Top 20 Topics taught in the Bible? [Archive] - Bibles, Wheels, and Brains Forum

David M

03-27-2013, 12:58 PM

Richard

I want you to include the things the Bible teaches which are obvious. It does not matter matter if we are at variance as to the way we understand a subject.

For example. The Bible teaches; God is ONE and there in none else besides Him. The fact that God as a Trinity is taught is besides the point at the moment unless you really think the Bible teaches the Trinity. That is what I want to know. What did not "believe' before you began to doubt and turn your back on God.

The Bible teaches Jesus is the only begotten Son of God born of a virgin. Other claim Jesus pre-existed.

The Bible teaches the reusurrection after being in the grave. Others think they go straight to "Heaven" or "hell" wherever they things those things are.

The Bible teaches the return of Jesus to the earth while others think he remains in Heaven and rules from there.

I jotted down a list of about 30 different things though some can be grouped under one subject. There are around 12/13 different subjects which form the basis of Bible talks.

With all your study, I would have thought this would be an easy excercise for you and I could guage how much we can agree on; very little by the two things you listed.

God is much more than you have listed and you know. This is the point. The Bible reveals God to us and His Nature. Whilst you have only given us parts of His nature and frame your argument against those few aspects of His nature so as to justify your arguement that those things are contradictory, the fact that you fail to list God is; judge, He is just, merciful, vengeful. Only when you add all the parts to His nature do we get the whole picture. Unless you can get come to terms with the goodness and severity of God and how He can only judge rightly according to the laws he has set mankind, then you have a mental difficulty comprehending God.

I do not claim to have the mind of God or know what God is thinking, but I have a comprehension of him in the way you struggle to come to terns with and accept.

If you do not break a law, you have nothing to fear from the authorities. Obeying the laws/rules of the land are no different to obeying God's rules.

You can introduce all excuses for rejecting God's judgment, but you cannot say God deals unjustly with the righteous, infact on many occassion He shows us he saves the righteous before His penalty is served on the reprobates.

I know you will not accept things as I do and try to pick fault in my reasoning. Whether the Bible is true of not, there is nothing to stop us getting to know what the authors (man or God) intended us to understand as if speaking to us directly; that is the truth we have to get to. There can be 1000's of opinions, but they all count for nothing. It is the one opinion which is correct that we must find. I write the following for those who are open-minded to finding out what the Bible says and I leave what I write open to your objection and criticism, that is OK, our readers have to investigate these things for themselves and dertermine who is correct. Please do not criticise why I believe, just focus on the actual message of the Bible by way of giving your opinion, after all, that is what I was hoping to get from your list.

If we accept Jesus is the Son of God (or God himself) we do not get any criticism of the God of the OT for what He did to those who perished because that was His judgment and penalty. Jesus is often portrayed (wrongly IMO) as being meek and mild. He was when it came to doing anyone physical harm, but the message of Jesus is hard-hitting and endorses the punishment and judgment of God to come. If anyone leads a young child away from coming to him and his Heavenly Father, Jesus said; it were better for him that a millstone were hanged about his neck, and that he were drowned in the depth of the sea. That is the judgment of Jesus and that is the judgment we can expect to come when he rules again from Jerusalem. Jesus has been given all authority and judgment and that will be exercised when he comes back to earth. God has given His only begotten Son His own title of God. In order for Jesus to rule, he has all of God's power available to him in the form of the Holy Spirit and He bears the title and name of God. That makes him look very much as if he is God, but Jesus never admitted to being equal with God and when all is accomplished and everything has been brought into subjection and the Kingdom is handed over to his Heavenly Father, then Jesus does not need to have the power of God whereby to exert authority. While man is sinful, and man is the only thing in God's creation to have rebelled and that is the only part of His creation which is at emnity with God (not His Angels), then when man has been redeemed and in the kingdom there is no sin, then God no longer has to penalize anyone for disobeying His instructions. The earth and everything on it will be restored and everything in the garden (so to speak) will be whole again.

God has a plan for this earth and His creation and that is something that many churces do not teach, because they teach we go to Heaven when we die. There does not have to be confusion, if people wake up to the misinformation they are given from the main religions. You can say I am brainwashed and that means nothing, because that is just your opinion and does nothing to change the argument. I have asked you a question; you did not answer; Why is it, the majority will get rejected? The alternative question is; What does it mean to follow the "narrow path that leads to life", what does that in detail require doing? That ought to be question everyone gets the correct answer to. Maybe everyone thinks they are on the path, not realizing they are on the wrong path leading to destruction.

Jesus is going to reject many who come to him saying; (Matt 7:21) Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven. 22 Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works? 23 And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity. Jesus is actually going to condemn people to death just as his Heavenly Father condemned people to death; the same people you think God was not justified in killing for being the reprobates they were. You may think you have a better solution to the problem than God had, but that cannot be proven. Man cannot possibly know the full consequence of his actions. It is a matter of faith to think that God knows what He is doing and He knows best. God is in Heaven and I am on earth and I am humble before Him. A contrite heart, is a prerequisite to receiving the blessing from God; (Isaiah 66:2) but to this man will I look, even to him that is poor and of a contrite spirit, and trembleth at my word.. What does it take for a person to be acceptable to God? That is an important question we have to understand. The people who are acceptable are the ones that have found the narrow path. They are obeying God's instructions and doing what Jesus has commanded them; they are the friends of Jesus if they do his commandments.

(Jeremiah 17:10) I the LORD search the heart, I try the reins, even to give every man according to his ways, and according to the fruit of his doings.
Is it possible for man to judge anothe man to the same extent God can? How do we judge what is fair? If we are too leanient, we appear weak, if we are too harsh, we are are not being fair. God judges according to what he sees and not what we see. God is more just than man can ever be, God can be gracious and merciful and yet we accuse God of not doing the right thing. It is faith, because we have to wait for the judgment to come. We have proof byh way of the stories in which God saves the righteous, although they are not perfect. That is our assurance God will be shown merciful by the people He saves; not to those who are not saved. "Faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen" Whether you believe God's word or not, that is the message of the Bible by which a person has faith. Faith is not groundless and my faith is grounded in the word of God and while you keep saying, I am delusioned or I have no proof. That's the way it appears to you since you reject everything.

You will not accept the restoration of the nation of Israel is in God's plan and the nation of people are witnesses (not that they know it) for God. God made them and unconditional promise.
(Jeremiah 29:14) And I will be found of you, saith the LORD: and I will turn away your captivity, and I will gather you from all the nations, and from all the places whither I have driven you, saith the LORD; and I will bring you again into the place whence I caused you to be carried away captive.
(Jeremiah 30:11) For I am with thee, saith the LORD, to save thee: though I make a full end of all nations whither I have scattered thee, yet will I not make a full end of thee: but I will correct thee in measure, and will not leave thee altogether unpunished.

Of course you can say that it talking about the return from exile, but who is to say, this is a one-off event? When all the other nations have been destroyed, who is the only nation to remain standing? Israel. God is not going to make a full end of them. They have returned and they will be overrun a third and final time and that will culminate with them being saved from annihilation and the return of their Messiah to save them. The Jews have always expected their Messiah to come and Jesus did not fulfill that role in the way he will when he returns. It is at that time, the veil that is their tradition, is taken off their eyes and they see Jesus, their Messiah, the one they crucified 2,000 years ago. All that is happening in the Middle East and to Israel is proving to me that God's word is coming true. There is lots in the prophets that has not applied to the nations spoken of in the prophets and even in Genesis from the time Ishmael and Esau were born that determined some national traits that are evident in the Arab nations surrounding Israel. There are sayings of the prophets, that whilst some are figurative in their fulfillment is happening now. We shall have to see Damascus eventually become a "ruinous heap" (Isaiah 17:1). When did that ever happen in its history? It is happening now, it is in the process. Rood got his timing out, but some years before this started, he said it would happen. He is not the only one to have forseen this. This is why, there are Bible scholars who are putting these things together in a much better than the many who do not. We have to get all scripture to fit and preterism leaves out a lot. We do not have many words of prophecy for nothing. God has not left us in darkness while we are in the age of the Gentiles. That time is closing to and end and the great day of the LORD has yet to come. The time of trouble like there never has been or ever will be again did not happen in AD70. This one time is like nothing anyone has ever seen. It could happen by man's own doing if left to himself. Nothing could be worse than for man to destroy this planet by letting of his stockpile of nuclear weapons. We do not know that some nuclear bombs will get launched, but the shaking of the earth and the heavens like nothing ever seen before or seen afterward will come. God has not poured His judgements on all nations of the earth.

Ok, so you do not accept any of this, but I hope those reading, less convinced than yourself, will investigate these things for themselves and not take their church teaching unquestionably. Rood despite your character assacination of him, has admitted he got things wrong and for 20 years followed the false baptist teaching. I dp not accept all that other people's writings you have quoted are accurate. You are only providing me with other people's opinions. I have heard Rood's explanation of events, and what I am more concerned with are the actual things he teaches. Unless you watch the same videos and hear the same words to come out of his mouth, we hold on to our different opinions. My opinion is based on words of teaching from God's word and those are the teachings I have accepted as the truth long before Rood came on the scene. The prediction of Israel returning to the land was forseen in the 1800's long before the first trickle of Jews started to return. Was there any indication they would? No! It is in God's word that they would, and it is the strong evidence of prophecy supported by fact, that is the starting point for looking for all truth in God's word. Recent archeological discoveries, are further evidence of stories long ago, the skeptics have long claimed did not happen and now, the evidence has been found to disprove the cynics. If you want to go the Arabia and take the chance of getting arrested, then you can go and see Mount Sinai for yourself. These things are there for you to see, but it you will not go to the mountain, the mountain will not come to you. That just about sums it up, you will not go in search of the evidence, just deny the evidence exists and call everyone liars and charletans for finding these things. I have an open mind, I keep half-expect to be fooled, but I also can trust people who are genuine. We can all be deceived, but that does not mean we are all fools, the truth stands and we have to find it. So keep up the search.

David

L67

03-27-2013, 01:12 PM

Richard

The Bible teaches Jesus is the only begotten Son of God born of a virgin. Other claim Jesus pre-existed.

I want to address this point and I will address more later.

The Bible teaches no such thing. That is a mistranslation. In the Septuagint you find "Hinneh ha-almah harah ve-yeldeth ben ve-karath shem-o immanuel." Which means " Behold, the young woman has conceived — and bears a son and calls his name Immanuel."

Sorry but in proper translation "young woman" is very different than born of a virgin. That calls into question the whole story of Jesus miraculous virgin birth. That proves the original authors never intended Jesus to be born of a virgin. But early Christians used this mistranslation to deceive people to suit there purpose and have been deceiving every since.

http://www.harrington-sites.com/terms.htm

http://www.harrington-sites.com/virgin.html

Richard Amiel McGough

03-27-2013, 01:28 PM

I want to address this point and I will address more later.

The Bible teaches no such thing. That is a mistranslation. In the Septuagint you find "Hinneh ha-almah harah ve-yeldeth ben ve-karath shem-o immanuel." Which means " Behold, the young woman has conceived — and bears a son and calls his name Immanuel."

Sorry but in proper translation "young woman" is very different than born of a virgin. That calls into question the whole story of Jesus miraculous virgin birth. That proves the original authors never intended Jesus to be born of a virgin. But early Christians used this mistranslation to deceive people to suit there purpose and have been deceiving every since.

http://www.harrington-sites.com/terms.htm

http://www.harrington-sites.com/virgin.html
You are correct that the Hebrew OT does not use the technical term for a "virgin" but both the Greek LXX OT and the Greek NT do. So the Bible does teach that Jesus was born of a virgin.

A "young woman" is not necessarily not a virgin so there is no contradiction. But neither can we say that there was a real prophecy either. It looks pretty obvious that Matthew plucked that verse out of context and applied it to Jesus. If any other interpreter did that it would be called a gross hermeneutical error.

Richard Amiel McGough

03-27-2013, 02:23 PM

Richard

I want you to include the things the Bible teaches which are obvious. It does not matter matter if we are at variance as to the way we understand a subject.

For example. The Bible teaches; God is ONE and there in none else besides Him. The fact that God as a Trinity is taught is besides the point at the moment unless you really think the Bible teaches the Trinity. That is what I want to know. What did not "believe' before you began to doubt and turn your back on God.

The Bible teaches Jesus is the only begotten Son of God born of a virgin. Other claim Jesus pre-existed.

The Bible teaches the reusurrection after being in the grave. Others think they go straight to "Heaven" or "hell" wherever they things those things are.

The Bible teaches the return of Jesus to the earth while others think he remains in Heaven and rules from there.

Good afternoon David, :yo:

Your comparisons between things you think "the Bible teaches" and things you think "others claim" are just your opinions. There are BIBLICAL REASONS devout Christians have come to conclusions different than yours. It seems quite arrogant (in a characteristically ROOD sort of way) to assert that your private OPINIONS are what the Bible actually teaches and anyone who disagrees is not following the Bible.

A Biblical case can be made that the Bible teaches that Jesus is Creator (Col 1:14) and God (Tit 2:13) and that Jesus is not the Father. Christians attempt to understand this "apparent" contradiction by formulating the doctrine of the Trinity.

A Biblical case can be made that the Bible teaches that Jesus pre-existed (John 1:1, John 17, Rev 19:13, etc.)

A Biblical case can be made that the Bible teaches that the resurrection will be spiritual and not involve physical bodies coming out of the ground. (1 Cor 15, 2 Cor 5).

A Biblical case can be made that the Bible teaches that the "kingdom of God" is the Church and there is no prophecy of Jesus returning to earth, let alone "ruling" on earth for a thousand years. (Heb 12:22).

I jotted down a list of about 30 different things though some can be grouped under one subject. There are around 12/13 different subjects which form the basis of Bible talks.

With all your study, I would have thought this would be an easy excercise for you and I could guage how much we can agree on; very little by the two things you listed.

Your little "exercise" is an exercise in absurdity. You are merely asserting that your private opinions are what the Bible "really teaches" and anyone who disagrees is "unbiblical." That's just a waste of time.

God is much more than you have listed and you know. This is the point. The Bible reveals God to us and His Nature. Whilst you have only given us parts of His nature and frame your argument against those few aspects of His nature so as to justify your arguement that those things are contradictory, the fact that you fail to list God is; judge, He is just, merciful, vengeful. Only when you add all the parts to His nature do we get the whole picture. Unless you can get come to terms with the goodness and severity of God and how He can only judge rightly according to the laws he has set mankind, then you have a mental difficulty comprehending God.

Yes, of course I know that the Bible has other things to say about God. And I told you why I quit making the list. It seemed like a waste of time because you were not clear about what what the list was for. So I didn't want to guess and then find out that I was just wasting my time. And I'm glad I quit, because now I see that I had no idea what sort of game you were playing and it would indeed have been a waste of time for me to continue. You didn't bother replying to what I wrote anyway.

Your assertion that I failed to list that "to list God is; judge, He is just, merciful, vengeful" is false. I listed "just and kind and merciful and wise." The idea of "vengeful" doesn't fix anything in my comment. God is not just or merciful according to the descriptions of his actions given in the Bible.

I do not claim to have the mind of God or know what God is thinking, but I have a comprehension of him in the way you struggle to come to terns with and accept.

I find your explanations invalid and I have explained why. They are irrational. You merely hold to the PRESUPPOSITION that the Bible is true and then you twist words to force them to fit your presupposition. I find that to be an intellectual abomination.

If you do not break a law, you have nothing to fear from the authorities. Obeying the laws/rules of the land are no different to obeying God's rules.

You can introduce all excuses for rejecting God's judgment, but you cannot say God deals unjustly with the righteous, infact on many occassion He shows us he saves the righteous before His penalty is served on the reprobates.

I most certainly can say that God deals unjustly. Just ask the 32,000 virgins. Just ask the 70,000 Israeli's that God slaughtered because David took a census that God (and/or Satan) provoked him to take. Just ask every Christian woman that God abandoned to be raped and slowly tortured to death even as they BEGGED their "trustworthy heavenly father" to save them. God watches every rape and listens to every prayer and chooses to stand there doing NOTHING to save his people.

Do you want to know the difference between your god and me? If I saw a women being raped, I would PUT A STOP TO IT :stop: and save the women. God just sits back watching, eating popcorn, and enjoying the praise of all his heavenly sycophants.

I know you will not accept things as I do and try to pick fault in my reasoning. Whether the Bible is true of not, there is nothing to stop us getting to know what the authors (man or God) intended us to understand as if speaking to us directly; that is the truth we have to get to. There can be 1000's of opinions, but they all count for nothing. It is the one opinion which is correct that we must find. I write the following for those who are open-minded to finding out what the Bible says and I leave what I write open to your objection and criticism, that is OK, our readers have to investigate these things for themselves and dertermine who is correct. Please do not criticise why I believe, just focus on the actual message of the Bible by way of giving your opinion, after all, that is what I was hoping to get from your list.

I think it would be very enlightening to see if we can agree about WHAT THE BIBLE ACTUALLY STATES before debating what it means. But from my experience with believers, even this humble task seems impossible. Indeed, believers can't even agree amongst themselves about what the Bible actually states, let alone the meaning of the words. That's why religions is such a blatant absurdity.

If we accept Jesus is the Son of God (or God himself) we do not get any criticism of the God of the OT for what He did to those who perished because that was His judgment and penalty. Jesus is often portrayed (wrongly IMO) as being meek and mild. He was when it came to doing anyone physical harm, but the message of Jesus is hard-hitting and endorses the punishment and judgment of God to come. If anyone leads a young child away from coming to him and his Heavenly Father, Jesus said; it were better for him that a millstone were hanged about his neck, and that he were drowned in the depth of the sea. That is the judgment of Jesus and that is the judgment we can expect to come when he rules again from Jerusalem. Jesus has been given all authority and judgment and that will be exercised when he comes back to earth. God has given His only begotten Son His own title of God. In order for Jesus to rule, he has all of God's power available to him in the form of the Holy Spirit and He bears the title and name of God. That makes him look very much as if he is God, but Jesus never admitted to being equal with God and when all is accomplished and everything has been brought into subjection and the Kingdom is handed over to his Heavenly Father, then Jesus does not need to have the power of God whereby to exert authority. While man is sinful, and man is the only thing in God's creation to have rebelled and that is the only part of His creation which is at emnity with God (not His Angels), then when man has been redeemed and in the kingdom there is no sin, then God no longer has to penalize anyone for disobeying His instructions. The earth and everything on it will be restored and everything in the garden (so to speak) will be whole again.

The fact that Jesus did not criticize the God of the OT proves Jesus was immoral because he did not condemn those moral abominations.

The Bible doesn't teach that Jesus will be "ruling from Jerusalem." The Bible teaches that he already ascended to the "throne of David" -
Acts 2:29 Men and brethren, let me freely speak unto you of the patriarch David, that he is both dead and buried, and his sepulchre is with us unto this day. 30 Therefore being a prophet, and knowing that God had sworn with an oath to him, that of the fruit of his loins, according to the flesh, he would raise up Christ to sit on his throne; 31 He seeing this before spake of the resurrection of Christ, that his soul was not left in hell, neither his flesh did see corruption.
And Rev 20 doesn't say that Jesus rules for a thousand years on earth. There is not a SINGLE VERSE in the entire Bible that says that. Yet you believe it? Why? The "thousand years" is almost certainly meant as a symbol, just like the dimensions of the new Jerusalem being 12 x 12 x 1000, etc. This is elementary stuff that every child should understand.

Your doctrines are radically contrary to what the Bible actually teaches.

Your attempt to explain why Jesus "looks like God" doesn't work. The Bible plainly states that Jesus is Creator, Savior, and Lord. The Bible plainly states there is only on Creator, Savior, and Lord. You are forced to twist words to make your doctrines appear to work.

God has a plan for this earth and His creation and that is something that many churces do not teach, because they teach we go to Heaven when we die. There does not have to be confusion, if people wake up to the misinformation they are given from the main religions. You can say I am brainwashed and that means nothing, because that is just your opinion and does nothing to change the argument. I have asked you a question; you did not answer; Why is it, the majority will get rejected? The alternative question is; What does it mean to follow the "narrow path that leads to life", what does that in detail require doing? That ought to be question everyone gets the correct answer to. Maybe everyone thinks they are on the path, not realizing they are on the wrong path leading to destruction.

Yes, there are plenty of confused doctrines out there. That doesn't make your doctrines true. On the contrary, you just add more to the pile.

For example, you guru teaches that the scroll sealed with seven seals is the "title dead" to planet earth. What a load of malarkey! The Bible doesn't say that, yet it is a CENTRAL TEACHING in Rood's major work called the "Mystery of Iniquity" in which he also talks about Satan leading a rebellion of 1/3 of the angels in heaven.

Your "narrow path" is the path of brainwashed cults. They are thousands of minor little groups like those who follow Rood. Indeed, Rood was a leader in another cult called The Way, International. But he deceives people by saying he was a member of the mainstream Christianity (Baptist). I have proven his lies, and you don't care. That proves you are brainwashed.

Jesus is going to reject many who come to him saying; (Matt 7:21) Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven. 22 Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works? 23 And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity. Jesus is actually going to condemn people to death just as his Heavenly Father condemned people to death; the same people you think God was not justified in killing for being the reprobates they were. You may think you have a better solution to the problem than God had, but that cannot be proven. Man cannot possibly know the full consequence of his actions. It is a matter of faith to think that God knows what He is doing and He knows best. God is in Heaven and I am on earth and I am humble before Him. A contrite heart, is a prerequisite to receiving the blessing from God; (Isaiah 66:2) but to this man will I look, even to him that is poor and of a contrite spirit, and trembleth at my word.. What does it take for a person to be acceptable to God? That is an important question we have to understand. The people who are acceptable are the ones that have found the narrow path. They are obeying God's instructions and doing what Jesus has commanded them; they are the friends of Jesus if they do his commandments.

There is ABSOLUTELY NOTHING that can be "proven" to you David because you reject the fundamental laws of logic. You reject the law of non-contradiction. And you refuse to answer questions that PROVE YOU WRONG. You have done this for seven months - I have proven an error on the level of 1 + 2 = 3 and you REFUSE to admit it.

Your soul is in deep darkness, and there is no way any truth can penetrate because you have chosen the path of darkness and refuse all light. I've chased you around this forum for seven months shining the light to show you the simple truth of your error, and you have evaded me for over half a year. You complain that I continue to chase you, but even in your complaint you REFUSE to address the TRUTH that I have laid so plainly before you.

If you cannot receive truth when it is served up on a silver platter, there is no way you could ever find it yourself.

Turn to the light David! Turn to the light!

Richard

L67

03-27-2013, 03:02 PM

Richard

For example. The Bible teaches; God is ONE and there in none else besides Him. The fact that God as a Trinity is taught is besides the point at the moment unless you really think the Bible teaches the Trinity. That is what I want to know. What did not "believe' before you began to doubt and turn your back on God.

That's your interpretation that the Bible doesn't teach the trinity. That means most of Christians are wrong and your right? Ummm... no. It's called interpretation, not factual.

The Bible teaches the reusurrection after being in the grave. Others think they go straight to "Heaven" or "hell" wherever they things those things are.

Again YOUR interpretation. You are not the final say.

The Bible teaches the return of Jesus to the earth while others think he remains in Heaven and rules from there.

No it doesn't. The Bible teaches that he is ruling from heaven NOW.

God is much more than you have listed and you know. This is the point. The Bible reveals God to us and His Nature. Whilst you have only given us parts of His nature and frame your argument against those few aspects of His nature so as to justify your arguement that those things are contradictory, the fact that you fail to list God is; judge, He is just, merciful, vengeful. Only when you add all the parts to His nature do we get the whole picture. Unless you can get come to terms with the goodness and severity of God and how He can only judge rightly according to the laws he has set mankind, then you have a mental difficulty comprehending God.

That is YOUR rosy image of God. Let's dig a little deeper and God.

The Bible says he is a MAN of war. "The Lord is a man of war; Yahweh is his name." – Exodus 15.3.

That is evident by is obsession with violence throughout the OT.

He also shows favoritism. 5 Now if you obey me fully and keep my covenant, then out of all nations you will be my treasured possession. Although the whole earth is mine, Exodus 19:5

For someone of his stature he sure is forgetful. He renames Jacob Israel Genesis 35:10 and then in Genesis 46:2 he forgets and calls Israel Jacob again.

I also thought he was all knowing? Hosea 8:4 4 They have set up kings, but not by me: they have made princes, and I knew it not: of their silver and their gold have they made them idols, that they may be cut off.

How about all powerful? What? Why can't he accomplish this? Judges 1:19 And the Lord was with Judah; and he drave out the inhabitants of the mountain; but could not drive out the inhabitants of the valley, because they had chariots of iron.

This sure looks like just a tribal war god to me.

I do not claim to have the mind of God or know what God is thinking, but I have a comprehension of him in the way you struggle to come to terns with and accept.

Then how can you say the majority of Christianity is wrong and you are right?

You can introduce all excuses for rejecting God's judgment, but you cannot say God deals unjustly with the righteous, infact on many occassion He shows us he saves the righteous before His penalty is served on the reprobates.

The only excuses come from you. YOU attribute good things to God but the Bible tells of terrible things.

I know you will not accept things as I do and try to pick fault in my reasoning. Whether the Bible is true of not, there is nothing to stop us getting to know what the authors (man or God) intended us to understand as if speaking to us directly; that is the truth we have to get to. There can be 1000's of opinions, but they all count for nothing. It is the one opinion which is correct that we must find. I write the following for those who are open-minded to finding out what the Bible says and I leave what I write open to your objection and criticism, that is OK, our readers have to investigate these things for themselves and dertermine who is correct. Please do not criticise why I believe, just focus on the actual message of the Bible by way of giving your opinion, after all, that is what I was hoping to get from your list.

And how are we suppose to know which opinion is correct? If God speaks to all Christians like they claim, then why is there no more clarity? Why are you searching for the right opinion and not listening to God? Doesn't God give you the answers? Does God not care enough to give his believers understanding, instead of a mass of confusion? Obviously not if your still looking for the right opinion.

God has given His only begotten Son His own title of God. In order for Jesus to rule, he has all of God's power available to him in the form of the Holy Spirit and He bears the title and name of God. That makes him look very much as if he is God, but Jesus never admitted to being equal with God and when all is accomplished and everything has been brought into subjection and the Kingdom is handed over to his Heavenly Father, then Jesus does not need to have the power of God whereby to exert authority. While man is sinful, and man is the only thing in God's creation to have rebelled and that is the only part of His creation which is at emnity with God (not His Angels), then when man has been redeemed and in the kingdom there is no sin, then God no longer has to penalize anyone for disobeying His instructions. The earth and everything on it will be restored and everything in the garden (so to speak) will be whole again.

Not true David. There are plenty of verses that contradict you.

Hebrews 1:2 2 but in these last days he has spoken to us by his Son, whom he appointed heir of all things, and through whom also he made the universe.

John 8:56-58

56 Your father Abraham rejoiced to see my day: and he saw it, and was glad.

57 Then said the Jews unto him, Thou art not yet fifty years old, and hast thou seen Abraham?

58 Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Before Abraham was, I am.

This last verses Jesus is clearly equating himself with God.

God has a plan for this earth and His creation and that is something that many churces do not teach, because they teach we go to Heaven when we die. There does not have to be confusion, if people wake up to the misinformation they are given from the main religions. You can say I am brainwashed and that means nothing, because that is just your opinion and does nothing to change the argument. I have asked you a question; you did not answer; Why is it, the majority will get rejected? The alternative question is; What does it mean to follow the "narrow path that leads to life", what does that in detail require doing? That ought to be question everyone gets the correct answer to. Maybe everyone thinks they are on the path, not realizing they are on the wrong path leading to destruction.

But only your church has it right? Give me a break. Stop asserting you are the only one who knows. It's obvious you don't because you're still looking for the "right" opinion.

Jesus is going to reject many who come to him saying; (Matt 7:21) Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven. 22 Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works? 23 And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity. Jesus is actually going to condemn people to death just as his Heavenly Father condemned people to death; the same people you think God was not justified in killing for being the reprobates they were. You may think you have a better solution to the problem than God had, but that cannot be proven. Man cannot possibly know the full consequence of his actions. It is a matter of faith to think that God knows what He is doing and He knows best. God is in Heaven and I am on earth and I am humble before Him. A contrite heart, is a prerequisite to receiving the blessing from God; (Isaiah 66:2) but to this man will I look, even to him that is poor and of a contrite spirit, and trembleth at my word.. What does it take for a person to be acceptable to God? That is an important question we have to understand. The people who are acceptable are the ones that have found the narrow path. They are obeying God's instructions and doing what Jesus has commanded them; they are the friends of Jesus if they do his commandments.

That is a whole lot of mental gymnastics to excuse the abominations committed by God. At least you admit that you only have faith of anything. That gets you no where.

(Jeremiah 17:10) I the LORD search the heart, I try the reins, even to give every man according to his ways, and according to the fruit of his doings.
Is it possible for man to judge anothe man to the same extent God can? How do we judge what is fair? If we are too leanient, we appear weak, if we are too harsh, we are are not being fair. God judges according to what he sees and not what we see. God is more just than man can ever be, God can be gracious and merciful and yet we accuse God of not doing the right thing. It is faith, because we have to wait for the judgment to come. We have proof byh way of the stories in which God saves the righteous, although they are not perfect. That is our assurance God will be shown merciful by the people He saves; not to those who are not saved. "Faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen" Whether you believe God's word or not, that is the message of the Bible by which a person has faith. Faith is not groundless and my faith is grounded in the word of God and while you keep saying, I am delusioned or I have no proof. That's the way it appears to you since you reject everything.

This is proof positive that religion corrupts the mind.How do you know what God sees and doesn't see? How do you know what he judges to be just and fair? You don't. That's fantasy thought on your part. We have proof in the Bible that God was not just and fair. So your point is moot.

You will not accept the restoration of the nation of Israel is in God's plan and the nation of people are witnesses (not that they know it) for God. God made them and unconditional promise.
(Jeremiah 29:14) And I will be found of you, saith the LORD: and I will turn away your captivity, and I will gather you from all the nations, and from all the places whither I have driven you, saith the LORD; and I will bring you again into the place whence I caused you to be carried away captive.
(Jeremiah 30:11) For I am with thee, saith the LORD, to save thee: though I make a full end of all nations whither I have scattered thee, yet will I not make a full end of thee: but I will correct thee in measure, and will not leave thee altogether unpunished.

See David this is what is wrong with your belief system. It takes scripture and FORCES it to saying something it doesn't. You took Jeremiah 29:14 out of context and used it for something it doesn't say.

It context Jeremiah is EXPLICITLY talking about Babylon not 1948. Jeremiah 29:10–14 “For thus says the Lord, ‘When seventy years have been completed for Babylon, I will visit you and fulfill My good word to you, to bring you back to this place. ‘For I know the plans that I have for you,’ declares the Lord, ‘plans for welfare and not for calamity to give you a future and a hope. ‘Then you will call upon Me and come and pray to Me, and I will listen to you. ‘You will seek Me and find Me when you search for Me with all your heart. ‘I will be found by you,’ declares the Lord, ‘and I will restore your fortunes and will gather you from all the nations and from all the places where I have driven you,’ declares the Lord, ‘and I will bring you back to the place from where I sent you into exile.’

Jeremiah 30:11 also is about the return from Babylonian captivity. Your view is FALSE!

Of course you can say that it talking about the return from exile, but who is to say, this is a one-off event?

Because it was talking about the return from exils. The Bible clearly says it does. I proved that above. You ripped verses out of context.

When all the other nations have been destroyed, who is the only nation to remain standing? Israel. God is not going to make a full end of them. They have returned and they will be overrun a third and final time and that will culminate with them being saved from annihilation and the return of their Messiah to save them.

No evidence to support that assertion. You are taking verses out of context as I have already demonstrated.

The Jews have always expected their Messiah to come and Jesus did not fulfill that role in the way he will when he returns. It is at that time, the veil that is their tradition, is taken off their eyes and they see Jesus, their Messiah, the one they crucified 2,000 years ago. All that is happening in the Middle East and to Israel is proving to me that God's word is coming true.

But you have no evidence to support that.

There is lots in the prophets that has not applied to the nations spoken of in the prophets and even in Genesis from the time Ishmael and Esau were born that determined some national traits that are evident in the Arab nations surrounding Israel. There are sayings of the prophets, that whilst some are figurative in their fulfillment is happening now. We shall have to see Damascus eventually become a "ruinous heap" (Isaiah 17:1).

Oh really? Can you prove it without taking scripture out of context?

When did that ever happen in its history? It is happening now, it is in the process. Rood got his timing out, but some years before this started, he said it would happen. He is not the only one to have forseen this. This is why, there are Bible scholars who are putting these things together in a much better than the many who do not. We have to get all scripture to fit and preterism leaves out a lot. We do not have many words of prophecy for nothing. God has not left us in darkness while we are in the age of the Gentiles. That time is closing to and end and the great day of the LORD has yet to come. The time of trouble like there never has been or ever will be again did not happen in AD70. This one time is like nothing anyone has ever seen. It could happen by man's own doing if left to himself. Nothing could be worse than for man to destroy this planet by letting of his stockpile of nuclear weapons. We do not know that some nuclear bombs will get launched, but the shaking of the earth and the heavens like nothing ever seen before or seen afterward will come. God has not poured His judgements on all nations of the earth.

Again any evidence? Nope. You said it all when you said you have to make scripture fit. That's all you do. There is a mountain of evidence that contradicts you. Your view entirely ignores the so called prophecy that led to 70AD.

The age of the Gentiles that you speak of was in the first century. Luke even tells us so. Luke 21:20-24 “But when you see Jerusalem surrounded by armies, then recognize that her desolation is near. “Then those who are in Judea must flee to the mountains, and those who are in the midst of the city must leave, and those who are in the country must not enter the city; because these are days of vengeance, so that all things which are written will be fulfilled. “Woe to those who are pregnant and to those who are nursing babies in those days; for there will be great distress upon the land and wrath to this people; and they will fall by the edge of the sword, and will be led captive into all the nations; and Jerusalem will be trampled under foot by the Gentiles until the times of the Gentiles are fulfilled. ”

And we know for a FACT that Jerusalem was detroyed in 70AD. That is what Luke is referring to. 70AD. Not some distant event.

Ok, so you do not accept any of this, but I hope those reading, less convinced than yourself, will investigate these things for themselves and not take their church teaching unquestionably. Rood despite your character assacination of him, has admitted he got things wrong and for 20 years followed the false baptist teaching.

Again who are you to say what is false and what isn't? The same could be said of your doctrine. There are demonstrable errors in your views.

I dp not accept all that other people's writings you have quoted are accurate. You are only providing me with other people's opinions. I have heard Rood's explanation of events, and what I am more concerned with are the actual things he teaches. Unless you watch the same videos and hear the same words to come out of his mouth, we hold on to our different opinions. My opinion is based on words of teaching from God's word and those are the teachings I have accepted as the truth long before Rood came on the scene. The prediction of Israel returning to the land was forseen in the 1800's long before the first trickle of Jews started to return.

Proof of such a prediction? Therre is no mention of it in the Bible.

Was there any indication they would? No! It is in God's word that they would, and it is the strong evidence of prophecy supported by fact, that is the starting point for looking for all truth in God's word. Recent archeological discoveries, are further evidence of stories long ago, the skeptics have long claimed did not happen and now, the evidence has been found to disprove the cynics. If you want to go the Arabia and take the chance of getting arrested, then you can go and see Mount Sinai for yourself. These things are there for you to see, but it you will not go to the mountain, the mountain will not come to you. That just about sums it up, you will not go in search of the evidence, just deny the evidence exists and call everyone liars and charletans for finding these things. I have an open mind, I keep half-expect to be fooled, but I also can trust people who are genuine. We can all be deceived, but that does not mean we are all fools, the truth stands and we have to find it. So keep up the search.

Post the proof. All you show are words.

David[/QUOTE]

duxrow

03-27-2013, 03:17 PM

I want to address this point and I will address more later.
The Bible teaches no such thing. That is a mistranslation. In the Septuagint you find "Hinneh ha-almah harah ve-yeldeth ben ve-karath shem-o immanuel." Which means " Behold, the young woman has conceived — and bears a son and calls his name Immanuel."

Sorry but in proper translation "young woman" is very different than born of a virgin. That calls into question the whole story of Jesus miraculous virgin birth. That proves the original authors never intended Jesus to be born of a virgin. But early Christians used this mistranslation to deceive people to suit there purpose and have been deceiving every since.
http://www.harrington-sites.com/terms.htm http://www.harrington-sites.com/virgin.html
:hippie:
Not only the 5 wise and 5 foolish, but the "virgin Mary" account is a deliberate example (http://www.biblewheel.com/forum/showthread.php?2759-CFWY-Gal-4-19&p=40167#post40167)for our study and understanding -- the Holy Ghostwriter wants us ALL to be Pregnant Virgins!

2Cor11:2 "For I am jealous over you with godly jealousy: for I have espoused you to one husband, that I may present you as a chaste virgin to Christ".

Gal 4:19 "My little children, of whom I travail in birth again until Christ be formed in you".. :winking0071:

L67

03-27-2013, 03:17 PM

You are correct that the Hebrew OT does not use the technical term for a "virgin" but both the Greek LXX OT and the Greek NT do. So the Bible does teach that Jesus was born of a virgin.

A "young woman" is not necessarily not a virgin so there is no contradiction. But neither can we say that there was a real prophecy either. It looks pretty obvious that Matthew plucked that verse out of context and applied it to Jesus. If any other interpreter did that it would be called a gross hermeneutical error.

Thanks for the correction Richard. I did not know that. Learn something new everyday.:thumb:

David M

03-28-2013, 02:41 AM

David M

03-28-2013, 03:00 AM

:hippie:
Not only the 5 wise and 5 foolish, but the "virgin Mary" account is a deliberate example (http://www.biblewheel.com/forum/showthread.php?2759-CFWY-Gal-4-19&p=40167#post40167)for our study and understanding -- the Holy Ghostwriter wants us ALL to be Pregnant Virgins!

2Cor11:2 "For I am jealous over you with godly jealousy: for I have espoused you to one husband, that I may present you as a chaste virgin to Christ".

Gal 4:19 "My little children, of whom I travail in birth again until Christ be formed in you".. :winking0071:

Hello Dux

Thank you for your insightful contributions once more. I can rely on you to bring up the less obvious as you have done with your list of 8 things. Only those with the wisdom gained by understanding God's word will see the wisdom in what you say. It is refreshing to have a conversation with someone who has wisdom, instead of the meaningless conversations which descend into personal haranging which is the result of most conversations I have with Richard.

As much as I try, and have said we should stop, and we should bring to each other's attention the moment it begins in order to halt it in its tracks, nevertheless, we keep going the same way. Why can't folks stick to the subject and the facts and the interpretations by which to make informed decisions? Why is it anytime an alternative is put forward, I am accused of delusion, putting my spin on things, having been indoctrinated and not able to think for myself? This type of language to me is "the tools of fools" (to use a rhyming expression) aimed against those with God's wisdom.

Keep up the good contributions; I enjoy reading them, even though I do not feel it necessary to reply all the time.

All the best,

David

duxrow

03-28-2013, 06:04 AM

QUOTE=David M;53379]Hello Dux

Thank you for your insightful contributions once more. I can rely on you to bring up the less obvious as you have done with your list of 8 things. Only those with the wisdom gained by understanding God's word will see the wisdom in what you say. It is refreshing to have a conversation with someone who has wisdom, instead of the meaningless conversations which descend into personal haranging which is the result of most conversations I have with Richard.

As much as I try, and have said we should stop, and we should bring to each other's attention the moment it begins in order to halt it in its tracks, nevertheless, we keep going the same way. Why can't folks stick to the subject and the facts and the interpretations by which to make informed decisions? Why is it anytime an alternative is put forward, I am accused of delusion, putting my spin on things, having been indoctrinated and not able to think for myself? This type of language to me is "the tools of fools" (to use a rhyming expression) aimed against those with God's wisdom.

Keep up the good contributions; I enjoy reading them, even though I do not feel it necessary to reply all the time. All the best, David[/QUOTE]

:yo: You're welcome, David, and same goes for me -- I enjoy reading 'some of it', but usually don't get involved unless have something to add. Even though you and I don't always agree,
we know whose side we're on, don't we? :thumb:

L67

03-28-2013, 06:54 AM

duxrow

03-28-2013, 07:31 AM

8 for starters: Bible Teach..

1. BookEnds. Many have judged the Bible based on "what they've heard", or their casual read of a few of the books (and often judged wrong IMO), but I'm convinced that all 66 books must be read and studied. Then, comparing Genesis to Revelation, we begin to see many common threads which argues against multiple authors, and against the ideas from before the Bible was published, (but FOR the Trinitarian Holy Ghostwriter, 2Pet1:21), and his purpose in "leading us into all truth", John 16:13.

2. Tropes. The Confounding of the Language in Gen11:7 leads to the 'speaking in an unknown tongue' in Acts2. Multiple allegories and figures of speech are involved, in Bibles from many countries, yet they all tell of Adam & Eve "having their eyes opened" by 'eating', as though they were newborn puppie dogs. (The inference is that we'll 'get our eyes opened' by reading the Word of God -- by 'eating' Jesus).
The multiple metaphors used for God, Jesus, Satan, the Saints, etc, add perplexity and ambiguity, just as a mystery author like Ellery Queen leaves out details until the closing chapters. (Don't know about E.Q. faith personally, but see humanity as a very diverse species having great imagination and 'gifts')

3. Patterns. Starting with the 'powers of 3' in the alignment of 39+27, we see many Number patterns (incl. Gen41:32 & Dan8:13). The 2K period from Adam to Moses; followed by a 2K period of the LAW for the Jew, and a 2K period for the Gentile, fits the pattern of 'Six days for Mankind', when a thousand years are as one day, 2Pet3:8. This pattern also fits the 'infant/children/adult' stage of LIFE, and the Two Covenants of Gal 4:24 get their due respect, or highlight.

4. Sowing/Reaping. It's clear to me that Jesus was the Seed sown at Calvary for the purpose of raising Sons (not referring to Leaven here..), and how all that agrees with God being a 'husbandman' (as well as a husband), who 'planted Jesus in the womb and tomb' just as Joseph in Egypt planted his personal cup in his brother Benjamin's sack.
It doesn't stop there (tho I'm going to..), but God planted a garden in Genesis, and He plans a harvest in Revelation, and for me: that's Gospel!

5. POETRY. Psalm 23 is perhaps the most famous poetry in Christianity with its picturesque language. The 22 letter Hebrew alphabet, the Book of Lamentations, and the Alpha & Omega, all speak to the rhythm and symmetry of Our Creator and His myriad Creations. If 'Evolution' were true, why aren't more monkeys or snakes evolving into men? (Or do we just not recognize them; being dressed in suits?)

6. ALLEGORY. The story that Nathan told David, about the rich taking the poor man's lamb for his own dinner, was really speaking of what David had done with Bathsheba; leading to the death of Urriah. Similarly, it was the story of Hagar and Sarah which leads to our understanding of how Ishmael and Isaac represent the Old and New Covenants, Gal 4:24, and how the Old Testament was a teacher to lead us to Christ. Gal 3:24.

7. MYSTERIES: The word 'mystery' not found in the OT, and of the Gospel writer's, only Mark uses it. Mk4:11 [Jesus] said unto them, Unto you it is given to know the mystery of the kingdom of God: but unto them that are without, all these things are done in parables: v.12 That seeing they may see, and not perceive; and hearing they may hear, and not understand; lest at any time they should be converted, and their sins should be forgiven them. The hiding of the leaven, Mt13:33, a clue to other 'hidden' features!
So, for the believers, the Bible is the "table set before us in the presence of all the unbelievers!
Rom11:25 "For I would not, brethren, that ye should be ignorant of this mystery, lest ye should be wise in your own conceits; that blindness in part is happened to Israel, until the fulness of the Gentiles be come in".

8. NAMES: From the 1st Adam ('blood-aleph') in Genesis, to the '2nd Adam' of 1Cor15:45 "And so it is written, The first man Adam was made a living soul; the last Adam was made a quickening spirit. v.46: Howbeit that was not first which is spiritual, but that which is natural; and afterward that which is spiritual.
We find many Names in scripture that are used of more than a single individual, and many have meanings assigned which give us clues to the understanding of their stories. The Name above every name, Phil 2:9, is our 'password' and our 'Door' to heaven for those who use it honestly. And God KNOWS who is using it honestly and who is hiding treachery in their heart. Amen? :thumb:

9. Teaching 'foot-washing'...
Moses and Joshua were both told to remove their shoes -- don't you think that 'connects' with the way Jesus washed the feet of the apostles?
Plus how the "Armor of God", Eph6, includes the "feet shod with the gospel".. :thumb:

Richard Amiel McGough

03-28-2013, 11:46 AM

In answer to both Richard and L67

I had to expect you to take my words to task. I am not going to answer your rebuttals, time is too short to keep repeating and eventually each subject will come up for discussion and it is better to keep threads focussed on one subject at a time.

David,

That's your problem. All you can do is repeat your baseless assertions. You have no evidence supporting your OPINION that you are right and anyone who disagrees is necessarily wrong. I explained this in some detail in the post you are ignoring. Here is what I said:
Your comparisons between things you think "the Bible teaches" and things you think "others claim" are just your opinions. There are BIBLICAL REASONS devout Christians have come to conclusions different than yours. It seems quite arrogant (in a characteristically ROOD sort of way) to assert that your private OPINIONS are what the Bible actually teaches and anyone who disagrees is not following the Bible.
There are BIBLICAL REASONS folks come to different conclusions than you David. And given your handicap in logic, it's particularly absurd for you to exalt yourself over all scholars and Bible believers that think you have misunderstood the Bible.

Arrogance and Ignorance are twin vices. They strengthen each other, and in you they have become an impenetrable shield against all truth and reality.

I know we have to look at the words of the OT and the NT very carefully and I note what Greek scholars and Hebrew scholars bring to the table and I have to decide who makes more sense and who is the more accurate. If I make the wrong determination I have to live with that until someone else is able to correct me and I accept their correction.

I have corrected you on a hundred points. All you did was ignore the proof and then repeat your error.

It is a pity Sylvius got banned as he was making valuable contributions and I regard his ban as unfair, but hey, I am not the moderator. I shall get banned eventually for challenging Richard.

The ban was not unfair. Sylvius was habitually stating gross falsehoods about things I have written and when I proved it he would not admit it and would then state more falsehoods. He did the same thing five years ago when I opened this forum. I think I'll let him back in. I just have to remember to ignore him. The only problem comes up only when I try to reason with him.

It is fascinating how you consistently side with folks who have been exposed as blatantly irrational and who have REFUSED TO ANSWER the evidence despite many requests. Case in point, you accused me of using the "38 dishonest tricks" to win an argument, and as proof you cited my interaction with CWH who, like you, had been refusing for MONTHS to answer posts in which I had refuted a number of his creationist anti-evolution arguments. He totally IGNORED my refutations and then posted MORE moronic creationist crap. So I insisted that he answer my posts, and he refused, just like you. And so I explained your error in gruesome detail in this post (http://www.biblewheel.com/forum/showthread.php?3357-Take-away-the-daily-sacrifice-Daniel-11-31&p=49566#post49566) where I refute all four examples and showed that you had MINDLESSLY grabbed them and threw them in my face without understand that they proved exactly the opposite of what you were trying to prove!

Anyway, that distraction aside, of course in our English translations we have Isaiah 7:14 Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign; Behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel. We all know the birth of Jesus involved Mary who was a virgin. As Ricahrd would say; "taking the plain mutually confirming verses". I am not going to disagree in this example.

There's nothing to disagree with. The Greek text of Matthew 1:23 uses the word "parthenos" which denotes a virgin. The question is whether Matthew was justified in using "parthenos" since the Hebrew text he was supposedly quoting uses almah (young woman) rather than batulah (virgin).

As I looked up the quote in Isaiah, verse 13 struck up a chord in me;
Is it a small thing for you to weary men, but will ye weary my God also?
You are both doing a good job wearing me. It is good that you do not weary God and that God is longsuffering, suffering fools that deny him.

That's all I am going to say for now, I do not want to weary you by repeating things I have said before. Our readers will soon switch off, if they have not done so already.

Why don't you quit REPEATING THE SAME ERRORS and try responding to the reasons given with logic and lucidity? That would make for some real progress.

And while you're reading Isaiah, perhaps you could find some hope for refreshment here:

Isaiah 40:31 But they that wait upon the LORD shall renew their strength; they shall mount up with wings as eagles; they shall run, and not be weary; and they shall walk, and not faint.

All the best,

Richard

duxrow

03-28-2013, 01:31 PM

9. Teaching 'foot-washing'...
Moses and Joshua were both told to remove their shoes -- don't you think that 'connects' with the way Jesus washed the feet of the apostles?
Plus how the "Armor of God", Eph6, includes the "feet shod with the gospel".. :thumb:
10. 10. The Foolishness of God - 1Cor1:25

a) Lamb of God - b) Beheading - c) Christ is the Rock

a) We all laughed when Sinatra sang "There'll Never be another You", and 20,000 sheep committed suicide by running off a cliff, because they thought he meant Ewe instead of You. Now in the NT, we read about the virgin Mary giving birth to the Lamb of God, and if it isn't sacrilege (but only foolish, maybe) then she would be the Virgin Mary Ewe. *Like Rachel in the OT.
If we understand the virgin birth as a type of how WE are to be wise virgins with Christ being formed in us, then Mary's script calls for her to be a kind of "You" (and I) and the new-birth.

b) We cheer at the epic of Daniel beheading Goliath, but not when Herod has John the Baptist beheaded. Those two examples lead to the account in 1Cor11:3 about the head of every man being Christ. So this is a figurative head, painting a pic of how the Church is a decapitated body whose head is in heaven. My emphasis is in seeing the difference between the physical and the figurative, and the 'foolishness' of the latter.

c) "You can't get blood from a turnip", usually in response to a demand for something you haven't got, can trace its roots directly to the Bible IMO. The OT claims God is a Rock (Ps18), and 1Cor10:4 "that Rock was Christ" has us thinking whether the Rocks were the same or whether Jesus was simply a chip off the old block. ha.

Moses struck the rock and water came out; Gideon laid his sacrifice on the rock and fire came out; Job spoke of oil from the rock, and Ps81:16 of honey from the rock. Surely these 4 items from "Rock" are a kind of foolishness that spawned the 'blood from a turnip' cliché .

duxrow

03-28-2013, 04:01 PM

Strains the Brain, eh, how the Great Author used the word 'ewe' to describe a female sheep, and then calls Jesus "lamb of God", and "son of God".
Since the Virgin Mary is his mother, doesn't that make the Almighty a 'Ram' in the bush? :winking0071:

On Jacob's wedding night a switch occurred which got him married to Leah instead of Rachel, and at Calvary it was the Gentiles who came into the New Covenant instead of the Jews coming into their Rest. Hindsight tells us the two wives of Jacob were like the two Covenants of Gal 4:24 -- Leah being a fruitful wife (6 sons, 1 daughter), and Rachel dying in childbirth with 'the son of right hand', Benjamin. You think? :thumb:

David M

03-29-2013, 03:15 AM

Hello L67

How typical of you David. You make baseless assertions and don't expect a rebuttal? It's not surprising because you can't defend your positions.
Please do not make false accusations. Look at all the threads I have started and given my reasons and explanations. Have you given one exposition on this forum? If I have missed a post or not replied to one in which you would like me to give you an answer, then do so and I will answer it. I will not be drawn into every argument, and I have defended my position many times and it all becomes repetitious after a while.

You have proven beyond all doubt you are incapable of being corrected. You simply refuse to acknowledge the simple things and cram forced doctrines into plain text.
Do you say the same thing about Richard, who I have corrected, but he carries on saying the same old thing? Richard also refuses to accept the plain simple statements of scripture as you accuse me of, but I do not see you criticizing Richard. Who has double standards now?

Yes but there is ambiguity there depending which book you want to believe. I believe both books; don't you?

In other words, you can't defend your baseless assertions. It's outrageous for you to claim this because you act like you are some authority figure about the Bible. All of Christianity is wrong, and your fringe doctrines are correct. Give me a break. If you are going to assert something be prepared to defend it.
Another exaggerated and false assertion. I have never said "all" of Christianity is wrong. I have said that most of Christendom has gone astray and that is not the same as "all". I defend everything I say, even though my explanations are not accepted.

I will ask you the same questions Richard has overlooked (preferring to harangue me) and not answered. Please answer the following if you will.

1. Why does Jesus teach (Matt 7:14) Because strait is the gate, and narrow is the way, which leadeth unto life, and few there be that find it. and do you believe that?

2. What is the narrow way which leads to eternal life?

3. Do you belong to the majority or the minority? Please justify why.

I look forward to your answers

David

David M

03-29-2013, 04:42 AM

10. 10. The Foolishness of God - 1Cor1:25

a) Lamb of God - b) Beheading - c) Christ is the Rock

a) We all laughed when Sinatra sang "There'll Never be another You", and 20,000 sheep committed suicide by running off a cliff, because they thought he meant Ewe instead of You. Now in the NT, we read about the virgin Mary giving birth to the Lamb of God, and if it isn't sacrilege (but only foolish, maybe) then she would be the Virgin Mary Ewe. *Like Rachel in the OT.
If we understand the virgin birth as a type of how WE are to be wise virgins with Christ being formed in us, then Mary's script calls for her to be a kind of "You" (and I) and the new-birth.

b) We cheer at the epic of Daniel beheading Goliath, but not when Herod has John the Baptist beheaded. Those two examples lead to the account in 1Cor11:3 about the head of every man being Christ. So this is a figurative head, painting a pic of how the Church is a decapitated body whose head is in heaven. My emphasis is in seeing the difference between the physical and the figurative, and the 'foolishness' of the latter.

c) "You can't get blood from a turnip", usually in response to a demand for something you haven't got, can trace its roots directly to the Bible IMO. The OT claims God is a Rock (Ps18), and 1Cor10:4 "that Rock was Christ" has us thinking whether the Rocks were the same or whether Jesus was simply a chip off the old block. ha.

Moses struck the rock and water came out; Gideon laid his sacrifice on the rock and fire came out; Job spoke of oil from the rock, and Ps81:16 of honey from the rock. Surely these 4 items from "Rock" are a kind of foolishness that spawned the 'blood from a turnip' cliché .

These are really good insights and lessons in wisdom. Those who are blind to wisdom are those who do not fear God and have not taken their first step to finding it.

You are rightly dividing the literal and the figurative.

David

David M

03-29-2013, 06:02 AM

Richard Amiel McGough

03-29-2013, 08:35 AM

Hello L67

How typical of you David. You make baseless assertions and don't expect a rebuttal? It's not surprising because you can't defend your positions.
Please do not make false accusations. Look at all the threads I have started and given my reasons and explanations. Have you given one exposition on this forum? If I have missed a post or not replied to one in which you would like me to give you an answer, then do so and I will answer it. I will not be drawn into every argument, and I have defended my position many times and it all becomes repetitious after a while.

David,

You habitually and consistently make BASELESS ASSERTIONS. I have brought this to your attention many times. Case in point: In the very post I am answering you falsely asserted that you have "corrected" me but you gave no evidence supporting your assertion. Here is what you said:

Do you say the same thing about Richard, who I have corrected, but he carries on saying the same old thing? Richard also refuses to accept the plain simple statements of scripture as you accuse me of, but I do not see you criticizing Richard. Who has double standards now?

You now MUST provide evidence that shows where you have "corrected" me. I'm not talking about a mere assertion of your opinion. That's not a "correction." I'm talking about sometime when you proved I erred in some matter of logic or fact. If you cannot do this, then you need to admit the dual truths that 1) you made a baseless assertion, and 2) you have not corrected on any matters of logic or fact.

L67

03-29-2013, 08:42 AM

Hello L67

Please do not make false accusations. Look at all the threads I have started and given my reasons and explanations. Have you given one exposition on this forum? If I have missed a post or not replied to one in which you would like me to give you an answer, then do so and I will answer it. I will not be drawn into every argument, and I have defended my position many times and it all becomes repetitious after a while.

Those are not false accusations. Case in point. You made the false assertion that Jeremiah 29:14 said something it didn't. You were dishonest with your usage of that verse. Jeremiah was EXPLICITLY speaking about the return from Babylonian captivity. You all the time tell people they need to look at things in the proper context that you yourself don't follow.

Also, I don't care if you have written a 1,000 page book explaining the bible. That doesn't excuse you from making false assertions and not backing them up. If you are going to act that way, then why are you even here? Isn't the whole point of this forum to have dialogue with other people no matter the beliefs someone might hold? And to properly defend your claims to the best of your ability?

David I'm not going to go hunt for answers that may or may not answer my questions. If you say something without proof , you have to have to be prepared to defend it. Telling someone to go find your answers is rediculous.

Do you say the same thing about Richard, who I have corrected, but he carries on saying the same old thing? Richard also refuses to accept the plain simple statements of scripture as you accuse me of, but I do not see you criticizing Richard. Who has double standards now?

David this isn't an us vs. you situation. Religion teaches that absurd us vs. them mentality. I have read on this forum for months and have NEVER once saw Richard not accept the plain meaning of scripture where it is applicable. If you are referring to YOUR view of plain text, ok. But since you say he doesn't accept plain simple statements then show me.

I believe both books; don't you?

Believe the books? Yes. Believe the story. Nope it's fiction in my eyes. Let me show you why I feel this way. Because the early church fathers admit to deceiving. The very people you get your traditions from. I have collected these quotes over the last few months about the dishonesty of the church.

– St. Jerome, Epistle to Pammachus (xlviii, 13; N&PNF. vi, 72-73)

"I will only mention the Apostle Paul. ... He, then, if anyone, ought to be calumniated; we should speak thus to him: ‘The proofs which you have used against the Jews and against other heretics bear a different meaning in their own contexts to that which they bear in your Epistles.

We see passages taken captive by your pen and pressed into service to win you a victory, which in volumes from which they are taken have no controversial bearing at all ... the line so often adopted by strong men in controversy – of justifying the means by the result."

Eusebius in the 32nd Chapter of his 12th Book of Evangelical Preparation: "How it may be Lawful and Fitting to use Falsehood as a Medicine, and for the Benefit of those who Want to be Deceived."

More from Eusebius: "We shall introduce into this history in general only those events which may be useful first to ourselves and afterwards to posterity."

Clement of Alexandria- one of the earliest church fathers: : "Not all true things are the truth, nor should that truth which merely seems true according to human opinions be preferred to the true truth, that according to the faith."

– Clement (quoted by M. Smith, Clement of Alexandria, p446)

John Chrysostom: "Do you see the advantage of deceit? ...

For great is the value of deceit, provided it be not introduced with a mischievous intention. In fact action of this kind ought not to be called deceit, but rather a kind of good management, cleverness and skill, capable of finding out ways where resources fail, and making up for the defects of the mind ...

And often it is necessary to deceive, and to do the greatest benefits by means of this device, whereas he who has gone by a straight course has done great mischief to the person whom he has not deceived."

– Chrysostom, Treatise On The Priesthood, Book 1.

Faustus- Manichean bishop: "Many things have been inserted by our ancestors in the speeches of our Lord which, though put forth under his name, agree not with his faith; especially since – as already it has been often proved – these things were written not by Christ, nor [by] his apostles, but a long while after their assumption, by I know not what sort of half Jews, not even agreeing with themselves, who made up their tale out of reports and opinions merely, and yet, fathering the whole upon the names of the apostles of the Lord or on those who were supposed to follow the apostles, they maliciously pretended that they had written their lies and conceits according to them."

Ignatius Loyola -founder of the Society of Jesus[Jesuits]: "We should always be disposed to believe that which appears to us to be white is really black, if the hierarchy of the church so decides."

– St Jerome, c. 380. 'To confute the opposer ... one argues as one pleases, saying one thing while one means another ... Origen, Eusebius [et al] write at great length ... Sometimes it is true, they are compelled to say not what they think but what is useful.'

– Celsus (On The True Doctrine, c178 AD): 'Clearly the Christians have used ... myths ... in fabricating the story of Jesus' birth ... It is clear to me that the writings of the Christians are a lie and that your fables are not well-enough constructed to conceal this monstrous fiction.'

The Christians of the day were so threatend by this that they destroyed every copy of his writings.

If the whole story had any credibilty, then why did they have to lie? We know the Gospel of Mark orignally ended at 16:8. But a better ending was inserted. If Mark was messed with, what else has been altered? There is no way the creator of the unverses could possibly allow such shenanigans to go on in the writing of his word. And it still goes on to this day.

Another exaggerated and false assertion. I have never said "all" of Christianity is wrong. I have said that most of Christendom has gone astray and that is not the same as "all". I defend everything I say, even though my explanations are not accepted.

I will ask you the same questions Richard has overlooked (preferring to harangue me) and not answered. Please answer the following if you will.

1. Why does Jesus teach (Matt 7:14) Because strait is the gate, and narrow is the way, which leadeth unto life, and few there be that find it. and do you believe that?

2. What is the narrow way which leads to eternal life?

3. Do you belong to the majority or the minority? Please justify why.

I look forward to your answers

David

Ok, I stand corrected David. You didn't say all. But for you to say "most" must mean you are some authority figure on the matter. How do you determine that "most" are wrong and you are right?

Mathew 7:14 is irrelevant. Because in order to justify that verse means a judgement has been made. You have judged "most" of Christianity to be wrong. How do you have the final say over who is or isn't right? You have no more claim to truth than any other Christian. You are using the same fallible logic as are other Christians.

See your problem is you think there is a definitive "majority or minority" in Christianity of who is right. There is only interpretation of who is right. Nobody is more right or wrong than anyone else. That includes you David.

The only way to properly interpret the Bible to is accept the plain meaning of words and NOT force preconceived doctrines to fit. That is the only way I see that makes any sense. Especially doctrines that have to relevance to scripture.

Richard Amiel McGough

03-29-2013, 10:26 AM

Hello Richard

David,

That's your problem. All you can do is repeat your baseless assertions. You have no evidence supporting your OPINION that you are right and anyone who disagrees is necessarily wrong. I explained this in some detail in the post you are ignoring. Here is what I said:
Your comparisons between things you think "the Bible teaches" and things you think "others claim" are just your opinions. There are BIBLICAL REASONS devout Christians have come to conclusions different than yours. It seems quite arrogant (in a characteristically ROOD sort of way) to assert that your private OPINIONS are what the Bible actually teaches and anyone who disagrees is not following the Bible.
There are BIBLICAL REASONS folks come to different conclusions than you David. And given your handicap in logic, it's particularly absurd for you to exalt yourself over all scholars and Bible believers that think you have misunderstood the Bible.

Arrogance and Ignorance are twin vices. They strengthen each other, and in you they have become an impenetrable shield against all truth and reality.

I have corrected you on a hundred points. All you did was ignore the proof and then repeat your error.
Why keep saying it is "your opinion" when everybody on this forum is sharing their opinion; it is obvious and does not need saying. My opinion is not mine alone, I have the same opinions as those you would equally attack and criticize the person instead of the message.

Good morning David,

I say "your opinion" because you are writing as if YOUR OPINION is "what the Bible says" and the opinions of those who disagree with you are "what others claim." You dismiss anyone who disagrees with YOUR OPINIONS as if their opinions were not based on any verses in the Bible. That's the error I was correcting. That's why I said this (for the third time):
Your comparisons between things you think "the Bible teaches" and things you think "others claim" are just your opinions. There are BIBLICAL REASONS devout Christians have come to conclusions different than yours. It seems quite arrogant (in a characteristically ROOD sort of way) to assert that your private OPINIONS are what the Bible actually teaches and anyone who disagrees is not following the Bible.
It is true that everyone has an opinion. But you present your opinion as "what the Bible teaches" and dismiss the opinions of others as "what others claim" as if they didn't have any Biblical support. This is why I listed a bunch of examples showing that the things "others claim" are based on Bible verses just like your opinions (which you have ignored, of course). The difference between you and others is simply HOW TO INTERPRET THE BIBLE. You act like the difference is that you and Rood base your beliefs on "what the Bible teaches" while others follow a "pagan" form of Christianity. Rood has corrupted your mind and added to your arrogance. His claims are radically arrogant which is ironic because he is so very ignorant. He is a perfect example of the twin vices of arrogance and ignorance. He sets himself up over the vast majority of Christians that have ever lived, and worse, he is radically ignorant about the religion he trashes as "pagan Christianity." He's a total charlatan. He has made numerous failed predictions. He just MAKES UP CRAP and declares that it is "what the Bible teaches." Case in point: He says that the scroll sealed with seven seals is the "title deed" of planet earth. The Bible does not say nor imply anything like that. It's total CRAP that ROOD INVENTED. And that's just one of a thousand examples I could give.

Your assertion that I attack the person and not the message is false. Case in point: I just explained that Rood makes up crap and says it's what the Bible teaches. Likewise, I have shown that Rood's teachings are FALSE when he made false predictions. And I have proof that he deliberately deceived you in the Jonah Code video where he claimed one of his predictions came true but totally ignored the MAJOR PREDICTION that failed. Exposing a LIAR by presenting evidence is not "attacking the person." It is exposing a liar by presenting evidence.

You appear to be on a crusade to convince everyone they are deluded for thinking there is a God who created all things. Their delusion is your void. You cannot maintain to be correct anymore than I am totally correct about what God has revealed. I do agree with you on some things the Bible says and I am not always saying everybody else is wrong.

I am on a "crusade" for clarity of thought and articulation of truth. I do not know if there is or is not some kind of "God" - but I do know that the God of the Bible is almost certainly not true. And I'm talking about "almost certainly" in the same sense that Zeus is "almost certainly" not true.

And why would you make such a wild claim. Can you find a single quote where I tried to prove that belief in some sort of Creator God is "delusional"? Nope. I've never said anything like that. Yes, I have explained why it's irrational to believe the God of the Bible is the true God, but that's a different issue altogether. You need to try to think more clearly.

Unless you have personally heard the words coming out of Rood's mouth, you are not a direct witness. I had not realized he was around for as long as he has been, Such is the power of Youtube and the internet to find these things. I have listened to his teaching aas much I could get from Youtube, and I say he takes the correct approach to Bible study and I cannot find fault with his teaching. Do I find fault with the teaching of Jesus? No. Would I dress up as Rood does? No. Is there any harm in him dressing up in the way he is is able to use that as a prop for his teaching? No

So you agree with Rood that the scroll sealed with seven seals is really the "title deed of planet earth"? Where do you get that in the Bible? And there are a thousand other errors I could point out, but if you can't see them for yourself, I doubt you will see them if I show them to you. A person must LOVE THE TRUTH or they cannot see it. And if you cannot see the truth even when it is served up on a silver platter, there is no way in the world you could ever find it on your own.

And yes, there is some "harm" in dressing up in his Jewish costume. It helps him DECEIVE PEOPLE to believe he is a "Messianic Rabbi." It doesn't matter if he now says he's not really a rabbi - he presented himself this way on his own website as you well know. And what is the effect of the way he presents himself? Let's see. Just Google "Messianic Rabbi Michael Rood" and see how many people he deceived:

[source (http://www.zabasearch.com/messages/zaba_messages_thread.php?fid=963759)] Messianic Rabbi Michael Rood (a former US Marine) has a much better theology than Colonel Jim Ammerman. Read his book, Mystery of Iniquity: The Legal Prerequisites of the Return of the Messiah.

[source (https://groups.google.com/forum/?fromgroups=#!topic/alt.messianic/xlcx1m-LwNE)] According to Messianic Rabbi Michael Rood, this coming Sept 11 (according to the Gregorian calender) is the FIRST day of the 7th Millenium. He has broadcast to this effect last fall on the Trinity Broadcasting Network (TBN),...as a guest being interviewed.

[source (http://www.zabasearch.com/messages/zaba_messages_thread.php?fid=1109881)] Isaiah chapters 65 and 66 say the Lord will not protect swine eaters or those who eat unclean foods. Hezekiyah Haas has a great book on that subject called "On Health and Holiness" available at Messianic Rabbi Michael Rood's ministry and other locations.

[source (http://rense.com/general3/suit.htm)] Speaking to a crowd of Bible prophecy students in Greensboro, this week, Messianic Rabbi Michael Rood quoted an intelligence source close to the peace process who claims Yassir Arafat's Palestinian forces have purchased three Russian nuclear "suitcase bombs" on the black market.

How much proof do you need? Michael Rood presented himself on his own website as a "Messianic rabbi" and he dresses like a Rabbi (or Levitical Priest, or some sort of Jew) and he even refers to himself as a Jew in some of his talks (he's inconsistent on this point) and the result is that HE HAS DECEIVED MANY OF HIS FOLLOWERS INTO BELIEVING HE IS A MESSIANIC RABBI. That's why it matters.

I did see he had got to task on the Bible Wheel and that would upset you, but I cannot say at his moment who I agree with. I did not always understand his posts when he just put up the Greek text. The one thing I haved learned is that Greek and Hebrew scholars are divided the same as Christians are divided. I want to cut through the falsehood and even if you do not believe the Bible, I was hoping you would see the falsehood, and that is not happening.

What falsehood have you shown me? I don't recall you showing me any evidence. I will accept anything supported by evidence. You should know that by now. I'm a logic and facts kind of guy.

It is fascinating how you consistently side with folks who have been exposed as blatantly irrational and who have REFUSED TO ANSWER the evidence despite many requests. Case in point, you accused me of using the "38 dishonest tricks" to win an argument, and as proof you cited my interaction with CWH who, like you, had been refusing for MONTHS to answer posts in which I had refuted a number of his creationist anti-evolution arguments. He totally IGNORED my refutations and then posted MORE moronic creationist crap. So I insisted that he answer my posts, and he refused, just like you. And so I explained your error in gruesome detail in this post (http://www.biblewheel.com/forum/showthread.php?3357-Take-away-the-daily-sacrifice-Daniel-11-31&p=49566#post49566) where I refute all four examples and showed that you had MINDLESSLY grabbed them and threw them in my face without understand that they proved exactly the opposite of what you were trying to prove!

I brought out the 38 dishonest tricks and have stated that we are all guilty of using them unintentionally. Once known, they are to be avoided.
You have only proved your point to yourself and those who think like you do. If your proof was so good, there would not be the opposition. If Rood can after admitting he spoke lies for 20 years blindly following the Baptist teaching, yet doing his own study and coming to a realization that what was being taught is not the teaching of scripture, then why do not others do the same and question their church's teaching. People change religions for all sorts of reasons and some of those reasons have nothing to do with doctrine. Those who study for themselves ought to realize the lies that are taught. If I am lying, I ask to be shown that I am, not just told that I am. My sincerity to stick to the truth that is God's word is paramount.

WOW! You believe Rood's story about being a Baptist? There is no evidence he was ever a Baptist. He started off in a cult and now he is in his own similar cult. He was a member of the non-Trinitarian cult called "The Way, International" which says that the vast majority of Christians are deceived, just like Rood currently says. I can't believe how gullible you have chosen to be. I can see through Rood's deceptions in a heartbeat. And they are not just a little thing here or there. They saturate everything he says.

Your assertion that "If your proof was so good, there would not be the opposition" is ridiculous. I have given you MOUNTAINS UPON MOUNTAINS of totally obvious irrefutable evidence on many points, and you mindlessly reject it without any valid reason. The same thing happened with CWH. I chased him around this forum for MONTHS and he refused to answer. And then YOU picked that up as an example of me using the 38 dishonet tricks! That's all MADNESS. Rank insanity. And yet you persist no matter how many times I have PROVEN your error.

And now, after I have presented MOUNTAINS UPON MOUNTAINS of evidence, you have the audacity to say "If I am lying, I ask to be shown that I am, not just told that I am." That's simply insane. I have presented the evidence. You have simply ignored it.

:dizzy:

How can there be any agreement about anything if you deny that we are on a planet named Earth?

If I am in the minority who are seeking truth, am I not better to be in a minority than the masses who are not? I have asked this question of you in another thread and here it is again; What do you understand by the teachin of Jesus when he says; (Matt 7:14) narrow is the way, which leadeth unto life, and few there be that find
The debate about Daniel's prophecy will rumble on with none of us shifting from the position we hold. I do not think the "Abomination that causes desolation" has been properly identified and that is because in all probabitlity, it has not happened. That will not satisfy Preterist, becuase it has to be identified to make a fit.

