| Topic: |
Religions > Bible |
| User: |
"Pastor Dave" |
| Date: |
12 Aug 2007 10:29:23 AM |
| Object: |
I APOLOGIZE & OUTLINE |
I have posted a commentary and then a study.
I know hardly anyone will appreciate the
commentary, but we'll find out how honest
these people are, by whether or not they are
willing to truly study the lesson provided.
I apologize for my rough tone in my last usenet message.
I guess I simply do not understand the mentality that
refuses to question doctrine, regardless of what the Bible
says and attempts to rearrange the Bible, to suit a doctrine
and this is done by Futurists whenever I show them something.
Some new piece of doctrine is made up on the fly to cover
for it. Show them that Isaiah 65:17-20 and Rev 21:1-4 both
speak of the new heaven and earth and yet, one says that there
will be death and the says that there won't and immediately,
a new invention pops up that says that one is speaking about
the millennium and one is about after the judgment. Did they
ever believe that before? No. And then, when I respond by
showing them that both say "new heaven and earth", the
personal attacks begin.
There is only one translation for that and it is:
"My doctrine is all important to me, because I like it
and the word of God be damned! I don't care what it says!"
The truth is, they are symbolism. Just as the New Jerusalem
is. In fact, Rev 21:2,9-10 even says so. The angel says
to John that he will show him the bride of the Lamb and
the angel immediately shows him the city. Hello??? :)
Nowhere does it say it is literal. And Paul even gives
a similar description in Ephesians 2:19-22. So why is
Revelation taken as being physically literal?
There is overwhelming evidence that Revelation was
written prior to 70 AD. There is only one statement,
with ambiguous Greek, that could be translated as
"he was seen", meaning John, or "it was seen", that
Futurists use to claim it was written in 95-96 AD,
at a time when John is reported to not even be able
to walk much and had to be carried into the churches.
But yet he wrote Revelation and was to go around
preaching to churches on his own? And why is he
said to have been riding a horse, chasing a man down,
about the time Revelation was written, if at the end
of the first century, he could barely walk?
Anyway, you asked me why I said that Jesus and the
Apostles preached a return within that generation.
The following, shows in part why.
There is one thing that you have to get a grip on and that is
Deut 18:22. We do not get to move the times, because we
want to believe something and then insist it's still true,
even though the promise of "when" was not lived up to.
We have to accept that either Jesus lived up to his promises,
or He didn't and that if He said "when", then that is part of
the promise, just as much as the "how".
And no, we don't get to whip out what Peter said and
be hypocrites. Peter did NOT say that God has
1,000 year days! He simply used a figure of speech
to say that time means nothing to God, because God
does not experience time. And therefore, we are
twice hypocrites when:
1) We try to apply linear time to God, by saying that
He has "1,000 year days".
2) We don't apply this rule universally throughout
Scripture and only whip it out when our doctrine
is in trouble.
Furthermore, Hebrews 1:1-2 says that they were in the
last days back then and Peter's words are actually
proof that they were in the last days back then.
Peter was responding to a letter that told him that
scoffers were saying, "Where is the promise of His coming?!".
Peter responded by saying that is something that would
happen in the last days. Obvious meaning... He was
letting them know that since they were in the last days,
that they shouldn't be surprised.
Furthermore, how could these scoffers come into the church
and scoff about Christ not having returned yet, if Christ
left the idea of maybe thousands of years going by and
gave no indication at all? Sure He said no one would
know THE DAY nor THE HOUR, but He did say that it would
be within the SAME GENERATION! And that is why they
were scoffing! Here it was, about 30 or so years later
and He had not returned!
The bottom line is, they weren't just saying, "Why hasn't
He returned?". They said, "Where is the PROMISE of His
coming?".
What was the promise??? "Assuredly I say to you, before
this generation passes, all these things will take place!"
In the original Greek, the word translated into "Assuredly"
actually shows great emphasis! It is as if He were staking
His whole credibility on this! And what a magnificent
statement it was and how powerful for those Jews to hear!
They considered the Temple IMPOSSIBLE to bring down!
Today we are so ignorant of its majesty! One of the
wonders of the world, it was considered! And they didn't
have sticks of dynamite in their armies! :)
Anyway, I hope that you will take the time to do this study,
looking up the Scriptures and studying them, instead of doing
as usual and brushing them off, because it's not what makes
you comfortable to hear. As one great Christian responded
to someone who asked him if he understand what he was reading
said...
"It's not what I don't understand that troubles me.
It's what i do understand."
The idea is, that if you are in a place where every single
verse is all about comforting you and what you like to
believe, then you aren't studying your Bible and you
haven't placed God's word first.
As I said, I guess I don't understand the mentality.
I posted a message a while ago called...
"WHAT I CAME TO BELIEVE"
....which can still be looked up on Google. I am not bragging.
I am just saying that I guess I was blessed with a questioning
mind, that wasn't satisfied with pat answers, that didn't
really explain the problem, but people accepted, because they
don't dare question it, because to them, they have been
trained to think it means questioning God and His word.
I used to somewhat believe in a Futurist view, but did not
even know about a thing called "Preterism". And so, I,
like the others, thought that to question Futurism was to
question whether or not the Bible was true.
But I simply couldn't take it anymore. Here I was,
a preacher, preaching to others in a church gathering
and I was becoming less and less convinced of what
I was saying. i knew something had to be done!
Btw, did you know that one of the main reasons that ministers
leave the pulpit, is Matthew 24:34? Did you know that?
What does that mean? It means that they know, as do you,
what that verse says and they are at least honest enough
to admit that Jesus did say that He was coming back in
the same generation! The problem is, since they were
indoctrinated into the literalism of Dispensationalism,
they figured that He didn't live up to His promise.
Ask yourself... If you knew that you could not deny
that Jesus said He would return within the same
generation, would you be able to stay a Christian,
given your literalist beliefs about the new heaven
and earth, etc.?
We know the answer is no. And that is why you refuse
to seek out any other explanation, even though deep
down, you know He did say it. And it is your vanity
that also holds you back. Because you figure that if
the Bible is not all about you and your generation
(and note how you Futurists use that word to mean
exactly that, yet deny Jesus did), then it useless.
Well, that is your prerogative. As for me, like I said,
I had to find out and so, I went on a mission. And it
was only when I said to God that if He were real and
His word were true, then He's going to have to show me
how it could be true, since it is what Jesus said and
because the Apostles taught it too.
You don't see it in almost all translations, but many times,
when it says "shall be", from the Greek ("mello"), it is
actually saying, "about to be" and "about to come", etc..
Anyway, my quest began and a book landed in my lap,
by Gary DeMar, called "End Times Fiction". He still
believes in a future coming of Christ, but it was a
great book to get me to stop and listen to the language.
At first I thought the guy was nuts and kept tossing it
aside, but something kept drawing me back to it. And
when I finished it, I started reading the New Testament
and could not believe how many phrases and statements
I missed every time I had read it before! And why
is it that people read every ancient book that has
future tense statements, knowing that it only means
that they are future to the time it was written and
not necessarily still future and yet, when they read
the Bible, they pretend that it was sealed into a
time vacuum and the clock just started ticking again
when they opened it for the first time in their lives?!
Of course, I realized that Gary very well proved his case
regarding fulfillments, but that when he talked about
Christ still coming again, that his entire proof was
about three sentences and that he was being very illogical
in not following his own logic through and so, I couldn't
go along with him on that and just kept reading my Bible.
One thing I noticed, is that while people INTERPRET Paul
or Peter this way or that, they refuse to accept that
they would not have taught against what Jesus taught
and Jesus Himself NEVER said one word about more than
one return! And so, this is simply bad interpretation
of the Apostles' writings! And when their writings
are read in their entirety, without the vanity glasses
on, it is easy to see that they expected a return
within that same generation!
Btw, I would recommend the LITV for studying this issue.
It is more accurately translated and it is available
online, or free for e-Sword.
And I guess we should just feel sorry for all of the
generations before this one, since the Bible's all
about us today, or it's useless, huh?! Oh, but wait,
as many a Futurist has said, "They got to look forward
to us", right? But hey, no vanity there, huh?
Now they will say they don't think that way, but they do
and have admitted it many times, when backed into a corner!
So anyway, you believe whatever you want to believe,
but what does upset me, is when people try to hand wave
away facts, because they don't fit their doctrine and
when they rearrange passages and change pieces of their
doctrine to fit what I show them and try to claim that
they haven't and that "they know the truth". Please!
And if my doctrine is such a lie, then why do they
keep changing pieces of their doctrine to try to get
around the facts I present to them? Hello???
It also bothers me that people place their doctrines
above God's word. And they refuse to see that the
promise to Abraham that Paul spoke of had nothing
to do with land. He specifically said it was the
promise about the "Seed" (and he notes the singular),
which was Christ. And yet, many Bibles, because the
translators are Futurists, such as the NKJV, replace
the word "seed" with "generations", or some other
such nonsense, thereby changing God's word and
creating a false doctrine! (:
Paul went on to say in Galatians that it was all about
the old Law vs the New. He compared it to Isaac and
Ishmael. But yet, the Futurists claim it's all about
land that the Bible says they already received all of
in Joshua 21:43-45? And even though God told them
that if they worshipped false gods, that they would
lose the land and never made the "forever" land
statement again and even though they did worship
false gods, the Futurists are right when they claim
that they did not receive all of their land yet and
that God said it was theirs forever and therefore,
must give it to them forever? And did you notice
randy's doctrine radically change, when I proved
that Scripturally they did receive it all? He went
from saying they didn't, to claiming that even though
they did, it didn't matter and they had to have it
again! But yet refused to admit that a Biblical fact
changed his doctrine and that he was wrong and
instead insulted me!
The truth is, once they violated the condition,
that land promise was gone forever! Now God did say
that if they obeyed Him, He would gather them back in,
but He never again said, "forever". And guess what?
They kept disobeying!
And guess what? They do even today! They do not
run their country according to God's Laws! It is
a secular government!
And guess what? Even if they did run it according
to God's Laws, that covenant is passed and they
would still be rejecting Christ!
So anyway, I'm done with the speech. On to the lesson. :)
Please stop being stubborn and take the time to study it.
Did you even bother reading the book I sent you? Or is it
sitting there collecting dust?
