Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
Your Lies about Me and Docetism
1 view
Skip to first unread message
Pastor Dave, Th.D.
Feb 17, 2012, 7:17:44 AM2/17/12
to
On Thu, 16 Feb 2012 10:33:19 -0600, How Good <how...@beholdimage.us>
wrote:
More NIC changes? Since everyone knows who
you are anyway and since you admitted that you
know that I can kill file you any time I want to,
we can only conclude that you keep changing
NICs because you are ashamed to have and
would be embarrassed to have your posts being
associated with your actual NIC. I guess that
you know as well as the rest of us, that your
posts are not bringing "glory to God", which is,
as we both know, your real NIC ("Glory to God").
That says a lot about you, son. (:
> Pastor Dave, Th.D. wrote:
>
>> Linda Lee wrote:
>>
>>>> Glory to God wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>> Linda Lee wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Glory to God wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Christ came to earth as God in the flesh.
>>>>>>>>>> Therefore, it is a false dichotomy that attacks
>>>>>>>>>> the incarnation and atonement of Christ, to
>>>>>>>>>> claim things have to be EITHER spiritual, OR
>>>>>>>>>> physical, as if the two are mutually exclusive.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Nobody here is attacking/denying the physical
>>>>>>>> incarnation of Christ, or the physical resurrection
>>>>>>>> of Christ. Why do you keep making that claim?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Oh, on the contrary. The Preterists' whole eschatology
>>>>>> hangs on Docetism. There's no other way for him to
>>>>>> claim the resurrection, rapture, return of Christ and
>>>>>> many other prophecies were fulfilled in A.D. 70, than
>>>>>> promoting the lie they had to exclude the physical in
>>>>>> order to be "spiritual".
>>>>
>>>> Dave does not believe all the tenets of Docetism
>>>> - seehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Docetism.
>>>>
>>>> So why not just stick to particulars, rather than
>>>> false labels that waste everyone's time?
>
>> Now that he has boxed himself in, in his lame attempts
>> to do the same to me instead and it backfired on him,
>> he has been forced into trying to redefine "spiritual"
>> to mean; "Physical, human beings who are like,
>> really spiritual people, dude!".
>
> Oh, on the contrary.
On the contrary nothing! You did indeed try
to define it as that! And lying about what
I believe/said won't change that fact and so,
son, your distractions do not work and the
only thing you succeed in doing by trying
to distract people with your lies, is insulting
their intelligence by thinking that it will work!
The truth is, that you keep quoting a couple of
sentences that I wrote, which were quite simply
a specific response to a specific statement, out
of their context and by doing so, you try to claim
that I wrote them as a general statement about
all things physical and spiritual and you know
that you're doing exactly that, since you're
the one originally quoted them by ripping them
out of their context and misapplying them here,
many times, even after their original context was
noted and quoted back to you, so it is no honest
mistake on your part, which I knew the first time
you did it, but gave you that one opportunity to
be honest anyway, which of course, you chose
not to be, unfortunately for you and your soul!
> You're the one who has boxed himself in,
> by promoting the Gnostic lie that in order
> to be "spiritual", you have to exclude the
> physical.
Another false accusation. Actually, the same one
repeated again, in which you claim that I promoted
something that I have never promoted and what
you really mean, is that you have taken my words
out of context and then added the above thought
to them and then lied by claiming that I am the
one who is promoting that idea, when in fact,
the only idea being promoted here, is the lie
that you are telling about me promoting that idea!
In truth, you are the one who is trying to box me
in with this lie and more that you tell about me and
again, your false dichotomy that you try to box me
in with will not work. You're a liar and you know it
as well as I do and as I said, if you have to invent
false dichotomies, which by definition involve things
that I never said, but that you make up and then
falsely attribute to me, to try to distract people from
the Biblical problems with your doctrine, then you
should, as I said, be asking yourself why it is that
you believe what you do.
Your false dichotomy that states that if I do not agree
with "Option A", then I am by default stating "Option B"
and according to your own words, those options are:
A) I must believe and state that it is physical human
bodies that are raised to live forever on Earth and
I must call those bodies, "physical human beings
that are really spiritual people and so, that is what
Paul meant when he said that they are raised as
spiritual bodies in 1 Cor 15:44-46".
Or...
B) I am automatically stating that there cannot possibly
be anything physical to do with anything spiritual,
never ever!
That is the false dichotomy that you try to create!
But no matter how many times you make the same
false accusation with your false dichotomy that says
that if I am not agreeing with you by me stating
"Option A", that it automatically means that I am
stating "Option B", it will remain just that... false!
And it will not work, since no one reading it believes
that it is an honest assessment.
For just one example, Linda isn't exactly my biggest
fan and yet, even she noted that you're just being
dishonest ("false labels" was the wording she used)
about the entire subject in your dealings with me!
> You probably didn't think through that, before
> you backed yourself into a corner, by hanging
> your entire eschatology on the lie that things
> have to exclude the physical in order to be
> "spiritual".
Once again, you tell the same lie about what I said,
which is why you can never quote me saying that,
nor do you care at all to understand exactly what
it is that my belief system states.
And while you keep claiming that I won't give you
"the details", the truth is, that every time I have
attempted to, you have responded by snipping it
and once again, ignoring what I said, in order to
falsely attribute to me the same, tired old lies that
you have been telling about me here each time,
that you cannot support!
That's why each time you're called on your lies,
you run away and start another thread in which
you state the same lies, thinking you can start
fresh with another NIC, as if no one has knows
it's you and as if no one has already read your
repeated lies being noted for what they are.
If you could support them, then you would not have
to keep falsely and intentionally quoting me out of
context, to try to misapply what I said and flat out lie
about me "promoting" something that I never even
said and that you made up out of thin air! And only
those who cannot support their own doctrine, have
to spend their time trying to convince others of the
lies they tell about another person and by making
that your life's mission, it is you who has by default
admitted that you know that you cannot support
your doctrine and that it is in serious, serious trouble!
Otherwise, you would do just that (properly support it)
and wouldn't feel the need to do what you do here,
since you would be able to show your doctrine to be
Biblical (which never involves attacking and telling lies
about the other person) and you would let it speak
for itself and silence me once and for all! But you can't!
And that and your attacks should tell you that what we
all know and what we all know that you know, which is
that doctrine is not Biblical! (:
Your lying false accusations of me being a Docetist
(a Gnostic belief that says that Jesus wasn't really
a human being, but just appeared to be and was
in reality, just a spirit and so, it was not a human
Jesus who was crucified on that cross) won't work,
since no one here believes that I believe that silly
garbage about Christ not being a human being
when He walked the Earth/was crucified and rose.
The readers know what I have repeatedly stated
about my belief and for you to keep repeating the
same lies, both listed above and including the claim
that when I say that Jesus was a human being
when He walked the Earth, that you have somehow
"got me to finally admit to that", which you knew
was another lie as you typed it, is just plain stupid!
And even if you could fool other people into believing
that I believe that, you are not fooling God, who is
the only one who counts anyway and it is God whom
you will have to answer to for your lies. Apparently,
that doesn't mean anything to you, since even after
being corrected, you keep repeating the same lie,
which you know is a lie, which says all that we need
to know about you. And that's sad for you, especially
since you make the claim that you bring glory to God,
by your real NIC, which is; "Glory to God". Shame! (:
--
Pastor Dave, Th.D.
The very best Bible software: http://www.theword.net/ is free!
«::F::»«::U::»«::L::»«::F::»«::I::»«::L::»«::L::»«::E::»«::D::»
"You ignore any reality, no matter how uncomfortable, only at
your own risk." - Peter MacNicol as Larry Fleinhardt in Numb3rs
wrote:
More NIC changes? Since everyone knows who
you are anyway and since you admitted that you
know that I can kill file you any time I want to,
we can only conclude that you keep changing
NICs because you are ashamed to have and
would be embarrassed to have your posts being
associated with your actual NIC. I guess that
you know as well as the rest of us, that your
posts are not bringing "glory to God", which is,
as we both know, your real NIC ("Glory to God").
That says a lot about you, son. (:
> Pastor Dave, Th.D. wrote:
>
>> Linda Lee wrote:
>>
>>>> Glory to God wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>> Linda Lee wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Glory to God wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Christ came to earth as God in the flesh.
>>>>>>>>>> Therefore, it is a false dichotomy that attacks
>>>>>>>>>> the incarnation and atonement of Christ, to
>>>>>>>>>> claim things have to be EITHER spiritual, OR
>>>>>>>>>> physical, as if the two are mutually exclusive.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Nobody here is attacking/denying the physical
>>>>>>>> incarnation of Christ, or the physical resurrection
>>>>>>>> of Christ. Why do you keep making that claim?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Oh, on the contrary. The Preterists' whole eschatology
>>>>>> hangs on Docetism. There's no other way for him to
>>>>>> claim the resurrection, rapture, return of Christ and
>>>>>> many other prophecies were fulfilled in A.D. 70, than
>>>>>> promoting the lie they had to exclude the physical in
>>>>>> order to be "spiritual".
>>>>
>>>> Dave does not believe all the tenets of Docetism
>>>> - seehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Docetism.
>>>>
>>>> So why not just stick to particulars, rather than
>>>> false labels that waste everyone's time?
>
>> Now that he has boxed himself in, in his lame attempts
>> to do the same to me instead and it backfired on him,
>> he has been forced into trying to redefine "spiritual"
>> to mean; "Physical, human beings who are like,
>> really spiritual people, dude!".
>
> Oh, on the contrary.
On the contrary nothing! You did indeed try
to define it as that! And lying about what
I believe/said won't change that fact and so,
son, your distractions do not work and the
only thing you succeed in doing by trying
to distract people with your lies, is insulting
their intelligence by thinking that it will work!
The truth is, that you keep quoting a couple of
sentences that I wrote, which were quite simply
a specific response to a specific statement, out
of their context and by doing so, you try to claim
that I wrote them as a general statement about
all things physical and spiritual and you know
that you're doing exactly that, since you're
the one originally quoted them by ripping them
out of their context and misapplying them here,
many times, even after their original context was
noted and quoted back to you, so it is no honest
mistake on your part, which I knew the first time
you did it, but gave you that one opportunity to
be honest anyway, which of course, you chose
not to be, unfortunately for you and your soul!
> You're the one who has boxed himself in,
> by promoting the Gnostic lie that in order
> to be "spiritual", you have to exclude the
> physical.
Another false accusation. Actually, the same one
repeated again, in which you claim that I promoted
something that I have never promoted and what
you really mean, is that you have taken my words
out of context and then added the above thought
to them and then lied by claiming that I am the
one who is promoting that idea, when in fact,
the only idea being promoted here, is the lie
that you are telling about me promoting that idea!
In truth, you are the one who is trying to box me
in with this lie and more that you tell about me and
again, your false dichotomy that you try to box me
in with will not work. You're a liar and you know it
as well as I do and as I said, if you have to invent
false dichotomies, which by definition involve things
that I never said, but that you make up and then
falsely attribute to me, to try to distract people from
the Biblical problems with your doctrine, then you
should, as I said, be asking yourself why it is that
you believe what you do.
Your false dichotomy that states that if I do not agree
with "Option A", then I am by default stating "Option B"
and according to your own words, those options are:
A) I must believe and state that it is physical human
bodies that are raised to live forever on Earth and
I must call those bodies, "physical human beings
that are really spiritual people and so, that is what
Paul meant when he said that they are raised as
spiritual bodies in 1 Cor 15:44-46".
Or...
B) I am automatically stating that there cannot possibly
be anything physical to do with anything spiritual,
never ever!
That is the false dichotomy that you try to create!
But no matter how many times you make the same
false accusation with your false dichotomy that says
that if I am not agreeing with you by me stating
"Option A", that it automatically means that I am
stating "Option B", it will remain just that... false!
And it will not work, since no one reading it believes
that it is an honest assessment.
For just one example, Linda isn't exactly my biggest
fan and yet, even she noted that you're just being
dishonest ("false labels" was the wording she used)
about the entire subject in your dealings with me!
> You probably didn't think through that, before
> you backed yourself into a corner, by hanging
> your entire eschatology on the lie that things
> have to exclude the physical in order to be
> "spiritual".
Once again, you tell the same lie about what I said,
which is why you can never quote me saying that,
nor do you care at all to understand exactly what
it is that my belief system states.
And while you keep claiming that I won't give you
"the details", the truth is, that every time I have
attempted to, you have responded by snipping it
and once again, ignoring what I said, in order to
falsely attribute to me the same, tired old lies that
you have been telling about me here each time,
that you cannot support!
That's why each time you're called on your lies,
you run away and start another thread in which
you state the same lies, thinking you can start
fresh with another NIC, as if no one has knows
it's you and as if no one has already read your
repeated lies being noted for what they are.
If you could support them, then you would not have
to keep falsely and intentionally quoting me out of
context, to try to misapply what I said and flat out lie
about me "promoting" something that I never even
said and that you made up out of thin air! And only
those who cannot support their own doctrine, have
to spend their time trying to convince others of the
lies they tell about another person and by making
that your life's mission, it is you who has by default
admitted that you know that you cannot support
your doctrine and that it is in serious, serious trouble!
Otherwise, you would do just that (properly support it)
and wouldn't feel the need to do what you do here,
since you would be able to show your doctrine to be
Biblical (which never involves attacking and telling lies
about the other person) and you would let it speak
for itself and silence me once and for all! But you can't!
And that and your attacks should tell you that what we
all know and what we all know that you know, which is
that doctrine is not Biblical! (:
Your lying false accusations of me being a Docetist
(a Gnostic belief that says that Jesus wasn't really
a human being, but just appeared to be and was
in reality, just a spirit and so, it was not a human
Jesus who was crucified on that cross) won't work,
since no one here believes that I believe that silly
garbage about Christ not being a human being
when He walked the Earth/was crucified and rose.
The readers know what I have repeatedly stated
about my belief and for you to keep repeating the
same lies, both listed above and including the claim
that when I say that Jesus was a human being
when He walked the Earth, that you have somehow
"got me to finally admit to that", which you knew
was another lie as you typed it, is just plain stupid!
And even if you could fool other people into believing
that I believe that, you are not fooling God, who is
the only one who counts anyway and it is God whom
you will have to answer to for your lies. Apparently,
that doesn't mean anything to you, since even after
being corrected, you keep repeating the same lie,
which you know is a lie, which says all that we need
to know about you. And that's sad for you, especially
since you make the claim that you bring glory to God,
by your real NIC, which is; "Glory to God". Shame! (:
--
Pastor Dave, Th.D.
The very best Bible software: http://www.theword.net/ is free!
«::F::»«::U::»«::L::»«::F::»«::I::»«::L::»«::L::»«::E::»«::D::»
"You ignore any reality, no matter how uncomfortable, only at
your own risk." - Peter MacNicol as Larry Fleinhardt in Numb3rs
Pastor Dave, Th.D.
Feb 17, 2012, 7:31:43 AM2/17/12
to
On Thu, 16 Feb 2012 10:40:17 -0600, Deceived First-Fruit
<deceivedf...@manthere.us> wrote:
Who is really "Glory to God", who keeps changing
his NIC with every post, to try to avoid his being
pinned down by his own words.
> Pastor Dave, Th.D. wrote:
>
>> Awake Earthy wrote:
>>
>>> >The lie that in order to be spiritual, you have to
>>> > exclude the physical, is a primary tenet of Gnostic
>>> > Docetism,
>
>> You mean the lie that you made up and then
>> attributed to me.
>
>
> *******************************************************************
> On Sat, 31 May 2008 06:20:44 -0400, In article
> <pq32441ln4kq5l365...@4ax.com>,
> "Pastor Dave <ananias917_@_gmail.com>" wrote:
>
>> You don't get to have both! You have to make a choice!
>> Stick with the physical, or take the spiritual, which does
>>not include the physical!
>
> *******************************************************************
>
> <http://bit.ly/mTsJdx>
>
>Watch this folks. He'll deny his own words, until it finally
> dawns on him that his BS can't trump reality, then he'll
> change his accusation.
>
> <chuckle>
Your out of context quotes of me do not make you honest.
Rather, they only prove that you're willing to take a specific
response to a specific statement, strip the rest of the text
out as if that was the entire message, as if I wrote just that
and there was no other text and I just sent the message.
But speaking of denying words, why is it that you keep
claiming that I said that Jesus was not a human being
walking the Earth, but just appeared to be, constantly
accusing me of Docetism? I mean, what else did I say
in that quote that you stripped the rest of the text out of?
Oh yea, that's right! ...
PD: "Jesus was a flesh and blood human being."
And as far as you falsely trying to claim that I stated
that something being spiritual excludes anything
physical and that I said it as a general statement
about everything, what was it that I actually said
in that same message? Oh yeah, that's right!:
PD: "Paul was simply showing us the spiritual truths
behind the physical law."
Hmmm... Now what was it you were saying again???
Something about me claiming that Jesus was not
a human being and also something about me saying
that in order for anything to be spiritual, it must
exclude the physical, no matter what the subject,
which of course, I never said, but as I noted,
rather, you too my statement out of its context
of the specific statement I was replying to? Hmmm???
Still want to claim that I'm the one lying?
Or maybe that you just "misunderstood" that you
deleted all of the text except for what you quoted
out of context from this very same link you provided?
Please! You're a joke!!! <chuckle>
--
Pastor Dave, Th.D.
The very best Bible software: http://www.theword.net/ is free!
«::F::»«::U::»«::L::»«::F::»«::I::»«::L::»«::L::»«::E::»«::D::»
In point of fact, Darwin was simply a Creationist with
a different deity. "Nature" is Darwin's deity/fairy that
jumps in when his theory needs rescuing, then retires to
an invisible metaphor when he is trying to sound scientific.
Altogether, his book is poorly scripted.
Who is this "Nature" fairy? Why does Darwin rely so heavily
on "her" helpful interference? For example, in Chapter 6:
"Why should not Nature have taken a leap from structure
to structure? On the theory of natural selection, we
can clearly understand why she should not; for natural
selection can act only by taking advantage of slight
successive variations; she can never take a leap, but
must advance by the shortest and slowest steps."
"Nature" is Darwin's fairy, and Darwin says it's a female.
Apparently, it runs around the world looking after all the
little squirmy things, redesigns their organs, and arranges
for a rather brutal competition among them. Darwin became
rather famous for inventing his new religion.
- Terry Cross
<deceivedf...@manthere.us> wrote:
Who is really "Glory to God", who keeps changing
his NIC with every post, to try to avoid his being
pinned down by his own words.
> Pastor Dave, Th.D. wrote:
>
>> Awake Earthy wrote:
>>
>>> >The lie that in order to be spiritual, you have to
>>> > exclude the physical, is a primary tenet of Gnostic
>>> > Docetism,
>
>> You mean the lie that you made up and then
>> attributed to me.
>
>
> *******************************************************************
> On Sat, 31 May 2008 06:20:44 -0400, In article
> <pq32441ln4kq5l365...@4ax.com>,
> "Pastor Dave <ananias917_@_gmail.com>" wrote:
>
>> You don't get to have both! You have to make a choice!
>> Stick with the physical, or take the spiritual, which does
>>not include the physical!
>
> *******************************************************************
>
> <http://bit.ly/mTsJdx>
>
>Watch this folks. He'll deny his own words, until it finally
> dawns on him that his BS can't trump reality, then he'll
> change his accusation.
>
> <chuckle>
Your out of context quotes of me do not make you honest.
