| Topic: |
Religions > Bible |
| User: |
"Mistylien" |
| Date: |
28 Jul 2007 03:40:58 AM |
| Object: |
Re: Part 1 : Why build the 3rd temple |
"Fred A Stover" <fredstover@email.com> wrote in message
news:ol%pi.28053$2v1.4479@newssvr14.news.prodigy.net...
"Mistylien" <yardholler@charter.net> wrote in message
news:ObZpi.68$HJ.56@newsfe12.lga...
"Fred A Stover" <fredstover@email.com> wrote in message
news:9WDpi.10709$eY.655@newssvr13.news.prodigy.net...
snip<
So then what about ,
Behold I stand at the door and knock.
if nay many hears my knocking and opens the door I will come in
and sup with him?
His sheep know his voice and they follow even today his voice.
Have you missed His call?
You're confused. We were addressing His return which is physical: "For many
deceivers are gone forth into the world, even they that confess not that
Jesus Christ cometh in the flesh. This is the deceiver and the antichrist"
(2 John 1:7) ASV
.
The verses you cite address our receiving His Spirit.
With out the Spirit of Prophecy we receive nothing.
Yes it is not some distatant date in the obscure future.
It can be a happening today.
You see it is a one on one thing.
It is so personal no one else will ever hear that conversation between
The Sheep and the Shepard
"Peronal savior" isn't in scripture. He saves houses: Acts 16:30-31
And brought them out, and said, Sirs, what must I do to be saved? [31]
And they said, Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved,
and thy house.
Brougth them out
but talked to one at a time.
It just happens that for those that do believe it effects their whol house
to be saved.
Our home is with Him even though we're here.
Yes that is of the essentce of the Word and work of the Word
of God.
This is the very reason Jesus came into the world as a human form
to gather up his flock.
All that believe in Him are his Church and his Brothers and sisters.
Amen.
All that muckety muck about Him coming on some unfortold day is
bunk. He can come today if you are willing or if anyone is willing
to open your door to understanding and open the door to Him it
will happen "TODAY" for Today is the DAy of the Lord if
any one will just let it happen but it will be a one on one with the
Lord.
It's not bunk. It'a His promise and scripture.
Post the BCV please.
No man knows the day nor the hour of his coming, Even Jesus
could not tell that day, for there were 2,000 years of believers that
were not yet born at that time that also had to be considerd in that
Promise.
M,
His,
--
www.geocities.com/fredstover7@sbcglobal.net/
Verily I say unto you, Whosoever shall not receive the kingdom of God as
a little child, he shall not enter therein. (Mark 10:15)
<)))))><
Preparing the way of the Lord.
.
|
|
| User: "Fred A Stover" |
|
| Title: Re: Part 1 : Why build the 3rd temple |
28 Jul 2007 09:54:54 AM |
|
|
"Mistylien" <yardholler@charter.net> wrote in message
news:viDqi.1101$bd7.919@newsfe04.lga...
"Fred A Stover" <fredstover@email.com> wrote in message
news:ol%pi.28053$2v1.4479@newssvr14.news.prodigy.net...
"Mistylien" <yardholler@charter.net> wrote in message
news:ObZpi.68$HJ.56@newsfe12.lga...
"Fred A Stover" <fredstover@email.com> wrote in message
news:9WDpi.10709$eY.655@newssvr13.news.prodigy.net...
snip<
So then what about ,
Behold I stand at the door and knock.
if nay many hears my knocking and opens the door I will come in
and sup with him?
His sheep know his voice and they follow even today his voice.
Have you missed His call?
You're confused. We were addressing His return which is physical: "For
many
deceivers are gone forth into the world, even they that confess not that
Jesus Christ cometh in the flesh. This is the deceiver and the
antichrist"
(2 John 1:7) ASV
.
The verses you cite address our receiving His Spirit.
No, it addresses His physical coming. He promised both to send His Spirit
and to return. 2 John 1:7 addresses the error of the teaching that His
return was spiritual, not physical, identifying its source.
With out the Spirit of Prophecy we receive nothing.
Yes it is not some distatant date in the obscure future.
It can be a happening today.
You see it is a one on one thing.
It is so personal no one else will ever hear that conversation between
The Sheep and the Shepard
"Peronal savior" isn't in scripture. He saves houses: Acts 16:30-31
And brought them out, and said, Sirs, what must I do to be saved?
[31]
And they said, Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be
saved,
and thy house.
Brougth them out
but talked to one at a time.
It just happens that for those that do believe it effects their whol
house
to be saved.
He saves the house, period:
1 Cor. 7:14
For the unbelieving husband is sanctified by the wife, and the
unbelieving wife is sanctified by the husband: else were your children
unclean; but now are they holy.
Our home is with Him even though we're here.
Yes that is of the essentce of the Word and work of the Word
of God.
This is the very reason Jesus came into the world as a human form
to gather up his flock.
All that believe in Him are his Church and his Brothers and sisters.
Amen.
All that muckety muck about Him coming on some unfortold day is
bunk. He can come today if you are willing or if anyone is willing
to open your door to understanding and open the door to Him it
will happen "TODAY" for Today is the DAy of the Lord if
any one will just let it happen but it will be a one on one with the
Lord.
It's not bunk. It'a His promise and scripture.
Post the BCV please.
Rev. 19:11-15
And I saw heaven opened, and behold a white horse; and he that sat upon
him was called Faithful and True, and in righteousness he doth judge and
make war. [12] His eyes were as a flame of fire, and on his head were many
crowns; and he had a name written, that no man knew, but he himself. [13]
And he was clothed with a vesture dipped in blood: and his name is called
The Word of God. [14] And the armies which were in heaven followed him upon
white horses, clothed in fine linen, white and clean. [15] And out of his
mouth goeth a sharp sword, that with it he should smite the nations: and he
shall rule them with a rod of iron: and he treadeth the winepress of the
fierceness and wrath of Almighty God.
No man knows the day nor the hour of his coming, Even Jesus
could not tell that day,
Yes, He could. What He didn't know before His resurrection was the "day and
the hour," which He did know later when He said "All power is given unto me
in heaven and in earth" (Mt 28:18).
for there were 2,000 years of believers that
were not yet born at that time that also had to be considerd in that
Promise.
M,
His,
--
www.geocities.com/fredstover7@sbcglobal.net/
Verily I say unto you, Whosoever shall not receive the kingdom of God as
a little child, he shall not enter therein. (Mark 10:15)
<)))))><
Preparing the way of the Lord.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Mistylien" |
|
| Title: Re: Part 1 : Why build the 3rd temple |
29 Jul 2007 04:25:37 AM |
|
|
"Fred A Stover" <fredstover@email.com> wrote in message
news:2NIqi.29860$2v1.22653@newssvr14.news.prodigy.net...
"Mistylien" <yardholler@charter.net> wrote in message
news:viDqi.1101$bd7.919@newsfe04.lga...
"Fred A Stover" <fredstover@email.com> wrote in message
news:ol%pi.28053$2v1.4479@newssvr14.news.prodigy.net...
snip<
The verses you cite address our receiving His Spirit.
No, it addresses His physical coming. He promised both to send His Spirit
and to return. 2 John 1:7 addresses the error of the teaching that His
return was spiritual, not physical, identifying its source.
2 Thess 4:
17After that, we who are still alive and are left will be caught up
together with them in the clouds to meet the Lord in the air. And
so we will be with the Lord forever.
Does this mean physical coming?
With out the Spirit of Prophecy we receive nothing.
[31]
And they said, Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be
saved,
and thy house.
Brougth them out
but talked to one at a time.
It just happens that for those that do believe it effects their whol
house
to be saved.
He saves the house, period:
1 Cor. 7:14
For the unbelieving husband is sanctified by the wife, and the
unbelieving wife is sanctified by the husband: else were your children
unclean; but now are they holy.
It's not bunk. It'a His promise and scripture.
Post the BCV please.
Rev. 19:11-15
And I saw heaven opened, and behold a white horse; and he that sat upon
him was called Faithful and True, and in righteousness he doth judge and
make war. [12] His eyes were as a flame of fire, and on his head were many
crowns; and he had a name written, that no man knew, but he himself. [13]
And he was clothed with a vesture dipped in blood: and his name is called
The Word of God. [14] And the armies which were in heaven followed him upon
white horses, clothed in fine linen, white and clean. [15] And out of his
mouth goeth a sharp sword, that with it he should smite the nations: and he
shall rule them with a rod of iron: and he treadeth the winepress of the
fierceness and wrath of Almighty God.