Please take some time and study this. And no, that doesn't
mean to say you'll do it one day, when you have time. This
is God's word and it just may be that what I am showing you
now could change your life (by God's power).
SO MAKE THE TIME! :)
*****************************************************
Outline to Covenant Eschatology
Revised -- --Virgil Vaduva 06:43, 9 July 2006 (PDT)
Eschatology, definition: The study of last things,
or end things. Derives from the Greek eschatos,
meaning final, or latter or end of thing(s).
Definition of Preterism
1. DEFINED: "Preterism places the prophecies of intense
evil and foreboding gloom in the first century, focusing
on the events surrounding the forty-two-month long Neronic
persecution, the forty-two-month long Jewish war with Rome,
and the destruction of the temple. The word "preterist" is
based on the Latin "praeteritus," meaning "gone by" or "past".
Why it is important
1. Why espoused
1. New Testament time references
1. Jesus’ predictions indicating a first century
Parousia (return of Christ)
1. Matt. 10:23 - "Truly I say to you, you will not
finish going through the cities of Israel until
the Son of Man comes."
2. Matt. 16:28 - "Truly I say to you, there are some
who are standing here who will not taste death
until they see the Son of Man coming in His
kingdom."
3. Matt. 24:34 - "Truly I say to you, this generation
will not pass away until all these things take
place." (Jesus’ use of "this generation"
throughout the gospels always refers to his
contemporaries: 26:36; 11:16; 12:39, 41, 42
and 45; Luke 11:50-51; 17:25; Mk 8:38)
4. Matt. 26:64 - "You [the high priest] will see
the Son of Man coming on the clouds of heaven."
2. The Book of Revelation’s predictions indicating
Christ’s imminent return
1. SHORTLY, QUICKLY: ?????, tachos and en tachei mean
"quickly, all at once, with all speed, without
delay."
1. 1:1 - "...things which must shortly take place"
2. 2:16 - "Repent, or else I will come to you
quickly"
3. 3:11 - "Behold, I come quickly!"
4. 22:6 - "...things which must shortly take place."
5. 22:7 - "Behold, I am coming quickly!"
6. 22:12 - "Behold, I am coming quickly."
7. 22:20 - "Surely I am coming quickly."
2. NEAR AT HAND (?????, engus)
1. 1:3 - "The time is near."
2. 22:10 - "The time is at hand."
3. ABOUT TO, ON THE POINT OR VERGE OF (??????, mello,
mellei)
1. 1:19 - "Write ... the things that are about to
take place."
2. 3:10 - "... the hour of trial ... is about to come
upon the whole world."
3. Other New Testament indications of Christ’s imminent
return
1. Rom. 13:11-12 - "You know what hour it is, how it
is full time now for you to wake from sleep. For
salvation is nearer to us now than when we first
believed; the night is far gone, the day is at
hand."
2. 1 Cor. 7:29-31 - "Brethren, the appointed time has
grown very short; from now on, let those who have
wives live as though they had none, and those who
mourn as though they were not mourning, and those
who rejoice as though they were not rejoicing, and
those who buy as though they had no goods, and those
who deal with the world as though they had no
dealings with it. For the form of this world
is passing away."
3. 1 Cor. 10:11 - "On [us] the ends of the ages have
come."
4. Phil. 4:5 - "The Lord is at hand."
5. James 5:8-9 - "The coming of the Lord is at hand.
... Behold, the Judge is standing at the door."
6. 1 Pet. 4:7 - "The end of all things is at hand."
7. 1 Jn. 2:18 - "It is the last hour ... we know that
it is the last hour."
2. PRETERISM AS THE SOLUTION TO A DILEMMA: The apparent
failure of these prophesies to come true has led to
skepticism about the reliability of the Bible and the
deity of Christ. Preterism solves this problem by
maintaining that these prophecies did, in fact, have
a first century fulfillment.
The Olive Discourse
1. THE OLIVET DISCOURSE: INDICATIONS THAT IT WAS FULFILLED
IN A.D. 70
1. THE CONTEXT OF THE DISCOURSE
1. THE SEVEN WOES pronounced upon the scribes and
Pharisees in Matt. 23. They are pronounced not only
upon them, but upon the entire generation (23:36).
2. QUESTIONS concerning when the temple would be
destroyed, and what would be the sign of Jesus’
coming and the end of the age (24:1-4). The temple
is Herod’s, and Jesus links its destruction with
his future coming and the end of the age.
2. THE SIGNS OF JESUS’ COMING AND THE END OF THE AGE:
THEIR FIRST CENTURY FULFILLMENT
3. FALSE CHRISTS AND PROPHETS DECEIVING MANY:
(Matt. 24:5, 11, 24). Josephus writes that many false
prophets and false Messiahs appeared during the
government of Felix (A.D. 53-60), deluding many.
Such figures played a leading role in the Jewish
revolt in late A.D. 66 that led to the Jewish War.
1. WARS AND RUMORS OF WARS (Matt. 6-7). These would not
have been perceived as an unusual sign during most
periods of world history, but during the pax Romana
war was extremely rare. E.g., Epictetus writes that
"Caesar has obtained for us a profound peace. There
are neither wars nor battles" (Discourses 3:13:9)
Josephus and Tacitus both write of the unsettledness
of the empire leading up to A.D. 70 (see below).
2. FAMINES (Matt. 24:7). Josephus writes that during
Claudius' reign (A.D. 41-54) there were four seasons
of great scarcity. In the fourth year of his reign,
the famine in Judea was so severe that the price of
food became enormous and great numbers died. Cf.
Acts 11:28. He also describes starvation and
cannibalism during the final five-month siege of
Jerusalem (Wars 5.12.3 and 6.5.1)
3. EARTHQUAKES (Matt. 24:7). These occurred in
Caligula's (A.D. 37-41) and Claudius' (A.D. 41-54)
reigns. Josephus reports many earthquakes in
A.D. 68 in the midst of the Jewish War. He
describes one particularly terrifying quake and
lightning storm, remarking,"anyone would guess that
these wonders foreshadowed some grand calamities
that were coming" (Wars 4.4.5). Tacitus reports them
throughout Rome, also nterpreting them as portents
of impending divine judgment (Histories, 1.2-3)
4. PERSECUTION (Matt. 24:9-10) - Jesus predicts the
coming persecution and martyrdom of the church,
and Israel's impending judgment, adding: "I tell you
the truth, all this will come upon this generation"
(Mt 23:32-36). The NT reports the intense
persecution of Christians by the Jews in Acts 8:1
and 1 Thess. 2:14-16.
5. APOSTASY (Matt. 24:10-13): Hebrews reflects Jews
apostatizing and returning to Judaism (Heb. 2:1-3,
3:6 and 14, 6:4-6, 10:26-27). Cf. Gal. 5:4; 1 Jn.
2:18-20, and 4:3, but especially 2:24, all of which
report apostacy during the time of the apostles.
Also 1 Tim. 4:1, 2 Pet 2:1-2 and 20-21.
6. GOSPEL PREACHED IN ALL THE WORLD (Matt. 24:14):
"World" is Roman world. NT statements that this had
taken place by A.D. 70 - Acts 24:5, Rom. 1:8 and
Col. 1:6, 23: "All over the world this gospel is
bearing fruit and growing. ... This is the gospel
that you heard and that has been proclaimed to every
creature under heaven, and of which I Paul, have
become a servant."
7. ABOMINATION THAT CAUSES DESOLATION (15):
1. CHRIST REFERS TO THE HERODIAN TEMPLE, NOT SOME
FUTURE ONE: Mt. 24:1-2
2. JESUS' PROPHESY OF THE SIEGE OF JERUSALEM
(Luke 21:20) AND DESECRATION OF THE TEMPLE
IS CONFIRMED BY JOSEPHUS: "After the five month
siege they breached the wall, burned the temple
down and worshiped Caesar at its eastern gate"
(Wars 6.6.1)
8. DISTRESS UNEQUALED & NEVER TO BE EQUALED AGAIN (21)
1. LOSS OF LIFE: 1.1 million Jews died during the
Jewish War (Wars 6.9.2)
2. JOSEPHUS REPORTS TERRIBLE CARNAGE: Jerusalem,
the temple, the Mediterranean, Sea of Galilee,
Jordan, and Dead Sea covered with blood and gorged
with bodies (Wars 3.9.3; 3.10.9; 4.7.6; 4.1.10;
4.5.1; 5.1.3; 6.8.5). Cf. Rev. 8:8-11
3. JOSEPHUS reports the Romans laying waste to
Israel, setting fire to towns, cities, and trees
(Wars 6.1.1; 3.7.8; 5.6.2; 3.7.1; 3.7.8; 5.6.2;
3.4.1; 6.6.2; 7.5.5). Cf. Rev. 18:8
4. DISTRESS "UNEQUALED SINCE THE BEGINNING OF THE
WORLD AND NEVER TO BE EQUALED AGAIN"? This may
be a dramatic device used for emphasis. Such
language is used elsewhere in Scripture (Ez. 5:9,
2 Kings 18:5, 23:25). Yet this judgment upon
Jerusalem was without equal.
9. CHRIST’S COMING ON THE CLOUDS (Matt. 24:27, 30):
1. CLOUD COMING AN OT IMAGE OF GOD COMING IN JUDGMENT
(Is. 19:1, Ps. 18:7-15, Mic. 1:3-4)
2. HEAVENLY ARMIES REPORTED BY JOSEPHUS (Wars 6.5.3)
AND TACITUS: "In the sky appeared a vision of
armies in conflict, of glittering armor"
(Histories 5.13)
10. THE COLLAPSE OF THE UNIVERSE (Matt. 24:29):
The same cosmic language is used of the destruction
of Babylon by the Medes (Is 13:9-10), and a
prophesy against the nations (Is.34:3-5), both
of which Christ quotes. Similar language is used
of a judgment of the "people of the earth" in
Is. 21:18-23, of the judgment of Judah in
Jer. 4:23-29, and of the Day of the Lord in
Joel 2:30-31.
11. THE GATHERING OF THE ELECT (Matt. 24:31):
Postmillennialists interpret this as having to do
with Christ sending forth his messengers
(missionaries) throughout the earth and the
conversion of Gentiles from all nations after
the fall of Jerusalem.
1. THE MEANING OF ANGELOS: The word translated
"angel" (angelos) can just as easily be
translated "messenger" (as it is in Matt. 11:10,
Mark 1:2, Luke 7:24, 27).
