| Topic: |
Religions > Bible |
| User: |
"Pastor Dave" |
| Date: |
12 Feb 2005 02:55:20 PM |
| Object: |
OPEN CHALLENGE |
Hi,
Once again, the "newspaper prophets" are claiming that
they have refuted my beliefs many times. Yet they
continually decline all invitations for a formal
debate. Instead, they throw insults and then claim
that I am running away. <chuckle>
So here we are. I am issuing an open challenge to
anyone and everyone who wishes to have a formal debate
regarding this "end times" issue. And yes, there will
be rules. What that means, is that you don't get to
post, violating the rules and then claim that I ran
away, like some of you are doing now. The rules will
be fair to both sides and any violations means that you
automatically lose, no questions asked. The debate
ceases at that point. If this is not acceptable to
you, then you have proved what I have said about you.
That you are not interested in truth, but rather, man
made doctrines and you don't care who you try to
steamroll in the process.
NOTE: NO acceptance of a debate is assumed, until BOTH
parties state that they have accepted the rules and
both parties respond that they are aware that the other
person has accepted a formal debate with them.
I.e., no more of the deceptive tactic of responding to
this post, by throwing questions and insults out in
this thread and maybe others and then claiming that I
ran away, because I refused to answer them. We BOTH
KNOW that this is simply someone's way of trying to
have a hate fest argument, without having actually
accepting the rules, so no one can say that they
violated them. All posts without a formal acceptance
of the rules, will not be responded to, unless it is a
message to politely discuss the rules.
The subject is the end times. Specifically, what does
the Bible say about when Jesus would return and has He
returned. Also, the Rapture, the resurrection and the
Kingdom of God.
The rules, which are open for discussion and are FAIR
to BOTH sides, are as follows
1) You must be able to prove your scenario to be the
most plausible. If you attempt to counter a point,
which you are certainly welcome to do, then you should
do so demonstrating that your counter point is the most
plausible and why. You must do this with Scripture and
with an explanation of what you are claiming it says
and why you believe it says that. A simple, I believe
it, because that's what it says", is not sufficient.
That's a copout and it doesn't explain how you came to
that conclusion in the first place.
2) The Bible will be the only literature used
(exceptions noted in Rules 3 & 5) and must be a
translation from the Majority Texts/Textus Receptus
(the NIV, etc., are not translated from the same
texts and so, may not read the same way). This is so
we don't have any passages contradicting each other
because of different translations and being based on
different texts.
3) You may use Strong's, to show a point in the
original language. Thayer's and the like are not
acceptable, because Thayer's, for example, seems to
have 4,000 definitions for every word and with that
one, a word can pretty much mean anything. Strong's
has been the standard and so that is what may be used.
Bear in mind web lookups that use Strong's numbers, do
not mean that Strong's definitions are being quoted.
Use Strong's only, if anything. eSword is a wonderful
Bible software package that includes Strong's and is
completely free, with many translations.
www.e-sword.net
4) Web links, copy & paste from web pages & quoting of
other books is not allowed (exception noted in #5).
They are not the Bible. You may of course, quote
yourself. :)
I.e., Each person must be able to defend their own
belief system. We are not debating the authors of
books and web pages, who are not here to defend
themselves. We are having a discussion with each other
and not web pages. :)
5) You may make a reference to a historical event,
since if either one of us places something in the past,
we must be able to demonstrate that it occurred. You
can also quote a link to historical information, if it
is only giving data and not trying to push a doctrine.
This does not mean a web site with 80 pages of reading.
You must quote the relevant text and give the link and
explain why you quoted it. In other words, how does it
fit in with your point?
6) Passages will be discussed point by point. But
trying to bury someone in passages, in an attempt to
tie them up for days is not permitted. There will be
no claims that because someone didn't address all of
the points in your long post, that they are conceding
your argument. Your points need to be fairly quick.
We are not writing dissertations here. :) No one is
allowed to avoid passages quoted, by quoting other
passages. You must respond to the passage quoted
(although you may also add passages to further explain
your point). And you must actually quote the passage.
7) All Scripture quotes must be described. You must
tell us what you think it is saying and why you think
it says that. Just posting passages and pretending
that they are clear to everyone except the other
person, is not an argument, especially since many of
the passages used will be posted by both of us and you
posting a verse and then my posting the same verse in
response, doesn't say anything. Also, if you try to
tie two passages together, you must show how and why
they tie together.
8) Politeness should be adhered to and insults should
not be posted and are a clear violation of the rules,
even if done in other threads. There are to be no
hostilities toward each other, even in other threads.
A cease fire goes into effect from the time you accept
the formal challenge. That means that ALL hostilities
cease during this debate and if a person is caught
insulting the other person, etc., in another thread,
then the debate ceases and the injured party is
declared the winner. And also, it is very important to
know that dragging up old conversations, for the
purpose of accusing each other, is not allowed. We
start fresh, right from here, as if we had never
engaged each other at all. One faux pas will be
allowed to each party regarding this rule, as it is
sometimes difficult to remember when you said something
to someone. Unless of course, it is obvious that you
are just trying to break the rule that one time to try
to slip something in.
9) Responses to other parties in the thread are not
allowed and others should just watch and see the
outcome (but of course I can't control everyone else,
it is just a polite request, but you and I should agree
not to respond to others in this thread). This debate
is between you and I, not other people.
10) Starting multiple threads regarding this is
forbidden and even discussing this thread in other
threads (except to note that you are currently debating
in this thread) is also forbidden. Neither party
should have to waste their time responding in other
threads, when the discussion is here.
11) If any rules are violated, both parties agree to
declare the other person the winner and confess their
violation for all to see (into all the threads of this
message, which must remain intact throughout the entire
debate). No excuses with said post. You were wrong,
admit specifically what you did and apologize and
declare the other person the winner. In other words,
let's have honesty and integrity in this debate.
12) If one is declared the winner, the other will cease
for all time to make any claims about the other
person's doctrine being false and will cease to claim
that their own doctrine is correct. That's what this
debate is about. To see who's belief holds water
Scripturally. There must be stakes and I like them
high. :)
These are the rules. If you wish to discuss them, then
please do so, noting which rule you are referencing and
exactly what your specific objection to that rule is
and why. Attacks regarding the rules will not be
addressed. By doing that, you only show your own heart
to be dark.
And so, I await your responses. We shall see how
interested in truth you folks are.
--
Pastor Dave Raymond
"I have more understanding than all my teachers:
for thy testimonies are my meditations." - Psalm 119:99
/
o{}xxxxx[]::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::>
\
"And take the helmet of salvation and the sword of
the Spirit, which is the word of God:" - Ephesians 6:17
http://www.ecclesia.org/truth/solution.html
.
|
|
| User: "CDumont" |
|
| Title: Re: OPEN CHALLENGE |
13 Feb 2005 01:07:41 AM |
|
|
I accept your challenge, i disagree that Thayer's is not as good as strongs, strongs always go
back to unused root, Thayer's define names where strongs does'nt. they should both be used. God
bless
"Pastor Dave" <newsgroupmail@nospam-tampabay.rr.com> wrote in message
news:v8ps01dqv5b4etr18ipp0dftn114lvaehq@4ax.com...
Hi,
Once again, the "newspaper prophets" are claiming that
they have refuted my beliefs many times. Yet they
continually decline all invitations for a formal
debate. Instead, they throw insults and then claim
that I am running away. <chuckle>
So here we are. I am issuing an open challenge to
anyone and everyone who wishes to have a formal debate
regarding this "end times" issue. And yes, there will
be rules. What that means, is that you don't get to
post, violating the rules and then claim that I ran
away, like some of you are doing now. The rules will
be fair to both sides and any violations means that you
automatically lose, no questions asked. The debate
ceases at that point. If this is not acceptable to
you, then you have proved what I have said about you.
That you are not interested in truth, but rather, man
made doctrines and you don't care who you try to
steamroll in the process.
NOTE: NO acceptance of a debate is assumed, until BOTH
parties state that they have accepted the rules and
both parties respond that they are aware that the other
person has accepted a formal debate with them.
I.e., no more of the deceptive tactic of responding to
this post, by throwing questions and insults out in
this thread and maybe others and then claiming that I
ran away, because I refused to answer them. We BOTH
KNOW that this is simply someone's way of trying to
have a hate fest argument, without having actually
accepting the rules, so no one can say that they
violated them. All posts without a formal acceptance
of the rules, will not be responded to, unless it is a
message to politely discuss the rules.
The subject is the end times. Specifically, what does
the Bible say about when Jesus would return and has He
returned. Also, the Rapture, the resurrection and the
Kingdom of God.
The rules, which are open for discussion and are FAIR
to BOTH sides, are as follows
1) You must be able to prove your scenario to be the
most plausible. If you attempt to counter a point,
which you are certainly welcome to do, then you should
do so demonstrating that your counter point is the most
plausible and why. You must do this with Scripture and
with an explanation of what you are claiming it says
and why you believe it says that. A simple, I believe
it, because that's what it says", is not sufficient.
That's a copout and it doesn't explain how you came to
that conclusion in the first place.
2) The Bible will be the only literature used
(exceptions noted in Rules 3 & 5) and must be a
translation from the Majority Texts/Textus Receptus
(the NIV, etc., are not translated from the same
texts and so, may not read the same way). This is so
we don't have any passages contradicting each other
because of different translations and being based on
different texts.
3) You may use Strong's, to show a point in the
original language. Thayer's and the like are not
acceptable, because Thayer's, for example, seems to
have 4,000 definitions for every word and with that
one, a word can pretty much mean anything. Strong's
has been the standard and so that is what may be used.
