, but discussion. Let me know.
In the Crucified, yet Risen Lamb,
Terry Ivy
--------------------------------------------------------------------
"Rudeness is the weak man's substitute for strength,
and cursing is the ignorant man's substitute for
wisdom."
--------------------------------------------------------------------
.
|
|
|
| User: "randy" |
|
| Title: Re: END TIMES - RANDY AND PASTOR DAVE |
05 Jun 2005 12:25:20 AM |
|
|
"terry"
randy
Randy,
Sorry for jumping in, but when you are able, I'd like to pick your
thoughts
on some things within eschatology. Do not worry, I have no bone to pick or
axe to grind with this subject, it just seemed you are well read on the
subject and I would enjoy some questions and discussion with you. Not
debate, but discussion. Let me know.
Of course, terry. I'm here to learn, to grow. Anything you want to talk
about...on topic of course. ;)
randy
.
|
|
|
| User: "terry" |
|
| Title: Re: END TIMES - RANDY/Terry |
05 Jun 2005 07:13:42 PM |
|
|
randy wrote in message ...
"terry"
randy
Randy,
Sorry for jumping in, but when you are able, I'd like to pick your
thoughts
on some things within eschatology. Do not worry, I have no bone to pick
or
axe to grind with this subject, it just seemed you are well read on the
subject and I would enjoy some questions and discussion with you. Not
debate, but discussion. Let me know.
Of course, terry. I'm here to learn, to grow. Anything you want to talk
about...on topic of course. ;)
randy
Randy,
First, to get my bearings concerning where you are coming from let me ask a
few simple questions that will let me know alot without having to fully
discuss it.
(1) What position/s do you hold?:
*Pre-trib, post-trib, mid-trib, in relation to the rapture
*A, post, pre, in relation to the millenium
*Historicist, preterist, futurist, symbolic or a combination in relation to
interpreting Revelation
Any other elements feel free to share. Again, I'm not attempting to debate,
but understanding where you are coming from will help me determine which
questions I would be interested in getting your opinion about.
I pray this finds you and your family enjoying the Lord.
In Christ,
Terry Ivy
.
|
|
|
| User: "randy" |
|
| Title: Re: END TIMES - RANDY/Terry |
05 Jun 2005 10:08:36 PM |
|
|
"terry"
randy
Randy,
First, to get my bearings concerning where you are coming from let me ask
a
few simple questions that will let me know alot without having to fully
discuss it.
(1) What position/s do you hold?:
*Pre-trib, post-trib, mid-trib, in relation to the rapture
Post-trib.
*A, post, pre, in relation to the millenium
Pre-mil.
*Historicist, preterist, futurist, symbolic or a combination in relation
to
interpreting Revelation
Futurist, with some historicist interpretations.
Any other elements feel free to share. Again, I'm not attempting to
debate,
but understanding where you are coming from will help me determine which
questions I would be interested in getting your opinion about.
I'd like to think I'm open to learn. I believe in the Scriptures, and I try
to weed through the historical interpretations.
I pray this finds you and your family enjoying the Lord.
Yes, we're persevering through the common tribulations of life. We're
persevering in love,
randy
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Pastor Dave" |
|
| Title: Re: END TIMES - RANDY/Terry |
05 Jun 2005 07:58:50 PM |
|
|
On Sun, 5 Jun 2005 19:13:42 -0500, "terry"
<terry@desk.com> spake thusly:
(1) What position/s do you hold?:
*Pre-trib, post-trib, mid-trib, in relation to the rapture
All are easily disproved.
--
Pastor Dave
Silence in the Face of Doctrinal Criticism is Suicide
http://www.ecclesia.org/truth/solution.html
http://tinyurl.com/ce97m
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Douglas Cox" |
|
| Title: Re: END TIMES |
05 Jun 2005 11:29:29 AM |
|
|
On Fri, 3 Jun 2005 16:16:51 -0700, "randy" <rkluth@wavecable.com>
wrote:
"Pastor Dave"
"randy"
In other words, let us read and consider each point
made by the other person carefully and respond
specifically. Thank you in advance. :)
OK.
I believe that everything was fulfilled about the temple (not Jesus'
coming). Daniel had written about it (chapter 9). So Jesus was just
saying,
everything Daniel spoke of is going to be fulfilled in this generation.
Jesus didn't say, "Daniel". He said, "all things
written". How does that specify one book?
