| Topic: |
Religions > Bible |
| User: |
"Pastor Dave" |
| Date: |
09 Nov 2007 08:47:18 AM |
| Object: |
Oh, Chucky Chuckle Boy!!! - Part 2 |
Oh Chucky Chuck, Chuckle Boy,
Here's another taste! More is coming, slowly Chuckles,
because I want to have some fun with you, Cheeky Chuck!
And bear in mind, that the only thing related to the
subject title, is what Origen said and Luke 21:20-22,
et al. The rest is my comments, which have nothing
to do with whether or not supposed "church fathers"
did in fact speak of Christ having already returned,
which it is cleat that some of them did, even though
you said that not one did.
Now let's view this with what Origen is referring to,
which is that Christ spoke of His return in this wise...
Luke 21:20-22
20) But when you see Jerusalem surrounded by armies,
then know that its desolation is near.
21) Then let those who are in Judea flee to the mountains,
let those who are in the midst of her depart, and let not
those who are in the country enter her.
22) For these are the days of vengeance, that all things
which are written may be fulfilled.
Note here, that Jesus said that it is the desolation of
Jerusalem, that is "the days of vengeance".
Note also, that Jesus said that it meant that all things
written would be fulfilled.
And this matches perfectly with the parable that Jesus told
in Matthew 21:33-46, in which He said that it was the same
ones that killed the son that are those who the owner came
back to take vengeance on. And He also said that the
Kingdom would be taken from them and given to another
nation! Guess what? That means that it would no longer
be about national Israel, when the desolation of Jerusalem
happened! But don't believe me, read it and see for
yourself! And remember that the desolation of Jerusalem
did indeed happen already, within that same generation!
And now, knowing that this is about Christ's return,
let us see what Origen is referring to. Why, whadda
ya know?! It's the destruction of Jerusalem! You know,
the event that YOU ALSO claim happens at His return,
until you begin to be faced with the fact that this meant
that it already happened, WITHIN THAT SAME GENERATION!
Now, all of the sudden, you start telling me how it doesn't
mean that! BAWAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!
But let's see what Origen had to say!!! ....
Origen - 2nd Century
"I challenge anyone to prove my statement untrue if I say
that the entire Jewish nation was destroyed less than one
whole generation later on account of these sufferings which
they inflicted on Jesus. For it was, I believe, forty-two
years from the time when they crucified Jesus to the
destruction of Jerusalem." (Contra Celsum, 198-199)
<Insert Matt 23:36; 24:34. Hello Chucky, the Chuckle Boy?>
"Therefore he, also, having separated from her, married,
so to speak, another, having given into the hands of
the former the bill of divorcement; wherefore they can
no longer do the things enjoined on them by the law,
because of the bill of divorcement. And a sign that she
has received the bill of divorcement is this, that Jerusalem
was destroyed along with what they called the sanctuary
of the things in it which were believed to be holy, and
with the altar of burnt offerings, and all the worship
associated with it... And what was more unseemly than
the fact, that they all said in His case, "Crucify Him,
crucify Him," and "Away with such a fellow from the earth"?
And can this be freed from the charge of unseemliness,
"His blood be upon us, and upon our children"? Wherefore,
when He was avenged, Jerusalem was compassed with armies,
and its desolation was near, and their house was taken away
from it, and "the daughter of Zion was left as a booth in a
vineyard, and as a lodge in a garden of cucumbers, and as
a besieged city." And, about the same time, I think, the
husband wrote out a bill of divorcement to his former wife,
and gave it into her hands, and sent her away from his own
house, and the bond of her who came from the Gentiles has
been canceled about which the Apostle Says, "Having blotted
out the bond written in ordinances, which was contrary to
us, and He hath taken it out of the way, nailing it to the
cross;" for Paul also and others became proselytes of Israel
for her who came from the Gentiles." (COMMENTARY ON
THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO MATTHEW, Book 2., sec. 19.)
Wow! You should really read Matt 21:33-46 very carefully,
Chuckles, me boy!!!
And did you forget, that Israel was divorced a long time ago
and that God was at the ready, to hand then their bill of
divorcement? Hello, Chuckles?
How can national Israel be the true Israel, when Scripture
says the opposite and they were divorced anyway?!
Hi, Chuckles! How are ya, Cheeky Chucky?!
That's what happened. So why, in your doctrine, do you
leave out the part where the Jews have been rejecting Christ
for almost 2,000 years? You claim that you don't, but then,
why do you believe that the Bible teaches that the believers
go through a horrible tribulation and yet, what Christ comes
to do, is to defend national Jews who are still rejecting
Him? Hello??? Cheekles???
Furthermore, where does Scripture say that Christ defends
Jerusalem? Zech 14:1-3 doesn't say that. Rather, it says
that Jerusalem is desolated AND THEN Christ turns and
fights against their enemies. So they're already toast when
this happens! And as I will show further down, it is about
Christ taking vengeance against the same Jews who did
indeed reject Him and murder Him (see Acts 5:30).