Bear in mind web lookups that use Strong's numbers, do
not mean that Strong's definitions are being quoted.
Use Strong's only, if anything. eSword is a wonderful
Bible software package that includes Strong's and is
completely free, with many translations.
www.e-sword.net
4) Web links, copy & paste from web pages & quoting of
other books is not allowed (exception noted in #5).
They are not the Bible. You may of course, quote
yourself. :)
I.e., Each person must be able to defend their own
belief system. We are not debating the authors of
books and web pages, who are not here to defend
themselves. We are having a discussion with each other
and not web pages. :)
5) You may make a reference to a historical event,
since if either one of us places something in the past,
we must be able to demonstrate that it occurred. You
can also quote a link to historical information, if it
is only giving data and not trying to push a doctrine.
This does not mean a web site with 80 pages of reading.
You must quote the relevant text and give the link and
explain why you quoted it. In other words, how does it
fit in with your point?
6) Passages will be discussed point by point. But
trying to bury someone in passages, in an attempt to
tie them up for days is not permitted. There will be
no claims that because someone didn't address all of
the points in your long post, that they are conceding
your argument. Your points need to be fairly quick.
We are not writing dissertations here. :) No one is
allowed to avoid passages quoted, by quoting other
passages. You must respond to the passage quoted
(although you may also add passages to further explain
your point). And you must actually quote the passage.
7) All Scripture quotes must be described. You must
tell us what you think it is saying and why you think
it says that. Just posting passages and pretending
that they are clear to everyone except the other
person, is not an argument, especially since many of
the passages used will be posted by both of us and you
posting a verse and then my posting the same verse in
response, doesn't say anything. Also, if you try to
tie two passages together, you must show how and why
they tie together.
8) Politeness should be adhered to and insults should
not be posted and are a clear violation of the rules,
even if done in other threads. There are to be no
hostilities toward each other, even in other threads.
A cease fire goes into effect from the time you accept
the formal challenge. That means that ALL hostilities
cease during this debate and if a person is caught
insulting the other person, etc., in another thread,
then the debate ceases and the injured party is
declared the winner. And also, it is very important to
know that dragging up old conversations, for the
purpose of accusing each other, is not allowed. We
start fresh, right from here, as if we had never
engaged each other at all. One faux pas will be
allowed to each party regarding this rule, as it is
sometimes difficult to remember when you said something
to someone. Unless of course, it is obvious that you
are just trying to break the rule that one time to try
to slip something in.
9) Responses to other parties in the thread are not
allowed and others should just watch and see the
outcome (but of course I can't control everyone else,
it is just a polite request, but you and I should agree
not to respond to others in this thread). This debate
is between you and I, not other people.
10) Starting multiple threads regarding this is
forbidden and even discussing this thread in other
threads (except to note that you are currently debating
in this thread) is also forbidden. Neither party
should have to waste their time responding in other
threads, when the discussion is here.
11) If any rules are violated, both parties agree to
declare the other person the winner and confess their
violation for all to see (into all the threads of this
message, which must remain intact throughout the entire
debate). No excuses with said post. You were wrong,
admit specifically what you did and apologize and
declare the other person the winner. In other words,
let's have honesty and integrity in this debate.
12) If one is declared the winner, the other will cease
for all time to make any claims about the other
person's doctrine being false and will cease to claim
that their own doctrine is correct. That's what this
debate is about. To see who's belief holds water
Scripturally. There must be stakes and I like them
high. :)
These are the rules. If you wish to discuss them, then
please do so, noting which rule you are referencing and
exactly what your specific objection to that rule is
and why. Attacks regarding the rules will not be
addressed. By doing that, you only show your own heart
to be dark.
And so, I await your responses. We shall see how
interested in truth you folks are.
--
Pastor Dave Raymond
"I have more understanding than all my teachers:
for thy testimonies are my meditations." - Psalm 119:99
/
o{}xxxxx[]::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::>
\
"And take the helmet of salvation and the sword of
the Spirit, which is the word of God:" - Ephesians 6:17
http://www.ecclesia.org/truth/solution.html
.
|
|
|
| User: "Pastor Dave" |
|
| Title: Re: OPEN CHALLENGE |
13 Feb 2005 08:07:59 AM |
|
|
On Sun, 13 Feb 2005 07:07:41 GMT, after pondering deep
thoughts, "CDumont" <cdumont@telusplanet.net> spake
thusly:
I accept your challenge, i disagree that Thayer's is not as good as strongs, strongs always go
back to unused root, Thayer's define names where strongs does'nt. they should both be used. God
bless
I'm glad that someone is willing to defend their
beliefs. A couple of things though.
1) Top posting is considered rude and annoying in
usenet. If we're going to do this, then we need to
make it so that people can follow it. If you're not
sure what that means, then let me know and I will
explain it to you. You should be responding to each
point, underneath that specific point, for each point
that you address.
2) I won't negotiate on that rule. Thayer's is a piece
of garbage. I have one and every time you look up a
word, it's got 12 different definitions. No thanks. :)
If you agree with the rule about Strong's and you're
willing to post in the proper usenet fashion, then I
will agree also. Let me know.
--
Pastor Dave Raymond
"I have more understanding than all my teachers:
for thy testimonies are my meditations." - Psalm 119:99
/
o{}xxxxx[]::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::>
\
"And take the helmet of salvation and the sword of
the Spirit, which is the word of God:" - Ephesians 6:17
http://www.ecclesia.org/truth/solution.html
.
|
|
|
| User: "CDumont" |
|
| Title: Re: OPEN CHALLENGE |
14 Feb 2005 12:41:28 AM |
|
|
"Pastor Dave" <newsgroupmail@nospam-tampabay.rr.com> wrote in message
news:tinu019d6fq8t6drnl0esice1e7hm75cj9@4ax.com...
On Sun, 13 Feb 2005 07:07:41 GMT, after pondering deep
thoughts, "CDumont" <cdumont@telusplanet.net> spake
thusly:
I accept your challenge, i disagree that Thayer's is not as good as strongs, strongs always go
back to unused root, Thayer's define names where strongs does'nt. they should both be used. God
bless
I'm glad that someone is willing to defend their
beliefs. A couple of things though.
1) Top posting is considered rude and annoying in
usenet. If we're going to do this, then we need to
make it so that people can follow it. If you're not
sure what that means, then let me know and I will
explain it to you. You should be responding to each
point, underneath that specific point, for each point
that you address.
2) I won't negotiate on that rule. Thayer's is a piece
of garbage. I have one and every time you look up a
word, it's got 12 different definitions. No thanks. :)
If you agree with the rule about Strong's and you're
willing to post in the proper usenet fashion, then I
will agree also. Let me know.
I agree, but if i translate from Thayer's I will say where it's from, and i also use the Massorah.
The subject end times prophecy.
Daniel revealed to Nebuchadnezzar the king of Assyria the image of his dream, five kingdom's that
would rule the world.
1. The head made of gold was Nebuchadezzar.
2. The breast and arms made of silver was Medes and Persians.
3. The belly and thighs of brass was the Grecians, Alezander thee Great.
4. The legs made of iron was the Roman Empire.
5. The feet and toes made of clay mixed with iron will be the one world Government [united nation]
belivers and non belivers don't mixe well.
If the end would have happened in the time of the Roman Empire the image would have no feet to
stand on.
God bless
Pastor Dave Raymond
"I have more understanding than all my teachers:
for thy testimonies are my meditations." - Psalm 119:99
/
o{}xxxxx[]::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::>
\
"And take the helmet of salvation and the sword of
the Spirit, which is the word of God:" - Ephesians 6:17
http://www.ecclesia.org/truth/solution.html
.
|
|
|
| User: "Pastor Dave" |
|
| Title: Re: OPEN CHALLENGE |
14 Feb 2005 08:51:46 AM |
|
|
On Mon, 14 Feb 2005 06:41:28 GMT, after pondering deep
thoughts, "CDumont" <cdumont@telusplanet.net> spake
thusly:
"Pastor Dave" <newsgroupmail@nospam-tampabay.rr.com> wrote in message
news:tinu019d6fq8t6drnl0esice1e7hm75cj9@4ax.com...
On Sun, 13 Feb 2005 07:07:41 GMT, after pondering deep
thoughts, "CDumont" <cdumont@telusplanet.net> spake
thusly:
I accept your challenge, i disagree that Thayer's is not as good as strongs, strongs always go
back to unused root, Thayer's define names where strongs does'nt. they should both be used. God
bless
I'm glad that someone is willing to defend their
beliefs. A couple of things though.
1) Top posting is considered rude and annoying in
usenet. If we're going to do this, then we need to
make it so that people can follow it. If you're not
sure what that means, then let me know and I will
explain it to you. You should be responding to each
point, underneath that specific point, for each point
that you address.
2) I won't negotiate on that rule. Thayer's is a piece
of garbage. I have one and every time you look up a
word, it's got 12 different definitions. No thanks. :)
If you agree with the rule about Strong's and you're
willing to post in the proper usenet fashion, then I
will agree also. Let me know.
I agree, but if i translate from Thayer's I will say where it's from, and i also use the Massorah.
The subject end times prophecy.
We're not in agreement. You wish to use Thayer's.
There must be a standard. What happens when Strong's
says one thing and Thayer's has that plus another four
definitions and you wish to use one of the other
definitions? Than we are at an impasse. That's why I
said that Strong's is to be used. It has been the
standard for over a century.