Matthew 24:15 "Therefore when you see the 'abomination of desolation,'
spoken of by Daniel the prophet, standing in the holy place" (whoever reads,
let him understand)...
This specifies "one book," the book of Daniel. The subject in mind is the
fate of the temple, specifically it's destruction. Jesus said that every
stone will be "thrown down." So I believe Jesus is referring specifically to
*all* of what had to do with the temple's destruction--not the coming of
Messiah.
When we take into account the uniqueness of that generation because of
the resurrection of Jesus, who remains alive to this day, the
following saying would be valid for all future time:
Luke 21:32 Verily I say unto you, This generation shall not pass
away, till all be fulfilled.
Note that the disciples made a perfectly-clear distinction between the
temple's destruction and the coming of Messiah...
Although Jesus said the stones of the temple would be thrown down so
that none of them would remain one on top of another he never said
there would be a rebuilding of it.
Matthew 24:3 Now as He sat on the Mount of Olives, the disciples came to
Him privately, saying, "Tell us, when will these things be? And what will be
the sign of Your coming, and of the end of the age?"
"All these things" referred to the temple's destruction. But the further
question was, "And what will be the sign of your coming?"
Of all the things that are mentioned, I suppose the recognition of the
abomination of desolation that Daniel wrote about would generate a lot
of interest. Many expect the temple to be rebuilt so this can occur,
but nowhere does the Bible say there will be another temple in
Jerusalem.
The temple of God today is the Church and if one were looking for
abominations within the Church, he would not have much trouble finding
them.
Daniel 9:26 And after threescore and two weeks shall Messiah be cut off,
but not for himself: and the people of the prince that shall come shall
destroy the city and the sanctuary...
I believe that the prince is Christ.
It's a very controversial passage. My preference is the "prince" represents
Titus of the Romans. It was the Romans who came under General Titus, and
destroyed the temple. I believe this is repeated in Daniel 9: "And on the
wing of abominations shall be one who makes desolate..."
Maybe the Church is the temple that is made desolate. Hmm.. who is
doing that?
This refers to Titus. I believe Jesus in his Olives Discourse identifies the
"abominable one making desolate" as a Roman leader as well. We now know that
he was Titus, a Roman general. Of course, not every interpretation should
rest on one isolated passage. But the destruction of the temple by the
enemies of Israel is a very common theme in the Prophets.
The temple destruction was His return. Can you please
show me where JESUS HIMSELF made a difference?
There was no abomination of desolation set up in the temple in 70 AD,
and people did not "flee to the mountains" either. Neither was there a
flood, as mentioned in Dan 9:26.
Yes, Jesus distinguished himself from the temple's destruction. I already
pointed out why I believe this. This is what Matthew had earlier stated
about Jesus' return...
Matthew 13:41 "The Son of Man will send out His angels, and they will
gather out of His kingdom all things that offend, and those who practice
lawlessness,
42 "and will cast them into the furnace of fire. There will be wailing and
gnashing of teeth.
43 "Then the righteous will shine forth as the sun in the kingdom of their
Father. He who has ears to hear, let him hear!"
Matthew includes this comment in the Olivest Discourse...
Matthew 25:31 ¶ "When the Son of Man comes in His glory, and all the holy
angels with Him, then He will sit on the throne of His glory.
32 "All the nations will be gathered before Him, and He will separate them
one from another, as a shepherd divides his sheep from the goats.
33 "And He will set the sheep on His right hand, but the goats on the left.
The destruction of the temple, and the scattering of Israel did not coincide
with Messiah's coming. The coming of Messiah is concerned with the
regathering of Israel, with times of "refreshing," with restoring the nation
to an eternal glory.
Acts 3:19 "Repent therefore and be converted, that your sins may be blotted
out, so that times of refreshing may come from the presence of the Lord,
20 "and that He may send Jesus Christ, who was preached to you before,
21 "whom heaven must receive until the times of restoration of all things,
which God has spoken by the mouth of all His holy prophets since the world
began.
As for whether or not He was saying He would return
in that generation, Jesus mentions His coming in
vs 29-30 and then in v34, says...
"Verily I say unto you, This generation shall not pass,
till all these things be fulfilled." - Matthew 24:34
Since Jesus was raised from the grave, that generation still exists!
It is a unique generation because it has not yet passed away.
