Re: The New Covenant came before the Old?

Religions > Bible > Re: The New Covenant came before the Old?

LINK TO THIS PAGE

rating : 0 | 0

Page 1 of 2

Topic:	Religions > Bible
User:	"Mistylien"
Date:	28 Jun 2007 02:30:50 AM
Object:	Re: The New Covenant came before the Old?

"fenicus" <fenicus@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1182826716.844485.245570@w5g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...

I can't believe that some still claim that there's "prophecy" of any worth
in the bible...
...has it not all been debunked more than a zillion times already? With all
due respect, I've yet to see one single "prophecy" in the book that can't
much more easily be explained by normal means...

-- Well, believe it or not, i appreciate the respect, and the same
back atchi...

And i can also understand your frustration. I've been in one prophecy
Newsgroup after another over the years, & even helped get a few of
them going at one point. But in the end all i noticed was endless (and
fruitless) debate.

i've studied Bible prophecy sinse 1988, on every subject pertaining
to the subject from antichrist to the Mystery Babylon, New World
Order, 666, etc... but for some reason, NONE of it ever made a lick of
sense to me.

Then one day i came to realize the reason why nothing was ever
registering to me. For one thing, it wasn't time for its true
understanding to be revealed yet. And for another thing, it wasn't
given to me to understand.

Yet i've been trying to get one little simple prophetic message
across in this and 2 other Newsgroups, but during that time span, only
you, and two others has even attempted to challenge me on any of, go
figure.. If you go back and check my history, (or whatever its called)
you'll see what i'm talking about.

And for those who might be thinking "its all about me" has me totally
mixed up with a somebody else. Fact of the matter is, nobody in here
knows my real name. (But i will respond to an e-mail with it.) its not
that i'm trying to hide it from anybody, but it should at the very
least, show others that i'm not just some glory grabber trying to get
attention.

Heres my challenge to ANYBODY in here.. Prove to me that Daniel
chapter 10 is speaking of a Historical account.. then we'll go from
there.

Daniel 10
1In the third year of Cyrus king of Persia a thing was revealed unto Daniel, whose name
was called Belteshazzar; and the thing was true, but the time appointed was long: and he
understood the thing, and had understanding of the vision.
(History)
2In those days I Daniel was mourning three full weeks.
(History)
3I ate no pleasant bread, neither came flesh nor wine in my mouth, neither did I anoint
myself at all, till three whole weeks were fulfilled.
(History)
4And in the four and twentieth day of the first month, as I was by the side of the great
river, which is Hiddekel;
5Then I lifted up mine eyes, and looked, and behold a certain man clothed in linen, whose
loins were girded with fine gold of Uphaz:
6His body also was like the beryl, and his face as the appearance of lightning, and his
eyes as lamps of fire, and his arms and his feet like in colour to polished brass, and the
voice of his words like the voice of a multitude.
(Historic Vision)
7And I Daniel alone saw the vision: for the men that were with me saw not the vision; but
a great quaking fell upon them, so that they fled to hide themselves.
(History)
8Therefore I was left alone, and saw this great vision, and there remained no strength in
me: for my comeliness was turned in me into corruption, and I retained no strength.
(History)
9Yet heard I the voice of his words: and when I heard the voice of his words, then was I
in a deep sleep on my face, and my face toward the ground.
(Historic actions of Daniel)
10And, behold, an hand touched me, which set me upon my knees and upon the palms of my
hands.
Historic happenings to Daniel)
11And he said unto me, O Daniel, a man greatly beloved, understand the words that I speak
unto thee, and stand upright: for unto thee am I now sent. And when he had spoken this
word unto me, I stood trembling.
(History)
12Then said he unto me, Fear not, Daniel: for from the first day that thou didst set
thine heart to understand, and to chasten thyself before thy God, thy words were heard,
and I am come for thy words.
(History)
13But the prince of the kingdom of Persia withstood me one and twenty days: but, lo,
Michael, one of the chief princes, came to help me; and I remained there with the kings of
Persia.
(History)
14Now I am come to make thee understand what shall befall thy people in the latter days:
for yet the vision is for many days.
(History with prophetic vision starting)
15And when he had spoken such words unto me, I set my face toward the ground, and I
became dumb.
(History)
16And, behold, one like the similitude of the sons of men touched my lips: then I opened
my mouth, and spake, and said unto him that stood before me, O my lord, by the vision my
sorrows are turned upon me, and I have retained no strength.
(History)
17For how can the servant of this my lord talk with this my lord? for as for me,
straightway there remained no strength in me, neither is there breath left in me.
(History)
18Then there came again and touched me one like the appearance of a man, and he
strengthened me,
(History)
19And said, O man greatly beloved, fear not: peace be unto thee, be strong, yea, be
strong. And when he had spoken unto me, I was strengthened, and said, Let my lord speak;
for thou hast strengthened me.
(History)
20Then said he, Knowest thou wherefore I come unto thee? and now will I return to fight
with the prince of Persia: and when I am gone forth, lo, the prince of Grecia shall come.
History with Prophecy in part)
21But I will shew thee that which is noted in the scripture of truth: and there is none
that holdeth with me in these things, but Michael your prince.
(History)
I guess most of that is History so far
Now if you add the Ch 12 to it that makes it a bit different now doesn't it?
We must work with that which is presented.
Now if you want to make changes you will need a new Bible, but as it is
we need to work with what we are presented and move on from there and not
dwell on it too strongly.
M,
.

User: "Provoker"
Title: Re: The New Covenant came before the Old?	28 Jun 2007 09:46:50 AM

Hello m:
The new covenant was defined in Jeremiah 31:31-34, and according to
that passage it will be made with resurrected Israel, because Israel
was non-existent at the time. It also says that the reason that the
new covenant will be made, is because Israel failed to keep the old
covenant, and will not be able to keep it's law when Israel is finally
resurrected from the dead.
That is what is clearly presented about the new covenant, and what we
have to deal with.
What do you think?
On Jun 28, 3:30 am, "Mistylien" <yardhol...@charter.net> wrote:

"fenicus" <feni...@yahoo.com> wrote in message

news:1182826716.844485.245570@w5g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...

-- Well, believe it or not, i appreciate the respect, and the same
back atchi...

And i can also understand your frustration. I've been in one prophecy
Newsgroup after another over the years, & even helped get a few of
them going at one point. But in the end all i noticed was endless (and
fruitless) debate.

i've studied Bible prophecy sinse 1988, on every subject pertaining
to the subject from antichrist to the Mystery Babylon, New World
Order, 666, etc... but for some reason, NONE of it ever made a lick of
sense to me.

Then one day i came to realize the reason why nothing was ever
registering to me. For one thing, it wasn't time for its true
understanding to be revealed yet. And for another thing, it wasn't
given to me to understand.

Yet i've been trying to get one little simple prophetic message
across in this and 2 other Newsgroups, but during that time span, only
you, and two others has even attempted to challenge me on any of, go
figure.. If you go back and check my history, (or whatever its called)
you'll see what i'm talking about.