2. THE MEANING OF THE TRUMPET CALL: In the year
of Jubilee complete forgiveness of debts was
announced by a trumpet call: Lev 25: 9-10.
A.D. 70 was in fact a year of Jubilee.
3. THE DESTRUCTION OF ISRAEL AND GROWTH OF
CHRISTIANITY: Ignatius, Melito of Sardis,
Tertullian, Clement of Alexandria, Lactantius
and others point back to A.D. 70 as proof that
God favored the Christians, not the Jews, thus
paving the way for the advance of Christianity.
Cf. Rev 3:9
Upshot
1. UPSHOT
1. CHRIST CAME IN JUDGMENT IN A.D. 70 AFTER THE JEWS HAD
"FILLED UP THE MEASURE OF THEIR FOREFATHERS’ SINS"
(Matt. 23:32).
2. THIS JUDGMENT WAS THE PROPHESIED "DAY OF THE LORD."
Mal. 4:1-5 (cf. Matt. 11:14). According to Amos
5:18-20 and Zeph. 1:1-17 the Day of the Lord would
be a day of judgment upon the Jews Hence when the
disciples asked Jesus in Matt. 24:3 about the sign
of his coming and of the end of the age, Jesus spoke
of the end of the Jewish age and the hastening Day
of the Lord against Israel.
Indications in the Book of Revelation
1. INDICATIONS OF A FIRST CENTURY FULFILLMENT OF THE BOOK
OF REVELATION
1. TIME-FRAME REFERENCES INDICATING THE NEARNESS OF
REVELATION’S EVENTS:
1. Its events are to happen "quickly," they are
"at hand," "about to" occur: Rev. 1:1, 1:3, 2:16,
3:10-11, 22:6-7, 22:10, 22:12, 22:20.
2. Especially noteworthy is Rev. 22:10 - "Do not seal
up the words of the prophecy of this book, because
the time is near." This is the exact opposite of
what Daniel was told in Dan. 12:4. He was told to
seal up his prophecy "until the time of the end."
2. THE TEMPLE IS STILL STANDING (Rev. 11:2)
3. IT IS HEROD’S TEMPLE
1. The Olivet Discourse had been given in response
to the disciples’ question about the destruction
of Herod’s temple (Luke 21:5-7). In Luke 21:24
Jesus said: "Jerusalem will be trampled on by
the Gentiles until the times of the Gentiles
are fulfilled."
2. John, familiar with Jesus' words, has this as his
backdrop - the Gentile trampling underfoot of
Jerusalem will last 42 months (Rev. 11:2)
4. THIS TRAMPLING UNDERFOOT OF JERUSALEM OCCURRED DURING
THE JEWISH WAR that ended with the destruction of the
temple in A.D. 70. The war lasted exactly 42 months:
from spring, A.D. 67 through August, A.D. 70.
5. WHO IS "BABYLON THE GREAT, MOTHER OF PROSTITUTES"?
SHE IS…JERUSALEM
1. SHE FILLS HERSELF WITH THE BLOOD OF THE PROPHETS
AND SAINTS: Rev. 16:6, 17:6, 18:20, 24. Cf.
Matt. 23:37 and Acts 7:52.
2. SHE IS THE "GREAT CITY ... WHERE ALSO THE ...
LORD WAS CRUCIFIED" (Rev. 11:8) Although Rev 11
clearly is speaking of Jerusalem, is this the
"Babylon the Great" of later chapters? Yes, the
designation, "great city" is used both in Ch. 11
and Chs. 17-18 (17:18, 18:10, 16, 19, 21).
3. THE IMAGE OF THE UNFAITHFUL WIFE, THE HARLOT,
WAS OFTEN USED OF ISRAEL IN THE OT. Israel is
repeatedly called the wife of God (Jer. 2:2,
3:14, Is. 54:5). But she was an unfaithful wife
(Jer. 3:20, Hos. 1:2, Ez. 6:9, Ez. 16, Is. 50:1)
behaving as a prostitute (Jer. 3:1-2). In the
context of Jerusalem’s designation as a prostitute,
Is. 1:21 is especially noteworthy: "See how the
faithful city has become a harlot."
4. HER ARRAY
1. Dressed in purple, scarlet, gold, precious stones
and pearls (Rev. 17:3-5) - an almost exact
description of the high priest’s ephod
(Ex. 28:5-6, 36)
2. This combination of fabrics and gems also
describes the temple tapestry, which, according
to Josephus, was "Babylonian tapestry in which
blue, purple, scarlet and linen were mingled."
(Wars 5.5.4)
3. The gold cup she holds (Rev. 17:4) is symbolic
of the temple’s implements: "The greatest part
of the vessels ... were of silver and gold"
(Wars 5.4.4.)
4. Josephus’ description of the temple reflects the
same opulence: "The outward face of the temple
in its front ... was covered all over with plates
of gold of great weight, and at the first rising
of the sun, reflected back a very fiery splendor,
and made those who forced themselves to look upon
it to turn their eyes away, just as they would
have done at the sun's own rays. But this temple
appeared to strangers, when they were at a
distance, like a mountain covered with snow;
for, as to those parts of it that were not gilt,
they were exceeding white." (Wars 5.5.6) The
inscription on the prostitute’s forehead is
a perverse image of that on the high priest’s:
"Holy to the Lord."
5. HER DESTRUCTION:
1. EVEN JERUSALEM’S END RESEMBLES THAT OF AN
ADULTEROUS WIFE - DEATH BY STONING: Josephus
writes: "The stones that were cast were of
the weight of a talent, and were carried
two furlongs and further. The blow they gave
was no way to be sustained, not only by those
that stood first in the way, but by those that
were beyond them for a great space. As for
the Jews, they at first watched the coming
of the stone, for it was a white color"
(Wars 5.6.3) This account is reminiscent
of hailstones, weighing a talent each, that
rain down on the "great city" in Rev. 16:19-21.
2. In the end, a New Jerusalem comes down from
heaven, replacing the old, adulterous bride.
6. WHO IS THE BEAST?
1. THE BEAST GENERICALLY CONCEIVED: ROME
1. THE WOMAN (BABYLON) IS SEATED ON THE BEAST:
Rev. 17:2-8
2. “SEATED ON" = "IN DEPENDENCE ON, IN LEAGUE WITH"
1. BEFORE THE JEWISH REVOLT, THIS HAD BEEN THEIR
RELATIONSHIP. Josephus writes: It seems to me
to be necessary here to give an account of all
the honors that the Romans and their emperors
paid to our nation, and of the leagues of
mutual assistance they have made with it."
(Antiquities, 14.10.1-2)
2. THE JEWS USED THIS RELATIONSHIP TO GET AT
CHRIST AND HIS FOLLOWERS: (Jn. 19:15, Luke
23:2). Throughout Acts they agitated against
the Christian so as to involve the Romans
in their persecution (Acts 4:27; 16:20; 17:7;
18:12; 21:11; 24:1-9; 25:1-2)
3. THE BEAST TURNS ON THE WOMAN AND DESTROYS HER:
Rev. 17:16-17. This happens with the Jewish
War, the 42 month period of trampling
underfoot by the Gentiles (Rev. 11:2)
4. OTHER INDICATIONS THAT THE BEAST (GENERICALLY
UNDERSTOOD) IS ROME
1. “SEVEN HILLS": " The seven heads are seven
hills on which the woman sits." (17:9)
Rome was known in antiquity as the city on
seven hills (Septimontium).
2. ROME RISES FROM THE SEA (13:1). From either
John’s vantage point on Patmos, or the Jews’
vantage point, Rome appeared to rise from
the sea. Cf. 17:1.
3. “SEVEN KINGS": "The seven heads ... are also
seven kings. Five have fallen, one is, the
other has not yet come." By this time of
Revelation’s writing (during the Neronic
persecution) five of the Roman emperors had
fallen (Julius, Augustus, Tiberius, Gaius,
and Claudius), one was still reigning (Nero),
and one would remain for only a short time
(Galba, who reigned only seven months, from
June A.D. 68 to January, A.D. 69), and was
followed by three others in short succession.
4. THE MORTAL WOUND AND ASTONISHING REVIVAL OF
THE BEAST
1. Rev. 17:8 and 13:3 - "One of the heads of
the beast seemed to have had a fatal wound,
but the fatal wound had been healed. The
whole world was astonished and followed
the beast."
2. NERO HIMSELF INFLICTED THIS WOUND, ALMOST
DESTROYING ROME:
1. TACITUS writes of the months following
Nero's death in A.D. 68: "The history on
which I am entering is that of a period
rich in disasters, terrible with battles,
torn by civil struggles, horrible even in
peace. Four emperors were felled by the
sword; there were three civil wars, more
foreign wars and often both at the same
time."
2. JOSEPHUS writes that Rome was near "ruin."
(Wars 4.11.5) The state of the Romans was
so "ill" that "every part of the habitable
earth under them was in an unsettled and
tottering condition" (7.4.2).
3. TACITUS perceived Rome to be in its death
throes: "This was the condition of the
Roman state when Serius Galba, chosen
consul for the second time, and his
colleague Titus Vinius entered upon the
year that was to be for Galba his last,
and for the state almost the end."
(Histories 1.11)
4. THIS STATE OF AFFAIRS WAS NOT RESOLVED
UNTIL VESPASIAN left his Judean expedition
to take power in Rome: "The empire, which
for a long time had been unsettled and,
as it were, drifting through the
usurpation and violent death of three
emperors was at last taken in hand and
given stability by the Flavian family"
(Suetonius, Vespasian 1).
2. THE BEAST SPECIFICALLY CONCEIVED: NERO (A.D. 54-68)
1. NERO THE EMPEROR AT THE TIME OF THE WRITING: He is
the fifth king "who is." Suetonius’ enumeration of
the emperors was: Julius, Augustus, Tiberius, Gaius
or Caligula, Claudius (the five kings who have fallen
at the time that John is writing), Nero (one "who
is"), and Galba - one who "has not yet come, but
when he does come, he must remain for a little while"
- seven months (Rev. 17:10)
2. NERO DEMANDED WORSHIP: Rev. 13:5-8. Inscriptions have
been found in Ephesus in which Nero is called
"Almighty God" and "Savior." He and Caligula
"abandoned all reserve" in promoting emperor worship
- they were the only two who demanded divine honors
while still alive. Nero claimed to be Apollo.