It does NOT say however, that He turns and fights against
the attackers in a physical war against them. You can try
to quote Rev 19 all you want, but it is merely YOUR DUMB
INTERPRETATION! You try to claim that I interpret, while
you just let it read as it reads, but if that is true, then
please tell us, Cheekles, why do you believe that the horse
that He sits on is physically literal, while the sword
sticking out of His mouth is symbolic?!
Oh wait, let me guess... THAT would be you, reading it
as it's written and NOT interpreting, right??? So where
does it say, "By the way guys, Chuckles is right and the
sword is symbolic, but the horse is physically literal." ???
Oh, that's right, it doesn't! But it cannot possibly be you
interpreting it that way, right? <chuckle>
You see Chucky boy, you just don't get it! This discussion
is NOT about whose interpretation is right, but rather, it
is about the fact that you DO "INTERPRET" the texts and
no matter what you say, that won't change! And that's
okay! You see Chuckles, no matter how much you try to
misdirect the discussion, to suit your need to deny, deny,
deny it all, I never said that interpretation is evil!
It was YOU THAT SAID THAT!
But of course, you only say that when it's me giving you
my interpretation! When YOU begin to interpret, you tell
us how you're NOT "interpreting" and according to you,
all you need do, is to quote Scripture and it automatically
becomes what you say it is and you falsely proclaim that
"it plainly says it" and then dismiss even my quotes of
Scripture and claim that I am "interpreting them" and
that that is evil!
It never occurs to you, to have a discussion in which
you admit that:
1) Both of us interpret the texts. If that weren't true,
then you wouldn't claim that the horse He sits on
in Rev 19 is physically literal, while the sword that
is sticking out of His mouth is symbolic.
2) You would not try to bash me, because I said that
both are symbolic!
3) You would not, in desperation to avoid the 70 AD
event, deny what it was and that any "church fathers"
said what they said about it and then, when you're
backed into a corner by your own belief system,
claim that the 70 AD event does match the description
of what Christ said would happen to Jerusalem, when
He returned and then deny that you said that, when
this is pointed out!
4) If you were honest, you would also realize, as I said,
that this discussion is merely about what some people
said, not whether it's right or wrong, although the
70 Ad event did, indisputably happen and even the
priests were shouting, "The Son Cometh!!!".
And if one reads carefully the account in Zech 14:1-3,
one will note that what is missing, is that it does NOT
say that their enemies are desolated right then, as it says
about Jerusalem being desolated. But what is true, is
that the Roman Empire, as any Roman historian can
tell you, began it's decline in 70 AD. In fact, the throne
of "Emperor" was fought over, with no clear path and
the Roman Empire began to be broken up, with four
"Caesars", all claiming to be him!
But read the Jerusalem account in Zech for yourself...
Zechariah 14:1-3
1) Behold, the day of the Lord is coming,
and your spoil will be divided in your midst.
2) For I will gather all the nations to battle against
Jerusalem; The city shall be taken, the houses
rifled, and the women ravished. Half of the city
shall go into captivity, but the remnant of the
people shall not be cut off from the city.
3) Then the Lord will go forth and fight against
those nations, as He fights in the day of battle.
See v2. Note also what it says about "half the city".
Now read what Jesus said, which is not about some
"rapture", but rather, is about this attack on Jerusalem.
Note that vs 40-41 (the "taken" verses) are said in the
context of their destruction, not some rapture and those
"taken" are those taken by the invading army, whether
killed, or taken captive, or whatever and it is NOT people
being "raptured"!:
Matthew 24:36-41
36) But of that day and hour no one knows, not even
the angels of heaven, but My Father only.
37) But as the days of Noah were, so also will the
coming of the Son of Man be.
38) For as in the days before the flood, they were
eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage,
until the day that Noah entered the ark,
39) and did not know until the flood came and took
them all away, so also will the coming of the Son of
Man be.
40) Then two men will be in the field: one will be taken
and the other left.
41) Two women will be grinding at the mill: one will
be taken and the other left.
Now who was Jesus saying this to? Jews! This is about
the same desolation of Jerusalem and Judea that Jesus
said was coming upon them and said would mean that
"ALL THINGS WRITTEN WOULD BE FULFILLED"!
Luke 21:20-22
20) But when you see JERUSALEM surrounded
by armies, then know that ITS desolation is near.
21) Then let those who are IN JUDEA flee to the
mountains, let those who are in the midst of her
depart, and let not those who are in the country
enter her.
22) For THESE are the DAYS OF VENGEANCE,
that ALL THINGS which are WRITTEN may BE
FULFILLED.
Note here, that Jesus said that it is the desolation of
Jerusalem, that is "the days of vengeance".
Note also, that Jesus said that it meant that all things
written would be fulfilled.
And this matches perfectly with the parable that Jesus told
in Matthew 21:33-46, in which He said that it was the same
ones that killed the son that are those who the owner came
back to take vengeance on. And He also said that the
Kingdom would be taken from them and given to another
nation! Guess what? That means that it would no longer
be about national Israel, when the desolation of Jerusalem
happened! But don't believe me, read it and see for
yourself! And remember that the desolation of Jerusalem
did indeed happen already, within that same generation!
And this also jives perfectly with Matthew 23:33-36!