And for those who might be thinking "its all about me" has me totally
mixed up with a somebody else. Fact of the matter is, nobody in here
knows my real name. (But i will respond to an e-mail with it.) its not
that i'm trying to hide it from anybody, but it should at the very
least, show others that i'm not just some glory grabber trying to get
attention.

Heres my challenge to ANYBODY in here.. Prove to me that Daniel
chapter 10 is speaking of a Historical account.. then we'll go from
there.

Daniel 10
1In the third year of Cyrus king of Persia a thing was revealed unto Daniel, whose name
was called Belteshazzar; and the thing was true, but the time appointed was long: and he
understood the thing, and had understanding of the vision.

(History)

2In those days I Daniel was mourning three full weeks.

(History)

3I ate no pleasant bread, neither came flesh nor wine in my mouth, neither did I anoint
myself at all, till three whole weeks were fulfilled.

(History)

4And in the four and twentieth day of the first month, as I was by the side of the great
river, which is Hiddekel;

5Then I lifted up mine eyes, and looked, and behold a certain man clothed in linen, whose
loins were girded with fine gold of Uphaz:

6His body also was like the beryl, and his face as the appearance of lightning, and his
eyes as lamps of fire, and his arms and his feet like in colour to polished brass, and the
voice of his words like the voice of a multitude.

(Historic Vision)

7And I Daniel alone saw the vision: for the men that were with me saw not the vision; but
a great quaking fell upon them, so that they fled to hide themselves.

(History)

8Therefore I was left alone, and saw this great vision, and there remained no strength in
me: for my comeliness was turned in me into corruption, and I retained no strength.

(History)

9Yet heard I the voice of his words: and when I heard the voice of his words, then was I
in a deep sleep on my face, and my face toward the ground.

(Historic actions of Daniel)

10And, behold, an hand touched me, which set me upon my knees and upon the palms of my
hands.

Historic happenings to Daniel)

11And he said unto me, O Daniel, a man greatly beloved, understand the words that I speak
unto thee, and stand upright: for unto thee am I now sent. And when he had spoken this
word unto me, I stood trembling.

(History)

12Then said he unto me, Fear not, Daniel: for from the first day that thou didst set
thine heart to understand, and to chasten thyself before thy God, thy words were heard,
and I am come for thy words.

(History)

13But the prince of the kingdom of Persia withstood me one and twenty days: but, lo,
Michael, one of the chief princes, came to help me; and I remained there with the kings of
Persia.

(History)

14Now I am come to make thee understand what shall befall thy people in the latter days:
for yet the vision is for many days.

(History with prophetic vision starting)

15And when he had spoken such words unto me, I set my face toward the ground, and I
became dumb.

(History)

16And, behold, one like the similitude of the sons of men touched my lips: then I opened
my mouth, and spake, and said unto him that stood before me, O my lord, by the vision my
sorrows are turned upon me, and I have retained no strength.

(History)

17For how can the servant of this my lord talk with this my lord? for as for me,
straightway there remained no strength in me, neither is there breath left in me.

(History)

18Then there came again and touched me one like the appearance of a man, and he
strengthened me,

(History)

19And said, O man greatly beloved, fear not: peace be unto thee, be strong, yea, be
strong. And when he had spoken unto me, I was strengthened, and said, Let my lord speak;
for thou hast strengthened me.

(History)

20Then said he, Knowest thou wherefore I come unto thee? and now will I return to fight
with the prince of Persia: and when I am gone forth, lo, the prince of Grecia shall come.

History with Prophecy in part)

21But I will shew thee that which is noted in the scripture of truth: and there is none
that holdeth with me in these things, but Michael your prince.

(History)

I guess most of that is History so far

Now if you add the Ch 12 to it that makes it a bit different now doesn't it?

We must work with that which is presented.

Now if you want to make changes you will need a new Bible, but as it is

we need to work with what we are presented and move on from there and not

dwell on it too strongly.

M,- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

User: "Mistylien"
Title: Re: The New Covenant came before the Old?	29 Jun 2007 03:40:55 AM

"Provoker" <provoker42@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1183042010.463379.145070@o61g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...

If you take a closer look at what Jesus was doing I think you may see
it was the new covenent of Love that he was presenting to the Disciples.
Later they were called apostles, and also we are called Saints.
I do not believe that it stopped in the first century AD. I think it is
still going on today as more are being added to the Body of Believers
from time to time.
The New Jerusalem may well be the Christian Bride of the Lamb that
Jesus was collecting.
See John 20 ff and
Luke 24 ff.
(ff means forward to finish in Bible jargon)
M,

On Jun 28, 3:30 am, "Mistylien" <yardhol...@charter.net> wrote:

"fenicus" <feni...@yahoo.com> wrote in message

news:1182826716.844485.245570@w5g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...

-- Well, believe it or not, i appreciate the respect, and the same
back atchi...

Heres my challenge to ANYBODY in here.. Prove to me that Daniel
chapter 10 is speaking of a Historical account.. then we'll go from
there.

Daniel 10
1In the third year of Cyrus king of Persia a thing was revealed unto Daniel, whose
name
was called Belteshazzar; and the thing was true, but the time appointed was long: and
he
understood the thing, and had understanding of the vision.

(History)

2In those days I Daniel was mourning three full weeks.

(History)

3I ate no pleasant bread, neither came flesh nor wine in my mouth, neither did I
anoint
myself at all, till three whole weeks were fulfilled.

(History)

4And in the four and twentieth day of the first month, as I was by the side of the
great
river, which is Hiddekel;

5Then I lifted up mine eyes, and looked, and behold a certain man clothed in linen,
whose
loins were girded with fine gold of Uphaz:

6His body also was like the beryl, and his face as the appearance of lightning, and
his
eyes as lamps of fire, and his arms and his feet like in colour to polished brass, and
the
voice of his words like the voice of a multitude.

(Historic Vision)

7And I Daniel alone saw the vision: for the men that were with me saw not the vision;
but
a great quaking fell upon them, so that they fled to hide themselves.

(History)

8Therefore I was left alone, and saw this great vision, and there remained no strength
in
me: for my comeliness was turned in me into corruption, and I retained no strength.

(History)

9Yet heard I the voice of his words: and when I heard the voice of his words, then was
I
in a deep sleep on my face, and my face toward the ground.

(Historic actions of Daniel)

10And, behold, an hand touched me, which set me upon my knees and upon the palms of my
hands.

Historic happenings to Daniel)

11And he said unto me, O Daniel, a man greatly beloved, understand the words that I
speak
unto thee, and stand upright: for unto thee am I now sent. And when he had spoken this
word unto me, I stood trembling.

(History)

12Then said he unto me, Fear not, Daniel: for from the first day that thou didst set
thine heart to understand, and to chasten thyself before thy God, thy words were heard,
and I am come for thy words.

(History)

13But the prince of the kingdom of Persia withstood me one and twenty days: but, lo,
Michael, one of the chief princes, came to help me; and I remained there with the kings
of
Persia.