Rather, they only prove that you're willing to take a specific
response to a specific statement, strip the rest of the text
out as if that was the entire message, as if I wrote just that
and there was no other text and I just sent the message.
But speaking of denying words, why is it that you keep
claiming that I said that Jesus was not a human being
walking the Earth, but just appeared to be, constantly
accusing me of Docetism? I mean, what else did I say
in that quote that you stripped the rest of the text out of?
Oh yea, that's right! ...
PD: "Jesus was a flesh and blood human being."
And as far as you falsely trying to claim that I stated
that something being spiritual excludes anything
physical and that I said it as a general statement
about everything, what was it that I actually said
in that same message? Oh yeah, that's right!:
PD: "Paul was simply showing us the spiritual truths
behind the physical law."
Hmmm... Now what was it you were saying again???
Something about me claiming that Jesus was not
a human being and also something about me saying
that in order for anything to be spiritual, it must
exclude the physical, no matter what the subject,
which of course, I never said, but as I noted,
rather, you too my statement out of its context
of the specific statement I was replying to? Hmmm???
Still want to claim that I'm the one lying?
Or maybe that you just "misunderstood" that you
deleted all of the text except for what you quoted
out of context from this very same link you provided?
Please! You're a joke!!! <chuckle>
--
Pastor Dave, Th.D.
The very best Bible software: http://www.theword.net/ is free!
«::F::»«::U::»«::L::»«::F::»«::I::»«::L::»«::L::»«::E::»«::D::»
a different deity. "Nature" is Darwin's deity/fairy that
jumps in when his theory needs rescuing, then retires to
an invisible metaphor when he is trying to sound scientific.
Altogether, his book is poorly scripted.
Who is this "Nature" fairy? Why does Darwin rely so heavily
on "her" helpful interference? For example, in Chapter 6:
"Why should not Nature have taken a leap from structure
to structure? On the theory of natural selection, we
can clearly understand why she should not; for natural
selection can act only by taking advantage of slight
successive variations; she can never take a leap, but
must advance by the shortest and slowest steps."
"Nature" is Darwin's fairy, and Darwin says it's a female.
Apparently, it runs around the world looking after all the
little squirmy things, redesigns their organs, and arranges
for a rather brutal competition among them. Darwin became
rather famous for inventing his new religion.
- Terry Cross
Hope Fruit
Feb 17, 2012, 11:40:46 AM2/17/12
to
On 2/17/2012 6:31 AM, Pastor Dave, Th.D. wrote:
> But speaking of denying words, why is it that you keep
> claiming that I said that Jesus was not a human being
> walking the Earth, but just appeared to be, constantly
> accusing me of Docetism?
Cite the reference:
> But speaking of denying words, why is it that you keep
> claiming that I said that Jesus was not a human being
> walking the Earth, but just appeared to be, constantly
> accusing me of Docetism?
____________________
You insist the spiritual does not include the
physical, that a person can't have both, and
that a choice has to be made between one or
the other:
On Sat, 31 May 2008 06:20:44 -0400, In article
<pq32441ln4kq5l365...@4ax.com>,
"Pastor Dave <ananias917_@_gmail.com>" wrote:
>You don't get to have both! You have to
make a choice!
>Stick with the physical, or take the
spiritual, which does
>not include the physical!
That lie _is_ a primary tenet of Gnostic
Docetism.
That lie _is_ the specific manner in which
you were said to promote Gnostic Docetism.
That lie _does_ betray any lip-service you
make about believing Christ came to earth as
both spiritual God and physical man.
How can you claim the spiritual does not
include the physical, then claim you believe
Christ came to earth both as spiritual God
AND physical man at the same time? And why
then would you deny He could return to earth
as such, on the grounds that if He did, it
wouldn't be "spiritual".
You can't have it both ways. Either the
spiritual includes the physical, or Christ
couldn't have come to earth as spiritual God
in a human body, to make a spiritual
atonement for men's sins.
--
Now to the King eternal, immortal, invisible,
the only God, be honor and glory for ever and
ever. Amen. (1Ti 1:17)
Linda Lee
Feb 17, 2012, 11:58:36 AM2/17/12
to
On Feb 17, 11:40 am, Hope Fruit <hopefr...@livingwhere.org> wrote:
> On 2/17/2012 6:31 AM, Pastor Dave, Th.D. wrote:
>
> > But speaking of denying words, why is it that you keep
> > claiming that I said that Jesus was not a human being
> > walking the Earth, but just appeared to be, constantly
> > accusing me of Docetism?
>
> Cite the reference:
That is one major thing that Docetism taught; that Christ was never a
> On 2/17/2012 6:31 AM, Pastor Dave, Th.D. wrote:
>
> > But speaking of denying words, why is it that you keep
> > claiming that I said that Jesus was not a human being
> > walking the Earth, but just appeared to be, constantly
> > accusing me of Docetism?
>
> Cite the reference:
human being born into the flesh, and that is why its a false label.
You must not read others posts or check anything out; I already
provided you with a link to what Docetism teaches.; this link which
begins by saying, "In Christianity, docetism (from the Greek δοκέω
dokeō, "to seem") is the belief that Jesus' physical body was an
illusion, as was his crucifixion; that is, Jesus only seemed to have a
physical body and to physically die, but in reality he was
incorporeal, a pure spirit, and hence could not physically die."
>
> ____________________
>
> You insist the spiritual does not include the
> physical, that a person can't have both, and
> that a choice has to be made between one or
> the other:
thing, THAT MEANS he believes all this other stuff that he doesn't
believe. Perhaps you deserve each other.
>
> On Sat, 31 May 2008 06:20:44 -0400, In article
>
> "Pastor Dave <ananias917_@_gmail.com>" wrote:
>
> >You don't get to have both! You have to
> make a choice!
> >Stick with the physical, or take the
> spiritual, which does
> >not include the physical!
> <http://bit.ly/mTsJdx>
>
> That lie _is_ a primary tenet of Gnostic
> Docetism.
>
> That lie _is_ the specific manner in which
> you were said to promote Gnostic Docetism.
That is why I said he misspoke - because Dave does believe that Christ
> "Pastor Dave <ananias917_@_gmail.com>" wrote:
>
> >You don't get to have both! You have to
> make a choice!
> >Stick with the physical, or take the
> spiritual, which does
> >not include the physical!
> <http://bit.ly/mTsJdx>
>
> That lie _is_ a primary tenet of Gnostic
> Docetism.
>
> That lie _is_ the specific manner in which
> you were said to promote Gnostic Docetism.
was born into the flesh by a virgin.
>
> That lie _does_ betray any lip-service you
> make about believing Christ came to earth as
> both spiritual God and physical man.
>
> How can you claim the spiritual does not
> include the physical, then claim you believe
> Christ came to earth both as spiritual God
> AND physical man at the same time? And why
> then would you deny He could return to earth
> as such, on the grounds that if He did, it
> wouldn't be "spiritual".
>
> You can't have it both ways. Either the
> spiritual includes the physical, or Christ
> couldn't have come to earth as spiritual God
> in a human body, to make a spiritual
> atonement for men's sins.
personality of Dave's and that he has Multiple Personality Disorder
and is fighting with himself?
Linda Lee
Feb 17, 2012, 12:00:13 PM2/17/12
to
On Feb 17, 11:40 am, Hope Fruit <hopefr...@livingwhere.org> wrote:
> On 2/17/2012 6:31 AM, Pastor Dave, Th.D. wrote:
>
> > But speaking of denying words, why is it that you keep
> > claiming that I said that Jesus was not a human being
> > walking the Earth, but just appeared to be, constantly
> > accusing me of Docetism?
>
> Cite the reference:
>
> ____________________
>
> You insist the spiritual does not include the
> physical, that a person can't have both, and
> that a choice has to be made between one or
> the other:
>
> On Sat, 31 May 2008 06:20:44 -0400, In article
> <pq32441ln4kq5l365ir4b91tv37ie0h...@4ax.com>,
>
> > But speaking of denying words, why is it that you keep
> > claiming that I said that Jesus was not a human being
> > walking the Earth, but just appeared to be, constantly
> > accusing me of Docetism?
>
> Cite the reference:
>
> ____________________
>
> You insist the spiritual does not include the
> physical, that a person can't have both, and
> that a choice has to be made between one or
> the other:
>
> On Sat, 31 May 2008 06:20:44 -0400, In article
about ANYONE; that goes for diatribes about Dave as well as everyone
else, including Dave's diatribes against others. I think many people
feel that way, and that is why most people don't reply to your posts
or to Dave's posts.
Shall Spiritual
Feb 17, 2012, 12:14:27 PM2/17/12
to
response to this same article. Why does your
interest in reading or discussing things keep
conveniently ending just AFTER you get your
2¢ worth in? If you aren't interested in it,
then why did you even bother responding at all?
--
It shone with the glory of God, and its
brilliance was like that of a very precious
jewel, like a jasper, clear as crystal. (Rev
21:11)
Hundred Five
Feb 17, 2012, 12:34:32 PM2/17/12
to
Fri, 17 Feb 2012 08:58:36 -0800 (PST), in article
<50d17110-eea2-4948...@p7g2000yqk.googlegroups.com>,
1. It's not like he slipped once and doesn't
really believe what he said there. Every time
he's faced with the subject of the
resurrection, rapture, return of Christ, or
restoration of the kingdom to Israel, he
promotes that lie as his explanation for
how it supposedly all went down in A.D. 70,
AND to try and portray Futurists as being
carnal and "all about the physical" if they
don't agree with it.
2. As stated below, how can someone claim on the
one hand, that the spiritual does not include
the physical, that you have to choose one or
the other, and that you can't have both at the
same time, then claim on the other that he
believes spiritual God came to earth in a
physical, human body?
>> That lie _does_ betray any lip-service you
>> make about believing Christ came to earth as
>> both spiritual God and physical man.
>>
>> How can you claim the spiritual does not
>> include the physical, then claim you believe
>> Christ came to earth both as spiritual God
>> AND physical man at the same time? And why
>> then would you deny He could return to earth
>> as such, on the grounds that if He did, it
>> wouldn't be "spiritual".
>>
>> You can't have it both ways. Either the
>> spiritual includes the physical, or Christ
>> couldn't have come to earth as spiritual God
>> in a human body, to make a spiritual
>> atonement for men's sins.
>
>Wow. You sound just like Dave; are you sure you aren't another
>personality of Dave's and that he has Multiple Personality Disorder
>and is fighting with himself?
Answer a fool according to his folly, or he will
be wise in his own eyes.
(Proverbs 26:5 NIV)
--
filled with the fruit of righteousness that comes through Jesus Christ—to the glory and praise of God. (Php 1:11)
<50d17110-eea2-4948...@p7g2000yqk.googlegroups.com>,
"Linda Lee <lyndal...@juno.com>" wrote:
>> On Sat, 31 May 2008 06:20:44 -0400, In article
>> <pq32441ln4kq5l365ir4b91tv37ie0h...@4ax.com>,
>>
>> "Pastor Dave <ananias917_@_gmail.com>" wrote:
>>
>> You don't get to have both! You have to
>> make a choice! Stick with the physical, or take the
>> spiritual, which does not include the physical!
>> <http://bit.ly/mTsJdx>
>>
>> That lie _is_ a primary tenet of Gnostic Docetism.
>>
>> That lie _is_ the specific manner in which
>> you were said to promote Gnostic Docetism.
>
>That is why I said he misspoke - because Dave does
> believe that Christ was born into the flesh by a virgin.
Yeah, but
>> On Sat, 31 May 2008 06:20:44 -0400, In article
>> <pq32441ln4kq5l365ir4b91tv37ie0h...@4ax.com>,
>>
>> "Pastor Dave <ananias917_@_gmail.com>" wrote:
>>
>> You don't get to have both! You have to
>> make a choice! Stick with the physical, or take the
>> spiritual, which does not include the physical!
>> <http://bit.ly/mTsJdx>
>>
>> That lie _is_ a primary tenet of Gnostic Docetism.
>>
>> That lie _is_ the specific manner in which
>> you were said to promote Gnostic Docetism.
>
>That is why I said he misspoke - because Dave does
> believe that Christ was born into the flesh by a virgin.
1. It's not like he slipped once and doesn't
really believe what he said there. Every time
he's faced with the subject of the
resurrection, rapture, return of Christ, or
restoration of the kingdom to Israel, he
promotes that lie as his explanation for
how it supposedly all went down in A.D. 70,
AND to try and portray Futurists as being
carnal and "all about the physical" if they
don't agree with it.
2. As stated below, how can someone claim on the
one hand, that the spiritual does not include
the physical, that you have to choose one or
the other, and that you can't have both at the
same time, then claim on the other that he
believes spiritual God came to earth in a
physical, human body?
>> That lie _does_ betray any lip-service you
>> make about believing Christ came to earth as
>> both spiritual God and physical man.
>>
>> How can you claim the spiritual does not
>> include the physical, then claim you believe
>> Christ came to earth both as spiritual God
>> AND physical man at the same time? And why
>> then would you deny He could return to earth
>> as such, on the grounds that if He did, it
>> wouldn't be "spiritual".
>>
>> You can't have it both ways. Either the
>> spiritual includes the physical, or Christ
>> couldn't have come to earth as spiritual God
>> in a human body, to make a spiritual
>> atonement for men's sins.
>
>Wow. You sound just like Dave; are you sure you aren't another
>personality of Dave's and that he has Multiple Personality Disorder
>and is fighting with himself?
be wise in his own eyes.
(Proverbs 26:5 NIV)
--
filled with the fruit of righteousness that comes through Jesus Christ—to the glory and praise of God. (Php 1:11)
Immovable Among
Feb 17, 2012, 5:39:17 PM2/17/12
to
Fri, 17 Feb 2012 07:31:43 -0500, in article
<lvhsj7p5rptn194rf...@4ax.com>,
""Pastor Dave, Th.D."
****************************************
You claimed you can't have both, that a choice has
to be made between one or the other, and that if
you choose one, it does not include the other.
>and that I said it as a general statement
>about everything, in that same message?
made was between "this" physical thing or
"that" spiritual thing, but between "THE
spiritual", and "THE physical".
2. You tried to use that principle to claim
Christ would not come back as the warrior
Savior to redeem Israel, and that she would
not therefore be saved and have the kingdom
restored to her as we read in Romans
11 and Acts 1:6-9.
3. You constantly promote that false spiritual vs.
physical dichotomy whenever you're faced with
kingdom to Israel,
A. to try and explain how all these
prophecies supposedly went down in A.D.
70, while the dead saints bodies stayed
dead in the grave, while no one saw
Christ descend in His human body as they
saw Him ascend, while the dead and living
saints weren't caught up together into
the clouds of the air, while the kingdom
was not restored to Israel, etc.
B. to try and label Futurists as being "all
about the physical", if they acknowledge
the promises include anything physical,
such as the saints dead bodies actually
coming back to life, Christ actually
being seen to return in His body as He
was seen ascending, The dead and living
actually caught up into the clouds, and
the kingdom actually being restored to
Israel, etc.
--
In bringing many sons to glory, it was fitting that God, for whom and through whom everything exists, should make the author of their salvation perfect through suffering. (Heb 2:10)
<lvhsj7p5rptn194rf...@4ax.com>,
""Pastor Dave, Th.D."
<newsgroup-mail@tampa_bay_rr.com>" wrote:
>And as far as you falsely trying to claim that I stated
>that something being spiritual excludes anything
>physical
Which you did
>And as far as you falsely trying to claim that I stated
>that something being spiritual excludes anything
>physical
****************************************
On Sat, 31 May 2008 06:20:44 -0400, In article
<pq32441ln4kq5l365...@4ax.com>,
"Pastor Dave <ananias917_@_gmail.com>" wrote:
You don't get to have both! You have to make a
choice! Stick with the physical, or take the
spiritual, which does not include the physical!
(http://bit.ly/mTsJdx)
On Sat, 31 May 2008 06:20:44 -0400, In article
<pq32441ln4kq5l365...@4ax.com>,
"Pastor Dave <ananias917_@_gmail.com>" wrote:
You don't get to have both! You have to make a
choice! Stick with the physical, or take the
spiritual, which does not include the physical!
****************************************
You claimed you can't have both, that a choice has
to be made between one or the other, and that if
you choose one, it does not include the other.
>and that I said it as a general statement
>
>Oh yeah, that's right!:
>
>PD: "Paul was simply showing us the spiritual truths
> behind the physical law."
>
>Hmmm... Now what was it you were saying again???
1. You didn't just say the choice which had to be
>Oh yeah, that's right!:
>
>PD: "Paul was simply showing us the spiritual truths
> behind the physical law."
>
>Hmmm... Now what was it you were saying again???
made was between "this" physical thing or
"that" spiritual thing, but between "THE
spiritual", and "THE physical".
2. You tried to use that principle to claim
Christ would not come back as the warrior
Savior to redeem Israel, and that she would
not therefore be saved and have the kingdom
restored to her as we read in Romans
11 and Acts 1:6-9.
3. You constantly promote that false spiritual vs.
physical dichotomy whenever you're faced with
the subject of the resurrection, rapture,
return of Christ, or the restoration of the
kingdom to Israel,
A. to try and explain how all these
prophecies supposedly went down in A.D.
70, while the dead saints bodies stayed
dead in the grave, while no one saw
Christ descend in His human body as they
saw Him ascend, while the dead and living
saints weren't caught up together into
the clouds of the air, while the kingdom
was not restored to Israel, etc.
B. to try and label Futurists as being "all
about the physical", if they acknowledge
the promises include anything physical,
such as the saints dead bodies actually
coming back to life, Christ actually
being seen to return in His body as He
was seen ascending, The dead and living
actually caught up into the clouds, and
the kingdom actually being restored to
Israel, etc.
--
In bringing many sons to glory, it was fitting that God, for whom and through whom everything exists, should make the author of their salvation perfect through suffering. (Heb 2:10)
Linda Lee
Feb 17, 2012, 7:01:59 PM2/17/12
to
On Feb 17, 12:14 pm, Shall Spiritual <shallspirit...@upremain.net>
wrote:
What article? You mean your post? You are often leveling diatribes
against Dave, just as he levels long diatribes against others, so I
thought I'd say the same to you that I said to him. I really don't
think anyone is interested in either of your diatribes. But you can
annoy each other.
> Why does your
> interest in reading or discussing things keep
> conveniently ending just AFTER you get your
> 2¢ worth in? If you aren't interested in it,
> then why did you even bother responding at all?
I think you're confused, and you're once again sounding suspicious of
me just like Dave. Feel free to respond to my post. It would be nice
if you do respond to my post, that it doesn't appear you've ignored
everything said to you. One way conversations soon end.
wrote:
against Dave, just as he levels long diatribes against others, so I
thought I'd say the same to you that I said to him. I really don't
think anyone is interested in either of your diatribes. But you can
annoy each other.
> Why does your
> interest in reading or discussing things keep
> conveniently ending just AFTER you get your
> 2¢ worth in? If you aren't interested in it,
> then why did you even bother responding at all?
me just like Dave. Feel free to respond to my post. It would be nice
if you do respond to my post, that it doesn't appear you've ignored
everything said to you. One way conversations soon end.
Linda Lee
Feb 17, 2012, 7:00:58 PM2/17/12
to
On Feb 17, 12:34 pm, Hundred Five <hundredf...@becomesomeone.net>
wrote:
into the flesh.