How is it possible that you think that you are "seeking truth" when in fact you have been doing everything in your power to deny the truth that I have been presenting? What's next? Are you going to tell me that you are Napoleon?

What did Jesus mean when he said "narrow is the way, which leadeth unto life, and few there be that find it"? That depends on many things. In the broadest sense, I take it in the same sense as when he said "the truth shall make you free." Anyone can believe that without buying into all the other dubious stuff Jesus taught. But the context won't all such freedom because it follows immediately after the saying that "If you abide in My word, you are My disciples indeed." (John 8:31) But that means we have to figure out what is "his word" and that involves a huge study because we don't know if Jesus actually said that. We can't just "believe" whatever the Bible says because it frequently contradicts itself. And we know that people added and removed stuff. So we need to ask "What did the author of Matthew's Gospel mean when he reported and/or made up that saying attributed to Jesus?" Like I said, this brings up many issues. It deserves a thread all its own.

As for the debate about Daniel - that "rumbles on" because you refuse to adhere to the canons of logic. I have proven that it is impossible to force the Olivet Discourse to fit with Futurist doctrines. Therefore, Futurism has been falsified. If you disagree, then you need to give an interpretation of the Olivet Discourse that coheres with the TEXT and the HISTORICAL FACTS that say the destruction of the Temple would happen during the lifetime of the first century audience who Christ referred to as "this generation." The futurist attempt to destroy the meaning of that phrase has been totally debunked and revealed for what it is - word twisting designed to force a false interpretation on the Bible. So don't go there.

And while you're reading Isaiah, perhaps you could find some hope for refreshment here:

Isaiah 40:31 But they that wait upon the LORD shall renew their strength; they shall mount up with wings as eagles; they shall run, and not be weary; and they shall walk, and not faint.
Thanks for that refreshement. I wish you could share it with you.

All the best,

David
I can feel exactly the same "refreshment" I felt when I meditated on that verse as a Christian. And why is that? Because the "refreshment" actually comes from my own mind when directed by those words. God was never actually in the picture at all. It was all in my imagination. This is the deep insight that leads to true freedom. Until you realize that you are using your own imagination to project an image you call "God" you will remain a slave of your own imagination. This is the "key to the universe." It is the path to enlightenment. I highly recommend that you watch this video. It will reveal the essence of religion. It would be best if you started with his first video in the series. It's one of the best I've ever seen. I cannot emphasize this enough. The video is only about seven minutes long. You have spent 40 hours listening to Rood, whom I believe has done nothing but further deceive you. If you are really interested in the truth, you will spend the two hours it takes to watch the entire serious that starts here (https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLA0C3C1D163BE880A). because all people who are truly TRUTH SEEKERS seek to understand both sides of an argument.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xYaZTEuaFWE

All the best,

Richard

Richard Amiel McGough

03-29-2013, 10:45 AM

David M

04-04-2013, 02:31 AM

Hello L67
I am returning to this reply of yours having replied to you in a later post. I will deal with some of the points you make if not all. I have yet to reply to Richard's following reply and have less time now to give long explanations to too many conversations taking place at the same time.

Those are not false accusations. Case in point. You made the false assertion that Jeremiah 29:14 said something it didn't. You were dishonest with your usage of that verse. Jeremiah was EXPLICITLY speaking about the return from Babylonian captivity. You all the time tell people they need to look at things in the proper context that you yourself don't follow.
You say I am being dishonest, and that is your opinion. Of course it is not an opinion I share. I know that Jeremiah is speaking of the return from exile in Babylon. Also remember God often reveals to the prophets things that shall happen later. The main point I am making is that God has made an unconditional promise to the Jews (is chosen nation as Abraham's descendants) that they shall be regathered after a period of scattering. He will not leave them scattered regardless of the number of times they are scattered. If God leaves them scattered after the 1st century, then God is not keeping his promise. That is why, Bible scholars in the mid-1800's believed Israel would be regathered and a nation formed. The Jews are (unknowingly to many Jews) God's witnesses. That is why, I see God's hand at work today in bringing about everything he revealed to the prophets and that is what we have to understand. It is not essential for salvation we know everything, but if God has said something, it behoves us to understand it properly. That is the discussion we should be having and helping each other to see all the ways verses can be understood and then piecing them all together correctly. Please do this and be less critical of the person for expressing their opinions or their understanding of the Bible. Our errors will be found out; it is not sufficient just to say the other person is in error without giving adequate reason why.

Also, I don't care if you have written a 1,000 page book explaining the bible. It is just as well I have not wated my time writing such a book.

That doesn't excuse you from making false assertions and not backing them up. If you are going to act that way, then why are you even here? Isn't the whole point of this forum to have dialogue with other people no matter the beliefs someone might hold? And to properly defend your claims to the best of your ability? I can only put your ignorance of me down to joining in July 2012 and missing my earlier posts beginning from when I joined at the end of January 2012. I have sufficiently explained in many postes the reasons for having the understanding I have. I have backed up what I say from quoting the Bible. I have said all along, I will reason only from the Bible.

David I'm not going to go hunt for answers that may or may not answer my questions. If you say something without proof , you have to have to be prepared to defend it. Telling someone to go find your answers is rediculous. That is your bad. If you will not go to my exposition of Jude 6 for example to read my full commentary on Jude 5 and 6 then you do not know what I havee said. I do not expect other readers to expect me to copy and paste that whole exposition every time I have to say the same thing again. I have backed up my arguements by quoting the Bible and reasoning only from the Bible. It is false assertions to say that I have not.

David this isn't an us vs. you situation. Religion teaches that absurd us vs. them mentality. I have read on this forum for months and have NEVER once saw Richard not accept the plain meaning of scripture where it is applicable. If you are referring to YOUR view of plain text, ok. But since you say he doesn't accept plain simple statements then show me.
I will show you, but do not expect me to have instant recall of everything that has been written on this forum. I do not have access to the database in which I can use MYSQL to search for things. Often these things come around again and when it does we can discuss them.
If you are not against me, please refrain from the insults and just stick to the facts and explanations. Religion and has much to answer for and from James 1:27 we read of his definition of what "pure religion wshould be about.

Believe the books? Yes. Believe the story. Nope it's fiction in my eyes. Let me show you why I feel this way. Because the early church fathers admit to deceiving. The very people you get your traditions from. I have collected these quotes over the last few months about the dishonesty of the church.
The fact that you believe the Bible is fiction, is the question I ask myself; "why do I waste my time reasoning with anyone who does not believe anything in the Bible? You accuse me (lumping me in with Christians in general) of receiving the traditions of men and being deceived by the early church fathers. What you are accsuing me of, is the very same thing I am accusing many Christians of doing. I am in a minority of Christians (hence I prefer to be known as a Brother of Christ) that hold to the faith held by the Apostles. This is the faith which Jude says; should earnestly contend for the faith which was once delivered unto the saints. That is exactly what I am doing. I agree with your condemnation of maninstream Christianity, please do not label me as one of those.

In view of this, I will agree with your quotes from St. Jerome and anyone else you have quoted. I will exclude copying them into this post. This is why I reason from the Bible and not from what other people have said. You are right to reject these people, it is a pity you have rejected the Bible and not continued to form your opinions of what it says. For all that false witnesses say about Rood, he confessed to having followed lies and taught the same lies and has now repented and I find his teaching of the scripture is sound. I wish you could do likewise.

If the whole story had any credibilty, then why did they have to lie? We know the Gospel of Mark orignally ended at 16:8. But a better ending was inserted. If Mark was messed with, what else has been altered? There is no way the creator of the unverses could possibly allow such shenanigans to go on in the writing of his word. And it still goes on to this day.
I did not have to comment on all those quotes since I am in agreement with you. The Bible as we have it, has been "messed about". That is not to say that much of it is still correct. That is why I agree with Rood when he says; "the original word of God as it was inspired and written down did not have errors in it". What we have is copies of copies and copies of translations and we have translations which are far removed from the original Hebrew or Greek.
Unfortunately, I do not know Hebrew of Greek and I have to trust those who do. I trust more the people like Rood who use the King James version of the Bible and use Websters Dictionary to find the meaning of the old English language and then go back to the orginal ancient texts in Hebrew and Aramaic or Greek in order to understand as best as possible the meaning of words used by the authors.
We have to cut through al the cr^p which are the words of men and get to truth that was originally written. Only then will we have the truth. It is not in us all to be able to do this and so it is up to ourselves to seek out those who we can trust to explain the truth to us. In the end we decide who is telling the truth. I would rather put aside things I do not understand in the Bible of do not have the perfect answer for and base my belief on the plain simple teachings of Jesus, but it is those plain and simple things we still have disagreement about within the Christian communities.

Ok, I stand corrected David. You didn't say all. But for you to say "most" must mean you are some authority figure on the matter. How do you determine that "most" are wrong and you are right?
I have already asked you to explain to me the saying of Jesus which you have not answered, and had you done so should have answered this question. So, once again, please tell me what you understand by Jesus saying; Because strait is the gate, and narrow is the way, which leadeth unto life, and few there be that find it.
Why is it so few find the way that leads to life? That is my basis for saying the majority of Christian religions are wrong. They have missed the path. I need you to tell me what it means to stay on the path.

Mathew 7:14 is irrelevant. Because in order to justify that verse means a judgement has been made. You have judged "most" of Christianity to be wrong. How do you have the final say over who is or isn't right? You have no more claim to truth than any other Christian. You are using the same fallible logic as are other Christians.
Please answer the question. You are dismissing an important saying of Jesus. Why should I argue with you (who does not believe anything in the Bible and who dismisses everything? That is why you say I have not explained myself, because you dismiss the very quotes I present.

See your problem is you think there is a definitive "majority or minority" in Christianity of who is right. There is only interpretation of who is right. Nobody is more right or wrong than anyone else. That includes you David. Likewise, you reject the words of Jesus and do not see that there is a majority and a minority. I am not 100% right; I have always admitted that. It is a waste of your time saying that against me. I compare what I know with what the majority know and therefore I am confident I know more. That does not make me perfect. Please stop trying to gain the upper-hand by trying to belittle me with your statments. I disagree with you and some can be more right than others and I accept that there are those who are more right than me. You can show me you are more right by giving me sound reasoning from the Bible (even if you disbelieve it).

The only way to properly interpret the Bible to is accept the plain meaning of words and NOT force preconceived doctrines to fit. That is the only way I see that makes any sense. Especially doctrines that have to relevance to scripture.
I agree and that is why for example had Peter and Jude written; "the priests that sinned"; who they were referring to would be obvious and we would not be having this argument about Angels. The same goes for the other things which to you and me are plain and simpe, so why are we disagreeing?

David

L67

04-04-2013, 08:33 AM

Hello L67
You say I am being dishonest, and that is your opinion. Of course it is not an opinion I share. I know that Jeremiah is speaking of the return from exile in Babylon. Also remember God often reveals to the prophets things that shall happen later. The main point I am making is that God has made an unconditional promise to the Jews (is chosen nation as Abraham's descendants) that they shall be regathered after a period of scattering. He will not leave them scattered regardless of the number of times they are scattered. If God leaves them scattered after the 1st century, then God is not keeping his promise. That is why, Bible scholars in the mid-1800's believed Israel would be regathered and a nation formed. The Jews are (unknowingly to many Jews) God's witnesses. That is why, I see God's hand at work today in bringing about everything he revealed to the prophets and that is what we have to understand. It is not essential for salvation we know everything, but if God has said something, it behoves us to understand it properly. That is the discussion we should be having and helping each other to see all the ways verses can be understood and then piecing them all together correctly. Please do this and be less critical of the person for expressing their opinions or their understanding of the Bible. Our errors will be found out; it is not sufficient just to say the other person is in error without giving adequate reason why.

You were dishonest. If you knew it was the return from the exile in Babylon you should have said so. But you didn't do that. You tried to put a modern day spin on it. The Bible plainly speaks of the regathering in THOSE times. There is a mountain of evidence to prove it according to the Bible. Your view doesn't fit the language of the Bible in any way. It is absurd to say that the regathering can happen any number of times. You have no evidence to support such speculation.

God fulfilled his promises to Israel. The Bible explicitly says that all came to pass. Your view makes God out to be a liar. If you want to look at the Bible properly, then you need to look at it from a first century perspective. That fits perfectly with the language of the Bible. Your view is completely irrelevant to scripture. You can't support your assertions with any facts.

I can only put your ignorance of me down to joining in July 2012 and missing my earlier posts beginning from when I joined at the end of January 2012. I have sufficiently explained in many postes the reasons for having the understanding I have. I have backed up what I say from quoting the Bible. I have said all along, I will reason only from the Bible.

Back to the post count again. David post count doesn't mean anything. Most of your post are mere assertions with NO facts. I want FACTS. The facts you think prove your point really don't because there is overwhelming evidence to oppose you.

That is your bad. If you will not go to my exposition of Jude 6 for example to read my full commentary on Jude 5 and 6 then you do not know what I havee said. I do not expect other readers to expect me to copy and paste that whole exposition every time I have to say the same thing again. I have backed up my arguements by quoting the Bible and reasoning only from the Bible. It is false assertions to say that I have not.

What does this have to do with answering questions? It's not my responsibilty to find your answers. You make the claim and you can back it up.

The fact that you believe the Bible is fiction, is the question I ask myself; "why do I waste my time reasoning with anyone who does not believe anything in the Bible? You accuse me (lumping me in with Christians in general) of receiving the traditions of men and being deceived by the early church fathers. What you are accsuing me of, is the very same thing I am accusing many Christians of doing. I am in a minority of Christians (hence I prefer to be known as a Brother of Christ) that hold to the faith held by the Apostles. This is the faith which Jude says; should earnestly contend for the faith which was once delivered unto the saints. That is exactly what I am doing. I agree with your condemnation of maninstream Christianity, please do not label me as one of those.

Because this is a forum to express differing opinions. Whether I believe the Bible is true or not is irrelevant. I'm not asking you to reason with me. I'm asking you to defend your positions with FACTS and EVIDENCE.

I know you think you are a minority and that you are right. But you are no more right than anyone else. And it is assinine for you to assert that the minority who thinks like you do are correct.

It doesn't matter if you think you are holding to the faith held by the apostles. The fact is the dishonesty found its way into Bible and traditons that have been handed down. So you have no way of knowing fact or fiction. The early church fathers are the ones who are suppose to represent God and protect the integrity of the Bible. But they didn't do that a lot of times. They deceived people to carry out their agenda.

In view of this, I will agree with your quotes from St. Jerome and anyone else you have quoted. I will exclude copying them into this post. This is why I reason from the Bible and not from what other people have said. You are right to reject these people, it is a pity you have rejected the Bible and not continued to form your opinions of what it says. For all that false witnesses say about Rood, he confessed to having followed lies and taught the same lies and has now repented and I find his teaching of the scripture is sound. I wish you could do likewise.

David you missed the point. These people had influence over the content that went into the Bible. Take the Gospel of Mark for example. The earliest known copy of the Bible has mark ending at 16:8. But modern day versions of the Bible have a longer ending. Why is that? If Mark had later insertions, then what else has been tampered with?

I did not have to comment on all those quotes since I am in agreement with you. The Bible as we have it, has been "messed about". That is not to say that much of it is still correct. That is why I agree with Rood when he says; "the original word of God as it was inspired and written down did not have errors in it". What we have is copies of copies and copies of translations and we have translations which are far removed from the original Hebrew or Greek.

Unfortunately, I do not know Hebrew of Greek and I have to trust those who do. I trust more the people like Rood who use the King James version of the Bible and use Websters Dictionary to find the meaning of the old English language and then go back to the orginal ancient texts in Hebrew and Aramaic or Greek in order to understand as best as possible the meaning of words used by the authors.
We have to cut through al the cr^p which are the words of men and get to truth that was originally written. Only then will we have the truth. It is not in us all to be able to do this and so it is up to ourselves to seek out those who we can trust to explain the truth to us. In the end we decide who is telling the truth. I would rather put aside things I do not understand in the Bible of do not have the perfect answer for and base my belief on the plain simple teachings of Jesus, but it is those plain and simple things we still have disagreement about within the Christian communities.

That means your left with nothing but gibberish. If the Bible has been that poluted, then why should anyone even bother with it? You have no way of knowing what is suppose to be there or isn't. Why would God allow such things to compromise his word? Salvation is suppose to be the most important decision we make in our lives. But somehow God allows his word to be mishandled and then lets his followers fight for the meaning of his words. What kind of sense does that make? God creates all that we see and has to use mortal humans to write his word. Humans that will compromise his words about the most important gift to mankind. It is complely irrational and insane to believe such a proposition.

I have already asked you to explain to me the saying of Jesus which you have not answered, and had you done so should have answered this question. So, once again, please tell me what you understand by Jesus saying; Because strait is the gate, and narrow is the way, which leadeth unto life, and few there be that find it.
Why is it so few find the way that leads to life? That is my basis for saying the majority of Christian religions are wrong. They have missed the path. I need you to tell me what it means to stay on the path.

I agree with your understanding of the verse. Never argued otherwise. But that verse in no validates your views as being the only "correct" ones. You have to way to validate your beliefs other than your own fallible human logic.

Please answer the question. You are dismissing an important saying of Jesus. Why should I argue with you (who does not believe anything in the Bible and who dismisses everything? That is why you say I have not explained myself, because you dismiss the very quotes I present.

I didn't dismiss that verses. You tried to use that verse to justify your views. I simply said the verse is irrelevant for that purpose. Because in order to justify that verse you have made the judgment that you are correct and "most" of Christianity is wrong.

Likewise, you reject the words of Jesus and do not see that there is a majority and a minority. I am not 100% right; I have always admitted that. It is a waste of your time saying that against me. I compare what I know with what the majority know and therefore I am confident I know more. That does not make me perfect. Please stop trying to gain the upper-hand by trying to belittle me with your statments. I disagree with you and some can be more right than others and I accept that there are those who are more right than me. You can show me you are more right by giving me sound reasoning from the Bible (even if you disbelieve it).

It is irrelevant if you know more than the majority. You have no way to justify that thought. It's all left to interpretation. I'm not trying to gain any upperhand. You made the arrogant statement that most of Christianity is wrong. If you can make that statement, then you must think you are correct. So my comments are not out of line.

David M

04-04-2013, 10:05 AM

Hello L67

I agree with your understanding of the verse. Never argued otherwise. But that verse in no validates your views as being the only "correct" ones. You have to way to validate your beliefs other than your own fallible human logic.
You should be able to come up with many reasons why the majority in this world will get rejected by Jesus. I admit that I am fallible in many ways, so what. I am reasoning from the Bible and as long as you do the same we can continue to examine the Bible to see what it is telling us.

I didn't dismiss that verses. You tried to use that verse to justify your views. I simply said the verse is irrelevant for that purpose. Because in order to justify that verse you have made the judgment that you are correct and "most" of Christianity is wrong.
Do you agree with the veneration of Mary as the mother of God? If yes, you agree with the Catholics. The Bible to my understanding does not venerate Mary. Jesus said' Who is my mother...? Jesus did not hold his mother Mary anymore important than any other person. Now if we examine what is the truth as revealed in the Bible and then eliminate those who do not hold with the principles taught in the Bible, then we start whittling the numbers down. You are free to believe what you want to and you can air your opinions on this forum. We both have the equal right, so stop accusing me of anything different to what you are doing.

It is irrelevant if you know more than the majority. You have no way to justify that thought. It's all left to interpretation. I'm not trying to gain any upperhand. You made the arrogant statement that most of Christianity is wrong. If you can make that statement, then you must think you are correct. So my comments are not out of line.
I have given a reaon above. Now you list the things the Bible teaches and then look at the different churches and see how many agree with your list. It ought to be inevitable that you will reject some for not agreeing with you.

It would be wrong of me to condone those who think it does not matter what anyone believes. God has stated on what terms we are to come to him. Believing in Jesus is an essential part (John 3:16) There are many verses we could turn to to find out what God requires of us. If you say I am wrong, then do you think the Bible teaches unversalism whereby everyone will get saved? If that is the case, none of us should have any worries whatever we believe; this is not what I consider the Bible teaches.

David

David M

04-04-2013, 10:14 AM

L67

04-04-2013, 05:30 PM

Hello L67

You should be able to come up with many reasons why the majority in this world will get rejected by Jesus. I admit that I am fallible in many ways, so what. I am reasoning from the Bible and as long as you do the same we can continue to examine the Bible to see what it is telling us.

That's your line of thinking David. Equally diligent Christians as you come up with radically different conclusions. It's called interpretation. That leaves the door wide open to any thing you want the Bible to mean.

Did you ever really stop and think that you could be in that "majority"? Taking one verse and applying that to your minority way of thinking is silly. That in no way justifies you as being correct. There are plenty of arguments that could be made that contradict your views putting you in the majority. In fact, I have made many sound arguments that refute your line of thinking.

Do you agree with the veneration of Mary as the mother of God? If yes, you agree with the Catholics. The Bible to my understanding does not venerate Mary. Jesus said' Who is my mother...? Jesus did not hold his mother Mary anymore important than any other person. Now if we examine what is the truth as revealed in the Bible and then eliminate those who do not hold with the principles taught in the Bible, then we start whittling the numbers down. You are free to believe what you want to and you can air your opinions on this forum. We both have the equal right, so stop accusing me of anything different to what you are doing.

I don't believe the Catholics or Christians. I stick to the plain text of the Bible and acknowledge who the Bible was written for.

I know you think you think there is truth in the Bible. And you could be right. But how can you decipher truth from deceit, when we know the Bible has been tampered with? You can't say God shows you the truth. Every Christian says that and yet we have so many varying interpretations of the Bible. If God was truly speaking to his followers then don't you think he would get everyone on the same page? It would clear up a lot of confusion. But God never does any such thing. He allows everyone to fight about the meaning of his word. It makes no sense.

You're right you have every right to voice your opinion on this forum. I don't object to that. But you didn't just "voice" your opinion. You stated that "most" of Christianity is wrong. There is a difference.

I have given a reaon above. Now you list the things the Bible teaches and then look at the different churches and see how many agree with your list. It ought to be inevitable that you will reject some for not agreeing with you.

It would be wrong of me to condone those who think it does not matter what anyone believes. God has stated on what terms we are to come to him. Believing in Jesus is an essential part (John 3:16) There are many verses we could turn to to find out what God requires of us. If you say I am wrong, then do you think the Bible teaches unversalism whereby everyone will get saved? If that is the case, none of us should have any worries whatever we believe; this is not what I consider the Bible teaches.

I see where you are coming from. But it's one thing to reject some beliefs, but it's a whole another thing to state "most" of Christianity is wrong. Your error is looking at some doctrines and rejecting them. The problem with that is that you assume you are right. Who is to say you are right? So I go back to my orignal statement. You have judged most of Christianity to be wrong and erroneously assumed you are correct. You have no way of knowing.

I know you think I have a grudge against you, but I don't. I just want an honest discussion is all. If I am in error I want someone to show me why and provide evidence.

Nice chatting with you David.

David M

04-05-2013, 02:46 AM

Helo L67

That's your line of thinking David. Equally diligent Christians as you come up with radically different conclusions. It's called interpretation. That leaves the door wide open to any thing you want the Bible to mean.
Why will you not answer a simple question and give me an explanation? You accuse me of avoidance and yet this is exactly what you are doing. I do not mean to be antagonistic. I need to know how you interpret the saying of Jesus and any saying for that matter in the Bible. I need to know your methodology and how you have obtained the interpretation you have. This is not what you are telling me. Stop criticizing me (the person) and base these discussions on the fact of what is written in the Bible. I do not care we have 1000's of interpretations, it is the one true interpretation we can help each other get to. Please answer the question or quit the conversation (I am not for quitting).
Here are the questions again phrased slightly different and some more added.
Q1. Why does Jesus know he is going to reject the majority at judgment day?
Q2. What is meant by; "the broad way which leads to destruction"?
Q3. Why will not the majority follow the narrow way which leads to eternal life?
Q4. What group do you consider yourself to be in?

Did you ever really stop and think that you could be in that "majority"? Taking one verse and applying that to your minority way of thinking is silly. That in no way justifies you as being correct. There are plenty of arguments that could be made that contradict your views putting you in the majority. In fact, I have made many sound arguments that refute your line of thinking. Yes, I have stopped to think? I might be amongst the majority to be rejected for sinful acts, but I am in a minority in other ways, such as you might be in a minority for things only you believe.

I don't believe the Catholics or Christians. I stick to the plain text of the Bible and acknowledge who the Bible was written for. We might be in closer agreement if you do not believe what the Catholics believe. Catholics come under the banner of Christians. If you do not believe in what some Christians believe and I think you have stated you do not believe the Bible, even though you have studied it to some extent and can produce verses to partly substantiate what you say. Since you are now a non-believer and a skeptic, I do not see any reason for continued discussion after this, but that might change. At least Richard tells me he is searching for truth even though I find that hard to believe when I read some of his replies.

I know you think you think there is truth in the Bible. And you could be right. Well that is one admission or concession. If I "could be right", why not follow my arguments to the end? Alas, with Richard, we haved never got to an end of a topic having considered all the evidence. We might be vaguely on topic in this thread since what the 'top 20 topics' are is what we are supposed to be discussing and we can all have our own top twenty.

But how can you decipher truth from deceit, when we know the Bible has been tampered with? You can't say God shows you the truth. Every Christian says that and yet we have so many varying interpretations of the Bible. One way to detect deceit is to read the Bible and do not trust the words of men. The Bible tells us not to believe in "lying words" which are of men; not of God. This is what the author of Truth has warned us. I have said this elsewhere on the forum; if I see 9 out of 10 verses confirming one thing and I see 1 verse out of 10 seemingly contradict the other 9, I have to make the one that is seemingly saying something different fit by understanding what it is the author wants us to understand. If I cannot, I will leave that one verse aside until and explanation is found. Even if I never find an good explanation, I will not let that deflect me from accepting the other nine verses. Since, the Bible confirms God is the divine author who nspiried men to write the original manuscripts, I have to work on the basis as God tells us; "he is not an author of confusion", and the words of God must be consistent and harmonious. It is on this basis, the big picture (like a jigsaw puzlze) has to be pieced together with every piece fitting together to make one complete picture. This is not an easy thing to do and can take a lifetime and we might never achieve it. We can take a shortcut and take a lead from those who we know to be genuine Bible scholars and have given very good explanations with Biblical evidence. In the final anaysis, we base what we believe on our own understanding of God's word. We have to be like the Bereans and compare the scriptures with what people say, to see if they are telling the truth. It is sometimes easy to spot those who have no knowledge of what the Bible says. It is obvious when they do not quote from the Bible correctly and take things out of context or making up their own explanations (which are false).

If God was truly speaking to his followers then don't you think he would get everyone on the same page? It would clear up a lot of confusion. But God never does any such thing. He allows everyone to fight about the meaning of his word. It makes no sense.
I would like to help you make sense of the Bible, but if you totally reject what I say, without considering the matter, it is like "biting the hand that feeds you" and soon you will stop being fed from my hand. Why should you think God must do everything for you? You have to take the first step, and that first step might be a step of faith. Even so, you have to make the start. Do you need God to wipe your botton when you go to the toilet? That sounds trite, but consider what you are expecting God to do. God will put all things right in his determined time. I have confidene God will do what he has said and promised. This is based on sound reasoning from the Bible.

God knows the sincerity of your heart and there is no fooling God. Your conscious thoughts are known to God and from that he determines whether you are the right material for his kingdom to come. Please do not put yourself in the class of reprobates, because those are the people God has rejected. They are beyond saving. Does that please God? I doubt it. God does not want anyone to perish, but people have to respond to his word first. Without a response, there is no hope for them. They are dead in their thoughts towards God and they remain dead in their sins. God has provided a way out so that people do not have to be dead in their sins. "All have sinned and fallen short of the Glory of God". "The soul that sinneth, it shall die" We all have to die, that is the logical conclusion from those two statements. God is not bending from administering the penalty for the offence committed. That is why, we have to get this into perspective. God has given us his instructions and we disobey them at our peril. God has given us a way out of from earning the "wages of sin" which is eternal death, and God has given us a way to achieve eternal life in his kingdom to come. Does not this sound good? Do you not want to have that chance? If you do not want it, you will not be prepared to do the work and find the "narrow way" that leads to life. We do not know how God can do what he promises, we do not know by what power he operates, and this is where we have to have faith. We do not have to have blind faith, and God has given us an assurance. The assurance is; God has raised Jesus from the dead to live for evermore and has given him an incorruptible body. This tells me, that the body of flesh and blood that we have now and that we have inherited from Adam and Eve is a corruptible body. Even Jesus would have died a natural death had he lived to an old age and not been crucified. Could God have let him remain in the grave he had continued to lead a sinless of life? Of course not, God is true to his word. That is why Jesus could not remain in the grave after he was killed.

I firmly believe in the resurrection and that God will give those who are raised to eternal life, the same incorruptible body which Jesus was given; "we shall be like him" is what we are told. From that, i conclude, the nature of Jesus cannot be the same as God even though in the time to come, Jesus will be seen as God with all his power and having the title of God while he is restoring the earth to its fomer glory and the time it takes will be a long time (possibly 1000 years) to accomplish the the plan and purpose of God.

You're right you have every right to voice your opinion on this forum. I don't object to that. But you didn't just "voice" your opinion. You stated that "most" of Christianity is wrong. There is a difference. Anyone who sticks their head up on this forum has to expect to have it chopped off. I know I appear arrogant, and that is because I am passionate about what I believe, I know that eternal life is the greatest gift we can be given and I am not worthy to receive it and I thank God he has given me the opportunity to receive it. I am passionate for the truth and that is misconstrued by others on this forum. Eternal life in the kingdom of God is likened to the stories that are the parables. It is like (for example) "the pearl of great price". The woman mislaid the pearl and had to look hard for it and swept the whole house until she found it. That is what you have to L67, if you want to regain the pearl which I see you have lost; you have to look for it and you have to be prepared to work at it. These spiritual lessons are not seen or understood by those who Jesus describes as; "having ears and hear not and eyes and see not". They have no spiritual perception of God's truth. It becomes very clear to me, once a spiritual perception has been gained, that the words people speak reveal whether they have the same perception.

I see where you are coming from. But it's one thing to reject some beliefs, but it's a whole another thing to state "most" of Christianity is wrong. Your error is looking at some doctrines and rejecting them. The problem with that is that you assume you are right. Who is to say you are right? So I go back to my orignal statement. You have judged most of Christianity to be wrong and erroneously assumed you are correct. You have no way of knowing.
That is why I asked you about the Catholics venerating Mary as the mother of God. Catholics are Christians and they are the largest Christian community on the planet. You can find the list of religions and their respective numbers on Wikipedia. We are only mentioning Christians here, although I regard Muslims in the same bracket who make up the majority. That will offend Muslims, and I will challenge any Muslim to reason from the Bible. For the Quran to be considered, it has to be in harmony with the Bible. I know what the Bible says. Mary is just an ordinary woman who was blessed to carry "the only begotten son of God". She was not given any preferential status by the only begotten Son of God (Jesus). On that basis alone, I say the Catholics who are in the majority have got it wrong. If that leaves me in the minority, so far as the Catholics are concerned, that proves my argument and I am in the minority.

I know you think I have a grudge against you, but I don't. I just want an honest discussion is all. If I am in error I want someone to show me why and provide evidence.
A grudge is the wrong word. You seem to be attacking me personally for having a different message. My message comes from the Bible (as I understand it). That is why I will only reason from the Bible, and other peoples' arguments must be based on the Bible; not what other people have written or said in books or in videos. Their message can be studied against what the Bible says and in most cases, the message of imposters will be found out. Only by both of us looking at what the Bible says and comparing our messages will we determine who has the better understanding of the Bible. I do not regard myself as an authority or the have a perfect knowledge. I know I have more knowledge than some (if not many). We have to continue to discuss passages of the Bible until we have exhausted all the evidence and then we have to decide one of three things.
1. state what we accept to be the truth
2. deny there is truth in what we study
3. leave passages in abeyance until an explanation is found.

Nice chatting with you David.
I feel you have been less critical in your reply and might even begin to appreciate where I am coming from. I don't care if I am exposed for being wrong on some points; I will learn and be the better for being put on the right path. I will not be proven to be wrong on all things. I do not want to hold anything against you and I do not like my less than perfect human nature responding in a way that is not best. Christ might not have reviled as I sometimes do when provoked, but Jesus is not always the meek person he is portrayed to be. He will not be weak or mild when he is ruling on the earth in the future. One thing we can be assured of and which no other human government has been able to do and that is "rule in righteousness". That is a concept, alien to human government. Jesus was very critical of the Pharisees in his day. You know how he called them "hypocrites". That label could be attached to many Christian leaders in the churches today and throughout history. It was no coincidence when Jesus forced the Pharisees to kill him right on cue. They had not planned to kill him when they did, but Jesus was so condemnatory or them, they had no choice. Look at what Jesus said; (Matt 23:39) For I say unto you, Ye shall not see me henceforth, till ye shall say, Blessed is he that cometh in the name of the Lord. They were blind as many of the Jews today are blind and they will eventually recognize Jesus when he returns as we are told; "the veil will be removed from their eyes". This pronouncement about Christ has not been made. This iis why I know there are things that must be fulfilled in the future.

I will leave you with one final thought; why is it Jesus said; (Luke 18:8) Nevertheless when the Son of man cometh, shall he find faith on the earth? What are we meant to understand by this; when does Jesus come? What is the faith Jesus is referring to? The words suggest to me doubt as to whether Jesus will find anyone having "The Faith". This must make us all say to ourselves; do I have the faith Jesus expects me to have? If Jesus is uncertain that he will find anyone having "faith2, does that not suggest those who do have the (true) faith, must be in the minority?

All the best,

David

P.S. If I am in the minority, I also consider myself a contrarian by not following the masses. I was not good at spotting the trends in the stock market and spotting the correct time to enter and exit a trade. It is a known fact, if you want to win BIG in the stockmarket, you have to be a contrarian and not follow the mass of traders. Now "the few" who truly repent (and go in the opposite direction to the masses), they are the contrarians. They are the ones going in the opposite direction following the narrow path which leads to eternal life instead of the wide path, which leads to eternal death about which Jesus said; many (meaning the masses) will find it and go that way. L67, do you want to gain the riches for being a contrarian and be in the minority?

Richard Amiel McGough

04-05-2013, 04:01 PM

Here are the questions again phrased slightly different and some more added.
Q1. Why does Jesus know he is going to reject the majority at judgment day?
Q2. What is meant by; "the broad way which leads to destruction"?
Q3. Why will not the majority follow the narrow way which leads to eternal life?
Q4. What group do you consider yourself to be in?

Good afternoon David,

I thought it would be good if I answered your questions since that's why we started this thread.

Q1: When you first asked that question in post #20, you quoted Matthew 7:14 "Because strait is the gate, and narrow is the way, which leadeth unto life, and few there be that find it." Now the thing is, we need to ask who Jesus was talking to and what he meant by "destruction." Unfortunately, the context in Matthew doesn't give much information because there are lots of little aphorisms just stated one after another (rather like the book of Proverbes). We get a lot more information if we look at the parallel passage in Luke's gospel, which begins with the question "are there few that be saved?" -
Luke 13:22 And he went through the cities and villages, teaching, and journeying toward Jerusalem. 23 Then said one unto him, Lord, are there few that be saved? And he said unto them, 24 Strive to enter in at the strait gate: for many, I say unto you, will seek to enter in, and shall not be able. 25 When once the master of the house is risen up, and hath shut to the door, and ye begin to stand without, and to knock at the door, saying, Lord, Lord, open unto us; and he shall answer and say unto you, I know you not whence ye are: 26 Then shall ye begin to say, We have eaten and drunk in thy presence, and thou hast taught in our streets. 27 But he shall say, I tell you, I know you not whence ye are; depart from me, all ye workers of iniquity. 28 There shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth, when ye shall see Abraham, and Isaac, and Jacob, and all the prophets, in the kingdom of God, and you yourselves thrust out. 29 And they shall come from the east, and from the west, and from the north, and from the south, and shall sit down in the kingdom of God.
To whom was Jesus speaking? First century Jews. Why would they be gnashing their teeth? Because they would see the GENTILES entering the kingdom and they themselves would be "cast out." Has this ever happened in history? Yep. The Gospel went out from Jerusalem to all the world and then Jerusalem was destroyed, just as Jesus predicted when he said:
Matthew 24:14 And this gospel of the kingdom shall be preached in all the world for a witness unto all nations; and then shall the end come.
And Paul confirmed that the Gospel had gone to all nations prior to 70 AD:
Romans 1:8 First, I thank my God through Jesus Christ for you all, that your faith is spoken of throughout the whole world.
And again:
Colossians 1:5 For the hope which is laid up for you in heaven, whereof ye heard before in the word of the truth of the gospel; 6 Which is come unto you, as it is in all the world; and bringeth forth fruit, as it doth also in you, since the day ye heard of it, and knew the grace of God in truth:
Paul explained that the Jews were suffering the wrath of God, exactly as predicted by John the Baptist when he fulfilled the prophecy of the Elijah who was to come:
1 Thessalonians 2:14 For ye, brethren, became followers of the churches of God which in Judaea are in Christ Jesus: for ye also have suffered like things of your own countrymen, even as they have of the Jews: 15 Who both killed the Lord Jesus, and their own prophets, and have persecuted us; and they please not God, and are contrary to all men: 16 Forbidding us to speak to the Gentiles that they might be saved, to fill up their sins alway: for the wrath is come upon them to the uttermost.
This is the wrath that Jesus warned would come upon the first century Jews:
Matthew 23:29 Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! because ye build the tombs of the prophets, and garnish the sepulchres of the righteous, 30 And say, If we had been in the days of our fathers, we would not have been partakers with them in the blood of the prophets. 31 Wherefore ye be witnesses unto yourselves, that ye are the children of them which killed the prophets. 32 Fill ye up then the measure of your fathers. 33 Ye serpents, ye generation of vipers, how can ye escape the damnation of hell? 34 Wherefore, behold, I send unto you prophets, and wise men, and scribes: and some of them ye shall kill and crucify; and some of them shall ye scourge in your synagogues, and persecute them from city to city: 35 That upon you may come all the righteous blood shed upon the earth, from the blood of righteous Abel unto the blood of Zacharias son of Barachias, whom ye slew between the temple and the altar. 36 Verily I say unto you, All these things shall come upon this generation.
Note that both Paul and Jesus spoke of the apostate Jews filling up their sins. The prophecy was fulfilled in 70 AD when the Great Harlot, Apostate Israel was cast down:
Revelation 18:21 And a mighty angel took up a stone like a great millstone, and cast it into the sea, saying, Thus with violence shall that great city Babylon be thrown down, and shall be found no more at all. 22 And the voice of harpers, and musicians, and of pipers, and trumpeters, shall be heard no more at all in thee; and no craftsman, of whatsoever craft he be, shall be found any more in thee; and the sound of a millstone shall be heard no more at all in thee; 23 And the light of a candle shall shine no more at all in thee; and the voice of the bridegroom and of the bride shall be heard no more at all in thee: for thy merchants were the great men of the earth; for by thy sorceries were all nations deceived. 24 And in her was found the blood of prophets, and of saints, and of all that were slain upon the earth.
Note that the prophecy is essentially identical to the prophecy spoken against apostate Jerusalem by Jeremiah before God sent the Babylonians to destroy the Temple in 586 BC:
Jeremiah 7:33 And the carcases of this people shall be meat for the fowls of the heaven, and for the beasts of the earth; and none shall fray them away. 34 Then will I cause to cease from the cities of Judah, and from the streets of Jerusalem, the voice of mirth, and the voice of gladness, the voice of the bridegroom, and the voice of the bride: for the land shall be desolate.
Note their flesh will be eaten by the "fowls of heaven" just like in the next chapter, Rev 19. The coherence is strong.

This is the "Big Picture." The Kingdom of God was "near" when Jesus walked amongst the people. It came in power when God judged the Great Harlot, apostate Jerusalem, in 70 AD after the Gospel had gone forth from Jerusalem into all the world, as it is written:
Acts 1:8 But ye shall receive power, after that the Holy Ghost is come upon you: and ye shall be witnesses unto me both in Jerusalem, and in all Judaea, and in Samaria, and unto the uttermost part of the earth.
This was fulfilled before 70 AD:
Acts 8:3 As for Saul, he made havock of the church, entering into every house, and haling men and women committed them to prison. 4 Therefore they that were scattered abroad went every where preaching the word.
They were "scattered" in the sequence listed in Acts 1:8. First from Jerusalem, into all Judaea, then Samaria, and finally "unto the uttermost part of the earth" as Paul went forth. Then the end came.

So the answer is: Jesus knew because he knew that the Jews were hard-hearted and would kill him, and Scripture said most would rebel and only a remnant of the faithful would believe. They were named Paul, Peter, John, Matthew, Maria - all Jews, True Israel - they formed the Church.

Q2: That refers to the Jews that rejected Jesus. A million died in the siege of 66-70 AD. It is said that not one Christian died because they headed Christ's warning to flee when they saw the Abomination that had desolated temple. The rebels had filled it with carcasses of the dead. A true abomination in the holy place.

Q3: When you say "the majority" we must remember Jesus was talking to the Jews only. The majority of them were stiff-necked and so died. But then came in a huge multitude of Gentiles as we read in Revelation:
Revelation 7:9 After this I beheld, and, lo, a great multitude, which no man could number, of all nations, and kindreds, and people, and tongues, stood before the throne, and before the Lamb, clothed with white robes, and palms in their hands; 10 And cried with a loud voice, saying, Salvation to our God which sitteth upon the throne, and unto the Lamb.
Note that this coheres with the words of Jesus quoted above:
Luke 13:28 There shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth, when ye [the unbelieving Jews] shall see Abraham, and Isaac, and Jacob, and all the prophets, in the kingdom of God, and you yourselves thrust out. 29 And they shall come from the east, and from the west, and from the north, and from the south, and shall sit down in the kingdom of God.
The coherence is very strong. It is unlike anything seen in the Futurist interpretation.

Q4: I am in neither group. It appears that Christ was not talking about the far future. There are many other questions that must be answered before talking about "eternal salvation." For example, you hold to a hyper-literal interpretation that says Jesus is going to rule physically on the earth for a thousand years. I think that is a gross error that contradicts many Scriptures, such as the fact that Jesus has already ascended to the Throne of David:
Acts 2:29 Men and brethren, let me freely speak unto you of the patriarch David, that he is both dead and buried, and his sepulchre is with us unto this day. 30 Therefore being a prophet, and knowing that God had sworn with an oath to him, that of the fruit of his loins, according to the flesh, he would raise up Christ to sit on his throne; 31 He seeing this before spake of the resurrection of Christ, that his soul was not left in hell, neither his flesh did see corruption. 32 This Jesus hath God raised up, whereof we all are witnesses. 33 Therefore being by the right hand of God exalted, and having received of the Father the promise of the Holy Ghost, he hath shed forth this, which ye now see and hear. 34 For David is not ascended into the heavens: but he saith himself, The LORD said unto my Lord, Sit thou on my right hand, 35 Until I make thy foes thy footstool. 36 Therefore let all the house of Israel know assuredly, that God hath made that same Jesus, whom ye have crucified, both Lord and Christ.
This is typical of the kinds of errors that flow from the hyper-literal interpretation. For example, most Futurists think there will be a future rebuilt temple, not understanding that Christ and His Body form the True Temple.

Well, I hope that answers some of your questions of what I believe the Bible teaches (from a believer's perspective, of course).

All the best,

Richard

L67

04-05-2013, 09:41 PM

Helo L67

Why will you not answer a simple question and give me an explanation? You accuse me of avoidance and yet this is exactly what you are doing. I do not mean to be antagonistic. I need to know how you interpret the saying of Jesus and any saying for that matter in the Bible. I need to know your methodology and how you have obtained the interpretation you have. This is not what you are telling me. Stop criticizing me (the person) and base these discussions on the fact of what is written in the Bible. I do not care we have 1000's of interpretations, it is the one true interpretation we can help each other get to. Please answer the question or quit the conversation (I am not for quitting).
Here are the questions again phrased slightly different and some more added.
Q1. Why does Jesus know he is going to reject the majority at judgment day?
Q2. What is meant by; "the broad way which leads to destruction"?
Q3. Why will not the majority follow the narrow way which leads to eternal life?
Q4. What group do you consider yourself to be in?

Thanks for not quitting David.

I did answer your question. I said I agreed with your interpretation of the verse. But I disagree with your usage of that verse. You used it to try an justify your way of thinking and claim that "most" of Christianity is wrong.

How I interpret The Bible is simple. I don't start with the assumption that the Bible is true. Then I recognize who the Bible was written for(first century audience.). From there it's as simple as accepting the plain meaning of words. You don't have to play word games when you just accept the Bible for what it says. IMO it's an exercise in futility to try and force the Bible to fit preconceived doctrines. It doesn't get you anywhere, and it rejects the plain things the Bible says.

There is 1000's of interpretations out there. And you're right it would be nice to find the right one. . It certainly shows God could care less if his followers fight over the meaning of His words. Preterism is not perfect but as far as I can tell it accomplishes more than the futurist doctrine. The futurist doctrine is nothing more than a word game to force verses to fit the doctrine. It's rather absurd in my eyes because it rejects so many obious things in the Bible.

Yes, I have stopped to think? I might be amongst the majority to be rejected for sinful acts, but I am in a minority in other ways, such as you might be in a minority for things only you believe.

Not neccessarily. You could be in the majority if your interpretation is wrong. You have no way to knowing for sure, nor can you prove it.

We might be in closer agreement if you do not believe what the Catholics believe. Catholics come under the banner of Christians. If you do not believe in what some Christians believe and I think you have stated you do not believe the Bible, even though you have studied it to some extent and can produce verses to partly substantiate what you say. Since you are now a non-believer and a skeptic, I do not see any reason for continued discussion after this, but that might change. At least Richard tells me he is searching for truth even though I find that hard to believe when I read some of his replies.

I don't believe any of them because none of them can make a compelling argument on bad evidence.

You also assumed I'm not searching for the truth. That's not true. I'm wide open to be shown the light. Do you think I just here to waste time arguing?

The same could be said of you David by some of your statements. Especially with your refusal to see Rood for what he is.

Well that is one admission or concession. If I "could be right", why not follow my arguments to the end? Alas, with Richard, we haved never got to an end of a topic having considered all the evidence. We might be vaguely on topic in this thread since what the 'top 20 topics' are is what we are supposed to be discussing and we can all have our own top twenty.

Yes, you "could" be right. But so "could" anyone else. I have followed your arguments and never agree with them. Simply because your interpretations of verses ignore the plain meaning of words.

One way to detect deceit is to read the Bible and do not trust the words of men. The Bible tells us not to believe in "lying words" which are of men; not of God. This is what the author of Truth has warned us. I have said this elsewhere on the forum; if I see 9 out of 10 verses confirming one thing and I see 1 verse out of 10 seemingly contradict the other 9, I have to make the one that is seemingly saying something different fit by understanding what it is the author wants us to understand. If I cannot, I will leave that one verse aside until and explanation is found. Even if I never find an good explanation, I will not let that deflect me from accepting the other nine verses. Since, the Bible confirms God is the divine author who nspiried men to write the original manuscripts, I have to work on the basis as God tells us; "he is not an author of confusion", and the words of God must be consistent and harmonious. It is on this basis, the big picture (like a jigsaw puzlze) has to be pieced together with every piece fitting together to make one complete picture. This is not an easy thing to do and can take a lifetime and we might never achieve it. We can take a shortcut and take a lead from those who we know to be genuine Bible scholars and have given very good explanations with Biblical evidence. In the final anaysis, we base what we believe on our own understanding of God's word. We have to be like the Bereans and compare the scriptures with what people say, to see if they are telling the truth. It is sometimes easy to spot those who have no knowledge of what the Bible says. It is obvious when they do not quote from the Bible correctly and take things out of context or making up their own explanations (which are false).

See this is why your arguments fail in my eyes. You say not to trust the words of men. But who do you think wrote the Bible? MEN. There is ZERO evidence God had any thing to do with the Bible. The early church fathers had a hand in the deception of Christianity. There were so many shenanigans that happened in the formation of Christianity. I suggest you read this if you truly want to see just how much corruption was in Christianity. http://files.meetup.com/1364309/Forgery%20in%20Christianity.pdf

That link is a lengthy read but if you do read it you will see it is absurd to think God had anything to do with the Bible.

I would like to help you make sense of the Bible, but if you totally reject what I say, without considering the matter, it is like "biting the hand that feeds you" and soon you will stop being fed from my hand. Why should you think God must do everything for you? You have to take the first step, and that first step might be a step of faith. Even so, you have to make the start. Do you need God to wipe your botton when you go to the toilet? That sounds trite, but consider what you are expecting God to do. God will put all things right in his determined time. I have confidene God will do what he has said and promised. This is based on sound reasoning from the Bible.

David I'm not some newbie who gave Christianity 6 months and then quit. I was a Christian for 15 years or so. If you read the links above you will see there is no sense to be made of the Bible. Simply because the Bible is not God's word. They are the words of MEN. That fits perfectly with why there are so many contradictions and errors.

God knows the sincerity of your heart and there is no fooling God. Your conscious thoughts are known to God and from that he determines whether you are the right material for his kingdom to come. Please do not put yourself in the class of reprobates, because those are the people God has rejected. They are beyond saving. Does that please God? I doubt it. God does not want anyone to perish, but people have to respond to his word first. Without a response, there is no hope for them. They are dead in their thoughts towards God and they remain dead in their sins. God has provided a way out so that people do not have to be dead in their sins. "All have sinned and fallen short of the Glory of God". "The soul that sinneth, it shall die" We all have to die, that is the logical conclusion from those two statements. God is not bending from administering the penalty for the offence committed. That is why, we have to get this into perspective. God has given us his instructions and we disobey them at our peril. God has given us a way out of from earning the "wages of sin" which is eternal death, and God has given us a way to achieve eternal life in his kingdom to come. Does not this sound good? Do you not want to have that chance? If you do not want it, you will not be prepared to do the work and find the "narrow way" that leads to life. We do not know how God can do what he promises, we do not know by what power he operates, and this is where we have to have faith. We do not have to have blind faith, and God has given us an assurance. The assurance is; God has raised Jesus from the dead to live for evermore and has given him an incorruptible body. This tells me, that the body of flesh and blood that we have now and that we have inherited from Adam and Eve is a corruptible body. Even Jesus would have died a natural death had he lived to an old age and not been crucified. Could God have let him remain in the grave he had continued to lead a sinless of life? Of course not, God is true to his word. That is why Jesus could not remain in the grave after he was killed.

I understand your good intentions. But I'm afraid I know too much about the Bible to believe a word of it. That link I posted is a real eye opener. If you care about the truth like you say, then you should at least read it with an open mind.

I firmly believe in the resurrection and that God will give those who are raised to eternal life, the same incorruptible body which Jesus was given; "we shall be like him" is what we are told. From that, i conclude, the nature of Jesus cannot be the same as God even though in the time to come, Jesus will be seen as God with all his power and having the title of God while he is restoring the earth to its fomer glory and the time it takes will be a long time (possibly 1000 years) to accomplish the the plan and purpose of God.

But in that view you ignore everything the Bible says that already happened. Jesus was never to be an earthly king. He was to be a spiritual king. The Jews wanted an earthly kingdom and even tried to help Jesus establish it. John 6:15: "Jesus therefore perceiving that they were about to come and take him by force, to make him king, withdrew again into the mountain himself alone."

That is why Jesus told Pilate his kingdom was not of this world. Jesus will NEVER be an earthly king. Jesus also said he accomplished everything on earth the Father had for him. John 17:4:

"I glorified thee on the earth, having accomplished the work which thou hast given me to do."

There is nothing left for Jesus to do on earth.

Anyone who sticks their head up on this forum has to expect to have it chopped off. I know I appear arrogant, and that is because I am passionate about what I believe, I know that eternal life is the greatest gift we can be given and I am not worthy to receive it and I thank God he has given me the opportunity to receive it. I am passionate for the truth and that is misconstrued by others on this forum. Eternal life in the kingdom of God is likened to the stories that are the parables. It is like (for example) "the pearl of great price". The woman mislaid the pearl and had to look hard for it and swept the whole house until she found it. That is what you have to L67, if you want to regain the pearl which I see you have lost; you have to look for it and you have to be prepared to work at it. These spiritual lessons are not seen or understood by those who Jesus describes as; "having ears and hear not and eyes and see not". They have no spiritual perception of God's truth. It becomes very clear to me, once a spiritual perception has been gained, that the words people speak reveal whether they have the same perception.

There is nothing wrong with a little arrogance providing you have the goods to back up your claims. Unfortunately, I haven't been moved by your claims. The problem is the things you cite as evidence can quickly be disproven. I'm sorry, I can't just believe something on bad evidence. And the fact that God would make anyone go to hell for not believing his word on bad evidence is ridiculous to me.

That is why I asked you about the Catholics venerating Mary as the mother of God. Catholics are Christians and they are the largest Christian community on the planet. You can find the list of religions and their respective numbers on Wikipedia. We are only mentioning Christians here, although I regard Muslims in the same bracket who make up the majority. That will offend Muslims, and I will challenge any Muslim to reason from the Bible. For the Quran to be considered, it has to be in harmony with the Bible. I know what the Bible says. Mary is just an ordinary woman who was blessed to carry "the only begotten son of God". She was not given any preferential status by the only begotten Son of God (Jesus). On that basis alone, I say the Catholics who are in the majority have got it wrong. If that leaves me in the minority, so far as the Catholics are concerned, that proves my argument and I am in the minority.

You can't aasert the Quran can only be considered if it's in harmony with the Bible. You are placing the Bible above the Quran. You have no way of distinguishing between facts from their book and yours. You just happened to be indoctrinated in Christianity is all.

A grudge is the wrong word. You seem to be attacking me personally for having a different message. My message comes from the Bible (as I understand it). That is why I will only reason from the Bible, and other peoples' arguments must be based on the Bible; not what other people have written or said in books or in videos. Their message can be studied against what the Bible says and in most cases, the message of imposters will be found out. Only by both of us looking at what the Bible says and comparing our messages will we determine who has the better understanding of the Bible. I do not regard myself as an authority or the have a perfect knowledge. I know I have more knowledge than some (if not many). We have to continue to discuss passages of the Bible until we have exhausted all the evidence and then we have to decide one of three things.
1. state what we accept to be the truth
2. deny there is truth in what we study
3. leave passages in abeyance until an explanation is found.

I dont mean for it to sound like I'm attacking you personally. It's just the way it comes out. Don't take it personally.

David I know you value the Bible. But if you only reason from the Bible you CAN'T be committed to the truth. If you are open to the truth it will come from all angles. Trusting only the Bible is a endless state of circular reasoning.

I feel you have been less critical in your reply and might even begin to appreciate where I am coming from. I don't care if I am exposed for being wrong on some points; I will learn and be the better for being put on the right path. I will not be proven to be wrong on all things. I do not want to hold anything against you and I do not like my less than perfect human nature responding in a way that is not best. Christ might not have reviled as I sometimes do when provoked, but Jesus is not always the meek person he is portrayed to be. He will not be weak or mild when he is ruling on the earth in the future. One thing we can be assured of and which no other human government has been able to do and that is "rule in righteousness". That is a concept, alien to human government. Jesus was very critical of the Pharisees in his day. You know how he called them "hypocrites". That label could be attached to many Christian leaders in the churches today and throughout history. It was no coincidence when Jesus forced the Pharisees to kill him right on cue. They had not planned to kill him when they did, but Jesus was so condemnatory or them, they had no choice. Look at what Jesus said; (Matt 23:39) For I say unto you, Ye shall not see me henceforth, till ye shall say, Blessed is he that cometh in the name of the Lord. They were blind as many of the Jews today are blind and they will eventually recognize Jesus when he returns as we are told; "the veil will be removed from their eyes". This pronouncement about Christ has not been made. This iis why I know there are things that must be fulfilled in the future.

Like I said I don't mean to sound like butthole.

I do like your attitude and hope you can open yourself up to other sources for truth. You don't have to believe it but at least have an open mind about it. Having tunnel vision about the Bible is not a pathway to truth.

One correction: Jesus will not and cannot rule on earth.

I will leave you with one final thought; why is it Jesus said; (Luke 18:8) Nevertheless when the Son of man cometh, shall he find faith on the earth? What are we meant to understand by this; when does Jesus come? What is the faith Jesus is referring to? The words suggest to me doubt as to whether Jesus will find anyone having "The Faith". This must make us all say to ourselves; do I have the faith Jesus expects me to have? If Jesus is uncertain that he will find anyone having "faith2, does that not suggest those who do have the (true) faith, must be in the minority?

Well for one Jesus already came. Yes, I would agree with your interpretation of the verse. No this does not suggest those with true faith are in the minority. Because how do you determine who has true faith? You are basing your faith on YOUR interpretation of the Bible. And who determines who has the correct one? It's an exercise in futility.

L67

04-05-2013, 09:53 PM

.

Q4: I am in neither group. It appears that Christ was not talking about the far future. There are many other questions that must be answered before talking about "eternal salvation." For example, you hold to a hyper-literal interpretation that says Jesus is going to rule physically on the earth for a thousand years. I think that is a gross error that contradicts many Scriptures, such as the fact that Jesus has already ascended to the Throne of David:

Excellent point on your entire post. But I wanted to add to this. This is the death blow for futurists. Christ can't rule on the earthly throne of David or in Judah. He's on the David's throne in heaven.

Jeremiah 22:24-30
24 As I live, saith the Lord, though Coniah the son of Jehoiakim king of Judah were the signet upon my right hand, yet would I pluck thee thence;

25 And I will give thee into the hand of them that seek thy life, and into the hand of them whose face thou fearest, even into the hand of Nebuchadrezzar king of Babylon, and into the hand of the Chaldeans.

26 And I will cast thee out, and thy mother that bare thee, into another country, where ye were not born; and there shall ye die.

27 But to the land whereunto they desire to return, thither shall they not return.

28 Is this man Coniah a despised broken idol? is he a vessel wherein is no pleasure? wherefore are they cast out, he and his seed, and are cast into a land which they know not?

29 O earth, earth, earth, hear the word of the Lord.

30 Thus saith the Lord, Write ye this man childless, a man that shall not prosper in his days: for no man of his seed shall prosper, sitting upon the throne of David, and ruling any more in Judah.

Coniah is short for Jeconiah. Mathew 1 tells us Jesus is a descendant of Jeconiah therefore he can't rule on earth again. Mathew 1:11-2 11 and Josiah the father of Jeconiah[c] and his brothers at the time of the exile to Babylon.

12 After the exile to Babylon:

Jeconiah was the father of Shealtiel,

duxrow

04-06-2013, 06:12 AM

L67

04-06-2013, 07:27 AM

duxrow

04-06-2013, 07:52 AM

My point? Following the father-to-son trail... :sEm_oops: Sorry if that wasn't pertinent..

Yeh, I'm aware how genealogy has been traced thru Nathan instead of Solomon because of the 'childless Coniah', but beg to disagree. (Was it started by Scofield?..not sure) Anyway, think the 66 count was deliberately hidden, for us to pursue. The 3 names: Jehoiachin, Jeconiah, Coniah - add to confusion.

Esther 2:6 -- 2K24:6 Jehoiachin 18yrs old -- 2Chr36:8 8yrs old (double reign? both correct?)
Jer52:31 returned to throne, from prison! :eek:

1Sam15:33 And Samuel said, As the sword hath made women childless, so shall thy mother be childless among women.
And Samuel hewed Agag in pieces before the LORD in Gilgal.
A diff POV re 'childless', maybe?

L67

04-06-2013, 12:08 PM

Hi L67 - Matt1:11 KJV has margin note pertaining -- it's Josiah to Jehoiakim to Jehoiachin (Coniah) - to Assir. 1Chr3:15-17 substantiates the father-to-son 'pedigree'.

Understand about 'childless' Coniah, but only that his offspring would not occupy the throne, it seems. So the pedigree continues, but the dynasty ends.. even though the final king zedekiah is installed, he isn't legit as 'son of Coniah'.

Ezra 3:2 picks up the thread in Babylon.. Not meaning to interrupt here, but trying to help. OK? :thumb:

Thanks for the clarification. I'm combining your two post together so I can answer them.

I agree with your first statement. But I disagree with your childless Coniah comment. Coniah was not childless. Mathew confirms this. Yes it mentions in Jeremiah to write this man down as childless. But that is not in the proper context. If you read Jeremiah 22:28-30 in the proper text its saying that no descendants of Coniahs will sit on the throne of David or ruling in Judah again. It doesn't literally mean he was childless. Jesus is from the cursed line of kings and can't sit on the earthly throne of David because he is sitting on it NOW in heaven like the Bible says he is.

My point? Following the father-to-son trail... Sorry if that wasn't pertinent..

Yeh, I'm aware how genealogy has been traced thru Nathan instead of Solomon because of the 'childless Coniah', but beg to disagree. (Was it started by Scofield?..not sure) Anyway, think the 66 count was deliberately hidden, for us to pursue. The 3 names: Jehoiachin, Jeconiah, Coniah - add to confusion.

Esther 2:6 -- 2K24:6 Jehoiachin 18yrs old -- 2Chr36:8 8yrs old (double reign? both correct?)
Jer52:31 returned to throne, from prison!

1Sam15:33 And Samuel said, As the sword hath made women childless, so shall thy mother be childless among women.
And Samuel hewed Agag in pieces before the LORD in Gilgal.
A diff POV re 'childless', maybe?

Again, Coniah was NOT childless. Think about it. How can Jeremiah say that none of his descendants would sit on the throne if he was childless?

Yes, Jehoiachin was 18 years old. 2 Kings 24 and 2 Chronicles 36 confirm that. There is no mention of 8 years old or a double reign. Did you even read Jeremiah 52:31? That verse makes no mention that Jehoiachin was returned to the throne. You read it wrong. That verse is about his release from prison. It mentions him as king of Judah in a descriptive sense not a literal one.

As for your last point. No he was not childless.

duxrow

04-06-2013, 01:06 PM

:sEm_ImSorry: No problem, L67--I agree Coniah was not 'childless', even though many have thought that. My shorthand prob. threw you off..

2Chr36:9 for Jeconiah age eight (8), 3mos 10 days, etc. - "cursed line of kings" ??
I'm remembering Richard and I with this discussion not long ago. :yo:

L67

04-06-2013, 01:30 PM

duxrow

04-06-2013, 01:40 PM

Ok I see what your saying now. I would say that was a translation error. Because the majority of verses say 18.

Good way to look at it. I had questioned the 'cursed' line of kings in a delayed edit.

If that refers to why many think the genealogy did NOT come through Solomon,

this is my view (http://www.cswnet.com/~duxrow/webdoc51.htm).

David M

04-08-2013, 05:15 AM

Hello L67

Thanks for not quitting David.

I did answer your question. I said I agreed with your interpretation of the verse. But I disagree with your usage of that verse. You used it to try an justify your way of thinking and claim that "most" of Christianity is wrong.
If you answer the questions, you will know why the majority will be regected. It is that simple!! But why you will not put your answer in words, is telling me something.

How I interpret The Bible is simple. I don't start with the assumption that the Bible is true. Then I recognize who the Bible was written for(first century audience.). From there it's as simple as accepting the plain meaning of words. You don't have to play word games when you just accept the Bible for what it says. IMO it's an exercise in futility to try and force the Bible to fit preconceived doctrines. It doesn't get you anywhere, and it rejects the plain things the Bible says.
If you start from the assumption the Bible is false, you are unlikely to look for evidence and explanations to support it. It is not just what the Bible says, it is what the translators have written and unless you accept some words can have different meanings to what the translators have written, or you thing they should have written, then that is a recipe not for change. Jude 6 used to confuse me until I heard somethng differently and now I can eason the word "angels" out for myself. Doctrines are not necessarily preconceived, but once a doctrine has been established in our mind, it is just as right to see how other scriptures fit in with that doctrine. It is the "9 out of 10 principle" I work to. I will not be put off by one verse that seemingly is contradictory.

There is 1000's of interpretations out there. And you're right it would be nice to find the right one. . It certainly shows God could care less if his followers fight over the meaning of His words. Preterism is not perfect but as far as I can tell it accomplishes more than the futurist doctrine. The futurist doctrine is nothing more than a word game to force verses to fit the doctrine. It's rather absurd in my eyes because it rejects so many obious things in the Bible. That is what Richard says. You are no more right than Richard is. I shall not continue the Preterism vs Futurism debate here. I have already expressed my opinion about this.

Not neccessarily. You could be in the majority if your interpretation is wrong. You have no way to knowing for sure, nor can you prove it. Not on every point I agree, but there are some points I know to be true and if it were not for others coming to the same conclusion after their reasoning from scriptures, I would worry.

I don't believe any of them because none of them can make a compelling argument on bad evidence.

You also assumed I'm not searching for the truth. That's not true. I'm wide open to be shown the light. Do you think I just here to waste time arguing?

The same could be said of you David by some of your statements. Especially with your refusal to see Rood for what he is. Speaking of Rood is really off topic and I am saying the same to Richard about Rood. I am going from what I hear out of his own mouth, I will not listen to what is your opinion of Rood. I am suspect of all men's words which are not based on scripture.

Yes, you "could" be right. But so "could" anyone else. I have followed your arguments and never agree with them. Simply because your interpretations of verses ignore the plain meaning of words. You will not agree with them. You are fixed on believing the Bible is untrue and you will not accept alternative explanations. This is a recipe for nowhere. As I have said, I think Preterism is leaving out many words of the prophets, which have not been adequately explained and their fulfillment shown. What is it that needs to done to convince you of the truth of the Bible. The Bible is true; for more than one reason, I accept that, but they are not reasons you accept. The evidence of the nation of Israel existing today, is obvious and yet not obvious to you and I know why for the reasoms you have stated.

See this is why your arguments fail in my eyes. You say not to trust the words of men. But who do you think wrote the Bible? MEN. There is ZERO evidence God had any thing to do with the Bible. The early church fathers had a hand in the deception of Christianity. There were so many shenanigans that happened in the formation of Christianity. I suggest you read this if you truly want to see just how much corruption was in Christianity. http://files.meetup.com/1364309/Forgery%20in%20Christianity.pdf

That link is a lengthy read but if you do read it you will see it is absurd to think God had anything to do with the Bible. There is no point going over who wrote the Bible; we have fixed our opinion about that. We shalll argue till our dying day and not get anywhere.

David I'm not some newbie who gave Christianity 6 months and then quit. I was a Christian for 15 years or so. If you read the links above you will see there is no sense to be made of the Bible. Simply because the Bible is not God's word. They are the words of MEN. That fits perfectly with why there are so many contradictions and errors. As I say, I know the reasons why we will never agree.

I understand your good intentions. But I'm afraid I know too much about the Bible to believe a word of it. That link I posted is a real eye opener. If you care about the truth like you say, then you should at least read it with an open mind. I have looked at so many videos posted on this forum and whether they be pro or con the Bible, they all fail in my estimation. What is it specifically that you think might get me to change my mind? My mind has been open long enough to reject certain ideas. I am open to new ideas, and at some point those new ideas have to be in accord with what I aready know is the truth or they will be rejected. I am not rejecting a new idea without having given it some thought, but it has to be new; not reguritated rubbish I am constantly subjected to.

But in that view you ignore everything the Bible says that already happened. Jesus was never to be an earthly king. He was to be a spiritual king. The Jews wanted an earthly kingdom and even tried to help Jesus establish it. John 6:15: "Jesus therefore perceiving that they were about to come and take him by force, to make him king, withdrew again into the mountain himself alone."

That is why Jesus told Pilate his kingdom was not of this world. Jesus will NEVER be an earthly king. Jesus also said he accomplished everything on earth the Father had for him. John 17:4:

"I glorified thee on the earth, having accomplished the work which thou hast given me to do."

There is nothing left for Jesus to do on earth.
That is not my conclusion. What has Jesus done in the last 2,000 years to establish the kingdom of God on earth? Why is it God is ruling in the kingdoms of men? What is the future for this planet? When is God going to be "all in all"?

There is nothing wrong with a little arrogance providing you have the goods to back up your claims. Unfortunately, I haven't been moved by your claims. The problem is the things you cite as evidence can quickly be disproven. I'm sorry, I can't just believe something on bad evidence. And the fact that God would make anyone go to hell for not believing his word on bad evidence is ridiculous to me. Disproven? such as what....? We are two immovable rocks and neither of us will move, so it has been good chatting, but unless you answer specific questions, I am now done answering further questions from you after this post.

You can't aasert the Quran can only be considered if it's in harmony with the Bible. You are placing the Bible above the Quran. You have no way of distinguishing between facts from their book and yours. You just happened to be indoctrinated in Christianity is all.
If I am not to consider the harmonious parts of the Bible and Quran, I will not consider the Quran at all. The Bible knocks spots of the Quran when it comes to telling us the plan and purpose of God with this earth and mankind.

I dont mean for it to sound like I'm attacking you personally. It's just the way it comes out. Don't take it personally.

David I know you value the Bible. But if you only reason from the Bible you CAN'T be committed to the truth. If you are open to the truth it will come from all angles. Trusting only the Bible is a endless state of circular reasoning. I listen to men when it comes to science and discovery, but as far as God's truth is concerned, I will not listen to men only. I will hear what they say, and they can help my understanding of passages in the Bible, but anything else written by man surplanting the Bible, I reject on the basis that comes from the Bible warning me that all men without God's word are liars.

Like I said I don't mean to sound like butthole.

I do like your attitude and hope you can open yourself up to other sources for truth. You don't have to believe it but at least have an open mind about it. Having tunnel vision about the Bible is not a pathway to truth.

One correction: Jesus will not and cannot rule on earth.
I think Job got it right and Job is one of the earliest books of the Bible. Job could see to the latter day; (Job19:25) For I know that my redeemer liveth, and that he shall stand at the latter day upon the earth: There is nothing to indicate Job believed in anything else, and he would be redeemed and would be alive on the earth with his Redeemer. It is the same hope and vision that Abraham had.

Well for one Jesus already came. Yes, I would agree with your interpretation of the verse. No this does not suggest those with true faith are in the minority. Because how do you determine who has true faith? You are basing your faith on YOUR interpretation of the Bible. And who determines who has the correct one? It's an exercise in futility.
I want to establish from you who you think has the truth faith? If it is not the masses, it has to be a minority. It has to be one or the other, so just answer the question. Universalism is not an answer.

I have yet to answer Richard, who has jumped in and answered the opening questions for you. I have answered you, before answering Richard. My reply to Richard will have to wait till later or another day.

David

David M

04-08-2013, 06:16 AM

Good way to look at it. I had questioned the 'cursed' line of kings in a delayed edit.

If that refers to why many think the genealogy did NOT come through Solomon,

this is my view (http://www.cswnet.com/~duxrow/webdoc51.htm).

Hello Dux
I have had this argument before with L67 about Coniah. Just because the kingly line seemingly ended with Coniah does not mean that the line was broken and another king would not be seated on David's throne in Jerusalem. Peter was right (Acts 2:30) Therefore being a prophet, and knowing that God had sworn with an oath to him, that of the fruit of his ( David) loins, according to the flesh, he would raise up Christ to sit on his (David's) throne;

As I have heard this explained; the blood line through the male side had to be broken. This was to make way for the blood-line to come from God; the father of Jesus. The blood of Jesus did not come from his mother's side for as we know the blood of the child in the womb does not have to be of the same blood group as the mother and the blood inside the baby is not the same blood that is in the mother; the two blood systems remain separate.

This Coniah business is just another ruse to try and prove the Bible incorrect and the more we look into these things, the more profound these things are, and we we see the wisdom of God, which is so much higher than man's widsom.

All the best

David

L67

04-08-2013, 06:46 AM

Hello L67

If you answer the questions, you will know why the majority will be regected. It is that simple!! But why you will not put your answer in words, is telling me something.

There is nothing to answer. I said I would agree with your interpretation of that verse. But for the third time it does not justify your claims.