No man knows the day nor the hour of his coming, Even Jesus
could not tell that day,
Yes, He could. What He didn't know before His resurrection was the "day and
the hour," which He did know later when He said "All power is given unto me
in heaven and in earth" (Mt 28:18).
So why did he not tell it then?
for there were 2,000 years of believers that
were not yet born at that time that also had to be considerd in that
Promise.
M,
His,
--
www.geocities.com/fredstover7@sbcglobal.net/
Verily I say unto you, Whosoever shall not receive the kingdom of God as
a little child, he shall not enter therein. (Mark 10:15)
<)))))><
Preparing the way of the Lord.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Fred A Stover" |
|
| Title: Re: Part 1 : Why build the 3rd temple |
29 Jul 2007 10:25:11 AM |
|
|
"Mistylien" <yardholler@charter.net> wrote in message
news:i2Zqi.1611$cV6.45@newsfe04.lga...
"Fred A Stover" <fredstover@email.com> wrote in message
news:2NIqi.29860$2v1.22653@newssvr14.news.prodigy.net...
"Mistylien" <yardholler@charter.net> wrote in message
news:viDqi.1101$bd7.919@newsfe04.lga...
"Fred A Stover" <fredstover@email.com> wrote in message
news:ol%pi.28053$2v1.4479@newssvr14.news.prodigy.net...
snip<
The verses you cite address our receiving His Spirit.
No, it addresses His physical coming. He promised both to send His
Spirit
and to return. 2 John 1:7 addresses the error of the teaching that His
return was spiritual, not physical, identifying its source.
2 Thess 4:
17After that, we who are still alive and are left will be caught up
together with them in the clouds to meet the Lord in the air. And
so we will be with the Lord forever.
Does this mean physical coming?
That's our going, but it's at the time of His coming.
With out the Spirit of Prophecy we receive nothing.
[31]
And they said, Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be
saved,
and thy house.
Brougth them out
but talked to one at a time.
It just happens that for those that do believe it effects their whol
house
to be saved.
He saves the house, period:
1 Cor. 7:14
For the unbelieving husband is sanctified by the wife, and the
unbelieving wife is sanctified by the husband: else were your children
unclean; but now are they holy.
It's not bunk. It'a His promise and scripture.
Post the BCV please.
Rev. 19:11-15
And I saw heaven opened, and behold a white horse; and he that sat
upon
him was called Faithful and True, and in righteousness he doth judge and
make war. [12] His eyes were as a flame of fire, and on his head were
many
crowns; and he had a name written, that no man knew, but he himself.
[13]
And he was clothed with a vesture dipped in blood: and his name is
called
The Word of God. [14] And the armies which were in heaven followed him
upon
white horses, clothed in fine linen, white and clean. [15] And out of
his
mouth goeth a sharp sword, that with it he should smite the nations: and
he
shall rule them with a rod of iron: and he treadeth the winepress of the
fierceness and wrath of Almighty God.
No man knows the day nor the hour of his coming, Even Jesus
could not tell that day,
Yes, He could. What He didn't know before His resurrection was the "day
and
the hour," which He did know later when He said "All power is given unto
me
in heaven and in earth" (Mt 28:18).
So why did he not tell it then?
He did, for His disciples tell us about the millennium.
But it is something He tells His, yet for the rest it comes like a thief in
the night..
for there were 2,000 years of believers that
were not yet born at that time that also had to be considerd in that
Promise.
M,
His,
--
www.geocities.com/fredstover7@sbcglobal.net/
Verily I say unto you, Whosoever shall not receive the kingdom of God as
a little child, he shall not enter therein. (Mark 10:15)
<)))))><
Preparing the way of the Lord.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Read The Bible" |
|
| Title: Re: Part 1 : Why build the 3rd temple |
30 Jul 2007 07:24:38 AM |
|
|
Mistylien said on July 29, 2:25 am:
[Re: 1 Thessalonians 4:17]
Does this mean physical coming?
Jesus' second coming will be a physical coming, for
He must descend bodily from heaven to the Mount of
Olives just as He ascended bodily into heaven from
the Mount of Olives: "This same Jesus, which is taken
up from you into heaven, shall so come in like manner
as ye have seen him go into heaven. Then returned
they unto Jerusalem from the mount called Olivet"
(Acts 1:11-12); "Then shall the LORD go forth, and
fight against those nations, as when he fought in the
day of battle. And his feet shall stand in that day
upon the mount of Olives" (Zechariah 14:3-4).
Mistylien said:
[Re: After His resurrection, Jesus knew the day of
His second coming]
-
So why did he not tell it then?
Jesus told the apostles, "It is not for you to know"
(Acts 1:7) the time of His second coming to restore
the Davidic kingdom on the earth (Acts 1:6, Isaiah
9:7). But this doesn't mean that it won't be for
Christians today, for whom the second coming will
occur in their lifetime, to know beforehand the day
on which it will occur, for "Surely the Lord GOD will
do nothing, but he revealeth his secret unto his
servants the prophets" (Amos 3:7).
Jesus nowhere said that no man "will" know the day
of His second coming; all He said was "of that day
and hour knoweth no man" (Matthew 24:36). "Even so
the things of God knoweth no man, but the Spirit of
God. Now we have received, not the spirit of the
world, but the spirit which is of God; that we might
know the things that are freely given to us of God"
(1 Corinthians 2:11-12). "When he, the Spirit of
truth, is come, he will guide you into all truth...
and he will shew you things to come" (John 16:13).
Jesus could come 1,335 days after the abomination of
desolation: "From the time that the daily sacrifice
shall be taken away, and the abomination that maketh
desolate set up, there shall be a thousand two
hundred and ninety days. Blessed is he that waiteth,
and cometh to the thousand three hundred and five and
thirty days" (Daniel 12:11-12); "Behold, I come as a
thief. Blessed is he that watcheth" (Revelation
16:15). If Jesus is to return 1,335 days after the
abomination of desolation, because no man knows for
sure the exact date that the abomination of
desolation will occur, it can still be said that no
man knows the exact date of the second coming. But
those Christians who will be alive when the
abomination of desolation occurs (possibly on
December 21, 2012) could gain great solace knowing
that they will only have to wait 1,335 more days
until Jesus returns.
*******
(A Subsequent Poster)
L.T. David said on July 29, 8:26 am:
The important elements of the Abrahamic Covenant
are specified in Genesis chapter 17 and
circumcision is an integral part of that Covenant.
The covenant of circumcision in Genesis 17:10 wasn't
an integral part of the separate covenant which had
already been made between God and Abraham (Genesis
15:5-6,18), whereby God had promised to give Abraham
a multitudinous offspring and to give Abraham and his
offspring the land of Canaan (Genesis 17:2-8), and
whereby Abraham had already been accounted righteous
because of his faith (Genesis 15:6, Romans 4:9-16).
Instead, the covenant of circumcision of the penis
was merely a token (Genesis 17:11) or sign (Romans
4:11) of the other covenant, and only a temporary one
at that, for it forms no part of the New Covenant
(1 Corinthians 7:18-19, Colossians 2:11-12) which is
the fulfillment of the original Abrahamic covenant of
faith (Galatians 3:6-29).
L.T. David said:
There is no Covenant of Grace mentioned in the
Bible
There is a covenant of grace mentioned in the Bible
insofar as the New Covenant of Jesus Christ is a
covenant of grace: "For the law was given by Moses,
but grace and truth came by Jesus Christ" (John
1:17); "For this is my blood of the new testament
[new covenant], which is shed for many for the
remission of sins" (Matthew 26:28). "I will make a
new covenant... I will forgive their iniquity, and I
will remember their sin no more" (Jeremiah 31:31,34).
"All we like sheep have gone astray; we have turned
every one to his own way; and the LORD hath laid on
him the iniquity of us all. He was oppressed, and he
was afflicted, yet he opened not his mouth: he is
brought as a lamb to the slaughter, and as a sheep
before her shearers is dumb, so he openeth not his
mouth. He was taken from prison and from judgment;
and who shall declare his generation? for he was cut
off out of the land of the living: for the
transgression of my people was he stricken.
|
And he made his grave with the wicked, and with the
rich in his death; because he had done no violence,
neither was any deceit in his mouth. Yet it pleased
the LORD to bruise him; he hath put him to grief;
when thou shalt make his soul an offering for sin, he
shall see his seed, he shall prolong his days, and
the pleasure of the LORD shall prosper in his hand.
He shall see of the travail of his soul, and shall be
satisfied: by his knowledge shall my righteous
servant justify many; for he shall bear their
iniquities. Therefore will I divide him a portion
with the great, and he shall divide the spoil with
the strong; because he hath poured out his soul unto
death: and he was numbered with the transgressors;
and he bare the sin of many, and made intercession
for the transgressors" (Isaiah 53:6-12).