>
> 1. It's not like he slipped once and doesn't
> really believe what he said there. Every time
> he's faced with the subject of the
> resurrection, rapture, return of Christ, or
> restoration of the kingdom to Israel, he
> promotes that lie as his explanation for
> how it supposedly all went down in A.D. 70,
And that is Preterism, not Docetism. Preterism is already considered
heretical, why go to the heresy of Docetism when anyone who cares to
look it up can see that is a false label.
>
> AND to try and portray Futurists as being
> carnal and "all about the physical" if they
> don't agree with it.
>
> 2. As stated below, how can someone claim on the
> one hand, that the spiritual does not include
> the physical, that you have to choose one or
> the other, and that you can't have both at the
> same time, then claim on the other that he
> believes spiritual God came to earth in a
> physical, human body?
Because that is not what he's talking about when he says the
resurrection is in a spiritual body?
>
>
> >> That lie _does_ betray any lip-service you
> >> make about believing Christ came to earth as
> >> both spiritual God and physical man.
>
> >> How can you claim the spiritual does not
> >> include the physical, then claim you believe
> >> Christ came to earth both as spiritual God
> >> AND physical man at the same time? And why
> >> then would you deny He could return to earth
> >> as such, on the grounds that if He did, it
> >> wouldn't be "spiritual".
>
> >> You can't have it both ways. Either the
> >> spiritual includes the physical, or Christ
> >> couldn't have come to earth as spiritual God
> >> in a human body, to make a spiritual
> >> atonement for men's sins.
>
> >Wow. You sound just like Dave; are you sure you aren't another
> >personality of Dave's and that he has Multiple Personality Disorder
> >and is fighting with himself?
>
> Answer a fool according to his folly, or he will
> be wise in his own eyes.
> (Proverbs 26:5 NIV)
To do that, you should expose the contradictions in Preterism, not
copy his methods of alleging things that aren't quite true, like he
does in attempting to "portray Futurists as being carnal and "all
if you begin to look too bad. I can see there's no getting through to
you, but don't be unaware; you appear to act just like Dave.
In this case, more appropriate than Prov. 26:5, is Prov. 26:4.
Prov. 26:4, "Answer not a fool according to his folly, lest thou also
be like unto him." Your choice.
wrote:
> Fri, 17 Feb 2012 08:58:36 -0800 (PST), in article
> <50d17110-eea2-4948-b63a-7324fa40c...@p7g2000yqk.googlegroups.com>,
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> "Linda Lee <lyndalee8...@juno.com>" wrote:
> >> On Sat, 31 May 2008 06:20:44 -0400, In article
> >> <pq32441ln4kq5l365ir4b91tv37ie0h...@4ax.com>,
>
> >> "Pastor Dave <ananias917_@_gmail.com>" wrote:
>
> >> You don't get to have both! You have to
> >> make a choice! Stick with the physical, or take the
> >> spiritual, which does not include the physical!
> >> <http://bit.ly/mTsJdx>
>
> >> That lie _is_ a primary tenet of Gnostic Docetism.
>
> >> That lie _is_ the specific manner in which
> >> you were said to promote Gnostic Docetism.
>
> >That is why I said he misspoke - because Dave does
> > believe that Christ was born into the flesh by a virgin.
>
> Yeah, but
Yes, but as I said before, Docetism does not believe Christ was born
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> "Linda Lee <lyndalee8...@juno.com>" wrote:
> >> On Sat, 31 May 2008 06:20:44 -0400, In article
> >> <pq32441ln4kq5l365ir4b91tv37ie0h...@4ax.com>,
>
> >> "Pastor Dave <ananias917_@_gmail.com>" wrote:
>
> >> You don't get to have both! You have to
> >> make a choice! Stick with the physical, or take the
> >> spiritual, which does not include the physical!
> >> <http://bit.ly/mTsJdx>
>
> >> That lie _is_ a primary tenet of Gnostic Docetism.
>
> >> That lie _is_ the specific manner in which
> >> you were said to promote Gnostic Docetism.
>
> >That is why I said he misspoke - because Dave does
> > believe that Christ was born into the flesh by a virgin.
>
> Yeah, but
into the flesh.
>
> 1. It's not like he slipped once and doesn't
> really believe what he said there. Every time
> he's faced with the subject of the
> resurrection, rapture, return of Christ, or
> restoration of the kingdom to Israel, he
> promotes that lie as his explanation for
> how it supposedly all went down in A.D. 70,
heretical, why go to the heresy of Docetism when anyone who cares to
look it up can see that is a false label.
>
> AND to try and portray Futurists as being
> carnal and "all about the physical" if they
> don't agree with it.
>
> 2. As stated below, how can someone claim on the
> one hand, that the spiritual does not include
> the physical, that you have to choose one or
> the other, and that you can't have both at the
> same time, then claim on the other that he
> believes spiritual God came to earth in a
> physical, human body?
resurrection is in a spiritual body?
>
>
> >> That lie _does_ betray any lip-service you
> >> make about believing Christ came to earth as
> >> both spiritual God and physical man.
>
> >> How can you claim the spiritual does not
> >> include the physical, then claim you believe
> >> Christ came to earth both as spiritual God
> >> AND physical man at the same time? And why
> >> then would you deny He could return to earth
> >> as such, on the grounds that if He did, it
> >> wouldn't be "spiritual".
>
> >> You can't have it both ways. Either the
> >> spiritual includes the physical, or Christ
> >> couldn't have come to earth as spiritual God
> >> in a human body, to make a spiritual
> >> atonement for men's sins.
>
> >Wow. You sound just like Dave; are you sure you aren't another
> >personality of Dave's and that he has Multiple Personality Disorder
> >and is fighting with himself?
>
> Answer a fool according to his folly, or he will
> be wise in his own eyes.
> (Proverbs 26:5 NIV)
copy his methods of alleging things that aren't quite true, like he
does in attempting to "portray Futurists as being carnal and "all
about the physical" if they don't agree with it".
But it's your life; you can always change your nic from Glory to God
if you begin to look too bad. I can see there's no getting through to
you, but don't be unaware; you appear to act just like Dave.
In this case, more appropriate than Prov. 26:5, is Prov. 26:4.
Prov. 26:4, "Answer not a fool according to his folly, lest thou also
be like unto him." Your choice.
Pastor Dave, Th.D.
Feb 17, 2012, 8:37:16 PM2/17/12
to
On Fri, 17 Feb 2012 07:45:16 -0600, Proclamation Feet
<proclama...@himselffish.us> wrote:
>On Sat, 31 May 2008 06:20:44 -0400, In article
><pq32441ln4kq5l365...@4ax.com>,
<proclama...@himselffish.us> wrote:
>On Sat, 31 May 2008 06:20:44 -0400, In article
>"Pastor Dave <ananias917_@_gmail.com>" wrote:
>
>>You don't get to have both! You have to make a choice!
>>Stick with the physical, or take the spiritual, which does
>>not include the physical!
> (http://bit.ly/mTsJdx)
>
>>You don't get to have both! You have to make a choice!
>>Stick with the physical, or take the spiritual, which does
>>not include the physical!
>
> And notice, in context, he's using that principal
> to deny the kingdom would be literally restored
> to Israel.
Yea, that puts it in context! You quoting a few
more words, but leaving out the context and
then adding your own claim of what I said
and pretending you quoted me saying it.
And let's not pretend that's what you have been
claiming I said! Of course I have many times
said that it is not about a literal, physical kingdom
being restored to national Israel. Everyone knows
that I don't believe that! You are just trying to
pretend that's what it's been about and that
that's what I have been denying saying, when
we both know that's not true and that again,
like an idiot, you think that if you snip it out,
that means no one has seen any other message
before it and that everyone's brain has been
wiped. You're just a lying moron that serves
no purpose, but to amuse us by your constant
convicting of yourself. <chuckle>
And so of course, as usual, now you run away from
what I did say, as I said you do, which was as follows;
PD: "Jesus was a flesh and blood human being."
And as far as you falsely trying to claim that I stated
that something being spiritual excludes anything
physical in any subject and thus, claiming that I had
that something being spiritual excludes anything
said it as a general statement about every single thing,
what was it that I actually said in that same message?
Oh yeah, that's right!:
PD: "Paul was simply showing us the spiritual truths
behind the physical law."
Hmmm... Now what was it you were saying again???
there can be nothing physical involved?
Yea, that's what you accused me of! <chuckle>
Still want to claim that I'm the one lying?
Or maybe that you just "misunderstood" that you
deleted all of the text except for what you quoted
out of context from this very same link you provided?
Please! You're a joke! <chuckle>
--
Pastor Dave, Th.D.
The very best Bible software: http://www.theword.net/ is free!
«::F::»«::U::»«::L::»«::F::»«::I::»«::L::»«::L::»«::E::»«::D::»
but to cover them (1 Peter 4:8). If the church rejects
and shoots its injured, where will they go? And isn't
the church all about the injured? If so, then when we
reject the injured, we reject the church!
Pastor Dave, Th.D.
Feb 17, 2012, 8:39:20 PM2/17/12
to
Pastor Dave, Th.D.
Feb 17, 2012, 9:12:05 PM2/17/12
to
On Fri, 17 Feb 2012 08:37:26 -0800 (PST), Linda Lee
<lyndal...@juno.com> wrote:
>> So tell me, how am I lying when I state very clearly that
>> Futurists do not care what the Bible has to say,
>
> You've many times falsely called me a Futurist
You are a Futurist. Anyone who believes that there are
prophecies in the Bible that still have yet to be fulfilled,
is a Futurist. That's what it means.
You may not be within a specific doctrine of Futurists,
like Dispensationalism, etc., but you are a Futurist.
So are, "Partial Preterists", as another example.
They may claim they are "the true Preterists",
but in truth, that is impossible, given that the
word "preterist" comes from the Latin word
"praeter" means, "past", or "in the past" and
therefore, anyone who believes that anything
has yet to be fulfilled, cannot, by definition,
be a "preterist", since it certainly doesn't mean,
"in the past, except for what you believe isn't"
and thus, they are at most, "Mild Futurists". :)
>> And let's not play a game here. Those verses very clearly
>> state that it was the Jews who killed Christ and there is
>> no "opinion" about it!
>
> The Jews arranged to have the Romans kill him only
> because they weren't to kill him themselves; however,
> even so, they did attempt to stone him to death and
> were unable to do so. And they (including Paul prior
> to his conversion) were killing believers such as Stephen.
Speaking to Jews, they said...
"The God of our fathers raised up Jesus, whom YE SLEW
and hanged on a tree." - Acts 5:30
And to Gentiles they said...
"And we are witnesses of all things which he did both
in the land of the Jews, and in Jerusalem; whom
THEY SLEW and hanged on a tree." - Acts 10:39
And of course, as I said, the point is that they kept on
attacking me with what Scripture says is their lie and
did so, regardless of what the Scripture have to say.
>> No Linda, he intentionally took something I said
>> out of context and has kept doing so, even after
>> I quoted the context again for him and clearly
>> explained to him what I said.
>>
>> He is not interested in truth and I did not misspeak.
>> He just tries to make it appear that I have, by his
>> misquotes of me and his dishonest approach of
>> sometimes just flat our adding words to what I say
>> and claiming I said them, even after I note to him
>> what he did! That's not "an honest mistake", Linda!
>
> You confirmed that the spiritual cannot ever include
> the physical and that is what he's quoting you saying
> lately.
No, that is not what I said, nor is he quoting me saying
that at all. He is quoting me out of context, saying that
a choice between the two needs to be made. But in
what context? That is what he leaves out. And if he's
so honest about what I said, then why does he quote
me and then add his own words to it and claim that's
the context in which I said it, especially when in response,
I quoted myself talking about the very same subject that
he claimed I said it about.
Note that in the following, he says he is quoting me:
******************************************************************
But notice that he goes on to claim that I said it
in the context of it being about a literal kingdom
being restored to national Israel, but that is not
what he has been claiming that I said it about.
He has been claiming that I said it about everything.
And this was his response to my last response,
which was a response to his last message before
that, in which he claimed that I meant it as a
general statement. Remember he said about
my statement;
******************************************************************
to be "spiritual", you have to exclude the
physical.
******************************************************************
And note that in the following message (and this is
the entire message being quoted), he claims that
I stated this to support "my Gnostic Docetism"
and not just about a physical kingdom being
restored to national Israel, which neither one
of us believes in (so if that's all he was saying
about what I said, then why does he not also
attack you, Linda?):
******************************************************************
Now while he has indeed been claiming that
my belief about Jesus is Docetist, when we
follow the link he provided, what does it show
me saying about that, Linda? Remember,
this is the link he provided in the message!:
PD: "Jesus was a flesh and blood human being."
And as far as him falsely trying to claim that I stated
about everything, what was it that I actually said
And it was to the response quoted above that you
just read, that he responded with what you see at
the top of this message!
I.e, when he got bagged in his lies about what I said,
THAT is when he responded (see top of message) with
this sudden claim that I was saying it about national
Israel and the kingdom not being physically literal!
And that, even after seeing what I just said above
quoted to him and him snipping it out and then
responding with what's at the top of this message
and which I will again quote now:
******************************************************************
Now why is it that he also claimed that he is quoting
me in the context of denying a physically literal
kingdom to national Israel and that he included
that context, when as you can see, those are
his words, NOT MINE!
Furthermore, I have never once denied that I do not
believe it is about a physical kingdom being restored
to national Israel, so this is a lie by him and he knows
that it is a lie by him! As I said, he has been claiming
that I said it about anything and everything Biblical!
If it were just about a physical kingdom, then he would
be attacking you as well for not believing it, Linda! And
as you know, he has called me a Docetist when it comes
to Jesus' body and yet, the very same link that he has
provided, shows me saying the opposite! And as I said,
that's when he responded with this "national Israel" crap!
When I quoted what that link actually shows me saying!
To sum it up:
He claimed I also said it about Jesus' body (Docetism)
and that I am denying that Jesus was a human being
and that I applied it as a general statement about
everything Biblical. And now, when his own link
bags him as a liar (and he was shown this openly
and more than once), now, all of the sudden, he is
claiming I just said it about a physical kingdom for
national Israel and he dishonestly claims to now be
quoting me in that context, when in reality, he simply
quoted a few more words, but still did not show the
context and then added his own claim that it is that
and then claimed it was me saying it was about that,
when he said it in response to my clear denial that
it was and quoting from his link, snipping out that
part of my response to his previous message!
It is impossible that you cannot see this after having
it laid out for you like this. :)
--
Pastor Dave, Th.D.
The very best Bible software: http://www.theword.net/ is free!
«::F::»«::U::»«::L::»«::F::»«::I::»«::L::»«::L::»«::E::»«::D::»
"To recognize flaws in others is common; to recognize
flaws in self, saintly. - Unknown
<lyndal...@juno.com> wrote:
>> So tell me, how am I lying when I state very clearly that
>> Futurists do not care what the Bible has to say,
>
> You've many times falsely called me a Futurist
You are a Futurist. Anyone who believes that there are
prophecies in the Bible that still have yet to be fulfilled,
is a Futurist. That's what it means.
You may not be within a specific doctrine of Futurists,
like Dispensationalism, etc., but you are a Futurist.
So are, "Partial Preterists", as another example.
They may claim they are "the true Preterists",
but in truth, that is impossible, given that the
word "preterist" comes from the Latin word
"praeter" means, "past", or "in the past" and
therefore, anyone who believes that anything
has yet to be fulfilled, cannot, by definition,
be a "preterist", since it certainly doesn't mean,
"in the past, except for what you believe isn't"
and thus, they are at most, "Mild Futurists". :)
>> And let's not play a game here. Those verses very clearly
>> state that it was the Jews who killed Christ and there is
>> no "opinion" about it!
>
> The Jews arranged to have the Romans kill him only
> because they weren't to kill him themselves; however,
> even so, they did attempt to stone him to death and
> were unable to do so. And they (including Paul prior
> to his conversion) were killing believers such as Stephen.
Speaking to Jews, they said...
"The God of our fathers raised up Jesus, whom YE SLEW
and hanged on a tree." - Acts 5:30
And to Gentiles they said...
"And we are witnesses of all things which he did both
in the land of the Jews, and in Jerusalem; whom
THEY SLEW and hanged on a tree." - Acts 10:39
And of course, as I said, the point is that they kept on
attacking me with what Scripture says is their lie and
did so, regardless of what the Scripture have to say.
>> No Linda, he intentionally took something I said
>> out of context and has kept doing so, even after
>> I quoted the context again for him and clearly
>> explained to him what I said.
>>
>> He is not interested in truth and I did not misspeak.
>> He just tries to make it appear that I have, by his
>> misquotes of me and his dishonest approach of
>> sometimes just flat our adding words to what I say
>> and claiming I said them, even after I note to him
>> what he did! That's not "an honest mistake", Linda!
>
> You confirmed that the spiritual cannot ever include
> the physical and that is what he's quoting you saying
> lately.
No, that is not what I said, nor is he quoting me saying
that at all. He is quoting me out of context, saying that
a choice between the two needs to be made. But in
what context? That is what he leaves out. And if he's
so honest about what I said, then why does he quote
me and then add his own words to it and claim that's
the context in which I said it, especially when in response,
I quoted myself talking about the very same subject that
he claimed I said it about.
Note that in the following, he says he is quoting me:
******************************************************************
>>You don't get to have both! You have to make a choice!
>>Stick with the physical, or take the spiritual, which does
>>not include the physical!
> (http://bit.ly/mTsJdx)
>
> And notice, in context, he's using that principal
> to deny the kingdom would be literally restored
> to Israel.
******************************************************************
>>Stick with the physical, or take the spiritual, which does
>>not include the physical!
> (http://bit.ly/mTsJdx)
>
> And notice, in context, he's using that principal
> to deny the kingdom would be literally restored
> to Israel.
But notice that he goes on to claim that I said it
in the context of it being about a literal kingdom
being restored to national Israel, but that is not
what he has been claiming that I said it about.
He has been claiming that I said it about everything.
And this was his response to my last response,
which was a response to his last message before
that, in which he claimed that I meant it as a
general statement. Remember he said about
my statement;
******************************************************************
You're the one who has boxed himself in,
by promoting the Gnostic lie that in order
to be "spiritual", you have to exclude the
physical.
******************************************************************
And note that in the following message (and this is
the entire message being quoted), he claims that
I stated this to support "my Gnostic Docetism"
and not just about a physical kingdom being
restored to national Israel, which neither one
of us believes in (so if that's all he was saying
about what I said, then why does he not also
attack you, Linda?):
******************************************************************
>> >The lie that in order to be spiritual, you have to
>> > exclude the physical, is a primary tenet of Gnostic
>> > Docetism,
> You mean the lie that you made up and then
> attributed to me.
>> > exclude the physical, is a primary tenet of Gnostic
>> > Docetism,
> You mean the lie that you made up and then
> attributed to me.
On Sat, 31 May 2008 06:20:44 -0400, In article
<pq32441ln4kq5l365...@4ax.com>,
"Pastor Dave <ananias917_@_gmail.com>" wrote:
> You don't get to have both! You have to make
> a choice! Stick with the physical, or take the
> spiritual, which does not include the physical!
<pq32441ln4kq5l365...@4ax.com>,
"Pastor Dave <ananias917_@_gmail.com>" wrote:
> You don't get to have both! You have to make
> a choice! Stick with the physical, or take the
> spiritual, which does not include the physical!
until it finally dawns on him that his BS
can't trump reality, then he'll change his
******************************************************************
can't trump reality, then he'll change his
Now while he has indeed been claiming that
my belief about Jesus is Docetist, when we
follow the link he provided, what does it show
me saying about that, Linda? Remember,
this is the link he provided in the message!:
PD: "Jesus was a flesh and blood human being."
that something being spiritual excludes anything
physical and that I said it as a general statement
about everything, what was it that I actually said
in that same message? Oh yeah, that's right!:
PD: "Paul was simply showing us the spiritual truths
behind the physical law."