If you start from the assumption the Bible is false, you are unlikely to look for evidence and explanations to support it. It is not just what the Bible says, it is what the translators have written and unless you accept some words can have different meanings to what the translators have written, or you thing they should have written, then that is a recipe not for change. Jude 6 used to confuse me until I heard somethng differently and now I can eason the word "angels" out for myself. Doctrines are not necessarily preconceived, but once a doctrine has been established in our mind, it is just as right to see how other scriptures fit in with that doctrine. It is the "9 out of 10 principle" I work to. I will not be put off by one verse that seemingly is contradictory.

I'm not starting with the assumption that the Bible is false. I'm starting with the assumption that it isn't true. I'm neutral. And from there I examine all evidence. Based upon everything I have studied I have reached the conclusion that the Bible is pure myth with some historical value.

I know all about words having different meanings. I have explained that to you in the past, and you never acknowledged it when it shows you were mistaken.

That is what Richard says. You are no more right than Richard is. I shall not continue the Preterism vs Futurism debate here. I have already expressed my opinion about this.

Stop comparing me to Richard. I'm not Richard. He can speak for himself.

Speaking of Rood is really off topic and I am saying the same to Richard about Rood. I am going from what I hear out of his own mouth, I will not listen to what is your opinion of Rood. I am suspect of all men's words which are not based on scripture.

It is not my opinion of Rood. It is a fact! I posted this before and you ignored it. Trimm is self destructing as well. The plagiarism issues, along with his scam [stealing money from people who never received their ordered and paid for HRVs]; and his split with his "right hand men", not to mention his adultery issues, and other lies and deceptions have hit the fan, so to speak. Trimm also openly teaches kabbalah [Jewish mysticism] and claims inspiration of non-canonical books which he is "translating" [his great contribution, he thinks :hammer: ]. His begging for money "to save my home" through it all, hits the web almost daily. Pretty sad mess

http://www.seekgod.ca/roodbreakup.htm

http://areallyrudeawakening.com/

It's all documented David. Your refusal to admit these facts is mind blowing.

You will not agree with them. You are fixed on believing the Bible is untrue and you will not accept alternative explanations. This is a recipe for nowhere. As I have said, I think Preterism is leaving out many words of the prophets, which have not been adequately explained and their fulfillment shown. What is it that needs to done to convince you of the truth of the Bible. The Bible is true; for more than one reason, I accept that, but they are not reasons you accept. The evidence of the nation of Israel existing today, is obvious and yet not obvious to you and I know why for the reasoms you have stated.

Are you kidding me? Preterism is acknowledging the prophets. It is YOUR belief system that is ignoring their plain speech, and making their words future. Which does not even fit the language in the Bible.

Because if you would bother researching Christianities corrupt beginnings you would see no god was involved.

There is no point going over who wrote the Bible; we have fixed our opinion about that. We shalll argue till our dying day and not get anywhere.

It's not just about who wrote the Bible. It's about the fraud and forgery that went into the writing of the Bible. You are obviously aren't interested to learn Christianity was a farce fromt the get go.

I have looked at so many videos posted on this forum and whether they be pro or con the Bible, they all fail in my estimation. What is it specifically that you think might get me to change my mind? My mind has been open long enough to reject certain ideas. I am open to new ideas, and at some point those new ideas have to be in accord with what I aready know is the truth or they will be rejected. I am not rejecting a new idea without having given it some thought, but it has to be new; not reguritated rubbish I am constantly subjected to.

Then read the link David. That link doesn't fail, it's a real eye opener. I have read your post long enough to know your mind is far from open to anything other than the Bible is true. Your refusal to see Rood for what he is is proof of that.

That is not my conclusion. What has Jesus done in the last 2,000 years to establish the kingdom of God on earth? Why is it God is ruling in the kingdoms of men? What is the future for this planet? When is God going to be "all in all"?

NOTHING. Because he already established the kingdom of God when he walked the earth. The Bible is very explicit about this. Your refusal to see the mountain of evidence is simply astonishing.

Disproven? such as what....? We are two immovable rocks and neither of us will move, so it has been good chatting, but unless you answer specific questions, I am now done answering further questions from you after this post.

The futurist doctrine easily disproven.

If I am not to consider the harmonious parts of the Bible and Quran, I will not consider the Quran at all. The Bible knocks spots of the Quran when it comes to telling us the plan and purpose of God with this earth and mankind.

But how do you know? Your claims of God are no more valid than theirs. It just happens to be what you were indoctrinated in.

I listen to men when it comes to science and discovery, but as far as God's truth is concerned, I will not listen to men only. I will hear what they say, and they can help my understanding of passages in the Bible, but anything else written by man surplanting the Bible, I reject on the basis that comes from the Bible warning me that all men without God's word are liars.

Oh really? So you accept evolution as a fact? You accept that science KNOWS there was no flood? There's plenty more to ask but those two big ones will do for now.

Your basis for rejecting the words of men are as stupid as they are rediculous. That is how cults opperate. There is no truth in that method.

I think Job got it right and Job is one of the earliest books of the Bible. Job could see to the latter day; (Job19:25) For I know that my redeemer liveth, and that he shall stand at the latter day upon the earth: There is nothing to indicate Job believed in anything else, and he would be redeemed and would be alive on the earth with his Redeemer. It is the same hope and vision that Abraham had.

Point?

I want to establish from you who you think has the truth faith? If it is not the masses, it has to be a minority. It has to be one or the other, so just answer the question. Universalism is not an answer.

You just don't get it. NOBODY can have the claim of having the true faith. Because you have to make a judgement that you are right and everyone else is wrong. You have no way to justify that other than your own fallible interpretation. That is all anyone has when it comes to the Bible is interpretation. It's silly to think otherwise. Because apparently God talks to everyone in different way to have so many different interpretations of the Bible.

L67

04-08-2013, 06:56 AM

Hello Dux
I have had this argument before with L67 about Coniah. Just because the kingly line seemingly ended with Coniah does not mean that the line was broken and another king would not be seated on David's throne in Jerusalem. Peter was right (Acts 2:30) Therefore being a prophet, and knowing that God had sworn with an oath to him, that of the fruit of his ( David) loins, according to the flesh, he would raise up Christ to sit on his (David's) throne;

And you were never able to refute my argument. Peter was right David. That verse proves my point. Christ was rasied up to sit on David's throne in heaven. He is on David's thrown NOW in heaven like the Bible says. No one said he wouldn't sit on David's throne. Jeremiah was explicit that it was an earthly throne that Jesus can't sit on.

As I have heard this explained; the blood line through the male side had to be broken. This was to make way for the blood-line to come from God; the father of Jesus. The blood of Jesus did not come from his mother's side for as we know the blood of the child in the womb does not have to be of the same blood group as the mother and the blood inside the baby is not the same blood that is in the mother; the two blood systems remain separate.

This Coniah business is just another ruse to try and prove the Bible incorrect and the more we look into these things, the more profound these things are, and we we see the wisdom of God, which is so much higher than man's widsom.

That is just your erroneous understanding David. The Bible is very explicit.

No David the Coniah business is a FACT. It utterly destroys your doctrine that Christ will sit on an earthly throne. Not only does the Bible say he can't but there are verses that says he is on the throne NOW.

duxrow

04-08-2013, 07:01 AM

Hi David, If you checked my page, you saw I see the genealogy of Matthew as the King-Line leading to the final four of Jacob-Joseph-Mary-Jesus. The genealogy of Luke would be the Priest-Line leading to Mary's husband. All IAW Numbers 36, and taking into account the 'FATHER TO SON' trail which continues non-stop until Mary's Dad has NO sons!

IMO the 'blood-line' and placenta are more of a red herring -- the David-dynasty being just PART of the 'father-to-son' trail..

In the OT they could be either a King, or a Priest, but not both-- according to Saul and Uzziah. But in the NT we can be BOTH! The distinction agrees with a LITERAL vs FIGURATIVE diff., so that Revelation can say we are Kings & Priests!

duxrow

04-08-2013, 08:37 AM

L67

04-08-2013, 10:03 AM

Keep up the good work -- the antics of those two are sure to be found out 'in the wash'.. hah! :winking0071:

What a bunch of nonsense. What antics? You mean accepting the plain words of the Bible? Why don't you try refuting the argument?

duxrow

04-08-2013, 10:11 AM

Maybe not you '67', but Richard has been along...

Prophecy can have more than one outcome: the 7yrs of harvest, followed by 7yrs of famine, was true, but then was followed by the 2Kyrs of OT, followed by 2Kyrs. of NT.

Same pattern as the 7 yrs for Leah; then 7 more years for Rachel. eh?

John19:32 "Then came the soldiers, and brake the legs of the first, and of the other which was crucified with him. 19:33 But when they came to Jesus, and saw that he was dead already, they brake not his legs". (Imagine that trail?)

When "you don't have a leg to stand on", your truth is sick for sure". -- :lol:

We don't all agree with same POV, but 'whatever rattles your cage' -- Go For It ! :p

L67

04-08-2013, 06:02 PM

Prophecy can have more than one outcome: the 7yrs of harvest, followed by 7yrs of famine, was true, but then was followed by the 2Kyrs of OT, followed by 2Kyrs. of NT.

Not when the OT makes claims and the NT confirms them. It's really that simple. Saying that prophecy can have more than one meaning is the whole futurist in a nutshell. It's forcing a preconceived conclusion to make the Bible say something doesn't.

When "you don't have a leg to stand on", your truth is sick for sure". -- :lol:

That sums up Christianity in a nutshell. Theists start with a conclusion then proceed to construct arguments to support it. That's all the theist have ever done. They start with God as the premis and then twist reality, while using contrived arguments to support their unwarranted premise. This comes from complete bias and is the opposite of the scientific method.

We don't all agree with same POV, but 'whatever rattles your cage' -- Go For It ! :p

And that's fine. But why don't you actually try refuting the argument? Instead, you result to silly insults. I could really care less if you insult me, but it makes you look weak.

You either A: Can't refute the point or B: That's the only argument you know how to make.

David M

04-09-2013, 01:50 AM

Hello Richard

Good afternoon David,

I thought it would be good if I answered your questions since that's why we started this thread.
The aim of this thread should have been for you to list the top twenty (ten would have sufficed) topics taught in the Bible. This thread is not to deal with the hundreds of topics individually. I guess no-one considers staying on topic.
The questions aimed at L67 are to explain why the masses or the majority of people that have ever lived will not be in the kingdom of God to come. The point has been missed completely. Once the questions are answered and it is known what an individual must do in order to get to the kingdom of God, that explains why only a relatively few will enter the kingdom of God. Are we doing the things that will make us acceptatble to be in the kingdom of God? That is what "believers" have to ask themselves and I accept that "believers" will have their different opinions. At least, we have separated out "believers" from "non-believers" and threin is a marked difference in numbers.

Q1: When you first asked that question in post #20, you quoted Matthew 7:14 "Because strait is the gate, and narrow is the way, which leadeth unto life, and few there be that find it." Now the thing is, we need to ask who Jesus was talking to and what he meant by "destruction." Unfortunately, the context in Matthew doesn't give much information because there are lots of little aphorisms just stated one after another (rather like the book of Proverbes). We get a lot more information if we look at the parallel passage in Luke's gospel, which begins with the question "are there few that be saved?" -
Luke 13:22 And he went through the cities and villages, teaching, and journeying toward Jerusalem. 23 Then said one unto him, Lord, are there few that be saved? And he said unto them, 24 Strive to enter in at the strait gate: for many, I say unto you, will seek to enter in, and shall not be able. 25 When once the master of the house is risen up, and hath shut to the door, and ye begin to stand without, and to knock at the door, saying, Lord, Lord, open unto us; and he shall answer and say unto you, I know you not whence ye are: 26 Then shall ye begin to say, We have eaten and drunk in thy presence, and thou hast taught in our streets. 27 But he shall say, I tell you, I know you not whence ye are; depart from me, all ye workers of iniquity. 28 There shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth, when ye shall see Abraham, and Isaac, and Jacob, and all the prophets, in the kingdom of God, and you yourselves thrust out. 29 And they shall come from the east, and from the west, and from the north, and from the south, and shall sit down in the kingdom of God.
To whom was Jesus speaking? First century Jews. Why would they be gnashing their teeth? Because they would see the GENTILES entering the kingdom and they themselves would be "cast out." Has this ever happened in history? Yep. The Gospel went out from Jerusalem to all the world and then Jerusalem was destroyed, just as Jesus predicted when he said:
Matthew 24:14 And this gospel of the kingdom shall be preached in all the world for a witness unto all nations; and then shall the end come.
And Paul confirmed that the Gospel had gone to all nations prior to 70 AD:
Romans 1:8 First, I thank my God through Jesus Christ for you all, that your faith is spoken of throughout the whole world. We know Jesus was speaking to his own people, yet in the purpose of God the words of Jesus have been left on record for all generations following to learn of Jesus and follow him. The passage you introduce from Luke clearly is speaking of the kingdom to come and of the judgment to come. Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob remain in the grave until resurrected. Maybe the jews saw that those three would be in the kingdom and they were being cast out. I agree that the Jews of Jesus' day would be jealous of the gentiles. The good news in Paul's day could have been considered to have gone out to all the then know world, but as for complete fulfillement by the time of AD70. I do not see how if Jesus had departed to be with God in Heaven, that the jews could appear before him on or before AD70 saying what they are quoted as saying. Jesus is referring to the day of judgement in which both Jews and Gentiles will be judged, or those belonging to the household of faith who are eligible for judgment. The Day of Judgment is a topic on its own, and I am not going into that here.

And again:
Colossians 1:5 For the hope which is laid up for you in heaven, whereof ye heard before in the word of the truth of the gospel; 6 Which is come unto you, as it is in all the world; and bringeth forth fruit, as it doth also in you, since the day ye heard of it, and knew the grace of God in truth:
Paul explained that the Jews were suffering the wrath of God, exactly as predicted by John the Baptist when he fulfilled the prophecy of the Elijah who was to come:
1 Thessalonians 2:14 For ye, brethren, became followers of the churches of God which in Judaea are in Christ Jesus: for ye also have suffered like things of your own countrymen, even as they have of the Jews: 15 Who both killed the Lord Jesus, and their own prophets, and have persecuted us; and they please not God, and are contrary to all men: 16 Forbidding us to speak to the Gentiles that they might be saved, to fill up their sins alway: for the wrath is come upon them to the uttermost.
This is the wrath that Jesus warned would come upon the first century Jews:
Matthew 23:29 Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! because ye build the tombs of the prophets, and garnish the sepulchres of the righteous, 30 And say, If we had been in the days of our fathers, we would not have been partakers with them in the blood of the prophets. 31 Wherefore ye be witnesses unto yourselves, that ye are the children of them which killed the prophets. 32 Fill ye up then the measure of your fathers. 33 Ye serpents, ye generation of vipers, how can ye escape the damnation of hell? 34 Wherefore, behold, I send unto you prophets, and wise men, and scribes: and some of them ye shall kill and crucify; and some of them shall ye scourge in your synagogues, and persecute them from city to city: 35 That upon you may come all the righteous blood shed upon the earth, from the blood of righteous Abel unto the blood of Zacharias son of Barachias, whom ye slew between the temple and the altar. 36 Verily I say unto you, All these things shall come upon this generation.
Note that both Paul and Jesus spoke of the apostate Jews filling up their sins. The prophecy was fulfilled in 70 AD when the Great Harlot, Apostate Israel was cast down:
Revelation 18:21 And a mighty angel took up a stone like a great millstone, and cast it into the sea, saying, Thus with violence shall that great city Babylon be thrown down, and shall be found no more at all. 22 And the voice of harpers, and musicians, and of pipers, and trumpeters, shall be heard no more at all in thee; and no craftsman, of whatsoever craft he be, shall be found any more in thee; and the sound of a millstone shall be heard no more at all in thee; 23 And the light of a candle shall shine no more at all in thee; and the voice of the bridegroom and of the bride shall be heard no more at all in thee: for thy merchants were the great men of the earth; for by thy sorceries were all nations deceived. 24 And in her was found the blood of prophets, and of saints, and of all that were slain upon the earth.
Note that the prophecy is essentially identical to the prophecy spoken against apostate Jerusalem by Jeremiah before God sent the Babylonians to destroy the Temple in 586 BC:
Jeremiah 7:33 And the carcases of this people shall be meat for the fowls of the heaven, and for the beasts of the earth; and none shall fray them away. 34 Then will I cause to cease from the cities of Judah, and from the streets of Jerusalem, the voice of mirth, and the voice of gladness, the voice of the bridegroom, and the voice of the bride: for the land shall be desolate.
Note their flesh will be eaten by the "fowls of heaven" just like in the next chapter, Rev 19. The coherence is strong.
I agree that God's punishment came on the Jews in the first century, but that was not "the end". It might have been a day of reckoning, but it was not "The Last Day..." Some things as you point out can be seen to have taken place, but that does not prove all the other things we are talking about in the other threads; Zecharaiah 14 (figuratively or literally) have been fulfilled.

This is the "Big Picture." The Kingdom of God was "near" when Jesus walked amongst the people. It came in power when God judged the Great Harlot, apostate Jerusalem, in 70 AD after the Gospel had gone forth from Jerusalem into all the world, as it is written:
Acts 1:8 But ye shall receive power, after that the Holy Ghost is come upon you: and ye shall be witnesses unto me both in Jerusalem, and in all Judaea, and in Samaria, and unto the uttermost part of the earth.
This was fulfilled before 70 AD:
Acts 8:3 As for Saul, he made havock of the church, entering into every house, and haling men and women committed them to prison. 4 Therefore they that were scattered abroad went every where preaching the word.
They were "scattered" in the sequence listed in Acts 1:8. First from Jerusalem, into all Judaea, then Samaria, and finally "unto the uttermost part of the earth" as Paul went forth. Then the end came.
This is not "The Big Picture" I have in mind when God's ultimate plan is for his Glory to fill the whole planet. That simply has not happened and cannot happen until death (the last enemy) has been destroyed. Sin and death continue and until the earth is filled with people who do not sin, then God's Glory is not filling the earth. God's plan and purpose is not complete and the work of Christ is not complete. The work of Jesus continues on earth after the day of judgement. The work of restoring the earth to its former glory and working towards doing away with all sin and its consequences has to go on until the final enemy is destroyed.

So the answer is: Jesus knew because he knew that the Jews were hard-hearted and would kill him, and Scripture said most would rebel and only a remnant of the faithful would believe. They were named Paul, Peter, John, Matthew, Maria - all Jews, True Israel - they formed the Church. That chuch is still growing and there are many more than you have named. The church did not come to an end in AD70 and Gentiles are still being grafted in to spiritual Israel. The end of Gentile times is close at hand in this 21st century and was not in the first century. Jerusalem is still the burdensome stone fulfilling prophecy even this very day. The point of the first question is based on the criteria Jesus will use to make his judgement of people and whether he will judge them worthy to be in God's kingdom to come.

Q2: That refers to the Jews that rejected Jesus. A million died in the siege of 66-70 AD. It is said that not one Christian died because they headed Christ's warning to flee when they saw the Abomination that had desolated temple. The rebels had filled it with carcasses of the dead. A true abomination in the holy place. This is not really answering the question which can be answered simply . The question is; What is meant by; "the broad way which leads to destruction"? The "broad way" is the way of "the world" which is "enmity with God". It is doing all the things that people in "the world" do, which are not according to God's instructions. Once the "broad way" way is defined. the narrow way is also defined as the converse.

Q3: When you say "the majority" we must remember Jesus was talking to the Jews only. The majority of them were stiff-necked and so died. But then came in a huge multitude of Gentiles as we read in Revelation:
Revelation 7:9 After this I beheld, and, lo, a great multitude, which no man could number, of all nations, and kindreds, and people, and tongues, stood before the throne, and before the Lamb, clothed with white robes, and palms in their hands; 10 And cried with a loud voice, saying, Salvation to our God which sitteth upon the throne, and unto the Lamb.
Note that this coheres with the words of Jesus quoted above:
Luke 13:28 There shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth, when ye [the unbelieving Jews] shall see Abraham, and Isaac, and Jacob, and all the prophets, in the kingdom of God, and you yourselves thrust out. 29 And they shall come from the east, and from the west, and from the north, and from the south, and shall sit down in the kingdom of God.
The coherence is very strong. It is unlike anything seen in the Futurist interpretation. The quote from Luke is futurist in its wording. Abraham, Isaac and Jacob sitting down in the kingdom of God is a picture of the future after the day of judgement. Once again, you are not answering the question in the simple way it can be answered. Here is the question; why will not the majority follow the narrow way which leads to eternal life? The answer is simply; man is rebellious. Whether you believe the Bible of not, you are rebellious of God's instruction. It was the same for Adam and Eve and everyone ever since; except for Jesus who proved that a non-rebellious life was possible. That gives no-one an excuse for saying; "it was impossible". God is vindicated and we are liars if we say it is impossible not to sin and thereby give ourselves and excuse for blaming God. Man sinned first and God was just in administering the penalty of death as warned he would do and has exercized the same judgment ever since. Man finds excuses to blame God instead of accepting responsibility for his own and for other men's actions.

Q4: I am in neither group. It appears that Christ was not talking about the far future. There are many other questions that must be answered before talking about "eternal salvation." For example, you hold to a hyper-literal interpretation that says Jesus is going to rule physically on the earth for a thousand years. I think that is a gross error that contradicts many Scriptures, such as the fact that Jesus has already ascended to the Throne of David:
Acts 2:29 Men and brethren, let me freely speak unto you of the patriarch David, that he is both dead and buried, and his sepulchre is with us unto this day. 30 Therefore being a prophet, and knowing that God had sworn with an oath to him, that of the fruit of his loins, according to the flesh, he would raise up Christ to sit on his throne; 31 He seeing this before spake of the resurrection of Christ, that his soul was not left in hell, neither his flesh did see corruption. 32 This Jesus hath God raised up, whereof we all are witnesses. 33 Therefore being by the right hand of God exalted, and having received of the Father the promise of the Holy Ghost, he hath shed forth this, which ye now see and hear. 34 For David is not ascended into the heavens: but he saith himself, The LORD said unto my Lord, Sit thou on my right hand, 35 Until I make thy foes thy footstool. 36 Therefore let all the house of Israel know assuredly, that God hath made that same Jesus, whom ye have crucified, both Lord and Christ.
This is typical of the kinds of errors that flow from the hyper-literal interpretation. For example, most Futurists think there will be a future rebuilt temple, not understanding that Christ and His Body form the True Temple.
I quite understand why you consider you are not in any of those two groups. Had you answered in the simple way I have answered the questions for you, you have put yourself into one of those two groups (as I see it). Jesus was talking to his own people of his day, and also had in mind the eventual day of judgement. Of the day and hour etc not even Jesus knew and was of no real concern to him at that time. The message of Jesus continues to operate calling both Jew and Gentile into the saving name of Christ. The message applies to all generations as it did to the 1st generation of the church in the first century, but it did not stop there.

Well, I hope that answers some of your questions of what I believe the Bible teaches (from a believer's perspective, of course).
I thank you for giving you answers, whereas L67 avoided answering. Howvever, you did not answer in the simple way I have shown they should have been answered. Your answers show you to be forcing your understanding that all this relates to preterism i.e. all prophecy is completed in the first century. I was not thinking along those lines at all and as you know I know, there are many scriptures passages which preterism does not explain how they were fulfilled in or before the first century. That has to be an ongoing subject which will come up again and again in the threads to follow.

I am glad we are continuing to chat. As long as we present both sides of the argument for and against preterism or futurism we are letting people make up their own mind. It is the people sitting on the fence who have make up their mind. This was Elijah's question to the people; How long halt ye between two opinions? A person cannot sit on the proverbial fence. James also writes; A double minded man is unstable in all his ways. We are called to make a decision; "To be(lieve) or not to be(lieve)? That is the question. "

All the best

David

David M

04-09-2013, 04:19 AM

Sorry, David - Please ignore my 'red-herring' remark, because I do see it mostly like you say; just that it adds another factor to the unravelling of the 66 generation, which seems to me unnecessary.
Keep up the good work -- the antics of those two are sure to be found out 'in the wash'.. hah! :winking0071:

Hello Dux

The way I heard this put was strengthening the case for the two genealogies listed in Matthew's gospel record and that of Luke. Both genealogies are traced back through the family of David. Whereas there are those who look for the discrepancy between the two genealogies to prove the Bible contradicts itself and therefore unreliable, there are those who have resolved the problem and proven the Bible to be reliable. It is a matter of correcting man-made mistakes.

The difference between you and me and that of Richard and L67, is that we are of "the spirit" and they are of "the earth" and the two can never agree. The nations of men are likened figuratively to clay and iron, which remain divided and are not even a homogeneous mixture. The small stone which is both figurative and spiritual is the stone "the earthy" builders rejected, and is the stone which wlll eventually grind the iron and clay into powder. The stone did not feed on the powder resulting from crushing iron and clay to become a mountain. The iron and clay come to the same end like the chaff whcih is separated from the wheat by the wind which blows the dust/powder away. The picture we have is of the stone becoming the mountain filling the whole earth. This is figurative language which has to manifested iin a physical way upon this earth. This prophecy in Daniel has not been completed, and yet Richard and L67 say that it must have happened already.

There is no place in the earth in the future for people of iron and clay. We are still in the days of iron and clay and the earth is not filled by the mountain which is made of the spiritual people who belong to Christ.

Richard and L67 are amongst the nations of iron and clay and are of "this world" which is "enmity with God" and they are not of that spiritual people which will finally prevail. Richard and L67 can argue amongst themselves as to who of them is the stronger iron and who is the weaker clay. We, who are of the spirit and belong to Christ, do not have to argue between ourselves.

You and I can be one mind in purpose, even if inferior to that same mind as was in Jesus, who was of the same mind as his Heavenly Father. With the abiding words of Paul, he exhorts us and we can take comfort from his words; (Hebrew 2:2) Looking unto Jesus the author and finisher of our faith; who for the joy that was set before him endured the cross, despising the shame, and is set down at the right hand of the throne of God. 3 For consider him that endured such contradiction of sinners against himself, lest ye be wearied and faint in your minds.

All the best

David

Richard Amiel McGough

04-09-2013, 10:30 AM

The aim of this thread should have been for you to list the top twenty (ten would have sufficed) topics taught in the Bible. This thread is not to deal with the hundreds of topics individually. I guess no-one considers staying on topic.
The questions aimed at L67 are to explain why the masses or the majority of people that have ever lived will not be in the kingdom of God to come. The point has been missed completely. Once the questions are answered and it is known what an individual must do in order to get to the kingdom of God, that explains why only a relatively few will enter the kingdom of God. Are we doing the things that will make us acceptatble to be in the kingdom of God? That is what "believers" have to ask themselves and I accept that "believers" will have their different opinions. At least, we have separated out "believers" from "non-believers" and threin is a marked difference in numbers.

Good morning David,

I have noticed a theme of "what a believer must DO to be made acceptable to be in the kingdom of God." That question has confused Christians since the beginning. The general conclusion is that Christ freed believers from the law. But this caused a big problem because then folks thought they could sin freely. Paul addressed this in Romans:
Romans 6:1 What shall we say then? Shall we continue in sin, that grace may abound? 2 God forbid. How shall we, that are dead to sin, live any longer therein? 3 Know ye not, that so many of us as were baptized into Jesus Christ were baptized into his death? 4 Therefore we are buried with him by baptism into death: that like as Christ was raised up from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life. 5 ¶ For if we have been planted together in the likeness of his death, we shall be also in the likeness of his resurrection: 6 Knowing this, that our old man is crucified with him, that the body of sin might be destroyed, that henceforth we should not serve sin. 7 For he that is dead is freed from sin.
Paul then goes on to liken the law to a husband that has DIED so that the believer (wife) is freed:
Romans 7:1 Know ye not, brethren, (for I speak to them that know the law,) how that the law hath dominion over a man as long as he liveth? 2 For the woman which hath an husband is bound by the law to her husband so long as he liveth; but if the husband be dead, she is loosed from the law of her husband. 3 So then if, while her husband liveth, she be married to another man, she shall be called an adulteress: but if her husband be dead, she is free from that law; so that she is no adulteress, though she be married to another man.
Now I get the impression that you follow Rood's teaching which is that believers are still bound to the law and must obey the OT law (Torah) in order to be accepted into God's kingdom. This seems to contradict most of the NT, since the most consistent teaching is that folks are saved by faith, and not by obeying the law (as I trust you know full well). Of course, there are many passages that speak of obeying the "commandments" so believers have good reason to be confused. How then can a believer be sure what the Bible even teaches??? Wow - the Bible is ambiguous about its most central and important message? Why would God torment believers like this? How is the average believer supposed to know what he's supposed to do if the Bible is so confused?

As far as I can tell, you think there are OT laws that must be obeyed. This seems odd in light of Paul's teaching that salvation comes by faith alone. Your view is considered one of the first heresies - works righteousness - by the vast majority of non-Catholic Bible believers. Of course, it contradicts the true majority of Christians (the Catholics) who teach that salvation is some sort of mix of faith and works. But the irony is that the vast majority of the most sincere believers throughout history knew nothing of the religion that you have invented, and yet you think that only people who follow your peculiar religion (which does not follow from the Bible in any way that I can follow) are the ones whom God will find "acceptable"? That seems like an outrageously unlikely claim.

This is an example of how the Bible is like a Necker Cube (http://www.biblewheel.com/forum/showthread.php?3690-The-Bible-is-like-a-Necker-Cube). There are two possible (semi)-coherent interpretations which contradict each other. I think one is better than the other, but that's just a judgment call. It looks like there is no way any believer can really be sure.

We know Jesus was speaking to his own people, yet in the purpose of God the words of Jesus have been left on record for all generations following to learn of Jesus and follow him. The passage you introduce from Luke clearly is speaking of the kingdom to come and of the judgment to come. Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob remain in the grave until resurrected. Maybe the jews saw that those three would be in the kingdom and they were being cast out. I agree that the Jews of Jesus' day would be jealous of the gentiles. The good news in Paul's day could have been considered to have gone out to all the then know world, but as for complete fulfillement by the time of AD70. I do not see how if Jesus had departed to be with God in Heaven, that the jews could appear before him on or before AD70 saying what they are quoted as saying. Jesus is referring to the day of judgement in which both Jews and Gentiles will be judged, or those belonging to the household of faith who are eligible for judgment. The Day of Judgment is a topic on its own, and I am not going into that here.

This is another example of how the Bible is like a Necker Cube (http://www.biblewheel.com/forum/showthread.php?3690-The-Bible-is-like-a-Necker-Cube). Most believers think the Bible plainly teaches that the soul remains conscious after death either in the presence of God or in Hades awaiting judgment. But the Bible is not consistent on this point since there are some verses that support the doctrine of soul sleep. Again, there is no way for a believer to have any real confidence which interpretation is true. Again, the best solution would be to count up how many verses naturally fit with one interpretation minus how many must be "explained away." That seems the only way to determine which "harmonization" is better than another (since any interpretation can be "harmonized").

Now your assertion that Jesus was referring to "the day of judgment" is correct - the day of judgment that John the Baptist (Elijah) warned was coming upon the first century generation. This shows how the Preterist interpretation is COHERENT on this point whereas the Futurist interpretation which puts everything in the distant future contradicts the fact that John the Baptist fulfilled the prophecies of the Elijah who was to come. I think this is why Futurists always avoid what the Bible actually teaches concerning John the Baptist. If we begin with the main and the plain things, Preterism is the obvious fit.

I agree that God's punishment came on the Jews in the first century, but that was not "the end". It might have been a day of reckoning, but it was not "The Last Day..." Some things as you point out can be seen to have taken place, but that does not prove all the other things we are talking about in the other threads; Zecharaiah 14 (figuratively or literally) have been fulfilled.

That's just your interpretation of the "last day." Why do you choose it over the plain teaching of the NT which clearly has John the Baptist (Elijah) proclaiming the judgment would come in the first century?

Your focus on Zech 14 is inappropriate. It is not a "main and plain" teaching. It is figurative OT stuff. Its meaning can only be determined AFTER we have established which eschatological system (if any) is correct. It cannot be used to determine which system is correct because there are no mutually confirming verses to prove one interpretation over another.

This is not "The Big Picture" I have in mind when God's ultimate plan is for his Glory to fill the whole planet. That simply has not happened and cannot happen until death (the last enemy) has been destroyed. Sin and death continue and until the earth is filled with people who do not sin, then God's Glory is not filling the earth. God's plan and purpose is not complete and the work of Christ is not complete. The work of Jesus continues on earth after the day of judgement. The work of restoring the earth to its former glory and working towards doing away with all sin and its consequences has to go on until the final enemy is destroyed.

Yeah, well you are free to make up your own "Big Picture" if you like. But I'm talking about the "Big Picture" that is formed from the main and plain things established by many mutually confirming clear and unambiguous verses. According to many believers, the "glory of God" is Jesus Christ, and knowledge of Jesus Christ is spreading over the planet. So again, we have competing interpretations of a Necker Cube. You are free to reject the idea that Christ is the Glory of God mentioned in that verse, and others are free to think it is what was meant. So the question is HOW DO YOU TELL WHO IS RIGHT?! That's the question.

For example, there are many passages that strongly support the idea that the New Jerusalem is the Church (Heb 12:22). That's why there are sinners "outside the gates" which would make no sense if there is some sort of literal city in the future that comes down AFTER the old heavens and earth are destroyed. Etc., etc., etc. ... every point of interpretation can be taken any number of ways. The Bible is really like a hyperdimensional Necker Cube that allows for thousands of (semi)-coherent interpretations.

What's a believer to do? :confused2: I think it would be great if you tried to answer this question.

That chuch is still growing and there are many more than you have named. The church did not come to an end in AD70 and Gentiles are still being grafted in to spiritual Israel. The end of Gentile times is close at hand in this 21st century and was not in the first century. Jerusalem is still the burdensome stone fulfilling prophecy even this very day. The point of the first question is based on the criteria Jesus will use to make his judgement of people and whether he will judge them worthy to be in God's kingdom to come.

Your mistake is that you think that God has plans for CARNAL ISRAEL whereas the Bible plainly states that the sons of Abraham's flesh have no promises because they are not the "children of promise."

This is not really answering the question which can be answered simply . The question is; What is meant by; "the broad way which leads to destruction"? The "broad way" is the way of "the world" which is "enmity with God". It is doing all the things that people in "the world" do, which are not according to God's instructions. Once the "broad way" way is defined. the narrow way is also defined as the converse.

The broad way is the way of carnality (obeying commands of Torah) vs. faith. As it is written:
Romans 8:1 There is therefore now no condemnation to them which are in Christ Jesus, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit. 2 For the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus hath made me free from the law of sin and death. 3 For what the law could not do, in that it was weak through the flesh, God sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, and for sin, condemned sin in the flesh: 4 That the righteousness of the law might be fulfilled in us, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit. 5 For they that are after the flesh do mind the things of the flesh; but they that are after the Spirit the things of the Spirit. 6 For to be carnally minded is death; but to be spiritually minded is life and peace. 7 Because the carnal mind is enmity against God: for it is not subject to the law of God, neither indeed can be. 8 So then they that are in the flesh cannot please God. 9 ¶ But ye are not in the flesh, but in the Spirit, if so be that the Spirit of God dwell in you. Now if any man have not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of his. 10 And if Christ be in you, the body is dead because of sin; but the Spirit is life because of righteousness. 11 But if the Spirit of him that raised up Jesus from the dead dwell in you, he that raised up Christ from the dead shall also quicken your mortal bodies by his Spirit that dwelleth in you. 12 ¶ Therefore, brethren, we are debtors, not to the flesh, to live after the flesh. 13 For if ye live after the flesh, ye shall die: but if ye through the Spirit do mortify the deeds of the body, ye shall live. 14 For as many as are led by the Spirit of God, they are the sons of God.
They that are of the flesh, seeking to obey RULES given in the Law, cannot please God. This is the main teaching of Paul. This is proven quite explicitly:
Galatians 3:1 O foolish Galatians, who hath bewitched you, that ye should not obey the truth, before whose eyes Jesus Christ hath been evidently set forth, crucified among you? 2 This only would I learn of you, Received ye the Spirit by the works of the law, or by the hearing of faith? 3 Are ye so foolish? having begun in the Spirit, are ye now made perfect by the flesh? 4 Have ye suffered so many things in vain? if it be yet in vain. 5 He therefore that ministereth to you the Spirit, and worketh miracles among you, doeth he it by the works of the law, or by the hearing of faith?
Attempting to OBEY THE TORAH = THE FLESH = DEATH.

I thank you for giving you answers, whereas L67 avoided answering. Howvever, you did not answer in the simple way I have shown they should have been answered. Your answers show you to be forcing your understanding that all this relates to preterism i.e. all prophecy is completed in the first century. I was not thinking along those lines at all and as you know I know, there are many scriptures passages which preterism does not explain how they were fulfilled in or before the first century. That has to be an ongoing subject which will come up again and again in the threads to follow.

One man's "simplicity" is another man's dodge. We need to find the FOUNDATION OF AGREEMENT or all our words will mean nothing to each other.

Your assertion that I am "forcing" Preterism has no basis in reality. Preterism is obviously the natural interpretation that naturally fits with the text in the majority of cases. There is no doubt whatsoever that Jesus and the apostles all believed and taught that the end was going to come down in the first century. This is universally acknowledged by all competent scholars and anyone who can read plain English with understanding. The Preterist accepts what the Bible teaches and "explains away" the apparent contradictions with history whereas the Futurist rejects and "explains away" the plain and obvious sense of the text. In the end, it's just two competing interpretations of a Necker Cube. But the Preterist wins hands down if we count the number of verses it naturally explains minus the problematic verses.

I am glad we are continuing to chat. As long as we present both sides of the argument for and against preterism or futurism we are letting people make up their own mind. It is the people sitting on the fence who have make up their mind. This was Elijah's question to the people; How long halt ye between two opinions? A person cannot sit on the proverbial fence. James also writes; A double minded man is unstable in all his ways. We are called to make a decision; "To be(lieve) or not to be(lieve)? That is the question. "

All the best

David
The fact that people are free to "make up their own mind" only proves again that the Bible is a Necker Cube. It is not sufficiently coherent for anyone to PROVE their case. It's all just a matter of opinion. Now why would GOD ALMIGHTY torment his believers with such confusion? No one can have any confidence that they have found the way to life! The most sincere believers directly contradict each other about the most important question of all - what they must do to be saved. Thus we see that it is the BIBLE that is double minded and "unstable in all its ways"! Wow - that's a profound insight.

Great chatting my friend,

Richard

L67

04-09-2013, 08:36 PM

I thank you for giving you answers, whereas L67 avoided answering.

I didn't avoid answering your questions. You don't like the answer I have given. There is nothing to explain. I said I agreed with your interpretation. Let me remind you David that it was YOU who said "most" of Christianity is wrong. When I told you that you have no way to justify that claim you brought that verse into the mix. Now you demand that I break that verse down word for word so you can try to prove your erroneous assertions that "most" of Christianity is wrong and you are right. Even though I said I agreed with your interpretation it still does NOT justify your claims. Like I said earlier in this thread. In order to justify that verse means a judgement has been made. You have judged "most" of Christianity to be wrong. You have no more claim to truth than any other Christian. You are using the same fallible logic as are other Christians. How do you have the final say over who is or isn't right?

Read this until it sets in David. I agree with your interpretation of that verse.

David M

04-10-2013, 02:21 AM

Hello L67
I will reply to your post before I reply to Richard's long reply.

I didn't avoid answering your questions. You don't like the answer I have given. There is nothing to explain. I said I agreed with your interpretation.
I know this is what you said, and I did not challenge it at the time. I do not know how you can agree with something I did not give an interpretation of. You might have inferred I had.

The whole point of this discussion now is I have to justify why I think most people including many so-called "Christians" will be rejected and not be in the kingdom. They might never be raised to be judged, but that is an another discussion for another thread.

Let me remind you David that it was YOU who said "most" of Christianity is wrong. When I told you that you have no way to justify that claim you brought that verse into the mix. Now you demand that I break that verse down word for word so you can try to prove your erroneous assertions that "most" of Christianity is wrong and you are right. Even though I said I agreed with your interpretation it still does NOT justify your claims. Like I said earlier in this thread. In order to justify that verse means a judgement has been made. You have judged "most" of Christianity to be wrong. You have no more claim to truth than any other Christian. You are using the same fallible logic as are other Christians. How do you have the final say over who is or isn't right?
I have no more claim to be 100% right than anyone else. I could make a claim to be say 51% right to someone else's 49% right and if that is the case, I do not boast about it. You can easily determine for yourself what the teaching of Jesus is and then decide from the population of the earth, those keeping the teaching of Jesus and God. By a process of elimination, you ought to be able to work out the fact only a minority will be saved (that minority could be many million). Many "Christians" so labelled are not following the teaching of Jesus. I gave you the Catholic veneration of Mary as one example of a teaching not found in God's word and you can see from Wikipedia the Catholics represent the largest Christian religion. I have given you reason and fact. I expect a minority of Christians to be saved and that minority might be 49% (who knows exactly?); 49% is still the minority portion.

There are fundamental teachings in the Bible. There is only one Truth and that we must try to find. Not all can be correct and some are more correct than others. I might not be in the lowest minority, but I am not associating myself with the masses who do not bother to find these things out and do not know the true God and the true Jesus, but have are listening to man-made images of God and Jesus. This is why an individual should reject all the teaching of these religions until they have read the Bible for themselves to determine these things.

You have gone from a place of believing to not believing God's word and that has put you amongst the masses who have rejected God and his only begotten son. You are in minority (like Richard) the same as I consider I am in a minority. However, we are in different minorities and one of those minorities might not ger saved according to what the requirements of God are. I can only hope you see reason and repent and come back into fellowship with Jesus; he is "The Way". You do not believe God will raise people to eternal life and so for you the only future is death. You could be proven right afterwards, though you would never know it. (Eccl 9:5) For the living know that they shall die: but the dead know not any thing, neither have they any more a reward; for the memory of them is forgotten. Hence the assurance of those who believe in resurrection and eternal life have this assuance; (Acts 17:31) Because he hath appointed a day, in the which he will judge the world in righteousness by that man whom he hath ordained; whereof he hath given assurance unto all men, in that he hath raised him from the dead. Also (2 Tim 2:19) Nevertheless the foundation of God standeth sure, having this seal, The Lord knoweth them that are his. And, Let every one that nameth the name of Christ depart from iniquity.

For determining what the truth of God's word is; for now, we can just deal with 4 key doctrines and decide which is correct. This will determine who is in the minority and who is in the masses. Knowledge alone is not the final arbiter and that is why God's judgment will take into account a person's heart toward him and his only begotten son.

Key differences in doctrine (in no particular order of priority):

1. The immortal soul versus resurrection

2. The kingdom in Heaven versus the kingdom of God on earth

3. Jesus is God versus Jesus the man (the Son of God)

4. God's Angels rebel and sin versus Angels are ministering spirits and do the will of God

Each one of those subjects can be dealt with elsewhere and I have already started two separate threads dealing with two subjects.

If you place a tick alonside the statements above you think is what the Bible teaches, and then add up the ticks, do you have more ticks on the left or the right? I say the perfect score should add up to 4 corresponding to the statments on the right. OK that is my opinion and you can devise your own table. This is one way to determine how much of the truth we hold according to what God is telling us in his word. There can only be one truth; saying that there are many different interpretations is no reason for finding the one truth. We must make up our own mind based on the word of God as we have it in our Bible today and taking into account whatever man-made errors have crept in. There has to be one overriding truth to each one of those four subjects in which all verses in scripture dealing with those subjects must have a consistent and coherent interpretation. Multiple interpretations rest with men's thinking. God has only revealed the Truth and that is ONE, the same as God is ONE. It does not matter whether you believe it or not. You do not expect me to say things you have not said, and vice versa. That is exactly the same with God, we must not say things he has not said. That means we have to understand his word correctly and he is not confusing us with various options to choose from.

Read this until it sets in David. I agree with your interpretation of that verse. There is nothing to "set in". Please quote me and remind me where I gave an interpretation of that verse. In your mind you might agree with me, but from the answers you have not given, you should know why only a minoity will be saved. Who is that minority? What are the determining factors? Why will you not answer specifically?

I never interpreted the verse before giving the answers as I have done afterwards to Richard when replying to him. I have given him simple answers in place of Richard's elaborate excuses and missing the obvious. Richard has placed himself outside both groups and I understand why he says that. You never answered the last specific question. Richard belongs to one of two groups even though he denies to belong to either of them.

One man in a thousand sounds like a man in the minority (Eccl 7:28) one man among a thousand have I found;

Rudyard Kipling based a poem on the words of Solomon and since I like Kipling's poems, here is the full poem;

One man in a thousand, Solomon says,
Will stick more close than a brother.
And it's worth while seeking him half your days
If you find him before the other.
Nine nundred and ninety-nine depend
On what the world sees in you,
But the Thousandth man will stand your friend
With the whole round world agin you.

'Tis neither promise nor prayer nor show
Will settle the finding for 'ee.
Nine hundred and ninety-nine of 'em go
By your looks, or your acts, or your glory.
But if he finds you and you find him.
The rest of the world don't matter;
For the Thousandth Man will sink or swim
With you in any water.

You can use his purse with no more talk
Than he uses yours for his spendings,
And laugh and meet in your daily walk
As though there had been no lendings.
Nine hundred and ninety-nine of 'em call
For silver and gold in their dealings;
But the Thousandth Man h's worth 'em all,
Because you can show him your feelings.

His wrong's your wrong, and his right's your right,
In season or out of season.
Stand up and back it in all men's sight --
With that for your only reason!
Nine hundred and ninety-nine can't bide
The shame or mocking or laughter,
But the Thousandth Man will stand by your side
To the gallows-foot -- and after!

All the best

David

L67

04-10-2013, 02:33 PM

I know this is what you said, and I did not challenge it at the time. I do not know how you can agree with something I did not give an interpretation of. You might have inferred I had.

The whole point of this discussion now is I have to justify why I think most people including many so-called "Christians" will be rejected and not be in the kingdom. They might never be raised to be judged, but that is an another discussion for another thread.

Thanks for the response David.

You did give your interpretation of the verse and even used it as a justification for your claims. Page 3, post 26 you said this.
I have already asked you to explain to me the saying of Jesus which you have not answered, and had you done so should have answered this question. So, once again, please tell me what you understand by Jesus saying; Because strait is the gate, and narrow is the way, which leadeth unto life, and few there be that find it.
Why is it so few find the way that leads to life? That is my basis for saying the majority of Christian religions are wrong. They have missed the path. I need you to tell me what it means to stay on the path.

After this post I said I agreed with your point of that verse. But as I have said repeatedly it does not justify your claims. I have hammered on this point since page 3, and you continue to say I haven't answered. I have. There is no point in me breaking down that verse, when I said I already agreed with the point you were making.

I have no more claim to be 100% right than anyone else. I could make a claim to be say 51% right to someone else's 49% right and if that is the case, I do not boast about it. You can easily determine for yourself what the teaching of Jesus is and then decide from the population of the earth, those keeping the teaching of Jesus and God. By a process of elimination, you ought to be able to work out the fact only a minority will be saved (that minority could be many million). Many "Christians" so labelled are not following the teaching of Jesus. I gave you the Catholic veneration of Mary as one example of a teaching not found in God's word and you can see from Wikipedia the Catholics represent the largest Christian religion. I have given you reason and fact. I expect a minority of Christians to be saved and that minority might be 49% (who knows exactly?); 49% is still the minority portion.

That is precisely what I said in my post.

I know about the teachings of Jesus David. Not only do I recognise his words but I accept the plain language of his target audience. I take Jesus at his words when he tells his disciples that
"this generation" will not taste death until all these things have come to pass. That was his audience. It makes no sense for him to speak that way to them but really mean thousands of years into the future. They asked him the questions and he responded with "this generation". It doesn't get any clearer than that.

Also, like I told you earlier you could be in the majority of not making it to heaven. A case could easily be made to refute your claims that proves you wrong. Example: The teachings of Jesus do not include an earthly kingdom or a 1,000 year reign. You believe both of those, and there is ZERO evidence for either. I could give many more examples as well. I'm not telling you this to prove you wrong. I'm telling you that you have no way to justify your claims because the only thing anyone has is interpretation. That's it. But there are interpretations that make more sense that others. At the end of the day there is no solution to the problems. We can only accept the plain words of text and accept the verses that confirm them. Making scripture fit with preconceived doctrines is not a solution by any stretch.

There are fundamental teachings in the Bible. There is only one Truth and that we must try to find. Not all can be correct and some are more correct than others. I might not be in the lowest minority, but I am not associating myself with the masses who do not bother to find these things out and do not know the true God and the true Jesus, but have are listening to man-made images of God and Jesus. This is why an individual should reject all the teaching of these religions until they have read the Bible for themselves to determine these things.

David you say not to trust the words of man and do your own due diligence, but you follow the words of Rood. Why?

I agree there are fundamental teachings in the Bible. You are correct that not all can be right. But we have no way of knowing who is or isn't because God doesn't clear up the confusion. People have been searching for thousands of years for the "one truth" and we haven't found it yet. That should tell you something. There is no definitive answer.

You have gone from a place of believing to not believing God's word and that has put you amongst the masses who have rejected God and his only begotten son. You are in minority (like Richard) the same as I consider I am in a minority. However, we are in different minorities and one of those minorities might not ger saved according to what the requirements of God are. I can only hope you see reason and repent and come back into fellowship with Jesus; he is "The Way". You do not believe God will raise people to eternal life and so for you the only future is death. You could be proven right afterwards, though you would never know it. (Eccl 9:5) For the living know that they shall die: but the dead know not any thing, neither have they any more a reward; for the memory of them is forgotten. Hence the assurance of those who believe in resurrection and eternal life have this assuance; (Acts 17:31) Because he hath appointed a day, in the which he will judge the world in righteousness by that man whom he hath ordained; whereof he hath given assurance unto all men, in that he hath raised him from the dead. Also (2 Tim 2:19) Nevertheless the foundation of God standeth sure, having this seal, The Lord knoweth them that are his. And, Let every one that nameth the name of Christ depart from iniquity.

Yes, I no longer believe. But the reason I can't is because there is no good reason to believe the Bible has any answers in it. People have searched for thousands of years and we are no closer to having answers now than we did then. Another reason I can't believe is because Christians like yourself are still looking for the correct answers. You admit your still looking for the "one truth". If your still looking, how can I be sure you are correct in your beliefs? How do I know there is any truth in anything Christians say? The things Christians say certainly are not demonstrable. So what is someone suppose to do? Should I have faith and believe something on bad evidence? In my eyes, if God wanted man to "know" what he wanted, he would have written his own book.

I want you to think about this David. You think the Bible is the only true word God. What happens to the people in other countries who are born in ignorance, filth and disease? Through no fault of their own they are born into those conditions and never had the opportunity to hear the Bible. Instead, they are indoctrinated into another religion. These people don't have the luxuries that you or I have. They have no tv, internet, or any way to verify they are worshipping the true God. You have all these luxuries and are still looking for the " one correct truth". Is God going to make those unfortunate people suffer eternal damnation?

You have two choices in the matter:

A: God is moral and just to bring eternal damnation on these poor people.

B: God is immoral and unjust to bring eternal damnation on these poor people.

If you believe answer A you are immoral. If you believe answer B God is immoral, therefore Christianity is rendered useless.

By your view of the Bible this is the stark reality that these people will face.

For determining what the truth of God's word is; for now, we can just deal with 4 key doctrines and decide which is correct. This will determine who is in the minority and who is in the masses. Knowledge alone is not the final arbiter and that is why God's judgment will take into account a person's heart toward him and his only begotten son.

Key differences in doctrine (in no particular order of priority):

1. The immortal soul versus resurrection

2. The kingdom in Heaven versus the kingdom of God on earth

3. Jesus is God versus Jesus the man (the Son of God)

4. God's Angels rebel and sin versus Angels are ministering spirits and do the will of God

Each one of those subjects can be dealt with elsewhere and I have already started two separate threads dealing with two subjects.

David you "could" make a case for any of those. That doesn't make it true because you could theoretically make a case for any of them. The only true way to determine what makes the most sense is to see which has the most verses that correspond with one another.

If you place a tick alonside the statements above you think is what the Bible teaches, and then add up the ticks, do you have more ticks on the left or the right? I say the perfect score should add up to 4 corresponding to the statments on the right. OK that is my opinion and you can devise your own table. This is one way to determine how much of the truth we hold according to what God is telling us in his word. There can only be one truth; saying that there are many different interpretations is no reason for finding the one truth. We must make up our own mind based on the word of God as we have it in our Bible today and taking into account whatever man-made errors have crept in. There has to be one overriding truth to each one of those four subjects in which all verses in scripture dealing with those subjects must have a consistent and coherent interpretation. Multiple interpretations rest with men's thinking. God has only revealed the Truth and that is ONE, the same as God is ONE. It does not matter whether you believe it or not. You do not expect me to say things you have not said, and vice versa. That is exactly the same with God, we must not say things he has not said. That means we have to understand his word correctly and he is not confusing us with various options to choose from.

I'm with you on finding the truth. But preconceived doctrines don't add to the truth. They polute it. You have a preconceived doctrine to uphold, so you try and find ways to make your interpretation fit. In my eyes, that is not a path to the truth. That only makes you look to confrim your preconceived bias.

I'll give you an example. You think Jesus has to return so he can abolish the last enemy of death. That is false. 2 Timothy 1:10 But is now made manifest by the appearing of our Saviour Jesus Christ, who hath abolished death, and hath brought life and immortality to light through the gospel:

Hebrews says the same thing. Hebrewws 2:14-15 14 Since the children have flesh and blood, he too shared in their humanity so that by his death he might break the power of him who holds the power of death—that is, the devil— 15 and free those who all their lives were held in slavery by their fear of death.

If you believe the Bible then you should realize Jesus abolished death by dying on the cross and giving you eternal life.

There is nothing to "set in". Please quote me and remind me where I gave an interpretation of that verse. In your mind you might agree with me, but from the answers you have not given, you should know why only a minoity will be saved. Who is that minority? What are the determining factors? Why will you not answer specifically?

See above David. I have answered you.

Take care.

Richard Amiel McGough

04-10-2013, 05:10 PM

For determining what the truth of God's word is; for now, we can just deal with 4 key doctrines and decide which is correct. This will determine who is in the minority and who is in the masses. Knowledge alone is not the final arbiter and that is why God's judgment will take into account a person's heart toward him and his only begotten son.

Key differences in doctrine (in no particular order of priority):

1. The immortal soul versus resurrection

2. The kingdom in Heaven versus the kingdom of God on earth

3. Jesus is God versus Jesus the man (the Son of God)

4. God's Angels rebel and sin versus Angels are ministering spirits and do the will of God

Each one of those subjects can be dealt with elsewhere and I have already started two separate threads dealing with two subjects.

Here are my answers:

1. The Bible is ambiguous about the nature of the soul. First, the Bible says God alone has immortality, but that doesn't mean he doesn't cause souls to continue to live after the death of the body. The verses from Ecclesiastes that you cite to support your interpretation contradict other verse which you must explain away. So it just comes down to private interpretation and personal preference. And besides, Genesis 2:7 defines a soul as body + spirit. Even animals are called "living souls" (exactly the same phrase used for humans. Thus there is much confusion and ambiguity in the Bible on this point.

2. First, the Bible never speaks of "the kingdom of God on earth" as opposed to the kingdom of heaven. The two terms are the "kingdom of heaven" and the "kingdom of God" and there are absolutely synonymous. There is absolutely not difference between those two terms.

3. Again, there is sufficient ambiguity in the Bible to allow for dispute on this point, though the weight of the EVIDENCE points to Christ as both God and man.

4. All evidence in the Bible supports the position that God's Angels rebel and sin. How this relates to the fact that they are ministering spirits is easy enough to harmonize, unless, of course, you are committed to a dogma that you have been taught by some man.

My score is 0 compared to your 4. Wow.

It's very strange that you MAJOR on the MINOR points (1,2,4). The only point of any centrality is 3 (divinity of Christ), but even that is obviously a point of AMBIGUITY that you take as absolutely certain.

If you place a tick alonside the statements above you think is what the Bible teaches, and then add up the ticks, do you have more ticks on the left or the right? I say the perfect score should add up to 4 corresponding to the statments on the right. OK that is my opinion and you can devise your own table. This is one way to determine how much of the truth we hold according to what God is telling us in his word. There can only be one truth; saying that there are many different interpretations is no reason for finding the one truth. We must make up our own mind based on the word of God as we have it in our Bible today and taking into account whatever man-made errors have crept in. There has to be one overriding truth to each one of those four subjects in which all verses in scripture dealing with those subjects must have a consistent and coherent interpretation. Multiple interpretations rest with men's thinking. God has only revealed the Truth and that is ONE, the same as God is ONE. It does not matter whether you believe it or not. You do not expect me to say things you have not said, and vice versa. That is exactly the same with God, we must not say things he has not said. That means we have to understand his word correctly and he is not confusing us with various options to choose from.

What makes you think that you are not the one introducing "man made errors"? You major on minor points of confusion, and you contradict the vast majority of serous Bible students. Suppose you were studying math and the vast majority of mathematicians all agreed you were wrong. Why would you think you right? What justifies such stubbornness. Why do you think you are so much better than almost all the other mathematicians?

You make me think you are blind when you say "one overriding truth to each one of those four subjects in which all verses in scripture dealing with those subjects must have a consistent and coherent interpretation." Why can't you see the ambiguity in the Bible? It is that AMBIGUITY that allows people to come to different conclusions. This is why the Bible is like a Necker cube. It is truly ambiguous on many points. And you know this because you use that ambiguity to try to prove your doctrines. For example, you say that the meaning of "angels" is ambiguous and that the meaning of "heaven" is ambiguous and the meaning of "Satan" is ambiguous. And on and on you go. All you doctrines are fundamentally based on AMBIGUITY that you exploit in your effort to establish your fringe doctrines that most serious Bible believers reject.

One great thing about this conversation - I think we are actually getting to the root of your fringe doctrines. They are all built on ambiguous passages.

All the best,

Richard

David M

04-11-2013, 02:13 AM

Thanks for the response David.

You did give your interpretation of the verse and even used it as a justification for your claims. Page 3, post 26 you said this.
I have already asked you to explain to me the saying of Jesus which you have not answered, and had you done so should have answered this question. So, once again, please tell me what you understand by Jesus saying; Because strait is the gate, and narrow is the way, which leadeth unto life, and few there be that find it.
Why is it so few find the way that leads to life? That is my basis for saying the majority of Christian religions are wrong. They have missed the path. I need you to tell me what it means to stay on the path.

After this post I said I agreed with your point of that verse. But as I have said repeatedly it does not justify your claims. I have hammered on this point since page 3, and you continue to say I haven't answered. I have. There is no point in me breaking down that verse, when I said I already agreed with the point you were making.
Thanks L67 for citing the page and post number. My head is spinning enough from a head-cold at the moment. I think we have a communication problem. Maybe the word "interpretation" should be dropped and the word "understanding" used. I do not see how in the text you have quoted me, you say I have explained what Jesus meant. Maybe, if I rephrase my request to answer my questions.

I have asked you specifically to tell me what determines the "narrow way". To say "following Jesus" is not a specific answer. I have given you one example of false teaching and there are many others and Jesus said (John 14:15); If ye love me, keep my commandments. What are those commandments? And How many in the world now are keeping those commandments? Are you? I will have to assume you know what these are. If you accept what I am saying, you should agree with my justification for saying many "Christians" (wrongly called IMO) are not following what Jesus taught and they do not know who the real Jesus is. These are not just my words; they are the words I have heard out of the mouths of others and I agree with them. Whether you believe the Bible or not and particularly if you do not, I do not see how you could be following the commands of Jesus. That must eliminate you from the kingdom of God. I am not making a judgement, just making a deduction.

I know about the teachings of Jesus David. Not only do I recognise his words but I accept the plain language of his target audience. I take Jesus at his words when he tells his disciples that "this generation" will not taste death until all these things have come to pass. That was his audience. It makes no sense for him to speak that way to them but really mean thousands of years into the future. They asked him the questions and he responded with "this generation". It doesn't get any clearer than that. Now you are moving on to another controversial point. I have answered this in other posts. "This generation" is applicable to the time in which Jesus words are referring to. That can be present or future and that is something we shall have to disagree about if you only accept one possible understanding of original words recorded. Would it make a difference if the phrase "that generation" had been used? Is the word "this" or "that" which the translators used, correct? Does this show any bias on the translators part? As with many little words and punctuation not used in the original Hebrew text translators have had to insert them. We have to get back to the original languages and decide whether the translators were correct. An example is the word "because", this could be substituted for the word "by". Neither of these words appear in the original text (so I am told) and you can see what a difference of interpretation it makes. I do not want to go to the particular misinterpreted passage where "because" is more appropriate than the word "by". This would take us off the one specific subject we are dealing with and which I have to justify my statement. However, these are the types of problem of understanding the original text we have to overcome.

Also, like I told you earlier you could be in the majority of not making it to heaven. And I have agreed with you on this point. That also goes to prove my argument for saying; "not many will enter the kingdom of God". If for all my belief in God and Jesus, I get rejected, then what hope is there for those with a fraction of my belief? I am a sinner, the same as everyone else. That is stating the b.... obvious. You need to explain to me how the majority of Christians, who are not following the teaching of Jesus, are going to get into the kingdom of God.

A case could easily be made to refute your claims that proves you wrong. Example: The teachings of Jesus do not include an earthly kingdom or a 1,000 year reign. You believe both of those, and there is ZERO evidence for either. That is not true, there are many scriptures we can cite, but that is not dealing with the topic I am focussing on. There are many on this forum (besides me) who will not agree with your statement and they can challenge you if they want to get involved.

I could give many more examples as well. And I expect to argue the opposite for whatever you might present; telling me I am wrong.

I'm not telling you this to prove you wrong. That sounds like an oxymoron; telling me I am wrong and then not telling me to prove me wrong.

I'm telling you that you have no way to justify your claims because the only thing anyone has is interpretation. That's it. But there are interpretations that make more sense that others. At the end of the day there is no solution to the problems. We can only accept the plain words of text and accept the verses that confirm them. Making scripture fit with preconceived doctrines is not a solution by any stretch. This has digressed into a wider issue to do with how we understand certain verses. I am accused of having preconceived ideas. I admit to having firm convictions. I am long past the days of having preconceived ideas. I do not mind going back to square one and examining every verse starting from Genesis 1:1. We would do so on the understanding that we rule nothing in and nothing out and just come up will all possible explanations. Laborious as this would be, we have to have other contributors on board, who understand the Hebrew and Greek languages and can give us their input. Eventually, we would have to come to some consensus on the various subjects we define to be doctrines.

David you say not to trust the words of man and do your own due diligence, but you follow the words of Rood. Why? This is where I am misunderstood. I am not following Rood. I have only recently found his videos on Youtube. I have also found many other videos from other people I could promote. As I have said to Richard; I am hearing the words directly from Rood's mouth concerning what he believes the Bible teaches. I am interested in his beliefs and not what is happening with regard his daily business and what others say and write about him. I know from personally listening to his teaching, I agree with much of what he teaches from the Bible and I agree with his method of study. He has a series of about 13 half-hour episodes dealing with the whole 'Letter to the Hebrews' and I agree with his teaching and understanding of this book. It is the same message from the Bible I believed long before Rood came on the scene. I have yet to hear his understanding of the nature of the Devil or Satan or of Angels. On those subjects, I might find disagreement with Rood. Rood has a better understanding of scripture now that he has repented of the Baptist teaching he was following and promulgating the lies of the church and has now reasoned these things out for himself. I expect many would repent of their ways, if they would stop listening to their church leaders and read the Bible for themselves to determine what it says.

I agree there are fundamental teachings in the Bible. You are correct that not all can be right. But we have no way of knowing who is or isn't because God doesn't clear up the confusion. Why should God step in and correct every man's mistake? You have a brain, God expects you to use it and correct your own mistakes. You might be confused and I can say, I am not confused. I do not blame God for not understanding every verse in the Bible. My not understanding gives me something to work at. Why is it you criticize someone for resolving in their mind the problems you see? We have come to our own separate conclusions and one can be more correct than the other and you might be correct more than me on a subject. Both of us have to put up our reasoning and if the other is persuaded, so be it. The beginning is to start with a sure foundation; (Isaiah 28:16) Therefore thus saith the Lord GOD, Behold, I lay in Zion for a foundation a stone, a tried stone, a precious corner stone, a sure foundation: he that believeth shall not make haste. 17 Judgment also will I lay to the line, and righteousness to the plummet: and the hail shall sweep away the refuge of lies, and the waters shall overflow the hiding place.

People have been searching for thousands of years for the "one truth" and we haven't found it yet. That should tell you something. There is no definitive answer. It is a sweeping generalization that is not true for all. There are those few who have found the truth and I agree with you that many have not. Do you not think, that is one reason many will not enter the kingdom of God? "The fear of the Lord is the beginning of Wisdom". "In getting Wisdom. get understanding". Human pride and arrogance alienate a person from fearing God. For all we disagree about different doctrines, it is the person who truly walks in the spirit and naturally does that which God wants us to do, that counts. A simple answer is found in Micah to the question; What does the LORD require of thee? (Micah 6:7) but to do justly, and to love mercy, and to walk humbly with thy God?

Yes, I no longer believe. But the reason I can't is because there is no good reason to believe the Bible has any answers in it. The Bible has all the answers that the uninspired writings of men do not have. Explanations as to the origin, purpose and destiny of man is given us from the Creator. This does not come from science. It is a pity you are putting up excuses instead of looking for answers in the Bible.

People have searched for thousands of years and we are no closer to having answers now than we did then. Another reason I can't believe is because Christians like yourself are still looking for the correct answers. You admit your still looking for the "one truth". If your still looking, how can I be sure you are correct in your beliefs? How do I know there is any truth in anything Christians say? The things Christians say certainly are not demonstrable. So what is someone suppose to do? Should I have faith and believe something on bad evidence? In my eyes, if God wanted man to "know" what he wanted, he would have written his own book. I believe God's word is Truth. I have an understanding of God's word. That understanding might not be perfect, but at least it is an understanding and an understanding I am being challenged on this forum to explain, and I am doing so. It is not my fault, if what I say, is rejected. We are free to reject each others reasons. I have many reasons for believing God exists. If you do not believe God exists, then we have no common ground. All the reasons acceptable to me for believing in God, you will reject. If I present you with two explanations, are you going to reject one out of hand and only accept that which fits in with your own ideas? What do you think is a subject which is simple and on which we disagree that we might start putting forward all our evidence for believing as we do? We cannot reason together unless we first accept we have to reason from the Bible. You do not have to believe God exists, to understand the truth of what the authors intended us to understand. Our differences lie with understanding the text. We have to understand the text before we can come to an agreement on a doctrine.

If we start with Jesus and what Jesus believed, we do not find Jesus condemning God for those horrific events recorded in the OT (ancient scriptures). The fact that Jesus mentions Noah, and Lot and Abraham and Jonah means that Jesus believed those stories to be true. It would be good if we could question Jesus directly, but we cannot. If Jesus believed the stories in the scriptures he read, should not we believe also? We can build on another person's understanding, though we have to be certain of the foundations of that person's belief. Jesus is the Son of God, so there can be no better foundation to build on than the teaching of Jesus. Jesus has taught us by example of how we should conduct our lives; is that how people live their lives today or down the ages? Living a pleasing life to God is more important than knowing prophecy. At the very least, we are told to be patient and wait and watch for the coming (return) of Jesus. That is only one lifetime away for any of us; (Matt 24:46) Blessed is that servant, whom his lord when he cometh shall find so doing. In simple terms, the last 2,000 years has been the time the bridegroom delayed in coming. It has given time for gentiles like you and me to come to a knowledge of God and his son and come into relationship with them. In all generations there have been reasons to expect Jesus to come in their lifetime. However, there has to come a time when the generation spoken of by Jesus will be alive when he comes in power and glory which is an event the world will not fail to know about, but then for many, that will come too late. That sign of Jesus coming has not been seen. Jesus has made the message simple and the parables tell us these things, yet parables remain a mystery to those who do not have the spiritual eyes and ears, whereby they can understand. The question has to be asked, what is it about those people that makes them have closed spiritual eyes and ears?

I want you to think about this David. You think the Bible is the only true word God. What happens to the people in other countries who are born in ignorance, filth and disease? Through no fault of their own they are born into those conditions and never had the opportunity to hear the Bible. Instead, they are indoctrinated into another religion. These people don't have the luxuries that you or I have. They have no tv, internet, or any way to verify they are worshipping the true God. You have all these luxuries and are still looking for the " one correct truth". Is God going to make those unfortunate people suffer eternal damnation? I have thought about these things long ago and that is why I am comfortable with what I believe. I am not finding excuses. As for people who are in ignorance, we have two possibilities; 1) God can raise them from the dead to be in His kingdom, or 2) God can just let them die and remain in ignorance. What you do not know, you do not worry about. It does not matter to me, whether people who are in "ignorance" God can raise up to be in his kingdom. All I know is; I am not in ignorance and therefore I am responsible and accountable. I have to answer for myself and not for others. As for ignorance of the law; "ignorance" is no excuse according to the laws of this land. This is what Paul (the Bible) says concerning the law; (Romans 4:15) for where no law is, there is no transgression. If there is no transgression, then God, in order to be just, can grant those not under the law to enter his kingdom. We are all under the natural law of death (even Jesus could have grown old and died), but whereas God has provided a way of escape from eternal death, those who have not come to God to be saved, might just remain dead.

Here is a passage which might seem out of context but if you liken the entry of God's people (in the wilderness) into the promised land, then the same can be like the entry into the kingdom to come. (Deut 1:39) 39 Moreover your little ones, which ye said should be a prey, and your children, which in that day had no knowledge between good and evil, they shall go in thither, and unto them will I give it, and they shall possess it. 40 But as for you, turn you, and take your journey into the wilderness by the way of the Red sea. 41 Then ye answered and said unto me, We have sinned against the LORD,

You have two choices in the matter:

A: God is moral and just to bring eternal damnation on these poor people. What do you mean by "eternal damnation".? Eternal death in which there is no memory and no conciousness is not cruelty. God is merciful even in death.

B: God is immoral and unjust to bring eternal damnation on these poor people. Again, what do you mean by "eternal damnation"? God is just if he prescribes the penalty according to what he has said. It is unjust of God if the penalty is more grievous than he has previously prescribed. Eternal torment is not the teaching of the Bible and any verse that might allude to that must be correctly understood. In death (as stated above) there is no conciousness and no memory. The dead remain dead and oblivious of everything. Concerning other judgements of God in which he shows mercy as he did to King David (and for good reason) then why should we blame God for being merciful (lenient) and not imposing the death penalty there and then? In fact, had God done so in David's case, God could not have kept his promise to David and fulfilled his purpose through the line of David.

If you believe answer A you are immoral. If you believe answer B God is immoral, therefore Christianity is rendered useless. That is your conclusion based on your understanding. As I have explained, that is not the same understanding I have and therefore, your conclusions are wrong to me. I let others be the judge as to who is more correct.

By your view of the Bible this is the stark reality that these people will face. Again, what do you mean by "stark reality". Death is a reality for us all, but is no more stark than when you are at sleep and unconscious and not aware of anything that is going on around you. The fiction writer Raymond Chandler described death as the "Big Sleep".

David you "could" make a case for any of those. That doesn't make it true because you could theoretically make a case for any of them. The only true way to determine what makes the most sense is to see which has the most verses that correspond with one another. I am agreeing with you, but to see which has the most verses, we must be allowed to introduce verses that can be explained in a different ways. Hence we can both use the same verses to support both our cases.

I'm with you on finding the truth. But preconceived doctrines don't add to the truth. They pollute it. You have a preconceived doctrine to uphold, so you try and find ways to make your interpretation fit. In my eyes, that is not a path to the truth. That only makes you look to confirm your preconceived bias. Is not your belief "the Bible is not true" a preconceived bias? If not and you have come to that conclusion after studying and perhaps believing it for a time, why should you criticise me for having come to my conclusion? I have come to the conclusion the Bible is true. It is not now a preconceived idea. Now there might be a verse I do not yet understand and yet believe it is true. I cannot let one verse negate the whole of scripture. Whatever the truth is about a verse I do not understand, I keep an open mind to what the truth is. It cannot possibly contradict what God has predetermined will happen. Letting man rule himself and proving man is hopeless, is not proving God is not in control. God will not let man destroy himself completely and in the process destroy the earth; God will not let ithat happen. God is ruling in the kingdoms of men and fulfilling prophecy in these days; it is not sufficient to say; no he is not without adequate proof.