<snip>
Doug
http://www.sentex.net/~tcc/This_Generation.html
.
|
|
|
| User: "randy" |
|
| Title: Re: END TIMES |
05 Jun 2005 03:04:33 PM |
|
|
"Douglas Cox"
"randy"
This specifies "one book," the book of Daniel. The subject in mind is the
fate of the temple, specifically it's destruction. Jesus said that every
stone will be "thrown down." So I believe Jesus is referring specifically
to
*all* of what had to do with the temple's destruction--not the coming of
Messiah.
When we take into account the uniqueness of that generation because of
the resurrection of Jesus, who remains alive to this day, the
following saying would be valid for all future time:
Luke 21:32 Verily I say unto you, This generation shall not pass
away, till all be fulfilled.
While that's true, I think Jesus was speaking of a literal generation that
would see the destruction of the temple.
Although Jesus said the stones of the temple would be thrown down so
that none of them would remain one on top of another he never said
there would be a rebuilding of it.
I agree.
Of all the things that are mentioned, I suppose the recognition of the
abomination of desolation that Daniel wrote about would generate a lot
of interest. Many expect the temple to be rebuilt so this can occur,
but nowhere does the Bible say there will be another temple in
Jerusalem.
The temple of God today is the Church and if one were looking for
abominations within the Church, he would not have much trouble finding
them.
Well, I don't think we need to look much beyond apostate churches and
apostate individuals. But there are a lot of individual and sincere
Christians who need to repent as well. But God is a God of a 2nd chance.
I think the Church *is,* in fact, God's New Testament temple. But there will
probably be another temple built, one that God doesn't recognize. The
Apostle Paul said the Antichrist will take his seat in the temple of God.
But I think the "abomination that causes desolation" was Titus, a mere
shadow of Antichrist. The Olives Discourse of Jesus centered on that
particular generation which saw the destruction of the temple under Titus.
But we know that Antichrist is yet to come, and he will take his seat in the
temple of God. This may be a literal temple.
There was no abomination of desolation set up in the temple in 70 AD,
and people did not "flee to the mountains" either. Neither was there a
flood, as mentioned in Dan 9:26.
Titus may have himself been the "abomination!" And no question about it, he
"caused desolation" of the temple! The "flood" that poured into Jerusalem
was the Roman army, in my opinion. And this is an historic established
interpretation. If an interpretation has no or little basis in history, then
the Holy Spirit failed to communicate to Christians in history. So I think
we need to look for valid historical positions in prophetic interpretation.
That's how I've come to my conclusions.
"Verily I say unto you, This generation shall not pass,
till all these things be fulfilled." - Matthew 24:34
Since Jesus was raised from the grave, that generation still exists!
It is a unique generation because it has not yet passed away.
No, it was an actual literal interpretation that saw Titus "desolate" the
temple. Not one stone was literally left on another...
randy
.
|
|
|
| User: "Scorpio" |
|
| Title: Re: END TIMES |
05 Jun 2005 03:26:49 PM |
|
|
"randy" <rkluth@wavecable.com> wrote in message
news:M8udnfUrop5Jxz7fRVn-ug@wavecable.com...
"Douglas Cox"
"randy"
There was no abomination of desolation set up in the temple in 70 AD,
and people did not "flee to the mountains" either. Neither was there a
flood, as mentioned in Dan 9:26.
Titus may have himself been the "abomination!" And no question about it,
he
"caused desolation" of the temple!
"On the fifteenth day of the month Kislev in the year 145" (verse 54, TEV),
which corresponds to 168/167 B.C., "they set up the abomination of
desolation upon the altar" of the temple (verse 54, KJV). 2 Maccabees 6:2
tells us that Antiochus defiled the Jewish temple "by dedicating it to the
Olympian god Zeus" (TEV).
.
|
|
|
| User: "randy" |
|
| Title: Re: END TIMES |
05 Jun 2005 07:29:13 PM |
|
|
"Scorpio"
"randy"
Titus may have himself been the "abomination!" And no question about it,
he
"caused desolation" of the temple!
"On the fifteenth day of the month Kislev in the year 145" (verse 54,
TEV), which corresponds to 168/167 B.C., "they set up the abomination of
desolation upon the altar" of the temple (verse 54, KJV). 2 Maccabees 6:2
tells us that Antiochus defiled the Jewish temple "by dedicating it to the
Olympian god Zeus" (TEV).
Yes, the Prophet Daniel wrote also of another "abomination of desolation,"
fulfilled by Antiochus.
What makes the book of Daniel difficult to read is the fact that all of
these events were future to him, Antiochus 4 (Dan 8.14; 12.11-12), Titus
(Dan 9.26-27), and the Antichrist (Dan 7.8,11; 12.7).