3. NERO’S PERSECUTION OF THE CHURCH
1. 42 MONTHS IN DURATION: from November, A.D. 64
through June, A.D. 68. John banished to Patmos
during this persecution (Rev. 1:9) and Peter
and Paul died in A.D. 66 or 67.
2. PREDICTED PRECISELY BY JOHN: Rev. 13:5 - "The beast
was given ... authority for forty-two months. ...
He was given power to make war against the saints
and to conquer them."
3. THE FEROCITY OF THE PERSECUTION: Tacitus reported
that Nero "inflicted unheard-of punishments on
those who, detested for their abominable crimes,
were vulgarly called Christians" (Annals 15.44).
The persecution claimed "an immense number"
(Tacitus), "a vast multitude of the elect"
(1 Clement 6).
4. NERO’S BEAST-LIKE CHARACTER
1. HE MURDERED HIS OWN FAMILY MEMBERS
2. HE "MARRIED" A BOY, THEN CASTRATED HIM
3. HE KICKED HIS PREGNANT WIFE TO DEATH
4. HIS SADISTIC SPORT: Suetonius writes that Nero
"devised a kind of game in which, covered with
the skin of some wild animal, he was let loose
from a cage and attacked the private parts of
men and women, who were bound to stakes."
(The Lives of the Caesars, 6.29)
5. HE WAS EVEN CALLED "THE BEAST": Tacitus ...
spoke of Nero's ‘cruel nature' that ‘put to death
so many innocent men.' Pliny the Elder ...
described Nero as ‘the destroyer of the human
race' and ‘the poison of the world.' Juvenal
tells of ‘Nero's cruel and bloody tyranny.'
Apollonius of Tyana specifically states that
Nero was called a ‘beast': ‘In my travels, which
have been wider than ever man yet accomplished,
I have seen man, many wild beasts of Arabia and
India; but this beast, that is commonly called
a Tyrant, I know not how many heads it has, nor
if it be crooked of claw, and armed with horrible
fangs. ... And of wild beasts you cannot say that
they were ever known to eat their own mother,
but Nero has gorged himself on this diet."
5. NERO’S DEATH: He committed suicide by the sword
at the age of 31. Cf. Rev. 13:10 - "If anyone
is to go into captivity, into captivity he will
go. If anyone kills with the sword, with the
sword he will be killed."
6. NERO’S NUMBER
1. Rev. 13:18 - "Let him who has understanding
calculate the number of the beast, for the
number is that of a man: and his number is 666."
(NASV)
2. THE HEBREWS HAD NO NUMERALS, and so, used
letters to signify numbers, just as the Romans
did. Neron Caesar (the Greek rendering,
documented by archaeological finds), when
transliterated into Hebrew (NRWN QSR) had
a number of 666.
3. FURTHER EVIDENCE: A well-documented textual
variant has 616. A mere copyist's error?
Bruce Metzger speculates: "Perhaps the change
was intentional, seeing that the Greek form
Neron Caesar written in Hebrew characters
(nrwn qsr) is equivalent to 666, whereas
the Latin form Nero Caesar (nrw qsr) is
equivalent to 616."
--
Pastor Dave
Tragedy is a tool for the living to gain wisdom.
not a guide, by which to live. - Robert Kennedy
.
|
|
| User: "Ted J L" |
|
| Title: Re: I APOLOGIZE & OUTLINE |
12 Aug 2007 01:10:02 PM |
|
|
In article <di9ub319dtea2h7gn5s3fb4cdl1peq23in@4ax.com>, says...
<SNIP>
Ask yourself... If you knew that you could not deny
that Jesus said He would return within the same
generation, would you be able to stay a Christian,
given your literalist beliefs about the new heaven
and earth, etc.?
<SNIP>
You sure hang a heavy burden on the word generation. Try comparing
scripture to scripture and see if your understanding makes sense.
E.g., the first time the word is used is in Genesis 7
concerning the generation at the time of Noah. That generation
passed with the flood.
"And the LORD said unto Noah, Come thou and all thy house into the ark;
for thee have I seen righteous before me in this generation." [Gen 7:1]
Now look how Matthew begins:
"The book of the generation of Jesus Christ,
the son of David, the son of Abraham". [Mat 1:1]
The generation of Christ started with Abraham.
Mine begins with Christ.
"He which testifieth these things saith, Surely I come quickly.
Amen. Even so, come, Lord Jesus."[Rev 22:20]
--
..
"Yea, and all that will live godly in Christ Jesus shall suffer persecution."
2 Timothy 3:12
.
|
|
|
| User: "Pastor Dave" |
|
| Title: Re: I APOLOGIZE & OUTLINE |
13 Aug 2007 01:29:59 PM |
|
|
On Sun, 12 Aug 2007 18:10:02 GMT,
publicmien@yahoo.com.INV (Ted J L) wrote:
I did not write this message to insult you in any way,
so please do not misunderstand my intent. I am only
seeking to be direct, not insulting.
And please read what I've written carefully and think
it over honestly, instead of responding without having
carefully thought it through.
I say this, because in your writing, it is very obvious that
you did not even completely read what I posted, forget
about studying it. (: So I must ask, how are you qualified
to tell me whether or not my argument is sound? You
state that I should compare Scripture with Scripture and
yet, did not do the study, right? You may have skimmed
it quickly, but that isn't reading and I know that you did
not stop and look up each passage, even though I clearly
stated it is a study. Now of course you don't have to do
anything you don't want to do. All I'm saying, is that if
you're going to comment and tell me I'm wrong, you
should at least have thoroughly examined the argument.
I ask that you PLEASE read this through, BEFORE responding
and that if you do respond, that you PLEASE NOT avoid
the Scriptures I quoted, by quoting other Scriptures and
not answering to the points made, as if to say, "Well, that
can't be right, because look at this.". I'm not saying that
you personally would do that, but I am covering this base,
because it is the most common approach when a Futurist
responds to Scriptures I've quoted and all they end up
doing, is trying to fight Scripture with Scripture and we
both know that's not a proper approach, amen?
Anyway, on with the post! :)
<SNIP>
Ask yourself... If you knew that you could not deny
that Jesus said He would return within the same
generation, would you be able to stay a Christian,
given your literalist beliefs about the new heaven
and earth, etc.?
<SNIP>
You sure hang a heavy burden on the word generation.
I hung no burden at all. The burden is hung by the one
who claims that the word doesn't mean what it says.
Believing what it says and doing so using the definition
of the word, is not "hanging a heavy burden on it".
It is the person who tries to redefine a generation
into meaning thousands of years, that places the
heavy burden on it.
And let me note that you did not answer the question.
You snipped all of my post and made sure to leave
this question in and yet, did not answer it. Why not?
Does that question scare you? If not, then please
answer it, since he question has nothing to do with
a discussion about the word "generation". My question
assumes something and asks you to answer based on
that assumption and that's why it said, "IF".
Now I have responded to your comments, but will not
go any further with you, if you respond again, unless
you have answered my question. I consider it quite rude
to expect me to take the time to respond to your comments
and yet, not answer to anything that I posted and not even
the question that you left in. (:
Once again...
IF you knew that you could not deny that Jesus said He
would return within the same generation, would you be
able to stay a Christian, given your literalist beliefs
about the new heaven and earth, etc.?
Try comparing scripture to scripture and see if your
understanding makes sense.
I have. Many times. I started out like you. That was
years ago. And I have read my Bible thoroughly. I
don't say this to brag, but just so you know I am not
like most people, especially Futurists, who claim to
read their Bibles and have never read it all. I have
read the entire Bible 15 times, various parts of the OT
hundreds of times and the entire NT hundreds of times.
You did not read what was posted. Show us where
the New Testament says "generation" AND the word
"genea" is the Greek word behind it AND it means
something other than a normal generation.
E.g., the first time the word is used is in Genesis 7
concerning the generation at the time of Noah. That
generation passed with the flood.
"And the LORD said unto Noah, Come thou and all
thy house into the ark; for thee have I seen righteous
before me in this generation." [Gen 7:1]
You just made my point for me. :)
You see, you are *interpreting* it to mean all people
who ever lived up to that point. The reality is, that
God said, "this generation" and He said that it was
Noah who was righteous before Him in that generation.
No offense, but this is the typical Futurist approach.
Quote verses out of context and add your own
meaning to it.
You went looking for support for your doctrine and
you didn't carefully examine the Scriptures. (:
Maybe you should examine the Scriptures and see if
your doctrine holds water, instead of assuming your
doctrine to be true and then filtering the Scriptures
through it, trying to force them to fit it, as you just
did here. No offense. I'm just telling you what I see.
Now look how Matthew begins:
"The book of the generation of Jesus Christ,
the son of David, the son of Abraham". [Mat 1:1]
The generation of Christ started with Abraham.
I can understand how you would make this mistake.
You aren't looking at the original text. The NT was
translated from a common street Greek, called
"Koine Greek". Well, except Luke and Acts, which
approach Classical Greek and shows that Luke was
an educated man. Of course, being a physician,
he would be. :) But my point is, that the Koine Greek
word behind the word "generation" in Matthew 1:1,
which is what you quoted, is not "genea" and therefore,
is irrelevant to the discussion. The Koine Greek word
in Matthew 1:1, is actually "genesis" (I know, what a
coincidence!) and means either "nativity", or "nature".
So when you talk about comparing Scripture with
Scripture, I agree with you, but you have not done
that friend. :) And I don't mean that as an insult.
As I said, I can understand your mistake, since
your reading it only in English.
I would be critical on three points though:
1) You cannot take an English translation and act
as if it was written in that language. And while
the word of God is inerrant, translators are
not and they make mistakes and they let their
doctrinal biases creep in.
2) You cannot compare words from the original
languages between the OT and the NT, since
the OT was written in Hebrew (with some
Aramaic) and the NT was written in Koine Greek
and therefore the original word behind the word
"generation" in a particular OT passage may
mean something different than the original word
behind a particular NT passage, since they are
in fact, translated from two different languages.
3) You claim that I have the burden with the word
"generation" and yet, you already know that even
if we used the English, the count would be way
higher in support of my statement, than yours.