(History)

14Now I am come to make thee understand what shall befall thy people in the latter
days:
for yet the vision is for many days.

(History with prophetic vision starting)

15And when he had spoken such words unto me, I set my face toward the ground, and I
became dumb.

(History)

16And, behold, one like the similitude of the sons of men touched my lips: then I
opened
my mouth, and spake, and said unto him that stood before me, O my lord, by the vision
my
sorrows are turned upon me, and I have retained no strength.

(History)

17For how can the servant of this my lord talk with this my lord? for as for me,
straightway there remained no strength in me, neither is there breath left in me.

(History)

18Then there came again and touched me one like the appearance of a man, and he
strengthened me,

(History)

19And said, O man greatly beloved, fear not: peace be unto thee, be strong, yea, be
strong. And when he had spoken unto me, I was strengthened, and said, Let my lord
speak;
for thou hast strengthened me.

(History)

20Then said he, Knowest thou wherefore I come unto thee? and now will I return to
fight
with the prince of Persia: and when I am gone forth, lo, the prince of Grecia shall
come.

History with Prophecy in part)

21But I will shew thee that which is noted in the scripture of truth: and there is
none
that holdeth with me in these things, but Michael your prince.

(History)

I guess most of that is History so far

Now if you add the Ch 12 to it that makes it a bit different now doesn't it?

We must work with that which is presented.

Now if you want to make changes you will need a new Bible, but as it is

we need to work with what we are presented and move on from there and not

dwell on it too strongly.

M,- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

User: "Provoker"
Title: Re: The New Covenant came before the Old?	29 Jun 2007 07:24:03 PM

On Jun 29, 4:40 am, "Mistylien" <yardhol...@charter.net< wrote:
< "Provoker" <provoke...@gmail.com< wrote in message
<
< news:1183042010.463379.145070@o61g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
<
< < Hello m:
< < The new covenant was defined in Jeremiah 31:31-34, and according
to
< < that passage it will be made with resurrected Israel, because
Israel
< < was non-existent at the time. It also says that the reason that
the
< < new covenant will be made, is because Israel failed to keep the
old
< < covenant, and will not be able to keep it's law when Israel is
finally
< < resurrected from the dead.
< < That is what is clearly presented about the new covenant, and what
we
< < have to deal with.
< < What do you think?
<
< If you take a closer look at what Jesus was doing I think you may
see
< it was the new covenent of Love that he was presenting to the
Disciples.
< Later they were called apostles, and also we are called Saints.
Hello m:
You made the point in your first post, that we have to deal with what
is written, and Hebrews contains a direct quote from that very
Jeremiah passage. Can you explain why you suggest it is refering to a
different "new" covenant?
<
< I do not believe that it stopped in the first century AD. I think it
is
< still going on today as more are being added to the Body of
Believers
< from time to time.
I think that the presentation of the new covenant as defined by God,
probably ended in the 4th century when Constantine forced the
apostolic church to amalgamate with paganized factions, for the
establishment of his universal religion of the Roman Empire.
.

User: "Mistylien"
Title: Re: The New Covenant came before the Old?	01 Jul 2007 02:20:00 AM

"Provoker" <provoker42@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1183163043.663323.250650@k79g2000hse.googlegroups.com...

On Jun 29, 4:40 am, "Mistylien" <yardhol...@charter.net< wrote:
< "Provoker" <provoke...@gmail.com< wrote in message
<
< news:1183042010.463379.145070@o61g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
<

snip<

<
< If you take a closer look at what Jesus was doing I think you may
see
< it was the new covenent of Love that he was presenting to the
Disciples.
< Later they were called apostles, and also we are called Saints.

Hello m:
You made the point in your first post, that we have to deal with what
is written, and Hebrews contains a direct quote from that very
Jeremiah passage. Can you explain why you suggest it is refering to a
different "new" covenant?

I guess you lost me there, I need BCV to read so I know what and
where you are coming from.

<
< I do not believe that it stopped in the first century AD. I think it
is
< still going on today as more are being added to the Body of
Believers
< from time to time.

I think that the presentation of the new covenant as defined by God,
probably ended in the 4th century when Constantine forced the
apostolic church to amalgamate with paganized factions, for the
establishment of his universal religion of the Roman Empire.

Constantine had nothing to do with What God and Jesus were doing
with making their Covenant with the New order of Beleivers.
Constanine was of the order of the Roman empire Not of the Body
of Believers or the Bride of the lamb.
Constatine was more interested in getting more people under his
control.
It was not long after Constanine that the Imperial Rome fell
and it became Pagan Rome for a while.
Then it became Papal Rome in 538 AD and that is where the nation
of Rome is at today, It is in the Roman Catholic Church Sect.
IF you would like to know how all that went down in prophecy
you will need to go back and read and study up on the larger Church
History.
The Halliy's Bible Hand book as a pretty good church History in it.
but the RCC is trying to sensore that book and get all copies of it
so now one can read it any more.

User: "Provoker"
Title: Re: The New Covenant came before the Old?	01 Jul 2007 07:24:23 AM

On Jul 1, 3:20 am, "Mistylien" <yardhol...@charter.net> wrote:

"Provoker" <provoke...@gmail.com> wrote in message

Hello m:
The title of this thread appears to ask the question; did the new
covenant exist before the old covenant, and you pointed out that we
have to deal with what is written regarding the subject.
I pointed out that according to God's own definition of His new
covenant(Jer.31:31-34), it has not even been made yet, and since that
is what is written about it, then that is what we have to deal with.
You then suggested that the new covenant Jesus was refering to was the
new covenant of love.
Since you appeared to be implying that we were talking about two
different new covenants, I asked you why you think that the new
covenant that Jesus refered to is not the same new covenant that God
defined in Jer.31:31-34.
Now you say that I have lost you, so this post is my attempt to bring
you back up to speed.
.

User: "Mistylien"
Title: Re: The New Covenant came before the Old?	02 Jul 2007 01:00:59 AM

"Provoker" <provoker42@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1183292663.980598.201220@n2g2000hse.googlegroups.com...

On Jul 1, 3:20 am, "Mistylien" <yardhol...@charter.net> wrote:

"Provoker" <provoke...@gmail.com> wrote in message

Did Jer come before Matt. Mark, Luke, and John?
Did the covenant that God made with Abram/Abraham be the first
covenant or the second covenant?
In reading the Bible it seems that one lived out that was the second one
while it was the First one that had more meaning then the second one.
This seems to come out in reading some place in the New Testament
books. I am not sure it is in the Gosples or in the letters of paul.
So I have memory problems.

You then suggested that the new covenant Jesus was refering to was the
new covenant of love.

That is how I see it yes.

Since you appeared to be implying that we were talking about two
different new covenants, I asked you why you think that the new
covenant that Jesus refered to is not the same new covenant that God
defined in Jer.31:31-34.

I really do not see that any covenant was made with the 2 tribes of Israel.
However the covenant of love has all the accoutrements of what the
law is saying.
I mean though it does say something to that effect in the Jer passage you
posted, I do not remember ever seeing in any Bible verses where He in deed
did make that covenant with them. Sorry I guess I will have to wait
for another Bible to be given to us that may show that little detail.