"The grace of God, and the gift by grace, which is by
one man, Jesus Christ, hath abounded unto many"
(Romans 5:15); "We have redemption through his blood,
the forgiveness of sins, according to the riches of
his grace" (Ephesians 1:7). "Being justified freely
by his grace through the redemption that is in Christ
Jesus: Whom God hath set forth to be a propitiation
through faith in his blood, to declare his
righteousness for the remission of sins that are
past, through the forbearance of God; to declare, I
say, at this time his righteousness: that he might
be just, and the justifier of him which believeth in
Jesus" (Romans 3:24-26). "Your father Abraham
rejoiced to see my day: and he saw it, and was glad"
(John 8:56).
.
|
|
|
| User: "Provoker" |
|
| Title: Re: Part 1 : Why build the 3rd temple |
31 Jul 2007 01:03:29 PM |
|
|
Hello RTB, Fred, and L.T.:
I'm sure you guys have missed me terribly...LOL
Your responses to my posts have been basicly strawman arguements,
mixed with insults, accusations, and inuendo...some of you more than
others, and I have simply wasted my time responding to that kind of
crap. However, I don't run away from anyone, and I am back to explain
to you where I am coming from:
First, an honest study of the bible must not begin with any pre-
conceptions, and all three of you dismiss my posts strictly on the
basis of the pre-conceptions which you have embraced, even though your
pre-conceptions are not logical, and my posts are.
When one is so brainwashed that he must turn his logic off in order to
respond to a logical post, he may have passed the logical point of no
return, but that is not my call so I will continue.
There is absolutely no logical reason to believe that the bible is
God's word, or that it is "all scripture", but there is an absolutely
logical reason to believe that it is a compilation of doctrinally
selected books which best represent the pre-conceptions of the
Universal religion of the Roman empire. It is also logical to
recognize that, according to the bible story, Jesus and his apostles
preached the faith of scripture, and converted people, with nothing
more than scripture which was written before the first century began.
It is therefore logical to assume that the faith of scripture can be
completely found in that same pre-first century scripture, and that
later scripture is completely unnecessary for explaining the faith of
scripture, but is simply a record of the acts of the central
characters of first century scripture.
It is only logical to assume that if first century scripture tells of
doctrines that are different from the doctrines found in the scripture
that Jesus and the apostles used to spread the faith of scripture,
those doctrines must be considered spurious, or at the very least
misunderstood.
Since pre-first century scripture came first, and maintains good
continuity, later scripture must be understood in the context of pre-
first century scripture. It is only logical and reasonable.
The doctrines of first century, and later, scripture, which are
obviously contradictory to, or different from, the obvious doctrines
of pre-first century scripture, **must** be re-considered in the
context of pre-first century scripture, because God is described as
unchanging, and being unable to lie. In other words, the differences
between the doctrines of pre-first century scripture, and first
century and later scripture, must be interpreted in the context of pre-
first century scripture.
When my posts do not agree with your pre-conceived orthodoxy, do not
simply insist that they are stupid, or that I am lying, but consider
what I write from a logical point of view, recognizing that I study
the bible from a non-sectarian point of view, and base my opinions on
the completely logical story which I see running with continuity
through scripture. When you fail to address the point of my posts,
and simply made an issue out of things which are not pertinent, any
reader with an ounce of logic, can see through your ploy, and it
simply makes you look stiffnecked and intolerent.
In order to understand the details found in single verses, or single
passages, one must first understand the basic story which is being
told by the whole body of scripture, especially since the text of the
bible has been doctrinally interpreted and paraphrased, from common
dialects of languages which had completely different rules of
composition, than the languages of the interpreters, and which were
subject to colloquial idiosyncracies, and metaphores, which do not
interpret well, centuries after the fact.
One more time, as simply as I can make it, here is the basic story
which runs with continuity through the bible:
Abraham "believed" that a great nation, of those who share his belief,
on all the land between the Euphrates and the river of Egypt, will
bless all nations.
Moses "believed" that the assembly of the children of Israel, would
become the great nation of Abraham's belief.
The assembly of the children of Israel accepted this belief, and
followed the rules which were determined to be necessary to achieve
the goal of great nationhood...Show respect for your ruler, and show
respect for one another, as exemplified in the 10 commandments.
As long as the nation of Israel followed those rules, it became larger
and greater, as it advanced toward the ultimate goal of blessing all
nations.
When the nation of Israel became divided against it'self, it was no
longer following the rules which were necessary to make it a great
nation which would bless all nations, and when the nation of Israel
ceased to exist, by splitting into two warring enemy nations, those
nations did not have the power of unity to protect them against their
enemies, and they had to ally with, and pay tribute to, their enemies,
simply to keep from being destroyed.
Eventually their enemies did destroy them, setting Abraham's belief
back to square one...requiring the establishment of a new assembly to
resurrect the fallen nation of Israel, and become the great nation on
all the land between the Euphrates and the river of Egypt, and bless
all the nations.
The fact that the original nation of Israel actually completed some of
the steps which were required to reach the ultimate goal of blessing
all nations, does not mean that those steps are once for all complete,
and are no longer necessary to fulfill the ultimate goal of blessing
all nations. The original nation of Israel did not reach the goal,
and therefore if the faith of Abraham is to actually be fulfilled,
another body of people must be assembled, by preaching the good news
that the kingdom of Abraham's belief is coming, to repossess the land
of Abraham's belief, and be the second coming of the great nation of
Israel, which will bless all nations, with peace on earth, good will
to men.
When one comes to the realization that this is the clear and obvious
story which runs with continuity through the bible, he will then
realize that all the terminology that applies to the nation of
Israel...death, resurrection, second coming, etc,...has been
misapplied, by later translators(actually doctrinal interpreters/
paraphrasers), to apply to individuals. God's promises are all for
assemblies, not for individuals.
.
|
|
|
| User: "L.T. David" |
|
| Title: Re: Part 1 : Why build the 3rd temple |
31 Jul 2007 01:47:46 PM |
|
|
"Provoker" <provoker42@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1185905009.070695.87540@i13g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
Hello RTB, Fred, and L.T.:
You can keep your *****. I erased it. We all know you're the only one who
keeps the pace. LOL.
Abraham "believed" that a great nation, of those who share his belief,
on all the land between the Euphrates and the river of Egypt, will
bless all nations.
Wrong. God made a covenant with Abram: "To your descendants I give this
land, from the river of Egypt to the great river, the Euphrates"--
Then to Abaham God said:"No longer will you be called Abram; your name will
be Abraham, for I have made you a father of many nations".
But you're learning, you're no longer using the stupid expression; "God
first preached the Gosped to Abraham".
Further verbiage snipped
Looks like you dropped your favorite theme; "The resurrection of the Davidic
throne on earth". What happened, did you purge yourself of it through taking
exlax?
Stop the ***** Provoker, your biblical knowledge is very limited and
you're just making a fool of yourself. You're full of it old man. Join the
Jehovah Witnesses where you belong. They need people like you to prepare
cafee, the, milk for the children, for the babies. :-O
.
|
|
|
| User: "Provoker" |
|
| Title: Re: Part 1 : Why build the 3rd temple |
31 Jul 2007 02:48:40 PM |
|
|
Hello LT:
I hope that you get the significance of the fact that Abraham would
become the father of nations, not just the father of individuals who
are descended from him. There are, never were, and never will be, any
nations who's citizens are only descendants of Abraham, but God's
promise to Abraham is everlasting, and therefore must be fulfilled.
Can you really not see the logic in my very clear synopsis of the
obvious bible story, or are you simply dismissing, and insulting me,
because you cannot allow yourself to admit that you see the logic in
my words?
I'm not disagreeing with one word of the bible, just pointing out the
context in which every word of the bible must be understood.
It is not honest to interpret single verses, or passages, as if they
were written to stand alone outside the story which they all flow
together to tell. Your obvious anger, and intolerance, is not the way
of one who has a reasonable arguement against what I write, but is
simply the typical modus of one who is frustrated because the obvious
truth conflicts with the error of the religious community that he has
a long time social investment in.
Is the respect of your friends worth pretenting to believe what you
now know to be a lie???
.
|
|
|
| User: "L.T. David" |
|
| Title: Re: Part 1 : Why build the 3rd temple |
31 Jul 2007 04:11:23 PM |
|
|
"Provoker" <provoker42@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1185911320.573011.267300@x35g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
Hello LT:
I hope that you get the significance of the fact that Abraham would
become the father of nations, not just the father of individuals who
are descended from him. There are, never were, and never will be, any
nations who's citizens are only descendants of Abraham, but God's
promise to Abraham is everlasting, and therefore must be fulfilled.