So given this, why would you believe that those who spit
in Christ's face are those that Christ comes to protect,
while He lets believers suffer?! This is a question that
Futurists can only guess at and make up a quick answer
to, on the fly, because they know damn well it doesn't
make sense!!!
But ask a Preterist and they'll have an answer at the ready!
Most of them, anyway. Why? Because they know that
nowhere does Scripture teach and that the Jews get to
murder Christ (see Acts 5:30) and then God comes and
takes vengeance on the Gentiles for it! That isn't justice!
That's Futurism, which isn't even related to justice!!!
Now go ahead and read the following. Go ahead and
read it (ALL OF IT, DUDE!!!) and then tell us how your
belief makes any sense whatsoever!
The fact is, that before the Roman Empire began persecuting
Christians by throwing them to the lions and torturing them
and doing things like covering them in tar, etc. and hanging
them on posts along the street and in the gardens of the
rich and letting them hang there and bake all day and then
light them on fire at night, to use them as human torches
to be streets lights and to light up their gardens, among
other atrocities, it was the Jewish structure that was
persecuting the Christians, especially Jewish ones! It is
shown all through the New Testament! In fact, the very
first things we see, is the Jewish council having them
beaten and threatening them and then killing James!
And yet, you think that this is what Jesus comes to protect,
even though to this day they reject Him and are officially
a secular government! So Christ let's those who love Him
be tortured and returns to protect those who spit in His
face. That is your doctrine?! Shame on you! Shame on
all of you who think that! (:
Back to Zechariah 14:1-3...
Now you think v3 is about Jesus riding a literal horse
into battle and quote Rev 19. Yet you also think that
when it says in Rev 19 that a sword is sticking out of
His mouth while He sits on this horse, that the sword
is symbolic and not literal. That's a contradictory view
of that scene! Either it is physically literal or it is not
and when this is pointed out to you Futurists, you
continually and consistently ignore it and refuse to
deal directly and specifically with that point. Why?
The truth is, the Christians did flee as Jesus warned
them to and fled to Pella. I guess Chuckles, they were
all mistaken about it and Jesus never came within their
generation as He promised to, huh (Mat 24:34)?
I guess also, that those chariots being seen in the sky
of the angelic host and the Temple doors flying open
and voices being heard saying, "Let us depart from
this place!" and the Temple being torn apart stone
by stone and it being Jerusalem that was desolated,
all as Jesus has said, after He ascended, but before
that same generation expired, is all just a coincidence
and we are supposed to skip it all, because it has to
be about us today, right?
So Chuckles, seriously, don't you think that's just
plain vanity at work, in the, "It has to be about me
and my time, or the Bible is useless." attitude???
If not, then I say that you are being blinded by that
same vanity!
Please, please, just let the Scriptures fit together as
they do and not as you demand!
Anyway, Chuckles, later, my boy!!! :)
--
To email me, just remove the underscores.
"For the day is near, even the day of the LORD is near,
a cloudy day; it shall be the time of the heathen. And
the sword shall come upon Egypt, and great pain shall
be in Ethiopia, when the slain shall fall in Egypt, and
they shall take away her multitude, and her foundations
shall be broken down." - Ezekiel 30:3-4 (prophecy about
Egypt, fulfilled in 480 B.C.)
.
|
|
| User: "marika" |
|
| Title: Re: Oh, Chucky Chuckle Boy!!! - Part 2 |
10 Nov 2007 09:55:29 AM |
|
|
On Nov 9, 9:47 am, Pastor Dave <ananias917_@_gmail.com> wrote:
Oh Chucky Chuck, Chuckle Boy,
Here's another taste! More is coming, slowly Chuckles,
because I want to have some fun with you, Cheeky Chuck!
And bear in mind, that the only thing related to the
subject title, is what Origen said and Luke 21:20-22,
et al.
Chuck left, I think, around the time I started and Origen was already
gone, too.
mk5000
"The salt was said--as when grease fires
flare in kitchens--to deaden the unruly
flames of forbidden sexuality.
But if saltpetre was there truly,
it was notable for ineffectuality."--saltpetre and robert
frost, jack mccarthy
.
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
Oh, Chucky Chuckle Boy!!! - Part 1
Oh, Chucky Chuckle Boy!!! - Part 2
Oh, Chucky Chuckle Boy!!! - Part 1
Oh, Chucky Chuckle Boy!!! - Part 1
Oh, Chucky Chuckle Boy!!! - Part 2
Oh, Chucky Chuckle Boy!!! - Part 2
Oh, Chucky Chuckle Boy!!! - Part 1
Oh, Chucky Chuckle Boy!!! - Part 1
| Oh, Chucky Chuckle Boy!!! - Part 2
Oh, Chucky Chuckle Boy!!! - Part 1
Oh, Chucky Chuckle Boy!!! - Part 2
Baptist church votes out 12-year-old boy because he's part black
Another Conservative Jumping Off of Bush's Sinking Ship Part XII (re: Why Are NeoCons So Imcompetent?)
Another Conservative Jumping Off of Bush's Sinking Ship Part XI (re: Why Are NeoCons So Imcompetent?)
REAL Christians Want NO Part of Loathsom& Hateful Agendas
|
|
|