Now you say that I have lost you, so this post is my attempt to bring
you back up to speed.

It does make it a bit lighter for the discusion. Thank you.
and now I am sure you will pigion hole me more and more as we
go along and not even show one drop of Love in your discussion text.
Will you?

User: "Provoker"
Title: Re: The New Covenant came before the Old?	02 Jul 2007 09:32:50 AM

On Jul 2, 2:00 am, "Mistylien" <yardhol...@charter.net< wrote:
< "Provoker" <provoke...@gmail.com< wrote in message
<
< news:1183292663.980598.201220@n2g2000hse.googlegroups.com...
<
< < On Jul 1, 3:20 am, "Mistylien" <yardhol...@charter.net< wrote:
< << "Provoker" <provoke...@gmail.com< wrote in message
<
< < Hello m:
< < The title of this thread appears to ask the question; did the new
< < covenant exist before the old covenant, and you pointed out that
we
< < have to deal with what is written regarding the subject.
< < I pointed out that according to God's own definition of His new
< < covenant(Jer.31:31-34), it has not even been made yet, and since
that
< < is what is written about it, then that is what we have to deal
with.
<
< Did Jer come before Matt. Mark, Luke, and John?
Hello m:
500 years before.
<
< Did the covenant that God made with Abram/Abraham be the first
< covenant or the second covenant?
< In reading the Bible it seems that one lived out that was the second
one
< while it was the First one that had more meaning then the second
one.
< This seems to come out in reading some place in the New Testament
< books. I am not sure it is in the Gosples or in the letters of paul.
< So I have memory problems.
<
< < You then suggested that the new covenant Jesus was refering to was
the
< < new covenant of love.
<
< That is how I see it yes.
<
< < Since you appeared to be implying that we were talking about two
< < different new covenants, I asked you why you think that the new
< < covenant that Jesus refered to is not the same new covenant that
God
< < defined in Jer.31:31-34.
<
< I really do not see that any covenant was made with the 2 tribes of
Israel.
< However the covenant of love has all the accoutrements of what the
< law is saying.
< I mean though it does say something to that effect in the Jer
passage you
< posted, I do not remember ever seeing in any Bible verses where He
in deed
< did make that covenant with them. Sorry I guess I will have to wait
< for another Bible to be given to us that may show that little
detail.
Who said that God made a covenant with two tribes?
Is it possible that you are aleady using another bible?:-)
<
< < Now you say that I have lost you, so this post is my attempt to
bring
< < you back up to speed.
<
< It does make it a bit lighter for the discusion. Thank you.
< and now I am sure you will pigion hole me more and more as we
< go along and not even show one drop of Love in your discussion
text.
< Will you?
How can I help but pigeon hole you m? From the questions you ask it
is obvious that you need to ask a lot more questions before you become
offended when someone challenges your opinions:-)
Always assume that the other guy knows more than you until he says
things that you are sure you know better.
.

User: "Mistylien"
Title: Re: The New Covenant came before the Old?	03 Jul 2007 01:38:41 AM

"Provoker" <provoker42@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1183386770.598508.206020@g4g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...

I think the laws and promise to Abraham came long before that.
so Yes she Covenant came before the first century AD.

<
< Did the covenant that God made with Abram/Abraham be the first
< covenant or the second covenant?
< In reading the Bible it seems that one lived out that was the second
one
< while it was the First one that had more meaning then the second
one.
< This seems to come out in reading some place in the New Testament
< books. I am not sure it is in the Gosples or in the letters of paul.
< So I have memory problems.
<
< < You then suggested that the new covenant Jesus was refering to was
the
< < new covenant of love.
<
< That is how I see it yes.
<
< < Since you appeared to be implying that we were talking about two
< < different new covenants, I asked you why you think that the new
< < covenant that Jesus refered to is not the same new covenant that
God
< < defined in Jer.31:31-34.
<
< I really do not see that any covenant was made with the 2 tribes of
Israel.
< However the covenant of love has all the accoutrements of what the
< law is saying.
< I mean though it does say something to that effect in the Jer
passage you
< posted, I do not remember ever seeing in any Bible verses where He
in deed
< did make that covenant with them. Sorry I guess I will have to wait
< for another Bible to be given to us that may show that little
detail.

Who said that God made a covenant with two tribes?
Is it possible that you are aleady using another bible?:-)

<
< < Now you say that I have lost you, so this post is my attempt to
bring
< < you back up to speed.
<
< It does make it a bit lighter for the discusion. Thank you.
< and now I am sure you will pigion hole me more and more as we
< go along and not even show one drop of Love in your discussion
text.
< Will you?

How can I help but pigeon hole you m? From the questions you ask it
is obvious that you need to ask a lot more questions before you become
offended when someone challenges your opinions:-)
Always assume that the other guy knows more than you until he says
things that you are sure you know better.

Any one can say what ever they like but I like them to back up that what
They claim with Bible Book Chapter and Verse "BCV.

User: "Provoker"
Title: Re: The New Covenant came before the Old?	03 Jul 2007 06:25:33 PM

On Jul 3, 2:38 am, "Mistylien" <yardhol...@charter.net> wrote:

Any one can say what ever they like but I like them to back up that what
They claim with Bible Book Chapter and Verse "BCV.

Hello m:
Yes, it is true that anyone can say whatever he wants to, but book,
chapter, and verse, does not solve anything. As you know, every
church, denomination, sect, or cult, can back up it's doctrines with
book, chapter, and verse, well enough that no one can change their
minds with book, chapter, and verse.
Everyone says that we have to look at a verse in context, and while
that is true, it might be worthwhile for you to know that scripture
was not written in verses. Verses are a man made division of
scripture, which does little more than separate scripture from
context, and cause doctrines to be built on verses out of context. My
point being that if one reads the bible in context, he will not need
to concentrate on verses, and he may actually discover the bible tells
a flowing story, and is not just a list of verses to select for making
up doctrine.
I have read and understood hundreds of books in my life, and I don't
remember one single sentence from any ot them. The reason is that one
sentence from a book means nothing without the whole story it is part
of.
Learn the story which flows with continuity through the whole bible,
and forget single verses, and you may just become one of the very,
very, few people who actually have a clue as to what the bible
teaches.
.

User: "Mistylien"
Title: Re: The New Covenant came before the Old?	04 Jul 2007 02:45:42 AM

;WEll if you want to chat with me
you will have to use BCV in context;
If I do not know I will admit it
If I have some insight I may share that what I know.
M,
"Provoker" <provoker42@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1183505133.081485.74530@n60g2000hse.googlegroups.com...

On Jul 3, 2:38 am, "Mistylien" <yardhol...@charter.net> wrote:

Any one can say what ever they like but I like them to back up that what
They claim with Bible Book Chapter and Verse "BCV.