Since Antiochus 4 was a very significant person who was closer to the time
of Daniel, he plays a predominant role in the prophecy. But we also hear of
both Titus and Antichrist.
randy
.
|
|
|
| User: "Scorpio" |
|
| Title: Re: END TIMES |
06 Jun 2005 03:29:20 AM |
|
|
"randy" <rkluth@wavecable.com> wrote in message
news:br6dnbwJ9ohBBT7fRVn-tQ@wavecable.com...
"Scorpio"
"randy"
Titus may have himself been the "abomination!" And no question about it,
he
"caused desolation" of the temple!
"On the fifteenth day of the month Kislev in the year 145" (verse 54,
TEV), which corresponds to 168/167 B.C., "they set up the abomination of
desolation upon the altar" of the temple (verse 54, KJV). 2 Maccabees 6:2
tells us that Antiochus defiled the Jewish temple "by dedicating it to
the
Olympian god Zeus" (TEV).
Yes, the Prophet Daniel wrote also of another "abomination of desolation,"
fulfilled by Antiochus.
You under estimate the subtlety of the Jewish spirit. The book of Daniel is
a collection of apocalyptic literature written by different authors at
different times in history and presented as if it was written by one Daniel.
The part referring to Anthiochus was written after the events described had
taken place.
What makes the book of Daniel difficult to read is the fact that all of
these events were future to him, Antiochus 4 (Dan 8.14; 12.11-12), Titus
(Dan 9.26-27), and the Antichrist (Dan 7.8,11; 12.7).
Dan 9:26-27 does not refer to Titus. You assume it was. That can only be a
futurist interpretation. That some futurist Jews at the time of Jesus
expected that the Temple would be destroyed again is obvious. That Temple
was a monopoly, an abomination, a Jewish racket. That some religious Judeans
were using the book of Daniel then for their predictions should be of no
surprise. They only did what you sacred fortune tellers are doing and have
been doing for the last 2000 years.
Since Antiochus 4 was a very significant person who was closer to the time
of Daniel, he plays a predominant role in the prophecy. But we also hear
of
both Titus and Antichrist.
randy
There are no prophecy in Daniel. It's apocalyptic literature written after
the facts as the book of Revelation was, written after the facts in an
apocalyptic way. Men cannot predict the future of humankind but they sure
can write. Most of the predictions soothsayers wrote so far were false
predictions.
.
|
|
|
| User: "randy" |
|
| Title: Re: END TIMES |
08 Jun 2005 07:31:20 PM |
|
|
"Scorpio"
"randy"
There are no prophecy in Daniel. It's apocalyptic literature written after
the facts as the book of Revelation was, written after the facts in an
apocalyptic way. Men cannot predict the future of humankind but they sure
can write. Most of the predictions soothsayers wrote so far were false
predictions.
On the contrary, Daniel's prophecies continue to have worth today, as does
the book of Revelation. They are timeless truths, and have very specific
allusions to the experience of Christians down through the ages. God's
people suffer abuse and persecution, and yet the people of God prevail.
Those who are righteous are preserved until their ultimate salvation comes.
Daniel predicted that the final great antichristian civilization of our age,
concerning Messiah and concerning Israel, would be the Roman civilization.
And it is specifically described as being in two parts (the two "legs" of
the great image). As the legs are long and in two parts, Roman civilization
has extended throughout modern history and has endured two millennia. In the
end of this imperial tradition there would be a softening of the culture, a
mix between absolutism and democracy. We see both elements today in both
Eastern and Western parts of the old Roman Empire. Then "10 toes" would
emerge, representing 10 countries who would align under the infamous
"Antichrist." If you want to see the Prophet Daniel fail, you'll have to see
the Messianic movement fail (Christianity), and you'll have to see Israel
fail. Furthermore, you'll have to see European civilization eclipsed by any
other civilization.
Jesus said that nothing would prevail against his Church--not even death. So
the spread of Christianity confirms the power of this prophecy. The gospel
has been preached to all nations, and lots of charitable works have been
done in the name of Jesus. One man can sure speak a lot into our history!
randy
.
|
|
|
| User: "Scorpio" |
|
| Title: Re: END TIMES |
08 Jun 2005 09:34:39 PM |
|
|
"randy" <rkluth@wavecable.com> wrote in message
news:tfednW5zUppAEDrfRVn-rQ@wavecable.com...