Can you really not see the logic in my very clear synopsis of the
obvious bible story, or are you simply dismissing, and insulting me,
because you cannot allow yourself to admit that you see the logic in
my words?
No, because you have yet to learn the difference between myth and history.
There never was a nation whose citizens were descendants of Abraham. One of
my hobbies was genealogy. I will dismiss your nonsense, your verbiage, until
such time you learn what theology is and what history is all about. The God
of Abraham is a theology, Abraham is a religious myth.
(Irrelevant verbiage snipped)
Is the respect of your friends worth pretenting to believe what you
now know to be a lie???
They don't know I met you.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Provoker" |
|
| Title: Re: Part 1 : Why build the 3rd temple |
31 Jul 2007 03:28:03 PM |
|
|
Hello again LT:
I changed nothing in my last synopsis, other than to put it into my
own words rather than using king James Version terminology. If you
think that I have changed my thinking, you may be unable to recongize
a biblical principle when it is not stated as a bible verse. When one
actually has an understanding of scripture, he will be able to
discuss, and/or explain, bible principles in his own words, without
having to quote single verses from a bible version. He will also be
able to understand when someone else is stating a bible principle in
his own words.
.
|
|
|
| User: "L.T. David" |
|
| Title: Re: Part 1 : Why build the 3rd temple |
31 Jul 2007 04:40:57 PM |
|
|
"Provoker" <provoker42@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1185913683.881313.319040@j4g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
Hello again LT:
I changed nothing in my last synopsis, other than to put it into my
own words rather than using king James Version terminology.
A 'synopsis' is a brief summary, a condensation of something. Yours is a
never ending diatribe. lol.
If you
think that I have changed my thinking, you may be unable to recongize
a biblical principle when it is not stated as a bible verse. When one
actually has an understanding of scripture, he will be able to
discuss, and/or explain, bible principles in his own words, without
having to quote single verses from a bible version. He will also be
able to understand when someone else is stating a bible principle in
his own words.
You mentioned, in your 'synopsis' :-O, that the reason being of the biblical
stories was the davidic throne, the resurrection of the davidic monarchy.
King David is a myth, the throne of David is symnolic, spiritual in
Christian theology, of another dimension than that of mankind.
Jews wrote the epic of king David and the scribe of Jeremiah was familiar
with that epic when he wrote:
"... then my covenant with David my servant--and my covenant with the
Levites who are priests ministering before me--can be broken and David will
no longer have a descendant to reign on his throne."
You, Perverter, are rewriting the Bible stories to suit your 'sypnosis'
agenda, a nonsense.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Provoker" |
|
| Title: Re: Part 1 : Why build the 3rd temple |
31 Jul 2007 07:03:20 PM |
|
|
Hello LT:
I am not a theologian, and I am not here to discuss theology. God is
probably only mentioned in the bible because the authors were
appealing to an audience which could be influenced by the fear of
God.
I make no claims that the bible story is true...I simply claim that
there is a very clear bible story, which has been hidden in plain
sight by 1500+ years of false indoctrination.
It matters not whether the story of the bible is true or not. What
matters is that at some point, history began to be driven by people's
belief in the bible story, so the minds of bible believers have been
manipulated by an unscrupulous priesthood, for it's own political
purposes, by covering up the real story with a false one, and insuring
it's acceptance by putting the fear of God into the manipulated
masses.
A logical comparison of Nicean "orthodoxy", with the obvious, logical,
story of the bible, which no one wants to admit exists, will determine
whether or not one is willing to think logicly for himself, or believe
the fables of priests with an agenda.
.
|
|
|
| User: "L.T. David" |
|
| Title: Re: Part 1 : Why build the 3rd temple |
31 Jul 2007 08:17:03 PM |
|
|
"Provoker" <provoker42@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1185926600.033603.296610@j4g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
Hello LT:
I make no claims that the bible story is true...I simply claim that
there is a very clear bible story, which has been hidden in plain
sight by 1500+ years of false indoctrination.
Now how are we to understand what you mean when you write: "hidden in plain
sight by1500 years of false indoctrination"? What are you talking about and
what does this have to do with the biblical stories and the "raison d'être"
for those stories, you claim is the "resurrection of the Davidic kingdom,
monarchy, Provoker?
Do you spit out stupidities like that thinking we will be impressed by so
great your knowledge?
It's ridiculous. How can you just throw in a conversation such statement
without ever giving a sensible explanation of what you mean?
It matters not whether the story of the bible is true or not. What
matters is that at some point, history began to be driven by people's
belief in the bible story, so the minds of bible believers have been
manipulated by an unscrupulous priesthood, for it's own political
purposes, by covering up the real story with a false one, and insuring
it's acceptance by putting the fear of God into the manipulated
masses.
Maybe, but then which priests, Jewish priests, Christian priests? What is
that real story, please tell.
A logical comparison of Nicean "orthodoxy", with the obvious, logical,
story of the bible, which no one wants to admit exists, will determine
whether or not one is willing to think logicly for himself, or believe
the fables of priests with an agenda.
There is no such thing as "Nicean orthodoxy". You can speak of Nicene
Christology or theology but you can only speak of Nicene Orthodoxy in
relation to unorthodox Christians, the Arianism controversy for instance.
You started an argument about the stories of the Tanach and you made a fool
of yourself. You now change your violin to create a diversion, Christian
doctrines.
What does that have to do with the resurrection of your house of David
revelation?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Provoker" |
|
| Title: Re: Part 1 : Why build the 3rd temple |
31 Jul 2007 10:16:57 PM |
|
|
On Jul 31, 9:17 pm, "L.T. David" <LTDCap...@newsnet.ca> wrote:
"Provoker" <provoke...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1185926600.033603.296610@j4g2000prf.googlegroups.com...> Hello LT:
I make no claims that the bible story is true...I simply claim that
there is a very clear bible story, which has been hidden in plain
sight by 1500+ years of false indoctrination.
Now how are we to understand what you mean when you write: "hidden in pla=
in
sight by1500 years of false indoctrination"? What are you talking about a=
nd
what does this have to do with the biblical stories and the "raison d'=EA=
tre"
for those stories, you claim is the "resurrection of the Davidic kingdom,
monarchy, Provoker?
Do you spit out stupidities like that thinking we will be impressed by so
great your knowledge?
It's ridiculous. How can you just throw in a conversation such statement
without ever giving a sensible explanation of what you mean?
Hello LT:
I'm certainly not impressing you, but I'm sticking with it...LOL
Look at it this way: God's everlasting promise to Abraham included a
specific piece of land, which in the early centuries of the common
era, was ruled by the Roman empire. Anyone at that time, who was
committed to the fulfillment of God's promise to Abraham, was
committed to the overthrow of the Roman empire. Surely you can see
that.
The Zealots were a thorn in the side of Rome from the time it
conquered Judea, and Rome had done everything short of wiping out the
Jews, to discourage the Zealots.
Rome made Herod the king of the Jews in an attempt to satisfy the
Jewish zeal for a kingdom. Rome had Herod rebuild the temple to make
him look Solomon-like, but none of that worked, because those who were
zealous for the kingdom knew exactly what the Abrahamic promise said,
and it did not include a pseudo king who was a puppet of the ultimate
ruler...Rome.
The chief priests and the Pharisees were afraid that Jesus would do
something which would so enrage Rome, that Rome would kill all the
Jews(John 11), so the Romans killed Jesus, probably thinking it would
be an example to the Zealots.
The Zealot movement continued to grow after Jesus' death, because
there were now 12 apostles were doing what Jesus had done before his
death, and so Rome altered the doctrine of the spiritual kingdom, from
being a metaphore for the body of people who were committed to kingdom
resurrection, to the false doctrine that the prophecied kingdom is
nothing more than a condition of hearts and minds, and that the dead
Jesus, who only existed now in those same hearts and minds, was the
spiritual king of the spiritual kingdom. Not a bad strategy, and done
in the spirit of all the other Roman strategies designed to stop the
Zealot movement.
The destruction of Jerusalem, in 70AD, drove the kingdom resurrection
movement underground, but the movement which Constantine brought into
the open in the fourth century, was not the kingdom resurrection
movement that Rome drove underground in 70AD, it was a universal pagan
religion for the Roman empire, based on the characters of the
apostolic kingdom movement
It matters not whether the story of the bible is true or not. What
matters is that at some point, history began to be driven by people's
belief in the bible story, so the minds of bible believers have been
manipulated by an unscrupulous priesthood, for it's own political
purposes, by covering up the real story with a false one, and insuring
it's acceptance by putting the fear of God into the manipulated
masses.