<snip text due to lack of agreement>
--
Pastor Dave Raymond
"I have more understanding than all my teachers:
for thy testimonies are my meditations." - Psalm 119:99
/
o{}xxxxx[]::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::>
\
"And take the helmet of salvation and the sword of
the Spirit, which is the word of God:" - Ephesians 6:17
http://www.ecclesia.org/truth/solution.html
.
|
|
|
| User: "CDumont" |
|
| Title: Re: OPEN CHALLENGE |
14 Feb 2005 12:35:50 PM |
|
|
"Pastor Dave" <newsgroupmail@nospam-tampabay.rr.com> wrote in message
news:tke1119840sr1aqo46s8mfb6fu5v0qg4ng@4ax.com...
On Mon, 14 Feb 2005 06:41:28 GMT, after pondering deep
thoughts, "CDumont" <cdumont@telusplanet.net> spake
thusly:
"Pastor Dave" <newsgroupmail@nospam-tampabay.rr.com> wrote in message
news:tinu019d6fq8t6drnl0esice1e7hm75cj9@4ax.com...
On Sun, 13 Feb 2005 07:07:41 GMT, after pondering deep
thoughts, "CDumont" <cdumont@telusplanet.net> spake
thusly:
I accept your challenge, i disagree that Thayer's is not as good as strongs, strongs always go
back to unused root, Thayer's define names where strongs does'nt. they should both be used. God
bless
I'm glad that someone is willing to defend their
beliefs. A couple of things though.
1) Top posting is considered rude and annoying in
usenet. If we're going to do this, then we need to
make it so that people can follow it. If you're not
sure what that means, then let me know and I will
explain it to you. You should be responding to each
point, underneath that specific point, for each point
that you address.
2) I won't negotiate on that rule. Thayer's is a piece
of garbage. I have one and every time you look up a
word, it's got 12 different definitions. No thanks. :)
If you agree with the rule about Strong's and you're
willing to post in the proper usenet fashion, then I
will agree also. Let me know.
I agree, but if i translate from Thayer's I will say where it's from, and i also use the
Massorah.
The subject end times prophecy.
We're not in agreement. You wish to use Thayer's.
There must be a standard. What happens when Strong's
says one thing and Thayer's has that plus another four
definitions and you wish to use one of the other
definitions? Than we are at an impasse. That's why I
said that Strong's is to be used. It has been the
standard for over a century.
<snip text due to lack of agreement>
I agree. God bless
--
Pastor Dave Raymond
"I have more understanding than all my teachers:
for thy testimonies are my meditations." - Psalm 119:99
/
o{}xxxxx[]::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::>
\
"And take the helmet of salvation and the sword of
the Spirit, which is the word of God:" - Ephesians 6:17
http://www.ecclesia.org/truth/solution.html
.
|
|
|
| User: "Pastor Dave" |
|
| Title: Re: OPEN CHALLENGE |
14 Feb 2005 01:04:49 PM |
|
|
On Mon, 14 Feb 2005 18:35:50 GMT, after pondering deep
thoughts, "CDumont" <cdumont@telusplanet.net> spake
thusly:
"Pastor Dave" <newsgroupmail@nospam-tampabay.rr.com> wrote in message
news:tke1119840sr1aqo46s8mfb6fu5v0qg4ng@4ax.com...
On Mon, 14 Feb 2005 06:41:28 GMT, after pondering deep
thoughts, "CDumont" <cdumont@telusplanet.net> spake
thusly:
"Pastor Dave" <newsgroupmail@nospam-tampabay.rr.com> wrote in message
news:tinu019d6fq8t6drnl0esice1e7hm75cj9@4ax.com...
On Sun, 13 Feb 2005 07:07:41 GMT, after pondering deep
thoughts, "CDumont" <cdumont@telusplanet.net> spake
thusly:
I accept your challenge, i disagree that Thayer's is not as good as strongs, strongs always go
back to unused root, Thayer's define names where strongs does'nt. they should both be used. God
bless
I'm glad that someone is willing to defend their
beliefs. A couple of things though.
1) Top posting is considered rude and annoying in
usenet. If we're going to do this, then we need to
make it so that people can follow it. If you're not
sure what that means, then let me know and I will
explain it to you. You should be responding to each
point, underneath that specific point, for each point
that you address.
2) I won't negotiate on that rule. Thayer's is a piece
of garbage. I have one and every time you look up a
word, it's got 12 different definitions. No thanks. :)
If you agree with the rule about Strong's and you're
willing to post in the proper usenet fashion, then I
will agree also. Let me know.
I agree, but if i translate from Thayer's I will say where it's from, and i also use the
Massorah.
The subject end times prophecy.
We're not in agreement. You wish to use Thayer's.
There must be a standard. What happens when Strong's
says one thing and Thayer's has that plus another four
definitions and you wish to use one of the other
definitions? Than we are at an impasse. That's why I
said that Strong's is to be used. It has been the
standard for over a century.
<snip text due to lack of agreement>
I agree. God bless
Okay, then you agree to all of the rules, including
Strong's only. I am posting this in a new thread,
titled "PASTOR DAVE AND CDUMONT DEBATE". You can
respond there.
--
Pastor Dave Raymond
"I have more understanding than all my teachers:
for thy testimonies are my meditations." - Psalm 119:99
/
o{}xxxxx[]::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::>
\
"And take the helmet of salvation and the sword of
the Spirit, which is the word of God:" - Ephesians 6:17
http://www.ecclesia.org/truth/solution.html
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Bible Bob" |
|
| Title: Re: OPEN CHALLENGE |
13 Feb 2005 09:28:39 AM |
|
|
On Sun, 13 Feb 2005 14:07:59 GMT, Pastor Dave
<newsgroupmail@nospam-tampabay.rr.com> wrote:
On Sun, 13 Feb 2005 07:07:41 GMT, after pondering deep
thoughts, "CDumont" <cdumont@telusplanet.net> spake
thusly:
I accept your challenge, i disagree that Thayer's is not as good as strongs, strongs always go
back to unused root, Thayer's define names where strongs does'nt. they should both be used. God
bless
I'm glad that someone is willing to defend their
beliefs. A couple of things though.
1) Top posting is considered rude and annoying in
usenet. If we're going to do this, then we need to
make it so that people can follow it. If you're not
sure what that means, then let me know and I will
explain it to you. You should be responding to each
point, underneath that specific point, for each point
that you address.
2) I won't negotiate on that rule. Thayer's is a piece
of garbage. I have one and every time you look up a
word, it's got 12 different definitions. No thanks. :)
If you agree with the rule about Strong's and you're
willing to post in the proper usenet fashion, then I
will agree also. Let me know.
Pastor Dave,
I don't have a Thayers. And I don't know whether the book is a piece
of garbage. But one good reason that there could be twelve
definitions is because there are twelve definitions. The first time
a word is used we get its essential meaning from the context, the
second time we may gain a little more from the context, the third,
fourth - twelfth times so that the definition changes just a little as
the usages increase. Also, take for example the word "spirit" which
has many different meanings depending on the context.
I think you should concentrate more on the "heart", than on the
legalisms that you want to enforce. Now, I agree that people may not
have treated you justly in the past. But each new person does not
have to be like to ones before.
BB
Guns don't kill people. Not getting saved kills people.
Guns don't kill people. Not knowing the Word get's people killed.
Guns don't kill people. Satan kills people.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Ray" |
|
| Title: Re: OPEN CHALLENGE - extra points to consider |
12 Feb 2005 08:16:30 PM |
|
|
"Pastor Dave" <newsgroupmail@nospam-tampabay.rr.com> wrote in message
news:v8ps01dqv5b4etr18ipp0dftn114lvaehq@4ax.com...
Hi,
Once again, the "newspaper prophets" are claiming that
they have refuted my beliefs many times. Yet they
continually decline all invitations for a formal
debate. Instead, they throw insults and then claim
that I am running away. <chuckle>
So here we are. I am issuing an open challenge to
anyone and everyone who wishes to have a formal debate
regarding this "end times" issue. And yes, there will
be rules. What that means, is that you don't get to
post, violating the rules and then claim that I ran
away, like some of you are doing now. The rules will
be fair to both sides and any violations means that you
automatically lose, no questions asked. The debate
ceases at that point. If this is not acceptable to
you, then you have proved what I have said about you.
That you are not interested in truth, but rather, man
made doctrines and you don't care who you try to
steamroll in the process.
NOTE: NO acceptance of a debate is assumed, until BOTH
parties state that they have accepted the rules and
both parties respond that they are aware that the other
person has accepted a formal debate with them.
I.e., no more of the deceptive tactic of responding to
this post, by throwing questions and insults out in
this thread and maybe others and then claiming that I
ran away, because I refused to answer them. We BOTH
KNOW that this is simply someone's way of trying to
have a hate fest argument, without having actually
accepting the rules, so no one can say that they
violated them. All posts without a formal acceptance
of the rules, will not be responded to, unless it is a
message to politely discuss the rules.
The subject is the end times. Specifically, what does
the Bible say about when Jesus would return and has He
returned. Also, the Rapture, the resurrection and the
Kingdom of God.
The rules, which are open for discussion and are FAIR
to BOTH sides, are as follows
1) You must be able to prove your scenario to be the
most plausible. If you attempt to counter a point,
which you are certainly welcome to do, then you should
do so demonstrating that your counter point is the most
plausible and why. You must do this with Scripture and
with an explanation of what you are claiming it says
and why you believe it says that. A simple, I believe
it, because that's what it says", is not sufficient.
That's a copout and it doesn't explain how you came to
that conclusion in the first place.