"Scorpio"
"randy"
There are no prophecy in Daniel. It's apocalyptic literature written
after the facts as the book of Revelation was, written after the facts in
an apocalyptic way. Men cannot predict the future of humankind but they
sure can write. Most of the predictions soothsayers wrote so far were
false predictions.
On the contrary, Daniel's prophecies continue to have worth today, as does
the book of Revelation. They are timeless truths, and have very specific
allusions to the experience of Christians down through the ages. God's
people suffer abuse and persecution, and yet the people of God prevail.
Those who are righteous are preserved until their ultimate salvation
comes.
Daniel predicted that the final great antichristian civilization of our
age, concerning Messiah and concerning Israel, would be the Roman
civilization. And it is specifically described as being in two parts (the
two "legs" of the great image). As the legs are long and in two parts,
Roman civilization has extended throughout modern history and has endured
two millennia. In the end of this imperial tradition there would be a
softening of the culture, a mix between absolutism and democracy. We see
both elements today in both Eastern and Western parts of the old Roman
Empire. Then "10 toes" would emerge, representing 10 countries who would
align under the infamous "Antichrist." If you want to see the Prophet
Daniel fail, you'll have to see the Messianic movement fail
(Christianity), and you'll have to see Israel fail. Furthermore, you'll
have to see European civilization eclipsed by any other civilization.
Jesus said that nothing would prevail against his Church--not even death.
So the spread of Christianity confirms the power of this prophecy. The
gospel has been preached to all nations, and lots of charitable works have
been done in the name of Jesus. One man can sure speak a lot into our
history!
randy
If I were you Randy I would go talk to a psychoanalyst, to discuss your
visions with him/her and ask for special
medication that could help you control your illusions. Those stupid end-time
theories can drive a person crazy after a while.
In the meantime, read this carefully. Consider it as God truth.
''We are not so optimistic as to think that any amount of common sense words
on the Apocalypse will keep it from being misused by those who have made it
(or rather, their misunderstanding of it) the essence of their religion and
life. It has too long afforded curious souls that thrill of "sacred
fortune-telling" by juggling the numbers and symbols which they do not in
the least understand, making them mean what they want them to mean, and then
confidently serving the result up as "God's word." It has been too long a
gold mine for the lunatic fringe, the idle, the curious, those who are more
interested in their neighbors' sins than their own, and those who have a
singular pleasure in thinking themselves irremediably "saved" while a
countless number of their fellow men are irremediably "lost," for all this
to be given up without a struggle. The Apocalypse will continue, probably
until the end of time, to be a writing "which the ignorant and unstable
twist to their own destruction, as they do the other scriptures"
.
|
|
|
| User: "randy" |
|
| Title: Re: END TIMES |
09 Jun 2005 12:07:07 AM |
|
|
"Scorpio"
"randy" If I were you Randy I would go talk to a psychoanalyst, to discuss
your visions with him/her and ask for special
medication that could help you control your illusions. Those stupid
end-time theories can drive a person crazy after a while.
In the meantime, read this carefully. Consider it as God truth.
It'd be nice if you knew God's truth. Your comments are very telling...
randy
.
|
|
|
| User: "Ray" |
|
| Title: Re: END TIMES |
09 Jun 2005 12:50:44 AM |
|
|
"randy" <rkluth@wavecable.com> wrote in message
news:pbSdnayZZpcdUzrfRVn-1g@wavecable.com...
"Scorpio"
"randy" If I were you Randy I would go talk to a psychoanalyst, to
discuss
your visions with him/her and ask for special
medication that could help you control your illusions. Those stupid
end-time theories can drive a person crazy after a while.
In the meantime, read this carefully. Consider it as God truth.
It'd be nice if you knew God's truth. Your comments are very telling...
randy
I knew there was a reason why he was in the kill file.
I do not have the patience to keep at them... if the skeptics are here and
want to learn, they read.... if the post derogatory insults and so on, as
all are entitled to think in their "limited understanding" that is fine, but
we do not need to see them.
Eventually they may be won over, but as far as I am concerned, I will not be
addressing them directly. For I only speak to fair dinkum people, not mocker
or pains in the butt for their pleasure... sure there are many walking
wounded out there, and if htey read they may learn. If not, they are not my
problem to solve, I have enough on my plate, and if they accidentally get on
my plate, I might bite their heads of by mistake.