Maybe, but then which priests, Jewish priests, Christian priests? What is
that real story, please tell.
The "post Israel" priesthood, invented the idea of "the divided
kingdom" so that the former citizens of fallen Israel would still
believe that they were national Israel, and the priesthood would
retain it's Godly authority. Anyone who can think for himself, knows
that two, warring, enemy, kingdoms, are not simply a divided kingdom.
When Judaism began during the Babylonian captivity, as a kingdom
resurrection movement, it was probably the priesthood which turned
it's goal into a belief that God would resurrect the kingdom by a
miracle, thus making Judaism into a religion.
The first century apostolic movement was simply a revival of the
original 6th century BC Jewish kingdom resurrection movement, and the
pagan priesthoods of the Roman empire, changed the apostolic movement
into the universal pagan religion of the Roman empire, at the first
ecumenical council of Nicea, 325AD. The creed established at that
council is what I call the Constantinian creed, or Nicean orthodoxy.
A logical comparison of Nicean "orthodoxy", with the obvious, logical,
story of the bible, which no one wants to admit exists, will determine
whether or not one is willing to think logicly for himself, or believe
the fables of priests with an agenda.
There is no such thing as "Nicean orthodoxy". You can speak of Nicene
Christology or theology but you can only speak of Nicene Orthodoxy in
relation to unorthodox Christians, the Arianism controversy for instance.
Both sides of the Arian controversy were pagan doctrines(neither was
apostolic), and the priesthood of the universal Roman religion,
perpetuated the doctrines established by the democratic Nicean vote.
The Nicean creed is still accepted today as orthodoxy.
Think about it...anyone with faith in his beliefs, is not going to
change those beliefs simply because of a democratic vote, yet all
did. Even Eusebius, who was a major figure in the council, and became
Constantine's personal biographer, changed his beliefs with the vote
of the council, and Arius, who was banished, died mysteriously the
night before Constantine was to allow him back into religious
fellowship.
You started an argument about the stories of the Tanach and you made a fo=
ol
of yourself. You now change your violin to create a diversion, Christian
doctrines.
What does that have to do with the resurrection of your house of David
revelation?
First century Apostolic Christian doctrines, were exactly the same as
6th century BC Jewish doctrines, presented by Jesus and the apostles,
to Judean Jews, because they had backslidden from those original
Jewish doctrines.
The Abrahamic promise was about a coming great nation, and Jesus'
gospel was about a coming kingdom, both refer to the same thing
because both the great nation of the Abrahamic promise, and the
kingdom of David, are the same piece of land, which just happened to
be ruled in Jesus' day, by Rome. In Abraham's day it was not refered
to as the Davidic kingdom, but it was the Davidic kingdom when if fell
after Solomon's death, and so it is the Davidic kingdom which must be
resurrected. Remember, the messiah is to be given the kingdom of his
father David.
.
|
|
|
| User: "L.T. David" |
|
| Title: Re: Part 1 : Why build the 3rd temple |
01 Aug 2007 12:13:04 PM |
|
|
Can someone explain why I had to add: "L.T. David wrote:" and "Provoker
wrote:" in this 9KB. post? Stupid posts by "nwd" are like that to. Why?
"Provoker" <provoker42@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1185938217.290195.52840@q3g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
On Jul 31, 9:17 pm, "L.T. David" <LTDCap...@newsnet.ca> wrote:
"Provoker" <provoke...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1185926600.033603.296610@j4g2000prf.googlegroups.com...> Hello LT:
I make no claims that the bible story is true...I simply claim that
there is a very clear bible story, which has been hidden in plain
sight by 1500+ years of false indoctrination.
Now how are we to understand what you mean when you write: "hidden in
plain
sight by1500 years of false indoctrination"? What are you talking about
and
what does this have to do with the biblical stories and the "raison
d'être"
for those stories, you claim is the "resurrection of the Davidic kingdom,
monarchy, Provoker?
Do you spit out stupidities like that thinking we will be impressed by so
great your knowledge?
It's ridiculous. How can you just throw in a conversation such statement
without ever giving a sensible explanation of what you mean?
Hello LT:
Rome made Herod the king of the Jews in an attempt to satisfy the
Jewish zeal for a kingdom.
L.T. David wrote:
It certainly wasn't to satistfy the Jews because Herod hated the Jews as
much as they hated him. It was the last thing they wanted as a king.
Provoker wrote:
Rome had Herod rebuild the temple to make
him look Solomon-like, but none of that worked, because those who were
zealous for the kingdom knew exactly what the Abrahamic promise said,
and it did not include a pseudo king who was a puppet of the ultimate
ruler...Rome.
L.T. David wrote:
Zealous for the kingdom? Those zealots were bandits what one would call
today, terrorists.
Provoker wrote:
The chief priests and the Pharisees were afraid that Jesus would do
something which would so enrage Rome, that Rome would kill all the
Jews(John 11), so the Romans killed Jesus, probably thinking it would
be an example to the Zealots.
L.T. David wrote:
Your opinion. The Zealots were no different than the Iraqi resistance is
today. It was when they entered Jerusalem that the Romans beseiged the city,
in 64 AD. There's no evidence that the Zealots who fought the Romans were
followers of Jesus.
(snip a lot).
The destruction of Jerusalem, in 70AD, drove the kingdom resurrection
movement underground, but the movement which Constantine brought into
the open in the fourth century, was not the kingdom resurrection
movement that Rome drove underground in 70AD, it was a universal pagan
religion for the Roman empire, based on the characters of the
apostolic kingdom movement
L.T. David wrote:
You're nuts. How could a Roman Emperor create a Jewish kingdom with its
Temple in Jerusalem after having destroyed that city in 70 AD and hundred of
villages in Judea, in 132-135 AD?
It matters not whether the story of the bible is true or not. What
matters is that at some point, history began to be driven by people's
belief in the bible story, so the minds of bible believers have been
manipulated by an unscrupulous priesthood, for it's own political
purposes, by covering up the real story with a false one, and insuring
it's acceptance by putting the fear of God into the manipulated
masses.
Maybe, but then which priests, Jewish priests, Christian priests? What is
that real story, please tell.
Provoker wrote:
The "post Israel" priesthood, invented the idea of "the divided
kingdom" so that the former citizens of fallen Israel would still
believe that they were national Israel, and the priesthood would
retain it's Godly authority.
L.T. David wrote:
"post Israel" priesthood? Never existed.
Provoker wrote:
Anyone who can think for himself, knows
that two, warring, enemy, kingdoms, are not simply a divided kingdom.
L.T. David wrote:
There is no evidence outside the Bible that Jerusalen ever ruled the
province of Samaria, quite the contrary. It is most likely that Jerusalem
was a vassal of Samaria up to the Assyrian destruction of Samaria in 722 BC.
Provoker wrote:
When Judaism began during the Babylonian captivity, as a kingdom
resurrection movement, it was probably the priesthood which turned
it's goal into a belief that God would resurrect the kingdom by a
miracle, thus making Judaism into a religion.
L.T. David wrote:
What evidence is there that such kingdom ever existed? What evidence is
there that the inhabitants of Jerusalem exiled in 597-586-581 BC were not
Canaanite pagans? None. The redaction of the Torah and the collections of
some religious writings which are now part of the Jewish Tanach, began
during the Babylonian Exile. You are mixing apples with oranges, religious
myths with history.
Provoker wrote:
The first century apostolic movement was simply a revival of the
original 6th century BC Jewish kingdom resurrection movement,
L.T.David wrote:
That's a lie. The Jerusalem church was a Jewish sect. That is what it was
called and that is what it was. There never was a Jewish kingdom, the seat
of which was Jerusalem, except in the stories of the Bible. There is no
evidence, except in the biblical narratives, that the inhabitants of
Jeusalem exiled by the Babylonians, were not Pagan Canaanites.
Provoker wrote:
and the
pagan priesthoods of the Roman empire, changed the apostolic movement
into the universal pagan religion of the Roman empire, at the first
ecumenical council of Nicea, 325AD. The creed established at that
council is what I call the Constantinian creed, or Nicean orthodoxy.
L.T.David wrote:
You finally laid that rotten egg. You really are nuts to believe such thing.
And this is what you call "Nicean Orthodoxy". That's a nonsense. Not too
bright a historian.
A logical comparison of Nicean "orthodoxy", with the obvious, logical,
story of the bible, which no one wants to admit exists, will determine
whether or not one is willing to think logicly for himself, or believe
the fables of priests with an agenda.