2) The Bible will be the only literature used
(exceptions noted in Rules 3 & 5) and must be a
translation from the Majority Texts/Textus Receptus
(the NIV, etc., are not translated from the same
texts and so, may not read the same way). This is so
we don't have any passages contradicting each other
because of different translations and being based on
different texts.
3) You may use Strong's, to show a point in the
original language. Thayer's and the like are not
acceptable, because Thayer's, for example, seems to
have 4,000 definitions for every word and with that
one, a word can pretty much mean anything. Strong's
has been the standard and so that is what may be used.
Bear in mind web lookups that use Strong's numbers, do
not mean that Strong's definitions are being quoted.
Use Strong's only, if anything. eSword is a wonderful
Bible software package that includes Strong's and is
completely free, with many translations.
www.e-sword.net
4) Web links, copy & paste from web pages & quoting of
other books is not allowed (exception noted in #5).
They are not the Bible. You may of course, quote
yourself. :)
I.e., Each person must be able to defend their own
belief system. We are not debating the authors of
books and web pages, who are not here to defend
themselves. We are having a discussion with each other
and not web pages. :)
5) You may make a reference to a historical event,
since if either one of us places something in the past,
we must be able to demonstrate that it occurred. You
can also quote a link to historical information, if it
is only giving data and not trying to push a doctrine.
This does not mean a web site with 80 pages of reading.
You must quote the relevant text and give the link and
explain why you quoted it. In other words, how does it
fit in with your point?
6) Passages will be discussed point by point. But
trying to bury someone in passages, in an attempt to
tie them up for days is not permitted. There will be
no claims that because someone didn't address all of
the points in your long post, that they are conceding
your argument. Your points need to be fairly quick.
We are not writing dissertations here. :) No one is
allowed to avoid passages quoted, by quoting other
passages. You must respond to the passage quoted
(although you may also add passages to further explain
your point). And you must actually quote the passage.
7) All Scripture quotes must be described. You must
tell us what you think it is saying and why you think
it says that. Just posting passages and pretending
that they are clear to everyone except the other
person, is not an argument, especially since many of
the passages used will be posted by both of us and you
posting a verse and then my posting the same verse in
response, doesn't say anything. Also, if you try to
tie two passages together, you must show how and why
they tie together.
8) Politeness should be adhered to and insults should
not be posted and are a clear violation of the rules,
even if done in other threads. There are to be no
hostilities toward each other, even in other threads.
A cease fire goes into effect from the time you accept
the formal challenge. That means that ALL hostilities
cease during this debate and if a person is caught
insulting the other person, etc., in another thread,
then the debate ceases and the injured party is
declared the winner. And also, it is very important to
know that dragging up old conversations, for the
purpose of accusing each other, is not allowed. We
start fresh, right from here, as if we had never
engaged each other at all. One faux pas will be
allowed to each party regarding this rule, as it is
sometimes difficult to remember when you said something
to someone. Unless of course, it is obvious that you
are just trying to break the rule that one time to try
to slip something in.
9) Responses to other parties in the thread are not
allowed and others should just watch and see the
outcome (but of course I can't control everyone else,
it is just a polite request, but you and I should agree
not to respond to others in this thread). This debate
is between you and I, not other people.
10) Starting multiple threads regarding this is
forbidden and even discussing this thread in other
threads (except to note that you are currently debating
in this thread) is also forbidden. Neither party
should have to waste their time responding in other
threads, when the discussion is here.
11) If any rules are violated, both parties agree to
declare the other person the winner and confess their
violation for all to see (into all the threads of this
message, which must remain intact throughout the entire
debate). No excuses with said post. You were wrong,
admit specifically what you did and apologize and
declare the other person the winner. In other words,
let's have honesty and integrity in this debate.
12) If one is declared the winner, the other will cease
for all time to make any claims about the other
person's doctrine being false and will cease to claim
that their own doctrine is correct. That's what this
debate is about. To see who's belief holds water
Scripturally. There must be stakes and I like them
high. :)
These are the rules. If you wish to discuss them, then
please do so, noting which rule you are referencing and
exactly what your specific objection to that rule is
and why. Attacks regarding the rules will not be
addressed. By doing that, you only show your own heart
to be dark.
And so, I await your responses. We shall see how
interested in truth you folks are.
--
Pastor Dave Raymond
"I have more understanding than all my teachers:
for thy testimonies are my meditations." - Psalm 119:99
/
o{}xxxxx[]::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::>
\
"And take the helmet of salvation and the sword of
the Spirit, which is the word of God:" - Ephesians 6:17
http://www.ecclesia.org/truth/solution.html
I do have some thoughts which may or may not be considered if they interfere
with your own reality.
If these points are not considered and allowed for, it will only be a debate
about religious points of view without any regard for the relevant truth.
1. Seeking truth would be more ideal than "what seems most plausible", as
some people do want to consider another's point of view. The world is flat
was once most plausible.
2. An open mind to "want to see the truth" instead of preconceived notions.
Jesus warned us of the mind and being careful how we listen. For in the
coming out of the truth, some will have to give up their beliefs. Where some
will have more added to their beliefs. This effectively means the words
Jesus said, saying he who has, more will be given. To he who does not have,
even that which "he thinks he has" will be taken away. UNLESS of course he
refuses to believe he was wrong and accept the truth.
3. While the bible contains a lot, it does not contain everything. The world
is what we live in. The bible tells us of end time events and much more.
However God still speaks to people in their hearts and has modern prophets
according to the bible and my experience that many are practicing this.
4. Rule of the mind is that if it "thinks it has the answers" it refuses to
put in a good effort to analyse other data.
5. Context and double meanings. Parables are a parrellel meaning. Everything
in life has a lesson to be learnt from it. And while something may seem to
be out of context, the principle of the lesson learnt from it can be applied
to other things. And looking from this angle will show much which seems
hidden, and in fact gives a better understanding of how things relate to
each other.
6. The bible can point to things, such as calculate the number of the beast.
It does not say how to calculate it outright, but says Here is Wisdom and
Let him which has understanding to calculate. So this means that something
which is not in the bible is told to have the "work done" by the bible.
7. So as seen in 6, if the bible is taken as the sole authority, then that
which branches from it, as the result of it's command to instigagate the
calculation of the number of the beast must then be test in other ways to
see if God has put a signature on it to say it is from Him. And this must be
seen as possibilities, define them and see what is possible, and then see
what is fulfilled in these by any calculations.
8. Just a note here for those who think calculate the number of the beast
was for 70AD, then they will not want to even consider anything modern, even
if it does seem to fit many prophecies. And this is the problem, the mind
switches off, the ears stop hearing and eyes stop seeing so that they will
not even think it possible that modern times fulfillment may be correct.
JESUS said many times whoever has ears to hear let them hear, whoever has
eyes to see let them see. He knew the closed mind was the opposition.
9. And there is a note that God made languages, according to the bible's
account at the Tower of Babel.
But consider the danger.
If we close our MINDS to modern prophecies being fulfilled, we will in fact
miss the warning of the Mark of the beast and be fooled into going along
with it all. And if the Pastors say its okay, then it would seem they have
become workers for the opposition of God.
But as thinking people and not as the blind following the blind, we should
take note for ourselves. For our relationship with God is in our hearts. If
we as a living stone of the kingdom choose to hang out with others in a
building called a church that is our choice. But hanging out in that church
building does not make anyone better or worse, God is working in them to
have them become more like Jesus.
10. The abilities of human being to find the truth is more than with logic,
it is also with the heart. It is the combination of the two where the heart
leads the individual to use their mind. If it's all one and none of the
other or out of order, then it will be a mess. And one will not follow
another's logic and revelation unless they give them the benefit of the
doubt.
11. How to win friends and influence people, a book by Dale Carnagie, says
that the majority of people you meet think they are smarter or know better
than you. We have these barriers to break down in order to stop us filtering
(blinding us) from the truth.
12. God gave us two ears and one mouth. I have seen it said that we should
listen twice as much as we speak. Seems like good advice. For if we are not
listening, we will never hear nor see what is meant.
PEace
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bible Bob" |
|
| Title: Re: OPEN CHALLENGE - extra points to consider |
12 Feb 2005 10:00:04 PM |
|
|
On Sun, 13 Feb 2005 02:16:30 GMT, "Ray" <raymokeeffe@888hotmail.com>
wrote:
"Pastor Dave" <newsgroupmail@nospam-tampabay.rr.com> wrote in message
news:v8ps01dqv5b4etr18ipp0dftn114lvaehq@4ax.com...
Hi,
Once again, the "newspaper prophets" are claiming that
they have refuted my beliefs many times. Yet they
continually decline all invitations for a formal
debate. Instead, they throw insults and then claim
that I am running away. <chuckle>
So here we are. I am issuing an open challenge to
anyone and everyone who wishes to have a formal debate
regarding this "end times" issue. And yes, there will
be rules. What that means, is that you don't get to
post, violating the rules and then claim that I ran
away, like some of you are doing now. The rules will
be fair to both sides and any violations means that you
automatically lose, no questions asked. The debate
ceases at that point. If this is not acceptable to
you, then you have proved what I have said about you.
That you are not interested in truth, but rather, man
made doctrines and you don't care who you try to
steamroll in the process.
NOTE: NO acceptance of a debate is assumed, until BOTH
parties state that they have accepted the rules and
both parties respond that they are aware that the other
person has accepted a formal debate with them.