User: "duke"
Title: Re: The New Covenant came before the Old?	29 Jun 2007 07:09:12 AM

On Thu, 28 Jun 2007 07:46:50 -0700, Provoker <provoker42@gmail.com> wrote:

Hello m:
The new covenant was defined in Jeremiah 31:31-34, and according to
that passage it will be made with resurrected Israel, because Israel
was non-existent at the time.

We Christians call it the prophecy of the OT of the coming NT.
duke, American-American
*****
"The Mass is the most perfect form of Prayer."
Pope Paul VI
*****
.

User: "fenicus"
Title: Re: The New Covenant came before the Old?	29 Jun 2007 09:35:52 PM

Misty.. I understand the era Daniel was living in at that time around
535 B.C. (more or less), and was all history from our perspective, but
the prophecy in itself was concerning the future, which is our
present.
Don't you kinda find it ironic how nobody has challenged me on this?
And it isn't just here either.
And even you are saying that it could have some future significance.
It has to, because "every one" (Dan 12:1-3) thats written in the book
clearly hasn't been resurrected yet.
Not only that, but if was noted in the scriptures of truth, (or the
New Testament) chapter 10 couldn't have been speaking of Alexander the
great. Because that event was "before" the scriptures of truth He was
telling it from.
.

User: "Mistylien"
Title: Re: The New Covenant came before the Old? att finicus	03 Jul 2007 01:54:43 AM

"fenicus" <fenicus@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1183170952.279691.242640@g4g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...

M,
Daniel was a youth when he went into the 70 years Captivity of the
Babylonians. about 606 BC
606 take away 70 is what 536 maybe?
So when was alexander in power?
Daniel did not live much beyond the 70 years captivity if he
did live through it all the way, so all of the prophesies he was
receiving were in "his" future. . .
-------------

Don't you kinda find it ironic how nobody has challenged me on this?
And it isn't just here either.

Not a lot of people are into discussing Bible Prophecy because they can
not scoff at you properly because they are mostly ignorant of what
Bible prophecy is about.
------------

And even you are saying that it could have some future significance.
It has to, because "every one" (Dan 12:1-3) thats written in the book
clearly hasn't been resurrected yet.

What I said is many prophesies have already been fulfilled but
some are still to be fulfilled in the future beyond today and it
is up to us to place the fulfilled ones in the Time line of History
so we know what has and what has not yet been fulfilled to date.
Now this does not mean all the Bible prophesies are in our future.
as you seem to think that is what I ment. I did not mean that
at all.
----------

Not only that, but if was noted in the scriptures of truth, (or the
New Testament) chapter 10 couldn't have been speaking of Alexander the
great. Because that event was "before" the scriptures of truth He was
telling it from.

Daniel was getting that vission and prophecy long before Alexander was in
Power, so some of the prophesies could well have been for Alexander as
well for, Was not Alexander of the Greadain Empirer that daniel was
told would come also.
----------------
M,
.

User: "Provoker"
Title: Re: The New Covenant came before the Old? att finicus	03 Jul 2007 06:59:10 PM

On Jul 3, 2:54 am, "Mistylien" <yardhol...@charter.net> wrote:

Hello m:
I haven't challenged you on prophecy because I have not been following
your interaction with anyone else...until now.
None of God's promises for mankind have been fulfilled.
The gospel, which God promised to Abraham first, was that a great
nation of his children, on all the land between the Euphrates and the
river of Egypt, will bring a dynastic blessing, of peace on earth, to
all nations. All of God's promises for man, will be fulfilled when
the gospel is fulfilled.
I am sure that you know that there has never existed a great nation of
Abraham's children, on all the land between the Euphrates and the
river of Egypt, which brought a dynastic blessing, of peace on earth,
to all nations.
.

User: "Mistylien"
Title: Re: The New Covenant came before the Old? att finicus	04 Jul 2007 02:49:08 AM

"Provoker" <provoker42@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1183507150.325643.204910@o61g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...

On Jul 3, 2:54 am, "Mistylien" <yardhol...@charter.net> wrote:

It is not my fault your eye of understanding is blind.

User: "Provoker"
Title: Re: The New Covenant came before the Old? att finicus	04 Jul 2007 08:44:05 AM

On Jul 4, 3:49 am, "Mistylien" <yardhol...@charter.net> wrote:

It is not my fault your eye of understanding is blind.

Hello m:
God is not the author of confusion, so His prophecies are not random,
and/or without purpose, but fit logicly into the sequence of events
which will lead to gospel fulfillment.
Paul said that the gospel was preached first to Abraham, making
Abraham the father of all who believe the gospel.
The gospel prophecy that God preached first to Abraham, is that all
nations will be blessed by a sovereign national assembly of Abraham's
children, on all the land between the Euphrates and the river of
Egypt. That blessing will be 1000 years(a dynasty) of peace on earth,
good will to men.
Regardless of what has taken place over the three thousand plus years
since God made the gospel promise to Abraham, there has still never
existed a sovereign nation on all the land between the Euphrates and
the River of Egypt, which blessed all nations with a dynasty of "peace
on earth".
The Abrahamic gospel promise/prophecy is the faith of the bible, and
it is what the point of scripture has been aimed at since Abraham, and
that is the context in which all prophecy must be understood.
.

User: "Mistylien"
Title: Re: The New Covenant came before the Old? att finicus	05 Jul 2007 03:29:56 AM

"Provoker" <provoker42@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1183556645.532107.105060@57g2000hsv.googlegroups.com...

On Jul 4, 3:49 am, "Mistylien" <yardhol...@charter.net> wrote:

It is not my fault your eye of understanding is blind.

Hello m:
God is not the author of confusion, so His prophecies are not random,
and/or without purpose, but fit logicly into the sequence of events
which will lead to gospel fulfillment.

It is the sequence of events that I specialize in when
I discuss Prophecy.
Your judgements are not just, You puff your self up to your
divying out of what you think you know of what I really know
and understand !
So this discussion will not go any longer as long as you keep
on with your holy judgements of others with out love
and all you have is to lay the law on others.

Paul said that the gospel was preached first to Abraham, making
Abraham the father of all who believe the gospel.
The gospel prophecy that God preached first to Abraham, is that all
nations will be blessed by a sovereign national assembly of Abraham's
children, on all the land between the Euphrates and the river of
Egypt. That blessing will be 1000 years(a dynasty) of peace on earth,
good will to men.
Regardless of what has taken place over the three thousand plus years
since God made the gospel promise to Abraham, there has still never
existed a sovereign nation on all the land between the Euphrates and
the River of Egypt, which blessed all nations with a dynasty of "peace
on earth".
The Abrahamic gospel promise/prophecy is the faith of the bible, and
it is what the point of scripture has been aimed at since Abraham, and
that is the context in which all prophecy must be understood.

User: "Provoker"
Title: Re: The New Covenant came before the Old? att finicus	05 Jul 2007 01:09:58 PM

On Jul 5, 4:29 am, "Mistylien" <yardhol...@charter.net> wrote:

"Provoker" <provoke...@gmail.com> wrote in message

news:1183556645.532107.105060@57g2000hsv.googlegroups.com...