Especially considering the fact that the word is
preceded with the word "this", thereby specifying
that He is speaking of a normal generation and
specifically, the one living at the time. And to
post two verses, one of which supports my
argument and then act like you have somehow
proved your case and that I now have a big
burden as you claimed, is, no offense, simply
ridiculous! And if that's the best you've got,
then frankly, you should be asking yourself
why you believe in a Futurist doctrine!
As for this discussion, the only instances of the word
"generation" that are relevant, are those in which the
Koine Greek word behind it is "genea", which is the
case in Matthew 24:34. And there are actually 24
instances of this occurring in the Bible (I used the KJV
version for this comparison, since most of them are
done with this translation, since it is the classic and
everyone has it. :) Please read them all and see for
yourself what they say. You will find that they all
speak of the generation alive at the time.
Mat 11:16; 12:39; 12:41; 12:42; 12:45; 16:4; 17:17;
23:26; 24:34
Mark 8:12; 8:38; 9:19; 13:30
Luke 1:50; 7:31; 9:41; 11:29; 11:30; 11:31; 11:32;
11:50; 11:51; 16:8; 17:25; 21:32
Acts 2:40; 8:33; 13:36
Heb 3:10
I would also like to note that no Futurist that I have
seen argues that the word "generation" in Mat 23:36
means anything other than a normal generation.
Yet, even though Jesus' speech to the scribes and
Pharisees in the Temple took place immediately
before His discourse on the mount in Matthew 24,
they claim that is means something else entirely
in Matthew 24:34 and do so, even though it is the
same Koine Greek phrase ("houtos genea") and is
translated to the same phrase ("this generation")!
Huh??? :)
As I said, please read them and see for yourself.
Furthermore, you forget to put yourself in the place
of the hearers. What would you think, if I said to
you, "This generation is the worse ever." ?
Would you think I meant all of the people since Christ?
No, of course not and we both know that. :)
Btw, do you have a decent piece of Bible study software
that you can use? If not, there is a free one, which is
called e-Sword. It is what I use and I'll tell you, I have
tried many packages, even very expensive ones costing
about $1,000. And while they may have more maps
and look prettier, when it comes to functionality and
ease of use, I have found that e-Sword is the winner,
hands down! And tons of free add-ons can be added
and are on the same web site! There are a few "locked"
Bible versions that if you download, you'll need a key for,
but Rick only charges for versions that he also has to pay
for. All others are free and there are many of them and
maps and dictionaries, etc.!
Personally, I use the Strong's Hebrew/Greek dictionary.
Dictionaries like Thayer's, et al, add definitions to words,
with whatever way the doctrinal wind is blowing at the
moment (I have proved this) and you end up with words
that have like 12 definitions. Please! (:
Furthermore, Koine Greek is a dead language and so,
it is impossible for definitions to change or be added
and even if it were a form of Greek that's still around,
it would be the definitions at the time when the texts
were written that would matter.
The KJV with Strong's is free. Personally, I use an
add-on for e-Sword that isn't found on his web site,
that is the KJV with the Strong's, but the Strong's
also has "voice, mood and tense". That's probably
a little deeper than you want to go right now though.
But if you want it in the future, let me know and I'll
email it to you, since I don't remember what web site
I got it from. And as I said, there are many Bible
versions that are free for download in addition to
the KJV module. :)
If you'd like to try e-Sword, just go to... www.e-Sword.net
Click on "Downloads" near the top and after getting
the main package, remember that there is a little
pull down menu that allows you to change the screen
to available Bibles, Dictionaries, Encyclopedias, etc.,
for download of them.
Mine [generation] begins with Christ.
No, THE AGE you're in began with Christ. :)
"He which testifieth these things saith, Surely I come
quickly. Amen. Even so, come, Lord Jesus."[Rev 22:20]
Again, you prove my point. :) Why don't you believe
what you read? You will surely say that you do, but
look at what it says and read it without your "My own
doctrine cannot be wrong and all Scripture must be
read that way" glasses on. :) And then look at what
you think it means.
Side note: I would also like to note that you are so
indoctrinated into your Futurist doctrine, that you
immediately assume that what YOU THINK it says,
is what it actually says and that what YOU'RE THINKING
is somehow telepathically transmitted to everyone else!
I happen to know Futurist doctrine of many variations
very well and so, I happen to know what you think it
means, but the reality is, that statement must be read
as if we were in the first century, since that is when it
was written and that changes everything, my friend! :)
The Greek word in the verse you quoted means "shortly"
and "without delay". 2,000 years is one huge delay!!!
You read that passage and all those like it, as if the Bible
was written and then sealed until you were born, as if it
were placed in a time vacuum, waiting just for you to
open it and start the clock again. (: And please don't
bother denying that, because if you didn't think like that
(whether that exact thought or not), you would not have
quoted that verse as if it proved that it's about your time!
When was that written? It was written in the first century,
not the twenty first. Therefore, "quickly" means quickly
from that point in time. Time statements in any text are
from the point in time when it was written. Just like all
future tense statements. You cannot read an ancient text
and then claim, "It's in my future, because look, it's in
the future tense!". I'm sorry, but that isn't a proper way
to interpret a text. The ONLY thing that can HONESTLY
be said about a future tense statement in an ancient text,
is that it was still in the future when the text was written
and that's ALL one can HONESTLY say about it. What
you are doing, is assuming, as I said, that the Bible was
written in a time vacuum and that when you opened it,
that's when all of the time statements in the Bible apply
to, because you believe (this will sound harsh, sorry)
that God had the Scriptures written, to ignore everyone
else, throughout time, because it's all about you. You
may not like hearing that, but it is you that's waiting for
Him to return in your generation (note that word again).
I know that you will NOW claim that you don't think that
way, but we both know what the deal is! :)
Sadly, I have even had Futurists say to me;
"If the Bible's not all about us, then what good is it?".
....And they don't think that's ego and vanity?!?!?!
How many times did Jesus look right at His disciples
and others and say the word "you" to them? And
how many times do you read it as if He's ignoring
the people standing in front of Him and think He is
really talking to you? And how many times, when
someone asks about passages like Matthew 24:34,
find yourself saying, "Well, what Jesus REALLY
meant was..." ???
Translation: I know what He said, but since He didn't
show up the way I believe it was supposed to happen,
I have to move the "when", to accommodate my "how",
even though I know it doesn't work that way and even
though it doesn't sit right with me. But I'll push down
those feelings and that guilty twinge, so I can keep
believing it's about me.
Think about that, my brother. :) And again, I'm sorry
for the harsh tone. I really don't mean it as it reads.
But I know my writing comes off many times and if
I'm upset with the person. As I said, I am just being
direct and appreciate honesty in communication.
But ask yourself, if it is all about us today, then why
did Jesus come in the first century, instead of the
twenty first? And if Scripture is all about us today,
then why did God stop inspiring Scripture in the
first century? Have you ever thought about these
things? Seriously, please, do think about them.
I know that you're thinking, "Well, if it's all been
fulfilled, then what's the point?". The reality is,
that God's Kingdom is not about whether or not
the prophecies were about your generation. If
\that's what you're basing your faith on, then
you're saying that all other generations were
worthless to God. You really are at that point.
Think about it, brother.
Now let me guess... You're going to tell me how Peter
said that 1,000 years = 1 day in "God time", even though
that isn't true, but you need it to be, because you just got
backed into a corner and your doctrine is more important
to you than the word of God, right? Maybe you won't,
but that is the typical response from Futurists.
I'm sorry if that sounds harsh, but it is what Futurists
always do. (:
The fact is, you quote that passage to claim that Jesus
is coming soon, meaning in your time, because you
think that it's you who is in the last days. You stand
up in church and say "Amen!" if the pastor says that
"We are the generation that is in the last days!".
Now think about that. Seriously!
And isn't it just so convenient for you that the word
"generation" becomes exactly that, when you think it's
all about you and even though you know the pastor's
referring to Matthew 24:34 when he says that, but it
becomes something else entirely when it's pointed out
to you what Jesus said in Matthew 24:34 and according
to you, He didn't return in that same generation?
Yes, very convenient indeed! (:
But the Bible says that they were in the last days back
then, in the first century...
Hebrews 1:1-2
1) God, who at various times and in various ways
spoke in time past to the fathers by the prophets,
2) has IN THESE LAST DAYS spoken to us by
His Son, whom He has appointed heir of all things,
through whom also He made the worlds.
And please, do not respond by trying to tell me;
"Well, the last days started then, but they're still
going on now."
....because we would both know that's not what you
have believed all of this time and you would just be
making that up on the fly, to avoid having to admit
to what you just read from Scripture. And avoiding
Scripture is certainly not a Christian approach, nor is
changing one's doctrine on the fly to work around it
and then acting as if all is well with one's doctrine. (:
Furthermore, when we look at Hebrews 1:1-2 and
then look at 1 John, which was written later, we see
that it went from the last days down to the last hour!
"Little children, it is the last hour..." - 1 John 2:18
Now how do we get from "the last days" to "the last
hour" within the same generation and then try to claim
that the last hour has so far taken almost 2,000 years?!
John wrote the above to a first century audience.
And he wrote the following to a first century audience
as well and even listed seven churches that were real
churches and did exist and that's who he was addressing
it to and he said...
Revelation 1:1-3
1) The Revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave
unto him, to show unto his servants things which
MUST SHORTLY come to pass; and he sent and
signified it by his angel unto his servant John:
Note: It says that the events in the writing would
SHORTLY come to pass.
Note: It says that they MUST shortly come to pass.
It isn't optional! :)
2) Who bare record of the word of God, and of
the testimony of Jesus Christ, and of all things
that he saw.
No comment needed for v2. :)
3) Blessed is he that readeth, and they that hear the
words of this prophecy, and keep those things which
are written therein: FOR THE TIME IS AT HAND.
Note: The time is AT HAND.
Note: THE TIME is at hand.
Now before you play any "time games" here, you should
also note that while Daniel was told to seal his Messianic
book and 600 years later, the Messiah appeared and
unsealed it, even quoting Daniel 12 and applying it
to Himself at that time, John was specifically told NOT
to seal his book, because THE TIME was AT HAND.
"And he saith unto me, Seal not the sayings of the prophecy
of this book: for the time is at hand." - Revelation 22:10
Now am I supposed to believe that Daniel was told to seal
his writing, because 600 years had to pass and that John
was told not to seal his book, because the time was at hand
and that meant that almost 2,000 tears and still counting
had to pass? Huh?!? Please! That insults everyone's
intelligence! (:
It seems that it is YOU who is placing "heavy burdens"
on words, my brother! :)
And how did John close out the writing?