I'll give you an example. You think Jesus has to return so he can abolish the last enemy of death. That is false. 2 Timothy 1:10 But is now made manifest by the appearing of our Saviour Jesus Christ, who hath abolished death, and hath brought life and immortality to light through the gospel: I agree Jesus has made the way to eternal life possible. Eternal life is not given until the resurrection. To say there are immortal beings now and that they had immortal souls and went immediately to Heaven at their death, is not scriptural. We have to get the verse you quoted into correct perspective. At the moment, we argue that each other's perspective is wrong.

Hebrews says the same thing. Hebrews 2:14-15 14 Since the children have flesh and blood, he too shared in their humanity so that by his death he might break the power of him who holds the power of death—that is, the devil— 15 and free those who all their lives were held in slavery by their fear of death. You won't want to go to the thread in which I have explained how Jesus defeated the devil by his death. Here is the link anyway; http://www.biblewheel.com/forum/showthread.php?3370-The-death-of-Jesus-and-the-destruction-of-the-devil
The problem we have now is; you have also introduced the devil into this discussion and we start a new subject. Understanding the true nature of the Devil and Satan and Angels is the problem we have between us. I know my explanations are not accepted, but for me, my explanations resolve many of the problems I used to have. The "angels" of 2 Peter 2:4 and Jude 6 did not make sense to me until I resolved it for myself. I was given an hint and then I did my own exposition and I know the "angels" in those two verses (speaking of the same event) are human. There has been built up a myth about God's Angels like God's Angels having sex with humans and this is not scriptural and is forced. Why do you not condemn those people for saying something the Bible does not say? Richard will present a verse by way of his proof which is not proof to me, because I understand the verse(s) differently to him and that is why I say to Richard he has not given me proof. Then Richard will argue with me that I have not disproved him or given proof. My proof is in the explanation I give. That is why I challenge you to say; I have not given you proof. I have stated my beliefs all over this forum and given my explanation of verses to support my belief.

If you believe the Bible then you should realize Jesus abolished death by dying on the cross and giving you eternal life. I do, but I have not received eternal life now and if Jesus delays his coming by another 10 years (doubtful as I think that will be) I will eventually die and unless I am raised to life to realize it, then I would cease to exist. Unconsciousness would not even come into it, if I was not raised. However, as I believe God preserves our "spirit" by which God knows us, the same spirit Jesus said at the moment of dying; "into Thy hands I commend my spirit" That spirit is the pattern which God will use to reunite with a body at resurrection. At resurrection those who are given eternal life are given the same immortal body which was given to Jesus; hence "we shall be like him" and we cannot equal ourselves with God, which Jesus has never done. Even saying what I have just said, I have mentioned other fundamental points of scripture we do not agree on. Somehow we have to break our discussion down to concentrate on one point at a time, and this is difficult. This is why in reply to Richard I likened understanding the Bible to that of rearranging a Rubik's cube. It is not a perfect analogy to liken the Bible to a puzzle, but what is happening is that there is a lot of misunderstanding by selecting verses which are misunderstood and taken out of their proper context. It is man who by the many different interpretations is making the Bible appear similar to a Rubik's cube and we have to rearrange all the passages and get them into context and have the correct meaning until we have each subject appearing coherent. That is when there is no contradiction and nothing is out of place. It might never be done to perfection, but who is to say 99% cannot be achieved. The 1% I would not let distract me from accepting the 99%.

See above David. I have answered you. Thank you L67. You have answered in part, but I am still asking the questions at the beginning of this post and will have added a few more questions for you to answer for yourself. I think we are making progress. You put up the verses to support your argument and I will do the same and I will give you an alternative explanation where necessary.

You did not respond to the following. I see Richard picked up on this and I have to reply to Richard.

Key differences in doctrine (in no particular order of priority):

1. The immortal soul versus resurrection

2. The kingdom in Heaven versus the kingdom of God on earth

3. Jesus is God versus Jesus the man (the Son of God)

4. God's Angels rebel and sin versus Angels are ministering spirits and do the will of God

The problem is we can take the fundamental doctrines and according to the many different interpretations we end up with numerous combinations. I wanted to know what Richard thought the Bible teaches and list the top twenty (10 would have sufficed. Since each subject has several interpretations (although in truth there can only be one), if we have 10 subjects and 2 possibilities per subject, that gives up 20 possible combinations of belief. We should only end up with 10 and therefore we have to dismiss some by reasoning these things out.

Is the Bible teaching about death an easy subject to begin? We have to cut through all the myth associated with that subject to get to the facts.

All the best

David

David M

04-13-2013, 04:57 AM

Hello Richard

Here are my answers:

1. The Bible is ambiguous about the nature of the soul. First, the Bible says God alone has immortality, but that doesn't mean he doesn't cause souls to continue to live after the death of the body. The verses from Ecclesiastes that you cite to support your interpretation contradict other verse which you must explain away. So it just comes down to private interpretation and personal preference. And besides, Genesis 2:7 defines a soul as body + spirit. Even animals are called "living souls" (exactly the same phrase used for humans. Thus there is much confusion and ambiguity in the Bible on this point. In that case why not jointly try to sort out the confusion? Jesus was given immortality, so he is immortal now. This does not mean Jesus was immortal and pre-existed. Exactly, what is "the spirit" which Jesus commended into God's hands?

2. First, the Bible never speaks of "the kingdom of God on earth" as opposed to the kingdom of heaven. The two terms are the "kingdom of heaven" and the "kingdom of God" and there are absolutely synonymous. There is absolutely not difference between those two terms. I agree with you, there is no difference between the two terms. There is obvious disagreement amongst folks as to where the kingdom will be.

3. Again, there is sufficient ambiguity in the Bible to allow for dispute on this point, though the weight of the EVIDENCE points to Christ as both God and man. Selective references incorrectly understood would lead you to your conclusion. "Ambiguity", might not be the correct word, but where two different things are thought of and only one can be correct, then we have to determine which is the correct meaning.

4. All evidence in the Bible supports the position that God's Angels rebel and sin. How this relates to the fact that they are ministering spirits is easy enough to harmonize, unless, of course, you are committed to a dogma that you have been taught by some man. . Exaggeration again; not "all" (if any) verses in the Bible prove God's Angels sin. OK so you can harmonize "all ministering spirits", then harmonize the other scriptures also.

My score is 0 compared to your 4. Wow. Hardly "Wow" when that was to be expected. Thanks for giving me a score of 4.

It's very strange that you MAJOR on the MINOR points (1,2,4). The only point of any centrality is 3 (divinity of Christ), but even that is obviously a point of AMBIGUITY that you take as absolutely certain. You see things I do not; nothing seems strange to me. I am not taking a point of "ambiguity" as absolutely certainty. It remains ambiguous to you when you want it to remain that way.

What makes you think that you are not the one introducing "man made errors"? You major on minor points of confusion, and you contradict the vast majority of serous Bible students. Suppose you were studying math and the vast majority of mathematicians all agreed you were wrong. Why would you think you right? What justifies such stubbornness. Why do you think you are so much better than almost all the other mathematicians? I am not error free, but prove my errors. So far you have failed to convince me of my error and I am giving you reasons why I believe a thing. When I cannot give you a reason, then you might be correct. We have to wait and see whether that happens. Many Bible students can be lead to the same errors. The KJV whilst a good attempt to be faithful to the original word of God, has some bias of the translators in it. It is hard to be without bias once a doctrine has been ingrained. Only with correct reasoning will a change come about. I am open to debate and have yet to be convinced by your argument.

You make me think you are blind when you say "one overriding truth to each one of those four subjects in which all verses in scripture dealing with those subjects must have a consistent and coherent interpretation." Why can't you see the ambiguity in the Bible? I am clearing away any ambiguity for myself. That is why the more that fits into place, the less ambiguity remains. There does not have to be ambiguity once everything is understood correctly. That is what we should be working towards.

It is that AMBIGUITY that allows people to come to different conclusions. This is why the Bible is like a Necker cube. It is truly ambiguous on many points. And you know this because you use that ambiguity to try to prove your doctrines. For example, you say that the meaning of "angels" is ambiguous and that the meaning of "heaven" is ambiguous and the meaning of "Satan" is ambiguous. And on and on you go. All you doctrines are fundamentally based on AMBIGUITY that you exploit in your effort to establish your fringe doctrines that most serious Bible believers reject. Maybe the word "ambiguity" as I have said, is the wrong word. The word "angels" can apply to humans and God's Angels. The ambiguity comes in wrongly applying the wrong meaning in the context of what is being said. Correctly applied and there is no ambiguity. I am not using "ambiguities" to base my doctrine on. It so happens I am clearing up the ambiguity caused by those who wrongly apply the wrong definition in the context of what is being spoken about.
The thing that happened early on in our discussion to do with prophecy is that when I gave you an alternative interpretation you could not accept, you said that was "moot". On that basis, whenever I give you an alternative explanation, you are going to say; "the point is moot". That is why no discussion on prophecy would continue with you. We have a situation where the many subjects of the Bible have all be twisted up and mixed together. It is like unravelling a badly tangled rope. It is bad enough unravelling one length of rope, unravelling two equally entwined and twisted ropes is more than twice the effort of unravelling each rope individually. We have lie compounded upon lie and we have to separate out each lie and get to the truth. Some people are further forward in doing this than others. Our aim should be, to reason these things out, so we are all on the same page, but that seems like an impossibility.

One great thing about this conversation - I think we are actually getting to the root of your fringe doctrines. They are all built on ambiguous passages. That would be good if you got to the root of "fringe doctrines" which you might find are actually correct. Are "the few", who according to Jesus, find the "narrow way that leads to life" the only ones to have fringe doctrines? What doctrines are the masses following, if the masses are on the "broad way that leads to destruction"? If we can agree the very basics for belief as God requires us to have, then misunderstanding of prophecy is not important.

For reasons I have already given, I am comfortable to be seen as a contrarian. A contrarian is not one to follow like "sheepeople". Neither does that mean a contrarian follows a cult figure the like we know about who misguided people. Jesus is a cult figure, and I follow him because he speaks the truth that comes from God; I do not hold any other person in higher esteem than Jesus.

All the best,

David

Richard Amiel McGough

04-13-2013, 02:41 PM

Hello Richard
In that case why not jointly try to sort out the confusion? Jesus was given immortality, so he is immortal now. This does not mean Jesus was immortal and pre-existed. Exactly, what is "the spirit" which Jesus commended into God's hands?

Good afternoon David,

You are starting with many presuppositions and then you explain away the verses that contradict. You could have just as well started with the traditional set of presuppositions and then explained away the verses that you currently think support your view. So the real question is what does the Bible actually say without making any presuppositions? Does it have a coherent message, or is it incoherent? The pre-existence of Christ is established on many verses:

Christ existed with God before he came to earth:
John 17:5 "And now, O Father, glorify Me together with Yourself, with the glory which I had with You before the world was.

Christ came down from heaven to earth:
John 3:13 "No one has ascended to heaven but He who came down from heaven, that is, the Son of Man who is in heaven.

Christ is God manifest in the flesh:
Colossians 2:9 For in Him dwells all the fullness of the Godhead bodily;
1 Timothy 3:16 And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness: God was manifested in the flesh, Justified in the Spirit, Seen by angels, Preached among the Gentiles, Believed on in the world, Received up in glory.

Etc., etc., etc. You know the routine. So all we have are dueling interpretations based on contrary presuppositions and elaborate "explanations" to explain away the parts that don't fit. What is the legitimate way to determine the truth? There are four possibliities:

1) You are right.
2) The traditional interpretation is right.
3) Some other interpretation is right.
4) There is no correct interpretation because the Bible is incoherent on this point.

Now given that the most sincere, disciplined, educated, thoughtful, and devout believers have had about 2000 years to formulate a clear explanation and yet have utterly failed, coupled with the fact that there are many obvious contradictions, it seems pretty clear that #4 is probably the most likely solution.

2. The kingdom in Heaven versus the kingdom of God on earth
2. First, the Bible never speaks of "the kingdom of God on earth" as opposed to the kingdom of heaven. The two terms are the "kingdom of heaven" and the "kingdom of God" and there are absolutely synonymous. There is absolutely not difference between those two terms.
I agree with you, there is no difference between the two terms. There is obvious disagreement amongst folks as to where the kingdom will be.

I'm glad you agree that the two terms are synonymous, but that makes your question confusing because you contrasted "the kingdom in heaven" with "the kingdom of God on earth."

So now you agree that "the kingdom of heaven" = "the kingdom of God." That's good. And now it looks like your question is this:

Where will the kingdom of God be? In heaven or on earth?

The answer involves lots of confused bible verses. First, there is the doctrine of Paradise, as when Jesus said "Today you will be with me in paradise." But this contradicts your doctrine that both both Jesus and the thief were actually DEAD and buried that day, and that they did not exist anymore. So you need to explain away that verse. And then you need to explain away the other two verses that speak of paradise:

2 Corinthians 12:4 How that he was caught up into paradise, and heard unspeakable words, which it is not lawful for a man to utter.

Revelation 2:7 He that hath an ear, let him hear what the Spirit saith unto the churches; To him that overcometh will I give to eat of the tree of life, which is in the midst of the paradise of God.

And of course you will have to explain away all the other verses that imply dead Christians actually exist with God in heaven.

So obviously, any interpretation will depend upon a thousand other interpretations which will depend upon presuppositions. And so it is with any interpretation. How then can anyone determine which collection of SUPPOSITIONS + INTERPRETATIONS + EXPLANATIONS is correct? Each part of each "interpretation" depends upon which verses you "accepted" and which verse you "explained away" to fit with your presuppositions. This is why the Bible is like a Necker Cube. The same data gives two possible self-coherent interpretations.

870

Do you understand this now?

The only way you will ever know if you interpretation is correct is to prove that the other interpretation is not correct. You can't do that going verse by verse because the interpretation of each verse will depend upon your presuppositions. Therefore, you must deal with both sets of presuppositions! That's a big project. I've been inviting you to work on this with me for many months now. It is the only way to determine truth. We have to count up the number of verses naturally explained minus the number of verses that must be "explained away" and made to fit. Then we will have a sense of which interpretation has the the most evidence supporting it.

3. Again, there is sufficient ambiguity in the Bible to allow for dispute on this point, though the weight of the EVIDENCE points to Christ as both God and man.
Selective references incorrectly understood would lead you to your conclusion. "Ambiguity", might not be the correct word, but where two different things are thought of and only one can be correct, then we have to determine which is the correct meaning.

Exactly correct. And the same thing is true about your conclusions so what's your point?

And again, you are forgetting the fourth possibility:

1) You could be wrong.
2) I could be wrong.
3) We both could be wrong.
4) The Bible could be incoherent on this point.

I think the Bible is probably incoherent on this point. If not, then I would conclude that it teaches that Christ is both Man and God. Your solution is not believable because you have to use forced explanations to explain away too many verses.

4. All evidence in the Bible supports the position that God's Angels rebel and sin. How this relates to the fact that they are ministering spirits is easy enough to harmonize, unless, of course, you are committed to a dogma that you have been taught by some man.
Exaggeration again; not "all" (if any) verses in the Bible prove God's Angels sin. OK so you can harmonize "all ministering spirits", then harmonize the other scriptures also.

And that's the game of harmonization. It is pointless to play that game over relatively irrelevant concepts like "angels sinning" if we cannot about the main and the plain things established by many mutually confirming verses. There must be a FOUNDATION OF AGREEMENT or we will never make any progress at all. It's really quite simple. We should be able to agree about what the Bible actually says, and when we come to a disagreement about some point, we should be able to agree about the exact nature of the disagreement. Then we can focus on that point and come to a mutual understanding. Why can't we do that?

Hardly "Wow" when that was to be expected. Thanks for giving me a score of 4.

I said "wow" because our interpretations are as contradictory as possible. In the words of William Blake:
We both read the Bible day and night,
But you read black where I read white.
I would think by now you would understand by now that we need to quit talking past each other and actually deal with what the Bible actually states. You simply hold to your presuppositions that are not based on what the text actually states. Case in point: You appealed to Jeremiah to support your belief in a future return of Israel, when in fact Jeremiah was talking about the Babylonian exile.

It's very strange that you MAJOR on the MINOR points (1,2,4). The only point of any centrality is 3 (divinity of Christ), but even that is obviously a point of AMBIGUITY that you take as absolutely certain.
You see things I do not; nothing seems strange to me. I am not taking a point of "ambiguity" as absolutely certainty. It remains ambiguous to you when you want it to remain that way.

I do not cause the Bible to be ambiguous by my "desire." It is ambiguous. If it were not, then these issues would have been settled long ago, and you would have no problem convincing me of the truth with clear and lucid argument. I would agree in a heartbeat and you know it because I readily admit any truth that can be proven with logic and facts. I've demonstrated this over and over again in all our conversations. I admit when I'm wrong and I admit any truth whether or not it benefits my position. This is easy for me because I have no dogmas to uphold. I have no doctrines to protect.

What makes you think that you are not the one introducing "man made errors"? You major on minor points of confusion, and you contradict the vast majority of serous Bible students. Suppose you were studying math and the vast majority of mathematicians all agreed you were wrong. Why would you think you right? What justifies such stubbornness. Why do you think you are so much better than almost all the other mathematicians?
I am not error free, but prove my errors. So far you have failed to convince me of my error and I am giving you reasons why I believe a thing. When I cannot give you a reason, then you might be correct. We have to wait and see whether that happens. Many Bible students can be lead to the same errors. The KJV whilst a good attempt to be faithful to the original word of God, has some bias of the translators in it. It is hard to be without bias once a doctrine has been ingrained. Only with correct reasoning will a change come about. I am open to debate and have yet to be convinced by your argument.

No one is error free. That's why we must be VERY SKEPTICAL about our presuppositions. But you show NO SKEPTICISM of any kind for you most fundamental presuppositions.

It is true that there are simple errors believed by the majority. Case in point: there is no spiritual being named "Lucifer" in the real Bible. That's just a translation error, but it is believed by the majority of Christians, including many teachers.

But when it comes to your errors, I have proved them in spades. I have explained them in gory detail and you have not refuted a word I wrote. You simply ignored what I wrote and refuse to admit the truth. L67 bears witness of this fact, and no one has shown any error in any of my proofs.

You make me think you are blind when you say "one overriding truth to each one of those four subjects in which all verses in scripture dealing with those subjects must have a consistent and coherent interpretation." Why can't you see the ambiguity in the Bible?
I am clearing away any ambiguity for myself. That is why the more that fits into place, the less ambiguity remains. There does not have to be ambiguity once everything is understood correctly. That is what we should be working towards.

Are your "clearing it away" or are you making up rationalizations? Is there any way for you to tell the difference? You and I both know that the world is filled with crazy people who make up all sorts of "bible harmonies" that are totally false. So it probably would be a good idea to find a way to tell the difference between them and you, wouldn't it?

It is that AMBIGUITY that allows people to come to different conclusions. This is why the Bible is like a Necker cube. It is truly ambiguous on many points. And you know this because you use that ambiguity to try to prove your doctrines. For example, you say that the meaning of "angels" is ambiguous and that the meaning of "heaven" is ambiguous and the meaning of "Satan" is ambiguous. And on and on you go. All you doctrines are fundamentally based on AMBIGUITY that you exploit in your effort to establish your fringe doctrines that most serious Bible believers reject.
Maybe the word "ambiguity" as I have said, is the wrong word. The word "angels" can apply to humans and God's Angels. The ambiguity comes in wrongly applying the wrong meaning in the context of what is being said. Correctly applied and there is no ambiguity. I am not using "ambiguities" to base my doctrine on. It so happens I am clearing up the ambiguity caused by those who wrongly apply the wrong definition in the context of what is being spoken about.
The thing that happened early on in our discussion to do with prophecy is that when I gave you an alternative interpretation you could not accept, you said that was "moot". On that basis, whenever I give you an alternative explanation, you are going to say; "the point is moot". That is why no discussion on prophecy would continue with you. We have a situation where the many subjects of the Bible have all be twisted up and mixed together. It is like unravelling a badly tangled rope. It is bad enough unravelling one length of rope, unravelling two equally entwined and twisted ropes is more than twice the effort of unravelling each rope individually. We have lie compounded upon lie and we have to separate out each lie and get to the truth. Some people are further forward in doing this than others. Our aim should be, to reason these things out, so we are all on the same page, but that seems like an impossibility.

The word "ambiguity" is totally accurate. The "angels" is a perfect example. The plain reading of both Peter and Jude is that they are speaking of fallen angels. There is no question on this point. Jude quotes Enoch IN CONTEXT and Enoch is ALL ABOUT FALLEN ANGELS who had sex with women. Likewise, Peter speaks of angels being cast into Tartarus which is the place where Zeus cast the Titans when they rebelled. And the rebellion itself is recorded in Rev 12 (war in heaven). And you most definitely do base all your explanations on the ambiguity of the words. The plain meaning is obvious, so you must say "angels can mean either humans or God's angels, and there are three meanings of the word "heaven" and Satan is presented as a personal agent but he isn't really, and when Jesus is said to be creator it really means he was used by the creator, and .... and ... and ... Admit it David. All your doctrines are based on ambiguous words that you say do not mean what most other people say they mean.

I totally agree that our aim should be to reason things out. And where does that start? We need to establish the FOUNDATION of things that the Bible actually states. If we can't agree on something as basic as that, then how can we make any progress?

One great thing about this conversation - I think we are actually getting to the root of your fringe doctrines. They are all built on ambiguous passages.
That would be good if you got to the root of "fringe doctrines" which you might find are actually correct. Are "the few", who according to Jesus, find the "narrow way that leads to life" the only ones to have fringe doctrines? What doctrines are the masses following, if the masses are on the "broad way that leads to destruction"? If we can agree the very basics for belief as God requires us to have, then misunderstanding of prophecy is not important.

A "fringe doctrine" is not merely a doctrine held by a minority. A fringe doctrine is a doctrine held by a minority that is not well-established in Scripture. They are the doctrines that a person must

There also are Now there certainly are false doctrines that are held by the majority and which are not well founded.

Your appeal to the "the few" doesn't help because history is littered with small cults that were obviously wrong.

For reasons I have already given, I am comfortable to be seen as a contrarian. A contrarian is not one to follow like "sheepeople". Neither does that mean a contrarian follows a cult figure the like we know about who misguided people. Jesus is a cult figure, and I follow him because he speaks the truth that comes from God; I do not hold any other person in higher esteem than Jesus.

I think being a contrarian is great, if it is done for the right reason. For example, I'm a contrarian because I am skeptical of all claims and demand evidence based on logic and facts. You are not really a "contrarian" at all in as much as you agree with all bible believers that the Bible is the Word of God and teaches "one coherent truth." So why do you believe the book that has been given to you by people you think are so wrong about Jesus? That just doesn't make any sense. Your presuppositions seem incoherent. If you can't trust the people who gave you the Bible, why do you trust the Bible?

Great chatting!

Richard

David M

04-14-2013, 06:30 AM

Hello Richard

Good afternoon David,

You are starting with many presuppositions and then you explain away the verses that contradict. You could have just as well started with the traditional set of presuppositions and then explained away the verses that you currently think support your view. So the real question is what does the Bible actually say without making any presuppositions? Does it have a coherent message, or is it incoherent? The pre-existence of Christ is established on many verses:

Christ existed with God before he came to earth:
John 17:5 "And now, O Father, glorify Me together with Yourself, with the glory which I had with You before the world was.

Christ came down from heaven to earth:
John 3:13 "No one has ascended to heaven but He who came down from heaven, that is, the Son of Man who is in heaven.

Christ is God manifest in the flesh:
Colossians 2:9 For in Him dwells all the fullness of the Godhead bodily;
1 Timothy 3:16 And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness: God was manifested in the flesh, Justified in the Spirit, Seen by angels, Preached among the Gentiles, Believed on in the world, Received up in glory.

Etc., etc., etc. You know the routine. So all we have are dueling interpretations based on contrary presuppositions and elaborate "explanations" to explain away the parts that don't fit. What is the legitimate way to determine the truth? There are four possibliities:

1) You are right.
2) The traditional interpretation is right.
3) Some other interpretation is right.
4) There is no correct interpretation because the Bible is incoherent on this point.

Now given that the most sincere, disciplined, educated, thoughtful, and devout believers have had about 2000 years to formulate a clear explanation and yet have utterly failed, coupled with the fact that there are many obvious contradictions, it seems pretty clear that #4 is probably the most likely solution. The references you quote I have dealt with at some length in the thread; 'Jesus is not God'. Each one of those verses could be phrased in a different way. Once again the bias of the translators might come into this. I challenge your understanding of these verses and accept the fact you choose to go with the wording that most supports your claim. It does not mean you are correct.

I'm glad you agree that the two terms are synonymous, but that makes your question confusing because you contrasted "the kingdom in heaven" with "the kingdom of God on earth." That would have been a mistake by me if I said the "kingdom in Heaven". I am contrasting those who think the kingdom is in Heaven with those who think the kingdom is on earth.

So now you agree that "the kingdom of heaven" = "the kingdom of God." That's good. And now it looks like your question is this:

Where will the kingdom of God be? In heaven or on earth? Yes

The answer involves lots of confused bible verses. First, there is the doctrine of Paradise, as when Jesus said "Today you will be with me in paradise." But this contradicts your doctrine that both both Jesus and the thief were actually DEAD and buried that day, and that they did not exist anymore. So you need to explain away that verse. Of course you know the timing in that verse is very dependent upon where the comma is placed. There is no difficulty in accepting the thief will be in God's kingdom

And then you need to explain away the other two verses that speak of paradise:

2 Corinthians 12:4 How that he was caught up into paradise, and heard unspeakable words, which it is not lawful for a man to utter. Paul tells us in verse 1; I will come to visions... The language of Paul in this whole section must be dealt with and not just a small part of it. We should not just take one part of a quote from the whole passage without getting the whole passage into the proper context as the author intends. Again, it is not unusual for Paul and the other epistle writers to refer to mythology of the day. Though the word "paradise" is used, it does not tell us anything about "paradise". The parables of Jesus are easier to understand and I doubt Paul would deliberately say anything contradictory to Jesus.

Revelation 2:7 He that hath an ear, let him hear what the Spirit saith unto the churches; To him that overcometh will I give to eat of the tree of life, which is in the midst of the paradise of God. This is poetic language and is paralleled with the Garden of Eden which God made special for Adam and Eve and they were expelled from the garden after they sinned. Maybe there is a reserved garden in the midst of Jerusalem that will be known as "paradise". It is figurative language and how that is realized literally in the time to come, we have to wait and see. We can try to glean what we can from the Bible, but these few isolated and hard verses to fully understand and should not distract from the larger portion that is easier to understand.

And of course you will have to explain away all the other verses that imply dead Christians actually exist with God in heaven. OK, have done that.

So obviously, any interpretation will depend upon a thousand other interpretations which will depend upon presuppositions. And so it is with any interpretation. How then can anyone determine which collection of SUPPOSITIONS + INTERPRETATIONS + EXPLANATIONS is correct? Each part of each "interpretation" depends upon which verses you "accepted" and which verse you "explained away" to fit with your presuppositions. This is why the Bible is like a Necker Cube. The same data gives two possible self-coherent interpretations. I expect at some point not all interpretations can co-exist and be true. That is the point; we have to whittle them all down and make a decision as to which to dis-guard or put on one side if unsure.

Do you understand this now? Do I understand it your way? not entirely, but I see what you want me to agree to, and that is not going to happen based on the discussion so far.

The only way you will ever know if you interpretation is correct is to prove that the other interpretation is not correct. You can't do that going verse by verse because the interpretation of each verse will depend upon your presuppositions. Therefore, you must deal with both sets of presuppositions! That's a big project. I've been inviting you to work on this with me for many months now. It is the only way to determine truth. We have to count up the number of verses naturally explained minus the number of verses that must be "explained away" and made to fit. Then we will have a sense of which interpretation has the the most evidence supporting it. Your call to work with you has not gone unnoticed, but then you have a way of going off track. Since I stated a long time ago, Jude 6 was a watershed, Angels sinning is a topic that should not have too many verses to deal with. That might bring in the devil and so that also has to be dealt with alongside and done so in a separate thread running in parallel. It would be good to stay focussed and do as you say; can you stay focussed? I set out to keep 'the Splitting of the Mount of Olives' focussed and yet that was getting hijacked and taken off course which appears to be the inevitable way of most threads.

What about we have a table containing several columns and we add to it. We decide on a premise such as; 'God's Angels sin' and add our verses for and against on the subject. We can each have a column to state our understanding of each verse. One column can be reserved for keeping score. A + or - when we agree a verses supports the premise or not. We can make changes to the layout of the table after we have made a start. I cannot decide whether three or five columns would be better and listing our verses and comments separately in our respective columns.

Exactly correct. And the same thing is true about your conclusions so what's your point? It shows you have no reason to accuse me as you do.

And again, you are forgetting the fourth possibility:

1) You could be wrong.
2) I could be wrong.
3) We both could be wrong.
4) The Bible could be incoherent on this point.

I think the Bible is probably incoherent on this point. If not, then I would conclude that it teaches that Christ is both Man and God. Your solution is not believable because you have to use forced explanations to explain away too many verses. State the number verses have I explained away. Be factual; let's see how many. This shows you are jumping to a conclusion before a matter has been thoroughly investigated. There is a fifth possibility, if as you conclude, the Bible teaches "Christ is both man and God". I see a time when Christ the man has the power of God, which Jesus said had been given him. (Jesus would not give himself anything, if he was God). I have explained elsewhere there will be a time in which Christ will be ruling on the earth as God, with all the power of God and making all judgements as God would make. This would keep in with God's pattern of the 7th day as a day of rest, in which God takes a Sabbath rest. Jesus takes over while God is taking his Sabbath rest. That still leave Jesus as the man made immortal and the only raised immortal to have been given total authority and power of God and carry his name. At the end of the Sabbath rest, Christ hands the kingdom back to God for the new beginning starting the 8th day (millennium)

And that's the game of harmonization. It is pointless to play that game over relatively irrelevant concepts like "angels sinning" if we cannot about the main and the plain things established by many mutually confirming verses. There must be a FOUNDATION OF AGREEMENT or we will never make any progress at all. It's really quite simple. We should be able to agree about what the Bible actually says, and when we come to a disagreement about some point, we should be able to agree about the exact nature of the disagreement. Then we can focus on that point and come to a mutual understanding. Why can't we do that? So you are going to stop the exercise you want us to do before we get started. If not "Angels", the devil it can be.

I said "wow" because our interpretations are as contradictory as possible. In the words of William Blake:
We both read the Bible day and night,
But you read black where I read white.
I would think by now you would understand by now that we need to quit talking past each other and actually deal with what the Bible actually states. You simply hold to your presuppositions that are not based on what the text actually states. Case in point: You appealed to Jeremiah to support your belief in a future return of Israel, when in fact Jeremiah was talking about the Babylonian exile. I have explained that again above and now the ball is in your court to respond (as I expect you have done by the time you read this).

I do not cause the Bible to be ambiguous by my "desire." It is ambiguous. If it were not, then these issues would have been settled long ago, and you would have no problem convincing me of the truth with clear and lucid argument. I would agree in a heartbeat and you know it because I readily admit any truth that can be proven with logic and facts. I've demonstrated this over and over again in all our conversations. I admit when I'm wrong and I admit any truth whether or not it benefits my position. This is easy for me because I have no dogmas to uphold. I have no doctrines to protect. You have no doctrines to protect, yet you promote doctrines you say the Bible teaches. If you do not hold such doctrines, why are you so protective of them as something you say the Bible teaches? Whether you believe them or not you appear as one who does; I see no difference.

INo one is error free. That's why we must be VERY SKEPTICAL about our presuppositions. But you show NO SKEPTICISM of any kind for you most fundamental presuppositions. What skepticism have you shown about your own arguments? You should do likewise instead of accusing me of not doing something. You have come to your conclusions as I have come to mine and that is why it is difficult to be shaken, but one foundation will eventually fail.

It is true that there are simple errors believed by the majority. Case in point: there is no spiritual being named "Lucifer" in the real Bible. That's just a translation error, but it is believed by the majority of Christians, including many teachers. What other things can you list like this? List more possible points of agreement!

But when it comes to your errors, I have proved them in spades. I have explained them in gory detail and you have not refuted a word I wrote. You simply ignored what I wrote and refuse to admit the truth. L67 bears witness of this fact, and no one has shown any error in any of my proofs. L67 is just siding with you and you welcome it. I have yet to have sound reasons from L67 to convince me otherwise. L67 and I have got a reasonable dialogue going and I am waiting for L67's next reply to see how much longer we can keep going. Unfortunately, we do not have much support on either side and readers are happy not to get involved. Stop this self-exaltation, you have not won your argument. There is a long way to go, if you are going to present all the evidence in the way that you want us to work together. Until we complete a project, I would refrain from all claims of victory. You have not presented anything in opposition to my understanding, which I have not been able to challenge you evidence and even if there is one point that might happen, that is not total proof you are correct. We both have to agree to a consensus of all relevant verses.

Are your "clearing it away" or are you making up rationalizations? Is there any way for you to tell the difference? You and I both know that the world is filled with crazy people who make up all sorts of "bible harmonies" that are totally false. So it probably would be a good idea to find a way to tell the difference between them and you, wouldn't it? I separate myself from those who are obviously not teaching what the Bible says. There maybe some, I reserve my opinion of, until I hear more. We must both do as the Bereans were commended for and compare all things with what the scriptures say. Where we disagree about a verse we cannot come to agreement on, we hold that in abeyance.

The word "ambiguity" is totally accurate. The "angels" is a perfect example. The plain reading of both Peter and Jude is that they are speaking of fallen angels. There is no question on this point. Jude quotes Enoch IN CONTEXT and Enoch is ALL ABOUT FALLEN ANGELS who had sex with women. Likewise, Peter speaks of angels being cast into Tartarus which is the place where Zeus cast the Titans when they rebelled. And the rebellion itself is recorded in Rev 12 (war in heaven). And you most definitely do base all your explanations on the ambiguity of the words. The plain meaning is obvious, so you must say "angels can mean either humans or God's angels, and there are three meanings of the word "heaven" and Satan is presented as a personal agent but he isn't really, and when Jesus is said to be creator it really means he was used by the creator, and .... and ... and ... Admit it David. All your doctrines are based on ambiguous words that you say do not mean what most other people say they mean.
You have done it again and you prove my point. You are saying Peter and Jude teach that God's Angels sin. Everything I have said about your interpretation proves what I have said is true. You totally ignore the possibility despite my lengthy exposition of Jude 5 and 6. Again, you introduce the Book of Enoch after we both know the Book, as it has become, is not to be trusted. There is nothing in the canon of scripture that says God's Angels had sex with humans. You are going over old ground raking up the Book of Enoch that should have been dumped and never mentioned again. You simply will not get off track. That is your dogma because you support it and keep repeating it. This argument with the Book of Enoch should be long over between us. It remains grounds for not continuing. Referring to the Book of Enoch as a trusted source shows your own dishonesty in clinging to a book you rightly described as a "book not to be trusted" and is unreliable. How the book came to be that way, you can tell me. it is not the book Jude would have been referring to with the teaching you now say it has.

I totally agree that our aim should be to reason things out. And where does that start? We need to establish the FOUNDATION of things that the Bible actually states. If we can't agree on something as basic as that, then how can we make any progress? I have suggested above a way to start, and immediately, you scuttled the idea before it had begun. I suggest you start off as you think best and see how it goes.

A "fringe doctrine" is not merely a doctrine held by a minority. A fringe doctrine is a doctrine held by a minority that is not well-established in Scripture. Doctrines are well established in the Bible; it is just that the majority are missing them; hence the few that do, become the fringe. The fringe could become the majority, but then the words of Jesus would be proven wrong, so that cannot happen and the minority opinion will remain and be regarded as the fringe.

There also are Now there certainly are false doctrines that are held by the majority and which are not well founded. Please state what these are; we might be making progress if we can agree what these are.

Your appeal to the "the few" doesn't help because history is littered with small cults that were obviously wrong. I am not interested in small cults, which with some charismatic leader are duping the people. It is both easy for you and me to spot these cults and these are not a minority worth considering. They are mere distractions and not even worth mentioning.

I think being a contrarian is great, if it is done for the right reason. For example, I'm a contrarian because I am skeptical of all claims and demand evidence based on logic and facts. You are not really a "contrarian" at all in as much as you agree with all bible believers that the Bible is the Word of God and teaches "one coherent truth." So why do you believe the book that has been given to you by people you think are so wrong about Jesus? That just doesn't make any sense. Your presuppositions seem incoherent. If you can't trust the people who gave you the Bible, why do you trust the Bible? Whilst I agree you are a type of contrarian, I can quote your words back at you, because you are not "really a contrarian". You belong to the greater number who does not believe the Bible or believe in Evolution. The basis should be upon accepting the teaching of Jesus or agreeing a large percentage of the teaching. Jesus told the people not to keep the additions and the amendments, which the Pharisees had added to the law. Hence Jesus said; teaching as doctrine the commandments of men. Some of those "commandments of men" might be identified in the list of false doctrines you think mainstream Christianity teaches.

Great chatting!

David

PS let's quit this discussion and get down to the serious investigation you want to do. I am all for dropping this unnecessary nonsense.

L67

04-14-2013, 04:10 PM

Thanks L67 for citing the page and post number. My head is spinning enough from a head-cold at the moment. I think we have a communication problem. Maybe the word "interpretation" should be dropped and the word "understanding" used. I do not see how in the text you have quoted me, you say I have explained what Jesus meant. Maybe, if I rephrase my request to answer my questions.

I have asked you specifically to tell me what determines the "narrow way". To say "following Jesus" is not a specific answer. I have given you one example of false teaching and there are many others and Jesus said (John 14:15); If ye love me, keep my commandments. What are those commandments? And How many in the world now are keeping those commandments? Are you? I will have to assume you know what these are. If you accept what I am saying, you should agree with my justification for saying many "Christians" (wrongly called IMO) are not following what Jesus taught and they do not know who the real Jesus is. These are not just my words; they are the words I have heard out of the mouths of others and I agree with them. Whether you believe the Bible or not and particularly if you do not, I do not see how you could be following the commands of Jesus. That must eliminate you from the kingdom of God. I am not making a judgement, just making a deduction.

Sorry to hear about the head cold. Hope for a speedy recovery.

David it appears we keep talking past each other. There is no point for me to explain that verse because I have repeatedly said I agree with what you are saying. I understand your point perfectly clear. But that verse does not give credibility to your claims that "most" of Christianity is wrong. In order to justify that verse you have to demonstrate the truth in your words. How can you prove your claim is factual? That is why I keep telling you the meaning of that verse is irrelevant. You have to prove the truth in your words. Saying you are quoting the inerrant word of God is not sufficient.

Now you are moving on to another controversial point. I have answered this in other posts. "This generation" is applicable to the time in which Jesus words are referring to. That can be present or future and that is something we shall have to disagree about if you only accept one possible understanding of original words recorded. Would it make a difference if the phrase "that generation" had been used? Is the word "this" or "that" which the translators used, correct? Does this show any bias on the translators part? As with many little words and punctuation not used in the original Hebrew text translators have had to insert them. We have to get back to the original languages and decide whether the translators were correct. An example is the word "because", this could be substituted for the word "by". Neither of these words appear in the original text (so I am told) and you can see what a difference of interpretation it makes. I do not want to go to the particular misinterpreted passage where "because" is more appropriate than the word "by". This would take us off the one specific subject we are dealing with and which I have to justify my statement. However, these are the types of problem of understanding the original text we have to overcome.

Do you know how absurd your argument is? You have to completely twist words to fit your beliefs. By the time you are done playing word games there is no meaning left to those words. If you have to question the translators about the basic meaning of words, then how can you be sure anything in the Bible is correct?

You talk about translation errors. I would like to point something out to you. Men were inspired to write the word of God in explicit detail. God went to great lengths to ensure his word was written in explicit detail. But he doesn't guide the translators the same way he guided the original authors? Instead, he allows translation errors into his word. What kind of sense does that make? He knew this problem would crop up so why didn't he correct it? You have just proven your way of thinking totally renders the Bible useless as any sort of guide. If the translations errors cause basic words to have different meaning, the Bible is utterly useless. And worse it shows God didn't care if errors crept into his word.

And I have agreed with you on this point. That also goes to prove my argument for saying; "not many will enter the kingdom of God". If for all my belief in God and Jesus, I get rejected, then what hope is there for those with a fraction of my belief? I am a sinner, the same as everyone else. That is stating the b.... obvious. You need to explain to me how the majority of Christians, who are not following the teaching of Jesus, are going to get into the kingdom of God.

Ok, good we agree on something. No that does not prove your argument. You have to demonstrate why your interpretation of Jesus words is correct. But you couldn't even begin to demonstrate such a claim. Because Christians could easily say the same about you. Prime example. You don't believe in the trinity. But there is plenty evidence to suggest the trinity is legit. So what if you are wrong? That means you aren't following Jesus words. It's a never ending circle of endless interpretation.

That is not true, there are many scriptures we can cite, but that is not dealing with the topic I am focussing on. There are many on this forum (besides me) who will not agree with your statement and they can challenge you if they want to get involved.

Yes true. We won't get sidetracked into a long argument about this. But show me one verse that shows a future earthly kingdom or 1000 year reign. You don't have to explain anything just post the verses.

This has digressed into a wider issue to do with how we understand certain verses. I am accused of having preconceived ideas. I admit to having firm convictions. I am long past the days of having preconceived ideas. I do not mind going back to square one and examining every verse starting from Genesis 1:1. We would do so on the understanding that we rule nothing in and nothing out and just come up will all possible explanations. Laborious as this would be, we have to have other contributors on board, who understand the Hebrew and Greek languages and can give us their input. Eventually, we would have to come to some consensus on the various subjects we define to be doctrines.

You are accused of having preconceived ideas because you do. You have the preconceived ideas handed down from men. You didn't just learn your beliefs on your own.

This is where I am misunderstood. I am not following Rood. I have only recently found his videos on Youtube. I have also found many other videos from other people I could promote. As I have said to Richard; I am hearing the words directly from Rood's mouth concerning what he believes the Bible teaches. I am interested in his beliefs and not what is happening with regard his daily business and what others say and write about him. I know from personally listening to his teaching, I agree with much of what he teaches from the Bible and I agree with his method of study. He has a series of about 13 half-hour episodes dealing with the whole 'Letter to the Hebrews' and I agree with his teaching and understanding of this book. It is the same message from the Bible I believed long before Rood came on the scene. I have yet to hear his understanding of the nature of the Devil or Satan or of Angels. On those subjects, I might find disagreement with Rood. Rood has a better understanding of scripture now that he has repented of the Baptist teaching he was following and promulgating the lies of the church and has now reasoned these things out for himself. I expect many would repent of their ways, if they would stop listening to their church leaders and read the Bible for themselves to determine what it says.

This proves you DO have preconcieved bias. You are listeing to Rood to confirm that bias. It absolutely amazing you still refuse to see Rood for what he is.

Why should God step in and correct every man's mistake? You have a brain, God expects you to use it and correct your own mistakes. You might be confused and I can say, I am not confused. I do not blame God for not understanding every verse in the Bible. My not understanding gives me something to work at. Why is it you criticize someone for resolving in their mind the problems you see? We have come to our own separate conclusions and one can be more correct than the other and you might be correct more than me on a subject. Both of us have to put up our reasoning and if the other is persuaded, so be it. The beginning is to start with a sure foundation; (Isaiah 28:16) Therefore thus saith the Lord GOD, Behold, I lay in Zion for a foundation a stone, a tried stone, a precious corner stone, a sure foundation: he that believeth shall not make haste. 17 Judgment also will I lay to the line, and righteousness to the plummet: and the hail shall sweep away the refuge of lies, and the waters shall overflow the hiding place.

Because he guided men to write the Bible but not the translators? Is it too much to ask that he guided the translators as well? That is so silly to think otherwise.

You have resolved nothing in your mind. Up above you were calling into question translation errors about the plain meaning of words. That is a major problem. If you can't decipher which errors are legit or not then the Bible is useless.

Yes we do have seperate conclusions. But my conclusions accept the plain meaning of words. Yours do not. You have to play words games to make your conclusions fit. And that doesn't even account for the translation problem you have introduced.

It is a sweeping generalization that is not true for all. There are those few who have found the truth and I agree with you that many have not. Do you not think, that is one reason many will not enter the kingdom of God? "The fear of the Lord is the beginning of Wisdom". "In getting Wisdom. get understanding". Human pride and arrogance alienate a person from fearing God. For all we disagree about different doctrines, it is the person who truly walks in the spirit and naturally does that which God wants us to do, that counts. A simple answer is found in Micah to the question; What does the LORD require of thee? (Micah 6:7) but to do justly, and to love mercy, and to walk humbly with thy God?

It is a sweeping generalization that includes you as well. Don't even tell me you are one of the few who have found the truth. You admitted yesterday you were still looking for the one correct truth. Pus, your version of truth is not solid and you introduced translation problems. Arguments can easily be made that proves your beliefs wrong.

The Bible has all the answers that the uninspired writings of men do not have. Explanations as to the origin, purpose and destiny of man are given us from the Creator. This does not come from science. It is a pity you are putting up excuses instead of looking for answers in the Bible.

No it doesn't. The Bible is a mass of confusion that people have been arguing about for millenia. The Bible answers nothing of our origins. It claims things but that's it. Science knows for a FACT that much Genesis isn't true. It's a pity you don't accept this as fact.

I believe God's word is Truth. I have an understanding of God's word. That understanding might not be perfect, but at least it is an understanding and an understanding I am being challenged on this forum to explain, and I am doing so.

I know you think The Bible is God's word. Why?

You can't have an understanding of God's word since your still looking for the one correct truth. And you called into question translational errors. Those are monumental tasks to overcome. No one has yet.

It is not my fault, if what I say, is rejected. We are free to reject each others reasons. I have many reasons for believing God exists. If you do not believe God exists, then we have no common ground.

The reason what you say gets rejected is because you offer no evidence with your assertions. That's all you do is assert things. If you want people to believe what your saying to be true, you have to demonstrate it.

All the reasons acceptable to me for believing in God, you will reject. If I present you with two explanations, are you going to reject one out of hand and only accept that which fits in with your own ideas? What do you think is a subject which is simple and on which we disagree that we might start putting forward all our evidence for believing as we do? We cannot reason together unless we first accept we have to reason from the Bible. You do not have to believe God exists, to understand the truth of what the authors intended us to understand. Our differences lie with understanding the text. We have to understand the text before we can come to an agreement on a doctrine.

Ok. Sounds good. Give me your two explanations. I'm all ears.

If we start with Jesus and what Jesus believed, we do not find Jesus condemning God for those horrific events recorded in the OT (ancient scriptures). The fact that Jesus mentions Noah, and Lot and Abraham and Jonah means that Jesus believed those stories to be true. It would be good if we could question Jesus directly, but we cannot. If Jesus believed the stories in the scriptures he read, should not we believe also? We can build on another person's understanding, though we have to be certain of the foundations of that person's belief. Jesus is the Son of God, so there can be no better foundation to build on than the teaching of Jesus. Jesus has taught us by example of how we should conduct our lives; is that how people live their lives today or down the ages? Living a pleasing life to God is more important than knowing prophecy. At the very least, we are told to be patient and wait and watch for the coming (return) of Jesus. That is only one lifetime away for any of us; (Matt 24:46) Blessed is that servant, whom his lord when he cometh shall find so doing. In simple terms, the last 2,000 years has been the time the bridegroom delayed in coming. It has given time for gentiles like you and me to come to a knowledge of God and his son and come into relationship with them. In all generations there have been reasons to expect Jesus to come in their lifetime. However, there has to come a time when the generation spoken of by Jesus will be alive when he comes in power and glory which is an event the world will not fail to know about, but then for many, that will come too late. That sign of Jesus coming has not been seen. Jesus has made the message simple and the parables tell us these things, yet parables remain a mystery to those who do not have the spiritual eyes and ears, whereby they can understand. The question has to be asked, what is it about those people that makes them have closed spiritual eyes and ears?

That's the problem with the stories in the Bible. How do we know Jesus read anything? How do we know Jesus said anything? How do we know the authors didn't assert things say Jesus said them? We have no way of knowing. We know that Mark, Mathew, Luke, and John were certainly NOT eye witnesses to Jesus time on earth. The Gospels repeat and contradict each other at every turn. For eyewitness to be credible they have to be in agreement. They certainly are not.

I have thought about these things long ago and that is why I am comfortable with what I believe. I am not finding excuses. As for people who are in ignorance, we have two possibilities; 1) God can raise them from the dead to be in His kingdom, or 2) God can just let them die and remain in ignorance. What you do not know, you do not worry about. It does not matter to me, whether people who are in "ignorance" God can raise up to be in his kingdom. All I know is; I am not in ignorance and therefore I am responsible and accountable. I have to answer for myself and not for others. As for ignorance of the law; "ignorance" is no excuse according to the laws of this land. This is what Paul (the Bible) says concerning the law; (Romans 4:15) for where no law is, there is no transgression. If there is no transgression, then God, in order to be just, can grant those not under the law to enter his kingdom. We are all under the natural law of death (even Jesus could have grown old and died), but whereas God has provided a way of escape from eternal death, those who have not come to God to be saved, might just remain dead.

You obviously haven't given any serious thought to this topic. God said the ignorant are NOT exempt to judgment. Everyone is subjected to judgement. Acts 17:30-31 30 The times of ignorance God overlooked, but now he commands all people everywhere to repent, 31 because he has fixed a day on which he will judge the world in righteousness by a man whom he has appointed; and of this he has given assurance to all by raising him from the dead.”

So God is going to judge these people regardless of ignorance.

Here is a passage which might seem out of context but if you liken the entry of God's people (in the wilderness) into the promised land, then the same can be like the entry into the kingdom to come. (Deut 1:39) 39 Moreover your little ones, which ye said should be a prey, and your children, which in that day had no knowledge between good and evil, they shall go in thither, and unto them will I give it, and they shall possess it. 40 But as for you, turn you, and take your journey into the wilderness by the way of the Red sea. 41 Then ye answered and said unto me, We have sinned against the LORD,

That is quite a leap. How do you justify that?

What do you mean by "eternal damnation".? Eternal death in which there is no memory and no conciousness is not cruelty. God is merciful even in death.

But that is not what the Bible says the ignorant will get. They will get judged regardless of ignorance. That is NOT merciful.

Again, what do you mean by "eternal damnation"? God is just if he prescribes the penalty according to what he has said. It is unjust of God if the penalty is more grievous than he has previously prescribed. Eternal torment is not the teaching of the Bible and any verse that might allude to that must be correctly understood. In death (as stated above) there is no conciousness and no memory. The dead remain dead and oblivious of everything. Concerning other judgements of God in which he shows mercy as he did to King David (and for good reason) then why should we blame God for being merciful (lenient) and not imposing the death penalty there and then? In fact, had God done so in David's case, God could not have kept his promise to David and fulfilled his purpose through the line of David.

What I mean by eternal damnation is exactly what the Bible says. You ASSUME your interpretation is correct. There is plenty of evidence to suggest eternal damnation to the wicked. And your assertion that any verses that allude to that need to be correcly understood is laughable. Because you yourself allude to things with ambigious verses.

Let's look at some verses.

The evil will rise to be condemned. John 5:28-29 8 “Do not be amazed at this, for a time is coming when all who are in their graves will hear his voice 29 and come out—those who have done what is good will rise to live, and those who have done what is evil will rise to be condemned.

All evil people go to the same place. Into a lake of fire. Revelation 20:12-25 12 And I saw the dead, great and small, standing before the throne, and books were opened. Another book was opened, which is the book of life. The dead were judged according to what they had done as recorded in the books. 13 The sea gave up the dead that were in it, and death and Hades gave up the dead that were in them, and each person was judged according to what they had done. 14 Then death and Hades were thrown into the lake of fire. The lake of fire is the second death. 15 Anyone whose name was not found written in the book of life was thrown into the lake of fire.

Mathew mentions the lake of fire. [B] Mathew 18:8 8 If your hand or your foot causes you to stumble, cut it off and throw it away. It is better for you to enter life maimed or crippled than to have two hands or two feet and be thrown into eternal fire.

Luke mentions thr agony of fire after death. Luke 16:22-24 22 “The time came when the beggar died and the angels carried him to Abraham’s side. The rich man also died and was buried. 23 In Hades, where he was in torment, he looked up and saw Abraham far away, with Lazarus by his side. 24 So he called to him, ‘Father Abraham, have pity on me and send Lazarus to dip the tip of his finger in water and cool my tongue, because I am in agony in this fire.’

Jude mentions eternal fire. Jude 1:7 7 In a similar way, Sodom and Gomorrah and the surrounding towns gave themselves up to sexual immorality and perversion. They serve as an example of those who suffer the punishment of eternal fire.

MAthew again mentions eternal punishment. Mathew 25:46 46 “Then they will go away to eternal punishment, but the righteous to eternal life.”

2 Thesalonians speaks of eternal punshiment. 2 Thesalonians. 1:9 They will be punished with everlasting destruction and shut out from the presence of the Lord and from the glory of his might

2 Thesalonians again mentions eternal punishement. 2 Thesalonians 1:5-10 5 All this is evidence that God’s judgment is right, and as a result you will be counted worthy of the kingdom of God, for which you are suffering. 6 God is just: He will pay back trouble to those who trouble you 7 and give relief to you who are troubled, and to us as well. This will happen when the Lord Jesus is revealed from heaven in blazing fire with his powerful angels. 8 He will punish those who do not know God and do not obey the gospel of our Lord Jesus. 9 They will be punished with everlasting destruction and shut out from the presence of the Lord and from the glory of his might 10 on the day he comes to be glorified in his holy people and to be marveled at among all those who have believed. This includes you, because you believed our testimony to you.

You assertion that God is just for not punishing people after death is wrong. God clearly punishes those who haven't even heard the gospel. That is NOT just and moral. These verses provide enough evidence that your doctrine is not the only correct one.

That is your conclusion based on your understanding. As I have explained, that is not the same understanding I have and therefore, your conclusions are wrong to me. I let others be the judge as to who is more correct.

No it is based on mutually confirming verses.

Again, what do you mean by "stark reality". Death is a reality for us all, but is no more stark than when you are at sleep and unconscious and not aware of anything that is going on around you. The fiction writer Raymond Chandler described death as the "Big Sleep".

Yes I know death is a reality for everyone. But your "soul sleep" belief is contradicted by the plain text of the Bible.

Is not your belief "the Bible is not true" a preconceived bias? If not and you have come to that conclusion after studying and perhaps believing it for a time, why should you criticise me for having come to my conclusion? I have come to the conclusion the Bible is true. It is not now a preconceived idea. Now there might be a verse I do not yet understand and yet believe it is true. I cannot let one verse negate the whole of scripture. Whatever the truth is about a verse I do not understand, I keep an open mind to what the truth is. It cannot possibly contradict what God has predetermined will happen. Letting man rule himself and proving man is hopeless, is not proving God is not in control. God will not let man destroy himself completely and in the process destroy the earth; God will not let ithat happen. God is ruling in the kingdoms of men and fulfilling prophecy in these days; it is not sufficient to say; no he is not without adequate proof.

No it is not a preconceived bias. Because at one time I believed the Bible. But I saw that a lot of the stuff in the Bible is false based on evidence.

The reason I criticise you for a preconcieved bias is because you have a doctrine to uphold and therefore you look for ways yo justify your beliefs. You show absolutely no sceptisim to anything that contradicts you.

You won't want to go to the thread in which I have explained how Jesus defeated the devil by his death. Here is the link anyway; http://www.biblewheel.com/forum/showthread.php?3370-The-death-of-Jesus-and-the-destruction-of-the-devil
The problem we have now is; you have also introduced the devil into this discussion and we start a new subject. Understanding the true nature of the Devil and Satan and Angels is the problem we have between us. I know my explanations are not accepted, but for me, my explanations resolve many of the problems I used to have. The "angels" of 2 Peter 2:4 and Jude 6 did not make sense to me until I resolved it for myself. I was given an hint and then I did my own exposition and I know the "angels" in those two verses (speaking of the same event) are human. There has been built up a myth about God's Angels like God's Angels having sex with humans and this is not scriptural and is forced. Why do you not condemn those people for saying something the Bible does not say? Richard will present a verse by way of his proof which is not proof to me, because I understand the verse(s) differently to him and that is why I say to Richard he has not given me proof. Then Richard will argue with me that I have not disproved him or given proof. My proof is in the explanation I give. That is why I challenge you to say; I have not given you proof. I have stated my beliefs all over this forum and given my explanation of verses to support my belief.

Thanks for the link David. But your view of Satan or devils is grossly contradictory of many verses. You think the devil is a personification of evil but the scriptures explicitly say otherwise.

The reason I don't condemn people for there beliefs about angels is because there is ambiguity about this subject. You want everyone to assume you are correct and ignore scripture that contrdicts you. There is no definitive answer on this subject. Because you say so is not proof.

I do, but I have not received eternal life now and if Jesus delays his coming by another 10 years (doubtful as I think that will be) I will eventually die and unless I am raised to life to realize it, then I would cease to exist. Unconsciousness would not even come into it, if I was not raised. However, as I believe God preserves our "spirit" by which God knows us, the same spirit Jesus said at the moment of dying; "into Thy hands I commend my spirit" That spirit is the pattern which God will use to reunite with a body at resurrection. At resurrection those who are given eternal life are given the same immortal body which was given to Jesus; hence "we shall be like him" and we cannot equal ourselves with God, which Jesus has never done. Even saying what I have just said, I have mentioned other fundamental points of scripture we do not agree on. Somehow we have to break our discussion down to concentrate on one point at a time, and this is difficult. This is why in reply to Richard I likened understanding the Bible to that of rearranging a Rubik's cube. It is not a perfect analogy to liken the Bible to a puzzle, but what is happening is that there is a lot of misunderstanding by selecting verses which are misunderstood and taken out of their proper context. It is man who by the many different interpretations is making the Bible appear similar to a Rubik's cube and we have to rearrange all the passages and get them into context and have the correct meaning until we have each subject appearing coherent. That is when there is no contradiction and nothing is out of place. It might never be done to perfection, but who is to say 99% cannot be achieved. The 1% I would not let distract me from accepting the 99%.

David ALL are resurrected. Not just the believers. Your unconscious sleep doctrine contradicts the Bible. It's a never ending process. You explain one verse and are contradicted by many.

What would lead you to believe Jesus will return in 10 years?

Also you are wrong Jesus did equal himself with God. There are many verses that confirm this.

You did not respond to the following. I see Richard picked up on this and I have to reply to Richard.

I did answer you. I said you could make a case for all of those.

The problem is we can take the fundamental doctrines and according to the many different interpretations we end up with numerous combinations. I wanted to know what Richard thought the Bible teaches and list the top twenty (10 would have sufficed. Since each subject has several interpretations (although in truth there can only be one), if we have 10 subjects and 2 possibilities per subject, that gives up 20 possible combinations of belief. We should only end up with 10 and therefore we have to dismiss some by reasoning these things out.

Very true. But why not accept the plainly obvious things the Bible teaches? You have to explain away far too much to force your view.
In my eyes, your view just makes no sense because the simple things are left with no value.

Richard Amiel McGough

04-14-2013, 05:33 PM

The references you quote I have dealt with at some length in the thread; 'Jesus is not God'. Each one of those verses could be phrased in a different way. Once again the bias of the translators might come into this. I challenge your understanding of these verses and accept the fact you choose to go with the wording that most supports your claim. It does not mean you are correct.

Good afternoon David,

I had always intended on jumping in on that thread, but got distracted. I'll respond to your explanations over there.

But you really should stop with the mantra about the "bias of the translators" since obviously you are strongly biased towards your position. Such comments add nothing to the conversation, agreed?

That would have been a mistake by me if I said the "kingdom in Heaven". I am contrasting those who think the kingdom is in Heaven with those who think the kingdom is on earth.

And that's why it was so confusing for you to apparently be contrasting the "kingdom of heaven" with the "kingdom of God." Many Futurists have invented doctrines from those synonyms. I thought that's what you were doing.

The idea that there will be an earthly millennial kingdom simply is not well-established in the Bible. It's find if you want to believe it, but it is not something clearly taught in Scripture and should never be used in any argument for Futurism since it is one of the assumptions of Futurism. You don't want to beg the question.

Of course you know the timing in that verse is very dependent upon where the comma is placed. There is no difficulty in accepting the thief will be in God's kingdom

I can't believe you have bought into that silly old argument popularized by the Jehovah's Witnesses. There is no "comma" in the Greek and there is absolutely no ambiguity in that verse. Again, we see that you must deal with the verses that contradict your doctrines by creating ambiguities that don't even exist. This is why your doctrines are so very unbelievable. A rational review of your interpretations shows that your "arguments" are forced. You must create ambiguities and then choose the most unlikely interpretation to force your doctrines.

Paul tells us in verse 1; I will come to visions... The language of Paul in this whole section must be dealt with and not just a small part of it. We should not just take one part of a quote from the whole passage without getting the whole passage into the proper context as the author intends. Again, it is not unusual for Paul and the other epistle writers to refer to mythology of the day. Though the word "paradise" is used, it does not tell us anything about "paradise". The parables of Jesus are easier to understand and I doubt Paul would deliberately say anything contradictory to Jesus.

It is only YOU who would be thinking that Paul was contradicting Jesus. I see no contradiction in understanding that Paul was talking about Paradise in "heaven" where Jesus said he and the thief would be the day they died. You are the one creating that contradiction when you deny the many plain verses of the Bible that speak of the dead being conscious "with the Lord."

Now again, you must understand what's really going on here. The same verses can be HARMONIZED in two different ways. One that fits your interpretation and one that fits the traditional interpretation. Both involve many verses and many assumptions and many "explanations" that make the difficult verses fit. This is why the Bible is like a Necker Cube. So the only important question is this: How is anyone going to know which is right? How is it that two equally devout and informed and studious believers can come to opposite conclusions? How can you ever have any confidence that you are right if you have not really compared which of the two systems is better .... or what if they are equally valid?

Revelation 2:7 He that hath an ear, let him hear what the Spirit saith unto the churches; To him that overcometh will I give to eat of the tree of life, which is in the midst of the paradise of God.
This is poetic language and is paralleled with the Garden of Eden which God made special for Adam and Eve and they were expelled from the garden after they sinned. Maybe there is a reserved garden in the midst of Jerusalem that will be known as "paradise". It is figurative language and how that is realized literally in the time to come, we have to wait and see. We can try to glean what we can from the Bible, but these few isolated and hard verses to fully understand and should not distract from the larger portion that is easier to understand.

Merely asserting it is figurative proves nothing. How do you know it is figurative? The only reason you say so is because that's what you need to say to make you interpretation work. That's call special pleading. It is a fallacy because I could just as well use special pleading to "prove" the opposite conclusion. So again, if you want to have any confidence that your interpretation is correct, you must use valid logic. Otherwise, you could be deceiving yourself.

So obviously, any interpretation will depend upon a thousand other interpretations which will depend upon presuppositions. And so it is with any interpretation. How then can anyone determine which collection of SUPPOSITIONS + INTERPRETATIONS + EXPLANATIONS is correct? Each part of each "interpretation" depends upon which verses you "accepted" and which verse you "explained away" to fit with your presuppositions. This is why the Bible is like a Necker Cube. The same data gives two possible self-coherent interpretations.
I expect at some point not all interpretations can co-exist and be true. That is the point; we have to whittle them all down and make a decision as to which to dis-guard or put on one side if unsure.

But if you let yourself use fallacies and unsupported presuppositions, you will almost certainly deceive yourself. The only way you can ever be confident that you are right is if you hold yourself to the same standard as everyone else. But that means that you must acknowledge that the other person has explanations that are valid under their paradigm just like you think your explanations are valid under your paradigm. You need to compare whole systems of interpretation to see which makes more assumptions, which explains more verses with better logic, and which has the biggest problems, etc.

Your call to work with you has not gone unnoticed, but then you have a way of going off track. Since I stated a long time ago, Jude 6 was a watershed, Angels sinning is a topic that should not have too many verses to deal with. That might bring in the devil and so that also has to be dealt with alongside and done so in a separate thread running in parallel. It would be good to stay focussed and do as you say; can you stay focussed? I set out to keep 'the Splitting of the Mount of Olives' focussed and yet that was getting hijacked and taken off course which appears to be the inevitable way of most threads.

There are many more verses than you think because all the verses are interconnected. As you noted, all the verses that speak of Satan as a personal being must also be explained away, as you did in a recent post. But that involves many more verses. This is why it is wrong to start with something AMBIGUOUS like angels sinning. We must start with things that are NOT ambiguous and build from there. That's the only way, as should be obvious from our attempt to discuss the angels that sinned.

I have tried to get you focused for a long time on what I think are the true and obvious fundamental passages. I'm talking about the final prophecies of the OT that were fulfilled in the NT. They are fundamental because they were necessary for Christ to be the Messiah. And they are fundamental because the reveal the "Big Picture" of the NT that is essential to understand if you want to understand the Bible at all. But I can't get you to actually FOCUS on the MAIN THEME of the NT because it contradicts the doctrines you teach.

What about we have a table containing several columns and we add to it. We decide on a premise such as; 'God's Angels sin' and add our verses for and against on the subject. We can each have a column to state our understanding of each verse. One column can be reserved for keeping score. A + or - when we agree a verses supports the premise or not. We can make changes to the layout of the table after we have made a start. I cannot decide whether three or five columns would be better and listing our verses and comments separately in our respective columns.

Yes, we could do that for any theme we like. And we would have three columns - one for each of us to score, and then the DIFFERENCE in our scores, and so we will no precisely what we agree about and what we don't.

State the number verses have I explained away. Be factual; let's see how many. This shows you are jumping to a conclusion before a matter has been thoroughly investigated. There is a fifth possibility, if as you conclude, the Bible teaches "Christ is both man and God". I see a time when Christ the man has the power of God, which Jesus said had been given him. (Jesus would not give himself anything, if he was God). I have explained elsewhere there will be a time in which Christ will be ruling on the earth as God, with all the power of God and making all judgements as God would make. This would keep in with God's pattern of the 7th day as a day of rest, in which God takes a Sabbath rest. Jesus takes over while God is taking his Sabbath rest. That still leave Jesus as the man made immortal and the only raised immortal to have been given total authority and power of God and carry his name. At the end of the Sabbath rest, Christ hands the kingdom back to God for the new beginning starting the 8th day (millennium)
We can count up the number of verses in the "Jesus is not God" thread.

And yes, your suggestion that there are more possibilities is certainly correct. I did not mean to imply my list was exhaustive.

But the idea of Christ "ruling the earth as God" does not deal with many of the verses that imply he is God. And it doesn't deal with the verses that imply he preexisted.

And that's the game of harmonization. It is pointless to play that game over relatively irrelevant concepts like "angels sinning" if we cannot about the main and the plain things established by many mutually confirming verses. There must be a FOUNDATION OF AGREEMENT or we will never make any progress at all. It's really quite simple. We should be able to agree about what the Bible actually says, and when we come to a disagreement about some point, we should be able to agree about the exact nature of the disagreement. Then we can focus on that point and come to a mutual understanding. Why can't we do that?
So you are going to stop the exercise you want us to do before we get started. If not "Angels", the devil it can be.

Huh? I didn't say that. I was just saying that we need to find a foundation of broad agreement or we'll never be able to agree about anything.

You have no doctrines to protect, yet you promote doctrines you say the Bible teaches. If you do not hold such doctrines, why are you so protective of them as something you say the Bible teaches? Whether you believe them or not you appear as one who does; I see no difference.

I am not protective of them. But I am protective of logic, and so I simply give you the reasons I think they are what the Bible teaches. I personally don't believe in God or Christ, so obviously I don't believe the doctrines that I believe the Bible teaches.

It is true that there are simple errors believed by the majority. Case in point: there is no spiritual being named "Lucifer" in the real Bible. That's just a translation error, but it is believed by the majority of Christians, including many teachers.
What other things can you list like this? List more possible points of agreement!

Maybe we should start a thread on that topic. I think you would be delighted with some of them - but on the other hand, maybe not, since most of the erroneous beliefs are things having to do with futurist eschatology. But even then, there are things you don't agree with, such as the rebuilt temple, right? So who knows, maybe we will find lots of agreement. And it would be good to get a list of common beliefs not actually taught in the Bible. Here's one: The Bible doesn't say there were three magi who visited the Christ child.

L67 is just siding with you and you welcome it. I have yet to have sound reasons from L67 to convince me otherwise.

That's not true. L67 gave the same reasons I gave. You really need to admit the truth on this one David. The proof is on the level of 1 + 2 = 3. It is self evident to anyone who understands basic logic. There is no ambiguity here.

But when it comes to your errors, I have proved them in spades. I have explained them in gory detail and you have not refuted a word I wrote. You simply ignored what I wrote and refuse to admit the truth. L67 bears witness of this fact, and no one has shown any error in any of my proofs.
L67 and I have got a reasonable dialogue going and I am waiting for L67's next reply to see how much longer we can keep going. Unfortunately, we do not have much support on either side and readers are happy not to get involved. Stop this self-exaltation, you have not won your argument. There is a long way to go, if you are going to present all the evidence in the way that you want us to work together. Until we complete a project, I would refrain from all claims of victory. You have not presented anything in opposition to my understanding, which I have not been able to challenge you evidence and even if there is one point that might happen, that is not total proof you are correct. We both have to agree to a consensus of all relevant verses.

I have not claimed to have won every argument. I was speaking specifically of your errors concerning your formulation of your paradox that you say implies angels cannot sin. And this most certainly is not "self-exaltation." I am calling you to actually DEAL WITH THE PROOF I HAVE GIVEN of that specific error. I am challenging you because we will never be able to have a rational, LOGICAL discussion as long as you continue in your rejection of basic logic. I have proven my point with utter precision, perfection, and clarity. The answers you have offered have been pathetically incoherent and literally filled with gibberish. And worse, you have continued to repeat the same error even in the very posts where you were supposed to be responding to my explanation of your error, and you have never shown any understanding of your error even though I have been explaining it for months.

It is that AMBIGUITY that allows people to come to different conclusions. This is why the Bible is like a Necker cube. It is truly ambiguous on many points. And you know this because you use that ambiguity to try to prove your doctrines. For example, you say that the meaning of "angels" is ambiguous and that the meaning of "heaven" is ambiguous and the meaning of "Satan" is ambiguous. And on and on you go. All you doctrines are fundamentally based on AMBIGUITY that you exploit in your effort to establish your fringe doctrines that most serious Bible believers reject.
Maybe the word "ambiguity" as I have said, is the wrong word. The word "angels" can apply to humans and God's Angels. The ambiguity comes in wrongly applying the wrong meaning in the context of what is being said. Correctly applied and there is no ambiguity. I am not using "ambiguities" to base my doctrine on. It so happens I am clearing up the ambiguity caused by those who wrongly apply the wrong definition in the context of what is being spoken about.
The thing that happened early on in our discussion to do with prophecy is that when I gave you an alternative interpretation you could not accept, you said that was "moot". On that basis, whenever I give you an alternative explanation, you are going to say; "the point is moot". That is why no discussion on prophecy would continue with you. We have a situation where the many subjects of the Bible have all be twisted up and mixed together. It is like unravelling a badly tangled rope. It is bad enough unravelling one length of rope, unravelling two equally entwined and twisted ropes is more than twice the effort of unravelling each rope individually. We have lie compounded upon lie and we have to separate out each lie and get to the truth. Some people are further forward in doing this than others. Our aim should be, to reason these things out, so we are all on the same page, but that seems like an impossibility.