On Jul 4, 3:49 am, "Mistylien" <yardhol...@charter.net> wrote:

It is not my fault your eye of understanding is blind.

Hello m:
God is not the author of confusion, so His prophecies are not random,
and/or without purpose, but fit logicly into the sequence of events
which will lead to gospel fulfillment.

It is the sequence of events that I specialize in when
I discuss Prophecy.

Your judgements are not just, You puff your self up to your
divying out of what you think you know of what I really know
and understand !

So this discussion will not go any longer as long as you keep
on with your holy judgements of others with out love
and all you have is to lay the law on others.

Hello m:
Since neither of us was present when any bible event took place, and
neither of us speaks for God, it goes
without saying that we are both simply offering opinions, so there is
no point in taking offense every
time I make a statement of opinion which you do not agree with.
I have offered no judgements about you, or your opinions, but have
simply offered my own opinions
regarding the subject at hand.
However, when one responds with; "you are wrong", and "you do not show
love", but he does not offer a
reasonable rebuttal, he is very close to making an ad hominem
arguement.
to the subject at hand:
"It is my opinion" that prophecy is not just God showing off, but
prophecy necessarily points to events
which must take place in the grand scheme that God has already laid
out in an everlasting promise.
It all comes back to when God made an everlasting promise to Abraham,
that a great nation, of Abraham's
children, on all the land between the Euphrates and the river of
Egypt, will bless all nations.
Paul said that was the gospel, and that Abraham was the first to
receive it, making Abraham the father of
all who believe the gospel.
If we deal with the gospel promise/prophecy which God preached to
Abraham first, and which Paul was still
preaching over 1000 years later, then we should have an understanding
of what will eventurally take place,
and be in a position to understand later prophecies.
I hope that I said that with enough love:-)
.

User: "Mistylien"
Title: Re: The New Covenant came before the Old? att finicus	07 Jul 2007 12:49:59 AM

"Provoker" <provoker42@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1183658998.871936.11770@n60g2000hse.googlegroups.com...

On Jul 5, 4:29 am, "Mistylien" <yardhol...@charter.net> wrote:

You have proven you are not interested in discussion.
Thank you for your time.
bye now.
.

User: "Provoker"
Title: Re: The New Covenant came before the Old? att finicus	07 Jul 2007 11:38:22 AM

On Jul 7, 1:49 am, "Mistylien" <yardhol...@charter.net> wrote:

You have proven you are not interested in discussion.

Thank you for your time.

bye now.

Hello m:
I have proven that I have a reasonable, scriptural, opinion, on the
subject at hand, and I have offered it twice now for discussion. You
have proven that you will use any excuse to get out of discussion with
anyone who does not share your opinion...LOL
.

User: "Mistylien"
Title: Re: The New Covenant came before the Old?	01 Jul 2007 02:30:45 AM

"fenicus" <fenicus@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1183170952.279691.242640@g4g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...

The Vission in Daniel 2 was about 2500 years ago and not all of it
has been fulfilled to date.

Don't you kinda find it ironic how nobody has challenged me on this?
And it isn't just here either.

There are not very many that have a handle on Bible propecy like we do.
I have been telling it for about 9 years now and there is very few that
will even discuss any of it with our kind.
Many scoffers like to blow hot air but not get into a good discussion
on any of it nor apply it to History of the last 2500 years of history
with me.

And even you are saying that it could have some future significance.
It has to, because "every one" (Dan 12:1-3) thats written in the book
clearly hasn't been resurrected yet.

That is correct no all Bible propheise have been fulfilled to date.
However it is the Study of Bible Prophecy that we can put the
fulfilled prophecy in the Time line of History to check off which
prophecy has and which prophecy has not been fulfilled to date.

Yes. Daniel chapters before 10 were prophesying that even after Daniel
was Dead and gone , Alexander and the Grecian empire would be
Babylon just as any that followed him would also be that Babylon
even Constatine was Babylong and that was way after Alexanders Day.
M,

User: "Pastor Dave"
Title: Re: The New Covenant came before the Old?	30 Jun 2007 01:20:42 AM

On Fri, 29 Jun 2007 19:35:52 -0700, fenicus
<fenicus@yahoo.com> spoke thusly:

That's a claim. Where does Daniel say,
"21st century"?

Don't you kinda find it ironic how nobody
has challenged me on this? And it isn't
just here either.

I just have. Prove your case. And I do mean
PROVE your case. FYI, claims are NOT proof.
--
Pastor Dave
Expand and go out into the ocean of your faith.
God doesn't do His deepest work in the shallowest
part of the water.
The world says that seeing is believing.
The Bible says that believing is seeing.
Doctrine is not Scripture.
.

User: "Fred A Stover"
Title: Re: The New Covenant came before the Old?	30 Jun 2007 04:05:38 AM

"Pastor Dave" <..... SNAFU........@nowhere.com> wrote in message
news:fetb831v8ho7cet3abd72al6o6e3be5sbh@4ax.com...

On Fri, 29 Jun 2007 19:35:52 -0700, fenicus
<fenicus@yahoo.com> spoke thusly:

That's a claim. Where does Daniel say,
"21st century"?

There's that lying Spirit again, Satan.
Where is "21st century" is the above "claim?"
"Future" does not mean "21st century," just because the 21st century was
future then.
His,
--
For 1600 years the Bible said: "For many deceivers are entering into the
world, who confess not that Jesus Christ is coming in the flesh. This is a
deceiver and an antichrist."
The original Greek text of the Bible and the Vulgate tranlation read "Jesus
Christ is coming in the flesh" because coming is in the present active
participle. The earliest versions that I've found to mistranslate the
present participle "is coming" as "is/has come," are the Douay-Rheims NT
(1582) and the King James (1611).
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: "fenicus"
Title: Re: The New Covenant came before the Old?	30 Jun 2007 06:03:57 AM

On Jun 30, 12:20 am, Pastor Dave <n...@nowhere.com> wrote:

On Fri, 29 Jun 2007 19:35:52 -0700, fenicus
<feni...@yahoo.com> spoke thusly:

That's a claim. Where does Daniel say,
"21st century"?

-- Daniel doesn't have to say the words "21st century". More than
likely He didn't even know what year its fulfillment would be. But
that isn't to say that we won't know it when the time has arrived. And
if Dan 12:10 stands correct, (which is definitely does) the wise will
understand.

Don't you kinda find it ironic how nobody

has challenged me on this? And it isn't
just here either.

I just have. Prove your case. And I do mean
PROVE your case. FYI, claims are NOT proof.

-- No, the challenge isn't for me to prove anything, but instead for
you to prove me wrong. And in the process of nobody proving me wrong,
at the very least it gives it credibility to being the truth. Does it
not?
The time will come shortly where seeing is believing, but for now,
stay in your Bible, but keep an open mind, because NOBODY has the
padlock on Gods Holy Word. And no, not even fenicus.
.