Click the link for yourself and see, Linda!
PD: "Paul was simply showing us the spiritual truths
behind the physical law."
And it was to the response quoted above that you
just read, that he responded with what you see at
the top of this message!
I.e, when he got bagged in his lies about what I said,
THAT is when he responded (see top of message) with
this sudden claim that I was saying it about national
Israel and the kingdom not being physically literal!
And that, even after seeing what I just said above
quoted to him and him snipping it out and then
responding with what's at the top of this message
and which I will again quote now:
******************************************************************
>>You don't get to have both! You have to make a choice!
>>Stick with the physical, or take the spiritual, which does
>>not include the physical!
> (http://bit.ly/mTsJdx)
>
> And notice, in context, he's using that principal
> to deny the kingdom would be literally restored
> to Israel.
******************************************************************
>>Stick with the physical, or take the spiritual, which does
>>not include the physical!
> (http://bit.ly/mTsJdx)
>
> And notice, in context, he's using that principal
> to deny the kingdom would be literally restored
> to Israel.
Now why is it that he also claimed that he is quoting
me in the context of denying a physically literal
kingdom to national Israel and that he included
that context, when as you can see, those are
his words, NOT MINE!
Furthermore, I have never once denied that I do not
believe it is about a physical kingdom being restored
to national Israel, so this is a lie by him and he knows
that it is a lie by him! As I said, he has been claiming
that I said it about anything and everything Biblical!
If it were just about a physical kingdom, then he would
be attacking you as well for not believing it, Linda! And
as you know, he has called me a Docetist when it comes
to Jesus' body and yet, the very same link that he has
provided, shows me saying the opposite! And as I said,
that's when he responded with this "national Israel" crap!
When I quoted what that link actually shows me saying!
To sum it up:
He claimed I also said it about Jesus' body (Docetism)
and that I am denying that Jesus was a human being
and that I applied it as a general statement about
everything Biblical. And now, when his own link
bags him as a liar (and he was shown this openly
and more than once), now, all of the sudden, he is
claiming I just said it about a physical kingdom for
national Israel and he dishonestly claims to now be
quoting me in that context, when in reality, he simply
quoted a few more words, but still did not show the
context and then added his own claim that it is that
and then claimed it was me saying it was about that,
when he said it in response to my clear denial that
it was and quoting from his link, snipping out that
part of my response to his previous message!
It is impossible that you cannot see this after having
it laid out for you like this. :)
--
Pastor Dave, Th.D.
The very best Bible software: http://www.theword.net/ is free!
«::F::»«::U::»«::L::»«::F::»«::I::»«::L::»«::L::»«::E::»«::D::»
flaws in self, saintly. - Unknown
Pastor Dave, Th.D.
Feb 17, 2012, 9:17:43 PM2/17/12
to
On Fri, 17 Feb 2012 10:40:46 -0600, Hope Fruit
<hope...@livingwhere.org> wrote:
On Fri, 17 Feb 2012 07:45:16 -0600, Proclamation Feet
<proclama...@himselffish.us> wrote:
<hope...@livingwhere.org> wrote:
On Fri, 17 Feb 2012 07:45:16 -0600, Proclamation Feet
<proclama...@himselffish.us> wrote:
>On Sat, 31 May 2008 06:20:44 -0400, In article
><pq32441ln4kq5l365...@4ax.com>,
>"Pastor Dave <ananias917_@_gmail.com>" wrote:
>
>>You don't get to have both! You have to make a choice!
>>Stick with the physical, or take the spiritual, which does
>>not include the physical!
><pq32441ln4kq5l365...@4ax.com>,
>"Pastor Dave <ananias917_@_gmail.com>" wrote:
>
>>You don't get to have both! You have to make a choice!
>>Stick with the physical, or take the spiritual, which does
>>not include the physical!
> (http://bit.ly/mTsJdx)
>
> And notice, in context, he's using that principal
> to deny the kingdom would be literally restored
> to Israel.
>
> And notice, in context, he's using that principal
> to deny the kingdom would be literally restored
> to Israel.
Yea, that puts it in context! You quoting a few
more words, but leaving out the context and
then adding your own claim of what I said
and pretending you quoted me saying it.
And let's not pretend that's what you have been
claiming I said! Of course I have many times
said that it is not about a literal, physical kingdom
being restored to national Israel. Everyone knows
that I don't believe that! You are just trying to
pretend that's what it's been about and that
that's what I have been denying saying, when
we both know that's not true and that again,
like an idiot, you think that if you snip it out,
that means no one has seen any other message
before it and that everyone's brain has been
wiped. You're just a lying moron that serves
no purpose, but to amuse us by your constant
convicting of yourself. <chuckle>
And so of course, as usual, now you run away from
what I did say, as I said you do, which was as follows;
more words, but leaving out the context and
then adding your own claim of what I said
and pretending you quoted me saying it.
And let's not pretend that's what you have been
claiming I said! Of course I have many times
said that it is not about a literal, physical kingdom
being restored to national Israel. Everyone knows
that I don't believe that! You are just trying to
pretend that's what it's been about and that
that's what I have been denying saying, when
we both know that's not true and that again,
like an idiot, you think that if you snip it out,
that means no one has seen any other message
before it and that everyone's brain has been
wiped. You're just a lying moron that serves
no purpose, but to amuse us by your constant
convicting of yourself. <chuckle>
And so of course, as usual, now you run away from
what I did say, as I said you do, which was as follows;
PD: "Jesus was a flesh and blood human being."
And as far as you falsely trying to claim that I stated
that something being spiritual excludes anything
And as far as you falsely trying to claim that I stated
that something being spiritual excludes anything
physical in any subject and thus, claiming that I had
said it as a general statement about every single thing,
what was it that I actually said in that same message?
Oh yeah, that's right!:
PD: "Paul was simply showing us the spiritual truths
behind the physical law."
Hmmm... Now what was it you were saying again???
Oh yeah, that's right!:
PD: "Paul was simply showing us the spiritual truths
behind the physical law."
Hmmm... Now what was it you were saying again???
That I said that if there's something spiritual, that
there can be nothing physical involved?
Yea, that's what you accused me of! <chuckle>
there can be nothing physical involved?
Yea, that's what you accused me of! <chuckle>
Still want to claim that I'm the one lying?
Or maybe that you just "misunderstood" that you
deleted all of the text except for what you quoted
out of context from this very same link you provided?
And you snipped, as usual, what proves you to be a liar.
Or maybe that you just "misunderstood" that you
deleted all of the text except for what you quoted
out of context from this very same link you provided?
Yea, you're honest alright! <chuckle>
--
Pastor Dave, Th.D.
The very best Bible software: http://www.theword.net/ is free!
«::F::»«::U::»«::L::»«::F::»«::I::»«::L::»«::L::»«::E::»«::D::»
- Confucius
Pastor Dave, Th.D.
Feb 17, 2012, 9:19:56 PM2/17/12
to
won't help you. You are a liar, who seeks his own.
--
Pastor Dave, Th.D.
The very best Bible software: http://www.theword.net/ is free!
«::F::»«::U::»«::L::»«::F::»«::I::»«::L::»«::L::»«::E::»«::D::»
- Farmer's Advice
Message has been deleted
Linda Lee
Feb 18, 2012, 11:13:05 AM2/18/12
to
On Feb 17, 10:56 pm, Which Every <whichev...@differsmade.org> wrote:
> On 2/17/2012 9:21 PM, Linda Lee wrote:
>
> > He is all about the physical; he can't imagine anything being not
> > physical.
>
> Are you contending that for something to be
> "spiritual", it can't include the physical?
Here we go! So now you're going to try to put someone else's words
in my mouth? Words you've magnified to mean something they were never
intended to mean?
What I'm saying is that many people cannot imagine being anything but
a human being. So no, I am not denying that Christ was human. And I'm
not denying that "the Spirit of Christ" was "the Spirit of God"/Holy
Spirit, and I'm not denying that human believers have the indwelling
Holy Spirit, and I'm not denying that angels often appeared to others
to be men, and I am not denying or saying many things that you might
try to make that mean. I just cannot believe that Heaven contains
human beings when Heaven is the realm of angels and God!
How do you expect that to mix? Here's God, here's the host of angels,
and here's these saved saints in human form in the realm of
Heaven... ?!?!?!?!?
Maybe you are saying that believers don't go to Heaven? Are you
saying that following the resurrection of Christ, and his ascension
INTO HEAVEN (after which he was called "the Spirit"), believers who
die don't go to Heaven? Are you saying that when he returns to gather
believers to himself, he doesn't take them back to Heaven with him as
I Thess. 4:17 indicates?
Is that what you believe? That must be it. You're denying that
believers go to Heaven!!! That we'll be on Earth and that will never
end? Our sun will never fail as other suns do? Our planet will
continue forever?
That is really a sad expectation compared to an angelic state in
Heaven returned to God. I want Heaven and to be with God.
I Cor. 15:19, "If in THIS LIFE only we have hope in Christ, we are of
all men most miserable."
Luke 23:43 "And Jesus said unto him, Verily I say unto thee, To day
shalt thou BE WITH ME IN PARADISE."
I Thess. 4:17 "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."
I Thess. 4:17 is talking about Christ gathering believers to Heaven,
"in the CLOUDS"; "in the AIR", "and SO SHALL WE EVER BE WITH THE
LORD". Nothing is said about him then bringing them back to Earth in
an immortal human form.
>
> Why does a person have to deny what the Bible
> plainly teaches
I am not denying what the Bible plainly teaches. You seem to have
little understanding of what the Bible teaches.
>
> (e.g. the saints dead bodies
> will come back to life, Christ will return
> visibly in His risen, glorified, human body,
Not a human body, but a glorified body, a spiritual body. And that
does NOT mean a wispy ghostly form. Nowhere do the Scriptures say he
returns in a human body; you are adding to the text. That he will be
recognizable doesn't mean he will look like every other human. The
apostles knew who he was when he was transfigured before him BEFORE
his death.
When Christ returns:
Mark 13:26 "And then shall they see the Son of man coming in the
clouds with great power and GLORY."
Luke 21:27 “And then shall they see the Son of man coming in a cloud
with power and great GLORY.”
Matt. 16:27 “For the Son of man shall come __in the power of his
Father__ with his angels; and then he shall reward every man according
to his works.”
Matt. 24:30 "And then shall appear the sign of the Son of man in
heaven: and then shall all the tribes of the earth mourn, and they
shall see the Son of man coming IN THE CLOUDS OF HEAVEN with power and
GREAT GLORY."
Luke 9:26 "For whosoever shall be ashamed of me and of my words, of
him shall the Son of man be ashamed, when he SHALL COME IN HIS OWN
GLORY, AND IN HIS FATHER'S, and of the holy angels."
The Messiah will return in the power and in the GLORY OF GOD; not just
like some human being hovering in the air! The Schekinah GLORY! The
GLORY of the FACE OF GOD that even Moses couldn't look upon without
being struck down dead in the flesh.
GOD SAID TO MOSES:
Exo 33:20 And he said, Thou canst not see my face: for THERE SHALL NO
MAN SEE ME, AND LIVE.
Exo 33:21 And the LORD said, Behold, there is a place by me, and thou
shalt stand upon a rock:
Exo 33:22 And it shall come to pass, while my GLORY passeth by, that
I will put thee in a clift of the rock, and will cover thee with my
hand while I pass by:
Exo 33:23 And I will take away mine hand, and thou shalt see my back
parts: but my face shall not be seen.
It is ironic that you call yourself "Glory of God" and seemingly
haven't ever contemplated The GLORY OF GOD. We can't imagine it as it
really is, but he will not be mundane and human-appearing.
Here John is speaking of beholding Christ when he was transfigured
before John, Peter, and James (in ):
John 1:14 "And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and WE
BEHELD HIS GLORY, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,)
full of grace and truth."
THE TRANSFIGURED CHRIST – PRIOR to his death and resurrection and
ascension:
Matt 17:2 "And was TRANSFIGURED before them: and his FACE DID SHINE
AS THE SUN, and his raiment was white as the light."
HOW is that a normal looking human being?
Here Christ is about to die and is speaking of having his former
GLORY:
John 17:5 "And now, O Father, glorify thou me with thine own self
with the GLORY which I had with thee before the world was."
Christ did NOT remain a human when he ascended into Heaven:
I Tim. 3:16 "And without controversy great is the mystery of
godliness: God was manifest in the flesh, justified in the Spirit,
seen of angels, preached unto the Gentiles, believed on in the world,
RECEIVED UP into GLORY."
And Christ said we will receive that GLORY when we become one with
him:
John 17:22 "And the GLORY which thou gavest me I HAVE GIVEN THEM;
that they may be one, even as we are one".
I Pet. 5:4 “And when the chief Shepherd shall appear, ye shall
receive a crown of GLORY that fadeth not away. “
II Cor. 3:18 "But WE ALL, with open face beholding as in a glass the
GLORY of the Lord, ARE CHANGED into the same image from GLORY to
GLORY, even as by the Spirit of the Lord."
And Paul hoped for that glory – not for an immortal human form:
Rom. 5:2 "By whom also we have access by faith into this grace
wherein we stand, and rejoice in hope of the GLORY of God."
Rom. 8:18 "For I reckon that the sufferings of this present time are
not worthy to be compared with the GLORY WHICH __SHALL BE REVEALED IN
US".__
I Cor. 15:43 says of believers in the body, and believers resurrected:
"It is sown in dishonour; it is RAISED IN GLORY: it is sown in
weakness; it is raised in power".
> just like they saw Him ascend, the kingdom
> will be literally restored to Israel, etc.),
> in order to be "spiritual", and why would
> excluding the physical aspects of these
> promises make them "spiritual", unless you're
> promoting a false, Gnostic dichotomy, where
> things have to be either "spiritual", or
> "physical", but can't be both at the same time?
I don't know why. Why are you so confused?
I also fail to see why you can't believe Christ when he says he has
other folds of sheep besides the lost sheep of Israel, and that he
will make them all of one fold with one Shepherd. You seem to want to
SHUT OUT THE GENTILE BELIEVERS COMPLETELY. WHY IS THAT? I can never
agree with THAT. The Messiah did not teach that and the apostles
including Paul never taught anything like that. The Messiah told the
apostles to spread the Gospel across the entire Earth; the Gospel and
salvation was not just for the Israelites.
John 10:16 the Messiah said, "And other sheep I have, which are not of
this fold: them also I must bring, and they shall hear my voice; and
there shall be fold, and one shepherd".
>
> --
> Someone might argue, "If my falsehood
> enhances God's truthfulness and so increases
> his glory, why am I still condemned as a
> sinner?" (Rom 3:7)
Your attempt to contend that Gentiles are not saved, and your seeming
denial that Christ is God who "is a Spirit" (John 4:24) does not
glorify God. And that is exactly what your purely human Jesus and
your denial of Christ's words that he as the good Shepherd has other
folds of sheep whom he said he would make into one fold with the lost
sheep of Israel does.
> On 2/17/2012 9:21 PM, Linda Lee wrote:
>
> > He is all about the physical; he can't imagine anything being not
> > physical.
>
> Are you contending that for something to be
> "spiritual", it can't include the physical?
Here we go! So now you're going to try to put someone else's words
in my mouth? Words you've magnified to mean something they were never
intended to mean?
What I'm saying is that many people cannot imagine being anything but
a human being. So no, I am not denying that Christ was human. And I'm
not denying that "the Spirit of Christ" was "the Spirit of God"/Holy
Spirit, and I'm not denying that human believers have the indwelling
Holy Spirit, and I'm not denying that angels often appeared to others
to be men, and I am not denying or saying many things that you might
try to make that mean. I just cannot believe that Heaven contains
human beings when Heaven is the realm of angels and God!
How do you expect that to mix? Here's God, here's the host of angels,
and here's these saved saints in human form in the realm of
Heaven... ?!?!?!?!?
Maybe you are saying that believers don't go to Heaven? Are you
saying that following the resurrection of Christ, and his ascension
INTO HEAVEN (after which he was called "the Spirit"), believers who
die don't go to Heaven? Are you saying that when he returns to gather
believers to himself, he doesn't take them back to Heaven with him as
I Thess. 4:17 indicates?
Is that what you believe? That must be it. You're denying that
believers go to Heaven!!! That we'll be on Earth and that will never
end? Our sun will never fail as other suns do? Our planet will
continue forever?
That is really a sad expectation compared to an angelic state in
Heaven returned to God. I want Heaven and to be with God.
I Cor. 15:19, "If in THIS LIFE only we have hope in Christ, we are of
all men most miserable."
Luke 23:43 "And Jesus said unto him, Verily I say unto thee, To day
shalt thou BE WITH ME IN PARADISE."
I Thess. 4:17 "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."
I Thess. 4:17 is talking about Christ gathering believers to Heaven,
"in the CLOUDS"; "in the AIR", "and SO SHALL WE EVER BE WITH THE
LORD". Nothing is said about him then bringing them back to Earth in
an immortal human form.
>
> Why does a person have to deny what the Bible
> plainly teaches
I am not denying what the Bible plainly teaches. You seem to have
little understanding of what the Bible teaches.
>
> (e.g. the saints dead bodies
> will come back to life, Christ will return
> visibly in His risen, glorified, human body,
Not a human body, but a glorified body, a spiritual body. And that
does NOT mean a wispy ghostly form. Nowhere do the Scriptures say he
returns in a human body; you are adding to the text. That he will be
recognizable doesn't mean he will look like every other human. The
apostles knew who he was when he was transfigured before him BEFORE
his death.
When Christ returns:
Mark 13:26 "And then shall they see the Son of man coming in the
clouds with great power and GLORY."
Luke 21:27 “And then shall they see the Son of man coming in a cloud
with power and great GLORY.”
Matt. 16:27 “For the Son of man shall come __in the power of his
Father__ with his angels; and then he shall reward every man according
to his works.”
Matt. 24:30 "And then shall appear the sign of the Son of man in
heaven: and then shall all the tribes of the earth mourn, and they
shall see the Son of man coming IN THE CLOUDS OF HEAVEN with power and
GREAT GLORY."
Luke 9:26 "For whosoever shall be ashamed of me and of my words, of
him shall the Son of man be ashamed, when he SHALL COME IN HIS OWN
GLORY, AND IN HIS FATHER'S, and of the holy angels."
The Messiah will return in the power and in the GLORY OF GOD; not just
like some human being hovering in the air! The Schekinah GLORY! The
GLORY of the FACE OF GOD that even Moses couldn't look upon without
being struck down dead in the flesh.
GOD SAID TO MOSES:
Exo 33:20 And he said, Thou canst not see my face: for THERE SHALL NO
MAN SEE ME, AND LIVE.
Exo 33:21 And the LORD said, Behold, there is a place by me, and thou
shalt stand upon a rock:
Exo 33:22 And it shall come to pass, while my GLORY passeth by, that
I will put thee in a clift of the rock, and will cover thee with my
hand while I pass by:
Exo 33:23 And I will take away mine hand, and thou shalt see my back
parts: but my face shall not be seen.
It is ironic that you call yourself "Glory of God" and seemingly
haven't ever contemplated The GLORY OF GOD. We can't imagine it as it
really is, but he will not be mundane and human-appearing.