The word "ambiguity" is totally accurate. The "angels" is a perfect example. The plain reading of both Peter and Jude is that they are speaking of fallen angels. There is no question on this point. Jude quotes Enoch IN CONTEXT and Enoch is ALL ABOUT FALLEN ANGELS who had sex with women. Likewise, Peter speaks of angels being cast into Tartarus which is the place where Zeus cast the Titans when they rebelled. And the rebellion itself is recorded in Rev 12 (war in heaven). And you most definitely do base all your explanations on the ambiguity of the words. The plain meaning is obvious, so you must say "angels can mean either humans or God's angels, and there are three meanings of the word "heaven" and Satan is presented as a personal agent but he isn't really, and when Jesus is said to be creator it really means he was used by the creator, and .... and ... and ... Admit it David. All your doctrines are based on ambiguous words that you say do not mean what most other people say they mean.
You have done it again and you prove my point. You are saying Peter and Jude teach that God's Angels sin. Everything I have said about your interpretation proves what I have said is true. You totally ignore the possibility despite my lengthy exposition of Jude 5 and 6. Again, you introduce the Book of Enoch after we both know the Book, as it has become, is not to be trusted. There is nothing in the canon of scripture that says God's Angels had sex with humans. You are going over old ground raking up the Book of Enoch that should have been dumped and never mentioned again. You simply will not get off track. That is your dogma because you support it and keep repeating it. This argument with the Book of Enoch should be long over between us. It remains grounds for not continuing. Referring to the Book of Enoch as a trusted source shows your own dishonesty in clinging to a book you rightly described as a "book not to be trusted" and is unreliable. How the book came to be that way, you can tell me. it is not the book Jude would have been referring to with the teaching you now say it has.

I did not "do it again" and I did not "prove your point." I simply spoke like YOU do when you say that angels can't sin. You have been repeating this over and over and over again, so you have no reason to complain if I repeat the reasons I come to the opposite conclusion. But that was not even my point. My POINT was that your arguments are all based on the AMBIGUITY of words. Look at the text I highlighted red. That was the POINT that I was answering.

Now your assertion that I "totally ignore the possibility" the angels are human is false. I have repeated a thousand times that that is a possibility, but concluded that that possibility is not well supported by the context of Peter or Jude, and I gave reasons for my conclusion that you never refuted. You just repeat your assertions. You need to ADMIT that it also is a "possibility" that the word "angels" means "God's Angels" and that Peter and Jude are teaching that they have sinned. There is MUCH evidence supporting that point of view and the only reason you have for rejecting the evidence is because it contradicts your presupposition that they can't sin.

And again, you are TOTALLY CONFUSED about the Book of Enoch. It is not true to say "we both know the Book, as it has become, is not to be trusted." That's NOT TRUE and I NEVER SAID THAT! I have explained this to you a dozen times and you still do not understand. The problem is NOT what that book "has become." The book of Enoch has always taught about fallen angels having sex. That's what the book is all about. And that's why it is so significant that Jude quoted from it. He knew it was talking about fallen angels. You need to admit this point. You have been confused on it for a very long time.

Now I agree that there is "nothing in the canon of scripture that says God's Angels had sex with humans." And that is the reason I rejected Enoch back when I was a Christian, as I explained many times to you. You know that when I rejected the book of Enoch, I also asked "WHY DID GOD ALLOW JUDE TO QUOTE A BOOK THAT TAUGHT ANGELS HAD SEX WITH WOMEN" and my answer was "I don't know." You see David, I had INTEGRITY back then, even when I was a Christian. So I did not deny the truth which is that Jude quoted a book that said fallen angels had sex with women. I was the same then as I am now and simply said "I don't know why God did that." I did not just reject TRUTH and deny reality to make it fit with how I wanted the Bible to be.

It is absurd for you to say this is my "dogma." It is no kind of "dogma" at all. I am speaking the same TRUTH I spoke when I was a Christian. Jude quoted a book that said fallen angels had sex with women. That's what I said when I was a Christian, and you know it because you are the one who went and found that old post from 2007. But didn't read it carefully, so you thought that it supported your case when in fact it directly contradicted your case. And even now you are repeating the same error. You need to write something that indicates you understand what I am explaining to you.

You repeated the same error yet again when you wrote "Referring to the Book of Enoch as a trusted source shows your own dishonesty in clinging to a book you rightly described as a "book not to be trusted" and is unreliable." First, I never said that Enoch was a "trusted source" so you are putting false words in my mouth again. And more importantly, you assertion that my position is in any way "dishonest" is UTTERLY ABSURD. My current position concerning the book of Enoch is identical to what it was when I was a Christian. It is identical to what I said in the post from 2007 that you quote. Your errors on this point are inexcusable.

I am not interested in small cults, which with some charismatic leader are duping the people. It is both easy for you and me to spot these cults and these are not a minority worth considering. They are mere distractions and not even worth mentioning.

I think Michael Rood is an obvious small cult within the slightly larger cult of the "Hebrew Roots Movement" so obviously these groups are "worth mentioning" because they are quite relevant to our conversations.

Great chatting!

David

Glad you think so! I do to. Perhaps we can get past all the repetitive crap and begin building a foundation of mutual understanding.

PS let's quit this discussion and get down to the serious investigation you want to do. I am all for dropping this unnecessary nonsense.
Excellent suggestion. Of course, I am of the mind that none of this stuff should have been necessary in the first place. We need to agree to uncover the actual factual FOUNDATION of what the Bible actually teaches, and build from there. This means that no one can include their special presuppositions required to support their particular paradigm. We must begin with what all rational readers would agree that the Bible actually teaches. If this is impossible, we will only have proven that the Bible is an utterly worthless mass of confusion.

L67

04-14-2013, 07:29 PM

L67 is just siding with you and you welcome it. I have yet to have sound reasons from L67 to convince me otherwise.

David it is ridiculous for you to say I am just siding with Richard. It was painfully obvious the error of your ways. An error you still repeat btw. You asked if someone else would jump in and clarify. So I did. You don't like my answers to you so now you just make up stupid assertions.

Nobody can convince you of anything David. You have a mental block that won't let you argue outside of your dogma. You have also rejected your own logic in favor of upholding that same dogma. If you would just put your faith aside for moment and take in the words that are written you might see the problem.

Take care.

Richard Amiel McGough

04-14-2013, 09:10 PM

L67 is just siding with you and you welcome it. I have yet to have sound reasons from L67 to convince me otherwise.
David it is ridiculous for you to say I am just siding with Richard. It was painfully obvious the error of your ways. An error you still repeat btw. You asked if someone else would jump in and clarify. So I did. You don't like my answers to you so now you just make up stupid assertions.

Nobody can convince you of anything David. You have a mental block that won't let you argue outside of your dogma. You have also rejected your own logic in favor of upholding that same dogma. If you would just put your faith aside for moment and take in the words that are written you might see the problem.

Take care.
I'm glad you confirmed that point L67.

David M

04-15-2013, 08:51 AM

David it is ridiculous for you to say I am just siding with Richard. It was painfully obvious the error of your ways. An error you still repeat btw. You asked if someone else would jump in and clarify. So I did. You don't like my answers to you so now you just make up stupid assertions.

Nobody can convince you of anything David. You have a mental block that won't let you argue outside of your dogma. You have also rejected your own logic in favor of upholding that same dogma. If you would just put your faith aside for moment and take in the words that are written you might see the problem.

I'm glad you confirmed that point L67.

Two peas in a pod.

871

Cosy!

All the best

David

L67

04-15-2013, 09:32 AM

Two peas in a pod.

871

Cosy!

All the best

David

lol

David you forgot to take your medicine again.

872

Richard Amiel McGough

04-15-2013, 10:03 AM

Two peas in a pod.

Cosy!

All the best

David
You got that right David. There is nothing more "cozy" than the Law of Non-Contradiction. Everything fits together in perfect harmony. All who abide by truth are in perfect harmony with each other.

873

Here's the post (http://www.biblewheel.com/forum/showthread.php?3361-War-in-Heaven-Revelation-12-7/page3&p=49625#post49625) where David contradicted the Law of Non-Contradiction even as he asserted that he "did not disagree with it."

David M

04-15-2013, 11:39 AM

Sorry to hear about the head cold. Hope for a speedy recovery. Thanks

David it appears we keep talking past each other. There is no point for me to explain that verse because I have repeatedly said I agree with what you are saying. I understand your point perfectly clear. But that verse does not give credibility to your claims that "most" of Christianity is wrong. In order to justify that verse you have to demonstrate the truth in your words. How can you prove your claim is factual? That is why I keep telling you the meaning of that verse is irrelevant. You have to prove the truth in your words. Saying you are quoting the inerrant word of God is not sufficient. I understand that what I give as proof is not accepted by you, therefore I cannot prove it to you.

Do you know how absurd your argument is? You have to completely twist words to fit your beliefs. By the time you are done playing word games there is no meaning left to those words. If you have to question the translators about the basic meaning of words, then how can you be sure anything in the Bible is correct? I can be sure, but then you cannot be. I do not let your doubt be the reason for my doubt. Just give me your better explanation or else just stick with the face value of words regardless of what the translators have personally agreed to.

You talk about translation errors. I would like to point something out to you. Men were inspired to write the word of God in explicit detail. God went to great lengths to ensure his word was written in explicit detail. But he doesn't guide the translators the same way he guided the original authors? Instead, he allows translation errors into his word. What kind of sense does that make? He knew this problem would crop up so why didn't he correct it? You have just proven your way of thinking totally renders the Bible useless as any sort of guide. If the translations errors cause basic words to have different meaning, the Bible is utterly useless. And worse it shows God didn't care if errors crept into his word. I understand your concern and it does on the face of it seem puzzling unless you can somehow accept God is wise and we do not understand his wisdom. Some people can claim the fact that we have a Bible today as a form of miracle, because of all the attempts to eradicate it. God had left his word to be preserved by man and the fact that man has corrupted it is nothing new considering all the other corruption man has caused. We should applaud those who are correcting the translation errors. Are you just annoyed at me or you going to blame those who are making the corrections in the first place. I am not claiming to have found the errors. I am happy when something in the Bible does not sit right and a translation error that someone has found then makes sense of it.

Ok, good we agree on something. No that does not prove your argument. You have to demonstrate why your interpretation of Jesus words is correct. But you couldn't even begin to demonstrate such a claim. Because Christians could easily say the same about you. Prime example. You don't believe in the trinity. But there is plenty evidence to suggest the trinity is legit. So what if you are wrong? That means you aren't following Jesus words. It's a never ending circle of endless interpretation. I am amongst the majority for having at least something wrong. I can be both in a majority and a minority depending upon what you base the majority to be. OK so you agree the veneration of Mary by the largest Christian church is correct or you think the Trinity is correct. You have to go back to the days when the T was forced through and there was not the overriding consensus that it was true.
Please tell me what the criteria are by which Jesus says "few will find the narrow way". That should put both of us on alert. Few does not mean the masses. Any church representing the masses, must be in doubt. Just tell me the criteria by which you know the masses I am referring to are all going to find the narrow way? Stop concentrating on me and get down to reasoning why.

Yes true. We won't get sidetracked into a long argument about this. But show me one verse that shows a future earthly kingdom or 1000 year reign. You don't have to explain anything just post the verses.(Rev 20:4) And I saw thrones, and they sat upon them, and judgment was given unto them: and I saw the souls of them that were beheaded for the witness of Jesus, and for the word of God, and which had not worshipped the beast, neither his image, neither had received his mark upon their foreheads, or in their hands; and they lived and reigned with Christ a thousand years. The resurrection has not taken place and so those whose heads were chopped off, are not reigning with Christ, but when they do, they reign for 1000 years. Now I know this has been argued as a longish time and I sometimes quote that so as not to keep having the same argument. In the pattern of things and it is good we are near to the end, because hindsight becomes clearer. I am convinced God is working to a 7,000 year time-scale and Jesus reigns as God in the 7th millennium while God takes his Sabbath rest. Jesus reign will reign on earth, but we do not have to go into all that if you disagree.

You are accused of having preconceived ideas because you do. You have the preconceived ideas handed down from men. You didn't just learn your beliefs on your own.
We learn form all sources and yes we do learn from other men, I am not saying I have learned everything on my own and without help. I am putting years of listening and reading together to what I consider is the Truth of God's word. It so happens I agree with like-minded people. It does not matter that you are not one of them. Just get down to reasoning from the scripture, that is all I ask and I should not be subjected to personal attack on why I believe what I believe and all the other irrelevancies both you and Richard keep bringing into the discussions. I only want to deal with understand verses in scripture correctly. Everything else is a distraction. You are wasting words on me instead of directing your thoughts to understanding scripture.

This proves you DO have preconcieved bias. You are listeing to Rood to confirm that bias. It absolutely amazing you still refuse to see Rood for what he is.
I suggest you listen to Rood and hear his teaching directly and decide for yourself whether Rood is teaching from the Bible correctly. I know having listened, I trust Rood more than I do you at the moment. You can prove to me what you once believe is correct and then we might get somewhere. I have explained that even if I had preconceived ideas, those preconceptions have long been confirmed to be true. if you say believing the Bible is a preconception, that might have been the case to begin with. From what I know of prophecy, and archaeology the Bible has proven itself time and time again. I can see prophecy being fulfilled in our day; I do not remain cynical about things in the Bible that I do not understand 100%. I do not let a little yeast leaven the whole lump, if you know what I mean. I share my understanding and you can either accept it or not. I do not see what point there is in just saying; "David, you are wrong". Show me and explain to me where I am wrong. I no longer hold the "Bible is true as preconceived idea". I have moved past that. To my satisfaction, the Bible has proved itself true.

Because he guided men to write the Bible but not the translators? Is it too much to ask that he guided the translators as well? That is so silly to think otherwise. Silly to you maybe, but why should I regard it as silly? "God moves in mysterious ways" is to admit we do not no why and how God operates. Forget all the negative and in the words of the song; Accentuate the positive". What is plain and simple in the Bible we can agree on or come to an agreement on. Stick with one or two simple things and then move onto something else.

You have resolved nothing in your mind. Up above you were calling into question translation errors about the plain meaning of words. That is a major problem. If you can't decipher which errors are legit or not then the Bible is useless. These are useless assertions. You cannot speak for my mind. If I have resolved something to my satisfaction, it is to me resolved. The same would apply to you. I cannot tell you you have not resolved something. Unless we talk specifics and not generalities, we are wasting words.

Yes we do have seperate conclusions. But my conclusions accept the plain meaning of words. Yours do not. You have to play words games to make your conclusions fit. And that doesn't even account for the translation problem you have introduced. Even when I accept the plain meaning of words like the "splitting of the Mount of Olives" I am told I am wrong. How can you say I do not accept the plain meaning of words when you do not give me specific examples? Why do you accept "angels" as God Angels when the Greek word translates messengers, priests, ministers? You are being selective by your own choice of words.

That is a sweeping generalization that includes you as well. Don't even tell me you are one of the few who have found the truth. You admitted yesterday you were still looking for the one correct truth. Pus, your version of truth is not solid and you introduced translation problems. Arguments can easily be made that proves your beliefs wrong. Why do you talk in generalities and not specifics. I see you want to pick me up on every point. I accept you are in a minority for what you believe or do not believe. I have no factual basis to work on. An exercise you can do is; list all the different doctrines and put the numbers (from Wikipedia) against them of all the churches that believe those doctrines. If you believe a doctrine that the majority do not believe, that puts you in a minority. I would worry if I belong to the mass of Muslims who claim "Allah is greater" than the God of Israel for example.

No it doesn't. The Bible is a mass of confusion that people have been arguing about for millenia. The Bible answers nothing of our origins. It claims things but that's it. Science knows for a FACT that much Genesis isn't true. It's a pity you don't accept this as fact. The Bible gives a simple explanation for creation. Whether you agree with it or not is another question. Science does not know how to make one atom and is not definite on the number of sub-atomic particles. Scientific theories at the sub-atomic level keep changing. It is doubtful man has long enough to find out what might be impossible anyway.

I know you think The Bible is God's word. Why? Archaeology proves the history mentioned in the Bible true. Historical Prophecy has come true and prophecy is being fulfilled today.

You can't have an understanding of God's word since your still looking for the one correct truth. And you called into question translational errors. Those are monumental tasks to overcome. No one has yet. I do not let say 1% of the truth to be found negate the 99% already found. Start putting some figures to what you say instead of meaningless generalities.

The reason what you say gets rejected is because you offer no evidence with your assertions. That's all you do is assert things. If you want people to believe what your saying to be true, you have to demonstrate it. Please select one assertion you say I have not given any evidence for and give me your evidence of the counter-claim. Then we can start talking seriously.

Ok. Sounds good. Give me your two explanations. I'm all ears. The ball is in your court if you read the post again.
Quote Originally Posted by David M View Post
All the reasons acceptable to me for believing in God, you will reject. If I present you with two explanations, are you going to reject one out of hand and only accept that which fits in with your own ideas? What do you think is a subject which is simple and on which we disagree that we might start putting forward all our evidence for believing as we do? We cannot reason together unless we first accept we have to reason from the Bible. You do not have to believe God exists, to understand the truth of what the authors intended us to understand. Our differences lie with understanding the text. We have to understand the text before we can come to an agreement on a doctrine.

That's the problem with the stories in the Bible. How do we know Jesus read anything? How do we know Jesus said anything? How do we know the authors didn't assert things say Jesus said them? We have no way of knowing. We know that Mark, Mathew, Luke, and John were certainly NOT eye witnesses to Jesus time on earth. The Gospels repeat and contradict each other at every turn. For eyewitness to be credible they have to be in agreement. They certainly are not.
If you really think that, you are not open to receiving any truth. I should not have to give you quotes from the Bible that you can easily find for yourself. When Jesus tempted he would recall scriptures which as we know are our old testament. We have record of Jesus reading in the Synagogue. Really, L67 if you are going to deny the plain and obvious, I see not point in continuing. I cannot afford to waste time talking at this level. Go and do your research or begin to discuss as at scriptural level. I have been patient, and I am trying to lift the conversation to deal with facts please do the same.

You obviously haven't given any serious thought to this topic. God said the ignorant are NOT exempt to judgment. Everyone is subjected to judgement. Acts 17:30-31 30 The times of ignorance God overlooked, but now he commands all people everywhere to repent, 31 because he has fixed a day on which he will judge the world in righteousness by a man whom he has appointed; and of this he has given assurance to all by raising him from the dead.”

So God is going to judge these people regardless of ignorance.

That is quite a leap. How do you justify that?
You have no idea how much time I have given to these subjects. I gave you references and it up to you to decide how you want to interpret them. For example; Where there is no law, there is no transgression of the law" Now go and figure the rest out for yourself to get the answer you want me to give you again.

But that is not what the Bible says the ignorant will get. They will get judged regardless of ignorance. That is NOT merciful. The "dead" in spiritual truth are already dead. If you do not believe you are going to be raised from the dead, you will not worry about being judged. Your expectation will be granted. God is merciful. He was merciful in death to those who died in Sodom and Gomorrah who would have suffocated in seconds and not spent hours in agonising deaths. Places of torment are man-made myths.

What I mean by eternal damnation is exactly what the Bible says. You ASSUME your interpretation is correct. There is plenty of evidence to suggest eternal damnation to the wicked. And your assertion that any verses that allude to that need to be correcly understood is laughable. Because you yourself allude to things with ambigious verses.

Let's look at some verses. Good, you have got specific at last. I will keep each separate.

The evil will rise to be condemned. John 5:28-29 8 “Do not be amazed at this, for a time is coming when all who are in their graves will hear his voice 29 and come out—those who have done what is good will rise to live, and those who have done what is evil will rise to be condemned. The context of "all" can be in the sense of those "eligible" for judgement. That needs further explanation if you cannot decide who is eligible for judgement. What would be the purpose of raising reprobates for judgement to be told they are reprobates and had already been cast off?

All evil people go to the same place. Into a lake of fire. Revelation 20:12-25 12 And I saw the dead, great and small, standing before the throne, and books were opened. Another book was opened, which is the book of life. The dead were judged according to what they had done as recorded in the books. 13 The sea gave up the dead that were in it, and death and Hades gave up the dead that were in them, and each person was judged according to what they had done. 14 Then death and Hades were thrown into the lake of fire. The lake of fire is the second death. 15 Anyone whose name was not found written in the book of life was thrown into the lake of fire. This lake of fire does seem to mean eternal death from which there is no coming back. If your name is not found in the Book of Life, it would seem you have already taken a short cut and got their earlier. Dux with his humorous slant on things might see these people as fuel to get the fire started.

Mathew mentions the lake of fire. [B] Mathew 18:8 8 If your hand or your foot causes you to stumble, cut it off and throw it away. It is better for you to enter life maimed or crippled than to have two hands or two feet and be thrown into eternal fire. Will those who enter the kingdom with one arm or leg remain that way? What happens when they are given an immortal body? Did you believe that God would give those people imperfect bodies?

Luke mentions thr agony of fire after death. Luke 16:22-24 22 “The time came when the beggar died and the angels carried him to Abraham’s side. The rich man also died and was buried. 23 In Hades, where he was in torment, he looked up and saw Abraham far away, with Lazarus by his side. 24 So he called to him, ‘Father Abraham, have pity on me and send Lazarus to dip the tip of his finger in water and cool my tongue, because I am in agony in this fire.’ This is mythical language and Luke is referring to folk lore that would be understood more by the people of his day than ours. I do not let this mythical passages upset the greater balance of passages that are clear to understand.

Jude mentions eternal fire. Jude 1:7 7 In a similar way, Sodom and Gomorrah and the surrounding towns gave themselves up to sexual immorality and perversion. They serve as an example of those who suffer the punishment of eternal fire. From what I have heard explained "eternal" in some sense does not mean "for ever" or "without end". If you want to think it does, the [point is not worth arguing. My understanding is that if God has cast people off and they are not raised to eternal life, they remain dead for ever. I think God has a lot more in store for those who love and fear him than waste his time keeping people burning for eternity. How long will a body burn for anyway, before it any of it ceases to remain>

MAthew again mentions eternal punishment. Mathew 25:46 46 “Then they will go away to eternal punishment, but the righteous to eternal life.”

2 Thesalonians speaks of eternal punshiment. 2 Thesalonians. 1:9 They will be punished with everlasting destruction and shut out from the presence of the Lord and from the glory of his might

2 Thesalonians again mentions eternal punishement. 2 Thesalonians 1:5-10 5 All this is evidence that God’s judgment is right, and as a result you will be counted worthy of the kingdom of God, for which you are suffering. 6 God is just: He will pay back trouble to those who trouble you 7 and give relief to you who are troubled, and to us as well. This will happen when the Lord Jesus is revealed from heaven in blazing fire with his powerful angels. 8 He will punish those who do not know God and do not obey the gospel of our Lord Jesus. 9 They will be punished with everlasting destruction and shut out from the presence of the Lord and from the glory of his might 10 on the day he comes to be glorified in his holy people and to be marveled at among all those who have believed. This includes you, because you believed our testimony to you. Several passages saying the same thing so here is my one answer to deal with "eternal punishment". Eternal death is eternal punishment and the dead do not exist to know that is their punishment. Who said anything about being in a living or a conscious state.

You assertion that God is just for not punishing people after death is wrong. God clearly punishes those who haven't even heard the gospel. That is NOT just and moral. These verses provide enough evidence that your doctrine is not the only correct one. Ok so back up what you say and give me some evidence for what you say.

No it is based on mutually confirming verses. That is if they are truly mutually confirming. Pick and mix is not the way to do it when the contexts are different. We have to talk specific examples from now on.

Yes I know death is a reality for everyone. But your "soul sleep" belief is contradicted by the plain text of the Bible. It would not have taken you much time to give the specific text by way of example.

No it is not a preconceived bias. Because at one time I believed the Bible. But I saw that a lot of the stuff in the Bible is false based on evidence. You just confirmed what I said and if you had preconceived ideas they would have been confirmed but they were not and now you have reached your conclusions. Not the same conclusions as I have reached, but that does not matter. You should stop saying I have preconceived ideas. I am getting it from RAM and yourself and it is like receiving SPAM in the mail. It makes for tedious reading and soon I am going to junk all posts I receive repeating the same old assertions.

The reason I criticise you for a preconcieved bias is because you have a doctrine to uphold and therefore you look for ways yo justify your beliefs. You show absolutely no sceptisim to anything that contradicts you. I think you mean to say; I show scepticism to anything that contradicts me. I am open to be challenged on any point. I do not have all the answers. I will give my reasons and explanations and I change according to new evidence I can accept. I should not have to keep repeating answers to questions I have explained already. Either lift the discussion or do the decent thing and give it a rest.

Thanks for the link David. But your view of Satan or devils is grossly contradictory of many verses. You think the devil is a personification of evil but the scriptures explicitly say otherwise. Put up the verses in another thread and we will deal with them. I am fed up with generalities which are not substantiated. I have written a new post about Cain and Abel and deaking with the origin of the Devil. Satan, and the Serpent. Why do you not do the same and deal with the objections you will receive to what you post.

The reason I don't condemn people for there beliefs about angels is because there is ambiguity about this subject. You want everyone to assume you are correct and ignore scripture that contrdicts you. There is no definitive answer on this subject. Because you say so is not proof. First you say I am wrong and you agree with Richard and now you say the subject is ambiguous. I am trying to get people to see the myths and the lies and once and take away the ambiguity. Richard on the subject of "angels" sees no ambiguity and I know his reason for saying that. OK there is no ambiguity for Richard, but then his explanations are not acceptable to me as I have explained to him and having done so once, I am not inclined to keep going over the same points of disagreement.

David ALL are resurrected. Not just the believers. Your unconscious sleep doctrine contradicts the Bible. It's a never ending process. You explain one verse and are contradicted by many. I can accept the fact that God can judge all and I do not limit his power to do so. I have given you one reason why some might not be judged and I shall leave it at that. You cannot say I have not answered you or given you a scriptural reason.

What would lead you to believe Jesus will return in 10 years? Would it make any difference to you?

Also you are wrong Jesus did equal himself with God. There are many verses that confirm this. Go to the thread 'Jesus is not God' and start proving all the verses to prove your point and I will answer the challenge to give you sayings of Jesus that tell me, he was not equal with his Heavenly Father.

I did answer you. I said you could make a case for all of those. Good (short answer at last)

Very true. But why not accept the plainly obvious things the Bible teaches? You have to explain away far too much to force your view.
In my eyes, your view just makes no sense because the simple things are left with no value. From now on only specifics will do. I am not going to wade through loads of general statements. I am not spending hours any longer replying to post likes these.

Please do not expect me to keep these long posts going. Please stay specific and give chapter and verse and facts, if you want me to keep going.

All the best,

David

Richard Amiel McGough

04-15-2013, 12:11 PM

I am amongst the majority for having at least something wrong. I can be both in a majority and a minority depending upon what you base the majority to be. OK so you agree the veneration of Mary by the largest Christian church is correct or you think the Trinity is correct. You have to go back to the days when the T was forced through and there was not the overriding consensus that it was true.

It is true that many folks were VIOLENTLY forced to believe whatever religion the government supported. That's why it is insane for you to believe the BIBLE that was produced by Trinitarian Christians. I've been pointing to this radical contradiction in your beliefs for a long time, and as far as I recall, you have never dealt with it. You have hijacked the book produced by Christians that you say are apostate. How nutty is that? Why don't you go find your own book?

Now I know this has been argued as a longish time and I sometimes quote that so as not to keep having the same argument. In the pattern of things and it is good we are near to the end, because hindsight becomes clearer. I am convinced God is working to a 7,000 year time-scale and Jesus reigns as God in the 7th millennium while God takes his Sabbath rest. Jesus reign will reign on earth, but we do not have to go into all that if you disagree.

Christians have been saying that we are "near the end" for two thousand years.

1 Peter 4:7 But the end of all things is at hand: be ye therefore sober, and watch unto prayer. 8 And above all things have fervent charity among yourselves: for charity shall cover the multitude of sins.

That was two thousand years ago! Do words have no meaning to you?

I suggest you listen to Rood and hear his teaching directly and decide for yourself whether Rood is teaching from the Bible correctly.

I have proven many of Rood's errors and you merely ignore the evidence. You need to answer post #24 (http://www.biblewheel.com/forum/showthread.php?3665-Top-20-Topics-taught-in-the-Bible&p=53413#post53413) in this thread, for example.

The evidence against Rood is overwhelming. He TOTALLY teaches the doctrine that Satan led a rebellion of angels in heaven. And what do you do with the evidence? You try to twist his words as if they were Holy Scripture to make him conform to your doctrine. You never gave an adequate answer to post #23 in the Mount of Olives thread. You refused to accept HIS OWN WRITINGS and said you would have to "hear it from his own mouth." That's nuts. There is no ambiguity in what he wrote. Just look at it (taken from post #5 (http://www.biblewheel.com/forum/showthread.php?3660-Michael-Rood-s-teachings-about-Fallen-Angels-that-Sinned&p=53584#post53584) in the thread Michael Rood's Teachings about Angels that Sinned (http://www.biblewheel.com/forum/showthread.php?3660-Michael-Rood-s-teachings-about-Fallen-Angels-that-Sinned) which you never answered):

You need to quit dodging the truth. I have presented the exact words that Rood wrote and you know it because its on his website and I gave you the link. It's radically absurd to say that Rood has not "identified" Satan in his comments. It's totally obvious from context. And if you cared about the truth you could find it very easily yourself. The fact is that you reject any fact that contradicts what you want to believe. Case in point, here is some more of Rood's teachings about the rebellious angel Satan (you can confirm the quote online here (http://books.google.com/books?id=vycvK4QmGlIC&pg=PA7&lpg=PA7&dq=Satan's+purposes+and+methodology+are+exposed+in +Revelation+12+(&source=bl&ots=_GKlyW5gwo&sig=48nnJJwK0h-fqbA1uLpDINuQ3OY&hl=en&sa=X&ei=55lgUbb0IsK7qgHqrYCoAg&ved=0CDYQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=Satan's%20purposes%20and%20methodology%20are%20e xposed%20in%20Revelation%2012%20(&f=false)):
Satan is now holding fast to his authority in the heavens which allows him access before the throne of God where he now positions himself as the "accuser of the brethren." Satan's purposes and methodology are exposed in Revelation 12 (verse 10), and the book of Job (1:6-2:7) where he is depicted in both scenarios as the accuser before the throne, and the one who steals, kills, and destroys (John 10:10). Besides Satan's position as the accuser before the throne of God, by is deceptive wiles he also received the dominion of this world from the hand of Adam.

Adam originally received from God complete dominion and authority over the entire creation on earth (Gen 1:26). He also had dominion over Satan, but was "bribed" into a deal with Satan after Eve was seduced to sin. Now Satan legally holds the title deed to this world, a title and authority that was delivered to him by the original recipient, Adam. The same authority was offered to Y'shua by Satan, for the small price of worship.
Now the thing that really blows my mind is that you have sought desperately to twist even Rood's words to fit your doctrine that there are no fallen angels. Rather than deal with the plain truth, you try to conform his words to fit your preconceived doctrines, just like you do with the Bible. Here's more from page 12 of Rood's book (bold text in the original):
At the outcome of this war in heaven, Satan is cast down from heaven against his will. His rebellious stand before the throne of God is abruptly terminated. He is taken out of the midst of the throne room and cast down to the earth where he then takes his rebellious stand on earth. That stand is manifested in the revealing of the son of destruction, a man who is fully complemented with all the power of Satan, replete with lying signs, wonders, and a false prophet.
Rood emphasized "against his will" by putting it in bold, proving that he thinks Satan is a PERSONAL AGENT, not some metaphor like you believe. And he emphasized that this PERSONAL AGENT was IN HEAVEN and cast down to earth. He totally contradicts your beliefs, but for some deep mysterious reasons, you accept anything he says no matter how ridiculous. For example, Rood's teaches that the scroll in Rev 5 is the "title deed" of the earth, and that it is being held by the rebellious angel Satan! The Bible teaches nothing like that.

There it is David. Those are Rood's own words which you can easily verify for yourself by clicking the link.

I am stunned by the strength of your cognitive bias. You have totally brainwashed yourself so that now you cannot see the truth no matter how plainly it is presented to you. It blows my mind.

Choose the path of truth David, while you still have time.

Richard

L67

04-15-2013, 10:01 PM

Hey David,

I understand that what I give as proof is not accepted by you, therefore I cannot prove it to you.

I will cut down on the posts and only answer things that have relevance.

You sure can prove it to me with scripture. You need to demonstrate you have the majority of verses confirming your assertions.

I understand your concern and it does on the face of it seem puzzling unless you can somehow accept God is wise and we do not understand his wisdom. Some people can claim the fact that we have a Bible today as a form of miracle, because of all the attempts to eradicate it. God had left his word to be preserved by man and the fact that man has corrupted it is nothing new considering all the other corruption man has caused. We should applaud those who are correcting the translation errors. Are you just annoyed at me or you going to blame those who are making the corrections in the first place. I am not claiming to have found the errors. I am happy when something in the Bible does not sit right and a translation error that someone has found then makes sense of it.

I'm sorry David but God allowing errors into his word does not portray him as wise. Quite the opposite. In fact, he could have eliminated the whole problem by writing his own word. That would be wise.

No I am not annoyed at you. I was making a point.

I am amongst the majority for having at least something wrong. I can be both in a majority and a minority depending upon what you base the majority to be. OK so you agree the veneration of Mary by the largest Christian church is correct or you think the Trinity is correct. You have to go back to the days when the T was forced through and there was not the overriding consensus that it was true.

I wont answer this one since Richard already did.

Please tell me what the criteria are by which Jesus says "few will find the narrow way". That should put both of us on alert. Few does not mean the masses. Any church representing the masses, must be in doubt. Just tell me the criteria by which you know the masses I am referring to are all going to find the narrow way? Stop concentrating on me and get down to reasoning why.

Yes I know what the verse means and I have agreed with you.

My focus is on you because you assert so many things. You act like you are some authority figure on the matter. Just like you claim "most" of Christianity is wrong. You have no basis to make such a bold claim.

(Rev 20:4) And I saw thrones, and they sat upon them, and judgment was given unto them: and I saw the souls of them that were beheaded for the witness of Jesus, and for the word of God, and which had not worshipped the beast, neither his image, neither had received his mark upon their foreheads, or in their hands; and they lived and reigned with Christ a thousand years. The resurrection has not taken place and so those whose heads were chopped off, are not reigning with Christ, but when they do, they reign for 1000 years. Now I know this has been argued as a longish time and I sometimes quote that so as not to keep having the same argument. In the pattern of things and it is good we are near to the end, because hindsight becomes clearer. I am convinced God is working to a 7,000 year time-scale and Jesus reigns as God in the 7th millennium while God takes his Sabbath rest. Jesus reign will reign on earth, but we do not have to go into all that if you disagree.

Thanks for the verses David. I suspected that was going to be the verse. You took that verse out of context. Lets put it in context.

Revelation 20:4-6 4 I saw thrones on which were seated those who had been given authority to judge. And I saw the souls of those who had been beheaded because of their testimony about Jesus and because of the word of God. They[a] had not worshiped the beast or its image and had not received its mark on their foreheads or their hands. They came to life and reigned with Christ a thousand years. 5 (The rest of the dead did not come to life until the thousand years were ended.) This is the first resurrection. 6 Blessed and holy are those who share in the first resurrection. The second death has no power over them, but they will be priests of God and of Christ and will reign with him for a thousand years.

That verse does NOT prove a future earthly kingdom or a future 1000 year reign of Christ. It doesn't even mention those things. It also doesn't mention a bodily resurrection, nor does it mention Christ on earth. If you read the verse closely you will see it was the souls who lived and reigned with Christ for 1000 years(notice the verse is past tense.). The souls who had been beheaded for their testimony of Jesus. Revelation 6:9-11 speaks of the souls who were slain. Revelation 20:4-6 is speaking of the "dead" reigning with Christ(also past tense). It clearly says they(souls) came to life and reigned with Christ a 1000 years. The verse explicitly says the first resurrection pertains to those souls who lived and reigned with Christ. The 1000 year reign of Christ began on Pentecost in 30AD.

Your assertion that the end will come soon is wrong. Your whole futurist doctrine that is based on Revelation 20:4 is completely false. I

I suggest you listen to Rood and hear his teaching directly and decide for yourself whether Rood is teaching from the Bible correctly. I know having listened, I trust Rood more than I do you at the moment. You can prove to me what you once believe is correct and then we might get somewhere. I have explained that even if I had preconceived ideas, those preconceptions have long been confirmed to be true. if you say believing the Bible is a preconception, that might have been the case to begin with. From what I know of prophecy, and archaeology the Bible has proven itself time and time again. I can see prophecy being fulfilled in our day; I do not remain cynical about things in the Bible that I do not understand 100%. I do not let a little yeast leaven the whole lump, if you know what I mean. I share my understanding and you can either accept it or not. I do not see what point there is in just saying; "David, you are wrong". Show me and explain to me where I am wrong. I no longer hold the "Bible is true as preconceived idea". I have moved past that. To my satisfaction, the Bible has proved itself true.

I suggest you listen to the Bible when it warns of FALSE prophets. Rood is a false prophet. You are not listening to the words of Jesus David. You are putting yourself in the majority. The fact that you ignore the warnings of your holy book in order to confirm you bias is rather ironic.

Even when I accept the plain meaning of words like the "splitting of the Mount of Olives" I am told I am wrong. How can you say I do not accept the plain meaning of words when you do not give me specific examples? Why do you accept "angels" as God Angels when the Greek word translates messengers, priests, ministers? You are being selective by your own choice of words.

Because there is a difference David. The Mount of Olives is either a figurative or literal sense. You are implying that words such as "this generation" really mean that generation and around we go.

The Bible gives a simple explanation for creation. Whether you agree with it or not is another question. Science does not know how to make one atom and is not definite on the number of sub-atomic particles. Scientific theories at the sub-atomic level keep changing. It is doubtful man has long enough to find out what might be impossible anyway.

Just because science doesn't have all the answers doesn't mean God fills the gaps.

Archaeology proves the history mentioned in the Bible true. Historical Prophecy has come true and prophecy is being fulfilled today.

Correction. It proves SOME history. Not all the stories have evidence they even happend.

The ball is in your court if you read the post again.

Abrahams land promise.

Jesus not being able to sit on an earthly throne.

If you really think that, you are not open to receiving any truth. I should not have to give you quotes from the Bible that you can easily find for yourself. When Jesus tempted he would recall scriptures which as we know are our old testament. We have record of Jesus reading in the Synagogue. Really, L67 if you are going to deny the plain and obvious, I see not point in continuing. I cannot afford to waste time talking at this level. Go and do your research or begin to discuss as at scriptural level. I have been patient, and I am trying to lift the conversation to deal with facts please do the same.

That is not true. I am open to receiving anything. What record? The Gospels? That is not a record of anything. They aren't accurate eyewitnesses. You may think it's a waste of time talking at this level but it's reality David.

You have no idea how much time I have given to these subjects. I gave you references and it up to you to decide how you want to interpret them. For example; Where there is no law, there is no transgression of the law" Now go and figure the rest out for yourself to get the answer you want me to give you again.

Either you haven't spent much time on this or you don't understand it. You appealed to Romans out of context to prove your point. Let me put it in context.

Romans 2:9-16

9 Tribulation and anguish, upon every soul of man that doeth evil, of the Jew first, and also of the Gentile;

10 But glory, honour, and peace, to every man that worketh good, to the Jew first, and also to the Gentile:

11 For there is no respect of persons with God.

12 For as many as have sinned without law shall also perish without law: and as many as have sinned in the law shall be judged by the law;

13 (For not the hearers of the law are just before God, but the doers of the law shall be justified.

14 For when the Gentiles, which have not the law, do by nature the things contained in the law, these, having not the law, are a law unto themselves:

15 Which shew the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience also bearing witness, and their thoughts the mean while accusing or else excusing one another;)

16 In the day when God shall judge the secrets of men by Jesus Christ according to my gospel.

In conext, this verse flat out says that ALL will be judged. That means Gentiles and Jews.

The "dead" in spiritual truth are already dead. If you do not believe you are going to be raised from the dead, you will not worry about being judged. Your expectation will be granted. God is merciful. He was merciful in death to those who died in Sodom and Gomorrah who would have suffocated in seconds and not spent hours in agonising deaths. Places of torment are man-made myths.

That is NOT what the Bible says. It says ALL will be judged even the ignorant. Places of torment are not man made myths. That is something your doctrine teaches.

The context of "all" can be in the sense of those "eligible" for judgement. That needs further explanation if you cannot decide who is eligible for judgement. What would be the purpose of raising reprobates for judgement to be told they are reprobates and had already been cast off?

The Bible says both Jews and Gentiles are eligible for judgement. There is not different context for all. The Bible is clear on this point.

Will those who enter the kingdom with one arm or leg remain that way? What happens when they are given an immortal body? Did you believe that God would give those people imperfect bodies?

Nobody knows.

From what I have heard explained "eternal" in some sense does not mean "for ever" or "without end". If you want to think it does, the [point is not worth arguing. My understanding is that if God has cast people off and they are not raised to eternal life, they remain dead for ever. I think God has a lot more in store for those who love and fear him than waste his time keeping people burning for eternity. How long will a body burn for anyway, before it any of it ceases to remain>

Yes but you are missing something. The Bible clearly speaks of eternal punishment and torment. You can't punish or torment someone who is dead and not conscious. That is the whole point of tormenting someone. It is to consciously make them suffer. The Bible is clear that there WILL be torment and punishment. The Bible tells us ALL will be judged. Those who do not believe will suffer eternal torment. It doesn't matter if your doctrine believes this or not. The Bible speaks of such things.

It is also pretty presumptuous to assume you know what God has is n store. You don't.

Several passages saying the same thing so here is my one answer to deal with "eternal punishment". Eternal death is eternal punishment and the dead do not exist to know that is their punishment. Who said anything about being in a living or a conscious state.

Then you contradict the Bible.

Ok so back up what you say and give me some evidence for what you say.

See above. It's obvious what the Bible says.

I think you mean to say; I show scepticism to anything that contradicts me. I am open to be challenged on any point. I do not have all the answers. I will give my reasons and explanations and I change according to new evidence I can accept. I should not have to keep repeating answers to questions I have explained already. Either lift the discussion or do the decent thing and give it a rest.

No I mean exactly what I said. You do have a preconceived bias. You even ignore the Bibles warnings of false prophet to validate your beliefs. How ironic is that?

First you say I am wrong and you agree with Richard and now you say the subject is ambiguous. I am trying to get people to see the myths and the lies and once and take away the ambiguity. Richard on the subject of "angels" sees no ambiguity and I know his reason for saying that. OK there is no ambiguity for Richard, but then his explanations are not acceptable to me as I have explained to him and having done so once, I am not inclined to keep going over the same points of disagreement.

Do you ever actually read and try to comprehend what people say?

I said you were wrong with your rejection of the paradox that Richard state the same as you did. I never once defined angels. So your assertion is false.

I can accept the fact that God can judge all and I do not limit his power to do so. I have given you one reason why some might not be judged and I shall leave it at that. You cannot say I have not answered you or given you a scriptural reason.

It doesn't matter what your reason is. If the Bible is true it explcitly says ALL will be judged. That is not moral and just.

Take care.

Richard Amiel McGough

04-16-2013, 09:18 AM

Thanks for the verses David. I suspected that was going to be the verse. You took that verse out of context. Lets put it in context.

Revelation 20:4-6 4 I saw thrones on which were seated those who had been given authority to judge. And I saw the souls of those who had been beheaded because of their testimony about Jesus and because of the word of God. They[a] had not worshiped the beast or its image and had not received its mark on their foreheads or their hands. They came to life and reigned with Christ a thousand years. 5 (The rest of the dead did not come to life until the thousand years were ended.) This is the first resurrection. 6 Blessed and holy are those who share in the first resurrection. The second death has no power over them, but they will be priests of God and of Christ and will reign with him for a thousand years.

That verse does NOT prove a future earthly kingdom or a future 1000 year reign of Christ. It doesn't even mention those things. It also doesn't mention a bodily resurrection, nor does it mention Christ on earth. If you read the verse closely you will see it was the souls who lived and reigned with Christ for 1000 years(notice the verse is past tense.). The souls who had been beheaded for their testimony of Jesus. Revelation 6:9-11 speaks of the souls who were slain. Revelation 20:4-6 is speaking of the "dead" reigning with Christ(also past tense). It clearly says they(souls) came to life and reigned with Christ a 1000 years. The verse explicitly says the first resurrection pertains to those souls who lived and reigned with Christ. The 1000 year reign of Christ began on Pentecost in 30AD.

That's the thing that is so very strange about Futurist interpretations of the Bible. They read into it things that are not there at all, and then adamantly assert it is what the Bible actually teaches! Meanwhile, they totally deny the main and plain things that are actually written and confirmed by countless other passages.

I have no idea how to get through to such people. It doesn't matter how plainly the truth is stated, they will simply deny and refuse to deal with it.

I suggest you listen to the Bible when it warns of FALSE prophets. Rood is a false prophet. You are not listening to the words of Jesus David. You are putting yourself in the majority. The fact that you ignore the warnings of your holy book in order to confirm you bias is rather ironic.

David has been given all the evidence anyone would need to see and understand this fact. He simply refuses to accept it.

Just because science doesn't have all the answers doesn't mean God fills the gaps.

Very well stated. :thumb:

Archaeology proves the history mentioned in the Bible true. Historical Prophecy has come true and prophecy is being fulfilled today.
Correction. It proves SOME history. Not all the stories have evidence they even happend.

This reveals a HUGE error in David's thinking. Archaeology also "proves the history mentioned" in James Michener's historical novels. And there is a bigger error. There is much history in the Bible that is strongly contradicted by archaeology, such as the time of Christ's birth. Matthew says it was before Herod died in 4 BC and Luke says it was after the census of Quirnius which could not have been prior to 6 AD (besides which there is no historical evidence for it anyway). So we see that David is exhibiting a textbook example of CONFIRMATION BIAS. He accepts any evidence that supports what he wants to believe, and ignores or explains away the rest. Unfortunately, this is the recipe for a strong delusion.

David M

04-16-2013, 09:25 AM

Richard Amiel McGough

04-16-2013, 09:37 AM

I have been looking for videos on Youtube that will put my point of view across, but from the mouth of someone else. I have come found two videos and this makes three if we include Rood. These show how three men in different places and times with the same background of a mainstream Christian church who have seen the error of their preaching and have read the Bible afresh starting again and having open minds. There understanding of God's word is far different now to what their church taught them, The only thing you can do to get to the Truth is do as these three men have done and abandon everything you have been told by the church and begin to read the Bible for yourself with a fresh mind.
David,

This is becoming INSANE. Rood was never a member of any "mainstream Christian church." He was a member of the anti-Trinitarian cult called The Way, International. I've explained this to you more than once, and given you links to the evidence (http://www.seekgod.ca/rood.htm), yet you continue to speak the same falsehoods over and over and over again. Don't you care about truth at all?

All the best,

Richard

Richard Amiel McGough

04-16-2013, 09:40 AM

The only thing you can do to get to the Truth is do as these three men have done and abandon everything you have been told by the church and begin to read the Bible for yourself with a fresh mind.
That's what you need to do David. Abandon all the false doctrines that you have been taught by men and read the Bible which fresh eyes. But you refuse. You adamantly hold to the doctrines that you have been taught by men.

L67

04-16-2013, 11:38 AM

Hello L67

This discussion can be over now. You do not need my any answers to help you understand the Bible better than you do. I would like to see an exposition from you as a result of your own study in which you can explain how you derive your understanding of a topic in the Bible.

This is getting ridiculous David. Why do you want to quit the conversation?

I have explained before how I interpret the Bible. It's really simple. I start with the freedom of no doctrine to uphold. Then I acknowledge who the Bible was written for(first century audience). From there I take the Bible at its word and accept the plain and obvious things it says. It's really that simple. Where it gets tough is the ambiguous parts of the Bible. And there are plenty. But there is enough plain and obvious things to prove there is no future timeline.

Your problem is you have been indoctrinated to believe there is a future timeline of the Bible. The overwhelming evidence points to that being false. The Bible wasn't even written with us in mind.

I have been looking for videos on Youtube that will put my point of view across, but from the mouth of someone else. I have come found two videos and this makes three if we include Rood. These show how three men in different places and times with the same background of a mainstream Christian church who have seen the error of their preaching and have read the Bible afresh starting again and having open minds. There understanding of God's word is far different now to what their church taught them, The only thing you can do to get to the Truth is do as these three men have done and abandon everything you have been told by the church and begin to read the Bible for yourself with a fresh mind. You know the Bible, I always have given you scripture and verse to support what I say, and I do not expect anyone to accept my words without checking them against the Bible. I hope if you can do the exercise I suggest, you spot the verses that are mutually confirming and which shows the error of the main Christian churches. I cannot get you to see, and I can only hope that you eventually see the Truth. Unfortunately, you have no belief in the Bible, at the moment and there is nothing I can say, which you will keep in abeyance till all the evidence is in.

David you just summed up your problem in a nutshell.

You tell me I need to examine the Bible with a fresh mind to find the truth? Say what? That pertains to you. You have a cult like mentality. This is the problem with you David. You are still assuming that I am not dealing with the truth and that you are one of the few who have found the truth. Even after I have exposed errors in your way of thinking you still maintain it is everyone else who is wrong. How irrational is that?

Why is it you want me to do the exercise? Why not you? Yes mainstream Christianity has errors. But I have exposed errors in your "minority" line of thinking. Rather than dealing with the problems I exposed, you want to quit the conversation and blame everyone else. How arrogant do you have to be act this way?

I can only advise in conclusion, you re-examine the Bible and see how the Gospel message begins Abraham, and is the same Gospel taught by Jesus and by the Apostles, including the Apostle Paul. The Gospel is all about the kingdom of God and the name of Jesus (Yeshua) and the message is consistent throughout scripture. That is what you need to find.

Why do you keep saying I need to find the truth? I am preserving the Bible by acknowledging what it actually says. I'm not forcing it to say something it doesn't like you do.

I agree that is what the Bible teaches. But there is no mention of a future earthly kingdom. That is where you get it wrong. I know I am not right in everything I say. That is why if I am in error it should be really easy for you to point that out, instead of quitting.

David M

04-16-2013, 12:51 PM

That's what you need to do David. Abandon all the false doctrines that you have been taught by men and read the Bible which fresh eyes. But you refuse. You adamantly hold to the doctrines that you have been taught by men.

Richard

Since we all think each other ought to start afresh, can we all do this starting now? Would a fresh start work? What happens when we reach our first disagreement? How do we prove to one another we have started afresh?

You have changed from what you once believed and now do not believe in God or the Bible is God's word. Others have changed their understanding and disassociated themselves from mainstream church teaching. They have all taught the message of the church and now do not teach that message. They have looked at the Bible afresh. They have come to the opposite view to you, but have not lost their belief in God. I have not changed my beliefs; only strengthened them over time. Why would I want to move away from a belief that those three men now believe?

If we hold on to our present positions, then all we can do, is do our best to state our case. We should state our case and learn from each other without exchanging hot air that gets the conversation nowhere.

If someone would like to make a start, I will follow. Failing this, we should stop all discussion on the Bible and just post articles which can be read or ignored.

David

David M

04-16-2013, 01:22 PM

Hello L67

This is getting ridiculous David. Why do you want to quit the conversation? I have given you my reasons. I will continue if the style of discourse changes.

have explained before how I interpret the Bible. It's really simple. I start with the freedom of no doctrine to uphold. Then I acknowledge who the Bible was written for(first century audience). From there I take the Bible at its word and accept the plain and obvious things it says. It's really that simple. Where it gets tough is the ambiguous parts of the Bible. And there are plenty. But there is enough plain and obvious things to prove there is no future timeline. I suggest you start by showing me there is no "future timeline".

Your problem is you have been indoctrinated to believe there is a future timeline of the Bible. The overwhelming evidence points to that being false. The Bible wasn't even written with us in mind. In whose mind? How do you know the author's intention?

David you just summed up your problem in a nutshell. So how do we resolve the problem we both have?

You tell me I need to examine the Bible with a fresh mind to find the truth? Say what? That pertains to you. You have a cult like mentality. Explain to me why I have a cult like mentality and you do not. It can be argued we all belong to cults unless you are not following Jesus. Don't ask me to stop.

This is the problem with you David. You are still assuming that I am not dealing with the truth and that you are one of the few who have found the truth. Even after I have exposed errors in your way of thinking you still maintain it is everyone else who is wrong. How irrational is that? I will try to remember you are looking for truth. Since that is both our aim, where do you want to begin.

Why is it you want me to do the exercise? Why not you? I have already put up on this forum and you can find the threads I have started and I have stated my case as a start. This is why I say you should now take a lead and do likewise that can give us a base for discussion and Richard will jump in.

Yes mainstream Christianity has errors. But I have exposed errors in your "minority" line of thinking. Rather than dealing with the problems I exposed, you want to quit the conversation and blame everyone else. How arrogant do you have to be act this way? I have replied to your quotes and where you disagree, you can carry on and explain why you disagree and give more supporting evidence. If you are getting benefit from our discourse, I will continue with you.

Why do you keep saying I need to find the truth? I am preserving the Bible by acknowledging what it actually says. I'm not forcing it to say something it doesn't like you do. Carry on and substantiate that some more and see how far we get.

I agree that is what the Bible teaches. But there is no mention of a future earthly kingdom. That is where you get it wrong. I know I am not right in everything I say. That is why if I am in error it should be really easy for you to point that out, instead of quitting. Do you want to concentrate on where the kingdom will be as a subject to continue with? Give us your exposition on the subject and we can go over it point by point.

All the best

David

Richard Amiel McGough

04-16-2013, 01:46 PM

Richard

Since we all think each other ought to start afresh, can we all do this starting now? Would a fresh start work? What happens when we reach our first disagreement? How do we prove to one another we have started afresh?

Good afternoon David,

A fresh start would be the easiest thing in the world. We would drop all presuppositions about the Bible and begin with the common understanding that it is a book and like all books it was written and printed by human beings. We would treat it exactly the same as every other book on the planet, just like the Koran, the book of Mormon, the book of Enoch, my Quantum Physics textbook - just like any book.

Then, we would read the book and determine what it says. There should be no disagreement between rational people, any more than there would be disagreement about what is actually written in any other book. It says what it says.

Once we have a common agreement about the main and plain things that it says, we can venture to discuss the different interpretations that arise from ambiguous passages and the presuppositions that may have snuck in.

The whole process seems extremely simple and straightforward. It seems to me that the only reason there is so much confusion is because people have vested interests in the interpretations they have been taught.

You have changed from what you once believed and now do not believe in God or the Bible is God's word. Others have changed their understanding and disassociated themselves from mainstream church teaching. They have all taught the message of the church and now do not teach that message. They have looked at the Bible afresh. They have come to the opposite view to you, but have not lost their belief in God. I have not changed my beliefs; only strengthened them over time. Why would I want to move away from a belief that those three men now believe?

It is not true that "They have all taught the message of the church and now do not teach that message." Michael Rood was a leader in the anti-Trinitarian cult called The Way, International. He was never a teacher of the mainstream church. He has always been teaching fringe doctrines. I've explained this to you many times and given you proof but you continue to repeat that falsehood. I don't understand why you believe liars and reject truth. Can't you see how wrong that is?

The fact that you have not changed your beliefs, even after being shown that they are wrong, shows that you are committed to the doctrines of men rather than truth.

If we hold on to our present positions, then all we can do, is do our best to state our case. We should state our case and learn from each other without exchanging hot air that gets the conversation nowhere.

I have not been blowing hot air. I have shown you that you are committed to falsehood, and all you do is blow hot air back at me. You need to deal with the truth.

If someone would like to make a start, I will follow. Failing this, we should stop all discussion on the Bible and just post articles which can be read or ignored.

I've made the fresh start a dozen times. We must begin with the main and plain things that the Bible actually teaches. A good place to start is to simply follow the thematic flow of the New Testament. It begins with the fulfillment of the last OT prophecies concerning the "Elijah" who would come and 1) prepare the way of Messiah, and 2) proclaim the day of the Lord that would come upon apostate Jerusalem. John the Baptist fulfilled that prophecy. If you reject this, then you reject the primary NT witness that Jesus was messiah. John also warned the first century Jews of the judgment that would soon come upon them, saying that the ax was already laid at the root of the trees. He called them a "generation of vipers" just like Christ did when he warned them of the wrath that would come upon them, saying that upon them would come all the blood of the prophets. This prophecy was fulfilled in Rev 18:24 where apostate Jerusalem is represented by the Great Harlot, Mystery Babylon. I've laid this all out for you many times, and you have never seriously dealt with the Big Picture of what the Bible actually teaches. Most recently, I explained all this in post #32 (http://www.biblewheel.com/forum/showthread.php?3665-Top-20-Topics-taught-in-the-Bible&p=53561#post53561) of this thread and you replied in post #51 (http://www.biblewheel.com/forum/showthread.php?3665-Top-20-Topics-taught-in-the-Bible&p=53616#post53616) where you agreed that "God's judgment" did come upon Jerusalem in the first century, but then simply asserted without reason that this was not "the end." But that directly contradicts the words of Christ in the Olivet Discourse when he said that "the end" would come upon the first century generation when the Temple was destroyed. You simply ignore what the Bible actually states and refuse to acknowledge the truth no matter how plain and obvious it is, and so we go in circles forever and ever ....

This is the "new start" David. We have to come to AGREEMENT about what the Bible actually states, and what "Big Picture" emerges from the thematic flow of the NT narrative. Nothing could be simpler. But Futurists must always confuse things because their doctrines are contrary to what the Bible actually states.

It would be great if you would follow me in this "new beginning" like you said you would.

All the best,

Richard

David M

04-16-2013, 03:11 PM

Hello Richard

Good afternoon David,

A fresh start would be the easiest thing in the world. We would drop all presuppositions about the Bible and begin with the common understanding that it is a book and like all books it was written and printed by human beings. We would treat it exactly the same as every other book on the planet, just like the Koran, the book of Mormon, the book of Enoch, my Quantum Physics textbook - just like any book.

Then, we would read the book and determine what it says. There should be no disagreement between rational people, any more than there would be disagreement about what is actually written in any other book. It says what it says.

Once we have a common agreement about the main and plain things that it says, we can venture to discuss the different interpretations that arise from ambiguous passages and the presuppositions that may have snuck in.

The whole process seems extremely simple and straightforward. It seems to me that the only reason there is so much confusion is because people have vested interests in the interpretations they have been taught. OK

It is not true that "They have all taught the message of the church and now do not teach that message." Michael Rood was a leader in the anti-Trinitarian cult called The Way, International. He was never a teacher of the mainstream church. He has always been teaching fringe doctrines. I've explained this to you many times and given you proof but you continue to repeat that falsehood. I don't understand why you believe liars and reject truth. Can't you see how wrong that is?
I have read the link you gave me and onto another page. It makes no difference to me that he started of with some cult as you call it, everything written about Rood is not to believed. I base everything on what he says now. I keep his teaching of the Bible separate form his troubled business matters. He has explained some of the things said against him and I dot hold every word he might have spoken wrongly against him. We are all changing if we are learning. Unless, you listen to what he says, and you go on the reports of others, you are going on hearsay and even 'Judge Judy ' does not permit hearsay in her court. If you want to discuss an aspect of Rood's teaching from his videos then please start a thread on that, but do not use other people's material. I said that I wrongly attached the title 'Rabbi' to him. That goes to show how other people have done likewise. If Rood turned out not to practice what he now teaches, you can still be proved correct, but that still does not mean his understanding of scritpure is incorrect. Rood knoww who his judge will be and so let's leave it at that.

The fact that you have not changed your beliefs, even after being shown that they are wrong, shows that you are committed to the doctrines of men rather than truth. Stop these silly remarks. If you had shown me to my satisfaction I have everything wrong, or even one fundamental thing wrong, it would have been accepted. Merely putting something up which I have refuted and given you my reason why , is not proving you are correct. You have to keep trying till I cannot refute you.

I have not been blowing hot air. I have shown you that you are committed to falsehood, and all you do is blow hot air back at me. You need to deal with the truth. Q/QUOTE] That is saying you have not once blown hot air in any of our discussions? That would be tantamount to saying; there is no sin in you. Even according to God's law as you know what it is, no one can truthfully say they have not broken God's law.

[QUOTE=Richard Amiel McGough;53765]I've made the fresh start a dozen times. We must begin with the main and plain things that the Bible actually teaches. A good place to start is to simply follow the thematic flow of the New Testament. It begins with the fulfillment of the last OT prophecies concerning the "Elijah" who would come and 1) prepare the way of Messiah, and 2) proclaim the day of the Lord that would come upon apostate Jerusalem. John the Baptist fulfilled that prophecy. If you reject this, then you reject the primary NT witness that Jesus was messiah. John also warned the first century Jews of the judgment that would soon come upon them, saying that the ax was already laid at the root of the trees. He called them a "generation of vipers" just like Christ did when he warned them of the wrath that would come upon them, saying that upon them would come all the blood of the prophets. This prophecy was fulfilled in Rev 18:24 where apostate Jerusalem is represented by the Great Harlot, Mystery Babylon. I've laid this all out for you many times, and you have never seriously dealt with the Big Picture of what the Bible actually teaches. Most recently, I explained all this in post #32 (http://www.biblewheel.com/forum/showthread.php?3665-Top-20-Topics-taught-in-the-Bible&p=53561#post53561) of this thread and you replied in post #51 (http://www.biblewheel.com/forum/showthread.php?3665-Top-20-Topics-taught-in-the-Bible&p=53616#post53616) where you agreed that "God's judgment" did come upon Jerusalem in the first century, but then simply asserted without reason that this was not "the end." But that directly contradicts the words of Christ in the Olivet Discourse when he said that "the end" would come upon the first century generation when the Temple was destroyed. You simply ignore what the Bible actually states and refuse to acknowledge the truth no matter how plain and obvious it is, and so we go in circles forever and ever ....
Why do you not start with the promises to Abraham and follow the promises through to the NT? All your previous explanations I have not agreed to and to launch straight into them proves nothing. You are asking me to just agree with you and not challenge anything. We have to start at the beginning, after all, the OT and the promises to Abraham, Moses and David are the foundation on which to build. We cannot leave anything out, so go through the Bible in chronological order as best we can,

This is the "new start" David. We have to come to AGREEMENT about what the Bible actually states, and what "Big Picture" emerges from the thematic flow of the NT narrative. Nothing could be simpler. But Futurists must always confuse things because their doctrines are contrary to what the Bible actually states. You indicate bias towards preterism by you accusation against Futurists. Unless you can drop the terms alltogther and not use them again, I do not see us getting very far.

It would be great if you would follow me in this "new beginning" like you said you would. We have to agree where to start from and the NT is not the best place to start. The OT needs to understood to make sense of the NT. Jesus refers back to the OT (the Jewish scriptures). What Jesus understood is what we have to establish.

All the best,

David

Richard Amiel McGough

04-16-2013, 04:38 PM

I have read the link you gave me and onto another page. It makes no difference to me that he started of with some cult as you call it, everything written about Rood is not to believed. I base everything on what he says now. I keep his teaching of the Bible separate form his troubled business matters. He has explained some of the things said against him and I dot hold every word he might have spoken wrongly against him. We are all changing if we are learning. Unless, you listen to what he says, and you go on the reports of others, you are going on hearsay and even 'Judge Judy ' does not permit hearsay in her court. If you want to discuss an aspect of Rood's teaching from his videos then please start a thread on that, but do not use other people's material. I said that I wrongly attached the title 'Rabbi' to him. That goes to show how other people have done likewise. If Rood turned out not to practice what he now teaches, you can still be proved correct, but that still does not mean his understanding of scritpure is incorrect. Rood knoww who his judge will be and so let's leave it at that.

David,

Yes, Rood has "explained" his past by LYING. Man ... what has happened to your brain? Why do you blindly follow a cult leader? I just don't get it. You oppose the entire edifice of traditional Christianity supported by ten thousand teachers ten thousand times more credible that Rood, yet you hold to Rood as if he were God Almighty. I am stunned and mystified. What is it that governs your mind?

It is not hearsay. I gave objective proof and you simply ignored it.

I have "listened to what he says." I have presented his own words to you where he teaches all about Satan leading a rebelling of angels that were in heaven and how he got kicked out and is now running an operation down here on earth. You are blind to it all. You following him even though he directly contradicts your fundamental doctrine about angels sinning. I've never seen anything so blatantly absurd and self-contradictory.

There is a reason other people have "wrongly" attached the term "rabbi" to Rood. HE CALLED HIMSELF A "MESSIANIC RABBI" on his own website! :doh:

And besides that, he frequently refers to himself implicitly as a "Jew" even though he is not. He is deliberately deceiving people. The proof is in the result - many of his strongest supporters refer to him as a "Messianic Rabbi."

This is insane. I've given you more than enough evidence, and you still can't see the truth. If you can't see the truth when it is handed to you on a silver platter, what chance is there that you could ever find it yourself?

And beyond all this, I have proven that Rood's interpretations are totally made up and unbiblical. For example, Rood teaches that the scroll sealed with seven seals is the "title deed" of planet earth. That is absurd. I've told you this many times and you have never responded. It shows that you are following Rood like the most devoted cult member. You apparently believe whatever he says no matter how absurd. This is so crazy in light of how you reject things I say no matter how true they are. It's just plain weird. It's like you mind has been taken over by Rood Body Snatchers or something. There is no way to reason with you. You are like a Rood Robot. I am stunned. Shocked. Mystified. :eek: :dontknow: :dizzy:

The fact that you have not changed your beliefs, even after being shown that they are wrong, shows that you are committed to the doctrines of men rather than truth.
Stop these silly remarks. If you had shown me to my satisfaction I have everything wrong, or even one fundamental thing wrong, it would have been accepted. Merely putting something up which I have refuted and given you my reason why , is not proving you are correct. You have to keep trying till I cannot refute you.

There is nothing "silly" about my remarks. I have been discussing the Bible with you for over a year. I have given you more proof than anyone would ever need, and you just reject it. You simply reject all evidence that proves you wrong, and then you say I haven't proven it to your "satisfaction." Well David, there simply is no "proof" that would every be "to your satisfaction" if it proves you wrong. Case in point: I quoted you saying you "do not disagree" with the Law of Non-Contradiction even as you directly contradicted it by saying that you reject both P and Not P. Therefore, I have given a strict LOGIC PROOF of your error, and you have refused to accept it for over eight months now. And that's just a logical proof. I've given many other proofs that you simply reject without reason, such as the PROOF that Rood made false predictions about the "end times" stuff happening in the year 1999 and the fact that he called himself a "Messianic rabbi" on his own website. Yet you just reject it all without reason. I gave proof and you just reject it and ignore it because it contradicts what you want to believe.

I have not been blowing hot air. I have shown you that you are committed to falsehood, and all you do is blow hot air back at me. You need to deal with the truth. That is saying you have not once blown hot air in any of our discussions? That would be tantamount to saying; there is no sin in you. Even according to God's law as you know what it is, no one can truthfully say they have not broken God's law.

No, it is not tantamount to saying "there is no sin in me." It is tantamount to saying "I did not commit that particular sin."

Why do you not start with the promises to Abraham and follow the promises through to the NT? All your previous explanations I have not agreed to and to launch straight into them proves nothing. You are asking me to just agree with you and not challenge anything. We have to start at the beginning, after all, the OT and the promises to Abraham, Moses and David are the foundation on which to build. We cannot leave anything out, so go through the Bible in chronological order as best we can,

Starting with the "promises to Abraham" would change nothing, though it would give you the opportunity to add more confusion to try to prove your idiosyncratic doctrines. It wouldn't change anything because Paul explained what those promises were all about:
Galatians 3:1 O foolish Galatians, who hath bewitched you, that ye should not obey the truth, before whose eyes Jesus Christ hath been evidently set forth, crucified among you? 2 This only would I learn of you, Received ye the Spirit by the works of the Torah, or by the hearing of faith? 3 Are ye so foolish? having begun in the Spirit, are ye now made perfect by the flesh? 4 Have ye suffered so many things in vain? if it be yet in vain. 5 He therefore that ministereth to you the Spirit, and worketh miracles among you, doeth he it by the works of the Torah, or by the hearing of faith? 6 Even as Abraham believed God, and it was accounted to him for righteousness. 7 Know ye therefore that they which are of faith, the same are the children of Abraham. 8 And the scripture, foreseeing that God would justify the heathen through faith, preached before the gospel unto Abraham, saying, In thee shall all nations be blessed. 9 So then they which be of faith are blessed with faithful Abraham. 10 For as many as are of the works of the Torah are under the curse: for it is written, Cursed is every one that continueth not in all things which are written in the book of the law to do them. 11 But that no man is justified by the law in the sight of God, it is evident: for, The just shall live by faith. 12 And the Torah is not of faith: but, The man that doeth them shall live in them. 13 Christ hath redeemed us from the curse of the Torah, being made a curse for us: for it is written, Cursed is every one that hangeth on a tree: 14 That the blessing of Abraham might come on the Gentiles through Jesus Christ; that we might receive the promise of the Spirit through faith. 15 ¶ Brethren, I speak after the manner of men; Though it be but a man's covenant, yet if it be confirmed, no man disannulleth, or addeth thereto. 16 Now to Abraham and his seed were the promises made. He saith not, And to seeds, as of many; but as of one, And to thy seed, which is Christ. 17 And this I say, that the covenant, that was confirmed before of God in Christ, the law, which was four hundred and thirty years after, cannot disannul, that it should make the promise of none effect. 18 For if the inheritance be of the law, it is no more of promise: but God gave it to Abraham by promise. 19 Wherefore then serveth the law? It was added because of transgressions, till the seed should come to whom the promise was made; and it was ordained by angels in the hand of a mediator. 20 Now a mediator is not a mediator of one, but God is one. 21 ¶ Is the law then against the promises of God? God forbid: for if there had been a law given which could have given life, verily righteousness should have been by the law. 22 But the scripture hath concluded all under sin, that the promise by faith of Jesus Christ might be given to them that believe.
There is nothing to be gained by starting with the promise to Abraham because the promise to Abraham was the GOSPEL OF CHRIST as Paul explained with perfect clarity.

Again, we see that you will do anything to avoid the plain and obvious BIG PICTURE taught throughout the Bible. All because you are trying to force it to fit the ridiculous "Hebrew Roots Movement" that exalts the Old Covenant and reduces the New Covenant to nothing but a "renewal" of the bloody carnal old covenant based on animal sacrifices.

This is why it is so very difficult to find any common ground. I have to quote WHOLE CHAPTERS that show your interpretations are totally bogus, yet you still refuse to see. And worse, I could have quoted a hundred other verses that CONFIRM everything I have said. You have no excuse for being so ignorant of the MAIN AND PLAIN things that the Bible teaches.

This is the "new start" David. We have to come to AGREEMENT about what the Bible actually states, and what "Big Picture" emerges from the thematic flow of the NT narrative. Nothing could be simpler. But Futurists must always confuse things because their doctrines are contrary to what the Bible actually states.
You indicate bias towards preterism by you accusation against Futurists. Unless you can drop the terms alltogther and not use them again, I do not see us getting very far.

I can see why you would think that, but it is not true. My comment did not show any "bias" because it is based on what the Bible actually states as I've proven a thousand times with you and you have never been able to show any error in what I have written. You simply reject it without reason. The Futurist doctrines really are made up from fragments taken out of context and even stuff made up out of whole cloth (such as the rebuilt temple, the 2000+ year magical stretchy gap in Dan 9:25-27, etc.). There is nothing in Preterism like that.

We have to agree where to start from and the NT is not the best place to start. The OT needs to understood to make sense of the NT. Jesus refers back to the OT (the Jewish scriptures). What Jesus understood is what we have to establish.

Again, you have it backwards. The OT is understood in light of the NT, not the other way around. This is common knowledge to all who have seriously studied the Bible. It is totally obvious. Without the NT, you would have almost no way to no anything about the Messiah. It is the NT that shows how he is hidden in the OT.

The ancient maxim from the fifth century says it best: "The Old Testament is in the New revealed, the New is in the Old concealed."

The path to truth is plain and simple. The methods of the deceivers are likewise easily exposed by "those who by reason of use have their senses exercised to discern both good and evil."

It's time to quit the game playing. I can see through it all in a heartbeat. I saw through Rood in a nanosecond. It's time to just drop all the BS and begin with the plain and obvious facts about what the Bible actually teaches.

All the best,

Richard

L67

04-16-2013, 09:41 PM

Hello L67

I have given you my reasons. I will continue if the style of discourse changes.