There is no such thing as "Nicean orthodoxy". You can speak of Nicene
Christology or theology but you can only speak of Nicene Orthodoxy in
relation to unorthodox Christians, the Arianism controversy for instance.
Provoker wrote:
Both sides of the Arian controversy were pagan doctrines(neither was
apostolic), and the priesthood of the universal Roman religion,
perpetuated the doctrines established by the democratic Nicean vote.
The Nicean creed is still accepted today as orthodoxy.
L.T. David wrote:
The Nicene (Nicean) Creed is a statement of faith of the Christian
religion.
Even though the Nicene Council was initiated because of the Arian
controversy, fact remains that all of the world Christianity, then, took
part.
You started an argument about the stories of the Tanach and you made a
fool
of yourself. You now change your violin to create a diversion, Christian
doctrines.
What does that have to do with the resurrection of your house of David
revelation?
Provoker wrote:
First century Apostolic Christian doctrines, were exactly the same as
6th century BC Jewish doctrines, presented by Jesus and the apostles,
to Judean Jews, because they had backslidden from those original
Jewish doctrines.
L.T. David wrote:
How would you know what the 6th century BC doctrines were? In the 6th
century, the precepts of the Mosaic Law may have existed with some
mythological narratives. What else?
Provoker wrote:
The Abrahamic promise was about a coming great nation, and Jesus'
gospel was about a coming kingdom, both refer to the same thing
because both the great nation of the Abrahamic promise, and the
kingdom of David, are the same piece of land, which just happened to
be ruled in Jesus' day, by Rome. In Abraham's day it was not refered
to as the Davidic kingdom, but it was the Davidic kingdom when if fell
after Solomon's death, and so it is the Davidic kingdom which must be
resurrected. Remember, the messiah is to be given the kingdom of his
father David.
Provoker wrote:
David, Solomon and his Temple never existed. If Jesus said he would
resurrect the Davidic Kingdom as a physical, earthly kingdom, he didn't know
what he was talking about. That is not what the Gospels tell you.
L.T. David wrote:
If I have to type my name to answer your mile long posts, i will ignore
those posts.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Provoker" |
|
| Title: Re: Part 1 : Why build the 3rd temple |
01 Aug 2007 02:53:21 PM |
|
|
On Aug 1, 1:13 pm, "L.T. David" <L...@newsnet.ca< wrote:
< Can someone explain why I had to add: "L.T. David wrote:" and
"Provoker
< wrote:" in this 9KB. post? Stupid posts by "nwd" are like that to.
Why?
Hello LT:
I can't figure out why you do it. The little arrows on the left hand
side of the page do it for me...LOL
< Hello LT:
< Rome made Herod the king of the Jews in an attempt to satisfy the
< Jewish zeal for a kingdom.
<
< L.T. David wrote:
<
< It certainly wasn't to satistfy the Jews because Herod hated the
Jews as
< much as they hated him. It was the last thing they wanted as a king.
I didn't say it was a good idea, or a successful idea, and it surely
failed, but what other reason can you come up with for making Herod
the king of the Jews, when it was common Roman practice to simply have
a Roman governor over conquered peoples?
<
< Provoker wrote:
<
< Rome had Herod rebuild the temple to make
< him look Solomon-like, but none of that worked, because those who
were
< zealous for the kingdom knew exactly what the Abrahamic promise
said,
< and it did not include a pseudo king who was a puppet of the
ultimate
< ruler...Rome.
<
< L.T. David wrote:
<
< Zealous for the kingdom? Those zealots were bandits what one would
call
< today, terrorists.
What is your point? I certainly do not disagree with your assessment
of the Zealots.
<
< Provoker wrote:
<
< The chief priests and the Pharisees were afraid that Jesus would do
< something which would so enrage Rome, that Rome would kill all the
< Jews(John 11), so the Romans killed Jesus, probably thinking it
would
< be an example to the Zealots.
<
< L.T. David wrote:
<
< Your opinion. The Zealots were no different than the Iraqi
resistance is
< today. It was when they entered Jerusalem that the Romans beseiged
the city,
< in 64 AD. There's no evidence that the Zealots who fought the Romans
were
< followers of Jesus.
I'm not sure what you mean by "Your opinion", because John 11 clearly
agrees with what I wrote, however, it is my opinion that the Romans
***probably*** thought that Jesus' death would be an example to the
Zealots.
The evidence that Jesus and his disciples were ***probably*** zealots,
is in the fact that it is nowhere recorded that Jesus ever said
anything bad about the Zealots, or that he preached to them. There was
also a disciple who was called "the zealot", probably to differentiate
him from the other disciples with the same name; "Simon", and since
the zealots were outlaws, the only group which would have a known
zealot among them, would be a zealot group, or a group of zealot
sympathizers. Let's face it, the Zealots were the only Jews who had
not backslidden from the good news that the kingdom is coming.
<
< (snip a lot).
<
< The destruction of Jerusalem, in 70AD, drove the kingdom
resurrection
< movement underground, but the movement which Constantine brought
into
< the open in the fourth century, was not the kingdom resurrection
< movement that Rome drove underground in 70AD, it was a universal
pagan
< religion for the Roman empire, based on the characters of the
< apostolic kingdom movement
<
< L.T. David wrote:
<
< You're nuts. How could a Roman Emperor create a Jewish kingdom with
its
< Temple in Jerusalem after having destroyed that city in 70 AD and
hundred of
< villages in Judea, in 132-135 AD?
I suggest that you read what I wrote *again*, and ask me a question
which makes some kind of sense...LOL
Constantine came 300 years after the destruction of Jerusalem, and
represented a completely different rule from the old ruling line which
he had defeated at Milvan bridge. He did not create a Jewish kingdom,
he simply pretended to resurrect the apostolic movement, but with
democraticly elected pagan religious doctrines.
<
< < < It matters not whether the story of the bible is true or not.
What
< < < matters is that at some point, history began to be driven by
people's
< < < belief in the bible story, so the minds of bible believers have
been
< < < manipulated by an unscrupulous priesthood, for it's own
political
< < < purposes, by covering up the real story with a false one, and
insuring
< < < it's acceptance by putting the fear of God into the manipulated
< < < masses.
<
< < Maybe, but then which priests, Jewish priests, Christian priests?
What is
< < that real story, please tell.
<
< Provoker wrote:
<
< The "post Israel" priesthood, invented the idea of "the divided
< kingdom" so that the former citizens of fallen Israel would still
< believe that they were national Israel, and the priesthood would
< retain it's Godly authority.
<
< L.T. David wrote:
<
< "post Israel" priesthood? Never existed.
I couldn't agree with you more...however, the two warring enemy
kingdoms resulting from the fall of Israel, continued the priesthood
after Israel's fall. Of course it was not God's priesthood, since God
had only given His priesthood to Israel. The "post-Israel" priesthood
of the two warring kingdoms, invented the doctrine that those two
warring enemy nations were actually divided Israel, thus perpetuating
the idea that their priestly authority still came from God. This ploy
on the part of the "false" priesthood, resulted in the former citizens
of fallen Israel, continuing to falsely believe that they were still
Davidic Israelites.
<
< Provoker wrote:
<
< Anyone who can think for himself, knows
< that two, warring, enemy, kingdoms, are not simply a divided
kingdom.
<
< L.T. David wrote:
<
< There is no evidence outside the Bible that Jerusalen ever ruled the
< province of Samaria, quite the contrary. It is most likely that
Jerusalem
< was a vassal of Samaria up to the Assyrian destruction of Samaria in
722 BC.
That may very well be, but it is not relevant because we are
discussing the bible story, which says the opposite.
<
< Provoker wrote:
<
< When Judaism began during the Babylonian captivity, as a kingdom
< resurrection movement, it was probably the priesthood which turned
< it's goal into a belief that God would resurrect the kingdom by a
< miracle, thus making Judaism into a religion.
<
< L.T. David wrote:
<
< What evidence is there that such kingdom ever existed? What evidence
is
< there that the inhabitants of Jerusalem exiled in 597-586-581 BC
were not
< Canaanite pagans? None. The redaction of the Torah and the
collections of
< some religious writings which are now part of the Jewish Tanach,
began
< during the Babylonian Exile. You are mixing apples with oranges,
religious
< myths with history.
No evidence is necessary, because we are not discussing the
historicity of bible narratives, we are discussing the story which
runs with great continuity through the bible, regardless of it's
literary classification.
<
< Provoker wrote:
<
< The first century apostolic movement was simply a revival of the
< original 6th century BC Jewish kingdom resurrection movement,
<
< L.T.David wrote:
<
< That's a lie. The Jerusalem church was a Jewish sect. That is what
it was
< called and that is what it was. There never was a Jewish kingdom,
the seat
< of which was Jerusalem, except in the stories of the Bible. There is
no
< evidence, except in the biblical narratives, that the inhabitants of
< Jeusalem exiled by the Babylonians, were not Pagan Canaanites.