I.e., no more of the deceptive tactic of responding to
this post, by throwing questions and insults out in
this thread and maybe others and then claiming that I
ran away, because I refused to answer them. We BOTH
KNOW that this is simply someone's way of trying to
have a hate fest argument, without having actually
accepting the rules, so no one can say that they
violated them. All posts without a formal acceptance
of the rules, will not be responded to, unless it is a
message to politely discuss the rules.
The subject is the end times. Specifically, what does
the Bible say about when Jesus would return and has He
returned. Also, the Rapture, the resurrection and the
Kingdom of God.
The rules, which are open for discussion and are FAIR
to BOTH sides, are as follows
1) You must be able to prove your scenario to be the
most plausible. If you attempt to counter a point,
which you are certainly welcome to do, then you should
do so demonstrating that your counter point is the most
plausible and why. You must do this with Scripture and
with an explanation of what you are claiming it says
and why you believe it says that. A simple, I believe
it, because that's what it says", is not sufficient.
That's a copout and it doesn't explain how you came to
that conclusion in the first place.
2) The Bible will be the only literature used
(exceptions noted in Rules 3 & 5) and must be a
translation from the Majority Texts/Textus Receptus
(the NIV, etc., are not translated from the same
texts and so, may not read the same way). This is so
we don't have any passages contradicting each other
because of different translations and being based on
different texts.
3) You may use Strong's, to show a point in the
original language. Thayer's and the like are not
acceptable, because Thayer's, for example, seems to
have 4,000 definitions for every word and with that
one, a word can pretty much mean anything. Strong's
has been the standard and so that is what may be used.
Bear in mind web lookups that use Strong's numbers, do
not mean that Strong's definitions are being quoted.
Use Strong's only, if anything. eSword is a wonderful
Bible software package that includes Strong's and is
completely free, with many translations.
www.e-sword.net
4) Web links, copy & paste from web pages & quoting of
other books is not allowed (exception noted in #5).
They are not the Bible. You may of course, quote
yourself. :)
I.e., Each person must be able to defend their own
belief system. We are not debating the authors of
books and web pages, who are not here to defend
themselves. We are having a discussion with each other
and not web pages. :)
5) You may make a reference to a historical event,
since if either one of us places something in the past,
we must be able to demonstrate that it occurred. You
can also quote a link to historical information, if it
is only giving data and not trying to push a doctrine.
This does not mean a web site with 80 pages of reading.
You must quote the relevant text and give the link and
explain why you quoted it. In other words, how does it
fit in with your point?
6) Passages will be discussed point by point. But
trying to bury someone in passages, in an attempt to
tie them up for days is not permitted. There will be
no claims that because someone didn't address all of
the points in your long post, that they are conceding
your argument. Your points need to be fairly quick.
We are not writing dissertations here. :) No one is
allowed to avoid passages quoted, by quoting other
passages. You must respond to the passage quoted
(although you may also add passages to further explain
your point). And you must actually quote the passage.
7) All Scripture quotes must be described. You must
tell us what you think it is saying and why you think
it says that. Just posting passages and pretending
that they are clear to everyone except the other
person, is not an argument, especially since many of
the passages used will be posted by both of us and you
posting a verse and then my posting the same verse in
response, doesn't say anything. Also, if you try to
tie two passages together, you must show how and why
they tie together.
8) Politeness should be adhered to and insults should
not be posted and are a clear violation of the rules,
even if done in other threads. There are to be no
hostilities toward each other, even in other threads.
A cease fire goes into effect from the time you accept
the formal challenge. That means that ALL hostilities
cease during this debate and if a person is caught
insulting the other person, etc., in another thread,
then the debate ceases and the injured party is
declared the winner. And also, it is very important to
know that dragging up old conversations, for the
purpose of accusing each other, is not allowed. We
start fresh, right from here, as if we had never
engaged each other at all. One faux pas will be
allowed to each party regarding this rule, as it is
sometimes difficult to remember when you said something
to someone. Unless of course, it is obvious that you
are just trying to break the rule that one time to try
to slip something in.
9) Responses to other parties in the thread are not
allowed and others should just watch and see the
outcome (but of course I can't control everyone else,
it is just a polite request, but you and I should agree
not to respond to others in this thread). This debate
is between you and I, not other people.
10) Starting multiple threads regarding this is
forbidden and even discussing this thread in other
threads (except to note that you are currently debating
in this thread) is also forbidden. Neither party
should have to waste their time responding in other
threads, when the discussion is here.
11) If any rules are violated, both parties agree to
declare the other person the winner and confess their
violation for all to see (into all the threads of this
message, which must remain intact throughout the entire
debate). No excuses with said post. You were wrong,
admit specifically what you did and apologize and
declare the other person the winner. In other words,
let's have honesty and integrity in this debate.
12) If one is declared the winner, the other will cease
for all time to make any claims about the other
person's doctrine being false and will cease to claim
that their own doctrine is correct. That's what this
debate is about. To see who's belief holds water
Scripturally. There must be stakes and I like them
high. :)
These are the rules. If you wish to discuss them, then
please do so, noting which rule you are referencing and
exactly what your specific objection to that rule is
and why. Attacks regarding the rules will not be
addressed. By doing that, you only show your own heart
to be dark.
And so, I await your responses. We shall see how
interested in truth you folks are.
--
Pastor Dave Raymond
"I have more understanding than all my teachers:
for thy testimonies are my meditations." - Psalm 119:99
/
o{}xxxxx[]::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::>
\
"And take the helmet of salvation and the sword of
the Spirit, which is the word of God:" - Ephesians 6:17
http://www.ecclesia.org/truth/solution.html
I do have some thoughts which may or may not be considered if they interfere
with your own reality.
If these points are not considered and allowed for, it will only be a debate
about religious points of view without any regard for the relevant truth.
I'm not really concerned about religious points of view. In fact
points of view is what causes religion to take precedence over
Christianity. I am more concerned about spiritual "insight." I'm a
treasure hunter by nature. I like to dig deep into the soil of the
Word to find diamonds of truth.
1. Seeking truth would be more ideal than "what seems most plausible", as
some people do want to consider another's point of view. The world is flat
was once most plausible.
The whole purpose of Biblical research is find truth and you can not
find the richest truthes without being willing to learn.
2. An open mind to "want to see the truth" instead of preconceived notions.
Jesus warned us of the mind and being careful how we listen. For in the
coming out of the truth, some will have to give up their beliefs. Where some
will have more added to their beliefs. This effectively means the words
Jesus said, saying he who has, more will be given. To he who does not have,
even that which "he thinks he has" will be taken away. UNLESS of course he
refuses to believe he was wrong and accept the truth.
But a double minded man is unstable in all his ways. The Bible speaks
more about "one mind." That we put on the mind of Christ. The Bible
does not use the phrase "open mind" for good reason. We are to fill
our minds with knowledge, understanding, and wisdom from God; not from
the world. That is not to say that are not to know and understand the
world. But opening your mind up to have crap dumped into it is not a
smart thing to do. Our society seems to have been on an "open mind"
kick since the sixties. Society teaches that all the really smart
people have open minds. We've seen what all the "really smart" people
learned by having an open mind.
3. While the bible contains a lot, it does not contain everything. The world
is what we live in. The bible tells us of end time events and much more.
However God still speaks to people in their hearts and has modern prophets
according to the bible and my experience that many are practicing this.
It doesn't contain everything, but it does contain those things that
pertain to life and godliness. God established the present earth for
us to dwell upon and to enjoy the life we have to live on it. God
does speak to people - to confirm what He says in the Word.
4. Rule of the mind is that if it "thinks it has the answers" it refuses to
put in a good effort to analyse other data.
That's where wisdom comes into play.
5. Context and double meanings. Parables are a parrellel meaning. Everything
in life has a lesson to be learnt from it. And while something may seem to
be out of context, the principle of the lesson learnt from it can be applied
to other things. And looking from this angle will show much which seems
hidden, and in fact gives a better understanding of how things relate to
each other.
Actually, parables are figures of speech - a continued simile to be
precise and they have a specific figurative meaning. There are also
figures that are designed legitimate departures from the laws of
language that allow passages to be placed "out of context" which is
why you sometimes see digression, parenthesis, and similar figures in
the Word. What I am saying is that the Bible is not some kind of
mystical Harry Potter or DaVinci Code book. It has structure and
rules for both its reading and application. I read somewhere that
theology is the science of God. Well, I don't believe that because no
human can study God who is Spirit. But we can use "science" to learn
the Word of God which is in the five senses realm.
6. The bible can point to things, such as calculate the number of the beast.
It does not say how to calculate it outright, but says Here is Wisdom and
Let him which has understanding to calculate. So this means that something
which is not in the bible is told to have the "work done" by the bible.
Gematria is not a means by which the name is to be discovered; but it
will be a test and a proof by which the name may be identified after
the person is revealed. The Anti-Christ will not be revealed until
after Christ comes for his church, so guessing who it is is a waste of
time. However ,if six is the number of secular or human perfection,
then 66 is a more emphatic expression of the same fact, and 666 is the
concentrated expression of it; 666 is therefore the trinity of human
perfection; the perfection of imperfection; the culmination of human
pride in independence of God and opposition to His Christ. (Adapted
from EW Bullinger's Numbers in Scripture)
7. So as seen in 6, if the bible is taken as the sole authority, then that
which branches from it, as the result of it's command to instigagate the
calculation of the number of the beast must then be test in other ways to
see if God has put a signature on it to say it is from Him. And this must be
seen as possibilities, define them and see what is possible, and then see
what is fulfilled in these by any calculations.