Now what is the problem? You said to stop giving generalities and get to the specifics. I cut down on them and got down to specific points with verses to back what I say. And you still aren't happy. This is getting ridiculous.

You can either continue the good discussion we have going or we can let the record show you are a quitter who can't defend his positions. It's your choice.

I suggest you start by showing me there is no "future timeline".

I suggest you start by answering my refutation of your appeal to Revelation 20:4. I asked you to show me where the Bible speaks of a future earthly kingdom or 1000 year reign. You used Revelation 20:4 to support that. It doesn't mention one that about a future anything. The language is all past tense. You need to deal with this. Here, it is again.

Revelation 20:4-6 4 I saw thrones on which were seated those who had been given authority to judge. And I saw the souls of those who had been beheaded because of their testimony about Jesus and because of the word of God. They[a] had not worshiped the beast or its image and had not received its mark on their foreheads or their hands. They came to life and reigned with Christ a thousand years. 5 (The rest of the dead did not come to life until the thousand years were ended.) This is the first resurrection. 6 Blessed and holy are those who share in the first resurrection. The second death has no power over them, but they will be priests of God and of Christ and will reign with him for a thousand years.

That verse does NOT prove a future earthly kingdom or a future 1000 year reign of Christ. It doesn't even mention those things. It also doesn't mention a bodily resurrection, nor does it mention Christ on earth. If you read the verse closely you will see it was the souls who lived and reigned with Christ for 1000 years(notice the verse is past tense.). The souls who had been beheaded for their testimony of Jesus. Revelation 6:9-11 speaks of the souls who were slain. Revelation 20:4-6 is speaking of the "dead" reigning with Christ(also past tense). It clearly says they(souls) came to life and reigned with Christ a 1000 years. The verse explicitly says the first resurrection pertains to those souls who lived and reigned with Christ. The 1000 year reign of Christ began on Pentecost in 30AD.[

In whose mind? How do you know the author's intention?

How do I know the authors intention? By the language in which the Bible was written. The NT is obviously written for the first century audience. That is why the NT uses language that describe events as imminent. Your failure to recognise this fact is because your doctrine cripples your critical thinking skills. If you would just put your beliefs aside for a moment and look at the Bible with a free spirit, you would see things you couldn't see before. I'm not telling you this to drag you away from your faith. You are entitled to any belief you want. I'm telling you this because you are shackled from the truth of the obvious things.

So how do we resolve the problem we both have?

The problem lies with your refusal to let go of your doctrine and examine the Bible with open eyes. That doesn't mean you will stop being a believer by doing so either. It means you are taking in all truth and then you can compare it to your beliefs.

Now I'm not saying I'm the authority for truth. I'm not. But I am being as honest as I can be. And I do believe my arugments have merit because I am only acknowledging Jesus own words.

Explain to me why I have a cult like mentality and you do not. It can be argued we all belong to cults unless you are not following Jesus. Don't ask me to stop.

Because you have a devotion to uphold your fringe doctrines no matter how many errors someone exposes. You refuse to accept anything someone says no matter how plain and obvious it is.

I don't have a cult like mentality because I am just arguing from the plain words of the Bible. That's it. You are arguing from your preconceived doctrines. I don't belong to any group that taught me any doctrine like you do.

I will try to remember you are looking for truth. Since that is both our aim, where do you want to begin.

Thank you. A good place to start is like Richard said. The plain and obvoius things the Bible teaches.

I have already put up on this forum and you can find the threads I have started and I have stated my case as a start. This is why I say you should now take a lead and do likewise that can give us a base for discussion and Richard will jump in.

I will try and find those threads and maybe we can build from there.

I have replied to your quotes and where you disagree, you can carry on and explain why you disagree and give more supporting evidence. If you are getting benefit from our discourse, I will continue with you.

I exposed the error of Rev. 20:4. There is no need for more supporting evidence. The plain and obvious has been stated. The ball is in your court to rebut my argument. Once I see your argument, then we can move closer to finding an agreement on the meaning of that verse.

Do you want to concentrate on where the kingdom will be as a subject to continue with? Give us your exposition on the subject and we can go over it point by point.

Ya we could do that.

David I know you take this stuff very seriously. That's fine. But you need to lighten up a little. We're all here for the same reason. So why not just take it all in and just enjoy yourself? So what if you are wrong all the time. I'm just kidding btw. But seriously it's not worth getting uptight about words on a computer screen. Yes, things get said in the moment but were all adults here so we can move past that at times.

Take it easy.

David M

04-17-2013, 02:08 AM

It's time to quit the game playing. I can see through it all in a heartbeat. I saw through Rood in a nanosecond. It's time to just drop all the BS and begin with the plain and obvious facts about what the Bible actually teaches.

Richard

I am not playing a game and if that is your assessment of what you think I am doing, then I am stopping now participating in any further discussions with you. If this is a game I am not going to play until the rules of the game have been agreed and we both have to stick to the rules. I have said in the past we need our discussions to be according to the rules to avoid personal remarks etc. and unless this happens, every discussion centred on the Bible is going to end up this way. It is impossible to carry a topic through to its conclusion and it is getting intolerable to continue this way. I am repeatedly coming to the same conclusion after carrying on. This is just repeating the same old to get the same result and that is madness and to save me from further madness, I am doing as you advise and quitting further conversation.

Whatever the future holds, all the best.

David

David M

04-17-2013, 03:05 AM

David M

04-17-2013, 04:03 AM

Hello Richard

David,

Yes, Rood has "explained" his past by LYING. Man ... what has happened to your brain? Why do you blindly follow a cult leader? I just don't get it. You oppose the entire edifice of traditional Christianity supported by ten thousand teachers ten thousand times more credible that Rood, yet you hold to Rood as if he were God Almighty. I am stunned and mystified. What is it that governs your mind? None of us is in a good place to judge another unless we hear the words from their mouth and understand where they are now. We all make mistakes and we can repent and say we will not make the same mistake again. We can all change our minds about something and if a change of mind is for the better, we would not object to that. Rood might have mistakenly said things in the past, but those things he is not saying now. If we hold everyone to account for what they said in the past, we should hold you to account for the things you said 10 years ago; the Book of Enoch being one example. Were you lying when you said all those things you believed in back then? You must give people some latitude and stop showing your prejudice against those who continue to believe.

It is not hearsay. I gave objective proof and you simply ignored it. That was nowhere objective proof. Some was probably true, so I can accept some things, but not all of what was reported in that article was true and it certainly does not apply to now. A court of law, would not hold the document I have read as objective proof.

I have "listened to what he says." I have presented his own words to you where he teaches all about Satan leading a rebelling of angels that were in heaven and how he got kicked out and is now running an operation down here on earth. You are blind to it all. You following him even though he directly contradicts your fundamental doctrine about angels sinning. I've never seen anything so blatantly absurd and self-contradictory. I AM NOT FOLLOWING HIM!! I have to shout so you understand that point clearly. Stop saying I do.

There is a reason other people have "wrongly" attached the term "rabbi" to Rood. HE CALLED HIMSELF A "MESSIANIC RABBI" on his own website! :doh: Stop repeating these things I have replied to you otherwise I have to thing you are insane or drugged. I am not going to repeat what I have already told you in another post. Please keep past replies in mind before you keep repeating.

And besides that, he frequently refers to himself implicitly as a "Jew" even though he is not. He is deliberately deceiving people. The proof is in the result - many of his strongest supporters refer to him as a "Messianic Rabbi." If they refer to him that way, so be it. He is messianic and he is seen in their eyes to be a teacher. We can all appear as teachers of people learn from us.

This is insane. I've given you more than enough evidence, and you still can't see the truth. If you can't see the truth when it is handed to you on a silver platter, what chance is there that you could ever find it yourself? We need a judge to rule between us. Your proof is not proof to me and all you can do is appear arrogant to keep saying so. I have given you my explanations, I accept you do not accept my proof, I do not about shouting "I have given you proof". Just stop saying it and make better use of your time and words.

And beyond all this, I have proven that Rood's interpretations are totally made up and unbiblical. For example, Rood teaches that the scroll sealed with seven seals is the "title deed" of planet earth. That is absurd. I've told you this many times and you have never responded. It shows that you are following Rood like the most devoted cult member. You apparently believe whatever he says no matter how absurd. This is so crazy in light of how you reject things I say no matter how true they are. It's just plain weird. It's like you mind has been taken over by Rood Body Snatchers or something. There is no way to reason with you. You are like a Rood Robot. I am stunned. Shocked. Mystified. :eek: :dontknow: :dizzy: You have by no means shown me Rood's interpretations are wrong. You may be able to cite a case, but since he does not claim to be perfect and have got everything right and does not expect us to agree with him on everything, I have no reason to object and get upset as you do. Deal with points of teaching it is in his videos on Youtube and we can get down to specifics

There is nothing "silly" about my remarks. I have been discussing the Bible with you for over a year. I have given you more proof than anyone would ever need, and you just reject it. You simply reject all evidence that proves you wrong, and then you say I haven't proven it to your "satisfaction." Well David, there simply is no "proof" that would every be "to your satisfaction" if it proves you wrong. Case in point: I quoted you saying you "do not disagree" with the Law of Non-Contradiction even as you directly contradicted it by saying that you reject both P and Not P. Therefore, I have given a strict LOGIC PROOF of your error, and you have refused to accept it for over eight months now. And that's just a logical proof. I've given many other proofs that you simply reject without reason, such as the PROOF that Rood made false predictions about the "end times" stuff happening in the year 1999 and the fact that he called himself a "Messianic rabbi" on his own website. Yet you just reject it all without reason. I gave proof and you just reject it and ignore it because it contradicts what you want to believe. No different to you rejecting every alternative explanation I have given you. Are you on medication to keep saying the same old things?

No, it is not tantamount to saying "there is no sin in me." It is tantamount to saying "I did not commit that particular sin." So we have all committed different sins, does that make us all different?

Starting with the "promises to Abraham" would change nothing, though it would give you the opportunity to add more confusion to try to prove your idiosyncratic doctrines. It wouldn't change anything because Paul explained what those promises were all about:
Galatians 3:1 O foolish Galatians, who hath bewitched you, that ye should not obey the truth, before whose eyes Jesus Christ hath been evidently set forth, crucified among you? 2 This only would I learn of you, Received ye the Spirit by the works of the Torah, or by the hearing of faith? 3 Are ye so foolish? having begun in the Spirit, are ye now made perfect by the flesh? 4 Have ye suffered so many things in vain? if it be yet in vain. 5 He therefore that ministereth to you the Spirit, and worketh miracles among you, doeth he it by the works of the Torah, or by the hearing of faith? 6 Even as Abraham believed God, and it was accounted to him for righteousness. 7 Know ye therefore that they which are of faith, the same are the children of Abraham. 8 And the scripture, foreseeing that God would justify the heathen through faith, preached before the gospel unto Abraham, saying, In thee shall all nations be blessed. 9 So then they which be of faith are blessed with faithful Abraham. 10 For as many as are of the works of the Torah are under the curse: for it is written, Cursed is every one that continueth not in all things which are written in the book of the law to do them. 11 But that no man is justified by the law in the sight of God, it is evident: for, The just shall live by faith. 12 And the Torah is not of faith: but, The man that doeth them shall live in them. 13 Christ hath redeemed us from the curse of the Torah, being made a curse for us: for it is written, Cursed is every one that hangeth on a tree: 14 That the blessing of Abraham might come on the Gentiles through Jesus Christ; that we might receive the promise of the Spirit through faith. 15 ¶ Brethren, I speak after the manner of men; Though it be but a man's covenant, yet if it be confirmed, no man disannulleth, or addeth thereto. 16 Now to Abraham and his seed were the promises made. He saith not, And to seeds, as of many; but as of one, And to thy seed, which is Christ. 17 And this I say, that the covenant, that was confirmed before of God in Christ, the law, which was four hundred and thirty years after, cannot disannul, that it should make the promise of none effect. 18 For if the inheritance be of the law, it is no more of promise: but God gave it to Abraham by promise. 19 Wherefore then serveth the law? It was added because of transgressions, till the seed should come to whom the promise was made; and it was ordained by angels in the hand of a mediator. 20 Now a mediator is not a mediator of one, but God is one. 21 ¶ Is the law then against the promises of God? God forbid: for if there had been a law given which could have given life, verily righteousness should have been by the law. 22 But the scripture hath concluded all under sin, that the promise by faith of Jesus Christ might be given to them that believe.
There is nothing to be gained by starting with the promise to Abraham because the promise to Abraham was the GOSPEL OF CHRIST as Paul explained with perfect clarity. The difference we have is understanding what the Gospel message is. That is why we have to go back to Abraham and see what is was. Does Paul deal with every aspect of the Gospel. We have the land that was promised to Abraham to consider.

Again, we see that you will do anything to avoid the plain and obvious BIG PICTURE taught throughout the Bible. All because you are trying to force it to fit the ridiculous "Hebrew Roots Movement" that exalts the Old Covenant and reduces the New Covenant to nothing but a "renewal" of the bloody carnal old covenant based on animal sacrifices.
This goes to show how totally twisted your own mind is for accusing me of things that are not true. I am not a follower of tje "Hebrew Roots Movement". I was not aware of that name until recently. My beliefs have nothing to do with this movement and actually if you had listened to Rood and heard the words from his own mouth, he does not associate himself with this movement. They have some things in common, but as I have found when first looking into this once I had become aware of this so named group, they are not all saying the same thing and have different understandings. Rood does not agree a the lunar calendar beginning with every month starting with a Sabbath. This is not a strong point with me, and I can see the different messages being taught within "Hebrew Revivalists" as I will call them for now.

This is why it is so very difficult to find any common ground. I have to quote WHOLE CHAPTERS that show your interpretations are totally bogus, yet you still refuse to see. And worse, I could have quoted a hundred other verses that CONFIRM everything I have said. You have no excuse for being so ignorant of the MAIN AND PLAIN things that the Bible teaches. Quoting alone is not sufficient. You have to give verse by verse explanations. What might be obvious to you is no obvious to someone else and unless you take the time to explain, you are not communicating.

I can see why you would think that, but it is not true. My comment did not show any "bias" because it is based on what the Bible actually states as I've proven a thousand times with you and you have never been able to show any error in what I have written. You simply reject it without reason. The Futurist doctrines really are made up from fragments taken out of context and even stuff made up out of whole cloth (such as the rebuilt temple, the 2000+ year magical stretchy gap in Dan 9:25-27, etc.). There is nothing in Preterism like that. Anyone new to this forum reading your post would get the impression I have not replied to you or never challenged you or ever refuted a word you have said. That gives a totally wrong picture. Except for those who are siding with you, many others who know you by now and have conversed with you, will see this as your ego.

Again, you have it backwards. The OT is understood in light of the NT, not the other way around. This is common knowledge to all who have seriously studied the Bible. It is totally obvious. Without the NT, you would have almost no way to no anything about the Messiah. It is the NT that shows how he is hidden in the OT.

The ancient maxim from the fifth century says it best: "The Old Testament is in the New revealed, the New is in the Old concealed."

The path to truth is plain and simple. The methods of the deceivers are likewise easily exposed by "those who by reason of use have their senses exercised to discern both good and evil." You have clearly explained why mainstream Christianity has got things backwards and you are coming from that position. Alas, you have not turned about to go against their teaching and get things understood correctly, but you have gone off a tangent into your own wilderness and you want to lead us all into oblivion.

It's time to quit the game playing. I can see through it all in a heartbeat. I saw through Rood in a nanosecond. It's time to just drop all the BS and begin with the plain and obvious facts about what the Bible actually teaches. I have already replied to this one comment not intending to reply to the whole post as I have done. You can have your wish and I stop playing your game to your rules or lack of them. On this subject, it is finished and goodbye.

David

Richard Amiel McGough

04-17-2013, 09:41 AM

Richard

I am not playing a game and if that is your assessment of what you think I am doing, then I am stopping now participating in any further discussions with you. If this is a game I am not going to play until the rules of the game have been agreed and we both have to stick to the rules. I have said in the past we need our discussions to be according to the rules to avoid personal remarks etc. and unless this happens, every discussion centred on the Bible is going to end up this way. It is impossible to carry a topic through to its conclusion and it is getting intolerable to continue this way. I am repeatedly coming to the same conclusion after carrying on. This is just repeating the same old to get the same result and that is madness and to save me from further madness, I am doing as you advise and quitting further conversation.

Whatever the future holds, all the best.

David
You are right David. It is insane for me to expect that you would ever admit your errors. I'm sorry for pressing it for so long. I'll let it all drop now. We can just talk and if we disagree, we disagree. No big deal.

Personally, I delight in the clear articulation of truth and I expect others to be the same way. I never imagined it could be possible that anyone would explicitly deny the law of non-contradiction, let alone adamantly persist in the denial for a period of eight months! The whole thing mystifies me. So I pressed harder and harder expecting that you would eventually see that you needed to actually answer since the violation of the law of non-contradiction destroys any possibility of rational discourse. But I was wrong. You simply refuse to answer and that is that. So be it. I shouldn't be surprised since I received exactly the same response from both you and Henry when I exposed the direct contradiction in his interpretation of the Olivet Discourse.

All the best,

Richard

Richard Amiel McGough

04-17-2013, 10:20 AM

None of us is in a good place to judge another unless we hear the words from their mouth and understand where they are now. We all make mistakes and we can repent and say we will not make the same mistake again. We can all change our minds about something and if a change of mind is for the better, we would not object to that. Rood might have mistakenly said things in the past, but those things he is not saying now. If we hold everyone to account for what they said in the past, we should hold you to account for the things you said 10 years ago; the Book of Enoch being one example. Were you lying when you said all those things you believed in back then? You must give people some latitude and stop showing your prejudice against those who continue to believe.

The problem is that Rood did not repent. He lied. He covered up the truth.

There's nothing wrong with changing your mind. On the contrary, that's the most important skill! It's called "learning."

Your question if I was "lying" when I said things about the book of Enoch makes no sense because I am saying the same things now. The only thing that has changed is my presupposition that the Bible is the Word of God. My opinion about the book of Enoch has not changed. I've explained this to you half a dozen times. Why don't you understand?

That was nowhere objective proof. Some was probably true, so I can accept some things, but not all of what was reported in that article was true and it certainly does not apply to now. A court of law, would not hold the document I have read as objective proof.

I wasn't talking about only that page. I was talking about all the evidence I have given you which includes quotes from Rood's own writings in his books and on his website, as well as court documents (which obviously were accepted in a court of law).

There is a reason other people have "wrongly" attached the term "rabbi" to Rood. HE CALLED HIMSELF A "MESSIANIC RABBI" on his own website! :doh:
Stop repeating these things I have replied to you otherwise I have to thing you are insane or drugged. I am not going to repeat what I have already told you in another post. Please keep past replies in mind before you keep repeating.

I repeated it because you never answered it. You simply rejected it even though I gave you incontrovertible evidence that it is true. That is the true insanity.

We need a judge to rule between us. Your proof is not proof to me and all you can do is appear arrogant to keep saying so. I have given you my explanations, I accept you do not accept my proof, I do not about shouting "I have given you proof". Just stop saying it and make better use of your time and words.

Rational people have LOGIC AND FACTS to serve as judge. They need no other unless one of them is being irrational or refusing to accept objective facts.

You have by no means shown me Rood's interpretations are wrong. You may be able to cite a case, but since he does not claim to be perfect and have got everything right and does not expect us to agree with him on everything, I have no reason to object and get upset as you do. Deal with points of teaching it is in his videos on Youtube and we can get down to specifics

I most definitely have proven Rood is wrong. His entire flagship book "The Mystery of Iniquity" is fundamentally based on the idea that Satan is a fallen angel and that the scroll sealed with seven seals is the "title deed" of planet earth. No more proof is needed. That's sufficient to sink his ship.

His videos are classic brainwashing programs. He talks fast and SUPER AUTHORITATIVELY. He lulls his listeners into submissive suggestibility by making them feel they are "special" because they can see through the "pagan Christianity" and understand the "secrets of the Lord" revealed by God's own prophet, Michael Rood. Most of what he says is true of course. That's how the programming works. You state many truths with a super-authoritative voice so that you listeners get programmed to believe whatever you say. Then you slip in your lies with the same authoritative voice and the hypnotic suggestion is received. This is the classic brainwashing technique.

No different to you rejecting every alternative explanation I have given you. Are you on medication to keep saying the same old things?

I do not simply "reject" your alternative explanations. I show why they fail. There is a world of difference.

This goes to show how totally twisted your own mind is for accusing me of things that are not true. I am not a follower of tje "Hebrew Roots Movement". I was not aware of that name until recently. My beliefs have nothing to do with this movement and actually if you had listened to Rood and heard the words from his own mouth, he does not associate himself with this movement. They have some things in common, but as I have found when first looking into this once I had become aware of this so named group, they are not all saying the same thing and have different understandings. Rood does not agree a the lunar calendar beginning with every month starting with a Sabbath. This is not a strong point with me, and I can see the different messages being taught within "Hebrew Revivalists" as I will call them for now.

Here is the current title of Michael Rood's website (http://aroodawakening.tv/): Hebraic Roots Ministry | Restoring Hebrew Roots | Michael Rood. :doh:

And this is what Michael Rood says about his Hebrew Roots Ministry on his home page:
Michael Rood has taught thousands of individuals seeking to learn more about the Hebrew Roots of the Christian faith through “A Rood Awakening!” seminars, literature and DVDs. Now Michael brings his inspiring and Biblically-based insights to television audiences across the English and Spanish-speaking world. “Prepare for A Rood Awakening!” seeks to provide educational video that exposes man-made traditions within Christianity and Judaism by examining the Scriptures for wisdom and truth. Michael’s gripping and colorful teaching style will guide you through the misinformation offered in the religious sphere today and lead you to the truth found in the Scriptures.
When is the insanity going to stop David? Your comments constantly contradict reality in the most blatant ways!

Now think about this. You say you have watched over 40 hours of Rood's videos, yet you think he "does not associate himself" with the Hebrew Roots movement? If you are wrong about something as plain and simple as this, why do you have any confidence in any of your thoughts about Rood?

This is why our conversations are so difficult for you David. You constantly insist on things that simply are not true.

All the best,

Richard

L67

04-17-2013, 09:29 PM

Hello L67
In answering to a reply, it is sometimes worth reading the whole post before replying or to work backwards when dealing with comments in the post. On the basis that you want to continue and since you have asked a specific question about Revelation 20 I am going to give you my answer to the question and see where we go. As for commenting on any other remarks, I shall pass. This does not mean I agree with everything you have written, I am simply breaking the cycle as I have just done in relying to Richard. Carrying on conversations with three people all in adversarial mode, more about the person than the actual facts of the Bible, is just too tedious and I am drawing an end to that type of discussion.

Thanks for the reply. I don't expect you to agree with me on everything. But I do expect you to acknowledge my points that question the validity of your beliefs from a scriptural stand point. I will do the same in return.

We have to take this piece by piece. What you say raises questions. You say "It doesn't even mention those things". So anything else that is not mentioned, must not be included. You say; "It also doesn't mention a bodily resurrection" The text says; "they came to life" What life were they raised to? It does not mention they were raised in a pure spirit form, hence that form must not be used as a conclusion. We have to give the same latitude to "bodily resurrection" as "spirit resurrection" or none at all.

No we really can't give the same latitude for a "bodily resurrection". Revelation does not say one word about the resurrection of the "bodies" of the martyrs, nor does it say that the angel saw the martyrs themselves. The verse is also explicit that he only saw the "souls" of the martyrs living and reigning with Christ. They had been put to death in the body so why would the body need to be resurrected? Paul tells us in Romans 6:3-14 this very thing.

Or don’t you know that all of us who were baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into his death? 4 We were therefore buried with him through baptism into death in order that, just as Christ was raised from the dead through the glory of the Father, we too may live a new life.

5 For if we have been united with him in a death like his, we will certainly also be united with him in a resurrection like his.6 For we know that our old self was crucified with him so that the body ruled by sin might be done away with,[a] that we should no longer be slaves to sin— 7 because anyone who has died has been set free from sin.
8 Now if we died with Christ, we believe that we will also live with him. 9 For we know that since Christ was raised from the dead, he cannot die again; death no longer has mastery over him. 10 The death he died, he died to sin once for all; but the life he lives, he lives to God.

11 In the same way, count yourselves dead to sin but alive to God in Christ Jesus. 12 Therefore do not let sin reign in your mortal body so that you obey its evil desires. 13 Do not offer any part of yourself to sin as an instrument of wickedness, but rather offer yourselves to God as those who have been brought from death to life; and offer every part of yourself to him as an instrument of righteousness. 14 For sin shall no longer be your master, because you are not under the law, but under grace.

They were raised to spiritual life David. Because notice at the beginning of the verse it says he saw those seated on thrones who were beheaded? The souls were on those thrones. Where is Jesus throne now? In heaven. The Bible tells us so. Ephesians 2:6 6 And God raised us up with Christ and seated us with him in the heavenly realms in Christ Jesus,

You say; "nor does it mention Christ on earth". I accept the "earth" is not stated, so at this point I will not make that assumption. Where is the place these who came to life reigned with Jesus? Heaven is not mentioned, and so we must give "Heaven" the same treatment as "earth" and since neither is not mentioned, we cannot say these souls reigned with Jesus in Heaven. To be clear, I have looked at the verses before this. In verse 1 it says; And I saw an angel come down from heaven, Come down to where? Earth would be just as reasonable a place as any other place you care to mention.

Yes we can say the souls reigned with Jesus in heaven because it says the souls were seated on the thrones. Remember Ephesians tells us they were seated in the heavenly realms with Jesus.

Next you say "notice the verse is past tense" If the tense was present, the angel could report only as things were revealed and could not report things that would happen in the future. I ask you to remember that this is a vision which the angel "saw" and is being reported. The events though future in vision, are reported as having been seen; not as if they have already happened.

That assumes there is a future connotation to the verses. The language used is past tense for a reason. Because there is no future tense to these verses at all. Mathew tells us that the first century generation would experience those things. Mathew 23:34-36

34 Wherefore, behold, I send unto you prophets, and wise men, and scribes: and some of them ye shall kill and crucify; and some of them shall ye scourge in your synagogues, and persecute them from city to city:

35 That upon you may come all the righteous blood shed upon the earth, from the blood of righteous Abel unto the blood of Zacharias son of Barachias, whom ye slew between the temple and the altar.

36 Verily I say unto you, All these things shall come upon this generation.

And then Revelation tells God execute his judgement for the saints. Revelation 18:20 0 Rejoice over her, O heaven,
and you saints and apostles and prophets,
for God has given judgment for you against her!”

There is simply no way to force a future date on these verses.

You say; "If you read the verse closely you will see it was the souls who lived". Genesis 2:7; And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul. A soul is either "living" or is dead. Adam was a soul. Why do you say the "soul" in Revelation 20 is "not bodily"?

I explained above why bodily doesn't fit.

"Revelation 6:9-11 speaks of the souls who were slain."[/B] Nothing to disagree with there. Then you go on to say; "Revelation 20:4-6 is speaking of the "dead" reigning with Christ(also past tense)". The same past tense applies to the word "reigned" as it does to the word "saw". For the same reason as I have explained this is recalling a vision, the reported vision speaks of things seen; not meaning the things seen happened in the past.

I agree you are partially right. I did mess that up. But many verses point to first century fulfillment.

Next you say; "It clearly says they(souls) came to life and reigned with Christ a 1000 years. The verse explicitly says the first resurrection pertains to those souls who lived and reigned with Christ." This is merely repeating what has already been dissected and answered. Following on then, you say; "The 1000 year reign of Christ began on Pentecost in 30AD." This means according to you, these souls that had come to life reigned with Jesus from AD30 until AD1300. You must now complete the story and tell me what happened after AD1300.

David as far as I can see there is no rest of the story. Revelation 6:9-11 says the saints were slain for the word of God were under an altar crying for vengeance. Revelation 20:4-6 tells the souls were on the thrones with Jesus like the Bible says they are. Revelation 18:20 explicitly says God executed his judgment on behalf of those slain for his word. And you have a mountain of evidence in the NT that confirms this was first century fulfillment.

I have answered your questions and raised a few of my own and so leave you to answer my questions and comment upon my answers. I trust I have answered in the way you wanted me to.

Yes, you answered them in the way I wanted. Thank you. Tell me your thoughts on my answers and we can try to get further clarification.

Take care.

David M

04-18-2013, 07:18 AM

Hello L67

Thanks for the reply. I don't expect you to agree with me on everything. But I do expect you to acknowledge my points that question the validity of your beliefs from a scriptural stand point. I will do the same in return. Good.

No we really can't give the same latitude for a "bodily resurrection". Revelation does not say one word about the resurrection of the "bodies" of the martyrs, nor does it say that the angel saw the martyrs themselves. The verse is also explicit that he only saw the "souls" of the martyrs living and reigning with Christ. They had been put to death in the body so why would the body need to be resurrected? Paul tells us in Romans 6:3-14 this very thing.
We have to agree what is meant by "soul" and "living soul". I agree the word "body" is not used. Rev 2:13 is the only verse I can find in which the word "martyr" is used in Revelation. (Revelation 5:10) And hast made us unto our God kings and priests: and we shall reign on the earth.
Incidentally, I was quoting from the verse you gave and I quoted "came to life". I now find these words are not in the text. Here are your words:

Revelation 20:4-6 is speaking of the "dead" reigning with Christ(also past tense). It clearly says they(souls) came to life and reigned with Christ a 1000 years. Here is the verse in my PC Bible
4 And I saw thrones, and they sat upon them, and judgment was given unto them: and I saw the souls of them that were beheaded for the witness of Jesus, and for the word of God, and which had not worshipped the beast, neither his image, neither had received his mark upon their foreheads, or in their hands; and they lived and reigned with Christ a thousand years.
5 But the rest of the dead lived not again until the thousand years were finished. This is the first resurrection.
6 Blessed and holy is he that hath part in the first resurrection: on such the second death hath no power, but they shall be priests of God and of Christ, and shall reign with him a thousand years.

It is a small point for now.

Or don’t you know that all of us who were baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into his death? 4 We were therefore buried with him through baptism into death in order that, just as Christ was raised from the dead through the glory of the Father, we too may live a new life.

5 For if we have been united with him in a death like his, we will certainly also be united with him in a resurrection like his.6 For we know that our old self was crucified with him so that the body ruled by sin might be done away with,[a] that we should no longer be slaves to sin— 7 because anyone who has died has been set free from sin.
8 Now if we died with Christ, we believe that we will also live with him. 9 For we know that since Christ was raised from the dead, he cannot die again; death no longer has mastery over him. 10 The death he died, he died to sin once for all; but the life he lives, he lives to God.

11 In the same way, count yourselves dead to sin but alive to God in Christ Jesus. 12 Therefore do not let sin reign in your mortal body so that you obey its evil desires. 13 Do not offer any part of yourself to sin as an instrument of wickedness, but rather offer yourselves to God as those who have been brought from death to life; and offer every part of yourself to him as an instrument of righteousness. 14 For sin shall no longer be your master, because you are not under the law, but under grace.

They were raised to spiritual life David. Because notice at the beginning of the verse it says he saw those seated on thrones who were beheaded? The souls were on those thrones. Where is Jesus throne now? In heaven. The Bible tells us so. Ephesians 2:6 6 And God raised us up with Christ and seated us with him in the heavenly realms in Christ Jesus, I see these words applying now. We are buried symbolically. The life we now have extends into the kingdom, since death is but a sleep. We have a spiritual life now in Christ and also the spiritual life now will become a reality in the kingdom. This is how I see things. I do not think I am complicating these subjects.

Yes we can say the souls reigned with Jesus in heaven because it says the souls were seated on the thrones. Remember Ephesians tells us they were seated in the heavenly realms with Jesus. So where does Revelation 5:10 fit in when we shall reign as kings and priests on the earth?

That assumes there is a future connotation to the verses. The language used is past tense for a reason. Because there is no future tense to these verses at all. Mathew tells us that the first century generation would experience those things. Mathew 23:34-36

34 Wherefore, behold, I send unto you prophets, and wise men, and scribes: and some of them ye shall kill and crucify; and some of them shall ye scourge in your synagogues, and persecute them from city to city:

35 That upon you may come all the righteous blood shed upon the earth, from the blood of righteous Abel unto the blood of Zacharias son of Barachias, whom ye slew between the temple and the altar.

36 Verily I say unto you, All these things shall come upon this generation. I can agree with you on this verse

And then Revelation tells God execute his judgement for the saints. Revelation 18:20 0 Rejoice over her, O heaven,
and you saints and apostles and prophets,
for God has given judgment for you against her!” How do you know this is referring to the same time period.

There is simply no way to force a future date on these verses. I see the same danger of you forcing the two verses to apply to the same time period as you say I am forcing the two events to be separate. I think we have to examine more evidence.

David as far as I can see there is no rest of the story. Revelation 6:9-11 says the saints were slain for the word of God were under an altar crying for vengeance. Revelation 20:4-6 tells the souls were on the thrones with Jesus like the Bible says they are. Revelation 18:20 explicitly says God executed his judgment on behalf of those slain for his word. And you have a mountain of evidence in the NT that confirms this was first century fulfillment. But what happens after AD1300 was my question. Where is the remainder of prophecy not fulfilled fit in? You have to show me this mountain of evidence. The mountain might have to be chipped away, rock by rock and ground up by the stone that is Christ. I am sure we will have the truth explained by him.

Yes, you answered them in the way I wanted. Thank you. Tell me your thoughts on my answers and we can try to get further clarification.
Our argument is likely to turn into another RAM - Twospirits conversation. Nevertheless, we can see how far we get before that happens.

All the best

David

David M

04-18-2013, 07:56 AM

Hello Richard
I see you replied in two parts. I shall keep my reply to this part short in order to break the cycle of antagonism

David,

Yes, Rood has "explained" his past by LYING. Man ... what has happened to your brain? Why do you blindly follow a cult leader? I just don't get it. You oppose the entire edifice of traditional Christianity supported by ten thousand teachers ten thousand times more credible that Rood, yet you hold to Rood as if he were God Almighty. I am stunned and mystified. What is it that governs your mind?

It is not hearsay. I gave objective proof and you simply ignored it.

I have "listened to what he says." I have presented his own words to you where he teaches all about Satan leading a rebelling of angels that were in heaven and how he got kicked out and is now running an operation down here on earth. You are blind to it all. You following him even though he directly contradicts your fundamental doctrine about angels sinning. I've never seen anything so blatantly absurd and self-contradictory.

There is a reason other people have "wrongly" attached the term "rabbi" to Rood. HE CALLED HIMSELF A "MESSIANIC RABBI" on his own website! :doh:

And besides that, he frequently refers to himself implicitly as a "Jew" even though he is not. He is deliberately deceiving people. The proof is in the result - many of his strongest supporters refer to him as a "Messianic Rabbi."

This is insane. I've given you more than enough evidence, and you still can't see the truth. If you can't see the truth when it is handed to you on a silver platter, what chance is there that you could ever find it yourself?

And beyond all this, I have proven that Rood's interpretations are totally made up and unbiblical. For example, Rood teaches that the scroll sealed with seven seals is the "title deed" of planet earth. That is absurd. I've told you this many times and you have never responded. It shows that you are following Rood like the most devoted cult member. You apparently believe whatever he says no matter how absurd. This is so crazy in light of how you reject things I say no matter how true they are. It's just plain weird. It's like you mind has been taken over by Rood Body Snatchers or something. There is no way to reason with you. You are like a Rood Robot. I am stunned. Shocked. Mystified. :eek: :dontknow: :dizzy: I am not going to copy here what I have replied to you about Rood in another thread. We have an opportunity to consider his Chronological Gospels book when it is published and give him some credit for a lifetime's work, as you have some credit for producing the Bible Wheel. No work is perfect, yet we might learn something in the process of reading. Until then, we can keep our personal comments about Rood to ourselves.

There is nothing "silly" about my remarks. I have been discussing the Bible with you for over a year. I have given you more proof than anyone would ever need, and you just reject it. You simply reject all evidence that proves you wrong, and then you say I haven't proven it to your "satisfaction." Well David, there simply is no "proof" that would every be "to your satisfaction" if it proves you wrong. Case in point: I quoted you saying you "do not disagree" with the Law of Non-Contradiction even as you directly contradicted it by saying that you reject both P and Not P. Therefore, I have given a strict LOGIC PROOF of your error, and you have refused to accept it for over eight months now. And that's just a logical proof. I've given many other proofs that you simply reject without reason, such as the PROOF that Rood made false predictions about the "end times" stuff happening in the year 1999 and the fact that he called himself a "Messianic rabbi" on his own website. Yet you just reject it all without reason. I gave proof and you just reject it and ignore it because it contradicts what you want to believe. Whenever you mention this again, which I hope you will not, I am going to post this link (click here to read posts and read posts #74 - #76) (http://www.biblewheel.com/forum/showthread.php?3410-Can-God-s-Angels-in-Heaven-be-trusted/page8)and send people to my reply. That is the end of this matter

Starting with the "promises to Abraham" would change nothing, though it would give you the opportunity to add more confusion to try to prove your idiosyncratic doctrines. It wouldn't change anything because Paul explained what those promises were all about:
Galatians 3:1 O foolish Galatians, who hath bewitched you, that ye should not obey the truth, before whose eyes Jesus Christ hath been evidently set forth, crucified among you? 2 This only would I learn of you, Received ye the Spirit by the works of the Torah, or by the hearing of faith? 3 Are ye so foolish? having begun in the Spirit, are ye now made perfect by the flesh? 4 Have ye suffered so many things in vain? if it be yet in vain. 5 He therefore that ministereth to you the Spirit, and worketh miracles among you, doeth he it by the works of the Torah, or by the hearing of faith? 6 Even as Abraham believed God, and it was accounted to him for righteousness. 7 Know ye therefore that they which are of faith, the same are the children of Abraham. 8 And the scripture, foreseeing that God would justify the heathen through faith, preached before the gospel unto Abraham, saying, In thee shall all nations be blessed. 9 So then they which be of faith are blessed with faithful Abraham. 10 For as many as are of the works of the Torah are under the curse: for it is written, Cursed is every one that continueth not in all things which are written in the book of the law to do them. 11 But that no man is justified by the law in the sight of God, it is evident: for, The just shall live by faith. 12 And the Torah is not of faith: but, The man that doeth them shall live in them. 13 Christ hath redeemed us from the curse of the Torah, being made a curse for us: for it is written, Cursed is every one that hangeth on a tree: 14 That the blessing of Abraham might come on the Gentiles through Jesus Christ; that we might receive the promise of the Spirit through faith. 15 ¶ Brethren, I speak after the manner of men; Though it be but a man's covenant, yet if it be confirmed, no man disannulleth, or addeth thereto. 16 Now to Abraham and his seed were the promises made. He saith not, And to seeds, as of many; but as of one, And to thy seed, which is Christ. 17 And this I say, that the covenant, that was confirmed before of God in Christ, the law, which was four hundred and thirty years after, cannot disannul, that it should make the promise of none effect. 18 For if the inheritance be of the law, it is no more of promise: but God gave it to Abraham by promise. 19 Wherefore then serveth the law? It was added because of transgressions, till the seed should come to whom the promise was made; and it was ordained by angels in the hand of a mediator. 20 Now a mediator is not a mediator of one, but God is one. 21 ¶ Is the law then against the promises of God? God forbid: for if there had been a law given which could have given life, verily righteousness should have been by the law. 22 But the scripture hath concluded all under sin, that the promise by faith of Jesus Christ might be given to them that believe.
There is nothing to be gained by starting with the promise to Abraham because the promise to Abraham was the GOSPEL OF CHRIST as Paul explained with perfect clarity. I agree with your comment, but we disagree on the content of Paul's writings. We cannot agree a start point, so we will not get started.

Again, we see that you will do anything to avoid the plain and obvious BIG PICTURE taught throughout the Bible. All because you are trying to force it to fit the ridiculous "Hebrew Roots Movement" that exalts the Old Covenant and reduces the New Covenant to nothing but a "renewal" of the bloody carnal old covenant based on animal sacrifices. The "Big Picture" I have is different to yours, and not as you describe it.

This is why it is so very difficult to find any common ground. I have to quote WHOLE CHAPTERS that show your interpretations are totally bogus, yet you still refuse to see. And worse, I could have quoted a hundred other verses that CONFIRM everything I have said. You have no excuse for being so ignorant of the MAIN AND PLAIN things that the Bible teaches. Merely quoting a verse is not good enough. We have to agree context and the meaning of words and take into account the usage of the word in the time it was written. Until we agree the words of the verse, we shall get nowhere.

I can see why you would think that, but it is not true. My comment did not show any "bias" because it is based on what the Bible actually states as I've proven a thousand times with you and you have never been able to show any error in what I have written. You simply reject it without reason. The Futurist doctrines really are made up from fragments taken out of context and even stuff made up out of whole cloth (such as the rebuilt temple, the 2000+ year magical stretchy gap in Dan 9:25-27, etc.). There is nothing in Preterism like that. We have to agree to disagree. I am not repeating what I have said.

Again, you have it backwards. The OT is understood in light of the NT, not the other way around. This is common knowledge to all who have seriously studied the Bible. It is totally obvious. Without the NT, you would have almost no way to no anything about the Messiah. It is the NT that shows how he is hidden in the OT. The C of E at one time only used the NT and did not think the OT was important. That is a big mistake. Unless we agree the OT, there is no way we shall agree the NT.

The ancient maxim from the fifth century says it best: "The Old Testament is in the New revealed, the New is in the Old concealed." I will not be quoting that.

It's time to quit the game playing. I can see through it all in a heartbeat. I saw through Rood in a nanosecond. It's time to just drop all the BS and begin with the plain and obvious facts about what the Bible actually teaches. There was never any game-playing on my part. Your lightening responses means you do not give any consideration to anything anyone says. You have your own conclusions on most matters and not inclined to listen to others unless it interests you. I think we should just write our articles and let others comment. I think we are too fixed with our positions on the Bible ever to change our position. I will keep posting, but I suggest you just comment on the facts of the topic and leave all personal comments out. That is the only way to proceed. More rules would have to be introduced for a discourse to continue.

All the best,

David

L67

04-18-2013, 02:39 PM

Hello L67

We have to agree what is meant by "soul" and "living soul". I agree the word "body" is not used. Rev 2:13 is the only verse I can find in which the word "martyr" is used in Revelation. (Revelation 5:10) And hast made us unto our God kings and priests: and we shall reign on the earth.
Incidentally, I was quoting from the verse you gave and I quoted "came to life". I now find these words are not in the text. Here are your words:
Here is the verse in my PC Bible
It is a small point for now.

Well depending on which translation you want to use "living soul" is not mentioned. Living creature and living beings are substituted. There are many verses that do point to the soul being separate from the body. Revelation 6:9-11 tells us the saints were slain. Then Revelation 20:4-6 tells us they only saw the "souls" of those who were beheaded. So clearly souls would have to be separate in this instance. We have to accept the obvious here. It doesn't make much sense to look for a "bodily" fit here because the text simply doesn't say it.

Martyrs was not used, I added that. You can change it to saints.

I see these words applying now. We are buried symbolically. The life we now have extends into the kingdom, since death is but a sleep. We have a spiritual life now in Christ and also the spiritual life now will become a reality in the kingdom. This is how I see things. I do not think I am complicating these subjects.

But it's really not based on future David. Revelation 20:4-6 is based on Paul's theology. Paul is telling us in Romans 6:3-14 that the saints will share in Christ reign and victory over death. They were to share the throne and resurrection with Jesus. That is exactly what Revelation 20:4-6 tells happened. Let's look closer.

Revelation 20:4-6 4 And I saw thrones, and they sat upon them, and judgment was given unto them: and I saw the souls of them that were beheaded for the witness of Jesus, and for the word of God, and which had not worshipped the beast, neither his image, neither had received his mark upon their foreheads, or in their hands; and they lived and reigned with Christ a thousand years.

5 But the rest of the dead lived not again until the thousand years were finished. This is the first resurrection.

6 Blessed and holy is he that hath part in the first resurrection: on such the second death hath no power, but they shall be priests of God and of Christ, and shall reign with him a thousand years.

Right here it is telling us that the souls were on the throne and that they share in the first resurrection and reign with Christ. Ephesians confirms they were seated with Jesus in Heaven. Ephesians 2:6 6 And God raised us up with Christ and seated us with him in the heavenly realms in Christ Jesus,

Now contrast the above with what Paul said in Romans 6:3-14. Or don’t you know that all of us who were baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into his death? 4 We were therefore buried with him through baptism into death in order that, just as Christ was raised from the dead through the glory of the Father, we too may live a new life.

5 For if we have been united with him in a death like his, we will certainly also be united with him in a resurrection like his.6 For we know that our old self was crucified with him so that the body ruled by sin might be done away with,[a] that we should no longer be slaves to sin— 7 because anyone who has died has been set free from sin.
8 Now if we died with Christ, we believe that we will also live with him. 9 For we know that since Christ was raised from the dead, he cannot die again; death no longer has mastery over him. 10 The death he died, he died to sin once for all; but the life he lives, he lives to God.

11 In the same way, count yourselves dead to sin but alive to God in Christ Jesus. 12 Therefore do not let sin reign in your mortal body so that you obey its evil desires. 13 Do not offer any part of yourself to sin as an instrument of wickedness, but rather offer yourselves to God as those who have been brought from death to life; and offer every part of yourself to him as an instrument of righteousness. 14 For sin shall no longer be your master, because you are not under the law, but under grace.

It's a perfect fit.

So where does Revelation 5:10 fit in when we shall reign as kings and priests on the earth?

It doesn't fit a future reign. Believers are reigning NOW on earth with Christ in the kingdom of God. The kingdom is the church. Again look what Paul has to say. Romans 8-31-37 31 What then shall we say to these things? If God is for us, who can be against us? 32 He who did not spare His own Son, but delivered Him up for us all, how shall He not with Him also freely give us all things? 33 Who shall bring a charge against God’s elect? It is God who justifies. 34 Who is he who condemns? It is Christ who died, and furthermore is also risen, who is even at the right hand of God, who also makes intercession for us. 35 Who shall separate us from the love of Christ? Shall tribulation, or distress, or persecution, or famine, or nakedness, or peril, or sword? 36 As it is written:

“For Your sake we are killed all day long;
We are accounted as sheep for the slaughter.”[c]

37 Yet in all these things we are more than conquerors through Him who loved us. 38 For I am persuaded that neither death nor life, nor angels nor principalities nor powers, nor things present nor things to come, 39 nor height nor depth, nor any other created thing, shall be able to separate us from the love of God which is in Christ Jesus our Lord.

You have to remember Jesus said in John 17:4 that he accomplished everything the Father had for him on earth. By saying Jesus has to comeback to earth again means he failed the first time. If Jesus was the perfect man you know he can't fail. The Jews wanted the earthly kingdom and to make Jesus king. John 6:15:

"Jesus therefore perceiving that they were about to come and take him by force, to make him king, withdrew again into the mountain himself alone."

But Jesus knew better because he explicity told Pilate his kingdom was not of this world. Jesus was never suppose to be a earthly king. He was to be a spiritual king. That is why Hebrew 12:28 tells us 8 Therefore, since we are receiving a kingdom that cannot be shaken, let us be thankful, and so worship God acceptably with reverence and awe,

How do you know this is referring to the same time period.

Because the whole flow of the NT is a first century fulfillment. And because Revelation 11:1-18 tells us so.

11 And there was given me a reed like unto a rod: and the angel stood, saying, Rise, and measure the temple of God, and the altar, and them that worship therein.

2 But the court which is without the temple leave out, and measure it not; for it is given unto the Gentiles: and the holy city shall they tread under foot forty and two months.

3 And I will give power unto my two witnesses, and they shall prophesy a thousand two hundred and threescore days, clothed in sackcloth.

4 These are the two olive trees, and the two candlesticks standing before the God of the earth.

5 And if any man will hurt them, fire proceedeth out of their mouth, and devoureth their enemies: and if any man will hurt them, he must in this manner be killed.

6 These have power to shut heaven, that it rain not in the days of their prophecy: and have power over waters to turn them to blood, and to smite the earth with all plagues, as often as they will.

7 And when they shall have finished their testimony, the beast that ascendeth out of the bottomless pit shall make war against them, and shall overcome them, and kill them.

8 And their dead bodies shall lie in the street of the great city, which spiritually is called Sodom and Egypt, where also our Lord was crucified.

9 And they of the people and kindreds and tongues and nations shall see their dead bodies three days and an half, and shall not suffer their dead bodies to be put in graves.

10 And they that dwell upon the earth shall rejoice over them, and make merry, and shall send gifts one to another; because these two prophets tormented them that dwelt on the earth.

11 And after three days and an half the spirit of life from God entered into them, and they stood upon their feet; and great fear fell upon them which saw them.

12 And they heard a great voice from heaven saying unto them, Come up hither. And they ascended up to heaven in a cloud; and their enemies beheld them.

13 And the same hour was there a great earthquake, and the tenth part of the city fell, and in the earthquake were slain of men seven thousand: and the remnant were affrighted, and gave glory to the God of heaven.

14 The second woe is past; and, behold, the third woe cometh quickly.

15 And the seventh angel sounded; and there were great voices in heaven, saying, The kingdoms of this world are become the kingdoms of our Lord, and of his Christ; and he shall reign for ever and .

16 And the four and twenty elders, which sat before God on their seats, fell upon their faces, and worshipped God,

17 Saying, We give thee thanks, O Lord God Almighty, which art, and wast, and art to come; because thou hast taken to thee thy great power, and hast reigned.

18 And the nations were angry, and thy wrath is come, and the time of the dead, that they should be judged, and that thou shouldest give reward unto thy servants the prophets, and to the saints, and them that fear thy name, small and great; and shouldest destroy them which destroy the earth.

I see the same danger of you forcing the two verses to apply to the same time period as you say I am forcing the two events to be separate. I think we have to examine more evidence.

There is no danger when you accept the language of the NT which speaks of first century. Let me show you some more evidence.

Acts 24:15 15 And have hope toward God, which they themselves also allow, that there shall be a resurrection of the dead, both of the just and unjust.

John 5:28-28 John 5:28-29

28 Marvel not at this: for the hour is coming, in the which all that are in the graves shall hear his voice,

29 And shall come forth; they that have done good, unto the resurrection of life; and they that have done evil, unto the resurrection of damnation.

Acts 17:31 31 Because he hath appointed a day, in the which he will judge the world in righteousness by that man whom he hath ordained; whereof he hath given assurance unto all men, in that he hath raised him from the dead.

2 TImothy 4:1 4 I charge thee therefore before God, and the Lord Jesus Christ, who shall judge the quick and the dead at his appearing and his kingdom;

James 5:9 9 Grudge not one against another, brethren, lest ye be condemned: behold, the judge standeth before the door.

1 Peter 4:5 5 Who shall give account to him that is ready to judge the quick and the dead.

These verses confirm Revelation 11:1-18 like I posted above.

But what happens after AD1300 was my question. Where is the remainder of prophecy not fulfilled fit in? You have to show me this mountain of evidence. The mountain might have to be chipped away, rock by rock and ground up by the stone that is Christ. I am sure we will have the truth explained by him.

I have given you plenty of evidence above. But what prophecy do you see as not fulfilled?

Our argument is likely to turn into another RAM - Twospirits conversation. Nevertheless, we can see how far we get before that happens.

No it won't.

Anyways, hope this helps. Tell me what you think.

Take care.

All the best

David[/QUOTE]

Richard Amiel McGough

04-22-2013, 10:48 AM

Hello Richard

I see you replied in two parts. I shall keep my reply to this part short in order to break the cycle of antagonism

Good morning David,

I really appreciate your desire to "break the cycle of antagonism." But there really hasn't been any as far as I can see. The problem is not "antagonism" but rather a strong insistence that you acknowledge basic facts that are demonstrably true. Case in point: It would be absolutely wonderful if you would answer this post (http://www.biblewheel.com/forum/showthread.php?3410-Can-God-s-Angels-in-Heaven-be-trusted&p=53813#post53813) which explains your confusion concerning your formulation of your contradiction upon which you base your argument that the angels mentioned in 2 Peter and Jude are not "God's Angels in heaven."

Case in point: I quoted you saying you "do not disagree" with the Law of Non-Contradiction even as you directly contradicted it by saying that you reject both P and Not P. Therefore, I have given a strict LOGIC PROOF of your error, and you have refused to accept it for over eight months now.
Whenever you mention this again, which I hope you will not, I am going to post this link (click here to read posts and read posts #74 - #76) (http://www.biblewheel.com/forum/showthread.php?3410-Can-God-s-Angels-in-Heaven-be-trusted/page8)and send people to my reply. That is the end of this matter

David, that cannot "end this matter" because the posts you linked do not answer the errors I have exposed. This is fundamental David. Your answers indicate that you are simply confused about how to formulate the paradox that you constructed in your argument. I've been trying to explain this to you for over eight months. We are talking about basic logic on the level of IF P THEN Q and "EITHER P OR NOT P IS TRUE FOR ALL PROPOSITIONS P." If we cannot see eye to eye about these most elementary facts of logic, then all other conversation will be rendered meaningless. My answer is in this post (http://www.biblewheel.com/forum/showthread.php?3410-Can-God-s-Angels-in-Heaven-be-trusted&p=53813#post53813) (same as the one I linked above).

I agree with your comment, but we disagree on the content of Paul's writings. We cannot agree a start point, so we will not get started.

Then why don't you present a proper starting point with a brief outline of the "Big Picture" like I have done many times? I have shown that my interpretation follows the natural flow of the Biblical narrative from the OT to the NT. I don't recall that you have presented anything like a coherent picture of the natural flow of the Biblical narrative.

The "Big Picture" I have is different to yours, and not as you describe it.

What is your "Big Picture"?

Merely quoting a verse is not good enough. We have to agree context and the meaning of words and take into account the usage of the word in the time it was written. Until we agree the words of the verse, we shall get nowhere.

And that's the problem. It is impossible to even find a starting point with Futurists because their interpretations are so far removed from what the Bible actually states. I've tried to find an agreed upon starting point with every Futurist that has ever come to this forum and have always failed. They always have to reject the main and the plain things and invent wildly speculative things not found in the Bible to create their interpretations. It blows my mind. I've been attempting to reason with Futurists for years and they always refuse to found their doctrines on what the Bible actually states. A really good example is my conversation with Henry where I showed that he was irrationally shredding the three synoptic versions of the Olivet Discourse to FORCE his interpretation upon the Bible. I proved this by showing the following (see my victory post (http://www.biblewheel.com/forum/showthread.php?2841-Preterism-in-the-21-Century&p=49824#post49824)):

Henry asserts an omission of "on the mount of Olives" would imply an inaccuracy in Luke if he recorded the same event as Matthew.
Henry asserts an omission of "the end of the world" would NOT imply an inaccuracy in Mark if he recorded the same event as Matthew.

To make things perfectly clear, I explained his error to you as follows:

Henry says discrepancies between Matthew and Luke PROVE ABSOLUTELY that they recorded different events.
Henry says discrepancies between Matthew and Mark DO NOT PROVE that they recorded different events.

As you can see, Henry's argument is totally incoherent. It is nothing but the fallacy of special pleading. He changes his argument to force the conclusion he desires. It is radically irrational to assert that one of those omissions would necessarily imply an "inaccuracy" while the other would not. Nothing could be more obvious, yet both you and Henry refused to admit this basic fact, and Henry chose to quit the conversation altogether after I proved his error. That is how it has gone with every Futurist I have ever debated on this forum. They either ignore the evidence or quit the conversation when I prove them wrong.

This is the same kind of error I have been trying to explain to you for eight months. My latest attempt is in this post (http://www.biblewheel.com/forum/showthread.php?3410-Can-God-s-Angels-in-Heaven-be-trusted&p=53813#post53813) (same as the one I linked twice above).

I can see why you would think that, but it is not true. My comment did not show any "bias" because it is based on what the Bible actually states as I've proven a thousand times with you and you have never been able to show any error in what I have written. You simply reject it without reason. The Futurist doctrines really are made up from fragments taken out of context and even stuff made up out of whole cloth (such as the rebuilt temple, the 2000+ year magical stretchy gap in Dan 9:25-27, etc.). There is nothing in Preterism like that.
We have to agree to disagree. I am not repeating what I have said.

That's what people say when they can't support their arguments with logic and facts. I never need to say that because all my arguments are based on logic and facts.

The C of E at one time only used the NT and did not think the OT was important. That is a big mistake. Unless we agree the OT, there is no way we shall agree the NT.

What is the "C of E"?

There has never been a time when the Christian church "did not think the OT was important." That would be absurd because the OT is the foundation of the NT which quotes it hundreds of times. This is why the Church rejected Marcion and specifically deemed it a heresy to reject the OT.

All the best,

Richard

L67

04-24-2013, 08:37 PM

Hey David,

Are you going to reply to my last post or what?

David M

04-25-2013, 03:03 AM

Hello L67

Hey David,

Are you going to reply to my last post or what?

You cannot always expect an instantaneous reply. You will see I have been replying to Richard in several threads and to others. I am getting round to replying to all posts where it is expected. At the moment I have limited time and cannot spend hours reading posts and replying.

Now to deal with your specific reply.

Well depending on which translation you want to use "living soul" is not mentioned. Living creature and living beings are substituted. There are many verses that do point to the soul being separate from the body. Revelation 6:9-11 tells us the saints were slain. Then Revelation 20:4-6 tells us they only saw the "souls" of those who were beheaded. So clearly souls would have to be separate in this instance. We have to accept the obvious here. It doesn't make much sense to look for a "bodily" fit here because the text simply doesn't say it.

Martyrs was not used, I added that. You can change it to saints.
If the "soul" is separate from the body and is say the same spirit that Jesus commended to God in his last dying moments. how is this spirit "seen"?

But it's really not based on future David. Revelation 20:4-6 is based on Paul's theology. Paul is telling us in Romans 6:3-14 that the saints will share in Christ reign and victory over death. They were to share the throne and resurrection with Jesus. That is exactly what Revelation 20:4-6 tells happened. Let's look closer.

Revelation 20:4-6 4 And I saw thrones, and they sat upon them, and judgment was given unto them: and I saw the souls of them that were beheaded for the witness of Jesus, and for the word of God, and which had not worshipped the beast, neither his image, neither had received his mark upon their foreheads, or in their hands; and they lived and reigned with Christ a thousand years.

5 But the rest of the dead lived not again until the thousand years were finished. This is the first resurrection.

6 Blessed and holy is he that hath part in the first resurrection: on such the second death hath no power, but they shall be priests of God and of Christ, and shall reign with him a thousand years.

Right here it is telling us that the souls were on the throne and that they share in the first resurrection and reign with Christ. Ephesians confirms they were seated with Jesus in Heaven. Ephesians 2:6 6 And God raised us up with Christ and seated us with him in the heavenly realms in Christ Jesus,
If these are the same souls or souls suffering the same fate; how is it that these souls can operate without heads since they were beheaded?

Now contrast the above with what Paul said in Romans 6:3-14. Or don’t you know that all of us who were baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into his death? 4 We were therefore buried with him through baptism into death in order that, just as Christ was raised from the dead through the glory of the Father, we too may live a new life.

5 For if we have been united with him in a death like his, we will certainly also be united with him in a resurrection like his.6 For we know that our old self was crucified with him so that the body ruled by sin might be done away with,[a] that we should no longer be slaves to sin— 7 because anyone who has died has been set free from sin.
8 Now if we died with Christ, we believe that we will also live with him. 9 For we know that since Christ was raised from the dead, he cannot die again; death no longer has mastery over him. 10 The death he died, he died to sin once for all; but the life he lives, he lives to God.

11 In the same way, count yourselves dead to sin but alive to God in Christ Jesus. 12 Therefore do not let sin reign in your mortal body so that you obey its evil desires. 13 Do not offer any part of yourself to sin as an instrument of wickedness, but rather offer yourselves to God as those who have been brought from death to life; and offer every part of yourself to him as an instrument of righteousness. 14 For sin shall no longer be your master, because you are not under the law, but under grace.

It's a perfect fit.
"It is a perfect fit" even if we consider Jesus ruling on earth with the saints who as we are told (Rev 5:10); And hast made us unto our God kings and priests: and we shall reign on the earth. Those who are resurrected are given the same incorruptible and immortal body that was given to Jesus upon his resurrection. (1 John 3:2) when he shall appear, we shall be like him; And the Apostle Paul writes; (1 Cor. 15:52) In a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trump: for the trumpet shall sound, and the dead shall be raised incorruptible, and we shall be changed. 53 For this corruptible must put on incorruption, and this mortal must put on immortality.

It doesn't fit a future reign. Believers are reigning NOW on earth with Christ in the kingdom of God. The kingdom is the church. Again look what Paul has to say. Romans 8-31-37 31 What then shall we say to these things? If God is for us, who can be against us? 32 He who did not spare His own Son, but delivered Him up for us all, how shall He not with Him also freely give us all things? 33 Who shall bring a charge against God’s elect? It is God who justifies. 34 Who is he who condemns? It is Christ who died, and furthermore is also risen, who is even at the right hand of God, who also makes intercession for us. 35 Who shall separate us from the love of Christ? Shall tribulation, or distress, or persecution, or famine, or nakedness, or peril, or sword? 36 As it is written:

“For Your sake we are killed all day long;
We are accounted as sheep for the slaughter.”[c]

37 Yet in all these things we are more than conquerors through Him who loved us. 38 For I am persuaded that neither death nor life, nor angels nor principalities nor powers, nor things present nor things to come, 39 nor height nor depth, nor any other created thing, shall be able to separate us from the love of God which is in Christ Jesus our Lord.

You have to remember Jesus said in John 17:4 that he accomplished everything the Father had for him on earth. By saying Jesus has to comeback to earth again means he failed the first time. If Jesus was the perfect man you know he can't fail. The Jews wanted the earthly kingdom and to make Jesus king. John 6:15:

"Jesus therefore perceiving that they were about to come and take him by force, to make him king, withdrew again into the mountain himself alone."

But Jesus knew better because he explicity told Pilate his kingdom was not of this world. Jesus was never suppose to be a earthly king. He was to be a spiritual king. That is why Hebrew 12:28 tells us 8 Therefore, since we are receiving a kingdom that cannot be shaken, let us be thankful, and so worship God acceptably with reverence and awe,
The last day etc is talking of the day or resurrection. Now there is more than one resurrection, but the day or resurrection which takes place at Christ's return has not happened. Other things must happen and you only have to read the parables to see what. For example, those who are living at the time are taken away for judgement. Paul says that those who are living when Christ comes, are changed; they are not resurrected. Your assertion that Jesus is not supposed to be an earthly king is to my mind wrong and I have already above quoted Rev 5:10. I have explained Jesus' kingdom is not of this world. At the time he said that, was not the time for Jesus to reign as king on the earth. Jesus also said he was "not of this world" and so we have to get that into context. This is why the reign of Jesus on the earth will be like no other government. Isa 33:4 speaking of Jesus to come says; But with righteousness shall he judge ....,

Because the whole flow of the NT is a first century fulfillment. And because Revelation 11:1-18 tells us so.

11 And there was given me a reed like unto a rod: and the angel stood, saying, Rise, and measure the temple of God, and the altar, and them that worship therein.

2 But the court which is without the temple leave out, and measure it not; for it is given unto the Gentiles: and the holy city shall they tread under foot forty and two months.

3 And I will give power unto my two witnesses, and they shall prophesy a thousand two hundred and threescore days, clothed in sackcloth.

4 These are the two olive trees, and the two candlesticks standing before the God of the earth.

5 And if any man will hurt them, fire proceedeth out of their mouth, and devoureth their enemies: and if any man will hurt them, he must in this manner be killed.

6 These have power to shut heaven, that it rain not in the days of their prophecy: and have power over waters to turn them to blood, and to smite the earth with all plagues, as often as they will.

7 And when they shall have finished their testimony, the beast that ascendeth out of the bottomless pit shall make war against them, and shall overcome them, and kill them.

8 And their dead bodies shall lie in the street of the great city, which spiritually is called Sodom and Egypt, where also our Lord was crucified.

9 And they of the people and kindreds and tongues and nations shall see their dead bodies three days and an half, and shall not suffer their dead bodies to be put in graves.

10 And they that dwell upon the earth shall rejoice over them, and make merry, and shall send gifts one to another; because these two prophets tormented them that dwelt on the earth.

11 And after three days and an half the spirit of life from God entered into them, and they stood upon their feet; and great fear fell upon them which saw them.

12 And they heard a great voice from heaven saying unto them, Come up hither. And they ascended up to heaven in a cloud; and their enemies beheld them.

13 And the same hour was there a great earthquake, and the tenth part of the city fell, and in the earthquake were slain of men seven thousand: and the remnant were affrighted, and gave glory to the God of heaven.

14 The second woe is past; and, behold, the third woe cometh quickly.

15 And the seventh angel sounded; and there were great voices in heaven, saying, The kingdoms of this world are become the kingdoms of our Lord, and of his Christ; and he shall reign for ever and .

16 And the four and twenty elders, which sat before God on their seats, fell upon their faces, and worshipped God,

17 Saying, We give thee thanks, O Lord God Almighty, which art, and wast, and art to come; because thou hast taken to thee thy great power, and hast reigned.

18 And the nations were angry, and thy wrath is come, and the time of the dead, that they should be judged, and that thou shouldest give reward unto thy servants the prophets, and to the saints, and them that fear thy name, small and great; and shouldest destroy them which destroy the earth.

All the Book of Revelation according to the majority of Bible scholars say that the Book was written by John at the end of the 1st century. That is why scholars have been able to tie up the symbology of Revelation with history spanning the last two thousand years and continuing. The verses you have quoted do not have to be read in the way you do. I see the words being fulfilled, but not in the 1st century

There is no danger when you accept the language of the NT which speaks of first century. Let me show you some more evidence.

Acts 24:15 15 And have hope toward God, which they themselves also allow, that there shall be a resurrection of the dead, both of the just and unjust. Paul might have thought Christ's return as imminent but it did not happen in his lifetime and Paul makes no prediction of the date.

John 5:28-28 John 5:28-29

28 Marvel not at this: for the hour is coming, in the which all that are in the graves shall hear his voice,

29 And shall come forth; they that have done good, unto the resurrection of life; and they that have done evil, unto the resurrection of damnation.

Acts 17:31 31 Because he hath appointed a day, in the which he will judge the world in righteousness by that man whom he hath ordained; whereof he hath given assurance unto all men, in that he hath raised him from the dead.
I am glad you quoted Acts 17.31, that also confirms Christ will reign as no other wordly government has been able to do. The day of resurrection has not happened.

2 TImothy 4:1 4 I charge thee therefore before God, and the Lord Jesus Christ, who shall judge the quick and the dead at his appearing and his kingdom;

James 5:9 9 Grudge not one against another, brethren, lest ye be condemned: behold, the judge standeth before the door.

1 Peter 4:5 5 Who shall give account to him that is ready to judge the quick and the dead.

These verses confirm Revelation 11:1-18 like I posted above. They do not confirm to me what they appear to confirm to you. The day of judgement has not come; daily, people are dying in the hope of the resurrection to come.

I have given you plenty of evidence above. But what prophecy do you see as not fulfilled? You have given me lots of quotes but these are not the evidence to make me agree with your interpretation of events. The same verses can be used for when Christ is back on earth and so we have the same problem. You will have read the argument going on in the thread; 'The Splitting of the Mount of Olives" and whether this is figurative or literal. I am giving my reasons for believing Zechariah 14 to be literal. Again, these other scriptures including Ezekiel 38 are future.

Unfortunately, this does not help me see how the Book of Revelation all takes place in the first century. I do not think this discussion can continue centred on the Book of Revelation alone. Old Testament prophecies remain to be fulfilled and as yet, I have seen no preterist explanation of many verses in the Old Testament prophets that have yet to be fulfilled. When for example has Damascus become "a ruinous heap" (Isa 17:1)? God has not put these things on record as idle words. God has made many pronouncements on the nations that have still to see those pronouncements enacted. Until you can fit all those in to your first century theory, then you have not convinced me.

All the best

David

L67

04-26-2013, 06:27 AM

Hello L67

You cannot always expect an instantaneous reply. You will see I have been replying to Richard in several threads and to others. I am getting round to replying to all posts where it is expected. At the moment I have limited time and cannot spend hours reading posts and replying.

Instantaneous? Come on my last post was 4-18. Today is 4-25. That is 7 days.

If the "soul" is separate from the body and is say the same spirit that Jesus commended to God in his last dying moments. how is this spirit "seen"?

I have no idea. The Bible is ambiguous on this point. A case could be made for either side.

If these are the same souls or souls suffering the same fate; how is it that these souls can operate without heads since they were beheaded?

Again we don't know. But one thing we do know is that the Bible mentions no bodily resurrection of these souls. The Bible clearly implies a seperation of soul and Body. So I take the Bible at face value.

"It is a perfect fit" even if we consider Jesus ruling on earth with the saints who as we are told (Rev 5:10); And hast made us unto our God kings and priests: and we shall reign on the earth. Those who are resurrected are given the same incorruptible and immortal body that was given to Jesus upon his resurrection. (1 John 3:2) when he shall appear, we shall be like him; And the Apostle Paul writes; (1 Cor. 15:52) In a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trump: for the trumpet shall sound, and the dead shall be raised incorruptible, and we shall be changed. 53 For this corruptible must put on incorruption, and this mortal must put on immortality.

No it doesn't. Your view completely ignores the evidence that Jesus can't rule from earth again. For one he can't sit on an earthly throne. Second the Bible said he accomplished everything on earth. Third Jesus explicitly said his kingdom was not of this world. Lastly you ignored the verses that explicitly tell us the saints are ruling NOW in heaven with Jesus. You need to address these points

The last day etc is talking of the day or resurrection. Now there is more than one resurrection, but the day or resurrection which takes place at Christ's return has not happened. Other things must happen and you only have to read the parables to see what. For example, those who are living at the time are taken away for judgement. Paul says that those who are living when Christ comes, are changed; they are not resurrected. Your assertion that Jesus is not supposed to be an earthly king is to my mind wrong and I have already above quoted Rev 5:10. I have explained Jesus' kingdom is not of this world. At the time he said that, was not the time for Jesus to reign as king on the earth. Jesus also said he was "not of this world" and so we have to get that into context. This is why the reign of Jesus on the earth will be like no other government. Isa 33:4 speaking of Jesus to come says; But with righteousness shall he judge ....,

Not true David. Jesus tells us this concerning the second resurrection. John 5.28-29 28 Marvel not at this: for the hour is coming, in the which all that are in the graves shall hear his voice,

29 And shall come forth; they that have done good, unto the resurrection of life; and they that have done evil, unto the resurrection of damnation

Revelation 20 speaks of the second resurrection. Souls are resurrected out of hades and judged. Revelation 11-15. 11 And I saw a great white throne, and him that sat on it, from whose face the earth and the heaven fled away; and there was found no place for them.

12 And I saw the dead, small and great, stand before God; and the books were opened: and another book was opened, which is the book of life: and the dead were judged out of those things which were written in the books, according to their works.

13 And the sea gave up the dead which were in it; and death and hell delivered up the dead which were in them: and they were judged every man according to their works.

14 And death and hell were cast into the lake of fire. This is the second death.

15 And whosoever was not found written in the book of life was cast into the lake of fire.

This coincides will the multitude of other verses that speak of first century fulfillment.

David it is not my assertion that Jesus isn't suppose to be an earthly king. It is a fact supported by Jesus own words. Plus, a host of other problems that arise with an earthly reign. Problem which you have never really shown to be false.

Your assertion that Jesus meant something else when he said his kingdom was not of this world is absurd. Your view makes Jesus a failure because he said he accomplished everything the father had for him on earth. This is confirmed by all the other verses that describe events as imminent.

All the Book of Revelation according to the majority of Bible scholars say that the Book was written by John at the end of the 1st century. That is why scholars have been able to tie up the symbology of Revelation with history spanning the last two thousand years and continuing. The verses you have quoted do not have to be read in the way you do. I see the words being fulfilled, but not in the 1st century

Proof of such scholars? There are major problems with dating the book of Revelation at the end of the century. The first major problem is this: We know for a FACT Jerusalem was destroyed in 70AD. Why did John not record the most monumental event for the Jewish nation at that time? It's pretty telling that he mentioned not one word about it. Go hear for a lot more problems with a late dating. http://www.ecclesia.org/truth/revelation.html

Paul might have thought Christ's return as imminent but it did not happen in his lifetime and Paul makes no prediction of the date.