PEace
Ray
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Scorpio" |
|
| Title: Re: END TIMES |
09 Jun 2005 01:07:57 AM |
|
|
"randy" <rkluth@wavecable.com> wrote in message
news:pbSdnayZZpcdUzrfRVn-1g@wavecable.com...
"Scorpio"
"randy" If I were you Randy I would go talk to a psychoanalyst, to
discuss your visions with him/her and ask for special
medication that could help you control your illusions. Those stupid
end-time theories can drive a person crazy after a while.
In the meantime, read this carefully. Consider it as God truth.
It'd be nice if you knew God's truth. Your comments are very telling...
randy
"We are not so optimistic as to think that any amount of common sense words
on the Apocalypse will keep it from being misused by those who have made it
(or rather, their misunderstanding of it) the essence of their religion and
life. It has too long afforded curious souls that thrill of "sacred
fortune-telling" by juggling the numbers and symbols which they do not in
the least understand, making them mean what they want them to mean, and then
confidently serving the result up as "God's word." It has been too long a
gold mine for the lunatic fringe, the idle, the curious, those who are more
interested in their neighbors' sins than their own, and those who have a
singular pleasure in thinking themselves irremediably "saved" while a
countless number of their fellow men are irremediably "lost," for all this
to be given up without a struggle. The Apocalypse will continue, probably
until the end of time, to be a writing "which the ignorant and unstable
twist to their own destruction, as they do the other scriptures" (2 Pet.
3:16)."
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "H.E. Eickleberry, Jr." |
|
| Title: Re: END TIMES |
06 Jun 2005 07:28:09 AM |
|
|
"Scorpio" <Post@4U_pinhead.com> wrote in message
news:tPToe.3483$Nd3.166787@news20.bellglobal.com...
[snip]
You under estimate the subtlety of the Jewish spirit...
And I'll take them over you any day.
Ike
.
|
|
|
| User: "Scorpio" |
|
| Title: Re: END TIMES |
06 Jun 2005 10:45:25 AM |
|
|
"H.E. Eickleberry, Jr." <Xeickleberrybooks@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:Fr6dnVSgN_HK3DnfRVn-rw@comcast.com...
"Scorpio" <Post@4U_pinhead.com> wrote in message
news:tPToe.3483$Nd3.166787@news20.bellglobal.com...
[snip]
You under estimate the subtlety of the Jewish spirit...
And I'll take them over you any day.
Ike
Tracing the historical development of biblical books invites accusations of
sacrilege from excessively sanctimonious people, who must fear that
something might be discovered in the study that will make them look fools.
So much for their faith.
.
|
|
|
| User: "H.E. Eickleberry, Jr." |
|
| Title: Re: END TIMES |
06 Jun 2005 03:28:45 PM |
|
|
"Scorpio" <Post@4U_pinhead.com> wrote in message
news:mc_oe.4438$Nd3.201397@news20.bellglobal.com...
"H.E. Eickleberry, Jr." <Xeickleberrybooks@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:Fr6dnVSgN_HK3DnfRVn-rw@comcast.com...
"Scorpio" <Post@4U_pinhead.com> wrote in message
news:tPToe.3483$Nd3.166787@news20.bellglobal.com...
[snip]
You under estimate the subtlety of the Jewish spirit...
And I'll take them over you any day.
Ike
Tracing the historical development of biblical books invites accusations
of sacrilege from excessively sanctimonious people, who must fear that
something might be discovered in the study that will make them look fools.
So much for their faith.
And there is always some rejected son that got tossed out of the lineage
that comes along "reclaiming" the "lost heritage" that no one else seems to
know about.
Jesus came from the Jews, to the Jews, and He was a Jew.
Some much for your claim.
Ike
.
|
|
|
| User: "Scorpio" |
|
| Title: Re: END TIMES |
06 Jun 2005 06:27:58 PM |
|
|
"H.E. Eickleberry, Jr." <Xeickleberrybooks@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:dOudnZK-LrhjLDnfRVn-vg@comcast.com...
"Scorpio" <Post@4U_pinhead.com> wrote in message
news:mc_oe.4438$Nd3.201397@news20.bellglobal.com...
"H.E. Eickleberry, Jr." <Xeickleberrybooks@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:Fr6dnVSgN_HK3DnfRVn-rw@comcast.com...
"Scorpio" <Post@4U_pinhead.com> wrote in message
news:tPToe.3483$Nd3.166787@news20.bellglobal.com...
[snip]
You under estimate the subtlety of the Jewish spirit...