Here John is speaking of beholding Christ when he was transfigured
before John, Peter, and James (in ):
John 1:14 "And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and WE
BEHELD HIS GLORY, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,)
full of grace and truth."
THE TRANSFIGURED CHRIST – PRIOR to his death and resurrection and
ascension:
Matt 17:2 "And was TRANSFIGURED before them: and his FACE DID SHINE
AS THE SUN, and his raiment was white as the light."
HOW is that a normal looking human being?
Here Christ is about to die and is speaking of having his former
GLORY:
John 17:5 "And now, O Father, glorify thou me with thine own self
with the GLORY which I had with thee before the world was."
Christ did NOT remain a human when he ascended into Heaven:
I Tim. 3:16 "And without controversy great is the mystery of
godliness: God was manifest in the flesh, justified in the Spirit,
seen of angels, preached unto the Gentiles, believed on in the world,
RECEIVED UP into GLORY."
And Christ said we will receive that GLORY when we become one with
him:
John 17:22 "And the GLORY which thou gavest me I HAVE GIVEN THEM;
that they may be one, even as we are one".
I Pet. 5:4 “And when the chief Shepherd shall appear, ye shall
receive a crown of GLORY that fadeth not away. “
II Cor. 3:18 "But WE ALL, with open face beholding as in a glass the
GLORY of the Lord, ARE CHANGED into the same image from GLORY to
GLORY, even as by the Spirit of the Lord."
And Paul hoped for that glory – not for an immortal human form:
Rom. 5:2 "By whom also we have access by faith into this grace
wherein we stand, and rejoice in hope of the GLORY of God."
Rom. 8:18 "For I reckon that the sufferings of this present time are
not worthy to be compared with the GLORY WHICH __SHALL BE REVEALED IN
US".__
I Cor. 15:43 says of believers in the body, and believers resurrected:
"It is sown in dishonour; it is RAISED IN GLORY: it is sown in
weakness; it is raised in power".
> just like they saw Him ascend, the kingdom
> will be literally restored to Israel, etc.),
> in order to be "spiritual", and why would
> excluding the physical aspects of these
> promises make them "spiritual", unless you're
> promoting a false, Gnostic dichotomy, where
> things have to be either "spiritual", or
> "physical", but can't be both at the same time?
I don't know why. Why are you so confused?
I also fail to see why you can't believe Christ when he says he has
other folds of sheep besides the lost sheep of Israel, and that he
will make them all of one fold with one Shepherd. You seem to want to
SHUT OUT THE GENTILE BELIEVERS COMPLETELY. WHY IS THAT? I can never
agree with THAT. The Messiah did not teach that and the apostles
including Paul never taught anything like that. The Messiah told the
apostles to spread the Gospel across the entire Earth; the Gospel and
salvation was not just for the Israelites.
John 10:16 the Messiah said, "And other sheep I have, which are not of
this fold: them also I must bring, and they shall hear my voice; and
there shall be fold, and one shepherd".
>
> --
> Someone might argue, "If my falsehood
> enhances God's truthfulness and so increases
> his glory, why am I still condemned as a
> sinner?" (Rom 3:7)
Your attempt to contend that Gentiles are not saved, and your seeming
denial that Christ is God who "is a Spirit" (John 4:24) does not
glorify God. And that is exactly what your purely human Jesus and
your denial of Christ's words that he as the good Shepherd has other
folds of sheep whom he said he would make into one fold with the lost
sheep of Israel does.
Pastor Dave, Th.D.
Feb 18, 2012, 11:41:54 AM2/18/12
to
On Fri, 17 Feb 2012 21:10:04 -0800, Pete <*@*> wrote:
>On Fri, 17 Feb 2012 21:12:05 -0500, "Pastor Dave, Th.D."
><newsgroup-mail@tampa_bay_rr.com> wrote:
>
>> On Fri, 17 Feb 2012 08:37:26 -0800 (PST), Linda Lee
>> <lyndal...@juno.com> wrote:
>>
>>>> So tell me, how am I lying when I state very clearly that
>>>> Futurists do not care what the Bible has to say,
>>>
>>> You've many times falsely called me a Futurist
>>
>> You are a Futurist. Anyone who believes that there are
>> prophecies in the Bible that still have yet to be fulfilled,
>> is a Futurist. That's what it means.
>
> In direct opposition to historicism, and rising up
> a razor-sharp counterattack against Protestantism,
> was the Jesuit viewpoint of futurism. Futurism
> states that the Antichrist prophecies have nothing
> to do with history or papal Rome but rather apply
> to only one sinister man who comes at the end
> of time.
You can try to redefine it any way you want,
to avoid being called a Futurist, but a Futurist
is what you are, if you believe that there are
any prophecies that have yet to be fulfilled.
Why are you being so obtuse? Think about it...
"Future fulfillment" ... "Futurism".
Is it really that tough for you to make this leap? :)
--
Pastor Dave, Th.D.
The very best Bible software: http://www.theword.net/ is free!
«::F::»«::U::»«::L::»«::F::»«::I::»«::L::»«::L::»«::E::»«::D::»
"The definition of insanity is doing the same things
over and over again and expecting different results."
- Albert Einstein
>On Fri, 17 Feb 2012 21:12:05 -0500, "Pastor Dave, Th.D."
><newsgroup-mail@tampa_bay_rr.com> wrote:
>
>> On Fri, 17 Feb 2012 08:37:26 -0800 (PST), Linda Lee
>> <lyndal...@juno.com> wrote:
>>
>>>> So tell me, how am I lying when I state very clearly that
>>>> Futurists do not care what the Bible has to say,
>>>
>>> You've many times falsely called me a Futurist
>>
>> You are a Futurist. Anyone who believes that there are
>> prophecies in the Bible that still have yet to be fulfilled,
>> is a Futurist. That's what it means.
>
> a razor-sharp counterattack against Protestantism,
> was the Jesuit viewpoint of futurism. Futurism
> states that the Antichrist prophecies have nothing
> to do with history or papal Rome but rather apply
> to only one sinister man who comes at the end
> of time.
You can try to redefine it any way you want,
to avoid being called a Futurist, but a Futurist
is what you are, if you believe that there are
any prophecies that have yet to be fulfilled.
Why are you being so obtuse? Think about it...
"Future fulfillment" ... "Futurism".
Is it really that tough for you to make this leap? :)
--
Pastor Dave, Th.D.
The very best Bible software: http://www.theword.net/ is free!
«::F::»«::U::»«::L::»«::F::»«::I::»«::L::»«::L::»«::E::»«::D::»
over and over again and expecting different results."
- Albert Einstein
duke
Feb 18, 2012, 12:07:45 PM2/18/12
to
On Sat, 18 Feb 2012 08:13:05 -0800 (PST), Linda Lee <lyndal...@juno.com>
wrote:
>On Feb 17, 10:56 pm, Which Every <whichev...@differsmade.org> wrote:
>> On 2/17/2012 9:21 PM, Linda Lee wrote:
>>
>> > He is all about the physical; he can't imagine anything being not
>> > physical.
>>
>> Are you contending that for something to be
>> "spiritual", it can't include the physical?
>
>Here we go! So now you're going to try to put someone else's words
>in my mouth? Words you've magnified to mean something they were never
>intended to mean?
Good grief. Between you and anat and vinvin, you people are all over the
biblical map going nowhere fast.
Why can't you people simply understand that Jesus laid the groundwork for us to
love one another as he loved us, and so our salvation is based. If you only
followed him in this simple teachings, all else will take care of itself..
Acts 10:34-36 (New International Version)
34 Then Peter began to speak: 的 now realize how true it is that God does not
show favoritism 35 but accepts from every nation the one who fears him and does
what is right. 36 You know the message God sent to the people of Israel,
announcing the good news of peace through Jesus Christ, who is Lord of all.
duke, American - American
*****
1 John 3:4-6
4 Everyone who sins breaks the law; in fact,
sin is lawlessness. 5 But you know that he
appeared so that he might take away our sins.
And in him is no sin. 6 No one who lives in
him keeps on sinning. No one who continues to
sin has either seen him or known him.
*****
wrote:
>On Feb 17, 10:56 pm, Which Every <whichev...@differsmade.org> wrote:
>> On 2/17/2012 9:21 PM, Linda Lee wrote:
>>
>> > He is all about the physical; he can't imagine anything being not
>> > physical.
>>
>> Are you contending that for something to be
>> "spiritual", it can't include the physical?
>
>Here we go! So now you're going to try to put someone else's words
>in my mouth? Words you've magnified to mean something they were never
>intended to mean?
biblical map going nowhere fast.
Why can't you people simply understand that Jesus laid the groundwork for us to
love one another as he loved us, and so our salvation is based. If you only
followed him in this simple teachings, all else will take care of itself..
Acts 10:34-36 (New International Version)
34 Then Peter began to speak: 的 now realize how true it is that God does not
show favoritism 35 but accepts from every nation the one who fears him and does
what is right. 36 You know the message God sent to the people of Israel,
announcing the good news of peace through Jesus Christ, who is Lord of all.
duke, American - American
*****
1 John 3:4-6
4 Everyone who sins breaks the law; in fact,
sin is lawlessness. 5 But you know that he
appeared so that he might take away our sins.
And in him is no sin. 6 No one who lives in
him keeps on sinning. No one who continues to
sin has either seen him or known him.
*****
Cease Born
Feb 18, 2012, 12:10:15 PM2/18/12
to
On 2/18/2012 10:13 AM, Linda Lee wrote:
>> > (e.g. the saints dead bodies
>> > will come back to life, Christ will return
>> > visibly in His risen, glorified, human body,
> Not a human body, but a glorified body, a spiritual body.
When Christ the "Firstfruits" of the
>> > (e.g. the saints dead bodies
>> > will come back to life, Christ will return
>> > visibly in His risen, glorified, human body,
> Not a human body, but a glorified body, a spiritual body.
resurrection rose from the dead, was there a
dead human body left lying in His tomb? What
happened to it? It rose from the dead. When
a butterfly emerges from a cocoon, will you
find a dead caterpillar inside? Are you
contending that when our dead human bodies
are raised from the dead, they stay dead and
corrupting in the tomb?
When Jesus rose from the dead, the disciples
recognized Him as Jesus. They didn't go, "Oh
my God, what the hell is that?!" They heard
Him talking, they saw Him standing there. He
challenged them to "touch me and see" that He
had "flesh and bones", and was not a ghost.
Then they watched Him eat a fish. What is it
about all that that makes you think a
resurrected body stops being human?
On the other hand, Jesus challenged Thomas to
thrust His hands into His side, yet He did
not bleed to death from the opening. He was
already capable of passing through locked
doors without even opening them. Are those
things a regular physical body can do? What
is it about all that which makes you think
Jesus' resurrected body was not also a
spiritual one?
Thus, Jesus post-resurrection appearances
prove it was His dead body that came back to
life. When He came back to life, He had both
a physical, human body, yet one that was
capable of doing things no mortal flesh is
capable of. Can anyone contend that Jesus the
"Firstfruits'" esurrected body was either not
human or that it was not also spiritual?
--
"You are worthy, our Lord and God, to receive
glory and honor and power, for you created
all things, and by your will they were
created and have their being." (Rev 4:11)
Linda Lee
Feb 18, 2012, 11:15:10 AM2/18/12
to
On Feb 18, 12:10 am, Pete <*@*> wrote:
> On Fri, 17 Feb 2012 21:12:05 -0500, "Pastor Dave, Th.D."
>
> <newsgroup-mail@tampa_bay_rr.com> wrote:
> On Fri, 17 Feb 2012 21:12:05 -0500, "Pastor Dave, Th.D."
>
> <newsgroup-mail@tampa_bay_rr.com> wrote:
> > On Fri, 17 Feb 2012 08:37:26 -0800 (PST), Linda Lee
> > <lyndalee8...@juno.com> wrote:
>
> >>> So tell me, how am I lying when I state very clearly that
> >>> Futurists do not care what the Bible has to say,
>
> >> You've many times falsely called me a Futurist
>
> > You are a Futurist. Anyone who believes that there are
> > prophecies in the Bible that still have yet to be fulfilled,
> > is a Futurist. That's what it means.
>
> > <lyndalee8...@juno.com> wrote:
>
> >>> So tell me, how am I lying when I state very clearly that
> >>> Futurists do not care what the Bible has to say,
>
> >> You've many times falsely called me a Futurist
>
> > You are a Futurist. Anyone who believes that there are
> > prophecies in the Bible that still have yet to be fulfilled,
> > is a Futurist. That's what it means.
>
> In direct opposition to historicism, and rising up a razor-sharp
> counterattack against Protestantism, was the Jesuit viewpoint of futurism.
> Futurism states that the Antichrist prophecies have nothing to do with
> history or papal Rome but rather apply to only one sinister man who comes
> at the end of time.
>
> Jesuit futurism sweeps 1500 years of prophetic history under the proverbial
> counterattack against Protestantism, was the Jesuit viewpoint of futurism.
> Futurism states that the Antichrist prophecies have nothing to do with
> history or papal Rome but rather apply to only one sinister man who comes
> at the end of time.
>
> rug. This is accomplished through a theory that says when Rome fell,
> prophecy stopped, only to continue again right around the time of the
> Rapture. Thus, the ten horns, the little horn, the Beast, and the
> Antichrist have nothing to do with Christianity today. According to this
> viewpoint, no prophecies were being fulfilled during the Dark Ages.
> ====================================================================
>
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> \Fu"tur*ist\, n.
>
> What is a futurist? Futurists are those who look to and provide analysis of
> the future.
>
> The formal study of the future goes by a number of names, including
> foresight and futures studies (the academic field's most preferred terms,
> emphasizing the plurality of possible, probable, and preferable futures),
> future studies (the singular term remains popular in lay writing but not
> with scholars), strategic foresight (a term steadily increasing in
> popularity in recent decades), prospective studies (Europe), prospectiva
> (Spain and Latin America), prognostics (Eastern Europe), futuribles
> (France) and a range of lesser-used synonyms (futurology, futuring,
> futuristics, etc.).
>
> The Oxford English Dictionary traces earliest English usage of the term
> futurist to 1842, referring to Christian scriptural futurists. The next
> usage occurs with the Italian and Russian Futurists of the early 20th
> century (1900's-1930's), an artistic, literary, and political movement that
> sought to reject the past and rather uncritically embraced speed,
> technology, and violent change.
>
> Today the term futurist applies to visionary leaders, innovators, thinkers,
> writers, consultants, presenters and others who "look to the future" and
> just as frequently to those who "provide analysis of the future" via such
> methods as visioning, intuition, analogy, argument, logic, planning, policy
> analysis, cultural criticism, strategy development, marketing, roadmapping,
> goalsetting, forecasting, modeling, statistics, trend analysis, operations
> research, investment, surveys, horizon scanning, scenario development,
> prediction, prediction analysis, prediction market development, risk
> analysis and management, and other future-oriented activities.
>
> Anyone who has ever wondered about tomorrow or planned for the next week is
> a futurist at some level. Futurists need no formal education, yet the best
> futurists strive to be both transdisciplinary scholars and systems
> thinkers. See Foresight and Futures Studies - A Brief History (below) for
> details.
>
> And there are more so-called mainstream def's on futurists, isms. etc.
Cite a link to your source please. You say "See Foresight and Futures
Studies - A Brief History (below) for details.", and there's nothing
"below" it.
Pastor Dave, Th.D.
Feb 18, 2012, 12:20:25 PM2/18/12
to
> On Feb 17, 10:56 pm, Which Every <whichev...@differsmade.org> wrote:
>
>> On 2/17/2012 9:21 PM, Linda Lee wrote:
>>
>> > He is all about the physical; he can't imagine anything being not
>> > physical.
>>
>> Are you contending that for something to be
>> "spiritual", it can't include the physical?
>
>Here we go! So now you're going to try to put someone else's words
>in my mouth? Words you've magnified to mean something they were never
>intended to mean?
I told you it would happen. But you basically just told me
>
>> On 2/17/2012 9:21 PM, Linda Lee wrote:
>>
>> > He is all about the physical; he can't imagine anything being not
>> > physical.
>>
>> Are you contending that for something to be
>> "spiritual", it can't include the physical?
>
>Here we go! So now you're going to try to put someone else's words
>in my mouth? Words you've magnified to mean something they were never
>intended to mean?
that I'm picking on him and I don't know what he will do
and that I shouldn't project my dealings with him onto yours.
Well Linda... welcome to my world then! :)
�::F::��::U::��::L::��::F::��::I::��::L::��::L::��::E::��::D::�
"When is it ever going to cease to suck around here?"
- Leland McKenzie (LA Law)
Pastor Dave, Th.D.
Feb 18, 2012, 12:28:16 PM2/18/12
to
On Sat, 18 Feb 2012 11:10:15 -0600, Cease Born
<ceas...@belovedraised.net> wrote:
>On 2/18/2012 10:13 AM, Linda Lee wrote:
>
>>> > (e.g. the saints dead bodies
>>> > will come back to life, Christ will return
>>> > visibly in His risen, glorified, human body,
>
>> Not a human body, but a glorified body, a spiritual body.
>
>
>When Christ the "Firstfruits" of the
>resurrection rose from the dead, was there a
>dead human body left lying in His tomb? What
>happened to it? It rose from the dead. When
>a butterfly emerges from a cocoon, will you
>find a dead caterpillar inside? Are you
>contending that when our dead human bodies
>are raised from the dead, they stay dead and
>corrupting in the tomb?
Are you sure you snipped enough? I mean,
<ceas...@belovedraised.net> wrote:
>On 2/18/2012 10:13 AM, Linda Lee wrote:
>
>>> > (e.g. the saints dead bodies
>>> > will come back to life, Christ will return
>>> > visibly in His risen, glorified, human body,
>
>> Not a human body, but a glorified body, a spiritual body.
>
>
>When Christ the "Firstfruits" of the
>resurrection rose from the dead, was there a
>dead human body left lying in His tomb? What
>happened to it? It rose from the dead. When
>a butterfly emerges from a cocoon, will you
>find a dead caterpillar inside? Are you
>contending that when our dead human bodies
>are raised from the dead, they stay dead and
>corrupting in the tomb?
did you get all of what she wrote that proved
what a liar you are about how you address
what other people write?
«::F::»«::U::»«::L::»«::F::»«::I::»«::L::»«::L::»«::E::»«::D::»
"The ability to hold two contradictory ideas at the same time
is genius." - Chief Pope (from the TV show, "The Closer")
Pastor Dave, Th.D.
Feb 18, 2012, 12:29:24 PM2/18/12
to
>Are you
>contending that when our dead human bodies
>are raised from the dead, they stay dead and
>corrupting in the tomb?
That's an interesting question to ask someone
>contending that when our dead human bodies
>are raised from the dead, they stay dead and
>corrupting in the tomb?
that stated that they don't believe that it's the
dead, human body that's raised.
But don't worry, you snipped out that part of
what she said and that means no one saw it
and you can lie about her with immunity!
<chuckle>
�::F::��::U::��::L::��::F::��::I::��::L::��::L::��::E::��::D::�
"If you want to lift yourself up, start by lifting others."
- Unknown
On Victory
Feb 18, 2012, 12:40:46 PM2/18/12
to
On 2/18/2012 10:13 AM, Linda Lee wrote:
> Your attempt to contend that Gentiles are not saved,
Cite reference:
__________________________
I do not contend Gentiles are not saved. I
just don't confuse what Ephesians calls the
"new man", and what the New Testament calls
the "church" 115 times, with "Old man
Israel". When Jews and Gentiles are combined
into one body, it is called a "new man", not
an addition to Old Man Israel, and is called
the "church", not "Israel".