Revelation 22:7,10,12
7) Behold, I come QUICKLY: blessed is he that keepeth
the saying of the prophecy of this book.
10) And he saith unto me, Seal not the sayings of the
prophecy of this book: FOR THE TIME IS AT HAND.
12) And, behold, I come QUICKLY; and my reward
is with me, to give every man according as his work
shall be.
And now, let's take a look at that last verse and compare it
to another verse. And before you try to tell me that what
I'm about to show you is about the Transfiguration, or
Pentecost, that won't work and you would be ignoring
the wording of both Matthew and Revelation being the
same (you will see which verse from Matthew below).
Furthermore, neither of those events would have matched
all of the conditions in these verses, such as coming with
angels and only some (at least one, but not most) being
alive and rewarding every man according to his works, etc..
None of those things happened at either the Transfiguration,
nor Pentecost (again, it is quoted below).
And again, NOTE THE WORDING HERE and remember that
even you believe that in Revelation 22:12, Jesus is speaking
of His return in judgment and the wording is the same in
Matthew 16! There is no denying that! So no, I won't buy
your claim, if you try to tell me that Revelation 22:12 was
not about His Second Coming in judgment. :)
I will place the verse from Revelation in there as well,
with the verses from Matthew 16, so that you can see
and compare them for yourself.
Matthew 16:27-28
16) 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.
"And, behold, I come QUICKLY; and my reward is
with Me, to give every man according as his work
shall be." - Revelation 22:12
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.
Now this is clear as a bell! Some standing right there
would not die, before THEY saw Jesus returning in
His Kingdom, with His Father's angels, to reward every
man according to his works. There is no way around
this, not even claiming that they would see Him after
being resurrected, because that wouldn't happen until
after He arrives and it would also mean that you would
be saying that only some of them would be resurrected.
My brother, you may be a very honest person who would
not try any of the tactics I listed here. And I sincerely
do hope that you are! Basically, I was just cutting you
off at the pass to save a lot of time, just in case you were
going to use any of the common responses that I see the
Futurists using.
My point is, that I am not interested in ploys to protect
your doctrine at all costs, even at the expense of Scripture
and I am not interested at all, in any responses that are
not on point.
Basically, I am tired of the games being played and so,
I am hoping that you aren't the type of person to play
them.
Of course, in usenet, people become what I like to call,
"paper tigers". They find the anonymity here makes it
easy to use whatever ploys they want, even dishonest
ones and then actually think that just denying it and
attacking the other person makes them look honest.
The reality is, that they would never even try such things
in person, because they know they couldn't just run away
and spread falsehoods about the other person, to try to
distract from the fact that they refused to face up to the
music regarding their error. And it's not about my having
any glory out of it (cutting you off at the pass again, just
in case). It is about truth being acknowledge as truth.
I am perfectly willing to accept correction, but not by
obfuscating and deception and ignoring what I said.
You seem like a nice guy and probably wouldn't do that.
Again, I say these things just in case. :) While it may
make this message quote long, it will save me time in
the end if I type all of this now and since unfortunately,
there is a 99.9% chance that it will happen, I take the
chance and type it all now. :) But there is that 0.1%
that I HAVE experienced and I hope you're one of them!
But if you are going to use the tactics I've addressed here,
you can claim I ran away, or whatever you want to claim,
but I will not engage in a game of "dodge the Scripture",
nor "dodge the point", nor "misdirect the discussion by
insulting the other guy", etc., etc. and will promptly exit
the discussion and not really care what you have to say
after that.
However, if you have an intelligent, well thought out
response and can teach me something, then fine. I am
not perfect and I am willing to learn from whomever.
Yes, even pastors can learn and don't know everything. :)
But if it will be you making up things as you go, to avoid
questioning your doctrine, then I won't be interested.
Believe it or not, to question a doctrine, is not to
question God and one does not disbelieve the Bible,
just because they begin to disbelieve their doctrine.
I went through this, so I know. :) In fact, I actually
thought I was either going to have to prove the Futurist
(I didn't know it was called that, since I didn't even know
there were other options) doctrine correct, or give up my
faith, because I knew that the doctrine was not making
sense and was full of attempts to get around what Jesus
said in many places and I couldn't live with that. And
we both know that's what it boils down to and I believe
that you know this as well as I do and you have just
accepted these things, knowing they don't make sense,
because you figured that you said they were wrong,
you'd be saying that the Bible isn't true and brother,
I'm here to tell you, that isn't the case!
In fact, if you want to get to know me better and what
it is that I believe and how I came to believe it (I used
to be a Futurist), then please read the following, which
isn't that long...
http://tinyurl.com/34c2mr
And btw, did you know that the reason that many preachers
leave the pulpit, is Matthew 24:34? you see, they are
taught a certain understanding of HOW Jesus is supposed
to return and yet, it nags at them, because they know that
the WHEN was also part of the promise and they just can't
be dishonest with themselves, nor with their flocks any
longer! They know what Jesus said and so do you and I!
I came to that same point myself and almost left the pulpit
as well. As I said, I thought that to question the doctrine
was to question the existence of God. Boy, was I wrong!!!
It isn't!!! It is only questioning what we were taught
about the "how"!
What if I could prove to you (or at least make it extremely
plausible) that, for example, Jesus never said that He would
literally ride clouds when he returned, while still saying
that the Bible is inerrant and without trying to remove
Matthew 24:29-31 and leave it as your Bible words it?
I know, I know, you read it and say, "But it's right there!"
and I am saying to you, Jesus did not say that He would
literally ride literal clouds into judgment!
Hmmm... Makes ya think, huh? :)
You see, when Jesus said, "Assuredly (Verily) I say to
you, this generation shall not pass, till all these things
be fulfilled", what you don't realize, is that in the
original Koine Greek, the word that is translated into
"Assuredly/Verily", is very emphatic! In other words,
it is as if Jesus is staking His entire credibility on this
one statement! And so, for us to try to play with it,
because we don't think it happened, because of the
way we were brainwashed into thinking it is supposed
to happen, which ignores the Old Testament proofs
that it is otherwise, then we have done a great
disservice to God's word!!! (:
Read Deuteronomy 18:22. Every part of what Jesus
said had to happen, including the "when", or He was
a false prophet! It's that simple!
The bottom line is, we don't get to move the "when",
just because of how we interpret the "how". And the
truth is, the way that the "how" is interpreted in this
doctrine of Futurism, is based on an almost complete
ignorance of the Old Testament Scriptures! You may
think that you study them, but I highly doubt it, dude.
You read certain passages and sections that Futurist
books and preachers tell you to read and you see it
the way that they say it is and in reality, they are
quoted completely out of context and mean something
else entirely! And a lot of these preachers don't even
realize just how badly their doctrine is mangling the
Scriptures, because they were taught in the same way.
Anyway, I look forward to your response and I hope
that it is specifically and directly on point and that
you don't try to hand wave away what I've said here,
or once again, snip almost everything I wrote and
respond to one little statement, as if your comment
somehow proves everything I've said wrong, when
we both know better than that. :)
God bless!
.
|
|
|
| User: "Ted J L" |
|
| Title: Re: I APOLOGIZE & OUTLINE |
14 Aug 2007 10:27:58 PM |
|
|
In article <l1m0c399ccl1l29bim40pdh1eahfs86dud@4ax.com>, says...
On Sun, 12 Aug 2007 18:10:02 GMT,
publicmien@yahoo.com.INV (Ted J L) wrote:
<SNIP>
Now look how Matthew begins:
"The book of the generation of Jesus Christ,
the son of David, the son of Abraham". [Mat 1:1]
The generation of Christ started with Abraham.
I can understand how you would make this mistake.
You aren't looking at the original text. <SNIP>
Wow, quite a lot of verbage in your post (courtesy-snipped here) built around
the common age-old theme captured in the above quote and that of
Genesis 3 beginning at verse 1:
"Yea, hath God said...?"
--
"And the Lord direct your hearts into the
love of God, and into the patient waiting for Christ...
And if any man obey not our word by this epistle, note that man,
and have no company with him, that he may be ashamed." [2TH 3:5,14]
.
|
|
|
| User: "Pastor Dave" |
|
| Title: Re: I APOLOGIZE & OUTLINE |
15 Aug 2007 07:16:41 AM |
|
|
On Wed, 15 Aug 2007 03:27:58 GMT,
(Ted J L) wrote:
<SNIP>
Now look how Matthew begins:
"The book of the generation of Jesus Christ,
the son of David, the son of Abraham". [Mat 1:1]
The generation of Christ started with Abraham.
I can understand how you would make this mistake.
You aren't looking at the original text. <SNIP>
Wow, quite a lot of verbage in your post
(courtesy-snipped here) built around the
common age-old theme captured in the
above quote and that of Genesis 3
beginning at verse 1: "Yea, hath God said...?"
So now I am like the serpent, who questioned whether
or not God said something? Wow! That's just flat out
a vicious thing to say!
It is really sad to see someone so desperate to hang on
to their doctrine, that they cover their eyes when they are
shown what the Bible says (and that is what I showed you).
I was hoping you might be different, since at first, even
though you snipped almost all of what I said, you were
not insulting. But I guess once again, a Futurist smashes
that hope of honest communication. (:
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "®andy" |
|
| Title: Re: I APOLOGIZE & OUTLINE |
14 Aug 2007 07:24:35 AM |
|
|
On Mon, 13 Aug 2007 14:29:59 -0400,
in article <l1m0c399ccl1l29bim40pdh1eahfs86dud@4ax.com>,
Pastor Dave <noone@nowhere.com> wrote:
On Sun, 12 Aug 2007 18:10:02 GMT,
publicmien@yahoo.com.INV (Ted J L) wrote:
I did not write this message to insult you in any way,
(A fairly reliable indicator Dave knows he's going to insult
someone, but wants to try and justify it beforehand.)
©2007 pulpitfire.net, pulpitfire.org, pulpitfire.com
--
We demolish arguments and every pretension that sets itself
up against the knowledge of God, and we take captive every
thought to make it obedient to Christ. †2 Corinthians 10:5
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).