And I'll take them over you any day.
Ike
Tracing the historical development of biblical books invites accusations
of sacrilege from excessively sanctimonious people, who must fear that
something might be discovered in the study that will make them look
fools. So much for their faith.
And there is always some rejected son that got tossed out of the lineage
that comes along "reclaiming" the "lost heritage" that no one else seems
to know about.
Jesus came from the Jews, to the Jews, and He was a Jew.
Some much for your claim.
Ike
Tell me why you had deleted all of what I had posted and kept only my
remark, thus: ''You under estimate the subtlety of the Jewish spirit...''
You took that phrase out of context and posted: ''And I'll take them over
you any day.''
If a person was to post that the book of Daniel was written by the person
the Bible identifies as a prophet by that name, I would answer to that
person that she underestimate the subtlety of the Jewish spirit.
In context, what did you understand my remark to mean Ike? Were you drunk or
smoking pot?
And just what do you mean by this?
''And there is always some rejected son that got tossed out of the lineage
that comes along "reclaiming" the "lost heritage" that no one else seems to
know about.''
Not only is it off thread, it's stupid.
''Jesus was a Jew.''
How many years did it take you to figure that one out.
Which group did He belong to Ike? The Sadducees, the Essenes, the Pharisees,
the Zealots? Which one? A verse from the NT will do.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "awetzel" |
|
| Title: Re: END TIMES |
06 Jun 2005 04:33:35 PM |
|
|
This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
--------------080907010102080805030805
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
H.E. Eickleberry, Jr. wrote:
"Scorpio" <Post@4U_pinhead.com> wrote in message
news:mc_oe.4438$Nd3.201397@news20.bellglobal.com...
"H.E. Eickleberry, Jr." <Xeickleberrybooks@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:Fr6dnVSgN_HK3DnfRVn-rw@comcast.com...
"Scorpio" <Post@4U_pinhead.com> wrote in message
news:tPToe.3483$Nd3.166787@news20.bellglobal.com...
[snip]
You under estimate the subtlety of the Jewish spirit...
And I'll take them over you any day.
Ike
Tracing the historical development of biblical books invites accusations
of sacrilege from excessively sanctimonious people, who must fear that
something might be discovered in the study that will make them look fools.
So much for their faith.
And there is always some rejected son that got tossed out of the lineage
that comes along "reclaiming" the "lost heritage" that no one else seems to
know about.
Jesus came from the Jews, to the Jews, and He was a Jew.
Some much for your claim.
Ike
Was Jesus even a Jew?
http://www.raceandhistory.com/historicalviews/jewsnotrace.htm
http://assemblyoftrueisrael.com/TruthPage/the_word_jew.html
--------------080907010102080805030805
Content-Type: text/html; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN">
<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html;charset=ISO-8859-1" http-equiv="Content-Type">
<title></title>
</head>
<body bgcolor="#ffffff" text="#000000">
H.E. Eickleberry, Jr. wrote:<br>
<blockquote cite="middOudnZK-LrhjLDnfRVn-vg@comcast.com" type="cite">
<pre wrap="">"Scorpio" <a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:Post@4U_pinhead.com"><Post@4U_pinhead.com></a> wrote in message
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="news:mc_oe.4438$Nd3.201397@news20.bellglobal.com">news:mc_oe.4438$Nd3.201397@news20.bellglobal.com</a>...
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">"H.E. Eickleberry, Jr." <a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:Xeickleberrybooks@comcast.net"><Xeickleberrybooks@comcast.net></a> wrote in message
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="news:Fr6dnVSgN_HK3DnfRVn-rw@comcast.com">news:Fr6dnVSgN_HK3DnfRVn-rw@comcast.com</a>...
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">"Scorpio" <a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:Post@4U_pinhead.com"><Post@4U_pinhead.com></a> wrote in message
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="news:tPToe.3483$Nd3.166787@news20.bellglobal.com">news:tPToe.3483$Nd3.166787@news20.bellglobal.com</a>...
[snip]
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">You under estimate the subtlety of the Jewish spirit...
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap="">And I'll take them over you any day.
Ike
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap="">Tracing the historical development of biblical books invites accusations
of sacrilege from excessively sanctimonious people, who must fear that
something might be discovered in the study that will make them look fools.
So much for their faith.
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap=""><!---->
And there is always some rejected son that got tossed out of the lineage
that comes along "reclaiming" the "lost heritage" that no one else seems to
know about.