I might be mistaken, but I am certainly not lying..LOL
The evidence of the bible narratives is what we are discussing. This
is a bible discussion!!!
Yes, the Jerusalem church was a Jewish sect, also known as the
Zealots...a fact which has been carefully covered up by Roman editing
of the so-called New Testament.
<
< Provoker wrote:
<
< and the
< pagan priesthoods of the Roman empire, changed the apostolic
movement
< into the universal pagan religion of the Roman empire at the first
< ecumenical council of Nicea, 325AD. The creed established at that
< council is what I call the Constantinian creed, or Nicean orthodoxy.
<
< L.T.David wrote:
<
< You finally laid that rotten egg. You really are nuts to believe
such thing.
< And this is what you call "Nicean Orthodoxy". That's a nonsense. Not
too
< bright a historian.
If one reads the bible story without pre-conceived doctrinal bias, he
will recognize that the doctrines of the so-called New Testament, are
completely foreign to the so-called Old Testament, and that
ridiculous, twisted, explanations are made in the NT, to make it
appear as if NT doctrines were foretold in the OT...which they were
not. Under the circumstances...a growing underground movement of
people who were zealous for the resurrection of the Davidic kingdom,
on land which was under Roman rule, it was strategicly expedient for
Constantine to put the apostolic movement's name on a universal pagan
religion. It served Constantine well, and the pagan doctrines of
Nicea 325 continue to this day as "orthodoxy".
< L.T. David wrote:
<
< The Nicene (Nicean) Creed is a statement of faith of the
Christian
< religion.
Exactly!!! However, up until 325AD, Christianity was not a religion.
It was a kingdom resurrection movement.
< Even though the Nicene Council was initiated because of the
Arian
< controversy, fact remains that all of the world Christianity, then,
took
< part.
All but one of opposing factions which were forced to participate in
the first ecumenical council, are naturally false(paganized) factions,
by the very fact that they opposed the only faction could have
represented the true apostolic movement. A democratic vote naturally
favoured the paganized factions, since virtually all of the pagan
religions of the time, shared many of the same pagan principles. The
virgin born, dying rising, god man, was common to virtually all pagan
religions, in one form or another. Since virtually all pagan
religions had their roots in solar worship, the fact that Christian
traditional holy days are also holy days of Sol Invictus, the sun god,
it seems safe to say that post Nicean Christianity(the universal
religion of the Roman empire), was completely pagan, with the
exception of the names, and actions, of the principle characters,
which were taken from apostolic traditions.
< Provoker wrote:
<
< First century Apostolic Christian doctrines, were exactly the same
as
< 6th century BC Jewish doctrines, presented by Jesus and the
apostles,
< to Judean Jews, because they had backslidden from those original
< Jewish doctrines.
<
< L.T. David wrote:
<
< How would you know what the 6th century BC doctrines were? In the
6th
< century, the precepts of the Mosaic Law may have existed with some
< mythological narratives. What else?
Jesus came exclusively to the lost sheep of the house of Israel,
healing their backsliding by preaching the good news that the kingdom
is coming. Common logic tells us that healing backsliding by
preaching the gospel of the kingdom, means that the Jews were
backslidden from the gospel of the kingdom. In other words, Jesus'
teachings were the same as the original doctrines of Judaism, which
was established in the 6th century BC. Jesus even endorsed the
teachings of the Pharisees, but he did not endorse the Pharisee's
decision not to back Jesus' gospel plan. The Pharisees were opposed
to going to war to resurrect the kingdom, and believed that God would
resurrect the kingdom by a miracle. They had apparently forgot that
God had turned His face away, not to turn it back until the
repentance(resurrection) of covenant Israel.
Where mythology ends and history begins is not absolutely clear, but
it is quite clear that at some point, history began to be established
according to what Jews, and/or Christians, believed about the
teachings of the bible.
< L.T. David wrote:
<
< David, Solomon and his Temple never existed. If Jesus said he would
< resurrect the Davidic Kingdom as a physical, earthly kingdom, he
didn't know
< what he was talking about. That is not what the Gospels tell you.
<
Again...it does not matter whether or not the Davidic kingdom every
existed. Jesus and his followers believed it did, and that belief
drove them in their mission. Constantine changed the mission of the
apostolic movement, and that change drove history from that time on.
.
|
|
|
| User: "L.T. David" |
|
| Title: Re: Part 1 : Why build the 3rd temple |
01 Aug 2007 07:28:27 PM |
|
|
"Provoker" wrote in message ...
"L.T. David" wrote:
"Provoker" wrote:
Can someone explain why I had to add: >> "L.T. David wrote:" and
"Provoke wrote:" in this 9KB. post? >> Stupid posts by "nwd" are like
that too.
Why?
I can't figure out why you do it. The >little arrows on the left hand
side of the page do it for me...LOL
I called "nwd", (new world disorder), an *****, for much less, stupid.
Rome made Herod the king of the >>> Jews in an attempt to satisfy the
Jewish zeal for a kingdom.
It certainly wasn't to satistfy the Jews >> because Herod hated the
Jews as much as they hated him. It was >> the last thing they wanted as a
king.
I didn't say it was a good idea, or a
successful idea, and it surely
failed, but what other reason can you
come up with for making Herod
the king of the Jews, when it was
common Roman practice to simply >have
a Roman governor over conquered >peoples?
There were kings of Judea before him. Read 'Wars of the Jews', 'Antiquities'
and 'Against Apion' by Josephus, written 98 AD, get an education. lol.
King Hircanus 2, was Herod's father-in-law. He had married his daughter
Myriam, an Hasmonean princess. She hated him because of what he had done to
her father. She had learned that he had him killed. He had her killed as
well with his two sons Alexander and Aristobulus.
"When Herod realized that he had been outwitted by the Magi, he was furious,
and he gave orders to kill all the boys in Bethlehem and its vicinity who
were two years old and under, in accordance with the time he had learned
from the Magi."
Rome had Herod rebuild the temple >>>to make
him look Solomon-like, but none of >>>that worked, because those who
were
zealous for the kingdom knew >>>exactly what the Abrahamic promise
said, and it did not include a pseudo >>>king who was a puppet of the
ultimate ruler...Rome
Zealous for the kingdom? Those >>zealots were bandits what one would
call today, terrorists.
What is your point? I certainly do not >disagree with your assessment
of the Zealots.
You associated the Zealot resistance to first Christians, I don't agree.
The chief priests and the Pharisees >>>were afraid that Jesus would do
something which would so enrage >>>Rome, that Rome would kill all the
Jews(John 11), so the Romans killed >>>Jesus, probably thinking it
would be an example to the Zealots.
Your opinion. The Zealots were no
different than the Iraqi
resistance is today. It was when they >>entered Jerusalem that the Romans
beseiged
the city, in 64 AD. There's no evidence >>that the Zealots who fought the
Romans
were followers of Jesus.
I'm not sure what you mean by "Your >opinion", because John 11 clearly
agrees with what I wrote, however, it is >my opinion that the Romans
***probably*** thought that Jesus' >death would be an example to the
Zealots.
The evidence that Jesus and his disciples >were ***probably*** zealots,
Sounds like Robert Eiseman's *****.
Let's face it, the Zealots were the only >Jews who had
not backslidden from the good news that >the kingdom is coming.
Idiot
(snip a lot)
The destruction of Jerusalem, in >>>70AD, drove the kingdom
resurrection
movement underground, but the >>>movement which Constantine brought
into
the open in the fourth century, was >>>not the kingdom resurrection
movement that Rome drove >>>underground in 70AD, it was a >>>universal
pagan
religion for the Roman empire, based >>>on the characters of the
apostolic kingdom movement
You're nuts. How could a Roman >>Emperor create a Jewish kingdom with
its
Temple in Jerusalem after having >>destroyed that city in 70 AD and
hundred of villages in Judea, in 132->>135 AD?
I suggest that you read what I wrote
*again*, and ask me a question
which makes some kind of sense...LOL
Constantine came 300 years after the
destruction of Jerusalem, and
represented a completely different rule
from the old ruling line which
he had defeated at Milvan bridge. He did > not create a Jewish kingdom,
he simply pretended to resurrect the
apostolic movement, but with
democraticly elected pagan religious
doctrines.
That's a lie.
Constantine wanted to stop the quarrels between the different churches,
between Rome, Alexandria, Byzantine, Cesarea, Syria, Antioch, etc and the
heresies like Arianism, Gnosticism, what not.
