On Sun, 27 Feb 2005 13:04:31 -0800, after pondering
deep thoughts, "Chuck Stamford"
<shell__stamford@cox.net> spake thusly:
"Pastor Dave" <newsgroupmail@nospam-tampabay.rr.com> wrote in message
news:irr3215g1ohghtvthtte08564up2lgnlo4@4ax.com...
On Sun, 27 Feb 2005 01:26:23 -0800, after pondering
deep thoughts, "Chuck Stamford"
<shell__stamford@cox.net> spake thusly:
What's wrong, is your view of what the return meant.
You believe what the mainstream churches teach about it
and don't bother to see if maybe their teachings are
not Scriptural. Paul was right. Jesus returned.
Paul WAS right, Dave, but he didn't say Jesus returned.
Paul preached imminence, not thousands of years and
that is the topic under consideration.
Paul taught the imminence of the second coming AFTER the occurance of the
abomination that makes desolate spoken of by Daniel the prophet and
confirmed by Jesus Christ, and because Paul links those events
chronologically, that is also the topic under consideration.
Paul taught imminence, period. Trying to reword the
Bible isn't going to help you. Show me where Paul
said, "It is imminent, but thousands of years may pass
first.".
In fact his second
letter to the Thessalonians actually admonishes them for apparently
forgetting that he had previously taught them of the several events that
must occur before the return of the Lord, none of which HAD occurred as he
wrote to them, and NONE of which can be demonstrated by even a single
strand
of historical evidence to have occurred since. The historical record,
such
as it is, tells of no one entering the temple, Jew or Gentile, between the
time Paul wrote 2 Thess. (according to the consensus of Bruce, Easton,
Fiensy, Keener, MacArthur, Mills, Moss, Robinson, and Wegner, between 51
AD
and 53 AD) and its destruction, AND doing so to proclaim their authority
over the Jews or anyone else, much less the whole world.
Good for them. The reality is, that the events did
take place.
Spouting this drivel doesn't make it so.
You are confused. I responded to drivel.
You are quoting end timers.
Typical of you, Dave. When faced with something disagreeable, paste some
facetious label on it and move on.
You quoted end timers and you did so in a manner that
would try to make it appear as if because they said it,
it is true.
Big deal.
They are ignorant of their history and they are
ignorant of what the Bible says.
Sigh. Just how stupid do you think people are, Dave? We're supposed to
take your drivel at face value, and reject the opinions of nine Phd's in
biblical studies (representing a BROAD spectrum of Christian theology!) just
because you say so?! That's actually funny.
You call it drivel, because you are unable to refute
it. The fact is, that you just shot yourself in the
foot. The historic belief of the church for 1800+
years, was not what you believe, nor does everyone
believe it today. So how stupid do YOU think people
are, that they would bow down to you and believe what
you do, just because you quoted some names?
Besides this, you have to reject the ENTIRE historical record of the
destruction of the temple, Dave, and that's just nuts! There is no record
of anyone ever entering the temple to proclaim ANYTHING, let alone, as the
prophecies all say, proclaim themselves as a god.
You sir, are the one who rejects the entire historical
record of the destruction of the temple. What you do
accept however, is the rewriting of history.
The fact is that Jesus aid that the temple would be
destroyed and that not one stone would be left upon
another. He pointed at the existing temple. When the
Romans conquered Jerusalem, they burned the temple and
pried every stone apart, to retrieve the melted gold
that ran in between them. That is historical fact.
Your revisionist history will not change that and
waiting to see something happen, that already happened,
is what is "just nuts".
In any case, what is clear from the NT itself is that Jesus spoke of BOTH
the destruction of the temple, AND the "abomination that makes desolate"
spoken of by Daniel, and never ONCE links the two events as one and the
same
thing, or suggests that the destruction of the temple will be an event
that
ushers in his second coming. However, he clearly DOES link the
"abomination
that makes desolate" with his second coming, and certifies for us that
Daniel's prophecy is accurate. In doing THAT, he makes it impossible to
coherently construct a timeline which has him having already returned. To
fulfill Daniel's prophecy there must be a temple standing in Jerusalem,
and
a daily sacrifice (according to the Mosaic Law) being made therein so that
the "son of perdition" can cause it to cease and enter the Holy of Holies.