> and your seeming
> denial that Christ is God who "is a Spirit" (John 4:24)does not
>> glorify God.
_________________________
I do not deny Christ is God who is a Spirit.
I just do not deny He is also a man.
> And that is exactly what your purely human Jesus
_________________________
I did not claim Jesus is purely human. I just
didn't deny He's also a human.
But see what I mean? Are you not embracing
the false, Gnostic dichotomy, that things
have to be EITHER spiritual, OR physical, but
can't be both at the same time?
Colossians 2:9 says all the fullness of deity
"lives" in Him bodily ("physically"
-Strongs), and that was said after He rose
from the dead and ascended to Heaven.
And no, Colossians wasn't written to prove
God doesn't have a "spiritual" form. It was
written to refute the Gnostic lie that the
spiritual can't include the physical, and
therefore that Jesus could not be God in a
human body, which lie would rob men of a
Savior who is capable of dying to pay for
their sins.
> and
> your denial of Christ's words that he as the good Shepherd has other
> folds of sheep whom he said he would make into one fold with the lost
> sheep of Israel does.
necessitate nothing more or less than that He
bring Jews and Gentiles together as one body
in the "church", which is exactly what
Ephesians calls the "new man".
Ephesians doesn't call the church "Old man
Israel", it calls it a "new man", and the
"church" 115 times. Zero times is the new
body called "Old man Israel", or even
"Israel", and that has already been addressed
from every single verse anyone cared to produce.
-
who is a deposit guaranteeing our inheritance
until the redemption of those who are God's
possession—to the praise of his glory. (Eph
1:14)
Incorruption Deceived
Feb 18, 2012, 12:43:57 PM2/18/12
to
On 2/18/2012 11:20 AM, Pastor Dave, Th.D. wrote:
> On Sat, 18 Feb 2012 08:13:05 -0800 (PST), Linda Lee
> <lyndal...@juno.com> wrote:
>
>
>> > On Feb 17, 10:56 pm, Which Every<whichev...@differsmade.org> wrote:
>> >
>>> >> On 2/17/2012 9:21 PM, Linda Lee wrote:
>>> >>
>>>> >> > He is all about the physical; he can't imagine anything being not
>>>> >> > physical.
>>> >>
>>> >> Are you contending that for something to be
>>> >> "spiritual", it can't include the physical?
>> >
>> >Here we go! So now you're going to try to put someone else's words
>> >in my mouth? Words you've magnified to mean something they were never
>> >intended to mean?
> I told you it would happen. But you basically just told me
> that I'm picking on him and I don't know what he will do
> and that I shouldn't project my dealings with him onto yours.
>
> Well Linda... welcome to my world then!:)
Notice, neither of them answers the question.
> On Sat, 18 Feb 2012 08:13:05 -0800 (PST), Linda Lee
> <lyndal...@juno.com> wrote:
>
>
>> > On Feb 17, 10:56 pm, Which Every<whichev...@differsmade.org> wrote:
>> >
>>> >> On 2/17/2012 9:21 PM, Linda Lee wrote:
>>> >>
>>>> >> > He is all about the physical; he can't imagine anything being not
>>>> >> > physical.
>>> >>
>>> >> Are you contending that for something to be
>>> >> "spiritual", it can't include the physical?
>> >
>> >Here we go! So now you're going to try to put someone else's words
>> >in my mouth? Words you've magnified to mean something they were never
>> >intended to mean?
> I told you it would happen. But you basically just told me
> that I'm picking on him and I don't know what he will do
> and that I shouldn't project my dealings with him onto yours.
>
> Well Linda... welcome to my world then!:)
They just feign indignation that it was
asked, which is understandable, given that
answering it exposes the false dichotomy they
are trying to impose.
--
The city does not need the sun or the moon to
shine on it, for the glory of God gives it
light, and the Lamb is its lamp. (Rev 21:23)
Incorruptible Hope
Feb 18, 2012, 12:47:25 PM2/18/12
to
On 2/18/2012 11:28 AM, Pastor Dave, Th.D. wrote:
> On Sat, 18 Feb 2012 11:10:15 -0600, Cease Born
> <ceas...@belovedraised.net> wrote:
>
>
>> >On 2/18/2012 10:13 AM, Linda Lee wrote:
>> >
>>>>> >>> > (e.g. the saints dead bodies
>>>>> >>> > will come back to life, Christ will return
>>>>> >>> > visibly in His risen, glorified, human body,
>> >
>>> >> Not a human body, but a glorified body, a spiritual body.
>> >
>> >
>> >When Christ the "Firstfruits" of the
>> >resurrection rose from the dead, was there a
>> >dead human body left lying in His tomb? What
>> >happened to it? It rose from the dead. When
>> >a butterfly emerges from a cocoon, will you
>> >find a dead caterpillar inside? Are you
>> >contending that when our dead human bodies
>> >are raised from the dead, they stay dead and
>> >corrupting in the tomb?
> Are you sure you snipped enough? I mean,
> did you get all of what she wrote that proved
> what a liar you are about how you address
> what other people write?
I'm still waiting for you to demonstrate from
> On Sat, 18 Feb 2012 11:10:15 -0600, Cease Born
> <ceas...@belovedraised.net> wrote:
>
>
>> >On 2/18/2012 10:13 AM, Linda Lee wrote:
>> >
>>>>> >>> > (e.g. the saints dead bodies
>>>>> >>> > will come back to life, Christ will return
>>>>> >>> > visibly in His risen, glorified, human body,
>> >
>>> >> Not a human body, but a glorified body, a spiritual body.
>> >
>> >
>> >When Christ the "Firstfruits" of the
>> >resurrection rose from the dead, was there a
>> >dead human body left lying in His tomb? What
>> >happened to it? It rose from the dead. When
>> >a butterfly emerges from a cocoon, will you
>> >find a dead caterpillar inside? Are you
>> >contending that when our dead human bodies
>> >are raised from the dead, they stay dead and
>> >corrupting in the tomb?
> Are you sure you snipped enough? I mean,
> did you get all of what she wrote that proved
> what a liar you are about how you address
> what other people write?
any amount of the original article you care
to cite, that your words mean something other
than what they plainly state:
On Sat, 31 May 2008 06:20:44 -0400, In article
<pq32441ln4kq5l365...@4ax.com>,
"Pastor Dave <ananias917_@_gmail.com>" wrote:
>You don't get to have both! You have to
make a choice!
>Stick with the physical, or take the
spiritual, which does
>not include the physical!
You claimed you can't have both, that a
choice has
to be made between one or the other, and that if
you choose one, it does not include the other.
Linda Lee
Feb 18, 2012, 12:49:54 PM2/18/12
to
On Feb 18, 12:20 pm, "Pastor Dave, Th.D." <newsgroup-
ngs?
> --
>
> Pastor Dave, Th.D.
>
> The very best Bible software:http://www.theword.net/is free!
> <lyndalee8...@juno.com> wrote:
> > On Feb 17, 10:56 pm, Which Every <whichev...@differsmade.org> wrote:
>
> >> On 2/17/2012 9:21 PM, Linda Lee wrote:
>
> >> > He is all about the physical; he can't imagine anything being not
> >> > physical.
>
> >> Are you contending that for something to be
> >> "spiritual", it can't include the physical?
>
> >Here we go! So now you're going to try to put someone else's words
> >in my mouth? Words you've magnified to mean something they were never
> >intended to mean?
>
> I told you it would happen. But you basically just told me
> that I'm picking on him and I don't know what he will do
> and that I shouldn't project my dealings with him onto yours.
>
> Well Linda... welcome to my world then! :)
>
Are you just now seeing you're not the only one ever harassed on the
> > On Feb 17, 10:56 pm, Which Every <whichev...@differsmade.org> wrote:
>
> >> On 2/17/2012 9:21 PM, Linda Lee wrote:
>
> >> > He is all about the physical; he can't imagine anything being not
> >> > physical.
>
> >> Are you contending that for something to be
> >> "spiritual", it can't include the physical?
>
> >Here we go! So now you're going to try to put someone else's words
> >in my mouth? Words you've magnified to mean something they were never
> >intended to mean?
>
> I told you it would happen. But you basically just told me
> that I'm picking on him and I don't know what he will do
> and that I shouldn't project my dealings with him onto yours.
>
> Well Linda... welcome to my world then! :)
>
ngs?
> --
>
> Pastor Dave, Th.D.
>
> The very best Bible software:http://www.theword.net/is free!
Linda Lee
Feb 18, 2012, 1:02:56 PM2/18/12
to
> On Sat, 18 Feb 2012 08:13:05 -0800 (PST), Linda Lee
>
>
> <lyndalee8...@juno.com> wrote:
> > On Feb 17, 10:56 pm, Which Every <whichev...@differsmade.org> wrote:
>
> >> On 2/17/2012 9:21 PM, Linda Lee wrote:
>
> >> > He is all about the physical; he can't imagine anything being not
> >> > physical.
>
> >> Are you contending that for something to be
> >> "spiritual", it can't include the physical?
>
> >Here we go! So now you're going to try to put someone else's words
> >in my mouth? Words you've magnified to mean something they were never
> >intended to mean?
>
> I told you it would happen. But you basically just told me
> that I'm picking on him and I don't know what he will do
> and that I shouldn't project my dealings with him onto yours.
>
> Well Linda... welcome to my world then! :)
No, Dave, I just told you you didn't KNOW; that you may have happened
> > On Feb 17, 10:56 pm, Which Every <whichev...@differsmade.org> wrote:
>
> >> On 2/17/2012 9:21 PM, Linda Lee wrote:
>
> >> > He is all about the physical; he can't imagine anything being not
> >> > physical.
>
> >> Are you contending that for something to be
> >> "spiritual", it can't include the physical?
>
> >Here we go! So now you're going to try to put someone else's words
> >in my mouth? Words you've magnified to mean something they were never
> >intended to mean?
>
> I told you it would happen. But you basically just told me
> that I'm picking on him and I don't know what he will do
> and that I shouldn't project my dealings with him onto yours.
>
> Well Linda... welcome to my world then! :)
to be right doesn't mean you are always right. And in fact, he didn't
do it yet, he simply alluded to it. That's why my response had a
question mark after it.
>
> --
>
> Pastor Dave, Th.D.
>
> The very best Bible software:http://www.theword.net/is free!
Linda Lee
Feb 18, 2012, 1:18:06 PM2/18/12
to
On Feb 18, 12:40 pm, On Victory <onvict...@unlessincorruptible.us>
wrote:
Israel and thereby deny the Messiah's own words.
>
> > and your seeming
> > denial that Christ is God who "is a Spirit" (John 4:24)does not
> >> glorify God.
>
> Cite reference:
>
> _________________________
>
> I do not deny Christ is God who is a Spirit.
> I just do not deny He is also a man.
You expect him to come back to Earth and reside here with us as A MAN.
So you are denying he is God as "God is a Spirit".
>
> > And that is exactly what your purely human Jesus
>
> Cite reference:
Don't have to; your posts are still here, no matter your name changes
constantly.
>
> _________________________
>
> I did not claim Jesus is purely human. I just
> didn't deny He's also a human.
>
> But see what I mean? Are you not embracing
> the false, Gnostic dichotomy, that things
> have to be EITHER spiritual, OR physical, but
> can't be both at the same time?
Baloney. You are impossible to talk to; I am beginning to think you're
just dense and BLIND.
>
> Colossians 2:9 says all the fullness of deity
> "lives" in Him bodily ("physically"
> -Strongs), and that was said after He rose
> from the dead and ascended to Heaven.
>
> And no, Colossians wasn't written to prove
> God doesn't have a "spiritual" form. It was
> written to refute the Gnostic lie that the
> spiritual can't include the physical, and
> therefore that Jesus could not be God in a
> human body, which lie would rob men of a
> Savior who is capable of dying to pay for
> their sins.
>
> > and
> > your denial of Christ's words that he as the good Shepherd has other
> > folds of sheep whom he said he would make into one fold with the lost
> > sheep of Israel does.
>
> I did not deny Christ's words.
Yes you do. He said all believers will be of one fold and he'll be our
Shepherd. You are into division.
His words
> necessitate nothing more or less than that He
> bring Jews and Gentiles together as one body
> in the "church", which is exactly what
> Ephesians calls the "new man".
The new man is the individual believer with the indwelling Holy
Spirit.
>
> Ephesians doesn't call the church "Old man
> Israel", it calls it a "new man", and the
> "church" 115 times. Zero times is the new
> body called "Old man Israel", or even
> "Israel", and that has already been addressed
> from every single verse anyone cared to produce.
The "Israel of GOD" is the CHURCH OF GOD containing BOTH GENTILES and
ISRAELITE BELIEVERS. _ONE FOLD WITH ONE SHEPHERD._
wrote:
> On 2/18/2012 10:13 AM, Linda Lee wrote:
>
> > Your attempt to contend that Gentiles are not saved,
>
> Cite reference:
>
> __________________________
>
> I do not contend Gentiles are not saved. I
> just don't confuse what Ephesians calls the
> "new man", and what the New Testament calls
> the "church" 115 times, with "Old man
> Israel". When Jews and Gentiles are combined
> into one body, it is called a "new man", not
> an addition to Old Man Israel, and is called
> the "church", not "Israel".
You deny that Gentile believers become one fold with the lost sheep of
>
> > Your attempt to contend that Gentiles are not saved,
>
> Cite reference:
>
> __________________________
>
> I do not contend Gentiles are not saved. I
> just don't confuse what Ephesians calls the
> "new man", and what the New Testament calls
> the "church" 115 times, with "Old man
> Israel". When Jews and Gentiles are combined
> into one body, it is called a "new man", not
> an addition to Old Man Israel, and is called
> the "church", not "Israel".
Israel and thereby deny the Messiah's own words.
>
> > and your seeming
> > denial that Christ is God who "is a Spirit" (John 4:24)does not
> >> glorify God.
>
> Cite reference:
>
> _________________________
>
> I do not deny Christ is God who is a Spirit.
> I just do not deny He is also a man.
So you are denying he is God as "God is a Spirit".
>
> > And that is exactly what your purely human Jesus
>
> Cite reference:
constantly.
>
> _________________________
>
> I did not claim Jesus is purely human. I just
> didn't deny He's also a human.
>
> But see what I mean? Are you not embracing
> the false, Gnostic dichotomy, that things
> have to be EITHER spiritual, OR physical, but
> can't be both at the same time?
just dense and BLIND.
>
> Colossians 2:9 says all the fullness of deity
> "lives" in Him bodily ("physically"
> -Strongs), and that was said after He rose
> from the dead and ascended to Heaven.
>
> And no, Colossians wasn't written to prove
> God doesn't have a "spiritual" form. It was
> written to refute the Gnostic lie that the
> spiritual can't include the physical, and
> therefore that Jesus could not be God in a
> human body, which lie would rob men of a
> Savior who is capable of dying to pay for
> their sins.
>
> > and
> > your denial of Christ's words that he as the good Shepherd has other
> > folds of sheep whom he said he would make into one fold with the lost
> > sheep of Israel does.
>
> I did not deny Christ's words.
Shepherd. You are into division.
His words
> necessitate nothing more or less than that He
> bring Jews and Gentiles together as one body
> in the "church", which is exactly what
> Ephesians calls the "new man".
Spirit.
>
> Ephesians doesn't call the church "Old man
> Israel", it calls it a "new man", and the
> "church" 115 times. Zero times is the new
> body called "Old man Israel", or even
> "Israel", and that has already been addressed
> from every single verse anyone cared to produce.
ISRAELITE BELIEVERS. _ONE FOLD WITH ONE SHEPHERD._
Where Order
Feb 18, 2012, 1:59:05 PM2/18/12
to
On 2/18/2012 11:29 AM, Pastor Dave, Th.D. wrote:
> they don't believe that it's the
> dead, human body that's raised.
Then what "they're" describing isn't the
> they don't believe that it's the
> dead, human body that's raised.
resurrection 1 Corinthians 15 is talking about.
1 Corinthians 15:52-54 says it's "this
mortal" which must be "changed", and which
must put on "immortality". It is "this
corruptible" which must put on incorruption.
It is "it" which was sown in the ground
which will be "raised" "from the dead".
Likewise, Philippians 3:21 says it is our
"vile" bodies which will be "transformed" to
the likeness of Christ's glorious body.
What is "this mortal"? It is our mortal,
human body. What is "this corruptible"? It
is our corruptible human body. What is "it"
which is sown? Our dead human body that was
put in the ground. What is our "vile" body?
Our vile human body.
It _IS_ our dead, human body which is sown in
the ground, which is "raised" "from the
dead". It _IS_ our perishable, human body
which is "changed". It _IS_ our mortal,
corruptible, and vile body that is
transformed", so that it puts on immortality
and incorruption, and is thus "transformed"
from a vile to a glorious body. Thus the dead
human body becomes a different body (just
like a caterpillar becomes a butterfly)
because it was "CHANGED" from dead to living,
from mortal to immortal, and from corruptible
to incorruptible".
The Preterist simply takes note of the fact
that the resurrected body is DIFFERENT than
it was when it was sown in the ground, and
confuse it with the lie that the dead body
must still be there dead in the ground, and
that this resurrected one must be some
completely different body altogether:
It would be like some moron watching a
butterfly come out of a cocoon, and
concluding that since a caterpillar is what
went in, there must still be a dead
caterpillar inside, and that this here flying
thing must have just come out of nowhere!
After all, look at it! It's completely
different. The caterpillar must still be
dead inside the cocoon!
"Well hey there. This here resurrected body
is immortal and incorruptible, but the one
that went in the ground was mortal and
corruptible. Yep. Can't possibly be the body
that was sown in the ground. That one must
still be there, dead and corrupting!
Uh...yeah...THAT'S it!
Please!
But hey, folks, how freaking convenient for
Preterism, and the fact the saints dead
bodies did not rise from the dead in A.D 70,
is that folks?!
Now the resurrection of the dead doesn't have
to raise what was dead from the dead at all,
and the Preterist can pretend it all happened
"spiritually" in A.D. 70
BUWAHAHAHAHAHAHA!
--
The Son is the radiance of God's glory and
the exact representation of his being,
sustaining all things by his powerful word.
After he had provided purification for sins,
he sat down at the right hand of the Majesty
in heaven. (Heb 1:3)
Its Now
Feb 18, 2012, 2:04:30 PM2/18/12
to
On 2/18/2012 11:49 AM, Linda Lee wrote:
> On Feb 18, 12:20 pm, "Pastor Dave, Th.D."<newsgroup-
> mail@tampa_bay_rr.com> wrote:
>> > On Sat, 18 Feb 2012 08:13:05 -0800 (PST), Linda Lee
>> >
>> > <lyndalee8...@juno.com> wrote:
>>> > > On Feb 17, 10:56 pm, Which Every<whichev...@differsmade.org> wrote:
>> >
>>>> > >> On 2/17/2012 9:21 PM, Linda Lee wrote:
>> >
>>>>> > >> > He is all about the physical; he can't imagine anything being not
>>>>> > >> > physical.
>> >
>>>> > >> Are you contending that for something to be
>>>> > >> "spiritual", it can't include the physical?
>> >
>>> > >Here we go! So now you're going to try to put someone else's words
>>> > >in my mouth? Words you've magnified to mean something they were never
>>> > >intended to mean?