User: "Pastor Dave"
Title: Re: The New Covenant came before the Old?	30 Jun 2007 11:30:23 AM

On Sat, 30 Jun 2007 04:03:57 -0700, fenicus
<fenicus@yahoo.com> spoke thusly:

On Jun 30, 12:20 am, Pastor Dave
<n...@nowhere.com> wrote:

On Fri, 29 Jun 2007 19:35:52 -0700, fenicus
<feni...@yahoo.com> spoke thusly:

That's a claim. Where does Daniel say,
"21st century"?

In other words, you're one of "the wise"
and I must be ignorant, because I don't
claim it's about us today.
That's the typical, pathetic approach of
those like you, who let vanity rule them.

Don't you kinda find it ironic how nobody
has challenged me on this? And it isn't
just here either.

I just have. Prove your case. And I do mean
PROVE your case. FYI, claims are NOT proof.

-- No, the challenge isn't for me to prove anything, but instead for
you to prove me wrong.

Thank you for admitting that you're full of crap.
YOU said that no one has challenged you on this.
I therefore challenged you to back up your claims.
Now you wish to claim that you get to say whatever
you want about what the Bible says and everyone
else has to prove you wrong. That's flat out ridiculous!
You have nothing with which to show that your claim
should be believed. Nothing at all! And THAT is why
you claim that I must prove you wrong.
The truth is, you're a liar. You claim that no one has
challenged you on this, when the truth is, that many
have challenged you and you cowered behind your
false claim that they have to prove you wrong.
You are like the evolutionists, who say, "Prove that
it could not have happened".

The time will come shortly where seeing is believing, but for now,
stay in your Bible, but keep an open mind, because NOBODY has the
padlock on Gods Holy Word. And no, not even fenicus.

The same crap claim that you Futurists always make
and which never comes true. And yet, you still don't
get it. You are ruled by vanity. To you, if the Bible
isn't all about you and your time, it's worthless.
--
Pastor Dave
Expand and go out into the ocean of your faith.
God doesn't do His deepest work in the shallowest
part of the water.
The world says that seeing is believing.
The Bible says that believing is seeing.
Doctrine is not Scripture.
.

User: "Fred A Stover"
Title: Re: The New Covenant came before the Old?	30 Jun 2007 04:52:14 PM

"Pastor Dave" <......SNAFU......@nowhere.com> wrote in message
news:q81d839mff2h5nk43hahphhm9glq19net8@4ax.com...

On Sat, 30 Jun 2007 04:03:57 -0700, fenicus
<fenicus@yahoo.com> spoke thusly:

The same crap claim that you Futurists always make
and which never comes true. And yet, you still don't
get it. You are ruled by vanity. To you, if the Bible
isn't all about you and your time, it's worthless.

Here's some more of that "crap," Satan:
2 Peter 3:3-4
Knowing this first, that there shall come in the last days scoffers,
walking after their own lusts, [4] And saying, Where is the promise of his
coming? for since the fathers fell asleep, all things continue as they were
from the beginning of the creation.
Fool! You don't even know what you've already seen.
His,
--
For 1600 years the Bible said: "For many deceivers are entering into the
world, who confess not that Jesus Christ is coming in the flesh. This is a
deceiver and an antichrist."
The original Greek text of the Bible and the Vulgate tranlation read "Jesus
Christ is coming in the flesh" because coming is in the present active
participle. The earliest versions that I've found to mistranslate the
present participle "is coming" as "is/has come," are the Douay-Rheims NT
(1582) and the King James (1611).
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: "fenicus"
Title: Re: The New Covenant came before the Old?	30 Jun 2007 04:48:04 PM

Pastor Dave, Your words are like a piercing sword to those who wants
to stick around to hear it. If the truth be known, this is your way of
getting out of the discussion, because you know that i don't answer to
that kind of rude behavior. So in your mind you have won...whatever.
You'll never learn anything from anybody with that kind of attitude my
friend. End of discussion...
.

User: "Pastor Dave"
Title: Re: The New Covenant came before the Old?	01 Jul 2007 09:22:02 AM

On Sat, 30 Jun 2007 14:48:04 -0700, fenicus
<fenicus@yahoo.com> spoke thusly:
<unwanted large break in text that made it
appear as if the post was finished when it
wasn't, fixed>
I will post this response, which is 100% true
and anyone can feel free to go through this
thread and see for themselves that the words
that I quote as yours, are indeed quoted word
for word, without changing them. And they
can see that I am telling the 100% truth about
how this discussion happened.

Pastor Dave, Your words are like a piercing sword
to those who wants to stick around to hear it.
If the truth be known, this is your way of getting
out of the discussion, because you know that I
don't answer to that kind of rude behavior. So in
your mind you have won...whatever. You'll never
learn anything from anybody with that kind of
attitude my friend. End of discussion...