The point is that it is to be calculated by people in the future who
live on the earth after Christ comes for His church. I won't be here
and have little need to know that much about it. Revelation is
written to future people, not us. The first chapter says so.
8. Just a note here for those who think calculate the number of the beast
was for 70AD, then they will not want to even consider anything modern, even
if it does seem to fit many prophecies. And this is the problem, the mind
switches off, the ears stop hearing and eyes stop seeing so that they will
not even think it possible that modern times fulfillment may be correct.
JESUS said many times whoever has ears to hear let them hear, whoever has
eyes to see let them see. He knew the closed mind was the opposition.
About the 70AD date. Jesus said.
Matthew 24:2
And Jesus said unto them, See ye not all these things? verily I say
unto you, There shall not be left here one stone upon another, that
shall not be thrown down.
Mark 13:2
And Jesus answering said unto him, Seest thou these great buildings?
there shall not be left one stone upon another, that shall not be
thrown down.
Luke 19:44
And shall lay thee even with the ground, and thy children within thee;
and they shall not leave in thee one stone upon another; because thou
knewest not the time of thy visitation.
Luke 21:6
[As for] these things which ye behold, the days will come, in the
which there shall not be left one stone upon another, that shall not
be thrown down.
In every case "not one stone upon another' but every time I see a film
about Israel I see people wailing against the stone wall where the
stones are stacked one upon another. God and Jesus are not stupid and
would not say "not one stone upon another" if they were refering to
70AD. The Bible, to my knowledge, does not speak about the
destruction of the temple in 70AD. Sometimes God omits things from
the Word for a reason (like the several thousand times He uses the
figure Ellipsis in the Word). People say a lot of things. Sometimes
right and sometimes wrong. There are still stacked stones, so the job
must not be finished yet.
9. And there is a note that God made languages, according to the bible's
account at the Tower of Babel.
But consider the danger.
If we close our MINDS to modern prophecies being fulfilled, we will in fact
miss the warning of the Mark of the beast and be fooled into going along
with it all. And if the Pastors say its okay, then it would seem they have
become workers for the opposition of God.
Which God? God got blamed for everything in the Old Testament.
But as thinking people and not as the blind following the blind, we should
take note for ourselves. For our relationship with God is in our hearts. If
we as a living stone of the kingdom choose to hang out with others in a
building called a church that is our choice. But hanging out in that church
building does not make anyone better or worse, God is working in them to
have them become more like Jesus.
Our behavior is a manifestation of what is in our hearts. So it would
be wise to put the right stuff in our hearts, because God looks upon
the heart. Hanging around in church buildings can get you in trouble;
or, you can receive good in a church building. Depends on who runs
the church and that which is in the heart of the person that goes
there. Philosophy, doesn't get you to far with God.
10. The abilities of human being to find the truth is more than with logic,
it is also with the heart. It is the combination of the two where the heart
leads the individual to use their mind. If it's all one and none of the
other or out of order, then it will be a mess. And one will not follow
another's logic and revelation unless they give them the benefit of the
doubt.
The heart is in the mind. Mess up the mind and you mess up the heart.
The Word is logic - spiritual logic that can be obsorbed by the heart.
You see what it boils down to is not what everyone thinks, but what
God thinks. The more we think like He thinks the better off we will
be. We learn what God thinks in His book of God thoughts called the
Bible.
11. How to win friends and influence people, a book by Dale Carnagie, says
that the majority of people you meet think they are smarter or know better
than you. We have these barriers to break down in order to stop us filtering
(blinding us) from the truth.
Good Ole Dale. Got his books. Barriers are easier to handle when you
walk around them.
12. God gave us two ears and one mouth. I have seen it said that we should
listen twice as much as we speak. Seems like good advice. For if we are not
listening, we will never hear nor see what is meant.
Must be why I type so much.
PEace
Thanks
BB
Guns don't kill people. Not getting saved kills people.
Guns don't kill people. Not knowing the Word get's people killed.
Guns don't kill people. Satan kills people.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Ray" |
|
| Title: Re: OPEN CHALLENGE - extra points to consider |
13 Feb 2005 09:35:36 PM |
|
|
Hi Bob
I dare say we differ alot.
If you assume things you do not have the truth.
This includes beliving you have the truth.
Without an open mind, religions keep killing justifying their actions in the
name of God.
An open mind seeking truth, which is able to through out old stuff once held
to as truth which has proven not to be truth.
From what you are saying you have it all worked out, and anything which is
contrary to that is missed.
And it's amazing the number of people which think that prophecy happeing in
2003 happens after Christ has come to gather the church from this world.
They have missed the 5th Trumpet. And THAT IS A FACT.
If I didnt have an open mind and held to everything I was taught I would
still be a catholic and perhaps even a priest. But as it is, I am free from
Religion and am researching and finding great things, which people like you
seem to not even want to consider becaue you KNOW I am wrong before you even
look.
That is so laughable it reeks of the ISLAMIC JIHAD, you may as well kill me
and justify Islam. Not that that is where you are coming from, but the
UNOPEN mind of it is JUST THE SAME.
IF YOU ARE WRONG and it is NOW, then, I am wrong and wasting my time. Else
the results I Have found are truth, are put there by God to WAKE UP and see
the crap flying from the fan.
Millions will be killed before this year is up.
And the 6th Trumpet says, and still they didnt repent, nor give God glory.
Why? because they didnt recognise it being fulfilled.
Why? Because they thought they new better.
The 5th Trumpet has been fulfilled, FACT. G W Bush is the leader of the
flying armies, described in verse 9:11 as their leader, the destroyer. And
in the name of God, he will destroy until a complete destruction.
There are many things pointing to 666
Mr G W Bush
Bush 2001
Bush 9/11
Bush & Rice
Bush and Blair
US of America
Nth-America
Nth Americas
Bush Wars
American Beast
Oil Barrels
War for Peace
Fundamental
43rd American
And he turned 666 months old (666 x 30 days) on March 19, 2001. Exactly 2
years to the day later did the war start on Iraq, American date of the 19th,
in Iraq it was the 20th. Which is exactly 2 years and 2 months to the day of
being sworn in.
Weapons used in the prophecy of the 5th Trumpet, exactly 555 days after 911,
on 20 02 2003
(these add up to 666 also)
Helicopter
Tomahawks
Stingers
You can see for yourself at...
http://www.id-chip.4t.com/cgi-bin/framed/2212/data/calcframe.htm
If you dont want to look then dont even bother coming back with any
comments, as it makes you unqualified.
It says here is wisdom, let him with understanding calculate.
I can tell you whats worse than being a moron, is knowing your the only one
which sees these things and nobody else can be bothered or they dont
understand.
A half assed effort gives half assed results. I have obtained 100% marks in
several exams and subjects because I applied myself with all my being. I
likewise have put the same effort into these things. The bible says God will
honor me if I do this, by giving me the things I am searching for.
So are you professing to be wise and ignore the clues and the facts?
OR are you prepared to look and see what is there?
Are you prepared to admit you are wrong about some things in order to see
the truth?
And I do not say this in hostility but as the FACTS warrant.
Do you know how many so called wise people refute the impossibility of God
and these things.
ONE must believe it is possible before one considers it, else one is blind
and will not even glimpse a sparkle of light.
PEace
"Bible Bob" <biblebobnospam@biblebob.net> wrote in message
news:hqgt01pas3r1mql2eh271mtskrk0m0m8b1@4ax.com...
On Sun, 13 Feb 2005 02:16:30 GMT, "Ray" <raymokeeffe@888hotmail.com>
wrote:
"Pastor Dave" <newsgroupmail@nospam-tampabay.rr.com> wrote in message
news:v8ps01dqv5b4etr18ipp0dftn114lvaehq@4ax.com...
Hi,
Once again, the "newspaper prophets" are claiming that
they have refuted my beliefs many times. Yet they
continually decline all invitations for a formal
debate. Instead, they throw insults and then claim
that I am running away. <chuckle>
So here we are. I am issuing an open challenge to
anyone and everyone who wishes to have a formal debate
regarding this "end times" issue. And yes, there will
be rules. What that means, is that you don't get to
post, violating the rules and then claim that I ran
away, like some of you are doing now. The rules will
be fair to both sides and any violations means that you
automatically lose, no questions asked. The debate
ceases at that point. If this is not acceptable to
you, then you have proved what I have said about you.
That you are not interested in truth, but rather, man
made doctrines and you don't care who you try to
steamroll in the process.
NOTE: NO acceptance of a debate is assumed, until BOTH
parties state that they have accepted the rules and
both parties respond that they are aware that the other
person has accepted a formal debate with them.
I.e., no more of the deceptive tactic of responding to
this post, by throwing questions and insults out in
this thread and maybe others and then claiming that I
ran away, because I refused to answer them. We BOTH
KNOW that this is simply someone's way of trying to
have a hate fest argument, without having actually
accepting the rules, so no one can say that they
violated them. All posts without a formal acceptance
of the rules, will not be responded to, unless it is a
message to politely discuss the rules.
The subject is the end times. Specifically, what does
the Bible say about when Jesus would return and has He
returned. Also, the Rapture, the resurrection and the
Kingdom of God.
The rules, which are open for discussion and are FAIR
to BOTH sides, are as follows
1) You must be able to prove your scenario to be the
most plausible. If you attempt to counter a point,
which you are certainly welcome to do, then you should
do so demonstrating that your counter point is the most
plausible and why. You must do this with Scripture and
with an explanation of what you are claiming it says
and why you believe it says that. A simple, I believe
it, because that's what it says", is not sufficient.