Ummm... the verse I quoted does not speak of this. It was bout the resurrection.

I am glad you quoted Acts 17.31, that also confirms Christ will reign as no other wordly government has been able to do. The day of resurrection has not happened.

No it doesn't confirm that for reasons you have yet to prove. You have to deal with all the other problems I have presented about an earthly reign. This verse is dealing with Revelation. You have see that if you quoted me in context.

They do not confirm to me what they appear to confirm to you. The day of judgement has not come; daily, people are dying in the hope of the resurrection to come.

The Bible says the day of judgment has come. You don't want to see it because your whole belief system crumbles under its own weight.

You have given me lots of quotes but these are not the evidence to make me agree with your interpretation of events. The same verses can be used for when Christ is back on earth and so we have the same problem. You will have read the argument going on in the thread; 'The Splitting of the Mount of Olives" and whether this is figurative or literal. I am giving my reasons for believing Zechariah 14 to be literal. Again, these other scriptures including Ezekiel 38 are future.

Nothing will ever be evidence to you David. You are so indoctrinated in your beliefs that you refuse to see it any other way. I know you don't like to hear it but it's the truth. I have given you more than enough evidence to at least consider certain possibilities and you refuse to budge off your beliefs. You are way too dismissive of the main and plain things to even begin searching for the "one" truth. The majority of evidence is on my side. And you have yet to show me why I'm in error.

If Zechariah is future then it shreds the whole olivet discourse. How do you explain away Zechariah and Mathew lining up word for word? Then Mark and Luke? It is painfully obvious Zechariah was speaking of 70AD. Because we can certainly prove the gospels were referring to 70AD. There is no good reason to look beyond 70AD.
?

Zechariah 14 Olivet Discourse
Siege of Jerusalem (v. 1-2) / Siege of Jerusalem (Mt. 24:2f)

Day of the Lord (v. 1, 5) / Coming of the Son of Man (24:30-31.)

Coming with his holy ones (vs. 5) / Coming with his angels (24:31).

Jews led away captive into the nations (v. 2) / Jews led away captive into the nations (Lk 21:24).

Flight from judgment (v. 5) / Flight from judgment (v. 15f)

Day known only to the Lord (v. 7) / Day known only to the Lord (v. 36).

The same goes for Ezekiel 38. There is no good reason to believe it is future beyond first century fulfillment.

Unfortunately, this does not help me see how the Book of Revelation all takes place in the first century. I do not think this discussion can continue centred on the Book of Revelation alone. Old Testament prophecies remain to be fulfilled and as yet, I have seen no preterist explanation of many verses in the Old Testament prophets that have yet to be fulfilled. When for example has Damascus become "a ruinous heap" (Isa 17:1)? God has not put these things on record as idle words. God has made many pronouncements on the nations that have still to see those pronouncements enacted. Until you can fit all those in to your first century theory, then you have not convinced me.

I agree. We can dig into other aspects of the Bible as well.

Preterist do not have all the answers. But that point of view makes a lot more sense than futurist. Case in point. You have to totally make up reasons why Jesus said his kingdom was not of this world. You don't take him at his word, instead you force the text to say something it doesn't. Jesus said he accomplished everything on earth. It is asinine to say that Jesus has to return to earth again since the text doesn't say it.

Here is yet another proof the earthly kingdom will not be in Jerusalem John 4:21 1 “Woman,” Jesus replied, “believe me, a time is coming when you will worship the Father neither on this mountain nor in Jerusalem.

David there is no perfect fit when it comes to interpretations. But preterism is the only view point that has a mountain of evidence to support it.

David M

04-27-2013, 02:20 AM

Hello L67

Instantaneous? Come on my last post was 4-18. Today is 4-25. That is 7 days. Time certainly flies; I do not know where the last 7 days has gone. Sick in bed for several days did not help. Anyway, answer when you get time, the forum is not going away and life sometimes gets in the way.

Again we don't know. But one thing we do know is that the Bible mentions no bodily resurrection of these souls. The Bible clearly implies a seperation of soul and Body. So I take the Bible at face value. I know you take some of the Bible at face value so why not believe the angels who spoke to the disciples who reassured the disciples Jesus would come again in the same manner as they saw him go into heaven. I take that at face value to say that Jesus will come again on earth.

No it doesn't. Your view completely ignores the evidence that Jesus can't rule from earth again. For one he can't sit on an earthly throne. Second the Bible said he accomplished everything on earth. Third Jesus explicitly said his kingdom was not of this world. Lastly you ignored the verses that explicitly tell us the saints are ruling NOW in heaven with Jesus. You need to address these points
I have to ask the question; why cannot Jesus sit on a throne on earth? Some will say Jesus is ruling from Heaven now, but until God hands over complete control I still see God at work. The work of Jesus will resume on earth when Jesus will appear as God having all power and authority. Jesus did say that had been given to him, and the time is coming when that power and authority will be shown.

Not true David. Jesus tells us this concerning the second resurrection. John 5.28-29 28 Marvel not at this: for the hour is coming, in the which all that are in the graves shall hear his voice, And shall come forth; they that have done good, unto the resurrection of life; and they that have done evil, unto the resurrection of damnation The verse you quote here from John does not say what number the resurrection is.

Revelation 20 speaks of the second resurrection. Souls are resurrected out of hades and judged. Revelation 11-15. 11 And I saw a great white throne, and him that sat on it, from whose face the earth and the heaven fled away; and there was found no place for them.

12 And I saw the dead, small and great, stand before God; and the books were opened: and another book was opened, which is the book of life: and the dead were judged out of those things which were written in the books, according to their works.

13 And the sea gave up the dead which were in it; and death and hell delivered up the dead which were in them: and they were judged every man according to their works.

14 And death and hell were cast into the lake of fire. This is the second death.

15 And whosoever was not found written in the book of life was cast into the lake of fire. Actually, Revelation 20:5 says; But the rest of the dead lived not again until the thousand years were finished. This is the first resurrection. The number of resurrections and when these take place is a study of its own and would be worth starting a new thread.

This coincides will the multitude of other verses that speak of first century fulfillment. I can only say I disagree and there are a multitude of other verses which were not fulfilled by the end of the first century.

David it is not my assertion that Jesus isn't suppose to be an earthly king. It is a fact supported by Jesus own words. Plus, a host of other problems that arise with an earthly reign. Problem which you have never really shown to be false. You are far from proving your interpretation is true and so we shall have to take each point one at a time and maybe start new threads. Merely saying I have not shown your interpretation to be false is what I am in the process of doing, little by little.

Your assertion that Jesus meant something else when he said his kingdom was not of this world is absurd. Your view makes Jesus a failure because he said he accomplished everything the father had for him on earth. This is confirmed by all the other verses that describe events as imminent. I do not make Jesus a failure, for Jesus did all that was required of him up to that point in time when Jesus said on the cross; "it is finished" What exactly was finished? Was it that the old law of sacrifice for sin was finished or like the High Priest would say the work is finished after sacrificing the sin offerings and the passover lamb on the altar?

Proof of such scholars? There are major problems with dating the book of Revelation at the end of the century. The first major problem is this: We know for a FACT Jerusalem was destroyed in 70AD. Why did John not record the most monumental event for the Jewish nation at that time? It's pretty telling that he mentioned not one word about it. Go hear for a lot more problems with a late dating. http://www.ecclesia.org/truth/revelation.html There are only problems with late dating to get Revelation to fit into the first century. There are no problems. Even if the book was written in AD68 it hardly gives time for the word to be spread and the word to be understood. There would not be the struggle to understand it now, if it was so easy to understand by first century readers.

I have quickly skimmed through the webpage and there is much to given an alternative interpretation of. I am just going to quote the main conclusion at the bottom of the webpage

If the Apostle John was banished to Patmos under the reign of Nero, as the internal evidence indicates, he wrote the book of Revelation about AD 68 or 69, which was after the death of that emperor; but the gospels and epistles some years later. One of the oddest facts about the New Testament is that what on any showing would appear to be the single most datable and climactic event of the period — the fall of Jerusalem in A.D. 70 — is never once mentioned as a passed fact.

The inscription to the book of Revelation, in the Syrian version, first published by Deuteronomy Dieu, in 1627, and, afterwards in the London Polyglot, is the following, "The Revelation which God made to John the evangelist, in the Island of Patmos, to which he was banished by Nero Caesar."

This places it before the year of our Lord 69AD.

The fact that John did not mention AD70 is for the reason John was writing down things that were revealed to him that were future and of things which were of concern to the readers. The destruction of the temple in AD70 was of no concern. John was imprisoned on the Isle of Patmos and we do not know that he ever left the island or that this is the same John as wrote the Gospel according to John. Here is what Wikipedia has to say to add to the problem:
Some modern scholars have raised the possibility that John the Apostle, John the Evangelist, and John of Patmos were three separate individuals.[4] Certain lines of evidence suggest that John of Patmos wrote Revelation but neither the Gospel of John nor the Epistles of John. For one, the author of Revelation identifies himself as "John" several times, but the author of the Gospel of John never identifies himself directly. Some Catholic scholars state that "vocabulary, grammar, and style make it doubtful that the book could have been put into its present form by the same person(s) responsible for the fourth gospel".[5]

No it doesn't confirm that for reasons you have yet to prove. You have to deal with all the other problems I have presented about an earthly reign. This verse is dealing with Revelation. You have see that if you quoted me in context. In addition to Revelation 20:5 speaking of the first resurrection, we have verse 6 which says; Blessed and holy is he that hath part in the first resurrection: on such the second death hath no power, but they shall be priests of God and of Christ, and shall reign with him a thousand years. It is the saints who are raised at the resurrection and the saints who are made Kings and Priests to reign on earth as stated in Rev 5:10.

The Bible says the day of judgment has come. You don't want to see it because your whole belief system crumbles under its own weight. If my belief were to crumble, so would yours, but hey, you do not have a belief, so you can let the Bible say anything you want to and take at face value, except that you do not take everything at face value, as I have already explained and given an example.

Nothing will ever be evidence to you David. You are so indoctrinated in your beliefs that you refuse to see it any other way. I know you don't like to hear it but it's the truth. I have given you more than enough evidence to at least consider certain possibilities and you refuse to budge off your beliefs. You are way too dismissive of the main and plain things to even begin searching for the "one" truth. The majority of evidence is on my side. And you have yet to show me why I'm in error. Are you not so indoctrinated (though you do not believe) to see it any other way than you do? I have given you chapter and verse to support my argument. If you cannot agree with my answer you can take it further. I am for fully explaining all the words in every verse and leaving none out in order to get to the truth.

If Zechariah is future then it shreds the whole olivet discourse. How do you explain away Zechariah and Mathew lining up word for word? Then Mark and Luke? It is painfully obvious Zechariah was speaking of 70AD. Because we can certainly prove the gospels were referring to 70AD. There is no good reason to look beyond 70AD?.

Zechariah 14 Olivet Discourse
Siege of Jerusalem (v. 1-2) / Siege of Jerusalem (Mt. 24:2f)

Day of the Lord (v. 1, 5) / Coming of the Son of Man (24:30-31.)

Coming with his holy ones (vs. 5) / Coming with his angels (24:31).

Jews led away captive into the nations (v. 2) / Jews led away captive into the nations (Lk 21:24).

Flight from judgment (v. 5) / Flight from judgment (v. 15f)

Day known only to the Lord (v. 7) / Day known only to the Lord (v. 36).

The same goes for Ezekiel 38. There is no good reason to believe it is future beyond first century fulfillment.
I see no problem lining Zechariah with the Olivet Discourse. The Jews were finally kicked out to the land and the land became desolate in the middle of the second century. What is being totally ignored is the fact that God has promised not to leave Israel scattered and God would regather them. There is no condition to this, this is what God said he will do and he has done it and Israel exist as a nation. Jerusalem has to be overrun a third and final time and all that the prophets have spoken in the OT concerning the punishment to come on all nations has yet to happen.

I agree. We can dig into other aspects of the Bible as well. That has to be done in order to get everything in context and see the fulfilment of in the future

Preterist do not have all the answers. But that point of view makes a lot more sense than futurist. Case in point. You have to totally make up reasons why Jesus said his kingdom was not of this world. You don't take him at his word, instead you force the text to say something it doesn't. Jesus said he accomplished everything on earth. It is asinine to say that Jesus has to return to earth again since the text doesn't say it. I take Jesus at his word. Unless you get the word "world" into context and know what Jesus meant, then you are the one likely to be in error. Futurists are explaining much more and explaining the things Preterisst leave out.

Here is yet another proof the earthly kingdom will not be in Jerusalem John 4:21 1 “Woman,” Jesus replied, “believe me, a time is coming when you will worship the Father neither on this mountain nor in Jerusalem. That is no proof at all. Jesus was speaking to a Samaritan woman. The Samaritans wanted Jesus to worship with them on Mount Gerrazim. The Samaritans only ever worship on Mount Gerrazim and are doing so even in this age. A time is coming, when the Samaritans will no longer worship on Mount Gerrazim. That would be absolutely unbelievable to them, but that is what Jesus is referring to. In the time to come, the Samaritans might not exist. That would put an end to all their worship.

David there is no perfect fit when it comes to interpretations. But preterism is the only view point that has a mountain of evidence to support it. That is your assertion which up to now you have not proved to my satisfaction. I will have to keep chiselling away at your "mountain" of evidence in order to remove it until there is no mountain at all.

All the best

David

L67

04-28-2013, 02:26 PM

Hello L67
Time certainly flies; I do not know where the last 7 days has gone. Sick in bed for several days did not help. Anyway, answer when you get time, the forum is not going away and life sometimes gets in the way.

I'm with you on time flying. It wasn't urgent that you respond, I was just wondering. Get well soon.

I know you take some of the Bible at face value so why not believe the angels who spoke to the disciples who reassured the disciples Jesus would come again in the same manner as they saw him go into heaven. I take that at face value to say that Jesus will come again on earth.

Because that view doesn't fit the text. The overwhelming evidence points to first century fulfillment. The language used is NOT indicative of a future fulfillment. Read this link to see this overwhelming evidence. http://www.ecclesia.org/truth/return.html

To say that all those verses in that link which indicate first century fulfillment are really future is complete false.

I have to ask the question; why cannot Jesus sit on a throne on earth? Some will say Jesus is ruling from Heaven now, but until God hands over complete control I still see God at work. The work of Jesus will resume on earth when Jesus will appear as God having all power and authority. Jesus did say that had been given to him, and the time is coming when that power and authority will be shown.

We have been over this before David. Jesus can't sit on an earthy throne because Jeremiah 22:28-30.

28 Is this man Coniah a despised broken idol? is he a vessel wherein is no pleasure? wherefore are they cast out, he and his seed, and are cast into a land which they know not?

29 O earth, earth, earth, hear the word of the Lord.

30 Thus saith the Lord, Write ye this man childless, a man that shall not prosper in his days: for no man of his seed shall prosper, sitting upon the throne of David, and ruling any more in Judah.

That is why Jesus is sitting on David's throne in heaven NOW just like the Bible said he would.

What work of Jesus will resume on earth? There is no more work. The Bible mentions no such thing. That is completely made up. The Bible said he completed everything. What you are telling me is Jesus failed to accomplish everything he said he would. We are talking about God here. If Jesus said he completed everything the father had for him that should be it like the Bible says.

The verse you quote here from John does not say what number the resurrection is.

Actually, Revelation 20:5 says; But the rest of the dead lived not again until the thousand years were finished. This is the first resurrection. The number of resurrections and when these take place is a study of its own and would be worth starting a new thread.

It doesn't have to say which number it is is. It's quite obvious. The first resurrection is in Revelation 20:4-6.

4 And I saw thrones, and they sat upon them, and judgment was given unto them: and I saw the souls of them that were beheaded for the witness of Jesus, and for the word of God, and which had not worshipped the beast, neither his image, neither had received his mark upon their foreheads, or in their hands; and they lived and reigned with Christ a thousand years.

5 But the rest of the dead lived not again until the thousand years were finished. This is the first resurrection.

6 Blessed and holy is he that hath part in the first resurrection: on such the second death hath no power, but they shall be priests of God and of Christ, and shall reign with him a thousand years.

The second resurrection is the great white throne judgment where ALL will be judged. Revelation 20:12-15 12 And I saw the dead, small and great, stand before God; and the books were opened: and another book was opened, which is the book of life: and the dead were judged out of those things which were written in the books, according to their works.

13 And the sea gave up the dead which were in it; and death and hell delivered up the dead which were in them: and they were judged every man according to their works.

14 And death and hell were cast into the lake of fire. This is the second death.

15 And whosoever was not found written in the book of life was cast into the lake of fire.

John 5.28-29 28 confirms this. Marvel not at this: for the hour is coming, in the which all that are in the graves shall hear his voice, And shall come forth; they that have done good, unto the resurrection of life; and they that have done evil, unto the resurrection of damnation

I can only say I disagree and there are a multitude of other verses which were not fulfilled by the end of the first century.

Such as?

You are far from proving your interpretation is true and so we shall have to take each point one at a time and maybe start new threads. Merely saying I have not shown your interpretation to be false is what I am in the process of doing, little by little.

I have provided evidence for my claims that are FACTS. Facts that you can't dispute. You are not showing anything of my arguments to be false because you give no evidence to support your claims. You are merely asserting things with no evidence of any kind.

I do not make Jesus a failure, for Jesus did all that was required of him up to that point in time when Jesus said on the cross; "it is finished" What exactly was finished? Was it that the old law of sacrifice for sin was finished or like the High Priest would say the work is finished after sacrificing the sin offerings and the passover lamb on the altar?

Sure you do. You assert things about Jesus that are simply not mentioned in the Bible.

Jesus accomplished everything period. There is no after. Let's look at John 19:28-30 in context. 8 Later, knowing that everything had now been finished, and so that Scripture would be fulfilled, Jesus said, “I am thirsty.” 29 A jar of wine vinegar was there, so they soaked a sponge in it, put the sponge on a stalk of the hyssop plant, and lifted it to Jesus’ lips. 30 When he had received the drink, Jesus said, “It is finished.” With that, he bowed his head and gave up his spirit.

Jesus is saying that everything in the scripture was accomplished. Therefore it is finished. Jesus even tells when all the prophecy would be fulfilled. Luke 21:20-24. 0 “When you see Jerusalem being surrounded by armies, you will know that its desolation is near. 21 Then let those who are in Judea flee to the mountains, let those in the city get out, and let those in the country not enter the city. 22 For this is the time of punishment in fulfillment of all that has been written. 23 How dreadful it will be in those days for pregnant women and nursing mothers! There will be great distress in the land and wrath against this people. 24 They will fall by the sword and will be taken as prisoners to all the nations. Jerusalem will be trampled on by the Gentiles until the times of the Gentiles are fulfilled.

We know for a fact Jerusalem was destroyed in 70AD. Therefore all scripture has been fulfilled. That is exactly the time period Christ was referring to. Futurism is utterly destroyed by Jesus own words.

There are only problems with late dating to get Revelation to fit into the first century. There are no problems. Even if the book was written in AD68 it hardly gives time for the word to be spread and the word to be understood. There would not be the struggle to understand it now, if it was so easy to understand by first century readers.

You didn't answer my important question. Here it is again: Why did John not record the most monumental event for the Jewish nation at that time? The destruction of Jerusalem.

Why does Revelation 1 say this? 1 The Revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave unto him, to shew unto his servants things which must shortly come to pass; and he sent and signified it by his angel unto his servant John:

This coincides with all the other verses in the NT that use the same language. To think that the authors would describe events that were imminent, only to mean thousands of years later is silly.

Your other point about the word not being spread throughout the world is also false. The Bible says it was.

Col 1:23

“if indeed you continue in the faith firmly established and steadfast, and not moved away from the hope of the gospel that you have heard, which was proclaimed in all creation under heaven, and of which I, Paul, was made a minister.”

Rom 1:8

“First, I thank my God through Jesus Christ for you all, because your faith is being proclaimed throughout the whole world.”

Col 1:6

“which has come to you, just as in all the world also it is constantly bearing fruit and increasing, even as it has been doing in you also since the day you heard of it and understood the grace of God in truth”

Acts 2:5

“Now there were Jews living in Jerusalem, devout men from every nation under heaven.”

The fact that John did not mention AD70 is for the reason John was writing down things that were revealed to him that were future and of things which were of concern to the readers. The destruction of the temple in AD70 was of no concern. John was imprisoned on the Isle of Patmos and we do not know that he ever left the island or that this is the same John as wrote the Gospel according to John. Here is what Wikipedia has to say to add to the problem:

That is false David. Because in the very first verse in Revelation John explicitly says things must shortly come to pass. That is NOT someone who is writing for the future. It merely confirms all the other NT language that is imminent. He also mentioned the 7 churches in Asia. Which would have relevance to the first century audience. You would see that point if you had read the link and not skimmed over it. See that the problem with you. You claim to be after the truth but when I present legitimate arguments and present a link with evidence you skim over it dismiss all of it and focus on one small point. You then make up your own theory as to why Revelation is future.

Your dismissal of the destruction of the temple in 70AD is riduculous. That was the most monumental event to happen to the Jewish nation and you say it was irrelevant. Can that view point be any more absurd?

In addition to Revelation 20:5 speaking of the first resurrection, we have verse 6 which says; Blessed and holy is he that hath part in the first resurrection: on such the second death hath no power, but they shall be priests of God and of Christ, and shall reign with him a thousand years. It is the saints who are raised at the resurrection and the saints who are made Kings and Priests to reign on earth as stated in Rev 5:10.

Umm... that is precisely what I have proved. You are only agreeing with what I have been saying. I also proved the second resurrection, which is painfully obvious as well.

If my belief were to crumble, so would yours, but hey, you do not have a belief, so you can let the Bible say anything you want to and take at face value, except that you do not take everything at face value, as I have already explained and given an example.

If I believed in the Bible, no my beliefs would not crumble. Because I based my arguments on the actual words of the Bible. I am not playing word games to confirm my preconceived bias.

Are you not so indoctrinated (though you do not believe) to see it any other way than you do? I have given you chapter and verse to support my argument. If you cannot agree with my answer you can take it further. I am for fully explaining all the words in every verse and leaving none out in order to get to the truth.

Don't be ridiculous David. Indoctrination has nothing to do with accepting the plain things in the Bible. Indoctrination is inventing things and then forcing them to fit your preconceived bias. That is nothing like I do. I quote the Bible and use the explicit language of the Bible to support my argument.

I see no problem lining Zechariah with the Olivet Discourse. The Jews were finally kicked out to the land and the land became desolate in the middle of the second century. What is being totally ignored is the fact that God has promised not to leave Israel scattered and God would regather them. There is no condition to this, this is what God said he will do and he has done it and Israel exist as a nation. Jerusalem has to be overrun a third and final time and all that the prophets have spoken in the OT concerning the punishment to come on all nations has yet to happen.

I'm glad you admit that God did regather the Jews. There is no evidence to support your assertion that there will be a third regathering. ZERO. Why invent things when the Bible confirms first century fulfillment?

If you see no problem with confirming Zechariah with the Olivet Discourse then your view contradicts it. Because the whole Olivet Discourse speaks to the first century, NOT future.

That has to be done in order to get everything in context and see the fulfilment of in the future

What fulfillment? Christ said all was fulfilled with the destruction of Jerusalem.

I take Jesus at his word. Unless you get the word "world" into context and know what Jesus meant, then you are the one likely to be in error. Futurists are explaining much more and explaining the things Preterisst leave out.

I have it in context David. Jesus was to be a spiritual king, NOT earthly. The Bible explicitly says it. It does NOT mean what you think it does. You think it means earthly and that is wrong. I can back up what I say with verses to support it. If you think I am wrong then show me. Don't just assert it. You have a bad habit of saying such things with no proof.

No futurist absolutely do NOT explain anything the preterist leave out. You have demonstrated that in this thread. You haven't refute anything I have said with chapter and verse to support your view.

That is no proof at all. Jesus was speaking to a Samaritan woman. The Samaritans wanted Jesus to worship with them on Mount Gerrazim. The Samaritans only ever worship on Mount Gerrazim and are doing so even in this age. A time is coming, when the Samaritans will no longer worship on Mount Gerrazim. That would be absolutely unbelievable to them, but that is what Jesus is referring to. In the time to come, the Samaritans might not exist. That would put an end to all their worship.

Sure it is David. You don't see it because you look for a future interpretation. Jesus is referring to the judgment upon Jerusalem when He mentions “a time is coming” when you will worship the Father neither on this mountain nor in Jerusalem. He is speaking to 70AD. Nothing could be more obvious. This goes back to a MOUNTAIN of other verse that confirm a first century fulfillment. Read the link http://www.ecclesia.org/truth/return.html

Don't skim over it. Actually read it. It is completely irrational to think Jesus own words would pertain to two events. Especially considering we know the Bible was written for the first century audience. And there is no verses in the Bible that support a second event.

That is your assertion which up to now you have not proved to my satisfaction. I will have to keep chiselling away at your "mountain" of evidence in order to remove it until there is no mountain at all.

That is not my assertion. That is a FACT! I have given verses to support what I say. You haven't give me any verses to even begin to support your view point. You can't chisel away at my mountain of evidence with no chisel. If you are going to chisel away at my FACTS then you need to provide evidence to support your claims. You have not done that.

Take care.

Richard Amiel McGough

04-28-2013, 03:53 PM

I know you take some of the Bible at face value so why not believe the angels who spoke to the disciples who reassured the disciples Jesus would come again in the same manner as they saw him go into heaven. I take that at face value to say that Jesus will come again on earth.

Good afternoon David,

Do you know of any principles that could be used to determine when a person should or should not take something at face value? Obviously, one "rule" would be to take something at face value only if it confirms your presuppositions, and to explain it away if it does not. But that would make it impossible for a person to correct their errors if they began with a false presupposition, and so it could lead to false, if not delusional, interpretations.

I tried to bring this to your attention by noting that you seem to arbitrarily assert that all mentions of Satan and the Devil must be figurative personifications because that's what you want them to be. But why should you begin with that presupposition? And if you begin by assuming they are all figurative, and just arbitrarily reject any evidence that proves you wrong, how would you know if you were wrong or not? And if there is no way to know if you are wrong, then why would you believe you are right?

I have to ask the question; why cannot Jesus sit on a throne on earth? Some will say Jesus is ruling from Heaven now, but until God hands over complete control I still see God at work. The work of Jesus will resume on earth when Jesus will appear as God having all power and authority. Jesus did say that had been given to him, and the time is coming when that power and authority will be shown.

There is no throne on earth upon which he could sit. The literal "throne of David" was destroyed about 2500 years ago by the Bablyonians and it was never restored. And besides that, Scripture declares that the prophecy of Christ sitting on the "throne of David" was not literal but referred to his throne in heaven:
Acts 2:30 Therefore being a prophet, and knowing that God had sworn with an oath to him, that of the fruit of his loins, according to the flesh, he would raise up Christ to sit on his throne; 31 He seeing this before spake of the resurrection of Christ, that his soul was not left in hell, neither his flesh did see corruption. 32 This Jesus hath God raised up, whereof we all are witnesses. 33 Therefore being by the right hand of God exalted, and having received of the Father the promise of the Holy Ghost, he hath shed forth this, which ye now see and hear. 34 For David is not ascended into the heavens: but he saith himself, The LORD said unto my Lord, Sit thou on my right hand, 35 Until I make thy foes thy footstool.
It's all seems pretty plain and obvious to me. You need to reject most of the Bible and focus on a few disconnected fragments of Scripture to force your Futurist interpretation.

Actually, Revelation 20:5 says; But the rest of the dead lived not again until the thousand years were finished. This is the first resurrection. The number of resurrections and when these take place is a study of its own and would be worth starting a new thread.

It would be a big mistake to develop a doctrine about the "number of resurrections" because the Bible is quite ambiguous on that point so it would just be more speculation (as if we needed any more of that!). This is the essence of the Futurist method of interpretation: Ignore all the main and plain things established by many mutually confirming verses and build doctrines out of speculations based on ambiguous fragments.

I can only say I disagree and there are a multitude of other verses which were not fulfilled by the end of the first century.

Not true. You merely assert that they were not fulfilled in the first century because you being by assuming that they were not fulfilled in the first century. It's no proof of anything - it's just circular reasoning.

You are far from proving your interpretation is true and so we shall have to take each point one at a time and maybe start new threads. Merely saying I have not shown your interpretation to be false is what I am in the process of doing, little by little.

If you being by rejecting anything that contradicts your presuppositions merely because they contradict your presuppositions then no amount of proof will ever be sufficient. You will have trapped yourself in an interpretation with no way to know if it is true or false.

All the best,

Richard

David M

04-29-2013, 01:50 AM

Hello L67

Because that view doesn't fit the text. The overwhelming evidence points to first century fulfillment. The language used is NOT indicative of a future fulfillment. Read this link to see this overwhelming evidence. http://www.ecclesia.org/truth/return.html

To say that all those verses in that link which indicate first century fulfillment are really future is complete false. I have looked at the webpage and each section and verse has to be dealt with separately. Because of my understanding and the position I take, I see many of the verses quoted as meaning something different to you. We would have to stop this conversation and make studying all the points on that webpage a separate discussion.

We have been over this before David. Jesus can't sit on an earthy throne because Jeremiah 22:28-30.

28 Is this man Coniah a despised broken idol? is he a vessel wherein is no pleasure? wherefore are they cast out, he and his seed, and are cast into a land which they know not?

29 O earth, earth, earth, hear the word of the Lord.

30 Thus saith the Lord, Write ye this man childless, a man that shall not prosper in his days: for no man of his seed shall prosper, sitting upon the throne of David, and ruling any more in Judah.

That is why Jesus is sitting on David's throne in heaven NOW just like the Bible said he would. We have gone over all this and I would have to give the same answer to this as has I have given or by others who also have an answer to this. When I find appropriate links, I shall have to save them so I can post them in future for I have not built up a collection of ready-made answers.

What work of Jesus will resume on earth? There is no more work. The Bible mentions no such thing. That is completely made up. The Bible said he completed everything. What you are telling me is Jesus failed to accomplish everything he said he would. We are talking about God here. If Jesus said he completed everything the father had for him that should be it like the Bible says. The very last enemy to be destroyed is death. Death has not been destroyed or can be until sin is no longer committed. That is something that has not been fufilled wherever you take Jesus to be reigning from. (1 Cor 15:24) Then cometh the end, when he shall have delivered up the kingdom to God, even the Father; when he shall have put down all rule and all authority and power. This has not happened. While man rules and commits the abominations we see being committed then Christ still has work to do.

It doesn't have to say which number it is is. It's quite obvious. The first resurrection is in Revelation 20:4-6. There is no need for me to copy Rev 20 again. I was pointing out what appeared to be an error on your part. Here is what you said;
Revelation 20 speaks of the second resurrection. Now you agree it is speaking of the first resurrection.

John 5.28-29 28 confirms this. [B] Marvel not at this: for the hour is coming, in the which all that are in the graves shall hear his voice, And shall come forth; they that have done good, unto the resurrection of life; and they that have done evil, unto the resurrection of damnation [/OUOTE] "Is coming" and "shall" are indicative of a future event which to my understanding has not happened.

[QUOTE=L67;53968]Such as? Such as I have given you above.

I have provided evidence for my claims that are FACTS. Facts that you can't dispute. You are not showing anything of my arguments to be false because you give no evidence to support your claims. You are merely asserting things with no evidence of any kind. Once again I say that just presenting verses without explaining precisely what those verses mean is not evidence or facts. The fact is verses can be understood differently to what you think they mean and that is the root of all our disagreements. It involves going back to the beginning and taking all scripture into account. We do not get anywhere by picking bits from here and there. I am disputing your arguments by giving you an alternative meaning to the verses you present. That is fact and that is the fact you have to deal with and so prove the verses you are quoting do not refer to anything else.

Sure you do. You assert things about Jesus that are simply not mentioned in the Bible. To borrow your question above; Such as?

Jesus accomplished everything period. There is no after. Let's look at John 19:28-30 in context. 8 Later, knowing that everything had now been finished, and so that Scripture would be fulfilled, Jesus said, “I am thirsty.” 29 A jar of wine vinegar was there, so they soaked a sponge in it, put the sponge on a stalk of the hyssop plant, and lifted it to Jesus’ lips. 30 When he had received the drink, Jesus said, “It is finished.” With that, he bowed his head and gave up his spirit. The last enemy in the world has not been destroyed. Jesus only destroyed the enemy (the devil) that was in his own flesh (the mind).

Jesus is saying that everything in the scripture was accomplished. Therefore it is finished. Jesus even tells when all the prophecy would be fulfilled. Luke 21:20-24. 0 “When you see Jerusalem being surrounded by armies, you will know that its desolation is near. 21 Then let those who are in Judea flee to the mountains, let those in the city get out, and let those in the country not enter the city. 22 For this is the time of punishment in fulfillment of all that has been written. 23 How dreadful it will be in those days for pregnant women and nursing mothers! There will be great distress in the land and wrath against this people. 24 They will fall by the sword and will be taken as prisoners to all the nations. Jerusalem will be trampled on by the Gentiles until the times of the Gentiles are fulfilled. I can only say this is an extremely short-sighted understanding of scripture which does not take into account all of scripture including the Old Testament prophets which said many things that have not happened. Have you answered the question; When did Damascus become a "ruinous heap"? Please tell me when that happened.

We know for a fact Jerusalem was destroyed in 70AD. Therefore all scripture has been fulfilled. That is exactly the time period Christ was referring to. Futurism is utterly destroyed by Jesus own words. There is little point keep saying the same point as if that is that. I say Jerusalem continues (not the temple). The nation of Israel exists - fact. Prophecy has been fulfilled after AD70. I keep saying, you have to take all of what the prophets have spoken otherwise you are leaving things out.

You didn't answer my important question. Here it is again: Why did John not record the most monumental event for the Jewish nation at that time? The destruction of Jerusalem. I gave you my answer so why say I did not? Here is what I wrote;
Quote Originally Posted by David M View Post
The fact that John did not mention AD70 is for the reason John was writing down things that were revealed to him that were future and of things which were of concern to the readers. The destruction of the temple in AD70 was of no concern. John was imprisoned on the Isle of Patmos and we do not know that he ever left the island or that this is the same John as wrote the Gospel according to John. Here is what Wikipedia has to say to add to the problem: The whole Book of Revelation has to do with things after AD70. This is where we have a total difference of opinion.

Why does Revelation 1 say this? 1 The Revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave unto him, to shew unto his servants things which must shortly come to pass; and he sent and signified it by his angel unto his servant John: Some things would be happen sooner than other things. The" sooner" things would start happening "shortly". What Revelation does not tell us is precisely the length of time it covers. 2,000 years can be as 2 days in God's sight. God has not left us without His word for 2,000 years, we have his word to refer to. Consider that between the Old Tesatament and the New Testament we have 450 years of silence in which nothing new was revealed by God. 2,000 years before God acts as in the 'Last Day' is nothing in God's time. Even so, God is constantly at work acting in the lives of people and the nations bringing about his purpose.

This coincides with all the other verses in the NT that use the same language. To think that the authors would describe events that were imminent, only to mean thousands of years later is silly. IKf I told you Jesus was not going to raise the dead for another 2,000 years then we would have no reason to expect him at anytime. We could live a life of debauchery for 60 years and then for our last few years repent before we die. Is that the way Jesus wants you to lead your life. In fact you could be like the man in the parable having plans not knowing the next day he would lose his life. You only have a short life in which to come to accept God and his principles and that your end will come "shortly".

Your other point about the word not being spread throughout the world is also false. The Bible says it was.

Col 1:23

“if indeed you continue in the faith firmly established and steadfast, and not moved away from the hope of the gospel that you have heard, which was proclaimed in all creation under heaven, and of which I, Paul, was made a minister.”

Rom 1:8

“First, I thank my God through Jesus Christ for you all, because your faith is being proclaimed throughout the whole world.”

Col 1:6

“which has come to you, just as in all the world also it is constantly bearing fruit and increasing, even as it has been doing in you also since the day you heard of it and understood the grace of God in truth”

Acts 2:5

“Now there were Jews living in Jerusalem, devout men from every nation under heaven.” You will find a thread in which this has been discussed and so I think it is best to leave you to read that thread and the posts in it that will give the argument from both sides.

That is false David. Because in the very first verse in Revelation John explicitly says things must shortly come to pass. That is NOT someone who is writing for the future. It merely confirms all the other NT language that is imminent. He also mentioned the 7 churches in Asia. Which would have relevance to the first century audience. You would see that point if you had read the link and not skimmed over it. See that the problem with you. You claim to be after the truth but when I present legitimate arguments and present a link with evidence you skim over it dismiss all of it and focus on one small point. You then make up your own theory as to why Revelation is future. I guessed from your earlier response, you had not read this far and so I replied to your earlier response and so have answered this point already.

Your dismissal of the destruction of the temple in 70AD is riduculous. That was the most monumental event to happen to the Jewish nation and you say it was irrelevant. Can that view point be any more absurd? I have not dismissed the destruction of the temple altogether, only in the fact that when John was having the Revelation given to him, the temple does not feature in the Revelation. That must also mean something, but not necessarily as you think it does.

Umm... that is precisely what I have proved. You are only agreeing with what I have been saying. I also proved the second resurrection, which is painfully obvious as well. All I know is you referred to the second resurrection in Rev 20 and now you agree it is the first resurrection.

If I believed in the Bible, no my beliefs would not crumble. Because I based my arguments on the actual words of the Bible. I am not playing word games to confirm my preconceived bias. I think the same can be said for you having a preconceived bias as you think I have. It becomes meaningless to say things like this and we have to stick to facts and interpretation as we are doing.

Don't be ridiculous David. Indoctrination has nothing to do with accepting the plain things in the Bible. Indoctrination is inventing things and then forcing them to fit your preconceived bias. That is nothing like I do. I quote the Bible and use the explicit language of the Bible to support my argument. And I do likewise. If verses are ambiguous for being understood in different ways, then we have to resolve the problem and remove the ambiguity. That can only be done by taking all scripture into account and leaving nothing out.

I'm glad you admit that God did regather the Jews. There is no evidence to support your assertion that there will be a third regathering. ZERO. Why invent things when the Bible confirms first century fulfillment? Who mentioned a "third regathering". I mentioned the third overturning of Jerusalem which is indicated in Ezekiel 21:27 I will overturn, overturn, overturn, it: and it shall be no more, until he come whose right it is; and I will give it him. Who has the right to Jerusalem; Abraham or Jesus?

If you see no problem with confirming Zechariah with the Olivet Discourse then your view contradicts it. Because the whole Olivet Discourse speaks to the first century, NOT future. I suggest you read the thread that has been going on between Twosprits and Richard which I have contributed to. You can disagree, but then I disagree with you. Just stating this is a waste of words and time.

What fulfillment? Christ said all was fulfilled with the destruction of Jerusalem. No need for me to repeat examples I have already given you

I have it in context David. Jesus was to be a spiritual king, NOT earthly. The Bible explicitly says it. It does NOT mean what you think it does. You think it means earthly and that is wrong. I can back up what I say with verses to support it. If you think I am wrong then show me. Don't just assert it. You have a bad habit of saying such things with no proof. I can only say the same thing and repeat myself. Your merely quoting verses which I understand differently is not proof or evidence for what you think the Bible says.

No futurist absolutely do NOT explain anything the preterist leave out. You have demonstrated that in this thread. You haven't refute anything I have said with chapter and verse to support your view. I think this continual same reply is indicating we should stop this discussion. I have given you examples of things not completed. You leave out much of what the OT prophets said which was not fulfilled by AD70. I shall have to wait for your answers to the questions I have given you to at least show me when they were fulfilled before I start bringing more of what the prophets said for you to answer.

Sure it is David. You don't see it because you look for a future interpretation. Jesus is referring to the judgment upon Jerusalem when He mentions “a time is coming” when you will worship the Father neither on this mountain nor in Jerusalem. He is speaking to 70AD. Nothing could be more obvious. This goes back to a MOUNTAIN of other verse that confirm a first century fulfillment. Read the link http://www.ecclesia.org/truth/return.html
Don't skim over it. Actually read it. I read sufficiently to know the same old arguments arise. Stop saying the same things; your mountain of evidence can be destroyed. That is what I am in the process of doing, stone by stone dismantling your maountain. Just stick to the facts and stop saying; "It is false". All futurist will say the same about what you are teaching, so where does that get us?

It is completely irrational to think Jesus own words would pertain to two events. Especially considering we know the Bible was written for the first century audience. And there is no verses in the Bible that support a second event. It is not irrational for Jesus to know of more than one future judgement. The fact that Jesus knew the temple would be destroyed does not take away the fact that there will be the Great Day of the LORD which did not happen in the first century. All nations were not judged in the first century.

That is not my assertion. That is a FACT! I have given verses to support what I say. You haven't give me any verses to even begin to support your view point. You can't chisel away at my mountain of evidence with no chisel. If you are going to chisel away at my FACTS then you need to provide evidence to support your claims. You have not done that. Let's see how you answer my questions in this post for I have certainly answered you.

All the best

David

David M

04-29-2013, 02:20 AM

Hello Richard

From everything you have replied, I am just going to respond to one point which sums up your position and why we are likely to disagree on almost everything in the Bible.

... because the Bible is quite ambiguous on that point so it would just be more speculation (as if we needed any more of that!). This is the essence of the Futurist method of interpretation: Ignore all the main and plain things established by many mutually confirming verses and build doctrines out of speculations based on ambiguous fragments.

Unless you take every word of the Bible into account, including all the words said by all the prophets in the OT, you are leaving things out. Unless you resolve all the ambiguities and you only rely on what is left after leaving the ambiguities out, you are also doing that which you accuse me of; concocting your own interpretation. You are not completing the jigsaw picture when you leave pieces out. Whole chunks are being left out by preterists, which do not give you the full picture. If you do not want to resolve the ambiguities for yourself or you cannot, that is YOUR problem. Don't denigrate other people for resolving what you do not. Even if there is disagreement in resolving some things, there is only one truth that can apply and until we find it, we have to keep searching for it. You must be able to disregard many of different interpretations until you are left with only two possibilities of which one is more true than the other. Although we have one major disagreement which comes under the heading of; Preterism or Futurism?, this covers many prophecies which all have to be taken into account and understood. Each one has to be dealt with separately before coming to any conclusion. If you have done all that and still stick with your opinion, then you should give me the same latitude for having done the same. As I have said to L67 we should just stick to the facts and stop personal remarks that waste words and time reading. All we can do is give our interpretations and the reasons why and leave it at that and there is no need to refer to the other party in anyway.

All the best

David

L67

04-30-2013, 12:27 PM

Hello L67

I have looked at the webpage and each section and verse has to be dealt with separately. Because of my understanding and the position I take, I see many of the verses quoted as meaning something different to you. We would have to stop this conversation and make studying all the points on that webpage a separate discussion.

Just tell me how you rationalize those verses to have a different meaning.

We have gone over all this and I would have to give the same answer to this as has I have given or by others who also have an answer to this. When I find appropriate links, I shall have to save them so I can post them in future for I have not built up a collection of ready-made answers.

Yes, we have and the answer you gave the first time was wrong. The fact is there is no earthly throne of David anymore. Christ is seated on the thrown NOW like the Bible said he would be after the resurrection.

The very last enemy to be destroyed is death. Death has not been destroyed or can be until sin is no longer committed. That is something that has not been fufilled wherever you take Jesus to be reigning from. (1 Cor 15:24) Then cometh the end, when he shall have delivered up the kingdom to God, even the Father; when he shall have put down all rule and all authority and power. This has not happened. While man rules and commits the abominations we see being committed then Christ still has work to do.

Wrong! 2 Timothy 1:10 10 but it has now been revealed through the appearing of our Savior, Christ Jesus, who has destroyed death and has brought life and immortality to light through the gospel.

David that verse confirms what I have been saying. The kingdom is complete. Col.:1:13 13 For he has rescued us from the dominion of darkness and brought us into the kingdom of the Son he loves,

Hebrews 12:28 28 Therefore, since we are receiving a kingdom that cannot be shaken, let us be thankful, and so worship God acceptably with reverence and awe,

Christ was given all authority and power. Ephesians 1:15-23 15 For this reason, ever since I heard about your faith in the Lord Jesus and your love for all God’s people, 16 I have not stopped giving thanks for you, remembering you in my prayers. 17 I keep asking that the God of our Lord Jesus Christ, the glorious Father, may give you the Spirit[f] of wisdom and revelation, so that you may know him better. 18 I pray that the eyes of your heart may be enlightened in order that you may know the hope to which he has called you, the riches of his glorious inheritance in his holy people, 19 and his incomparably great power for us who believe. That power is the same as the mighty strength 20 he exerted when he raised Christ from the dead and seated him at his right hand in the heavenly realms, 21 far above all rule and authority, power and dominion, and every name that is invoked, not only in the present age but also in the one to come. 22 And God placed all things under his feet and appointed him to be head over everything for the church, 23 which is his body, the fullness of him who fills everything in every way.

Mathew 28:18 confirms Ephesians. 18 Then Jesus came to them and said, “All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me.

It has happened David. The Bible plainly tells us it did. You have to explain away these verses in order to justify your beliefs. How can you disregard the plain evidence?

There is no need for me to copy Rev 20 again. I was pointing out what appeared to be an error on your part. Here is what you said; Now you agree it is speaking of the first resurrection.

But you didn't point out an error on my part. Revelation 20 does speak of the second resurrection. Specifically Revelation 20:12-15. 12 And I saw the dead, great and small, standing before the throne, and books were opened. Another book was opened, which is the book of life. The dead were judged according to what they had done as recorded in the books. 13 The sea gave up the dead that were in it, and death and Hades gave up the dead that were in them, and each person was judged according to what they had done. 14 Then death and Hades were thrown into the lake of fire. The lake of fire is the second death. 15 Anyone whose name was not found written in the book of life was thrown into the lake of fire.

John 5.28-29 28 confirms this. Marvel not at this: for the hour is coming, in the which all that are in the graves shall hear his voice, And shall come forth; they that have done good, unto the resurrection of life; and they that have done evil, unto the resurrection of damnation [/OUOTE] "Is coming" and "shall" are indicative of a future event which to my understanding has not happened.

It is future in the fact that the end would come in 70AD. Revelation 11:15-18 5 And the seventh angel sounded; and there were great voices in heaven, saying, The kingdoms of this world are become the kingdoms of our Lord, and of his Christ; and he shall reign for ever and ever.

16 And the four and twenty elders, which sat before God on their seats, fell upon their faces, and worshipped God,

17 Saying, We give thee thanks, O Lord God Almighty, which art, and wast, and art to come; because thou hast taken to thee thy great power, and hast reigned.

18 And the nations were angry, and thy wrath is come,and the time of the dead, that they should be judged, and the time of the dead, that they should be judged, and that thou shouldest give reward unto thy servants the prophets, and to the saints, and them that fear thy name, small and great; and shouldest destroy them which destroy the earth.

Is reigned past? Yes. Is come past? Yes.

Such as I have given you above.

I don't see a multitude of verses like you claimed.

Once again I say that just presenting verses without explaining precisely what those verses mean is not evidence or facts. The fact is verses can be understood differently to what you think they mean and that is the root of all our disagreements. It involves going back to the beginning and taking all scripture into account. We do not get anywhere by picking bits from here and there. I am disputing your arguments by giving you an alternative meaning to the verses you present. That is fact and that is the fact you have to deal with and so prove the verses you are quoting do not refer to anything else.

They only have a different meaning to someone trying to uphold their beliefs.

Once again you assert things that are false. I have stated my point precisely and have given verses to support my argument. You now need to show me where I have not done such things.

To borrow your question above; Such as?

Earthly kingdom. Jesus will sit on Davids throne on earth. That Jesus will be an earthly king. You think Jesus has more to accomplish. Those are a few to get you started.

The last enemy in the world has not been destroyed. Jesus only destroyed the enemy (the devil) that was in his own flesh (the mind).

FALSE! 2 Timothy 1:10 plainly says it has. Also 1 Corinthians 15:54-56 says death was swallowed up in victory.

54 So when this corruptible shall have put on incorruption, and this mortal shall have put on immortality, then shall be brought to pass the saying that is written, Death is swallowed up in victory.

55 O death, where is thy sting? O grave, where is thy victory?

56 The sting of death is sin; and the strength of sin is the law.

I can only say this is an extremely short-sighted understanding of scripture which does not take into account all of scripture including the Old Testament prophets which said many things that have not happened. Have you answered the question; When did Damascus become a "ruinous heap"? Please tell me when that happened.

So you want to ignore what Jesus said to uphold your doctrine? Jesus explicitly says that with the destruction of Jerusalem that all that has been written was fulfilled. Jesus doesn't say but... He says ALL has been fulfilled. I'm sorry you don't take Jesus at his word. Because we know Jerusalem was destroyed in 70AD. And there is a mountain of evidence that proves this from the OT to the NT.

You have to remember David that Isaiah was a pre-exile prophet. Most of his writings were in regard to the exile and it's return. Damascus did become a ruinous heap by Tilgath-pilneser. King of Assyria. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tiglath-Pileser_III

2 Kings 16:9 9 The king of Assyria complied by attacking Damascus and capturing it. He deported its inhabitants to Kir and put Rezin to death.

There is little point keep saying the same point as if that is that. I say Jerusalem continues (not the temple). The nation of Israel exists - fact. Prophecy has been fulfilled after AD70. I keep saying, you have to take all of what the prophets have spoken otherwise you are leaving things out.

I'm not leaving anything out. YOU are. Israel existing is irrelevant to Biblical prophecy. There is NOT one mention of a future Israel from the Bible after 70AD. What prophecy has been fulfilled after 70AD. Don't say Israel becoming a nation. That is NOT biblical.

I have taken all the prophet into account. I'm also taking the word of the one who the prophets predicted. An he says the destruction of Jerusalem confirms that all that was written was fulfilled.

I gave you my answer so why say I did not? Here is what I wrote; The whole Book of Revelation has to do with things after AD70. This is where we have a total difference of opinion.

Ok, my mistake. But Revelation really doesn't contain anything after 70AD. The whole flow of Revelation starting with the first verse was to first century Christians. That is a fact!

Some things would be happen sooner than other things. The" sooner" things would start happening "shortly". What Revelation does not tell us is precisely the length of time it covers. 2,000 years can be as 2 days in God's sight. God has not left us without His word for 2,000 years, we have his word to refer to. Consider that between the Old Tesatament and the New Testament we have 450 years of silence in which nothing new was revealed by God. 2,000 years before God acts as in the 'Last Day' is nothing in God's time. Even so, God is constantly at work acting in the lives of people and the nations bringing about his purpose.

That is why your view is absurd. It ignores the main and plain things and asserts something the scripture doesn't say. Revelation gives us major clues as to the time period it covers. It tells us we can calculate who the beast is. That is a major clue right there.

IKf I told you Jesus was not going to raise the dead for another 2,000 years then we would have no reason to expect him at anytime. We could live a life of debauchery for 60 years and then for our last few years repent before we die. Is that the way Jesus wants you to lead your life. In fact you could be like the man in the parable having plans not knowing the next day he would lose his life. You only have a short life in which to come to accept God and his principles and that your end will come "shortly".

Sorry that view point just doesn't jive with the overwhelming majority of verses that speak to first century fulfillment.

You will find a thread in which this has been discussed and so I think it is best to leave you to read that thread and the posts in it that will give the argument from both sides.

Why do I need to read the thread? The verses are obvious. It doesn't need another meaning to them because they coincide with all the other evidence that confirms first century fulfillment.

I have not dismissed the destruction of the temple altogether, only in the fact that when John was having the Revelation given to him, the temple does not feature in the Revelation. That must also mean something, but not necessarily as you think it does.

That is wrong as well David. Revelation 11 speaks as the temple still standing. 11 I was given a reed like a measuring rod and was told, “Go and measure the temple of God and the altar, with its worshipers. 2 But exclude the outer court; do not measure it, because it has been given to the Gentiles. They will trample on the holy city for 42 months. 3 And I will appoint my two witnesses, and they will prophesy for 1,260 days, clothed in sackcloth.” 4 They are “the two olive trees” and the two lampstands, and “they stand before the Lord of the earth.”[a] 5 If anyone tries to harm them, fire comes from their mouths and devours their enemies. This is how anyone who wants to harm them must die. 6 They have power to shut up the heavens so that it will not rain during the time they are prophesying; and they have power to turn the waters into blood and to strike the earth with every kind of plague as often as they want.

If Revelation was written later than 70AD then why is John still writing as if the temple is still standing? Simple. Because he was telling of future events that take place in 70AD. If Revelation really was a later date that means John is a moron for not speaking of the temple being destroyed rather than still standing.

All I know is you referred to the second resurrection in Rev 20 and now you agree it is the first resurrection.

Already went over this above. You are confused on what I said. Go back and read it again.

I think the same can be said for you having a preconceived bias as you think I have. It becomes meaningless to say things like this and we have to stick to facts and interpretation as we are doing.

No the same cannot be said of me. I am only using the plain words of the Bible to support what I am saying. I am fully open to you proving me wrong.

Who mentioned a "third regathering". I mentioned the third overturning of Jerusalem which is indicated in Ezekiel 21:27 I will overturn, overturn, overturn, it: and it shall be no more, until he come whose right it is; and I will give it him. Who has the right to Jerusalem; Abraham or Jesus?

Ok, I misunderstood.

No David that verse does NOT indicate a third future overturning of Jerusalem. Jerusalem was already overthrown 3 times as mentioned in the Bible. It was the overthrow of Jehoiakim, Jeconiah, and Zedekiah. Ezekiel was exiled into Babylon. That is what the majority of his writing are about.

1: In 605 Bc at the Battle of Carchemish. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Carchemish

This is where Daniel is taken into captivity. Daniel 1:1-6 1 In the third year of the reign of Jehoiakim king of Judah, Nebuchadnezzar king of Babylon came to Jerusalem and besieged it. 2 And the Lord delivered Jehoiakim king of Judah into his hand, along with some of the articles from the temple of God. These he carried off to the temple of his god in Babylonia[a] and put in the treasure house of his god.

3 Then the king ordered Ashpenaz, chief of his court officials, to bring into the king’s service some of the Israelites from the royal family and the nobility— 4 young men without any physical defect, handsome, showing aptitude for every kind of learning, well informed, quick to understand, and qualified to serve in the king’s palace. He was to teach them the language and literature of the Babylonians. 5 The king assigned them a daily amount of food and wine from the king’s table. They were to be trained for three years, and after that they were to enter the king’s service.

6 Among those who were chosen were some from Judah: Daniel, Hananiah, Mishael and Azariah.

2: The siege of Jerusalem in 597BC. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Siege_of_Jerusalem_%28597_BC%29

2 Chronicles 36:5-6 5 Jehoiakim was twenty-five years old when he became king, and he reigned in Jerusalem eleven years. He did evil in the eyes of the Lord his God. 6 Nebuchadnezzar king of Babylon attacked him and bound him with bronze shackles to take him to Babylon.

2 Chronicles 36:9-10 Jehoiachin was eighteen[a] years old when he became king, and he reigned in Jerusalem three months and ten days. He did evil in the eyes of the Lord. 10 In the spring, King Nebuchadnezzar sent for him and brought him to Babylon, together with articles of value from the temple of the Lord, and he made Jehoiachin’s uncle, Zedekiah, king over Judah and Jerusalem.

2 Kings 24:15-17 15 Nebuchadnezzar took Jehoiachin captive to Babylon. He also took from Jerusalem to Babylon the king’s mother, his wives, his officials and the prominent people of the land. 16 The king of Babylon also deported to Babylon the entire force of seven thousand fighting men, strong and fit for war, and a thousand skilled workers and artisans. 17 He made Mattaniah, Jehoiachin’s uncle, king in his place and changed his name to Zedekiah.

3: Siege of Jerusalem in 587BC. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Siege_of_Jerusalem_%28587_BC%29

2 Kings 25:1-2 25 And it came to pass in the ninth year of his reign, in the tenth month, in the tenth day of the month, that Nebuchadnezzar king of Babylon came, he, and all his host, against Jerusalem, and pitched against it; and they built forts against it round about.

2 And the city was besieged unto the eleventh year of king Zedekiah.

I suggest you read the thread that has been going on between Twosprits and Richard which I have contributed to. You can disagree, but then I disagree with you. Just stating this is a waste of words and time.

Already have. That thread is absurd to the extreme. Twospirits contradicted himself and could never admit his error.

I think this continual same reply is indicating we should stop this discussion. I have given you examples of things not completed. You leave out much of what the OT prophets said which was not fulfilled by AD70. I shall have to wait for your answers to the questions I have given you to at least show me when they were fulfilled before I start bringing more of what the prophets said for you to answer.

If you wish to stop the discussion, ok. I have left out nothing. I have refuted everything you have offered with evidence to back my claims.

I read sufficiently to know the same old arguments arise. Stop saying the same things; your mountain of evidence can be destroyed. That is what I am in the process of doing, stone by stone dismantling your maountain. Just stick to the facts and stop saying; "It is false". All futurist will say the same about what you are teaching, so where does that get us?

Yes but you never refute the same old arguments other than asserting things. You have not in any way dismantled my mountain of evidence. On the contrary, I have now added even more evidence to the pile to refute you.

It is not irrational for Jesus to know of more than one future judgement. The fact that Jesus knew the temple would be destroyed does not take away the fact that there will be the Great Day of the LORD which did not happen in the first century. All nations were not judged in the first century.

Sure it is. Especially when Jesus never once mentions anything other. The great day of the Lord was about the destruction of Jerusalem in 70AD. Zechariah 14 speaks of this very thing. Which is then paralleled in Mathew and Luke. There is NO mistaking that it was the destruction in 70AD. Zephaniah 1 also talks about the judgement on all of the earth. It also confirms it about the the destruction of Jerusalem.

Also consider these verses.

Jeremiah 4:13 13 Look! He advances like the clouds,
his chariots come like a whirlwind,
his horses are swifter than eagles.
Woe to us! We are ruined!

Isaiah 66:15 15 See, the Lord is coming with fire,
and his chariots are like a whirlwind;
he will bring down his anger with fury,
and his rebuke with flames of fire.

Mathew 24:30-31 30 “Then will appear the sign of the Son of Man in heaven. And then all the peoples of the earth[a] will mourn when they see the Son of Man coming on the clouds of heaven, with power and great glory.[b] 31 And he will send his angels with a loud trumpet call, and they will gather his elect from the four winds, from one end of the heavens to the other.

1 Thesssalonians 4:16-17

16 For the Lord himself shall descend from heaven with a shout, with the voice of the archangel, and with the trump of God: and the dead in Christ shall rise first:

17 Then we which are alive and remain shall be caught up together with them in the clouds, to meet the Lord in the air: and so shall we ever be with the Lord.

Josephus was an eyewitness to the destruction in 70AD. Here is what he had to say in 75AD concerning the supernatural events of the destruction of Jerusalem. http://www.josephus.org/causeofDestruct.htm#omens

And here it is paraphrased: "Besides these [signs], a few days after that feast, on the one- and-twentieth day of the month Artemisius, [Jyar,] a certain prodigious and incredible phenomenon appeared; I suppose the account of it would seem to be a fable, were it not related by those that saw it, and were not the events that followed it of so considerable a nature as to deserve such signals; for, before sun-setting, chariots and troops of soldiers in their armour were seen running about among the clouds, and surrounding of cities. Moreover, at that feast which we call Pentecost, as the priests were going by night into the inner [court of the] temple, as their custom was, to perform their sacred ministrations, they said that, in the first place, they felt a quaking, and heard a great noise, and after that they heard a sound as of a great multitude, saying, "Let us remove hence" (Jewish Wars, VI-V-3).

“A supernatural apparition was seen, too amazing to be believed. What I am now to relate would, I imagine, be dismissed as imaginary, had this not been vouched for by eyewitnesses, then followed by subsequent disasters that deserved to be thus signalized. For before sunset chariots were seen in the air over the whole country, and armed battalions speeding through the clouds and encircling the cities.”

Let's see how you answer my questions in this post for I have certainly answered you.

I think i answered your questions and posed many more.

Richard Amiel McGough

04-30-2013, 05:08 PM

Hello Richard

From everything you have replied, I am just going to respond to one point which sums up your position and why we are likely to disagree on almost everything in the Bible.

Actually, Revelation 20:5 says; But the rest of the dead lived not again until the thousand years were finished. This is the first resurrection. The number of resurrections and when these take place is a study of its own and would be worth starting a new thread.

It would be a big mistake to develop a doctrine about the "number of resurrections" because the Bible is quite ambiguous on that point so it would just be more speculation (as if we needed any more of that!). This is the essence of the Futurist method of interpretation: Ignore all the main and plain things established by many mutually confirming verses and build doctrines out of speculations based on ambiguous fragments.

Unless you take every word of the Bible into account, including all the words said by all the prophets in the OT, you are leaving things out. Unless you resolve all the ambiguities and you only rely on what is left after leaving the ambiguities out, you are also doing that which you accuse me of; concocting your own interpretation. You are not completing the jigsaw picture when you leave pieces out. Whole chunks are being left out by preterists, which do not give you the full picture. If you do not want to resolve the ambiguities for yourself or you cannot, that is YOUR problem. Don't denigrate other people for resolving what you do not. Even if there is disagreement in resolving some things, there is only one truth that can apply and until we find it, we have to keep searching for it. You must be able to disregard many of different interpretations until you are left with only two possibilities of which one is more true than the other. Although we have one major disagreement which comes under the heading of; Preterism or Futurism?, this covers many prophecies which all have to be taken into account and understood. Each one has to be dealt with separately before coming to any conclusion. If you have done all that and still stick with your opinion, then you should give me the same latitude for having done the same. As I have said to L67 we should just stick to the facts and stop personal remarks that waste words and time reading. All we can do is give our interpretations and the reasons why and leave it at that and there is no need to refer to the other party in anyway.

All the best

David
David,

As usual, you ignored most of my points and misunderstood the ones you did comment on. I have never said that anyone should not "take every word of the Bible into account." I have never said that we should "leave the ambiguities out." My point has always been the same, and you have never shown any understanding of it. My point is that we do not BUILD DOCTRINES BASED ON AMBIGUOUS PASSAGES. That's what the cults do. They pick out ambiguous passages, like the numbered resurrections of Rev 20, and simply declare their interpretations without any proof. And so they deceive themselves into thinking that their cult has the "secret truth of the Bible" that all the other groups missed. That's the KEY to all the CULTS. They concoct weird doctrines so they can convince their followers that they alone have the "truth." This is why all the cults have such wildly differing interpretations of the same book and no amount of discourse ever leads to any agreement. The doctrines are just dogmas that are not actually supported by the Bible at all.

Your statement that I don't want to resolve ambiguities is absurd. I delight in resolving ambiguities. But that's not what you are doing. You are simply concocting "resolutions" out of nothing to fit your scheme which likewise is concocted out of nothing. That's why we can never find any agreement. You simply reject what the Bible actually says and confirms by many mutually confirming verses and then invent doctrines about ambiguous verses that cannot be actually proven from the Bible. We have exchanged many thousands of words. I have constantly called you to work with me to find a FOUNDATION OF AGREEMENT and you have totally refused, just like every other Futurist I have engaged here on this forum. It's trivial. I've explained it a dozen times and you have never shown any understanding, let alone agreement. The only way to discover what the Bible actually teaches is to begin with the main and plain things that can be established by many mutually confirming verses. Anything less leads to delusions, not certainty. And that's a great irony, since you are clearly looking for certainty. I can tell you right now that you will never find authentic certainty using your current methods of interpretation. Authentic certainty - certainty based on good reason - will always convince other rational people.

All the best,

Richard

David M

05-05-2013, 12:42 PM

Hello L67
I see you are busy writing many posts the thread; 'The Devil' s Number' It has taken me a long time reading the many posts. I do not have as mush time to spend on the forum at the moment so will be limiting the number of threads I participate in and will have to reduce the number of of topics in any one discussion.

Just tell me how you rationalize those verses to have a different meaning. This would have to be done separately in new thread. I just know I have given answers dotted throughout this forum when I looked at that page. This is an example where we have to reduce the number of topics discussed in any single thread.

Yes, we have and the answer you gave the first time was wrong. The fact is there is no earthly throne of David anymore. Christ is seated on the thrown NOW like the Bible said he would be after the resurrection. OK this is a single point where we have both stated our case here and in the other thread and so to continue must be a topic on its own.

Wrong! 2 Timothy 1:10 10 but it has now been revealed through the appearing of our Savior, Christ Jesus, who has destroyed death and has brought life and immortality to light through the gospel. We both know how Jesus defeated death and has made it possible for others to defeat death, but sin continues and until sin ceases the consequences of sin prevail for the majority in the world. Paul is writing after the resurrection of Jesus knowing Jesus has defeated death for himself. However, Paul is writing of things future from the time he is writing so is not about something that has already happened.

David that verse confirms what I have been saying. The kingdom is complete. Col.:1:13 13 For he has rescued us from the dominion of darkness and brought us into the kingdom of the Son he loves, It cannot be complete for the reason I have given above. The resurrection of Jesus is only the beginning and Jesus has made it possible whereby you and I both have the opportunity of defeating death. Death has not been defeated entirely or else we would not die, but then if death is seen as no more than a sleep, then yes, death is already defeated knowing a future exists beyond death. Sadly, death continues in the world for all those who will not be saved. The end of this situation has not come and will not come until God's kingdom is fully restored and Christ hands over the restored kingdom to his Heavenly Father.

Hebrews 12:28 28 Therefore, since we are receiving a kingdom that cannot be shaken, let us be thankful, and so worship God acceptably with reverence and awe, In a spiritual sense we can see that Christ's kingdom now will not be shaken. The spiritual kingdom is being added to every time a sinner repents and follows the commands of Jesus whereby they will be saved. The earthly kingdom of Christ has not begun and will not until he returns. Those who are saved now will be in the kingdom to come after resurrection.

Christ was given all authority and power. Ephesians 1:15-23 15 For this reason, ever since I heard about your faith in the Lord Jesus and your love for all God’s people, 16 I have not stopped giving thanks for you, remembering you in my prayers. 17 I keep asking that the God of our Lord Jesus Christ, the glorious Father, may give you the Spirit[f] of wisdom and revelation, so that you may know him better. 18 I pray that the eyes of your heart may be enlightened in order that you may know the hope to which he has called you, the riches of his glorious inheritance in his holy people, 19 and his incomparably great power for us who believe. That power is the same as the mighty strength 20 he exerted when he raised Christ from the dead and seated him at his right hand in the heavenly realms, 21 far above all rule and authority, power and dominion, and every name that is invoked, not only in the present age but also in the one to come. 22 And God placed all things under his feet and appointed him to be head over everything for the church, 23 which is his body, the fullness of him who fills everything in every way.

Mathew 28:18 confirms Ephesians. 18 Then Jesus came to them and said, “All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. I agree Jesus was given all power and authority and as such would have been judged for every idle word he spoke. Nothing would have been withheld from Jesus had he requested it. That same power will be exercised when he returns and will rule on the earth having God's own title. In the pattern of things, this is when God in the 7th millennium will be taking His Sabbath rest and Christ will be ruling in the kingdoms of men in God's place.

It has happened David. The Bible plainly tells us it did. You have to explain away these verses in order to justify your beliefs. How can you disregard the plain evidence? As I have said before, I read things that are plain evidence which you reject, so the same is said against one another and does not get the conversation any further.

But you didn't point out an error on my part. Revelation 20 does speak of the second resurrection. Specifically Revelation 20:12-15. 12 And I saw the dead, great and small, standing before the throne, and books were opened. Another book was opened, which is the book of life. The dead were judged according to what they had done as recorded in the books. 13 The sea gave up the dead that were in it, and death and Hades gave up the dead that were in them, and each person was judged according to what they had done. 14 Then death and Hades were thrown into the lake of fire. The lake of fire is the second death. 15 Anyone whose name was not found written in the book of life was thrown into the lake of fire.
You first began with mentioning the first resurrection. I am not pursuing this point any further and the number of resurrections can become a separate subject for another time.

It is future in the fact that the end would come in 70AD. Revelation 11:15-18 5 And the seventh angel sounded; and there were great voices in heaven, saying, The kingdoms of this world are become the kingdoms of our Lord, and of his Christ; and he shall reign for ever and ever.

16 And the four and twenty elders, which sat before God on their seats, fell upon their faces, and worshipped God,

17 Saying, We give thee thanks, O Lord God Almighty, which art, and wast, and art to come; because thou hast taken to thee thy great power, and hast reigned.

18 And the nations were angry, and thy wrath is come,and the time of the dead, that they should be judged, and the time of the dead, that they should be judged, and that thou shouldest give reward unto thy servants the prophets, and to the saints, and them that fear thy name, small and great; and shouldest destroy them which destroy the earth.

Is reigned past? Yes. Is come past? Yes. Of course I can see the way you are forcing these verses to fit into the preterist way of thinking. When we look at other prophecies and see that God's judgement is to come on all the nations of the earth, this did not happen. That event is still future. You cannot point to a time in history when God's judgement was poured out on all nations at the same time

They only have a different meaning to someone trying to uphold their beliefs. Is not that exactly what you are doing?

Once again you assert things that are false. I have stated my point precisely and have given verses to support my argument. You now need to show me where I have not done such things. I know you give verses but as I said, these are not evidence to me as I understand them differently. The same will go for you when I give my verses and you do not accept my explanation of them.

Earthly kingdom. Jesus will sit on Davids throne on earth. That Jesus will be an earthly king. You think Jesus has more to accomplish. Those are a few to get you started. This is a subject we can make a separate subject. A verse I can quote to say that the ascension of Jesus to heaven in Acts 1 is only temporary is that spoken by Peter when he says; (Acts 3:21) Whom the heaven must receive until the times of restitution of all things, which God hath spoken by the mouth of all his holy prophets since the world began. Jesus has only been received in heaven "until" which says that Jesus will not remain there.

So you want to ignore what Jesus said to uphold your doctrine? Jesus explicitly says that with the destruction of Jerusalem that all that has been written was fulfilled. Jesus doesn't say but... He says ALL has been fulfilled. I'm sorry you don't take Jesus at his word. Because we know Jerusalem was destroyed in 70AD. And there is a mountain of evidence that proves this from the OT to the NT. You have to define what is meant by "all fulfilled" , the same as "it is finished" when Jesus said these words while nailed to a stake long before AD70. I am not dismissing any words of Jesus.

You have to remember David that Isaiah was a pre-exile prophet. Most of his writings were in regard to the exile and it's return. Damascus did become a ruinous heap by Tilgath-pilneser. King of Assyria. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tiglath-Pileser_III

2 Kings 16:9 9 The king of Assyria complied by attacking Damascus and capturing it. He deported its inhabitants to Kir and put Rezin to death. Damascus is a very old city and even though it has been attacked as you say, it has never been reported or seen as a "ruinous heap" unlike Babylon that got covered in sand and would be no longer a great city. At one time Babylon was thought to be a Bible myth because it had not been found.

I have taken all the prophet into account. I'm also taking the word of the one who the prophets predicted. An he says the destruction of Jerusalem confirms that all that was written was fulfilled. We will have to take everything the prophets said as a separate subject. I have pointed out things which I do not see as having been fulfilled and so if you do, that must be dealt with separately.

Ok, my mistake. But Revelation really doesn't contain anything after 70AD. The whole flow of Revelation starting with the first verse was to first century Christians. That is a fact! It is not fact!!

That is why your view is absurd. It ignores the main and plain things and asserts something the scripture doesn't say. Revelation gives us major clues as to the time period it covers. It tells us we can calculate who the beast is. That is a major clue right there. The number of the beast is what I have been reading. Have you stopped to consider that both you and Beck could be wrong? At least Beck has asked a question and shown some uncertainty as to the correct answer.

Sorry that view point just doesn't jive with the overwhelming majority of verses that speak to first century fulfillment. Only because or your beliefs which you are upholding otherwise they do not speak of first century fulfilment for the same reason you level against me.