It matters not whether the story of the >>>bible is true or not.
What
matters is that at some point, history >>>began to be driven by
people's
belief in the bible story, so the minds >>>of bible believers have
been
manipulated by an unscrupulous >>>priesthood, for it's own
political
purposes, by covering up the real >>>story with a false one, and
insuring
it's acceptance by putting the fear of >>>God into the manipulated
masses.
Maybe, but then which priests, Jewish >>priests, Christian priests?
What is that real story, please tell.
The "post Israel" priesthood, invented >>>the idea of "the divided
kingdom" so that the former citizens >>>of fallen Israel would still
believe that they were national Israel, >>>and the priesthood would
retain it's Godly authority.
"post Israel" priesthood? Never >>existed.
I couldn't agree with you
more...however, the two warring enemy
kingdoms resulting from the fall of
Israel, continued the priesthood
after Israel's fall. Of course it was not
God's priesthood, since God
had only given His priesthood to Israel. >The "post-Israel" priesthood
of the two warring kingdoms, invented >the doctrine that those two
warring enemy nations were actually
divided Israel, thus perpetuating
the idea that their priestly authority still >came from God. This ploy
on the part of the "false" priesthood,
resulted in the former citizens
of fallen Israel, continuing to falsely
believe that they were still
Davidic Israelites.
There is no evidence that Judea, (Jerusalem), ever ruled the province of
Samaria,
Anyone who can think for himself, >>>knows
that two, warring, enemy, kingdoms, >>>are not simply a divided
kingdom
..>>
There is no evidence outside the Bible >>that Jerusalen ever ruled the
province of Samaria, quite the >>contrary. It is most likely that
Jerusalem
was a vassal of Samaria up to the >>Assyrian destruction of Samaria in
722 BC.
That may very well be, but it is not >relevant because we are
discussing the bible story, which says >the opposite.
But, the biblical stories are no historical accounts. Your fictitious
kingdom idiocy is worthless unless the narratives you base your stupid
scheme on are historical accounts.
When Judaism began during the >>>Babylonian captivity, as a kingdom
resurrection movement, it was >>>probably the priesthood which turned
it's goal into a belief that God would >>>resurrect the kingdom by a
miracle, thus making Judaism into a >>>religion.
What evidence is there that such >>kingdom ever existed? What evidence
is
there that the inhabitants of Jerusalem >>exiled in 597-586-581 BC were
not
Canaanite pagans? None. The redaction >>of the Torah and the
collections of
some religious writings which are now >>part of the Jewish Tanach,
began
during the Babylonian Exile. You are >>mixing apples with oranges,
religious myths with history.
No evidence is necessary, because we >are not discussing the
historicity of bible narratives, we are >discussing the story which
runs with great continuity through the >bible, regardless of it's
literary classification.
You keep relating your kingdom hocuspocus to history, yet when I refer to
history, its not what you want. You know what you can do with your stupid
imaginary theory, stick it up yours.
The first century apostolic movement >>> was simply a revival of the
original 6th century BC Jewish
kingdom resurrection movement,
That's a lie. The Jerusalem church was >>a Jewish sect. That is what
it was
called and that is what it was. There >>never was a Jewish kingdom,
the seat
of which was Jerusalem, except in the >>stories of the Bible. There is
no
evidence, except in the biblical >>narratives, that the inhabitants of
Jeusalem exiled by the Babylonians, >>were not Pagan Canaanites.
I might be mistaken, but I am certainly >not lying..LOL
The evidence of the bible narratives is >what we are discussing. This
is a bible discussion!!!
Yes, the Jerusalem church was a Jewish >sect, also known as the
Zealots...a fact which has been carefully >covered up by Roman editing
of the so-called New Testament.
I had written that's a lie, I'm not to know you're an ignorant twit. The
Jerusalem church was not known as Zealots. There is no evidence that it was
ever called that.
and the
pagan priesthoods of the Roman
empire, changed the apostolic
movement
into the universal pagan religion of >>>the Roman empire at the first
ecumenical council of Nicea,
325AD. The creed established at that
council is what I call the
Constantinian creed, or Nicean
orthodoxy.
You finally laid that rotten egg. You >>really are nuts to believe
such thing.
And this is what you call "Nicean >>Orthodoxy". That's a nonsense. Not
too bright a historian.
First century Apostolic Christian >>>doctrines, were exactly the same
as
6th century BC Jewish doctrines, >>>presented by Jesus and the
apostles,
to Judean Jews, because they had >>>backslidden from those original
Jewish doctrines.
How would you know what the 6th >>century BC doctrines were? In the
6th
century, the precepts of the Mosaic Law >>may have existed with some
mythological narratives. What else?
Jesus came exclusively to the lost sheep >of the house of Israel,
healing their backsliding by preaching >the good news that the kingdom
is coming.
Bla! bla! blah!
David, Solomon and his Temple never >> existed. If Jesus said he would
resurrect the Davidic Kingdom as a
physical, earthly kingdom, he
didn't know
what he was talking about. That is not >> what the Gospels tell you.
Again...it does not matter whether or not >the Davidic kingdom every
existed. Jesus and his followers believed >it did, and that belief
drove them in their mission. Constantine >changed the mission of the
apostolic movement, and that change >drove history from that time on.
Get yourself a Mail an News software program, yours stink and so does that
of that idiot "nwd".
.
|
|
|
| User: "Provoker" |
|
| Title: Re: Part 1 : Why build the 3rd temple |
01 Aug 2007 10:04:36 PM |
|
|
On Aug 1, 8:28 pm, "L.T. David" <L...@newsnet.ca< wrote:
<
< There were kings of Judea before him. Read 'Wars of the Jews',
'Antiquities'
< and 'Against Apion' by Josephus, written 98 AD, get an education.
lol.
< King Hircanus 2, was Herod's father-in-law. He had married his
daughter
< Myriam, an Hasmonean princess. She hated him because of what he had
done to
< her father. She had learned that he had him killed. He had her
killed as
< well with his two sons Alexander and Aristobulus.
< "When Herod realized that he had been outwitted by the Magi, he was
furious,
< and he gave orders to kill all the boys in Bethlehem and its
vicinity who
< were two years old and under, in accordance with the time he had
learned
< from the Magi."
Hello LT:
There is no extrabiblical evidence that Herod ever gave such an order,
or that all the boys 2 years old and under were killed...Just
kidding...LOL
Very good LT. You are finally getting with the program and disussing
the bible story without worrying about historical evidence:-)
<
< < What is your point? I certainly do not <disagree with your
assessment
< < of the Zealots.
<
< You associated the Zealot resistance to first Christians, I don't
agree.
Of course. You have not agreed with anything I have written, so what
else is new???
< < I'm not sure what you mean by "Your <opinion", because John 11
clearly
< < agrees with what I wrote, however, it is <my opinion that the
Romans
< < ***probably*** thought that Jesus' <death would be an example to
the
< < Zealots.
< < The evidence that Jesus and his disciples <were ***probably***
zealots,
<
< Sounds like Robert Eiseman's *****.
Who is Robert Eiseman?
< < Let's face it, the Zealots were the only <Jews who had
< < not backslidden from the good news that <the kingdom is coming.
<
< Idiot
Good rebuttal LT...LOL
< That's a lie.
<
< Constantine wanted to stop the quarrels between the different
churches,
< between Rome, Alexandria, Byzantine, Cesarea, Syria, Antioch, etc
and the
< heresies like Arianism, Gnosticism, what not.
I agree that Constantine wanted to put an end to the civil disorder
caused by the fighting between the paganized factions of the apostolic
movement, including the true apostolic movement, but when you
recognize the fact that the apostolic movement was really a kingdom
resurrection movement, you will see that Constantine had another
reason for watering down the goal of the real apostolic movement.
<
< There is no evidence that Judea, (Jerusalem), ever ruled the
province of
< Samaria,
According to the bible story, Jerusalem(Judea) was the city of David
and Solomon, who were rulers over the whole area which was promised to
Abraham, commonly called the promised land.
While it is true that the kingdom of Judah never ruled Samaria, the
kingdom of Judah was instrumental in the fall of Samaria to the
Assyrians.
< < That may very well be, but it is not <relevant because we are
< < discussing the bible story, which says <the opposite.
<
< But, the biblical stories are no historical accounts. Your
fictitious
< kingdom idiocy is worthless unless the narratives you base your
stupid
< scheme on are historical accounts.
It's not **My** fictitious kingdom. I did not write the bible...LOL
It does not matter one whit, whether the narratives of the bible are
historical a | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