How then can you say that Christ has already returned without suggesting
that the NT is in error, that Jesus was mistaken, or that the NT authors
wrote to conceal and confuse rather than reveal??
The abomination took place.
Then it should be a relatively simple task for you to demonstrate this from
history. Where is it Dave? What year did it happen?
When Rome entered Jerusalem and set up the emblem of
their pagan gods in the temple. That was an
abomination and desolation followed, just as Daniel and
Jesus said.
Wat was the name of
this "man of sin" who was to be revealed according to Daniel, Jesus, John,
and Paul?
Nero. Six hundred and sixty six.
Te NT record (John 17:12, 2 Thess. 2:3) clearly shows that this
term is applied to more than one person in history (as any title may be
applied to more than one person in history if the title fits that person,
and as more than one title may be used of the same person so long as they
all fit that person), but it IS applied to a PERSON in John 17:12, and there
is nothing of substance to suggest it suddenly becomes a symbol for
something other than an actual person when Paul uses the title again in 2
Thess. 2:3...a generation after Judas died!
It wasn't "a generation after Judas died". It was the
same generation and Judas has nothing to do with who
the man of sin was.
Again, this is ignorance
of history and of the way Jews thought and spoke and
wrote and what an abomination would be to them and it
has nothing to do with what Gentile churches teach it
to be.
So produce something to back you up here, Dave, and quit wasting everyone's
time. Show me the scholarship that tells me how the Jews thought and spoke
and wrote about the "abomination that makes desolate" spoken of by Daniel,
Jesus, John, and Paul. Show me how this scholarship compels us to
understand that the way in which the Jews viewed this prophecy turns it all
into some sort of symbolism for something entirely different than an actual
man who comes to exert authority over the Jews using "flattery" instead of
force, causes the daily sacrifice to cease, and erects an "abomination" in
the still standing temple. Show me SOMETHING!
"Flattery" is your word. You demand that I back things
up, when you have done no such thing. You forget, I
RESPONDED to YOUR post. The onus of proof is on you
and it is you who is wasting everyone's time, with your
drivel which you provide no support for and keep
thinking that pasting in names of people in this
century somehow proves your claim. Lots of people
today believe that Buddha is a god. Are they right,
just because they can paste in the names of some
authors that believe as they do?
You need to stop reading the Bible as if it were
written in the 21st century.
Ah, here we go...the typical "you need to" argument that is the first resort
of the uninformed wanting to stay that way. For your information, Dave
(assuming you are still able to assimilate information that runs counter to
your preconceptions), I've NEVER read the Bible that way.
More false accusations and a personal attack.
It wasn't and if you
truly want to understand what was written, it would
behoove you to study the life and times of those people
and the way that they thought, wrote and spoke. In
other words, in your mind, become a 1st century Jew and
then read it and you'll see a whole lot more of it open
up to you. It is also helpful to understand the Roman
way of life and some of the other peoples involved, who
were written to, in the letters of the NT. I spent
quite some time doing that and boy, did my
understanding open up!
Then, again, it should be a ridiculously simple task for you to share with
me those elements of that study that were compelling enough to lead you to
the conclusions you now embrace with such fervor. But I never see you do
that, Dave.
Actually, I did and everyone knows that.
All I ever see are pontifications and personal attacks.
<chuckle>
You spew your opinions from "on high", and make personally denigrating remarks
about any source or poster that disagrees with you. These are the tactics
of someone who is without sound reasons for their beliefs. People who have
them are anxious to share them.
I back my statements up. People like you attack and
run away.
Now if you really want to debate the issue, I'm game.
But no more of your word twisting and stripping verses
apart, to suit your doctrine. Do you think that the
people don't notice that your position requires
Biblical acrobatics, tearing verses away from each
other, mid sentence sometimes and that my position does
not do that?
Now we shall see just how confident you are. Consider
this a challenge.
If you can tell me what you believe 2 Thessalonians is
saying will happen, then I can address it and respond
directly to your points. I don't want to shoot in the
dark regarding your beliefs and attribute something to
you that you don't espouse. :)
You put forward the quotes from 2 Thessalonians you want me to interpret for
you, and I will be happy to do that.
YOU made claims about the text. YOU back them up.
"Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the Scripture
is of any private interpretation." - 2 Peter 1:20
--
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
.