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "snowpheonix" |
|
| Title: Re: I APOLOGIZE & OUTLINE |
13 Aug 2007 08:34:56 AM |
|
|
On Aug 13, 1:29=C2=A0am, Pastor Dave <no...@nowhere.com> wrote:
I apologize for my rough tone in my last usenet message.
I guess I simply do not understand the mentality that
refuses to question doctrine,
I'll be happy to question your doctrine.
regardless of what the Bible
says and attempts to rearrange the Bible, to suit a doctrine
and this is done by Futurists whenever I show them something.
From the look of this "apoligy" your getting ready to do just that.
Some new piece of doctrine is made up on the fly to cover
for it. =C2=A0Show them that Isaiah 65:17-20 and Rev 21:1-4 both
speak of the new heaven and earth and yet, one says that there
will be death and the says that there won't and immediately,
a new invention pops up that says that one is speaking about
the millennium and one is about after the judgment.
Or possibly you didn't understand:
Rev 21:1 And I saw a renewed heaven and a renewed earth, for the
former heaven and the former earth had passed away, and the sea is no
more.
=C2=A0Did they
ever believe that before? =C2=A0No. =C2=A0And then, when I respond by
showing them that both say "new heaven and earth", the
personal attacks begin.
I can still go with your translation given it's not going to conflict
with scripture.
There is only one translation for that and it is:
"My doctrine is all important to me, because I like it
and the word of God be damned! =C2=A0I don't care what it says!"
The truth is, they are symbolism. =C2=A0Just as the New Jerusalem
is. =C2=A0In fact, Rev 21:2,9-10 even says so.
Rev 21:9 And one of the seven messengers who held the seven bowls
filled with the seven last plagues came to me and spoke with me,
saying, =E2=80=9CCome, I shall show you the bride, the Lamb=E2=80=99s wife.=
=E2=80=9D
Rev 21:10 And he carried me away in the Spirit to a great and high
mountain, and showed me the great city, the set-apart Yerushalayim,
descending out of the heaven from Elohim,
I don't see where it says it's a symbol. Because the bride is the
church, of course it's in Jerusalem.
=C2=A0The angel says
to John that he will show him the bride of the Lamb and
the angel immediately shows him the city. =C2=A0Hello??? =C2=A0:)
Nowhere does it say it is literal. =C2=A0And Paul even gives
a similar description in Ephesians 2:19-22. =C2=A0So why is
Revelation taken as being physically literal?
Eph 2:19 So then you are no longer strangers and foreigners, but
fellow citizens with the set-apart ones and members of the household
of Elohim,1 Footnote: 1Rom. 11:17-24, Isa. 14:1.
Eph 2:20 having been built upon the foundation of the emissaries and
prophets, =D7=99=D7=94=D7=95=D7=A9=D7=A2 Messiah Himself being chief corner=
-stone,
Eph 2:21 in whom all the building, being joined together, grows into a
set-apart Dwelling Place in =D7=99=D7=94=D7=95=D7=94,
Now this is about the holy spirit making people part of the promise
via the Messiah and has no relations to the first.
Anyway, you asked me why I said that Jesus and the
Apostles preached a return within that generation.
The following, shows in part why.
There is one thing that you have to get a grip on and that is
Deut 18:22.
Since Jesus prophesied about the temple destruction, his own death and
and rising from the dead, I think they believed him when Thomas saw
the nails in his hand.
We do not get to move the times, because we
want to believe something and then insist it's still true,
even though the promise of "when" was not lived up to.
We have to accept that either Jesus lived up to his promises,
or He didn't and that if He said "when", then that is part of
the promise, just as much as the "how".
Furthermore, Hebrews 1:1-2 says that they were in the
last days back then and Peter's words are actually
proof that they were in the last days back then.
Heb 1:2 has in these last days spoken to us by the Son, whom He has
appointed heir of all, through whom also He made the ages,
But the point is that everyday should be lived as if Christ is going
to return tomorrow and we should be ready as the Messiah instructed.
He gave several parables to be ready for his return at any time.
Peter was responding to a letter that told him that
scoffers were saying, "Where is the promise of His coming?!".
Peter responded by saying that is something that would
happen in the last days. =C2=A0Obvious meaning... =C2=A0He was
letting them know that since they were in the last days,
that they shouldn't be surprised.
Furthermore, how could these scoffers come into the church
and scoff about Christ not having returned yet, if Christ
left the idea of maybe thousands of years going by and
gave no indication at all? =C2=A0Sure He said no one would
know THE DAY nor THE HOUR, but He did say that it would
be within the SAME GENERATION! =C2=A0And that is why they
were scoffing! =C2=A0Here it was, about 30 or so years later
and He had not returned!
No, actually he told them that they were a wicked generation and that
the ONLY sign they would have was the sign of Johah, They got that!
Mat 16:4 A wicked and adulterous generation seeketh after a sign; and
there shall no sign be given unto it, but the sign of the prophet
Jonah. And he left them, and departed.
The bottom line is, they weren't just saying, "Why hasn't
He returned?". =C2=A0They said, "Where is the PROMISE of His
coming?".
What was the promise??? =C2=A0"Assuredly I say to you, before
this generation passes, all these things will take place!"
What he said was:
Mat 23:34 =E2=80=9CBecause of this, see, I send you prophets, and wise men,
and scholars of Scripture.1 Some of them you shall kill and impale,
and some of them you shall flog in your congregations and persecute
from city to city, Footnote:1See 13:52.
Mat 23:35 so that on you should come all the righteous blood shed on
the earth, from the blood of righteous Heb=CC=B1el to the blood of
Zek=CC=B1aryah, son of Berek=CC=B1yah, whom you murdered between the Dwelli=
ng
Place and the altar.
Mat 23:36 =E2=80=9CTruly, I say to you, all this shall come upon this
generation.
And it did with Paul and the apostles, no suprises here. Seems you
like to cherry pick scriptures and make up your own meaning. Leave
the context next time.
I used to somewhat believe in a Futurist view, but did not
even know about a thing called "Preterism". =C2=A0And so, I,
like the others, thought that to question Futurism was to
question whether or not the Bible was true.
From what I'm reading so far, you still don't.
But I simply couldn't take it anymore. =C2=A0Here I was,
a preacher, preaching to others in a church gathering
and I was becoming less and less convinced of what
I was saying. =C2=A0i knew something had to be done!
So it wasn't about finding the truth it was about finding a new truth
to keep your job and feel good about what your saying.
Btw, did you know that one of the main reasons that ministers
leave the pulpit, is Matthew 24:34? =C2=A0Did you know that?
Maybe you should have considered joining since you already admitted
you didn't believe the bible.
What does that mean? =C2=A0It means that they know, as do you,
what that verse says and they are at least honest enough
to admit that Jesus did say that He was coming back in
the same generation! =C2=A0The problem is, since they were
indoctrinated into the literalism of Dispensationalism,
they figured that He didn't live up to His promise.
Just because you don't understand what he said, doesn't mean they
didn't.
Ask yourself... =C2=A0If you knew that you could not deny
that Jesus said He would return within the same
generation, would you be able to stay a Christian,
given your literalist beliefs about the new heaven
and earth, etc.?
But thats not what he said,
Mat 24:32 =E2=80=9CAnd learn this parable from the fig tree: When its branch
has already become tender and puts forth leaves, you know that the
summer is near.
Mat 24:33 =E2=80=9CSo you also, when you see all these, know that He is nea=
r,
at the doors.
Mat 24:34 =E2=80=9CTruly, I say to you, this generation shall by no means p=
*****
away until all this takes place.
The generation that saw the branches of the fig tree become tender and
put forth leaves. Just because you can't understand that when they
wrote the gospel, they didn't write 32:33:34.. it was a letter and the
numbers were added later.
We know the answer is no. =C2=A0And that is why you refuse
to seek out any other explanation, even though deep
down, you know He did say it. =C2=A0And it is your vanity
that also holds you back. =C2=A0Because you figure that if
the Bible is not all about you and your generation
(and note how you Futurists use that word to mean
exactly that, yet deny Jesus did), then it useless.
Now you even deny what your bible says and your a pastor, please quit
your job for the benifit of those who would listen to you.
Well, that is your prerogative. =C2=A0As for me, like I said,
I had to find out and so, I went on a mission.
And you made up a fiction because you didn't understand the plain
truth.. wow! I've had enough of this garbage.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Pastor Dave" |
|
| Title: Re: I APOLOGIZE & OUTLINE |
13 Aug 2007 02:17:14 PM |
|
|
On Mon, 13 Aug 2007 06:34:56 -0700, snowpheonix
<snowpheonix@eck.net.au> wrote:
On Aug 13, 1:29 am, Pastor Dave <no...@nowhere.com> wrote:
I apologize for my rough tone in my last usenet message.
I guess I simply do not understand the mentality that
refuses to question doctrine,
I'll be happy to question your doctrine.
I'm not interested in smart ***** remarks from people
who think they know it all and don't respond on point
and who think that just quoting a verse means that
whatever the believe is automatically true and is
telepathically transmitted to everyone else.
The truth is, they are symbolism. Just as the New Jerusalem
is. In fact, Rev 21:2,9-10 even says so.
Rev 21:9 And one of the seven messengers who held the seven bowls
filled with the seven last plagues came to me and spoke with me,
saying, “Come, I shall show you the bride, the Lamb’s wife.”
Rev 21:10 And he carried me away in the Spirit to a great and high
mountain, and showed me the great city, the set-apart Yerushalayim,
descending out of the heaven from Elohim,
I don't see where it says it's a symbol. Because the bride is the
church, of course it's in Jerusalem.
It doesn't say "in Jerusalem". It says that the angel said
to John, "Come, I shall show you the bride, the Lamb's wife"
and then the angel showed John the city. Now either the
city is symbolic of the bride being wed to Christ, ot Jesus
got married and decided to marry a literal city.
And btw, when you quoted Ephesians 2:19-22, according
to your literalism, you now must confess to believing that
Jesus will be a literal piece of cornerstone, since it calls
Him the cornerstone that this city is built on and you must
also confess to believing that the Apostles will be given a
mob enemy funeral and will be buried in the foundation,
since it is "built on the foundation of the Apostles".
Heb 1:2 has in these last days spoken to us by the Son,
whom He has appointed heir of all, through whom also
He made the ages,
But the point is that everyday should be lived as if Christ
is going to return tomorrow and we should be ready as
the Messiah instructed.