You are here claiming that I am trying to run away
from the discussion and yet, it was you, in your
last message, who refused to discuss it and are
doing so again.
You like to run around telling people how "wise"
you are (your word and your claim) and how no one
can challenge you and yet, when I did challenge you,
you started to insult me and now you are running away
from the discussion, while lying and claiming that it is
the other way around. Now I ask the following question,
without any ill will and as an honest question that you
should really consider and ask yourself, since you claim
to be a Christian (I'm not saying that you're not) and
imply that you are the one being honest and that I am
not. So I ask you...
"How Christian are your actions in this issue?"
With all due respect, I say, "Not very". And so,
instead of your suggestion that we end the discussion
where you'd like to, let us instead, end the discussion
with the truth, instead of the lies that you just told
about me in the form of direct insults hurled at me,
which, as I said, is easy for anyone to verify, reading
back through this thread.
Truth #1) You just snipped everything I said.
All of my words! Every single one of them!
I could understand some snippage of irrelevant parts
of the discussion as it progresses, but you snipped
_all_ of it! And I think we both know why you did
that. You did that, because you knew that you were
being deceptive and that I bagged being deceptive.
And then you tried to accuse me of being the liar. (:
That part of the discussion went as follows and was
in regard to your claim that Daniel was speaking
about our time, in our generation's near future:
FENICUS: Don't you kinda find it ironic how nobody
has challenged me on this? And it isn't just here either.
But since all you did was make claims such as this one,
I responded with...
PD: I just have. Prove your case. And I do mean
prove your case. And FYI, claims are not proof.
The truth is, as I will show below quoting your own
words, is that when someone says anything that could
be considered as challenging your claims, you run away,
hurling insults behind you and refuse to discuss it,
while claiming that it is the other person who is causing
the problem. (:
Truth #2) You made a claim that Daniel is being
fulfilled now, in our time, in our generation.
You offered no proof whatsoever of this claim
and expected that everyone should just blindly
accept this claim! And before you deny that,
remember that _you_ were the one who, when
asked for proof of your claim, stated that it is
the job of the other person to prove you wrong.
The truth is, I wouldn't try to disprove the claim
that God used pink unicorns to create the world
either, because it is too ridiculous to bother with!
Furthermore, it is not my job to disprove anyone's
claims! It is your job to back up your own words!
I can see you trying to lead. All you would offer
is some wild claims, that stroke peoples' egos,
by telling them that it's all about them and their
time and if anyone challenged you, you would
try to claim that they have to prove you wrong.
Well, in that case Fenny boy, here's one for ya!
"The Bible says in Daniel, that God is going to use
an ICBM made in the U.S. and bought by China,
to blow up the U.N.."
Now go ahead and prove me wrong. And remember:
a) I need now prove that my claim is true and
Biblical. According to you, by your own words,
it is not the job of the claimant to prove their
claims. Rather, it is your job to prove the
claimant wrong.
b) According to your own words, the Bible does not
have to say those words, in order for it to be in
the Bible.
c) Don't bother claiming that God would not do such
a thing, because He has, many times in history,
used armies to accomplish His goals, such as
when He raised up King Nebuchadnezzar to
conquer the land and when He used Israel to
conquer many peoples and when He used the
Assyrians to judge Egypt, etc., etc.. Shall I
quote more examples?
Now we will all be awaiting your response, in which
you disprove my claim. And if you do not do so,
then according to your own criteria, you are "not wise"
and need to "stay in your Bible, because it will be seen
shortly and exactly when doesn't matter, but it will
happen in our time".
Truth #3) You bragged that you are right, because
hey, look, according to you, no one has challenged
you yet.
But the truth is, that I did challenge you to prove
your claim and as I said, when I challenged you
to do so, you said that I had to prove that you are
wrong, instead of you having to back up your claims.
Let us look at what happened and as I said, all of
my quotes are direct, word for word quotes and
remember, again, this was in regard to your claim
that Daniel was speaking about our time and would
happen in the near future.
And so, what was your response to that?
FENICUS: No, the challenge isn't for me to prove
anything, but instead for you to prove me wrong.
And in the process of nobody proving me wrong,
at the very least it gives it credibility to being the
truth. Does it not?
In other words, it's not that no one has challenged you.
It's that you set up an illogical rule, in which you get to
make any claim you wish and if people can't prove it
wrong, then everyone is supposed to think that there
is credibility to your claim. Ridiculous and cowardly!
The truth is, that you want people to be required to
prove a negative, which is almost always impossible
to prove!
And furthermore, you set your claims into the future,
even if within our generation, which means, as you
well know, no one can prove your claims wrong,
until the time comes that you say it will happen,
which of course, you will never pinpoint for us,
because that would mean that you would have to have
your claims subjected to the absolute test and you are
afraid of that and so, give us only a generalization of
"the when". How convenient for you!
Well, here is the problem... No matter how many times
someone shows you something, you will claim that it
just wasn't time yet and bump it further away on the
calendar, moving the goals posts time and time again!
Once again sir, how convenient for you! (:
And furthermore, anyone who makes a "time" claim
about the future and yet, is afraid to pinpoint their
"time" claims to a specific time, going only so far
as to say, "our time/generation", shows that they
themselves doubt that their claims would stand up
to the ultimate test! Now how much more proof
do we need than that, to know that you are not
being honest with us?! (:
The reality is, that there are those who pinpoint times
and when they do, they are always wrong, because
like you, they base their claims on the idea that God
wrote the entire Bible, ignoring everyone else,
because it's really all about you in your time! In fact,
Jesus came in the first century, why? Because He
wanted to address those people? No! Not according
to you Futurists! According to you people, He actually
came then, to talk right past those people, because
He really wanted to talk to YOU, TODAY!
Of course, I have never seen in the Bible, the statement
by Jesus, "Now listen guys... I know I came here now
and that it appears that I'm talking to you, but in reality,
I'm skipping right over almost 2,000 years and trying to
talk to people in the 21st century. You see, God's time
machine was broken and so, He accidentally dropped
Me off almost 2,000 years earlier than I was supposed
to arrive, so just bear with Me guys, alright?".
Truth #4) You implied that Daniel being fulfilled today,
is something that "the wise will understand", which
certainly implies that since I do not believe that, that
I must _not_ be "one of the wise". Well, what does
that leave, but an insult directed at me, which says
that I am Biblically ignorant; a Biblical fool and a vain
statement by you, coming from ego, which says to
everyone how Biblically wise you think of yourself as?
So whether you deny it or not, you did indeed imply
that I am:
a) Ignorant as to the truth of Scripture.
b) Unable to understand and "not wise".
Now what kind of "Christian" man goes around
making the claim that he is wise and makes the
obvious implication that those who don't agree
with him about what he claims the Bible shows,
are not wise?
Gee, you don't think highly of yourself or anything,
do you sir?
"For I say, through the grace given unto me,
to every man that is among you, not to think
of himself more highly than he ought to think."
- Romans 12:3a
And isn't it interesting that after making these claims
that I obviously must not be wise, because I don't
believe what you said and asked you to prove it,
that you said the following, which you mistakenly
thought would make me feel stupid, but in reality,
showed just what a hypocrite you are?
FENICUS: The time will come shortly where seeing
is believing, but for now, stay in your Bible, but keep
an open mind, because NOBODY has the padlock on
Gods Holy Word. And no, not even fenicus.
Before even beginning to dissect that a bit, let us
focus on that last sentence for a moment.
"Not even fenicus"
Hmmm....
"Not E-V-E-N fenicus."
Huh??? What an arrogant, egotistical and vain
statement! (: Not "even" fenicus, as if you are
some great one that would be the one to possess
a padlock that you could place on God's word?!
That if anyone did have the "padlock on God's
word", it would surely be you?
W-H-A-T ?!?
Please! You should check your vanity at the door,
before posting here, claiming that it's the other
guy who has the issues! (:
Back to the rest of your statement above...
So in other words, you claim that your claims, which
weren't even specific btw (a sign of a false teacher)
would be SEEN SHORTLY and yet, follow that claim
with the statement that we must "keep an open mind"?
That's a contradiction, sir!
And that not even you have the "padlock to God's word"!
Huh???
And here you are so arrogant, that you tell a pastor
to "stay in his Bible", implying that I don't read it
and don't know what it says and as if you are one
whom I should look to for guidance, which is
especially funny, considering that you can't even find
enough honesty within yourself to own up to your
own words and to be honest in the first place? (:
It is also an arrogant statement, when one considers
that you act as if a pastor has never read his Bible,
because he doesn't automatically bow at your feet
and promote whatever claim you wish to make! (:
You think you are above questioning! Is that a truly
Biblical stance? We must all believe Fenicus, or we
are not Biblically "wise" and must obey the commands
of Fenicus?!? No, no vanity there, huh? :)
And what have you offered in the way of proof that
we should believe you? Oh yea, that's right! You
said that you don't have to prove anything and that
we all have to prove you wrong! Well gee, isn't that
just oh so convenient for you, Fenicus?!
FENICUS: No, the challenge isn't for me to prove
anything, but instead for you to prove me wrong.
And btw sir, if you wish to stop being hypocritical,
then you must make sure to always accept what
people here in usenet and elsewhere say, as if it is
absolute Biblical fact, because hey, according to
your logic, they never have to o