Jesus came from the Jews, to the Jews, and He was a Jew.
Some much for your claim.
Ike
</pre>
</blockquote>
Was Jesus even a Jew? <br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://www.raceandhistory.com/historicalviews/jewsnotrace.htm">http://www.raceandhistory.com/historicalviews/jewsnotrace.htm</a><br>
<font><font><a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://assemblyoftrueisrael.com/TruthPage/the_word_jew.html">http://assemblyoftrueisrael.com/TruthPage/the_word_jew.html</a><br>
<br>
</font></font>
</body>
</html>
--------------080907010102080805030805--
.
|
|
|
| User: "H.E. Eickleberry, Jr." |
|
| Title: Re: END TIMES |
06 Jun 2005 08:58:12 PM |
|
|
"awetzel" <nospam@tpg.com.au> wrote in message
news:Pi3pe.4508$F7.2791@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
H.E. Eickleberry, Jr. wrote:
"Scorpio" <Post@4U_pinhead.com> wrote in message
news:mc_oe.4438$Nd3.201397@news20.bellglobal.com...
"H.E. Eickleberry, Jr." <Xeickleberrybooks@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:Fr6dnVSgN_HK3DnfRVn-rw@comcast.com...
"Scorpio" <Post@4U_pinhead.com> wrote in message
news:tPToe.3483$Nd3.166787@news20.bellglobal.com...
[snip]
You under estimate the subtlety of the Jewish spirit...
And I'll take them over you any day.
Ike
Tracing the historical development of biblical books invites accusations
of sacrilege from excessively sanctimonious people, who must fear that
something might be discovered in the study that will make them look
fools.
So much for their faith.
And there is always some rejected son that got tossed out of the lineage
that comes along "reclaiming" the "lost heritage" that no one else seems
to
know about.
Jesus came from the Jews, to the Jews, and He was a Jew.
Some much for your claim.
Ike
Was Jesus even a Jew?
http://www.raceandhistory.com/historicalviews/jewsnotrace.htm
http://assemblyoftrueisrael.com/TruthPage/the_word_jew.html
So what? Some new Nazis and false claimants to the promises of Abraham wrote
some books. I'm supposed to be impressed?
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Ray" |
|
| Title: Re: END TIMES |
07 Jun 2005 08:08:19 AM |
|
|
This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
------=_NextPart_000_001F_01C56BB5.CB93F090
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
"awetzel" <nospam@tpg.com.au> wrote in message =
news:Pi3pe.4508$F7.2791@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
H.E. Eickleberry, Jr. wrote:
"Scorpio" <Post@4U_pinhead.com> wrote in message=20
news:mc_oe.4438$Nd3.201397@news20.bellglobal.com...
"H.E. Eickleberry, Jr." <Xeickleberrybooks@comcast.net> wrote in =
message=20
news:Fr6dnVSgN_HK3DnfRVn-rw@comcast.com...
"Scorpio" <Post@4U_pinhead.com> wrote in message=20
news:tPToe.3483$Nd3.166787@news20.bellglobal.com...
[snip]
You under estimate the subtlety of the Jewish spirit...
And I'll take them over you any day.
Ike
Tracing the historical development of biblical books invites =
accusations=20
of sacrilege from excessively sanctimonious people, who must fear that=20
something might be discovered in the study that will make them look =
fools.=20
So much for their faith.
=20
And there is always some rejected son that got tossed out of the lineage =
that comes along "reclaiming" the "lost heritage" that no one else seems =
to=20
know about.
Jesus came from the Jews, to the Jews, and He was a =
Jew.=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3DIronically, I was =
talking to a moslem one time and told him Jesus was a Jew and he thought =
I was trying to pull his leg. I had a large beard at the time and hetold =
me I Looked like the prophet. PEaceRay
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
Some much for your claim.
Ike=20
Was Jesus even a Jew?=20
http://www.raceandhistory.com/historicalviews/jewsnotrace.htm
http://assemblyoftrueisrael.com/TruthPage/the_word_jew.html
------=_NextPart_000_001F_01C56BB5.CB93F090
Content-Type: text/html;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD><TITLE></TITLE>
<META http-equiv=3DContent-Type =
content=3Dtext/html;charset=3DISO-8859-1>
<META content=3D"MSHTML 6.00.2800.1106" name=3DGENERATOR>
<STYLE></STYLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY text=3D#000000 bgColor=3D#ffffff>
<DIV><FONT face= | | | | | | | | | | |