No, the point is that you now know that the Bible says
that they were in the last days then and you can't bring
yourself to admit it, because your doctrine is more
important to you than what God's word actually says,
so you try to brush it aside, as if it didn't just prove
your doctrine wrong. That is called being a dishonest
hypocrite. I'm sorry if that sounds harsh, but you're
either going to continue being a dishonest hypocrite,
or you're going to admit to the truth, which is that
the Bible says that the last days were in their time.
You don't like what I said about Futurists, how they refuse
to face up to the truth of what Scripture says and then you
come in here and prove it true!
The generation that saw the branches of the fig tree
become tender and put forth leaves.
That's not what Jesus said. That's what YOU said.
Jesus: THIS GENERATION
You: The generation that sees the fig tree, blah, blah.
Btw, since you're a literalist, where can we go see this
famous fig tree? :)
And gee, thanks for showing me my errors! <chuckle>
You have a nice day now. :)
.
|
|
|
| User: "Fred A Stover" |
|
| Title: Re: I APOLOGIZE & OUTLINE |
14 Aug 2007 04:42:26 AM |
|
|
"Pastor Knave" < SATAN @nowhere.com> wrote in message
news:8ta1c31veghmlk31mpt4mg4mi4b0f07hr5@4ax.com...
On Mon, 13 Aug 2007 06:34:56 -0700, snowpheonix
<snowpheonix@eck.net.au> wrote:
On Aug 13, 1:29 am, Pastor Dave <no...@nowhere.com> wrote:
I apologize for my rough tone in my last usenet message.
I guess I simply do not understand the mentality that
refuses to question doctrine,
I'll be happy to question your doctrine.
I'm not interested in smart ***** remarks from people
who think they know it all and don't respond on point
and who think that just quoting a verse means that
whatever the believe is automatically true and is
telepathically transmitted to everyone else.
That's the usual response when you cite scriptures that contradict his
opinion or correct his misreading of scripture.
His,
--
http://tinyurl.com/2hf6ak
Verily I say unto you, Whosoever shall not receive the kingdom of God as a
little child, he shall not enter therein. (Matk 10:15)
<)))))))><
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "snowpheonix" |
|
| Title: Re: I APOLOGIZE & OUTLINE |
15 Aug 2007 07:55:43 AM |
|
|
On Aug 14, 5:17=C2=A0am, Pastor Dave <no...@nowhere.com> wrote:
I'm not interested in smart ***** remarks from people
who think they know it all and don't respond on point
and who think that just quoting a verse means that
whatever the believe is automatically true and is
telepathically transmitted to everyone else.
Such words from the good pastor, why am I not suprised.
The truth is, they are symbolism. =C2=A0Just as the New Jerusalem
is. =C2=A0In fact, Rev 21:2,9-10 even says so.
It doesn't say "in Jerusalem". =C2=A0It says that the angel said
to John, "Come, I shall show you the bride, the Lamb's wife"
and then the angel showed John the city. =C2=A0Now either the
city is symbolic of the bride being wed to Christ, ot Jesus
got married and decided to marry a literal city.
Rev 21:2 And I John saw the holy city, new Jerusalem, coming down
from God out of heaven, prepared as a bride adorned for her husband.
And btw, when you quoted Ephesians 2:19-22, according
to your literalism, you now must confess to believing that
Jesus will be a literal piece of cornerstone, since it calls
Him the cornerstone that this city is built on and you must
also confess to believing that the Apostles will be given a
mob enemy funeral and will be buried in the foundation,
since it is "built on the foundation of the Apostles".
(The Scriptures 1998+) having been built upon the foundation of the
emissaries and prophets, =D7=99=D7=94=D7=95=D7=A9=D7=A2 Messiah Himself bei=
ng chief corner-
stone,
Of course he is the chief cornerstone and being that he is talking
about the Spirit of Elohim being the dwelling place it's fairly simple
to understand. The body is the temple and what better cornerstone to
have in your temple?
Heb 1:2 has in these last days spoken to us by the Son,
whom He has appointed heir of all, through whom also
He made the ages,
But the point is that everyday should be lived as if Christ
is going to return tomorrow and we should be ready as
the Messiah instructed.
No, the point is that you now know that the Bible says
that they were in the last days then and you can't bring
yourself to admit it, because your doctrine is more
important to you than what God's word actually says,
so you try to brush it aside, as if it didn't just prove
your doctrine wrong. =C2=A0That is called being a dishonest
hypocrite. =C2=A0I'm sorry if that sounds harsh, but you're
either going to continue being a dishonest hypocrite,
or you're going to admit to the truth, which is that
the Bible says that the last days were in their time.
Gen 49:1 And Jacob called unto his sons, and said, Gather yourselves
together, that I may tell you that which shall befall you in the last
days.
Do you also think that Jacob believed he was in the last days way back
in the book of Genesis? Or that his sons were going to see "the last
days"?
You don't like what I said about Futurists, how they refuse
to face up to the truth of what Scripture says and then you
come in here and prove it true!
You don't like the scriptures period and you don't believe and you
dare lecture me. Your the one without faith who probably believes in
evolution too.
The generation that saw the branches of the fig tree
become tender and put forth leaves.
That's not what Jesus said. =C2=A0That's what YOU said.
Jesus: THIS GENERATION
You: The generation that sees the fig tree, blah, blah.
Btw, since you're a literalist, where can we go see this
famous fig tree? :)
Mat 24:32 =E2=80=9CAnd learn this parable from the fig tree: When its branch
has already become tender and puts forth leaves, you know that the
summer is near. =E2=80=9CSo you also, when you see all these, know that He=
is
near, at the doors. =E2=80=9CTruly, I say to you, this generation shall by=
no
means pass away until all this takes place.
First off he said it's a parable.
Anybody knows the answer to that question.
But many conditions applied to that "generation" The branch has to
grow and become tender and put forth leaves.
And gee, thanks for showing me my errors! =C2=A0<chuckle>
Your error was your lack of faith, quit your job and take up another
occupation unless your more interested in a pay check.
You have a nice day now. :)
I will but I wonder how you can live in your unbelief and claim to be
a pastor. Your a blind leader heading for the ditch.
Mar 13:33 =E2=80=9CTake heed, watch and pray, for you do not know when the
time is =E2=80=93
.
|
|
|
| User: "Pastor Dave" |
|
| Title: Re: I APOLOGIZE & OUTLINE |
15 Aug 2007 12:53:27 PM |
|
|
On Wed, 15 Aug 2007 05:55:43 -0700, snowpheonix
<snowpheonix@eck.net.au> wrote:
On Aug 14, 5:17 am, Pastor Dave <no...@nowhere.com> wrote:
I'm not interested in smart ***** remarks from people
who think they know it all and don't respond on point
and who think that just quoting a verse means that
whatever the believe is automatically true and is
telepathically transmitted to everyone else.
Such words from the good pastor, why am I not suprised.
Trying to distract people from the subject will not work.
The truth is, they are symbolism. Just as the New Jerusalem
is. In fact, Rev 21:2,9-10 even says so.
It doesn't say "in Jerusalem". It says that the angel said
to John, "Come, I shall show you the bride, the Lamb's wife"
and then the angel showed John the city. Now either the
city is symbolic of the bride being wed to Christ, ot Jesus
got married and decided to marry a literal city.
Rev 21:2 And I John saw the holy city,
new Jerusalem, coming down from God
out of heaven, prepared as a bride adorned
for her husband.
You are intentionally skipping the verses that
you yourself mentioned. And you dishonestly
snipped my response, which proved that John
was speaking symbolically.
Revelation 21:2,9-10
2) Then I, John, saw the holy city, New Jerusalem,
coming down out of heaven from God, prepared
as a bride adorned for her husband.
9) Then one of the seven angels who had the seven
bowls filled with the seven last plagues came to me
and talked with me, saying, Come, I will show you
the bride, the Lamb’s wife.
10) And he carried me away in the Spirit to a great
and high mountain, and showed me the great city,
the holy Jerusalem, descending out of heaven
from God.
Bride = Church.
Lamb = Christ.
These you know you cannot deny.
The angel said to John that he was going to show
John the bride of the Lamb (v9).
The angel immediately took John and showed him
the New Jerusalem.
New Jerusalem = the bride being wed to Christ.
Now you can either deal with this, or choose to do
your usual, which is to ignore what contradicts your
doctrine, because your doctrine is what's important
to you, not God's word.
And btw, when you quoted Ephesians 2:19-22, according
to your literalism, you now must confess to believing that
Jesus will be a literal piece of cornerstone, since it calls
Him the cornerstone that this city is built on and you must
also confess to believing that the Apostles will be given a
mob enemy funeral and will be buried in the foundation,
since it is "built on the foundation of the Apostles".
(The Scriptures 1998+) having been built upon the foundation
of the emissaries and prophets, ????? Messiah Himself being
chief corner-stone,
You're obfuscating and ignoring the point I made.
Heb 1:2 has in these last days spoken to us by the Son,
whom He has appointed heir of all, through whom also
He made the ages,
But the point is that everyday should be lived as if Christ
is going to return tomorrow and we should be ready as
the Messiah instructed.
No, the point is that you now know that the Bible says
that they were in the last days then and you can't bring
yourself to admit it, because your doctrine is more
important to you than what God's word actually says,
so you try to brush it aside, as if it didn't just prove
your doctrine wrong. That is called being a dishonest
hypocrite. I'm sorry if that sounds harsh, but you're
either going to continue being a dishonest hypocrite,
or you're going to admit to the truth, which is that
the Bible says that the last days were in their time.
Gen 49:1 And Jacob called unto his sons, and said, Gather yourselves
together, that I may tell you that which shall befall you in the last
days.
Do you also think that Jacob believed he was in the last days way back
in the book of Genesis? Or that his sons were going to see "the last
days"?
1) You are trying to ignore the point, because it
contradicts your doctrine.
2) Jacob didn't say, "We are in the last days.".
He said, "Let me tell what will happen in
the last days.". He never put a time frame
on it.
3) The writer of Hebrews said, "THESE last days".
4) Your obfuscation didn't work.
I will not play this game. Get honest and then write back.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "®andy" |
|
| Title: Re: I APOLOGIZE & OUTLINE |
| | |