That's a copout and it doesn't explain how you came to
that conclusion in the first place.
2) The Bible will be the only literature used
(exceptions noted in Rules 3 & 5) and must be a
translation from the Majority Texts/Textus Receptus
(the NIV, etc., are not translated from the same
texts and so, may not read the same way). This is so
we don't have any passages contradicting each other
because of different translations and being based on
different texts.
3) You may use Strong's, to show a point in the
original language. Thayer's and the like are not
acceptable, because Thayer's, for example, seems to
have 4,000 definitions for every word and with that
one, a word can pretty much mean anything. Strong's
has been the standard and so that is what may be used.
Bear in mind web lookups that use Strong's numbers, do
not mean that Strong's definitions are being quoted.
Use Strong's only, if anything. eSword is a wonderful
Bible software package that includes Strong's and is
completely free, with many translations.
www.e-sword.net
4) Web links, copy & paste from web pages & quoting of
other books is not allowed (exception noted in #5).
They are not the Bible. You may of course, quote
yourself. :)
I.e., Each person must be able to defend their own
belief system. We are not debating the authors of
books and web pages, who are not here to defend
themselves. We are having a discussion with each other
and not web pages. :)
5) You may make a reference to a historical event,
since if either one of us places something in the past,
we must be able to demonstrate that it occurred. You
can also quote a link to historical information, if it
is only giving data and not trying to push a doctrine.
This does not mean a web site with 80 pages of reading.
You must quote the relevant text and give the link and
explain why you quoted it. In other words, how does it
fit in with your point?
6) Passages will be discussed point by point. But
trying to bury someone in passages, in an attempt to
tie them up for days is not permitted. There will be
no claims that because someone didn't address all of
the points in your long post, that they are conceding
your argument. Your points need to be fairly quick.
We are not writing dissertations here. :) No one is
allowed to avoid passages quoted, by quoting other
passages. You must respond to the passage quoted
(although you may also add passages to further explain
your point). And you must actually quote the passage.
7) All Scripture quotes must be described. You must
tell us what you think it is saying and why you think
it says that. Just posting passages and pretending
that they are clear to everyone except the other
person, is not an argument, especially since many of
the passages used will be posted by both of us and you
posting a verse and then my posting the same verse in
response, doesn't say anything. Also, if you try to
tie two passages together, you must show how and why
they tie together.
8) Politeness should be adhered to and insults should
not be posted and are a clear violation of the rules,
even if done in other threads. There are to be no
hostilities toward each other, even in other threads.
A cease fire goes into effect from the time you accept
the formal challenge. That means that ALL hostilities
cease during this debate and if a person is caught
insulting the other person, etc., in another thread,
then the debate ceases and the injured party is
declared the winner. And also, it is very important to
know that dragging up old conversations, for the
purpose of accusing each other, is not allowed. We
start fresh, right from here, as if we had never
engaged each other at all. One faux pas will be
allowed to each party regarding this rule, as it is
sometimes difficult to remember when you said something
to someone. Unless of course, it is obvious that you
are just trying to break the rule that one time to try
to slip something in.
9) Responses to other parties in the thread are not
allowed and others should just watch and see the
outcome (but of course I can't control everyone else,
it is just a polite request, but you and I should agree
not to respond to others in this thread). This debate
is between you and I, not other people.
10) Starting multiple threads regarding this is
forbidden and even discussing this thread in other
threads (except to note that you are currently debating
in this thread) is also forbidden. Neither party
should have to waste their time responding in other
threads, when the discussion is here.
11) If any rules are violated, both parties agree to
declare the other person the winner and confess their
violation for all to see (into all the threads of this
message, which must remain intact throughout the entire
debate). No excuses with said post. You were wrong,
admit specifically what you did and apologize and
declare the other person the winner. In other words,
let's have honesty and integrity in this debate.
12) If one is declared the winner, the other will cease
for all time to make any claims about the other
person's doctrine being false and will cease to claim
that their own doctrine is correct. That's what this
debate is about. To see who's belief holds water
Scripturally. There must be stakes and I like them
high. :)
These are the rules. If you wish to discuss them, then
please do so, noting which rule you are referencing and
exactly what your specific objection to that rule is
and why. Attacks regarding the rules will not be
addressed. By doing that, you only show your own heart
to be dark.
And so, I await your responses. We shall see how
interested in truth you folks are.
--
Pastor Dave Raymond
"I have more understanding than all my teachers:
for thy testimonies are my meditations." - Psalm 119:99
/
o{}xxxxx[]::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::>
\
"And take the helmet of salvation and the sword of
the Spirit, which is the word of God:" - Ephesians 6:17
http://www.ecclesia.org/truth/solution.html
I do have some thoughts which may or may not be considered if they
interfere
with your own reality.
If these points are not considered and allowed for, it will only be a
debate
about religious points of view without any regard for the relevant truth.
I'm not really concerned about religious points of view. In fact
points of view is what causes religion to take precedence over
Christianity. I am more concerned about spiritual "insight." I'm a
treasure hunter by nature. I like to dig deep into the soil of the
Word to find diamonds of truth.
1. Seeking truth would be more ideal than "what seems most plausible", as
some people do want to consider another's point of view. The world is
flat
was once most plausible.
The whole purpose of Biblical research is find truth and you can not
find the richest truthes without being willing to learn.
2. An open mind to "want to see the truth" instead of preconceived
notions.
Jesus warned us of the mind and being careful how we listen. For in the
coming out of the truth, some will have to give up their beliefs. Where
some
will have more added to their beliefs. This effectively means the words
Jesus said, saying he who has, more will be given. To he who does not
have,
even that which "he thinks he has" will be taken away. UNLESS of course
he
refuses to believe he was wrong and accept the truth.
But a double minded man is unstable in all his ways. The Bible speaks
more about "one mind." That we put on the mind of Christ. The Bible
does not use the phrase "open mind" for good reason. We are to fill
our minds with knowledge, understanding, and wisdom from God; not from
the world. That is not to say that are not to know and understand the
world. But opening your mind up to have crap dumped into it is not a
smart thing to do. Our society seems to have been on an "open mind"
kick since the sixties. Society teaches that all the really smart
people have open minds. We've seen what all the "really smart" people
learned by having an open mind.
3. While the bible contains a lot, it does not contain everything. The
world
is what we live in. The bible tells us of end time events and much more.
However God still speaks to people in their hearts and has modern
prophets
according to the bible and my experience that many are practicing this.
It doesn't contain everything, but it does contain those things that
pertain to life and godliness. God established the present earth for
us to dwell upon and to enjoy the life we have to live on it. God
does speak to people - to confirm what He says in the Word.
4. Rule of the mind is that if it "thinks it has the answers" it refuses
to
put in a good effort to analyse other data.
That's where wisdom comes into play.
5. Context and double meanings. Parables are a parrellel meaning.
Everything
in life has a lesson to be learnt from it. And while something may seem
to
be out of context, the principle of the lesson learnt from it can be
applied
to other things. And looking from this angle will show much which seems
hidden, and in fact gives a better understanding of how things relate to
each other.
Actually, parables are figures of speech - a continued simile to be
precise and they have a specific figurative meaning. There are also
figures that are designed legitimate departures from the laws of
language that allow passages to be placed "out of context" which is
why you sometimes see digression, parenthesis, and similar figures in
the Word. What I am saying is that the Bible is not some kind of
mystical Harry Potter or DaVinci Code book. It has structure and
rules for both its reading and application. I read somewhere that
theology is the science of God. Well, I don't believe that because no
human can study God who is Spirit. But we can use "science" to learn
the Word of God which is in the five senses realm.
6. The bible can point to things, such as calculate the number of the
beast.
It does not say how to calculate it outright, but says Here is Wisdom and
Let him which has understanding to calculate. So this means that
something
which is not in the bible is told to have the "work done" by the bible.
Gematria is not a means by which the name is to be discovered; but it
will be a test and a proof by which the name may be identified after
the person is revealed. The Anti-Christ will not be revealed until
after Christ comes for his church, so guessing who it is is a waste of
time. However ,if six is the number of secular or human perfection,
then 66 is a more emphatic expression of the same fact, and 666 is the
concentrated expression of it; 666 is therefore the trinity of human
perfection; the perfection of imperfection; the culmination of human
pride in independence of God and opposition to His Christ. (Adapted
from EW Bullinger's Numbers in Scripture)
7. So as seen in 6, if the bible is taken as the sole authority, then
that
which branches from it, as the result of it's command to instigagate the
calculation of the number of the beast must then be test in other ways to
see if God has put a signature on it to say it is from Him. And this must
be
seen as possibilities, define them and see what is possible, and then see
what is fulfilled in these by any calculations.
The point is that it is to be calculated by people in the future who
live on the earth after Christ comes for His church. I won't be here
and have little need to know that much about it. Revelation is
written to future people, not us. The first chapter says so.
8. Just a note here for those who think calculate the number of the beast
was for 70AD, then they will not want to even consider anything modern,
even
if it does seem to fit many prophecies. And this is the problem, the mind
switches off, the ears stop hearing and eyes stop seeing so that they
will
not even think it possible that modern times fulfillment may be correct.
JESUS said many times whoever has ears to hear let them hear, whoever has
eyes to see let them see. He knew the closed mind was the opposition.
About the 70AD date. Jesus said.
Matthew 24:2
And Jesus said unto them, See ye not all these things? verily I say
unto you, There shall not be left here one stone upon another, that
shall not be thrown down.
Mark 13:2
And Jesus answering said unto him, Seest thou these great buildings?
there shall not be left one stone upon another, that shall not be
thrown down.