>> >
>> > I told you it would happen. But you basically just told me
>> > that I'm picking on him and I don't know what he will do
>> > and that I shouldn't project my dealings with him onto yours.
>> >
>> > Well Linda... welcome to my world then!:)
>> >
> Are you just now seeing you're not the only one ever harassed on the
> ngs?
Notice neither of them answers the question.
> On Feb 18, 12:20 pm, "Pastor Dave, Th.D."<newsgroup-
> mail@tampa_bay_rr.com> wrote:
>> > On Sat, 18 Feb 2012 08:13:05 -0800 (PST), Linda Lee
>> >
>> > <lyndalee8...@juno.com> wrote:
>>> > > On Feb 17, 10:56 pm, Which Every<whichev...@differsmade.org> wrote:
>> >
>>>> > >> On 2/17/2012 9:21 PM, Linda Lee wrote:
>> >
>>>>> > >> > He is all about the physical; he can't imagine anything being not
>>>>> > >> > physical.
>> >
>>>> > >> Are you contending that for something to be
>>>> > >> "spiritual", it can't include the physical?
>> >
>>> > >Here we go! So now you're going to try to put someone else's words
>>> > >in my mouth? Words you've magnified to mean something they were never
>>> > >intended to mean?
>> >
>> > I told you it would happen. But you basically just told me
>> > that I'm picking on him and I don't know what he will do
>> > and that I shouldn't project my dealings with him onto yours.
>> >
>> > Well Linda... welcome to my world then!:)
>> >
> Are you just now seeing you're not the only one ever harassed on the
> ngs?
They just play the victim, since answering
the question would expose them as the ones
promoting a false dichotomy that says things
have to be EITHER spiritual, OR physical, but
not both at the same time.
--
After this I heard what sounded like the roar
of a great multitude in heaven shouting:
"Hallelujah! Salvation and glory and power
belong to our God, (Rev 19:1)
Glance Mortal
Feb 18, 2012, 2:08:42 PM2/18/12
to
On 2/18/2012 12:18 PM, Linda Lee wrote:
> On Feb 18, 12:40 pm, On Victory<onvict...@unlessincorruptible.us>
> wrote:
>> > On 2/18/2012 10:13 AM, Linda Lee wrote:
>> >
>>> > > Your attempt to contend that Gentiles are not saved,
>> >
>> > Cite reference:
>> >
>> > __________________________
>> >
>> > I do not contend Gentiles are not saved. I
>> > just don't confuse what Ephesians calls the
>> > "new man", and what the New Testament calls
>> > the "church" 115 times, with "Old man
>> > Israel". When Jews and Gentiles are combined
>> > into one body, it is called a "new man", not
>> > an addition to Old Man Israel, and is called
>> > the "church", not "Israel".
> You deny that Gentile believers become one fold with the lost sheep of
> Israel and thereby deny the Messiah's own words.
No I don't. I just call the one flock what
> On Feb 18, 12:40 pm, On Victory<onvict...@unlessincorruptible.us>
> wrote:
>> > On 2/18/2012 10:13 AM, Linda Lee wrote:
>> >
>>> > > Your attempt to contend that Gentiles are not saved,
>> >
>> > Cite reference:
>> >
>> > __________________________
>> >
>> > I do not contend Gentiles are not saved. I
>> > just don't confuse what Ephesians calls the
>> > "new man", and what the New Testament calls
>> > the "church" 115 times, with "Old man
>> > Israel". When Jews and Gentiles are combined
>> > into one body, it is called a "new man", not
>> > an addition to Old Man Israel, and is called
>> > the "church", not "Israel".
> You deny that Gentile believers become one fold with the lost sheep of
> Israel and thereby deny the Messiah's own words.
the NT calls it 115 times, which is a "new
man" (Ephesians), and the "church", not "old
man Israel".
Truly On
Feb 18, 2012, 2:13:49 PM2/18/12
to
On 2/18/2012 12:18 PM, Linda Lee wrote:
>> I do not deny Christ is God who is a Spirit.
>> > I just do not deny He is also a man.
> You expect him to come back to Earth and reside here with us as A MAN.
> So you are denying he is God as "God is a Spirit".
See the false dichotomy? You're contending
>> > I just do not deny He is also a man.
> You expect him to come back to Earth and reside here with us as A MAN.
> So you are denying he is God as "God is a Spirit".
it has to be either/or, are you not? You're
saying He either has to be God is a spirit,
or a man, but that He can't be both at the
same time.
If He can't be God as a spirit and a man
AFTER He rose from the dead, then how could
He have been God as a spirit and a man BEFORE
He rose?
--
A second time they summoned the man who had
been blind. "Give glory to God," they said.
"We know this man is a sinner." (Joh 9:24)
Became Where
Feb 18, 2012, 2:15:51 PM2/18/12
to
On 2/18/2012 12:18 PM, Linda Lee wrote:
>>> And that is exactly what your purely human Jesus
>> >
>> > Cite reference:
> Don't have to; your posts are still here, no matter your name changes
> constantly.
Then you should easily be able to cite where
>> >
>> > Cite reference:
> Don't have to; your posts are still here, no matter your name changes
> constantly.
I said Jesus was purely human. I've said
repeatedly He's both God AND man at the same
time. If He can't be both, then He couldn't
have died on the cross to pay for our sins.
See where Gnostic Docetism leads?
--
But we see Jesus, who was made a little lower
than the angels, now crowned with glory and
honor because he suffered death, so that by
the grace of God he might taste death for
everyone. (Heb 2:9)
How Rejoicing
Feb 18, 2012, 2:20:23 PM2/18/12
to
On 2/18/2012 12:18 PM, Linda Lee wrote:
>> But see what I mean? Are you not embracing
>> > the false, Gnostic dichotomy, that things
>> > have to be EITHER spiritual, OR physical, but
>> > can't be both at the same time?
> Baloney. You are impossible to talk to; I am beginning to think you're
> just dense and BLIND.
Are you or are you not denying that spiritual
>> > the false, Gnostic dichotomy, that things
>> > have to be EITHER spiritual, OR physical, but
>> > can't be both at the same time?
> Baloney. You are impossible to talk to; I am beginning to think you're
> just dense and BLIND.
God can be a physical human being at the same
time? Or are you pleading the fifth, on the
grounds that answering the question honestly
might incriminate you?
--
It shone with the glory of God, and its
brilliance was like that of a very precious
jewel, like a jasper, clear as crystal. (Rev
21:11)
Glance Life
Feb 18, 2012, 2:23:02 PM2/18/12
to
On 2/18/2012 12:18 PM, Linda Lee wrote:
>> > His words
>> > necessitate nothing more or less than that He
>> > bring Jews and Gentiles together as one body
>> > in the "church", which is exactly what
>> > Ephesians calls the "new man".
> The new man is the individual believer with the indwelling Holy
> Spirit.
For he himself is our peace, who has made the
>> > necessitate nothing more or less than that He
>> > bring Jews and Gentiles together as one body
>> > in the "church", which is exactly what
>> > Ephesians calls the "new man".
> The new man is the individual believer with the indwelling Holy
> Spirit.
two one and has destroyed the barrier, the
dividing wall of hostility, by abolishing in
his flesh the law with its commandments and
regulations. His purpose was to create in
himself one new man out of the two, thus
making peace,
(Ephesians 2:14-15 NIV)
Pastor Dave, Th.D.
Feb 18, 2012, 2:29:53 PM2/18/12
to
On Sat, 18 Feb 2012 10:18:06 -0800 (PST), Linda Lee
<lindag...@juno.com> wrote:
>> But see what I mean? Are you not embracing
>> the false, Gnostic dichotomy, that things
>> have to be EITHER spiritual, OR physical, but
>> can't be both at the same time?
>
> Baloney. You are impossible to talk to; I am
> beginning to think you're just dense and BLIND.
But he's clear as a bell when attacking me though
<lindag...@juno.com> wrote:
>> But see what I mean? Are you not embracing
>> the false, Gnostic dichotomy, that things
>> have to be EITHER spiritual, OR physical, but
>> can't be both at the same time?
>
> Baloney. You are impossible to talk to; I am
> beginning to think you're just dense and BLIND.
and you can agree with him about that, right?
I guess that's the only time he's lucid, huh?(:
--
Pastor Dave, Th.D.
The very best Bible software: http://www.theword.net/ is free!
Pastor Dave, Th.D.
Feb 18, 2012, 2:32:08 PM2/18/12
to
because it proves I said the opposite of what
you claimed I said?
And let us note folks, that he's been claiming to have
quoted me saying something that he never quoted
me saying and adding his own words to it and then
claiming that I said it and now he claims that he's
been waiting for me to quote myself, as if it's my
job to find the post that he claims says something.
Talk about beat!!!
Bawahahaha!!! <chuckle>
--
Pastor Dave, Th.D.
The very best Bible software: http://www.theword.net/ is free!
«::F::»«::U::»«::L::»«::F::»«::I::»«::L::»«::L::»«::E::»«::D::»
from cheating people, but it's Capitalism and Freedom
when politicians help corporations cheat people."
- Christopher Helms
Pastor Dave, Th.D.
Feb 18, 2012, 2:34:16 PM2/18/12
to
On Sat, 18 Feb 2012 10:02:56 -0800 (PST), Linda Lee
<lyndal...@juno.com> wrote:
>On Feb 18, 12:20 pm, "Pastor Dave, Th.D." <newsgroup-
>mail@tampa_bay_rr.com> wrote:
>> On Sat, 18 Feb 2012 08:13:05 -0800 (PST), Linda Lee
>>
>> <lyndalee8...@juno.com> wrote:
>> > On Feb 17, 10:56 pm, Which Every <whichev...@differsmade.org> wrote:
>>
>> >> On 2/17/2012 9:21 PM, Linda Lee wrote:
>>
>> >> > He is all about the physical; he can't imagine anything being not
>> >> > physical.
>>
>> >> Are you contending that for something to be
>> >> "spiritual", it can't include the physical?
>>
>> >Here we go! So now you're going to try to put someone else's words
>> >in my mouth? Words you've magnified to mean something they were never
>> >intended to mean?
>>
>> I told you it would happen. But you basically just told me
>> that I'm picking on him and I don't know what he will do
>> and that I shouldn't project my dealings with him onto yours.
>>
>> Well Linda... welcome to my world then! :)
>
> No, Dave, I just told you you didn't KNOW;
No, you said more than that in more than one message.
<lyndal...@juno.com> wrote:
>On Feb 18, 12:20 pm, "Pastor Dave, Th.D." <newsgroup-
>mail@tampa_bay_rr.com> wrote:
>> On Sat, 18 Feb 2012 08:13:05 -0800 (PST), Linda Lee
>>
>> <lyndalee8...@juno.com> wrote:
>> > On Feb 17, 10:56 pm, Which Every <whichev...@differsmade.org> wrote:
>>
>> >> On 2/17/2012 9:21 PM, Linda Lee wrote:
>>
>> >> > He is all about the physical; he can't imagine anything being not
>> >> > physical.
>>
>> >> Are you contending that for something to be
>> >> "spiritual", it can't include the physical?
>>
>> >Here we go! So now you're going to try to put someone else's words
>> >in my mouth? Words you've magnified to mean something they were never
>> >intended to mean?
>>
>> I told you it would happen. But you basically just told me
>> that I'm picking on him and I don't know what he will do
>> and that I shouldn't project my dealings with him onto yours.
>>
>> Well Linda... welcome to my world then! :)
>
> No, Dave, I just told you you didn't KNOW;
You said what I stated above, but as usual, won't face
the facts about yourself and have spent the last while
today trying to avoid my correct statements, that you
now know were correct. But that's you, as a Futurist.
And I told you that I did know and guess what? I did!
--
Pastor Dave, Th.D.
The very best Bible software: http://www.theword.net/ is free!
«::F::»«::U::»«::L::»«::F::»«::I::»«::L::»«::L::»«::E::»«::D::»
"Blessed is the nation whose God is the Lord."
- Psalm 33:12a
Message has been deleted
Linda Lee
Feb 18, 2012, 9:15:37 PM2/18/12
to
On Feb 18, 2:23 pm, Glance Life <glancel...@gospelsubject.org> wrote:
> On 2/18/2012 12:18 PM, Linda Lee wrote:
>
> >> > His words
> >> > necessitate nothing more or less than that He
> >> > bring Jews and Gentiles together as one body
> >> > in the "church", which is exactly what
> >> > Ephesians calls the "new man".
> > The new man is the individual believer with the indwelling Holy
> > Spirit.
>
> For he himself is our peace, who has made the
> two one and has destroyed the barrier, the
> dividing wall of hostility, by abolishing in
> his flesh the law with its commandments and
> regulations. His purpose was to create in
> himself one new man out of the two, thus
> making peace,
> (Ephesians 2:14-15 NIV)
That does not prove your point; it proves mine. And it does not refer
> On 2/18/2012 12:18 PM, Linda Lee wrote:
>
> >> > His words
> >> > necessitate nothing more or less than that He
> >> > bring Jews and Gentiles together as one body
> >> > in the "church", which is exactly what
> >> > Ephesians calls the "new man".
> > The new man is the individual believer with the indwelling Holy
> > Spirit.
>
> For he himself is our peace, who has made the
> two one and has destroyed the barrier, the
> dividing wall of hostility, by abolishing in
> his flesh the law with its commandments and
> regulations. His purpose was to create in
> himself one new man out of the two, thus
> making peace,
> (Ephesians 2:14-15 NIV)
to the church of God as a combination of Gentile and Jew.
What refers to the church of God is Christ saying he'd make one fold
of the fold of Israelites and "other sheep".
The "new man" is the "new creature"; each individual believer.
II Cor. 5:17 "Therefore if any man be in Christ, he is a new
creature: old things are passed away; behold, all things are become
new."
Eph. 4:24 "And that ye put on the new man, which after God is created
in righteousness and true holiness."
Linda Lee
Feb 18, 2012, 9:40:21 PM2/18/12
to
On Feb 18, 2:34 pm, "Pastor Dave, Th.D." <newsgroup-
Whatever. Everyone's a liar, and all Christians are "Futurists", and
the Earth will always be as it is now full of sinners because
EVERYTHING IS
«::F::»«::U::»«::L::»«::F::»«::I::»«::L::»«::L::»«::E::»«::D::», and
you're always "right". In your mind. But what you really are is a
big pain in the arse.
Glory to God wants to follow you around and give you back some of what
you give out here every day, if anyone deserves it, you do. It is far
from healthy for him though, and that is the only reason I said
anything to him about it, because it is certainly true that we should
"Answer not a fool according to his folly, lest thou also be like unto
him" (Prov. 26:4). But you've drawn to yourself someone just like you.
Are you happy now that you've managed to make the subject in this
thread all about you, and the abuse poor little you takes after you
attacked Randy as today's prime example of a lying Futurist? Randy's
right; you are somewhat demented, and I'm right when I've said you're
paranoid. And we're all right that you're a very dishonest person and
do the very things you falsely accuse others of doing, and you do them
daily to just about everyone. It's in writing Dave, so you can deny it
all you like, but everyone on the ngs that knows you knows better.
The only thing you're really interested in is attacking Christians and
whining that you're mistreated. You're a bore, Dave; I am not
interested in your drama, you big drama queen. You would try anyone's
patience.
>
> --
>
> Pastor Dave, Th.D.
>
> The very best Bible software:http://www.theword.net/is free!
the Earth will always be as it is now full of sinners because
EVERYTHING IS
«::F::»«::U::»«::L::»«::F::»«::I::»«::L::»«::L::»«::E::»«::D::», and
you're always "right". In your mind. But what you really are is a
big pain in the arse.
Glory to God wants to follow you around and give you back some of what
you give out here every day, if anyone deserves it, you do. It is far
from healthy for him though, and that is the only reason I said
anything to him about it, because it is certainly true that we should
"Answer not a fool according to his folly, lest thou also be like unto
him" (Prov. 26:4). But you've drawn to yourself someone just like you.
Are you happy now that you've managed to make the subject in this
thread all about you, and the abuse poor little you takes after you
attacked Randy as today's prime example of a lying Futurist? Randy's
right; you are somewhat demented, and I'm right when I've said you're
paranoid. And we're all right that you're a very dishonest person and
do the very things you falsely accuse others of doing, and you do them
daily to just about everyone. It's in writing Dave, so you can deny it
all you like, but everyone on the ngs that knows you knows better.
The only thing you're really interested in is attacking Christians and
whining that you're mistreated. You're a bore, Dave; I am not
interested in your drama, you big drama queen. You would try anyone's
patience.
>
> --
>
> Pastor Dave, Th.D.
>
> The very best Bible software:http://www.theword.net/is free!
Linda Lee
Feb 18, 2012, 9:58:44 PM2/18/12
to
On Feb 18, 2:20 pm, How Rejoicing <howrejoic...@putones.info> wrote:
> On 2/18/2012 12:18 PM, Linda Lee wrote:
>
> >> But see what I mean? Are you not embracing
> >> > the false, Gnostic dichotomy, that things
> >> > have to be EITHER spiritual, OR physical, but
> >> > can't be both at the same time?
> > Baloney. You are impossible to talk to; I am beginning to think you're
> > just dense and BLIND.
>
> Are you or are you not denying that spiritual
> God can be a physical human being at the same
> time? Or are you pleading the fifth, on the
> grounds that answering the question honestly
> might incriminate you?
I already answered your question. Why should I answer your same
> On 2/18/2012 12:18 PM, Linda Lee wrote:
>
> >> But see what I mean? Are you not embracing
> >> > the false, Gnostic dichotomy, that things
> >> > have to be EITHER spiritual, OR physical, but
> >> > can't be both at the same time?
> > Baloney. You are impossible to talk to; I am beginning to think you're
> > just dense and BLIND.
>
> Are you or are you not denying that spiritual
> God can be a physical human being at the same
> time? Or are you pleading the fifth, on the
> grounds that answering the question honestly
> might incriminate you?
question twice? NO! The answer is NO! You aren't being led to act like
Dave by copying his tactics; YOU ARE EXACTLY LIKE HIM, an attacker,
and a false accuser who twists people's words and accuses them of
believing things they don't believe because your own doctrine doesn't
gibe with all the Scriptures. Dave Junior! What a shame for you.
Here's the entire post where I answered you at length. See if you can
comprehend English. Oh, wait, I already know you can't comprehend
much, so let me pull out the answer in one sentence for you - I said,
"So no, I am not denying that Christ was human." (in the beginning of
my second paragraph below). And Christ is GOD. So let me put it
together for you. I am NOT denying that spiritual God can be a
physical human being at the same time.
On Feb 17, 10:56 pm, Which Every <whichev...@differsmade.org> wrote:
> On 2/17/2012 9:21 PM, Linda Lee wrote:
> > He is all about the physical; he can't imagine anything being not
> > physical.
> Are you contending that for something to be
> "spiritual", it can't include the physical?
Here we go! So now you're going to try to put someone else's words
in my mouth? Words you've magnified to mean something they were never
intended to mean?
a human being. So no, I am not denying that Christ was human. And I'm
not denying that "the Spirit of Christ" was "the Spirit of God"/Holy
Spirit, and I'm not denying that human believers have the indwelling
Holy Spirit, and I'm not denying that angels often appeared to others
to be men, and I am not denying or saying many things that you might
try to make that mean. I just cannot believe that Heaven contains
human beings when Heaven is the realm of angels and God!
How do you expect that to mix? Here's God, here's the host of angels,
and here's these saved saints in human form in the realm of
Heaven... ?!?!?!?!?