That is wrong as well David. Revelation 11 speaks as the temple still standing. 11 I was given a reed like a measuring rod and was told, “Go and measure the temple of God and the altar, with its worshipers. 2 But exclude the outer court; do not measure it, because it has been given to the Gentiles. They will trample on the holy city for 42 months. 3 And I will appoint my two witnesses, and they will prophesy for 1,260 days, clothed in sackcloth.” 4 They are “the two olive trees” and the two lampstands, and “they stand before the Lord of the earth.”[a] 5 If anyone tries to harm them, fire comes from their mouths and devours their enemies. This is how anyone who wants to harm them must die. 6 They have power to shut up the heavens so that it will not rain during the time they are prophesying; and they have power to turn the waters into blood and to strike the earth with every kind of plague as often as they want.

If Revelation was written later than 70AD then why is John still writing as if the temple is still standing? Simple. Because he was telling of future events that take place in 70AD. If Revelation really was a later date that means John is a moron for not speaking of the temple being destroyed rather than still standing. It is not too dissimilar to the vision of Ezekiel when he was shown a future event and taken in vision which to him was like reality.

No David that verse does NOT indicate a third future overturning of Jerusalem. Jerusalem was already overthrown 3 times as mentioned in the Bible. It was the overthrow of Jehoiakim, Jeconiah, and Zedekiah. Ezekiel was exiled into Babylon. That is what the majority of his writing are about.

1: In 605 Bc at the Battle of Carchemish. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Carchemish The Wikipedia article does not support the overturning of Jerusalem. The only reference to Jerusalem is recorded in the article where it says; The dead body of Josiah was delivered to Jerusalem immediately and buried according to the customs of Judah's kings, near the grave of King David.

This is where Daniel is taken into captivity. Daniel 1:1-6 1 In the third year of the reign of Jehoiakim king of Judah, Nebuchadnezzar king of Babylon came to Jerusalem and besieged it. 2 And the Lord delivered Jehoiakim king of Judah into his hand, along with some of the articles from the temple of God. These he carried off to the temple of his god in Babylonia[a] and put in the treasure house of his god.

3 Then the king ordered Ashpenaz, chief of his court officials, to bring into the king’s service some of the Israelites from the royal family and the nobility— 4 young men without any physical defect, handsome, showing aptitude for every kind of learning, well informed, quick to understand, and qualified to serve in the king’s palace. He was to teach them the language and literature of the Babylonians. 5 The king assigned them a daily amount of food and wine from the king’s table. They were to be trained for three years, and after that they were to enter the king’s service.

6 Among those who were chosen were some from Judah: Daniel, Hananiah, Mishael and Azariah. I agree with the Babylonian invasion which resulted in the people of the Jerusalem being taken into exile. I take this as the first overturning.

2: The siege of Jerusalem in 597BC. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Siege_of_Jerusalem_%28597_BC%29

2 Chronicles 36:5-6 5 Jehoiakim was twenty-five years old when he became king, and he reigned in Jerusalem eleven years. He did evil in the eyes of the Lord his God. 6 Nebuchadnezzar king of Babylon attacked him and bound him with bronze shackles to take him to Babylon.

2 Chronicles 36:9-10 Jehoiachin was eighteen[a] years old when he became king, and he reigned in Jerusalem three months and ten days. He did evil in the eyes of the Lord. 10 In the spring, King Nebuchadnezzar sent for him and brought him to Babylon, together with articles of value from the temple of the Lord, and he made Jehoiachin’s uncle, Zedekiah, king over Judah and Jerusalem.

2 Kings 24:15-17 15 Nebuchadnezzar took Jehoiachin captive to Babylon. He also took from Jerusalem to Babylon the king’s mother, his wives, his officials and the prominent people of the land. 16 The king of Babylon also deported to Babylon the entire force of seven thousand fighting men, strong and fit for war, and a thousand skilled workers and artisans. 17 He made Mattaniah, Jehoiachin’s uncle, king in his place and changed his name to Zedekiah.

3: Siege of Jerusalem in 587BC. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Siege_of_Jerusalem_%28587_BC%29
2 Kings 25:1-2 25 And it came to pass in the ninth year of his reign, in the tenth month, in the tenth day of the month, that Nebuchadnezzar king of Babylon came, he, and all his host, against Jerusalem, and pitched against it; and they built forts against it round about.

2 And the city was besieged unto the eleventh year of king Zedekiah. These all involve King Nebuchadnezzar that resulted finally in the exile. I am not including skirmishes with other kings. If we consider sieges only, then Wikipedia lists many sieges but these were not overturnings in the sense the people were led away capitive from Jerusalem.

Already have. That thread is absurd to the extreme. Twospirits contradicted himself and could never admit his error. Most of what Twospirits wrote I agree with, but that does not mean I agree with every single word Twospirits wrote.. I agreed with Twospirits more than I did with Richard and now you.

If you wish to stop the discussion, ok. I have left out nothing. I have refuted everything you have offered with evidence to back my claims. We need not stop, but we have to deal with one topic at a time. As usual, what you think is evidence does not appear as evidence to me, as I have explained back.

Yes but you never refute the same old arguments other than asserting things. You have not in any way dismantled my mountain of evidence. On the contrary, I have now added even more evidence to the pile to refute you. I said I was in the process which is ongoing. The same as I have done here. I have followed the link you gave to Wikipedia and it does not support what you say. It is not strong evidence regarding the overturnings of Jerusalem.

Sure it is. Especially when Jesus never once mentions anything other. The great day of the Lord was about the destruction of Jerusalem in 70AD. Zechariah 14 speaks of this very thing. Which is then paralleled in Mathew and Luke. There is NO mistaking that it was the destruction in 70AD. Zephaniah 1 also talks about the judgement on all of the earth. It also confirms it about the the destruction of Jerusalem. I am talking about the time that results in the judgement of all nations as per Ezekiel. Zech 14:16 is following all nations that come up against Jerusalem as described by Ezekiel including Gog and many others which did not come against Jerusalem in AD70. So you have to explain when the Gog Meshech and Tubal prophecies took place.

Also consider these verses.

Jeremiah 4:13 13 Look! He advances like the clouds,
his chariots come like a whirlwind,
his horses are swifter than eagles.
Woe to us! We are ruined!

Isaiah 66:15 15 See, the Lord is coming with fire,
and his chariots are like a whirlwind;
he will bring down his anger with fury,
and his rebuke with flames of fire.[/B]

Mathew 24:30-31 30 “Then will appear the sign of the Son of Man in heaven. And then all the peoples of the earth[a] will mourn when they see the Son of Man coming on the clouds of heaven, with power and great glory.[b] 31 And he will send his angels with a loud trumpet call, and they will gather his elect from the four winds, from one end of the heavens to the other. The word used for "coming" has the sense of arriving hence confirming that Jesus will return.

1 Thesssalonians 4:16-17

16 For the Lord himself shall descend from heaven with a shout, with the voice of the archangel, and with the trump of God: and the dead in Christ shall rise first:

17 Then we which are alive and remain shall be caught up together with them in the clouds, to meet the Lord in the air: and so shall we ever be with the Lord. The Lord will descend; This conveys the sense of Jesus coming down to earth.

Josephus was an eyewitness to the destruction in 70AD. Here is what he had to say in 75AD concerning the supernatural events of the destruction of Jerusalem. http://www.josephus.org/causeofDestruct.htm#omens It would be better if you directed me to specific parts of this webpage. There is too much to wade through and I do not dismiss the comments of Josephus reporting on the destruction of Jerusalem but specific conclusions do you consider Josephus is making?

[QUOTE=L67;54019]http://www.josephus.org/causeofDestruct.htm#omensAnd here it is paraphrased: "Besides these [signs], a few days after that feast, on the one- and-twentieth day of the month Artemisius, [Jyar,] a certain prodigious and incredible phenomenon appeared; I suppose the account of it would seem to be a fable, were it not related by those that saw it, and were not the events that followed it of so considerable a nature as to deserve such signals; for, before sun-setting, chariots and troops of soldiers in their armour were seen running about among the clouds, and surrounding of cities. Moreover, at that feast which we call Pentecost, as the priests were going by night into the inner [court of the] temple, as their custom was, to perform their sacred ministrations, they said that, in the first place, they felt a quaking, and heard a great noise, and after that they heard a sound as of a great multitude, saying, "Let us remove hence" (Jewish Wars, VI-V-3).

“A supernatural apparition was seen, too amazing to be believed. What I am now to relate would, I imagine, be dismissed as imaginary, had this not been vouched for by eyewitnesses, then followed by subsequent disasters that deserved to be thus signalized. For before sunset chariots were seen in the air over the whole country, and armed battalions speeding through the clouds and encircling the cities.” How is it that possible myth like this is held as true and yet the writings of Paul which I refer to are held in the same esteem as the repot Josephus is including in his historical record. The words of the Bible are far more reliable and yet I get challenged on believing the writings of the Apostles and yet I am asked to believe reports like this which are highly mythical and suspect. The fact that Josephus is reporting it as of a truthful source is does not guarantee it.

I think i answered your questions and posed many more. I have also replied to your and given you a few questions to answer. I do not want to overload you with questions as the lenght of these posts need to be shortened and we need to stick to one subject at a time.

All the best

David

L67

05-06-2013, 09:42 PM

Hello L67

We both know how Jesus defeated death and has made it possible for others to defeat death, but sin continues and until sin ceases the consequences of sin prevail for the majority in the world. Paul is writing after the resurrection of Jesus knowing Jesus has defeated death for himself. However, Paul is writing of things future from the time he is writing so is not about something that has already happened.

Ummm.... No. Because this view ignores the overwhelming flow of the NT to be first century fulfillment. That was the sole message of Jesus. The Bible completely proves your view false.

It cannot be complete for the reason I have given above. The resurrection of Jesus is only the beginning and Jesus has made it possible whereby you and I both have the opportunity of defeating death. Death has not been defeated entirely or else we would not die, but then if death is seen as no more than a sleep, then yes, death is already defeated knowing a future exists beyond death. Sadly, death continues in the world for all those who will not be saved. The end of this situation has not come and will not come until God's kingdom is fully restored and Christ hands over the restored kingdom to his Heavenly Father.

But that view is in direct contradiction with the Bible. Jesus is a spiritual king, not a physical king. And his kingdom is not of this world. The Jews wanted to make Jesus a physical king and setup a physical kingdom. But he rejected both of those propositions because he is a spiritual king.

Sorry David not only does the Bible say death was defeated that fits with the rest of the first century fulfillment.

In a spiritual sense we can see that Christ's kingdom now will not be shaken. The spiritual kingdom is being added to every time a sinner repents and follows the commands of Jesus whereby they will be saved. The earthly kingdom of Christ has not begun and will not until he returns. Those who are saved now will be in the kingdom to come after resurrection.

There is no earthly kingdom David. There is ZERO evidence of that in the Bible. You repeatedly say that with no evidence to support that assertion. I have given you more than enough proof that that view is false. You can't ever show me why you believe that. You just like to say it.

I agree Jesus was given all power and authority and as such would have been judged for every idle word he spoke. Nothing would have been withheld from Jesus had he requested it. That same power will be exercised when he returns and will rule on the earth having God's own title. In the pattern of things, this is when God in the 7th millennium will be taking His Sabbath rest and Christ will be ruling in the kingdoms of men in God's place.

None of those beliefs are biblical. Not one.

As I have said before, I read things that are plain evidence which you reject, so the same is said against one another and does not get the conversation any further.

No that is NOT what you do. I have caught you taking scripture out of context to suit your presupposition. If you accepted the plain things then it would be OBVIOUS to you that Christ was speaking to first century fulfillment.

Of course I can see the way you are forcing these verses to fit into the preterist way of thinking. When we look at other prophecies and see that God's judgement is to come on all the nations of the earth, this did not happen. That event is still future. You cannot point to a time in history when God's judgement was poured out on all nations at the same time

I'm not forcing anything. It's what the plain text says. The Bible does not literally mean the whole earth. That is a misinterpretation of the text. And plus the Bible already said the word was preached to the whole earth. Except whole earth doesn't literally mean the entire earth. But even if it did mean the entire earth the Bible still says it was accomplished.

Is not that exactly what you are doing?

Absolutely not. I'm quoting the plain text of the Bible. You on the other hand have to twist the text to fit your beliefs.

I know you give verses but as I said, these are not evidence to me as I understand them differently. The same will go for you when I give my verses and you do not accept my explanation of them.

Of course they don't mean anything to you because you are shackled to your doctrine. Your doctrine keeps you from seeing the plain and obvious. Instead everything you interpret is a play on words. You take fragments of scripture and cram your forced doctrine to fill the gaps.

This is a subject we can make a separate subject. A verse I can quote to say that the ascension of Jesus to heaven in Acts 1 is only temporary is that spoken by Peter when he says; (Acts 3:21) Whom the heaven must receive until the times of restitution of all things, which God hath spoken by the mouth of all his holy prophets since the world began. Jesus has only been received in heaven "until" which says that Jesus will not remain there.

That verses does not support your interpretation. That verse does NOT have a future meaning to it. If you quote the next verses it plainly speaks for the first century. Acts 3:24 "Indeed, beginning with Samuel, all the prophets who have spoken have foretold these days.

This goes with all the other verses that Peter spoke of as having first century fulfillment. And the rest of the NT for that matter.

This is why your way of interpreting scripture is absurd. You take one verse out of context and then say that proves your point. Sorry it doesn't. The verse is speaking of first century.

You have to define what is meant by "all fulfilled" , the same as "it is finished" when Jesus said these words while nailed to a stake long before AD70. I am not dismissing any words of Jesus.

No I don't. It means exactly what Jesus said it does. This goes with the whole flow of the NT of first century fulfillment. You never just accept the plain and obvious words of Jesus. You reinterpret all of Jesus words and by the time you are done they have no meaning left.

Damascus is a very old city and even though it has been attacked as you say, it has never been reported or seen as a "ruinous heap" unlike Babylon that got covered in sand and would be no longer a great city. At one time Babylon was thought to be a Bible myth because it had not been found.

I'm glad you said this. This proves beyond all reasonable doubt you did no research. I gave you some valuable information that fulfills Isaiah and you never bothered to look any further. You are 100% wrong.

The Assyrian Annals says that that the destruction of Damascus was so great that it looked "like hills over which the flood had swept". It is a historical FACT Damascus was left a ruinous heap. Isaiah is fulfilled. Read this link.http://books.google.com/books?id=5KpJfZiJJJ0C&pg=PA534&lpg=PA534&dq=assyrian+annals+damascus+like+hills+over+which+ the+flood+had+swept&source=bl&ots=YHaOoplU1l&sig=4QscyNN9QcjLMWKlLltoiSiphPk&hl=en&sa=X&ei=CzmIUZ21FOHU0gHM7oH4Aw&ved=0CD8Q6AEwAg#v=onepage&q=assyrian%20annals%20damascus%20like%20hills%20ov er%20which%20the%20flood%20had%20swept&f=false

Read the Annals of the Assyrians for yourself. This is about Tilgath-pilneser attacking Damascus. http://www.lib.uchicago.edu/cgi-bin/eos/eos_page.pl?DPI=100&callnum=PJ3835.B85_cop2&object=87

We have historical facts that prove this happened and the Bible confirms it. Your future Damascus claim is rendered false.

We will have to take everything the prophets said as a separate subject. I have pointed out things which I do not see as having been fulfilled and so if you do, that must be dealt with separately.

Not really. We could do one better. We could accept the words of Jesus himself. He is suppose to be the perfect man. He could never lie about something like this. So why should I not take him at his word?

It is not fact!!

100% fact.

The number of the beast is what I have been reading. Have you stopped to consider that both you and Beck could be wrong? At least Beck has asked a question and shown some uncertainty as to the correct answer.

Yes I have. Beck never showed any uncertainty. He asserted he had the answer and that I was wrong. Whether him or I are right about the beast is irrelevant. One thing for sure is the beast was first century fulfillment, not future.

Only because or your beliefs which you are upholding otherwise they do not speak of first century fulfilment for the same reason you level against me.

Wrong. I don't have any beliefs David. I simply accept the Bible for what it says. My view absolutely speaks of first century fulfillment. The vast majority of evidence is on my side.

It is not too dissimilar to the vision of Ezekiel when he was shown a future event and taken in vision which to him was like reality.

Thanks for not dealing with the argument I presented. You changed the subject. Which verse of Ezekiel are you talking about?

The Wikipedia article does not support the overturning of Jerusalem. The only reference to Jerusalem is recorded in the article where it says; The dead body of Josiah was delivered to Jerusalem immediately and buried according to the customs of Judah's kings, near the grave of King David.

Yes it does. I will show you below.

[QUOTE=David M;54064] I agree with the Babylonian invasion which resulted in the people of the Jerusalem being taken into exile. I take this as the first overturning.

Glad you agree. This happened in 605BC. The opening verses of the Book of Daniel describe Nebuchadnezzar besieging Jerusalem "in the third year of the reign of Jehoiakim" (606/5 BCE).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Book_of_Daniel#Siege_of_Jerusalem

These all involve King Nebuchadnezzar that resulted finally in the exile. I am not including skirmishes with other kings. If we consider sieges only, then Wikipedia lists many sieges but these were not overturnings in the sense the people were led away capitive from Jerusalem.

Again you do no research. You didn't read any of the links. The Siege of Jerusalem in 597BC. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Siege_of_Jerusalem_%28597_BC%29

2 Kings 24:10-16

10 At that time the officers of Nebuchadnezzar king of Babylon advanced on Jerusalem and laid siege to it, 11 and Nebuchadnezzar himself came up to the city while his officers were besieging it. 12 Jehoiachin king of Judah, his mother, his attendants, his nobles and his officials all surrendered to him.

In the eighth year of the reign of the king of Babylon, he took Jehoiachin prisoner. 13 As the Lord had declared, Nebuchadnezzar removed the treasures from the temple of the Lord and from the royal palace, and cut up the gold articles that Solomon king of Israel had made for the temple of the Lord. 14 He carried all Jerusalem into exile: all the officers and fighting men, and all the skilled workers and artisans—a total of ten thousand. Only the poorest people of the land were left.

15 Nebuchadnezzar took Jehoiachin captive to Babylon. He also took from Jerusalem to Babylon the king’s mother, his wives, his officials and the prominent people of the land. 16 The king of Babylon also deported to Babylon the entire force of seven thousand fighting men, strong and fit for war, and a thousand skilled workers and artisans.

That is overthrown number 2.

The Siege of Jerusalem in 587BC. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Siege_of_Jerusalem_%28587_BC%29

2 Kings 25:1-21

2 Kings 25

2 Kings 25

25 So in the ninth year of Zedekiah’s reign, on the tenth day of the tenth month, Nebuchadnezzar king of Babylon marched against Jerusalem with his whole army. He encamped outside the city and built siege works all around it. 2 The city was kept under siege until the eleventh year of King Zedekiah.

3 By the ninth day of the fourth[a] month the famine in the city had become so severe that there was no food for the people to eat. 4 Then the city wall was broken through, and the whole army fled at night through the gate between the two walls near the king’s garden, though the Babylonians[b] were surrounding the city. They fled toward the Arabah,[c] 5 but the Babylonian[d] army pursued the king and overtook him in the plains of Jericho. All his soldiers were separated from him and scattered, 6 and he was captured.

He was taken to the king of Babylon at Riblah, where sentence was pronounced on him. 7 They killed the sons of Zedekiah before his eyes. Then they put out his eyes, bound him with bronze shackles and took him to Babylon.

8 On the seventh day of the fifth month, in the nineteenth year of Nebuchadnezzar king of Babylon, Nebuzaradan commander of the imperial guard, an official of the king of Babylon, came to Jerusalem. 9 He set fire to the temple of the Lord, the royal palace and all the houses of Jerusalem. Every important building he burned down. 10 The whole Babylonian army under the commander of the imperial guard broke down the walls around Jerusalem. 11 Nebuzaradan the commander of the guard carried into exile the people who remained in the city, along with the rest of the populace and those who had deserted to the king of Babylon. 12 But the commander left behind some of the poorest people of the land to work the vineyards and fields.

13 The Babylonians broke up the bronze pillars, the movable stands and the bronze Sea that were at the temple of the Lord and they carried the bronze to Babylon. 14 They also took away the pots, shovels, wick trimmers, dishes and all the bronze articles used in the temple service. 15 The commander of the imperial guard took away the censers and sprinkling bowls—all that were made of pure gold or silver.

16 The bronze from the two pillars, the Sea and the movable stands, which Solomon had made for the temple of the Lord, was more than could be weighed. 17 Each pillar was eighteen cubits[e] high. The bronze capital on top of one pillar was three cubits[f] high and was decorated with a network and pomegranates of bronze all around. The other pillar, with its network, was similar.

18 The commander of the guard took as prisoners Seraiah the chief priest, Zephaniah the priest next in rank and the three doorkeepers. 19 Of those still in the city, he took the officer in charge of the fighting men, and five royal advisers. He also took the secretary who was chief officer in charge of conscripting the people of the land and sixty of the conscripts who were found in the city. 20 Nebuzaradan the commander took them all and brought them to the king of Babylon at Riblah. 21 There at Riblah, in the land of Hamath, the king had them executed.

So Judah went into captivity, away from her land.

That is the third overthrow. History confirms it and the Bible confirms it. So that verse of Ezekiel you quote is NOT future. It is long past.

Most of what Twospirits wrote I agree with, but that does not mean I agree with every single word Twospirits wrote.. I agreed with Twospirits more than I did with Richard and now you.

Ok. but Twospirits was absurd to the extreme. His view was completely irrational.

We need not stop, but we have to deal with one topic at a time. As usual, what you think is evidence does not appear as evidence to me, as I have explained back.

What I think of as evidence history confirms. I have totally refuted your Damascus claim and that Jerusalem will be overthrown in the future. Those are facts you can't deny.

I said I was in the process which is ongoing. The same as I have done here. I have followed the link you gave to Wikipedia and it does not support what you say. It is not strong evidence regarding the overturnings of Jerusalem.

Yes it does say what I said it did, You didn't look hard enough. It is 1005 fact that Jerusalem was overturned 3 times.

I am talking about the time that results in the judgement of all nations as per Ezekiel. Zech 14:16 is following all nations that come up against Jerusalem as described by Ezekiel including Gog and many others which did not come against Jerusalem in AD70. So you have to explain when the Gog Meshech and Tubal prophecies took place.

All nations does not literally mean every nation on earth. You have to put it in context. The Bible was written for first century Christians. Nations did come up against Jerusalem in the first century. Mathew and Luke paralel with Zech 14. And we know the Romans destroyed Jerusalem in 70AD. History confirms it.

The word used for "coming" has the sense of arriving hence confirming that Jesus will return.

No it doesn't. You took that verse out of context.

The Lord will descend; This conveys the sense of Jesus coming down to earth.

You again took that out of context.

How is it that possible myth like this is held as true and yet the writings of Paul which I refer to are held in the same esteem as the repot Josephus is including in his historical record. The words of the Bible are far more reliable and yet I get challenged on believing the writings of the Apostles and yet I am asked to believe reports like this which are highly mythical and suspect. The fact that Josephus is reporting it as of a truthful source is does not guarantee it.

I have no idea. As far as I know I have discussed Paul with you.

I also didn't say I believed Josephus. I was just quoting him. You also asked why myth like this is held as true? Nobody said it was. But the Bible contains many myths. So it's no stretch that Josephus believed that nonsense.

I have also replied to your and given you a few questions to answer. I do not want to overload you with questions as the lenght of these posts need to be shortened and we need to stick to one subject at a time.

Yes you did. But I believe I have shown two of your major points to be false with historical facts.

Take care.

David M

05-07-2013, 11:47 PM

Ummm.... No. Because this view ignores the overwhelming flow of the NT to be first century fulfillment. That was the sole message of Jesus. The Bible completely proves your view false.

But that view is in direct contradiction with the Bible. Jesus is a spiritual king, not a physical king. And his kingdom is not of this world. The Jews wanted to make Jesus a physical king and setup a physical kingdom. But he rejected both of those propositions because he is a spiritual king.

Sorry David not only does the Bible say death was defeated that fits with the rest of the first century fulfillment.

There is no earthly kingdom David. There is ZERO evidence of that in the Bible. You repeatedly say that with no evidence to support that assertion. I have given you more than enough proof that that view is false. You can't ever show me why you believe that. You just like to say it.

None of those beliefs are biblical. Not one.

No that is NOT what you do. I have caught you taking scripture out of context to suit your presupposition. If you accepted the plain things then it would be OBVIOUS to you that Christ was speaking to first century fulfillment.

I'm not forcing anything. It's what the plain text says. The Bible does not literally mean the whole earth. That is a misinterpretation of the text. And plus the Bible already said the word was preached to the whole earth. Except whole earth doesn't literally mean the entire earth. But even if it did mean the entire earth the Bible still says it was accomplished.

Absolutely not. I'm quoting the plain text of the Bible. You on the other hand have to twist the text to fit your beliefs.

Of course they don't mean anything to you because you are shackled to your doctrine. Your doctrine keeps you from seeing the plain and obvious. Instead everything you interpret is a play on words. You take fragments of scripture and cram your forced doctrine to fill the gaps.

That verses does not support your interpretation. That verse does NOT have a future meaning to it. If you quote the next verses it plainly speaks for the first century. Acts 3:24 "Indeed, beginning with Samuel, all the prophets who have spoken have foretold these days.

This goes with all the other verses that Peter spoke of as having first century fulfillment. And the rest of the NT for that matter.

This is why your way of interpreting scripture is absurd. You take one verse out of context and then say that proves your point. Sorry it doesn't. The verse is speaking of first century.

No I don't. It means exactly what Jesus said it does. This goes with the whole flow of the NT of first century fulfillment. You never just accept the plain and obvious words of Jesus. You reinterpret all of Jesus words and by the time you are done they have no meaning left.

I'm glad you said this. This proves beyond all reasonable doubt you did no research. I gave you some valuable information that fulfills Isaiah and you never bothered to look any further. You are 100% wrong.

Hello L67

It is obvious from your style of reply, we have to get down to serious Bible study and deal with one subject at a time. Unless we get down to the meaning of words and their translations and the intended meaning the author expects us to understand, then we shall keep accusing each other of "twisting words" to suit our beliefs. It is totally wrong the way you malign my study of scripture. When I do take the plain meaning of words as spoken by Jesus, you then imply I am wrong and Jesus did not mean what he said.

So, if you are up to the challenge, we should take one topic like; 'The Return of Jesus, Spiritual or Physical?' and start a new thread in which we can both contribute and we can have the language experts in Greek and Hebrew give us the benefit of their knowledge of the meaning of words in their original usage and the time of writing.

If you want to start another thread/topic along these lines, then start off with a short exposition to make your case.

I will do likewise and work on the above mentioned title. I will check to see if there is thread already covering the subject to see what has been said and which might be referred to.

All the best

David

L67

05-08-2013, 05:49 PM

Hello L67

It is obvious from your style of reply, we have to get down to serious Bible study and deal with one subject at a time. Unless we get down to the meaning of words and their translations and the intended meaning the author expects us to understand, then we shall keep accusing each other of "twisting words" to suit our beliefs. It is totally wrong the way you malign my study of scripture. When I do take the plain meaning of words as spoken by Jesus, you then imply I am wrong and Jesus did not mean what he said.

So, if you are up to the challenge, we should take one topic like; 'The Return of Jesus, Spiritual or Physical?' and start a new thread in which we can both contribute and we can have the language experts in Greek and Hebrew give us the benefit of their knowledge of the meaning of words in their original usage and the time of writing.

If you want to start another thread/topic along these lines, then start off with a short exposition to make your case.

I will do likewise and work on the above mentioned title. I will check to see if there is thread already covering the subject to see what has been said and which might be referred to.

All the best

David

Hey David,

I really enjoy our conversations and appreciate you taking the time to respond. What I don't appreciate is you repeatedly saying the evidence I provide is NOT evidence to you. I'll give you a perfect example of this.

I'm going to be very blunt with you David. This is not a personal attack on you but this is how I see things.

You claimed there was unfilled prophecy from the OT. I asked you to post the verses.

You asked:

1: When did Damascus become a ruinous heap?

2: And a third overturning of Jerusalem.

I posted absolute 100% irrefutable historical proof that your claims are false and you completely ignore the evidence. You don't even acknowledge it. You quoted every other answer I gave to you but left out the historical evidence. Why? This is why I have said repeatedly nothing will ever be evidence for you. You repeatedly ignore any evidence that proves you wrong. You seem to only be concerned with upholding your dogmas than admit the errors in your argument. Your whole futurist doctrine is intertwined with various verses to support your belief. I just refuted two of your main ones. You constantly say you are committed to the truth, but you demonstrate that to not be true by ignoring historical proof. It doesn't get any more true than history. It is complete delusion to ignore the evidence of history.

I would love to discuss the Bible point by point with you. But this is what needs to happen before we do. You have to admit the two errors in your argument. If you refuse to do that we can't move forward. Because if you deny history then you can deny anything. I spend too much time on my replies for you to ignore the evidence I give. It's a waste of my time to converse this way.

The choice is yours David.

Take care.

David M

05-09-2013, 02:07 PM

Hey David,

I really enjoy our conversations and appreciate you taking the time to respond. What I don't appreciate is you repeatedly saying the evidence I provide is NOT evidence to you. I'll give you a perfect example of this.

I'm going to be very blunt with you David. This is not a personal attack on you but this is how I see things.

You claimed there was unfilled prophecy from the OT. I asked you to post the verses.

You asked:

1: When did Damascus become a ruinous heap?

2: And a third overturning of Jerusalem.

I posted absolute 100% irrefutable historical proof that your claims are false and you completely ignore the evidence. You don't even acknowledge it. You quoted every other answer I gave to you but left out the historical evidence. Why? This is why I have said repeatedly nothing will ever be evidence for you. You repeatedly ignore any evidence that proves you wrong. You seem to only be concerned with upholding your dogmas than admit the errors in your argument. Your whole futurist doctrine is intertwined with various verses to support your belief. I just refuted two of your main ones. You constantly say you are committed to the truth, but you demonstrate that to not be true by ignoring historical proof. It doesn't get any more true than history. It is complete delusion to ignore the evidence of history.

I would love to discuss the Bible point by point with you. But this is what needs to happen before we do. You have to admit the two errors in your argument. If you refuse to do that we can't move forward. Because if you deny history then you can deny anything. I spend too much time on my replies for you to ignore the evidence I give. It's a waste of my time to converse this way.

The choice is yours David.

Take care.

Hello L67
Even the two topics you have mentioned which you want me to answer we can deal with separately in thread of their own. If I did not respond to the Damascus evidence I shall, but I went looking quickly at Wikipedia and I could not find any evidence recorded about Damascus becoming a "ruinous heap" as spoken by Isaiah. There was a decline in the prominence of Damascus but nothing suggesting the city was totally ruined. This is what I actually replied;
Quote Originally Posted by David M View Post
Damascus is a very old city and even though it has been attacked as you say, it has never been reported or seen as a "ruinous heap" unlike Babylon that got covered in sand and would be no longer a great city. At one time Babylon was thought to be a Bible myth because it had not been found.

As for the invasion by Nebuchadnezar, which took place over a number of years and in stages, I did not avoid answering. Here is what I wrote:
Quote Originally Posted by David M View Post
I agree with the Babylonian invasion which resulted in the people of the Jerusalem being taken into exile. I take this as the first overturning.

Quote Originally Posted by David M View Post
These all involve King Nebuchadnezzar that resulted finally in the exile. I am not including skirmishes with other kings. If we consider sieges only, then Wikipedia lists many sieges but these were not overturnings in the sense the people were led away captive from Jerusalem.

I was replying to your answer and thereby acknowledging you had given me a reply. I am not convinced by what you present as evidence and so we have to look at these subjects in more detail. You should not get upset because I am not instantly agreeing with your evidence. I have explained why and now you must answer against the evidence I have found to the contrary. When we have examined all the evidence, we can come to an agreement or not.

I left out the question which I could have given you in my previous reply to you as to whose has the right to Jerusalem, which God will give. (Eze 21:27) I will overturn, overturn, overturn, it (Jerusalem): and it shall be no more, until he come whose right it is; and I will give it him. Who is this talking about or when has Jerusalem been given to anyone?

All the best

David

L67

05-10-2013, 10:32 AM

Hello L67
Even the two topics you have mentioned which you want me to answer we can deal with separately in thread of their own. If I did not respond to the Damascus evidence I shall, but I went looking quickly at Wikipedia and I could not find any evidence recorded about Damascus becoming a "ruinous heap" as spoken by Isaiah. There was a decline in the prominence of Damascus but nothing suggesting the city was totally ruined. This is what I actually replied;

This is what I am talking about David. You still ignored everything I posted and looked for your own evidence. You refuse to face the facts. Here is one piece of evidence:http://books.google.com/books?id=5KpJfZiJJJ0C&pg=PA534&lpg=PA534&dq=assyrian+annals+damascus+like+hills+over+which+ the+flood+had+swept&source=bl&ots=YHaOoplU1l&sig=4QscyNN9QcjLMWKlLltoiSiphPk&hl=en&sa=X&ei=CzmIUZ21FOHU0gHM7oH4Aw&ved=0CD8Q6AEwAg#v=onepage&q=assyrian%20annals%20damascus%20like%20hills%20ov er%20which%20the%20flood%20had%20swept&f=false

And here is the actual historical document called the "The Annals of the Assyrians" who document Damascus being a ruinous heap. It is a historical FACT! http://www.lib.uchicago.edu/cgi-bin/eos/eos_page.pl?DPI=100&callnum=PJ3835.B85_cop2&object=87

As for the invasion by Nebuchadnezar, which took place over a number of years and in stages, I did not avoid answering. Here is what I wrote:

I know what you did David. You gave an answer that ignored what I actually posted.

I was replying to your answer and thereby acknowledging you had given me a reply. I am not convinced by what you present as evidence and so we have to look at these subjects in more detail. You should not get upset because I am not instantly agreeing with your evidence. I have explained why and now you must answer against the evidence I have found to the contrary. When we have examined all the evidence, we can come to an agreement or not.

I left out the question which I could have given you in my previous reply to you as to whose has the right to Jerusalem, which God will give. (Eze 21:27) I will overturn, overturn, overturn, it (Jerusalem): and it shall be no more, until he come whose right it is; and I will give it him. Who is this talking about or when has Jerusalem been given to anyone?

I know your not convinced because your beliefs crumble if you acknowledge my historical facts. We do not have to look at this in more detail. Ezekiel was talking about Jerusalem being overturned 3 times. It's no coincidence that history tells us that to be true. Therefore, your view is FALSE.

You also ignored my evidence the first time by saying skirmishes and sieges don't count. You never bothered to look any further.

You need to deal with the evidence I provided. These are historical facts you have to acknowledge or we have proof you are completely deluded in your belief.

Here it is again:

1: In 605 Bc at the Battle of Carchemish. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Carchemish This link confirms the The battle in 605BC. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Book_of_Daniel#Siege_of_Jerusalem

You agreed this is the first overturning.

The Siege of Jerusalem in 597BC. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Siege_o...m_%28597_BC%29

2 Kings 24:10-16

10 At that time the officers of Nebuchadnezzar king of Babylon advanced on Jerusalem and laid siege to it, 11 and Nebuchadnezzar himself came up to the city while his officers were besieging it. 12 Jehoiachin king of Judah, his mother, his attendants, his nobles and his officials all surrendered to him.

In the eighth year of the reign of the king of Babylon, he took Jehoiachin prisoner. 13 As the Lord had declared, Nebuchadnezzar removed the treasures from the temple of the Lord and from the royal palace, and cut up the gold articles that Solomon king of Israel had made for the temple of the Lord. 14 He carried all Jerusalem into exile: all the officers and fighting men, and all the skilled workers and artisans—a total of ten thousand. Only the poorest people of the land were left.

15 Nebuchadnezzar took Jehoiachin captive to Babylon. He also took from Jerusalem to Babylon the king’s mother, his wives, his officials and the prominent people of the land. 16 The king of Babylon also deported to Babylon the entire force of seven thousand fighting men, strong and fit for war, and a thousand skilled workers and artisans.

That is overturn 2.

The Siege of Jerusalem in 587BC. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Siege_o...m_%28587_BC%29

2 Kings 25:1-21

[B]2 Kings 25

2 Kings 25

25 So in the ninth year of Zedekiah’s reign, on the tenth day of the tenth month, Nebuchadnezzar king of Babylon marched against Jerusalem with his whole army. He encamped outside the city and built siege works all around it. 2 The city was kept under siege until the eleventh year of King Zedekiah.

3 By the ninth day of the fourth[a] month the famine in the city had become so severe that there was no food for the people to eat. 4 Then the city wall was broken through, and the whole army fled at night through the gate between the two walls near the king’s garden, though the Babylonians were surrounding the city. They fled toward the Arabah,[c] 5 but the Babylonian[d] army pursued the king and overtook him in the plains of Jericho. All his soldiers were separated from him and scattered, 6 and he was captured.

He was taken to the king of Babylon at Riblah, where sentence was pronounced on him. 7 They killed the sons of Zedekiah before his eyes. Then they put out his eyes, bound him with bronze shackles and took him to Babylon.

8 On the seventh day of the fifth month, in the nineteenth year of Nebuchadnezzar king of Babylon, Nebuzaradan commander of the imperial guard, an official of the king of Babylon, came to Jerusalem. 9 He set fire to the temple of the Lord, the royal palace and all the houses of Jerusalem. Every important building he burned down. 10 The whole Babylonian army under the commander of the imperial guard broke down the walls around Jerusalem. 11 Nebuzaradan the commander of the guard carried into exile the people who remained in the city, along with the rest of the populace and those who had deserted to the king of Babylon. 12 But the commander left behind some of the poorest people of the land to work the vineyards and fields.

13 The Babylonians broke up the bronze pillars, the movable stands and the bronze Sea that were at the temple of the Lord and they carried the bronze to Babylon. 14 They also took away the pots, shovels, wick trimmers, dishes and all the bronze articles used in the temple service. 15 The commander of the imperial guard took away the censers and sprinkling bowls—all that were made of pure gold or silver.

16 The bronze from the two pillars, the Sea and the movable stands, which Solomon had made for the temple of the Lord, was more than could be weighed. 17 Each pillar was eighteen cubits[e] high. The bronze capital on top of one pillar was three cubits[f] high and was decorated with a network and pomegranates of bronze all around. The other pillar, with its network, was similar.

18 The commander of the guard took as prisoners Seraiah the chief priest, Zephaniah the priest next in rank and the three doorkeepers. 19 Of those still in the city, he took the officer in charge of the fighting men, and five royal advisers. He also took the secretary who was chief officer in charge of conscripting the people of the land and sixty of the conscripts who were found in the city. 20 Nebuzaradan the commander took them all and brought them to the king of Babylon at Riblah. 21 There at Riblah, in the land of Hamath, the king had them executed.

So Judah went into captivity, away from her land.

That is overturn 3.

The fact that you have ignored my post two different times speaks volumes about your quest for the truth. You refuse to acknowledge the words I write. History renders your view false and you wouldn't dare admit your beliefs are wrong about this. But the evidence is plain for all to see.

David M

05-11-2013, 06:39 AM

This is what I am talking about David. You still ignored everything I posted and looked for your own evidence. You refuse to face the facts. Here is one piece of evidence:http://books.google.com/books?id=5KpJfZiJJJ0C&pg=PA534&lpg=PA534&dq=assyrian+annals+damascus+like+hills+over+which+ the+flood+had+swept&source=bl&ots=YHaOoplU1l&sig=4QscyNN9QcjLMWKlLltoiSiphPk&hl=en&sa=X&ei=CzmIUZ21FOHU0gHM7oH4Aw&ved=0CD8Q6AEwAg#v=onepage&q=assyrian%20annals%20damascus%20like%20hills%20ov er%20which%20the%20flood%20had%20swept&f=false

Hello L67
Here is the section you want me to read and it still does not mention the city of Damascus. 890
I have looked for alternative sources to support what you say and I could not find it.

And here is the actual historical document called the "The Annals of the Assyrians" who document Damascus being a ruinous heap. It is a historical FACT! http://www.lib.uchicago.edu/cgi-bin/eos/eos_page.pl?DPI=100&callnum=PJ3835.B85_cop2&object=87 I do not see what I am supposed to make of this; 891

I know your not convinced because your beliefs crumble if you acknowledge my historical facts. We do not have to look at this in more detail. Ezekiel was talking about Jerusalem being overturned 3 times. It's no coincidence that history tells us that to be true. Therefore, your view is FALSE. I am pleased you think Ezekiel is talking about 3 overturnings of Jerusalem; there will be those who argue against three overturnings and the fact that the word "overturn" is stated three times in succession does not mean Jerusalem was overturned three times.

You also ignored my evidence the first time by saying skirmishes and sieges don't count. You never bothered to look any further. I am letting you present more evidence, if it can be found and what you are producing like above is not strong evidence, so I am not wasting my time looking for evidence I do not expect to find.

You need to deal with the evidence I provided. These are historical facts you have to acknowledge or we have proof you are completely deluded in your belief.

Here it is again:

1: In 605 Bc at the Battle of Carchemish. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Carchemish This link confirms the The battle in 605BC. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Book_of_Daniel#Siege_of_Jerusalem

You agreed this is the first overturning. I agree that the first overurning of Jerusalem also included destruction of the temple and the people were were taken in exile for 70 years. That link you have just given tells me nothing; why do you waste everyone's time with such links?

The Siege of Jerusalem in 597BC. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Siege_o...m_%28597_BC%29

2 Kings 24:10-16

10 At that time the officers of Nebuchadnezzar king of Babylon advanced on Jerusalem and laid siege to it, 11 and Nebuchadnezzar himself came up to the city while his officers were besieging it. 12 Jehoiachin king of Judah, his mother, his attendants, his nobles and his officials all surrendered to him.

In the eighth year of the reign of the king of Babylon, he took Jehoiachin prisoner. 13 As the Lord had declared, Nebuchadnezzar removed the treasures from the temple of the Lord and from the royal palace, and cut up the gold articles that Solomon king of Israel had made for the temple of the Lord. 14 He carried all Jerusalem into exile: all the officers and fighting men, and all the skilled workers and artisans—a total of ten thousand. Only the poorest people of the land were left.

15 Nebuchadnezzar took Jehoiachin captive to Babylon. He also took from Jerusalem to Babylon the king’s mother, his wives, his officials and the prominent people of the land. 16 The king of Babylon also deported to Babylon the entire force of seven thousand fighting men, strong and fit for war, and a thousand skilled workers and artisans.

That is overturn 2. The link you have supplied does not take me to the page you expect. The link changes and Wikipedia says; Wikipedia does not have an article with this exact name.

The Siege of Jerusalem in 587BC. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Siege_o...m_%28587_BC%29

2 Kings 25:1-21

[B]2 Kings 25

2 Kings 25

25 So in the ninth year of Zedekiah’s reign, on the tenth day of the tenth month, Nebuchadnezzar king of Babylon marched against Jerusalem with his whole army. He encamped outside the city and built siege works all around it. 2 The city was kept under siege until the eleventh year of King Zedekiah.

3 By the ninth day of the fourth[a] month the famine in the city had become so severe that there was no food for the people to eat. 4 Then the city wall was broken through, and the whole army fled at night through the gate between the two walls near the king’s garden, though the Babylonians were surrounding the city. They fled toward the Arabah,[c] 5 but the Babylonian[d] army pursued the king and overtook him in the plains of Jericho. All his soldiers were separated from him and scattered, 6 and he was captured.

He was taken to the king of Babylon at Riblah, where sentence was pronounced on him. 7 They killed the sons of Zedekiah before his eyes. Then they put out his eyes, bound him with bronze shackles and took him to Babylon.

8 On the seventh day of the fifth month, in the nineteenth year of Nebuchadnezzar king of Babylon, Nebuzaradan commander of the imperial guard, an official of the king of Babylon, came to Jerusalem. 9 He set fire to the temple of the Lord, the royal palace and all the houses of Jerusalem. Every important building he burned down. 10 The whole Babylonian army under the commander of the imperial guard broke down the walls around Jerusalem. 11 Nebuzaradan the commander of the guard carried into exile the people who remained in the city, along with the rest of the populace and those who had deserted to the king of Babylon. 12 But the commander left behind some of the poorest people of the land to work the vineyards and fields.

13 The Babylonians broke up the bronze pillars, the movable stands and the bronze Sea that were at the temple of the Lord and they carried the bronze to Babylon. 14 They also took away the pots, shovels, wick trimmers, dishes and all the bronze articles used in the temple service. 15 The commander of the imperial guard took away the censers and sprinkling bowls—all that were made of pure gold or silver.

16 The bronze from the two pillars, the Sea and the movable stands, which Solomon had made for the temple of the Lord, was more than could be weighed. 17 Each pillar was eighteen cubits[e] high. The bronze capital on top of one pillar was three cubits[f] high and was decorated with a network and pomegranates of bronze all around. The other pillar, with its network, was similar.

18 The commander of the guard took as prisoners Seraiah the chief priest, Zephaniah the priest next in rank and the three doorkeepers. 19 Of those still in the city, he took the officer in charge of the fighting men, and five royal advisers. He also took the secretary who was chief officer in charge of conscripting the people of the land and sixty of the conscripts who were found in the city. 20 Nebuzaradan the commander took them all and brought them to the king of Babylon at Riblah. 21 There at Riblah, in the land of Hamath, the king had them executed.

So Judah went into captivity, away from her land.

That is overturn 3. same problem with the url given above. You seem to be taking the same protracted invasion by king Nebuchadnezzar which took place in stages as the three overturnings of Jerusalem. I do not; I see this as one overturning climaxing in the exile to Babylon leaving the temple destroyed. The second time the temple was destroyed was in AD70 and that was just the beginning of the demise of Jerusalem and the land of Israel which became desolate after the jews were kicked out in AD135.

The fact that you have ignored my post two different times speaks volumes about your quest for the truth. You refuse to acknowledge the words I write. History renders your view false and you wouldn't dare admit your beliefs are wrong about this. But the evidence is plain for all to see. The fact that you do not want to get down to serious study of the Biblical verses also speaks volumes of your own search for truth. Why would you want to do this when you do not believe or do not want to believe that which you have fixated on?

All the best

David

L67

05-12-2013, 01:33 PM

Hello L67
Here is the section you want me to read and it still does not mention the city of Damascus. 890
I have looked for alternative sources to support what you say and I could not find it.

It certainly does. Tiglath-pileser III destroyed 592 cities of 16 districts of Damascus. I will post the evidence here so you can't miss it. http://oracc.museum.upenn.edu/saao/aebp/essentials/countries/israel/

Here is a 18 page report that documents the historicity of it all. http://www.biblicalstudies.ru/OT/Dubovsky.pdf

I am pleased you think Ezekiel is talking about 3 overturnings of Jerusalem; there will be those who argue against three overturnings and the fact that the word "overturn" is stated three times in succession does not mean Jerusalem was overturned three times.

Yes, but you are misinterpreting the verse. Ezekiel was an exile prophet. His prophecies are NOT future. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ezekiel#Prophetic_career In July 592 BC, at the age of 30, Ezekiel describes his calling to be a prophet, by going into great detail about his encounter with God who rode upon a chariot of four wheels guided by Cherubs.[Ezekiel 1

] For the next five years he incessantly prophesied the destruction of Jerusalem and its temple, which was met with some opposition and drama. However, Ezekiel and his contemporaries like Jeremiah, another prophet who was living in Jerusalem at that time, witnessed the fulfillment of their prophecies when Jerusalem was finally sacked by the Babylonians. The date of the sacking, 587 BC, is confirmed by Babylonian cuneiform records discovered by archeologists. Ezekiel was 50 years old when he began to have visions of a new Temple. He served as a prophet for at least 22 years until, according to scriptures, it is believed Ezekiel's last encounter with God occurred in April 570 BC.[Ezekiel 29:17

] His time of death has not been recorded.

Ezekiel 21:27 is about the overthrow of Jehoiakim, Jeconiah, and Zedekiah. And the Bible just so happens to tell us this very thing.

I agree that the first overurning of Jerusalem also included destruction of the temple and the people were were taken in exile for 70 years. That link you have just given tells me nothing; why do you waste everyone's time with such links?

Waste everyone's time? Get real. If you would have bothered to even look further you would see the significance of the links.

605BC is when Daniel was taken into captivity. That is the Battle of CarchemishThe opening verses of the Book of Daniel describe Nebuchadnezzar besieging Jerusalem "in the third year of the reign of Jehoiakim" (606/5 BCE).

Notice Jehoiakim was overturned?

Daniel 1:1-6 In the third year of the reign of Jehoiakim king of Judah, Nebuchadnezzar king of Babylon came to Jerusalem and besieged it. 2 And the Lord delivered Jehoiakim king of Judah into his hand, along with some of the articles from the temple of God. These he carried off to the temple of his god in Babylonia[a] and put in the treasure house of his god.

3 Then the king ordered Ashpenaz, chief of his court officials, to bring into the king’s service some of the Israelites from the royal family and the nobility— 4 young men without any physical defect, handsome, showing aptitude for every kind of learning, well informed, quick to understand, and qualified to serve in the king’s palace. He was to teach them the language and literature of the Babylonians. 5 The king assigned them a daily amount of food and wine from the king’s table. They were to be trained for three years, and after that they were to enter the king’s service.

6 Among those who were chosen were some from Judah: Daniel, Hananiah, Mishael and Azariah.

You agreed this is the first overturning.

The Siege of Jerusalem in 597BC -http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Siege_of_Jerusalem_%28597_BC%29

2 Kings 24:10-16 2 Kings 24:10-16

10 At that time the officers of Nebuchadnezzar king of Babylon advanced on Jerusalem and laid siege to it, 11 and Nebuchadnezzar himself came up to the city while his officers were besieging it. 12 Jehoiachin king of Judah, his mother, his attendants, his nobles and his officials all surrendered to him.

In the eighth year of the reign of the king of Babylon, he took Jehoiachin prisoner. 13 As the Lord had declared, Nebuchadnezzar removed the treasures from the temple of the Lord and from the royal palace, and cut up the gold articles that Solomon king of Israel had made for the temple of the Lord. 14 He carried all Jerusalem into exile: all the officers and fighting men, and all the skilled workers and artisans—a total of ten thousand. Only the poorest people of the land were left.

15 Nebuchadnezzar took Jehoiachin captive to Babylon. He also took from Jerusalem to Babylon the king’s mother, his wives, his officials and the prominent people of the land. 16 The king of Babylon also deported to Babylon the entire force of seven thousand fighting men, strong and fit for war, and a thousand skilled workers and artisans.

Notice Jehoiachin was overturned?

Siege of Jerusalem (587 BC)- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Siege_of_Jerusalem_%28587_BC%29

2 Kings 25:1-21 25 So in the ninth year of Zedekiah’s reign, on the tenth day of the tenth month, Nebuchadnezzar king of Babylon marched against Jerusalem with his whole army. He encamped outside the city and built siege works all around it. 2 The city was kept under siege until the eleventh year of King Zedekiah.

3 By the ninth day of the fourth[a] month the famine in the city had become so severe that there was no food for the people to eat. 4 Then the city wall was broken through, and the whole army fled at night through the gate between the two walls near the king’s garden, though the Babylonians were surrounding the city. They fled toward the Arabah,[c] 5 but the Babylonian[d] army pursued the king and overtook him in the plains of Jericho. All his soldiers were separated from him and scattered, 6 and he was captured.

He was taken to the king of Babylon at Riblah, where sentence was pronounced on him. 7 They killed the sons of Zedekiah before his eyes. Then they put out his eyes, bound him with bronze shackles and took him to Babylon.

8 On the seventh day of the fifth month, in the nineteenth year of Nebuchadnezzar king of Babylon, Nebuzaradan commander of the imperial guard, an official of the king of Babylon, came to Jerusalem. 9 He set fire to the temple of the Lord, the royal palace and all the houses of Jerusalem. Every important building he burned down. 10 The whole Babylonian army under the commander of the imperial guard broke down the walls around Jerusalem. 11 Nebuzaradan the commander of the guard carried into exile the people who remained in the city, along with the rest of the populace and those who had deserted to the king of Babylon. 12 But the commander left behind some of the poorest people of the land to work the vineyards and fields.

13 The Babylonians broke up the bronze pillars, the movable stands and the bronze Sea that were at the temple of the Lord and they carried the bronze to Babylon. 14 They also took away the pots, shovels, wick trimmers, dishes and all the bronze articles used in the temple service. 15 The commander of the imperial guard took away the censers and sprinkling bowls—all that were made of pure gold or silver.

16 The bronze from the two pillars, the Sea and the movable stands, which Solomon had made for the temple of the Lord, was more than could be weighed. 17 Each pillar was eighteen cubits[e] high. The bronze capital on top of one pillar was three cubits[f] high and was decorated with a network and pomegranates of bronze all around. The other pillar, with its network, was similar.

18 The commander of the guard took as prisoners Seraiah the chief priest, Zephaniah the priest next in rank and the three doorkeepers. 19 Of those still in the city, he took the officer in charge of the fighting men, and five royal advisers. He also took the secretary who was chief officer in charge of conscripting the people of the land and sixty of the conscripts who were found in the city. 20 Nebuzaradan the commander took them all and brought them to the king of Babylon at Riblah. 21 There at Riblah, in the land of Hamath, the king had them executed.

So Judah went into captivity, away from her land.

Notice Zedekiah was overturned?

Jerusalem was overturned 3 times and this what Ezekiel was prophesying about. Not some far off event thousands of years from his time.

same problem with the url given above. You seem to be taking the same protracted invasion by king Nebuchadnezzar which took place in stages as the three overturnings of Jerusalem. I do not; I see this as one overturning climaxing in the exile to Babylon leaving the temple destroyed. The second time the temple was destroyed was in AD70 and that was just the beginning of the demise of Jerusalem and the land of Israel which became desolate after the jews were kicked out in AD135.

You can think that but you are wrong. History confirms they were in fact 3 separate over turnings of Jerusalem.

You're waffling on your argument. Because said this: If we consider sieges only, then Wikipedia lists many sieges but these were not overturnings in the sense the people were led away capitive from Jerusalem.

I have have shown you the evidence for the third time now that there were captives lead away at all 3 overturns of Jerusalem. You keep ignoring this FACT! It's about time you deal with it.

The fact that you do not want to get down to serious study of the Biblical verses also speaks volumes of your own search for truth. Why would you want to do this when you do not believe or do not want to believe that which you have fixated on?

Not true David. I said I would. But you need to acknowledge my FACTS first. You keep playing dumb. You made absolutely no effort to find any evidence on your own. You could have easily looked at my other post to find the information. But you didn't. You simply want to sit on your hands and then ask why I am wasting every ones times posting such links. Now you need to deal with the facts and then we can move on to serious Bible study. But these two point do NOT need any further clarification because history confirms them

David M

05-13-2013, 01:53 AM

Hello L67

It certainly does. Tiglath-pileser III destroyed 592 cities of 16 districts of Damascus. I will post the evidence here so you can't miss it. http://oracc.museum.upenn.edu/saao/aebp/essentials/countries/israel/

Here is a 18 page report that documents the historicity of it all. http://www.biblicalstudies.ru/OT/Dubovsky.pdf While I read this document which will take some time, please answer this question two posts ago which you have not answered;
I left out the question which I could have given you in my previous reply to you as to whose has the right to Jerusalem, which God will give. (Eze 21:27) I will overturn, overturn, overturn, it (Jerusalem): and it shall be no more, until he come whose right it is; and I will give it him. Who is this talking about or when has Jerusalem been given to anyone?

You are making the removal of three kings comparable with the overturning or destruction of Jerusalem in which the temple was destroyed in the process. No matter the number of times Jerusalem is overturned and is likely to be overturned again, this will be a continuing situation until the times of overturning come to an end. So then there are several questions to answer; 1. When has all possible future over turnings of Jerusalem ceased? 2. Who will be given the right to Jerusalem? 3. When is the right to Jerusalem going to be given?

I look forward to your answers.

David

David M

05-13-2013, 05:57 AM

It certainly does. Tiglath-pileser III destroyed 592 cities of 16 districts of Damascus. I will post the evidence here so you can't miss it. http://oracc.museum.upenn.edu/saao/aebp/essentials/countries/israel/

Here is a 18 page report that documents the historicity of it all. http://www.biblicalstudies.ru/OT/Dubovsky.pdf

OK I have read the article and extracted references to Damascus to save our readers having to trawl through 18 pages.

Here is what I have copied:
Tiglath-pileser III’s Campaigns in 734-732 B.C.
In this phase Tiglath-pileser III turned finally against Damascus,
captured it, and executed Rezin (2 Kgs 16,9). Then he established his
temporarily seat there and received the homage of the vassal rulers
(Ahaz’s visit to Damascus 2 Kgs 16,10).

Moreover, Tiglath-pileser III destroyed 591 cities of 16 districts of Damascus
(Ann 23:16’-7’). Ann 18 and 24 mention a total of 13,520 deportees (3); however, their fragmentary status does not allow specifying where the deportees came from. These numbers do not include the captured soldiers mentioned in Ann 23:6’-7’. Biblical sources mention the deportation from Ijon, Abel-beth-maacah, Janoah, Kedesh, Hazor, Gilead, Galilee, and the land of Naphtali (2 Kgs 15,29).

Who succeeded Rezin in Damascus is not mentioned in the Bible;
however, the Bible does not exclude the possibility that Aram lost its
independence and was turned into an Assyrian province

SUMMARY
The aim of this article is to investigate Tiglath-pileser III’s campaigns against the
Levant in 734-732 B.C. The campaigns can be divided into three phases. In the
first phase, the Assyrians conquered Tyre and the coast. In the second phase, they
defeated Syrian troops in battle, conquered Transjordan and made a surprise
attack on the Arabian tribes. In the last phase, they conquered Damascus, Galilee
and Gezer. In the second part of this article, the author investigates the logistics
of these campaigns and at the end the author evaluated the consequences of the
Assyrian invasion in terms of human and material losses and the administrative
reorganization of the region.

The conclusion of all this is that City of Damascus was conquered but it was not destroyed as were the 591 other cities in the region of Damascus. Damascus appears to have been left in tact and had become for a short time the headquarters of Tiglath-pileser III

In addition, this is what Schofield writes in in notes to do with Isaiah 17:1.
There was a near fulfilment in Sennacherib’s approaching invasion, but vv 12-14 look forward also to the final invasion and battle. See Armageddon, Rev 16:6 and 19:7

The conclusion is that the City of Damascus did not become a ruinous heap and Isaiah's prophecy has not been fulfilled. Only the region of Damascus was weakened.

David

L67

05-13-2013, 10:46 AM

The conclusion of all this is that City of Damascus was conquered but it was not destroyed as were the 591 other cities in the region of Damascus. Damascus appears to have been left in tact and had become for a short time the headquarters of Tiglath-pileser III

Damascus was destroyed. The Annals of the Assyrians confirms this. You also didn't read the link very well. Page 12:

Tiglath-pileser III destroyed 591 cities of 16 districts of Damascus (Ann 23:16’-7’). Ann 18 and 24 mention a total of 13,520 deportees (36); however, their fragmentary status does not allow specifying where the deportees came from. These numbers do not include the captured soldiers mentioned in Ann 23:6’-7’. Biblical sources mention the deportation from Ijon, Abel-beth-maacah, Janoah, Kedesh, Hazor, Gilead, Galilee, and the land of Naphtali (2 Kgs 15,29). The Chroni- cler’s account mentions the deportation of the Reubenites, the Gadites, and the half-tribe of Manasseh (1 Chr 5,26) and the deportation of Beerah, the chieftain of the Reubenites (1 Chr 5,6).

Sorry you misread. Damascus was totally destroyed.

Also Damascus was NOT left in tact. Israel was left intact.

In 732 BC, the kingdom of Damascus lost its independence and existence, its holdings carved up into Assyrian provinces. Israel, on the other hand, was allowed to survive, albeit reduced to a fraction of its former size and cut off from the sea. Tiglatpileser put it under the rule of a new king, Hoshea, chosen to serve as a loyal executor of Assyrian interests.

Israel's northern territories came under direct Assyrian rule. The newly established province of Megiddo centred around the city of the same name and included also the coastal regions with the harbour of Dor.

Read it for yourself. http://oracc.museum.upenn.edu/saao/aebp/essentials/countries/israel/

In addition, this is what Schofield writes in in notes to do with Isaiah 17:1.

The conclusion is that the City of Damascus did not become a ruinous heap and Isaiah's prophecy has not been fulfilled. Only the region of Damascus was weakened.

That is NOT the conclusion supported by evidence and history. Isaiah is NOT future. To think Isaiah is future is to ignore the overwhelming evidence that Isaiah was speaking of the OT times.

Also like I proved above you only cherry picked what you wanted to confirm. Damascus was utterly destroyed. The Annals of the Assyrians says the destruction was so great that it looked like "like hills over which the flood had swept".

Therefore your conclusions are still wrong.

L67

05-13-2013, 05:21 PM

Hello L67

You are making the removal of three kings comparable with the overturning or destruction of Jerusalem in which the temple was destroyed in the process. No matter the number of times Jerusalem is overturned and is likely to be overturned again, this will be a continuing situation until the times of overturning come to an end. So then there are several questions to answer; 1. When has all possible future over turnings of Jerusalem ceased? 2. Who will be given the right to Jerusalem? 3. When is the right to Jerusalem going to be given?

Hey you are the one who said Jerusalem will be overturned a third time. I'm simply telling you that Jerusalem was already overturned 3 times. You would have to say Jerusalem will be overturned a fourth time. So right there your view is FALSE. There is no evidence of a future overturning in any scripture.

Let me also remind you of your words again. If we consider sieges only, then Wikipedia lists many sieges but these were not overturnings in the sense the people were led away capitive from Jerusalem.

I proved this point thoroughly. Why do you refuse to acknowledge it?

Another view to look at it is that God was simply doing to destroy Jerusalem thoroughly, which he did. Other translations of the Bible don't even use the word overturn. 25 “‘You profane and wicked prince of Israel, whose day has come, whose time of punishment has reached its climax, 26 this is what the Sovereign Lord says: Take off the turban, remove the crown. It will not be as it was: The lowly will be exalted and the exalted will be brought low. 27 A ruin! A ruin! I will make it a ruin! The crown will not be restored until he to whom it rightfully belongs shall come; to him I will give it.’

Plus, we know God was talking to Zedekiah in these verses. He was the last king to rule , until Jesus come to rightfully claim the throne, like God had promised. Jesus is on the throne NOW. There is no future implications of thousands of years in any of these verses.

Whether I am correct on everything or not is debatable, but we know for certain your view is false.

David M

05-15-2013, 01:11 AM

Hello L67

Hey you are the one who said Jerusalem will be overturned a third time. I'm simply telling you that Jerusalem was already overturned 3 times. You would have to say Jerusalem will be overturned a fourth time. So right there your view is FALSE. There is no evidence of a future overturning in any scripture. The phrase; "overturn, overturn, overturn.." I have taken to mean three overturnings and I accept that if this is a figure of speech there could be more or less than three. You seem to indicate by your evidence there has been more than three.

Let me also remind you of your words again. If we consider sieges only, then Wikipedia lists many sieges but these were not overturnings in the sense the people were led away capitive from Jerusalem.

I proved this point thoroughly. Why do you refuse to acknowledge it? I just do not accept your evidence is strong in light of what I have quoted from the very websites you sent me to. I have gone searching for more evidence and unless you can show me a time line that has been compiled by Preterists to compare with many other time lines I found, then from all the chronological time lines I have found, there is agreement to the fall of Jerusalem by the Babylonian invasion under Nebuchadnezzar resulting in destruction of some on Jerusalem and in particular the temple. The second time is in AD 70 by the Romans and again it is the temple that was destroyed in the sense that the temple does not exist today and had not been rebuilt. We also learn from the first invasion by Nebuchadnezzar that the city walls were ruined (not destroyed utterly) and that they had to be repaired.

Another view to look at it is that God was simply doing to destroy Jerusalem thoroughly, which he did. The city was ruined, but not destroyed as was the city of Sodom by comparison, if you are going to use the word destroy. The "word" destroy in the context of Jerusalem is not appropriate, though parts of the city might have been destroyed, and that is not saying that the whole city was destroyed.

Other translations of the Bible don't even use the word overturn. 25 “‘You profane and wicked prince of Israel, whose day has come, whose time of punishment has reached its climax, 26 this is what the Sovereign Lord says: Take off the turban, remove the crown. It will not be as it was: The lowly will be exalted and the exalted will be brought low. 27 A ruin! A ruin! I will make it a ruin! The crown will not be restored until he to whom it rightfully belongs shall come; to him I will give it.’ Now you have made my point and the word "ruin" could be used and if this word is used, then it has negated your argument that "Jerusalem was destroyed thoroughly".

Plus, we know God was talking to Zedekiah in these verses. He was the last king to rule , until Jesus come to rightfully claim the throne, like God had promised. Jesus is on the throne NOW. There is no future implications of thousands of years in any of these verses. And now you have done exactly what the JWs did when Jesus did not return in 1914 and switched from making earth the place of Christ's throne and moved it to Heaven. That is not "levelling the playing field", it is removing it. Jesus is sat at God's right hand next to God's throne and this is not necessarily sitting on his own throne, which according to scripture will be in Jerusalem on the earth.

Whether I am correct on everything or not is debatable, but we know for certain your view is false. Your view is certainly debatable and I accept that my view is debatable, but you are wrong to draw a conclusion that my view is false until all the evidence is in. You might equally be at fault which would make your view false. We should not expect anyone to believe what we say on the basis that we call the other person's opinion false. We shall have to leave it to readers to decide. If you have no more evidence, then we can leave it at that.

This goes to show that in resolving our differences of opinion about different subjects, there ought to be a priority to the subjects discussed. For example, the return of Jesus physically, or not, is more important than the number of overturnings or times of ruin of Jerusalem. If Jesus is to stay in Heaven, there is no need for Jerusalem to exist (but it does). If Jesus is to return to the earth, then it is necessary for Jerusalem to exist. The existence of Jerusalem does not determine whether Jesus stays in Heaven or returns, but the return of Jesus to come determines that Jerusalem must exist.

I do not recall you giving me an answer to; "what is the hope of Israel"? when asked previously and maybe in another thread. I will ask the question here and you can give me your answer. The Apostle Paul was taken in chains to Rome and Paul said; (Acts 28:20) for the hope of Israel I am bound with this chain. Paul believed in the same hope of the Jews even though his belief concerning the Son of God was different to how he had been brought up as a Pharisee and now he was in direct opposition to the Pharisees. Nevertheless, the hope of Israel, as also expressed by the disciples as Jesus was about to ascended to heaven, and also about which the disciples were seeking signs while with Jesus on the Mount of Olives, is all speaking of the same hope. Jesus did not say they were wrong to expect the hope of Israel to be fulfilled. So when and how is the hope of Israel to be fulfilled? Make this the subject of a new thread if you will and start off by explaining; what is the hope of Israel?

All the best

David

L67

05-15-2013, 08:01 PM

Hello L67

The phrase; "overturn, overturn, overturn.." I have taken to mean three overturnings and I accept that if this is a figure of speech there could be more or less than three. You seem to indicate by your evidence there has been more than three.

I never said there was more than three. Where did you get that idea?

I just do not accept your evidence is strong in light of what I have quoted from the very websites you sent me to. I have gone searching for more evidence and unless you can show me a time line that has been compiled by Preterists to compare with many other time lines I found, then from all the chronological time lines I have found, there is agreement to the fall of Jerusalem by the Babylonian invasion under Nebuchadnezzar resulting in destruction of some on Jerusalem and in particular the temple. The second time is in AD 70 by the Romans and again it is the temple that was destroyed in the sense that the temple does not exist today and had not been rebuilt. We also learn from the first invasion by Nebuchadnezzar that the city walls were ruined (not destroyed utterly) and that they had to be repaired.

David you are changing your argument. You said these were not overturnings in the sense the people were led away capitive from Jerusalem.

I thoroughly proved this. People were led away at all three overturns. Now you want to shift your argument. Your argument has no consistency. You need to acknowledge this and then refute it with evidence. Just asserting it is meaningless. You accept Daniel taken captive as the first overturning. But you ignore the other overturnings and go right to 70AD in order to fit your future third overturning. That is simply picking and choosing what you want to believe to confirm your beliefs.

Also the first invasion of Nebuchadnezzar was in 605BC. It was in 587BC that Nebuchadnezzar broke through the city walls. This was the third time he invaded Jerusalem.

The city was ruined, but not destroyed as was the city of Sodom by comparison, if you are going to use the word destroy. The "word" destroy in the context of Jerusalem is not appropriate, though parts of the city might have been destroyed, and that is not saying that the whole city was destroyed.

You're grasping at straws here David. Destroyed does NOT mean that everything was leveled. This is what destroy means : to ruin the structure, organic existence, or condition of <destroyed the files>; also : to ruin as if by tearing to shreds <their reputation was destroyed>
2
a : to put out of existence : kill <destroy an injured horse>
b : neutralize <the moon destroys the light of the stars>
c : annihilate, vanquish <armies had been crippled but not destroyed — W. L. Shirer>

Every single one of those definitions describes the invasions by Nebuchadnezzar So you are wrong the word "destroy" is very appropriate.

Now you have made my point and the word "ruin" could be used and if this word is used, then it has negated your argument that "Jerusalem was destroyed thoroughly".

Actually it doesn't negate my argument. It strengthens it. Because the word "destroy" actually confirms my evidence.

And now you have done exactly what the JWs did when Jesus did not return in 1914 and switched from making earth the place of Christ's throne and moved it to Heaven. That is not "levelling the playing field", it is removing it. Jesus is sat at God's right hand next to God's throne and this is not necessarily sitting on his own throne, which according to scripture will be in Jerusalem on the earth.

I have done no such thing. Christ throne was NEVER an earthly throne. We have been over this may times David. Jesus is on Davids throne NOW in heaven like God said. God said after the resurrection he would seat Jesus on the throne.

There is nothing according to scripture that says Jesus throne will be an earthly one in Jerusalem. That view has no biblical relevance. You have never presented any verses that even come close to supporting that assertion.

Your view is certainly debatable and I accept that my view is debatable, but you are wrong to draw a conclusion that my view is false until all the evidence is in. You might equally be at fault which would make your view false. We should not expect anyone to believe what we say on the basis that we call the other person's opinion false. We shall have to leave it to readers to decide. If you have no more evidence, then we can leave it at that.

But the difference is with my view I present historical evidence. You have presented nothing but your own assertions.

This goes to show that in resolving our differences of opinion about different subjects, there ought to be a priority to the subjects discussed. For example, the return of Jesus physically, or not, is more important than the number of overturnings or times of ruin of Jerusalem. If Jesus is to stay in Heaven, there is no need for Jerusalem to exist (but it does). If Jesus is to return to the earth, then it is necessary for Jerusalem to exist. The existence of Jerusalem does not determine whether Jesus stays in Heaven or returns, but the return of Jesus to come determines that Jerusalem must exist.

But the overturnings are important to your beliefs. Because you even said you believe Jerusalem will be overturned a third time. So you have built more beliefs on that one verse.

Your view of Jerusalem is irrelevant to scripture. I am 100% sure of that. We have been over this David. There is a moutain of evidence that proves Jesus will not be an earthly king in Jerusalem.

I do not recall you giving me an answer to; "what is the hope of Israel"? when asked previously and maybe in another thread. I will ask the question here and you can give me your answer. The Apostle Paul was taken in chains to Rome and Paul said; (Acts 28:20) for the hope of Israel I am bound with this chain. Paul believed in the same hope of the Jews even though his belief concerning the Son of God was different to how he had been brought up as a Pharisee and now he was in direct opposition to the Pharisees. Nevertheless, the hope of Israel, as also expressed by the disciples as Jesus was about to ascended to heaven, and also about which the disciples were seeking signs while with Jesus on the Mount of Olives, is all speaking of the same hope. Jesus did not say they were wrong to expect the hope of Israel to be fulfilled. So when and how is the hope of Israel to be fulfilled? Make this the subject of a new thread if you will and start off by explaining; what is the hope of Israel?

Ok, I'll save it for another thread.