Luke 19:44
And shall lay thee even with the ground, and thy children within thee;
and they shall not leave in thee one stone upon another; because thou
knewest not the time of thy visitation.
Luke 21:6
[As for] these things which ye behold, the days will come, in the
which there shall not be left one stone upon another, that shall not
be thrown down.
In every case "not one stone upon another' but every time I see a film
about Israel I see people wailing against the stone wall where the
stones are stacked one upon another. God and Jesus are not stupid and
would not say "not one stone upon another" if they were refering to
70AD. The Bible, to my knowledge, does not speak about the
destruction of the temple in 70AD. Sometimes God omits things from
the Word for a reason (like the several thousand times He uses the
figure Ellipsis in the Word). People say a lot of things. Sometimes
right and sometimes wrong. There are still stacked stones, so the job
must not be finished yet.
9. And there is a note that God made languages, according to the bible's
account at the Tower of Babel.
But consider the danger.
If we close our MINDS to modern prophecies being fulfilled, we will in
fact
miss the warning of the Mark of the beast and be fooled into going along
with it all. And if the Pastors say its okay, then it would seem they
have
become workers for the opposition of God.
Which God? God got blamed for everything in the Old Testament.
But as thinking people and not as the blind following the blind, we
should
take note for ourselves. For our relationship with God is in our hearts.
If
we as a living stone of the kingdom choose to hang out with others in a
building called a church that is our choice. But hanging out in that
church
building does not make anyone better or worse, God is working in them to
have them become more like Jesus.
Our behavior is a manifestation of what is in our hearts. So it would
be wise to put the right stuff in our hearts, because God looks upon
the heart. Hanging around in church buildings can get you in trouble;
or, you can receive good in a church building. Depends on who runs
the church and that which is in the heart of the person that goes
there. Philosophy, doesn't get you to far with God.
10. The abilities of human being to find the truth is more than with
logic,
it is also with the heart. It is the combination of the two where the
heart
leads the individual to use their mind. If it's all one and none of the
other or out of order, then it will be a mess. And one will not follow
another's logic and revelation unless they give them the benefit of the
doubt.
The heart is in the mind. Mess up the mind and you mess up the heart.
The Word is logic - spiritual logic that can be obsorbed by the heart.
You see what it boils down to is not what everyone thinks, but what
God thinks. The more we think like He thinks the better off we will
be. We learn what God thinks in His book of God thoughts called the
Bible.
11. How to win friends and influence people, a book by Dale Carnagie,
says
that the majority of people you meet think they are smarter or know
better
than you. We have these barriers to break down in order to stop us
filtering
(blinding us) from the truth.
Good Ole Dale. Got his books. Barriers are easier to handle when you
walk around them.
12. God gave us two ears and one mouth. I have seen it said that we
should
listen twice as much as we speak. Seems like good advice. For if we are
not
listening, we will never hear nor see what is meant.
Must be why I type so much.
PEace
Thanks
BB
Guns don't kill people. Not getting saved kills people.
Guns don't kill people. Not knowing the Word get's people killed.
Guns don't kill people. Satan kills people.
.
|
|
|
| User: "StratMatt" |
|
| Title: Re: OPEN CHALLENGE - extra points to consider |
14 Feb 2005 03:36:29 AM |
|
|
"Ray" <raymokeeffe@888hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:c0VPd.160227$K7.78218@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
Hi Bob
I dare say we differ alot.
If you assume things you do not have the truth.
This includes beliving you have the truth.
Without an open mind, religions keep killing justifying their actions in
the
name of God.
An open mind seeking truth, which is able to through out old stuff once
held
to as truth which has proven not to be truth.
From what you are saying you have it all worked out, and anything which
is
contrary to that is missed.
And it's amazing the number of people which think that prophecy happeing
in
2003 happens after Christ has come to gather the church from this world.
They have missed the 5th Trumpet. And THAT IS A FACT.
If I didnt have an open mind and held to everything I was taught I would
still be a catholic and perhaps even a priest. But as it is, I am free
from
Religion and am researching and finding great things, which people like
you
seem to not even want to consider becaue you KNOW I am wrong before you
even
look....
IF YOU ARE WRONG and it is NOW, then, I am wrong and wasting my time.
Else
the results I Have found are truth, are put there by God to WAKE UP and
see
the crap flying from the fan.
Millions will be killed before this year is up.
And the 6th Trumpet says, and still they didnt repent, nor give God
glory.
Why? because they didnt recognise it being fulfilled.
Why? Because they thought they new better.
The 5th Trumpet has been fulfilled, FACT. G W Bush is the leader of the
flying armies, described in verse 9:11 as their leader, the destroyer.
And
in the name of God, he will destroy until a complete destruction.
There are many things pointing to 666
Mr G W Bush
Bush 2001
Bush 9/11
Bush & Rice
Bush and Blair
US of America
Nth-America
Nth Americas
Bush Wars
American Beast
Oil Barrels
War for Peace
Fundamental
43rd American
And he turned 666 months old (666 x 30 days) on March 19, 2001. Exactly
2
years to the day later did the war start on Iraq, American date of the
19th,
in Iraq it was the 20th. Which is exactly 2 years and 2 months to the
day of
being sworn in.
Weapons used in the prophecy of the 5th Trumpet, exactly 555 days after
911,
on 20 02 2003
(these add up to 666 also)
Helicopter
Tomahawks
Stingers
And have you noticed that in only TWO days the news has spoken of new
developments in North Korea's nuclear program, and today of Russia's
newest and advanced nukes and more about Iran nukes and the possibility of
us invading Iran?
No matter what comes of the discussions with Dave I really feel that you
have to be blind to ignore these signs. I don't claim to know when Jesus
will return or how soon it will be, but when the nukes start flying for
WWIII that is when I expect it.
And is the tsunami a small insignificant event?
And notice that our leaders ARE speaking of "peace and safety"!
Bush did in his latest speech.
1Th 5:3 "For when they shall say, Peace and safety; then sudden
destruction cometh upon them, as travail upon a woman with child; and they
shall not escape."
I think we should pay attention if Israel makes a peace agreement with
Palestine- since it will be a lie and a fulfillment of prophecy.
And the main thing to remember is that there is nothing to be worried
about if you are loyal to God and his commandments and are "sealed"
against the tribulation by him.
"Hold your head high for your redemption is near".
Why fear the men in th eworld who can only take your physical life, but
not your spiritual life?
Interesting stuff.
StratMatt
Here, I'll leave a space below where Dave can type in " Another newspaper
prophet speaks again" :)
__________________________________________
You can see for yourself at...
http://www.id-chip.4t.com/cgi-bin/framed/2212/data/calcframe.htm
If you dont want to look then dont even bother coming back with any
comments, as it makes you unqualified.
It says here is wisdom, let him with understanding calculate.
I can tell you whats worse than being a moron, is knowing your the only
one
which sees these things and nobody else can be bothered or they dont
understand.
A half assed effort gives half assed results. I have obtained 100% marks
in
several exams and subjects because I applied myself with all my being. I
likewise have put the same effort into these things. The bible says God
will
honor me if I do this, by giving me the things I am searching for.
So are you professing to be wise and ignore the clues and the facts?
OR are you prepared to look and see what is there?
Are you prepared to admit you are wrong about some things in order to
see
the truth?
And I do not say this in hostility but as the FACTS warrant.
Do you know how many so called wise people refute the impossibility of
God
and these things.
ONE must believe it is possible before one considers it, else one is
blind
and will not even glimpse a sparkle of light.
PEace
"Bible Bob" <biblebobnospam@biblebob.net> wrote in message
news:hqgt01pas3r1mql2eh271mtskrk0m0m8b1@4ax.com...
On Sun, 13 Feb 2005 02:16:30 GMT, "Ray" <raymokeeffe@888hotmail.com>
wrote:
"Pastor Dave" <newsgroupmail@nospam-tampabay.rr.com> wrote in message
news:v8ps01dqv5b4etr18ipp0dftn114lvaehq@4ax.com...
Hi,
Once again, the "newspaper prophets" are claiming that
they have refuted my beliefs many times. Yet they
continually decline all invitations for a formal
debate. Instead, they throw insults and then claim
that I am running away. <chuckle>
So here we are. I am issuing an open challenge to
anyone and everyone who wishes to have a formal debate
regarding this "end times" issue. And yes, there will
be rules. What that means, is that you don't get to
post, violating the rules and then claim that I ran
away, like some of you are doing now. The rules will
be fair to both sides and any violations means that you
automatically lose, no questions asked. The debate
ceases at that point. If this is not acceptable to
you, then you have proved what I have said about you.
That you are not interested in truth, but rather, man
made doctrines and you don't care who you try to
steamroll in the process.
NOTE: NO acceptance of a debate is assumed, until BOTH
parties state that they have accepted the rules and
both parties respond that they are aware that the other
person has accepted a formal debate with them.
I.e., no more of the deceptive tactic of responding to
this post, by throwing questions and insults out in
this thread and maybe others and then claiming that I
ran away, because I refused to answer them. We BOTH
KNOW that this is simply someone's way of trying to
have a hate fest argument, without having actually
accepting the rules, so no one can say that they
violated them. All posts without a formal acceptance
of the rules, will not be responded to, unless it is a
message to politely discuss the rules.
The subject is the end times. Specifically, what does
the Bible say about when Jesus would return and has He
returned. Also, the Rapture, the resurrection and the
Kingdom of God.
The rules, which are open for discussion and are FAI | | | | |