Maybe you are saying that believers don't go to Heaven? Are you
saying that following the resurrection of Christ, and his ascension
INTO HEAVEN (after which he was called "the Spirit"), believers who
die don't go to Heaven? Are you saying that when he returns to gather
believers to himself, he doesn't take them back to Heaven with him as
I Thess. 4:17 indicates?
Is that what you believe? That must be it. You're denying that
believers go to Heaven!!! That we'll be on Earth and that will never
end? Our sun will never fail as other suns do? Our planet will
continue forever?
That is really a sad expectation compared to an angelic state in
Heaven returned to God. I want Heaven and to be with God.
I Cor. 15:19, "If in THIS LIFE only we have hope in Christ, we are of
all men most miserable."
Luke 23:43 "And Jesus said unto him, Verily I say unto thee, To day
shalt thou BE WITH ME IN PARADISE."
I Thess. 4:17 "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."
I Thess. 4:17 is talking about Christ gathering believers to Heaven,
"in the CLOUDS"; "in the AIR", "and SO SHALL WE EVER BE WITH THE
LORD". Nothing is said about him then bringing them back to Earth in
an immortal human form.
> Why does a person have to deny what the Bible
> plainly teaches
I am not denying what the Bible plainly teaches. You seem to have
little understanding of what the Bible teaches.
> (e.g. the saints dead bodies
> will come back to life, Christ will return
> visibly in His risen, glorified, human body,
does NOT mean a wispy ghostly form. Nowhere do the Scriptures say he
returns in a human body; you are adding to the text. That he will be
recognizable doesn't mean he will look like every other human. The
apostles knew who he was when he was transfigured before him BEFORE
his death.
When Christ returns:
Mark 13:26 "And then shall they see the Son of man coming in the
clouds with great power and GLORY."
Luke 21:27 “And then shall they see the Son of man coming in a cloud
with power and great GLORY.”
Matt. 16:27 “For the Son of man shall come __in the power of his
Father__ with his angels; and then he shall reward every man according
to his works.”
Matt. 24:30 "And then shall appear the sign of the Son of man in
heaven: and then shall all the tribes of the earth mourn, and they
shall see the Son of man coming IN THE CLOUDS OF HEAVEN with power and
GREAT GLORY."
Luke 9:26 "For whosoever shall be ashamed of me and of my words, of
him shall the Son of man be ashamed, when he SHALL COME IN HIS OWN
GLORY, AND IN HIS FATHER'S, and of the holy angels."
The Messiah will return in the power and in the GLORY OF GOD; not just
like some human being hovering in the air! The Schekinah GLORY! The
GLORY of the FACE OF GOD that even Moses couldn't look upon without
being struck down dead in the flesh.
GOD SAID TO MOSES:
Exo 33:20 And he said, Thou canst not see my face: for THERE SHALL NO
MAN SEE ME, AND LIVE.
Exo 33:21 And the LORD said, Behold, there is a place by me, and thou
shalt stand upon a rock:
Exo 33:22 And it shall come to pass, while my GLORY passeth by, that
I will put thee in a clift of the rock, and will cover thee with my
hand while I pass by:
Exo 33:23 And I will take away mine hand, and thou shalt see my back
parts: but my face shall not be seen.
It is ironic that you call yourself "Glory of God" and seemingly
haven't ever contemplated The GLORY OF GOD. We can't imagine it as it
really is, but he will not be mundane and human-appearing.
Here John is speaking of beholding Christ when he was transfigured
before John, Peter, and James (in ):
John 1:14 "And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and WE
BEHELD HIS GLORY, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,)
full of grace and truth."
THE TRANSFIGURED CHRIST – PRIOR to his death and resurrection and
ascension:
Matt 17:2 "And was TRANSFIGURED before them: and his FACE DID SHINE
AS THE SUN, and his raiment was white as the light."
HOW is that a normal looking human being?
Here Christ is about to die and is speaking of having his former
GLORY:
John 17:5 "And now, O Father, glorify thou me with thine own self
with the GLORY which I had with thee before the world was."
Christ did NOT remain a human when he ascended into Heaven:
I Tim. 3:16 "And without controversy great is the mystery of
godliness: God was manifest in the flesh, justified in the Spirit,
seen of angels, preached unto the Gentiles, believed on in the world,
RECEIVED UP into GLORY."
And Christ said we will receive that GLORY when we become one with
him:
John 17:22 "And the GLORY which thou gavest me I HAVE GIVEN THEM;
that they may be one, even as we are one".
I Pet. 5:4 “And when the chief Shepherd shall appear, ye shall
receive a crown of GLORY that fadeth not away. “
II Cor. 3:18 "But WE ALL, with open face beholding as in a glass the
GLORY of the Lord, ARE CHANGED into the same image from GLORY to
GLORY, even as by the Spirit of the Lord."
And Paul hoped for that glory – not for an immortal human form:
Rom. 5:2 "By whom also we have access by faith into this grace
wherein we stand, and rejoice in hope of the GLORY of God."
Rom. 8:18 "For I reckon that the sufferings of this present time are
not worthy to be compared with the GLORY WHICH __SHALL BE REVEALED IN
US".__
I Cor. 15:43 says of believers in the body, and believers resurrected:
"It is sown in dishonour; it is RAISED IN GLORY: it is sown in
weakness; it is raised in power".
> just like they saw Him ascend, the kingdom
> will be literally restored to Israel, etc.),
> in order to be "spiritual", and why would
> excluding the physical aspects of these
> promises make them "spiritual", unless you're
> promoting a false, Gnostic dichotomy, where
> things have to be either "spiritual", or
> "physical", but can't be both at the same time?
I don't know why. Why are you so confused?
I also fail to see why you can't believe Christ when he says he has
other folds of sheep besides the lost sheep of Israel, and that he
will make them all of one fold with one Shepherd. You seem to want to
SHUT OUT THE GENTILE BELIEVERS COMPLETELY. WHY IS THAT? I can never
agree with THAT. The Messiah did not teach that and the apostles
including Paul never taught anything like that. The Messiah told the
apostles to spread the Gospel across the entire Earth; the Gospel and
salvation was not just for the Israelites.
John 10:16 the Messiah said, "And other sheep I have, which are not of
this fold: them also I must bring, and they shall hear my voice; and
there shall be fold, and one shepherd".
> --
> Someone might argue, "If my falsehood
> enhances God's truthfulness and so increases
> his glory, why am I still condemned as a
> sinner?" (Rom 3:7)
Your attempt to contend that Gentiles are not saved, and your seeming
denial that Christ is God who "is a Spirit" (John 4:24) does not
glorify God. And that is exactly what your purely human Jesus and
your denial of Christ's words that he as the good Shepherd has other
folds of sheep whom he said he would make into one fold with the lost
sheep of Israel does.
>
folds of sheep whom he said he would make into one fold with the lost
sheep of Israel does.
>
Linda Lee
Feb 18, 2012, 10:11:03 PM2/18/12
to
On Feb 18, 2:04 pm, Its Now <its...@seedsabundantly.net> wrote:
You're a damn liar who ignores Christ's own words and tries to shut
Gentiles out of the church of God and thinks believers don't go to
Heaven. And unfortunately, that is not twisting your words or your
beliefs.
Luke 23:43 "And Jesus said unto him, Verily I say unto thee, To day
shalt thou be with me in PARADISE."
Rev. 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."
Gee, I wonder why Christ didn't tell him YOUR version of the "truth";
that someday Christ live on the Earth with him in a few thousand or
more years.
Psa 23:1 "A Psalm of David. The LORD is my shepherd; I shall not
want."
Christ said:
John 10:16 "And other sheep I have, which are not of this fold: them
ONE UNITED CHURCH OF GOD, CONTAINING BOTH ISRAELITES AND _GENTILES._
You cannot take the hope of salvation and eternal life in Heaven with
God away from Gentile Christians.
> On 2/18/2012 11:49 AM, Linda Lee wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Feb 18, 12:20 pm, "Pastor Dave, Th.D."<newsgroup-
> > mail@tampa_bay_rr.com> wrote:
> >> > On Sat, 18 Feb 2012 08:13:05 -0800 (PST), Linda Lee
>
> >> > <lyndalee8...@juno.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Feb 18, 12:20 pm, "Pastor Dave, Th.D."<newsgroup-
> > mail@tampa_bay_rr.com> wrote:
> >> > On Sat, 18 Feb 2012 08:13:05 -0800 (PST), Linda Lee
>
> >> > <lyndalee8...@juno.com> wrote:
> >>> > > On Feb 17, 10:56 pm, Which Every<whichev...@differsmade.org> wrote:
>
> >>>> > >> On 2/17/2012 9:21 PM, Linda Lee wrote:
>
> >>>>> > >> > He is all about the physical; he can't imagine anything being not
> >>>>> > >> > physical.
>
> >>>> > >> Are you contending that for something to be
> >>>> > >> "spiritual", it can't include the physical?
>
> >>> > >Here we go! So now you're going to try to put someone else's words
> >>> > >in my mouth? Words you've magnified to mean something they were never
> >>> > >intended to mean?
>
>
> >>>> > >> On 2/17/2012 9:21 PM, Linda Lee wrote:
>
> >>>>> > >> > He is all about the physical; he can't imagine anything being not
> >>>>> > >> > physical.
>
> >>>> > >> Are you contending that for something to be
> >>>> > >> "spiritual", it can't include the physical?
>
> >>> > >Here we go! So now you're going to try to put someone else's words
> >>> > >in my mouth? Words you've magnified to mean something they were never
> >>> > >intended to mean?
>
> >> > I told you it would happen. But you basically just told me
> >> > that I'm picking on him and I don't know what he will do
> >> > and that I shouldn't project my dealings with him onto yours.
>
> >> > Well Linda... welcome to my world then!:)
>
> >> > that I'm picking on him and I don't know what he will do
> >> > and that I shouldn't project my dealings with him onto yours.
>
> >> > Well Linda... welcome to my world then!:)
>
> > Are you just now seeing you're not the only one ever harassed on the
> > ngs?
>
> Notice neither of them answers the question.
> They just play the victim, since answering
> the question would expose them as the ones
> promoting a false dichotomy that says things
> > ngs?
>
> Notice neither of them answers the question.
> They just play the victim, since answering
> the question would expose them as the ones
> have to be EITHER spiritual, OR physical, but
> not both at the same time.
You're a damn liar who ignores Christ's own words and tries to shut
Gentiles out of the church of God and thinks believers don't go to
Heaven. And unfortunately, that is not twisting your words or your
beliefs.
Luke 23:43 "And Jesus said unto him, Verily I say unto thee, To day
Rev. 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."
Gee, I wonder why Christ didn't tell him YOUR version of the "truth";
that someday Christ live on the Earth with him in a few thousand or
more years.
Psa 23:1 "A Psalm of David. The LORD is my shepherd; I shall not
want."
Christ said:
John 10:16 "And other sheep I have, which are not of this fold: them
also I must bring, and they shall hear my voice; and there shall be
ONE FOLD, and ONE SHEPHERD."
ONE UNITED CHURCH OF GOD, CONTAINING BOTH ISRAELITES AND _GENTILES._
You cannot take the hope of salvation and eternal life in Heaven with
God away from Gentile Christians.
Linda Lee
Feb 18, 2012, 10:14:41 PM2/18/12
to
On Feb 18, 4:14 pm, Pete <*@*> wrote:
> On Sat, 18 Feb 2012 11:41:54 -0500, "Pastor Dave, Th.D."
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> <newsgroup-mail@tampa_bay_rr.com> wrote:
> > to avoid being called a Futurist, but a Futurist
> > is what you are, if you believe that there are
> > any prophecies that have yet to be fulfilled.
>
> > Why are you being so obtuse? Think about it...
>
> > "Future fulfillment" ... "Futurism".
>
> > Is it really that tough for you to make this leap? :)
>
> Yes, because words mean something. I showed you two variances and many
> people side with each. So if I were to grant you the usage according to
> what you say you think, in its simplest form then many would have a fare
> different view than you. And even you lean to one or the other of those
> definitions by virtue of being a Preterist.
>
> Millenialist(sp) I would find far more palatable, and biblical.
Dave doesn't want to hear logic; he likes to label people, and he has
his own personal definition of a Futurist. According to Dave,
everything's been fulfilled and the Earth will continue just like it
is, full of evil people, FOREVER; only the players will change. What
you see is what you get.
> On Sat, 18 Feb 2012 11:41:54 -0500, "Pastor Dave, Th.D."
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> <newsgroup-mail@tampa_bay_rr.com> wrote:
> > On Fri, 17 Feb 2012 21:10:04 -0800, Pete <*@*> wrote:
>
> >>On Fri, 17 Feb 2012 21:12:05 -0500, "Pastor Dave, Th.D."
> >><newsgroup-mail@tampa_bay_rr.com> wrote:
>
>
> >>On Fri, 17 Feb 2012 21:12:05 -0500, "Pastor Dave, Th.D."
> >><newsgroup-mail@tampa_bay_rr.com> wrote:
>
> >>> On Fri, 17 Feb 2012 08:37:26 -0800 (PST), Linda Lee
> >>> <lyndalee8...@juno.com> wrote:
>
> >>>>> So tell me, how am I lying when I state very clearly that
> >>>>> Futurists do not care what the Bible has to say,
>
> >>>> You've many times falsely called me a Futurist
>
> >>> You are a Futurist. Anyone who believes that there are
> >>> prophecies in the Bible that still have yet to be fulfilled,
> >>> is a Futurist. That's what it means.
>
> >> In direct opposition to historicism, and rising up
> >> a razor-sharp counterattack against Protestantism,
> >> was the Jesuit viewpoint of futurism. Futurism
> >> states that the Antichrist prophecies have nothing
> >> to do with history or papal Rome but rather apply
> >> to only one sinister man who comes at the end
> >> of time.
>
> > You can try to redefine it any way you want,
> >>> <lyndalee8...@juno.com> wrote:
>
> >>>>> So tell me, how am I lying when I state very clearly that
> >>>>> Futurists do not care what the Bible has to say,
>
> >>>> You've many times falsely called me a Futurist
>
> >>> You are a Futurist. Anyone who believes that there are
> >>> prophecies in the Bible that still have yet to be fulfilled,
> >>> is a Futurist. That's what it means.
>
> >> In direct opposition to historicism, and rising up
> >> a razor-sharp counterattack against Protestantism,
> >> was the Jesuit viewpoint of futurism. Futurism
> >> states that the Antichrist prophecies have nothing
> >> to do with history or papal Rome but rather apply
> >> to only one sinister man who comes at the end
> >> of time.
>
> > to avoid being called a Futurist, but a Futurist
> > is what you are, if you believe that there are
> > any prophecies that have yet to be fulfilled.
>
> > Why are you being so obtuse? Think about it...
>
> > "Future fulfillment" ... "Futurism".
>
> > Is it really that tough for you to make this leap? :)
>
> Yes, because words mean something. I showed you two variances and many
> people side with each. So if I were to grant you the usage according to
> what you say you think, in its simplest form then many would have a fare
> different view than you. And even you lean to one or the other of those
> definitions by virtue of being a Preterist.
>
> Millenialist(sp) I would find far more palatable, and biblical.
Dave doesn't want to hear logic; he likes to label people, and he has
his own personal definition of a Futurist. According to Dave,
everything's been fulfilled and the Earth will continue just like it
is, full of evil people, FOREVER; only the players will change. What
you see is what you get.
Take Church
Feb 18, 2012, 11:29:34 PM2/18/12
to
On 2/18/2012 8:15 PM, Linda Lee wrote:
> On Feb 18, 2:23 pm, Glance Life<glancel...@gospelsubject.org> wrote:
>> > On 2/18/2012 12:18 PM, Linda Lee wrote:
>> >
>>>>> > >> > His words
>>>>> > >> > necessitate nothing more or less than that He
>>>>> > >> > bring Jews and Gentiles together as one body
>>>>> > >> > in the "church", which is exactly what
>>>>> > >> > Ephesians calls the "new man".
>>> > > The new man is the individual believer with the indwelling Holy
>>> > > Spirit.
>> >
>> > For he himself is our peace, who has made the
>> > two one and has destroyed the barrier, the
>> > dividing wall of hostility, by abolishing in
>> > his flesh the law with its commandments and
>> > regulations. His purpose was to create in
>> > himself one new man out of the two, thus
>> > making peace,
>> > (Ephesians 2:14-15 NIV)
>
> That does not prove your point; it proves mine.
When I tell someone a passage they cite
> On Feb 18, 2:23 pm, Glance Life<glancel...@gospelsubject.org> wrote:
>> > On 2/18/2012 12:18 PM, Linda Lee wrote:
>> >
>>>>> > >> > His words
>>>>> > >> > necessitate nothing more or less than that He
>>>>> > >> > bring Jews and Gentiles together as one body
>>>>> > >> > in the "church", which is exactly what
>>>>> > >> > Ephesians calls the "new man".
>>> > > The new man is the individual believer with the indwelling Holy
>>> > > Spirit.
>> >
>> > For he himself is our peace, who has made the
>> > two one and has destroyed the barrier, the
>> > dividing wall of hostility, by abolishing in
>> > his flesh the law with its commandments and
>> > regulations. His purpose was to create in
>> > himself one new man out of the two, thus
>> > making peace,
>> > (Ephesians 2:14-15 NIV)
>
> That does not prove your point; it proves mine.
doesn't support their view, I state why I
believe that to be the case, from the text
itself.
I don't consider someone telling me they are
right and I am wrong, to be a refutation. If
you're happy with that, then so be it, but
I'm not going to scrap my understanding of
Scripture, and try to come up with something
new and different, just because you said "not".
Your point was that the "new man" referred to
the individual believer (which it does), but
you seemed to imply by that, that it
therefore means the church where Jews and
Gentiles are brought together as one body is
not called a "new man". It is, and that's
exactly what Ephesians chapters 2 and 3 state.
> And it does not refer
> to the church of God as a combination of Gentile and Jew.
Gentiles are heirs together with Israel,
members together of one body, and sharers
together in the promise in Christ Jesus.
His intent was that now, through the CHURCH,
the manifold wisdom of God should be made
known to the rulers and authorities in the
heavenly realms,
(Ephesians 3:6,10 NIV)
> What refers to the church of God is Christ saying he'd make one fold
> of the fold of Israelites and "other sheep".
"Israel" in that passage. You ASSUME that
because the two are brought together as one
FLOCK, that it must therefore be the same old
flock of "Israel". It does not say or
necessitate that, and the NT calls that one
flock the "church" 115 times, but never "Israel".
> The "new man" is the "new creature"; each individual believer.
>
> II Cor. 5:17 "Therefore if any man be in Christ, he is a new
> creature: old things are passed away; behold, all things are become
> new."
>
> Eph. 4:24 "And that ye put on the new man, which after God is created
> in righteousness and true holiness."
the one body of Jews and Gentiles a "new man"
in Ephesians 2, and the "church" in Ephesians 3.
--
Now if we are children, then we are
heirs—heirs of God and co-heirs with Christ,
if indeed we share in his sufferings in order
that we may also share in his glory. (Rom 8:17)
Knowing Life
Feb 18, 2012, 11:43:18 PM2/18/12
to
On 2/18/2012 8:40 PM, Linda Lee wrote:
> Whatever. Everyone's a liar, and all Christians are "Futurists", and
> the Earth will always be as it is now full of sinners because
> EVERYTHING IS
> «::F::»«::U::»«::L::»«::F::»«::I::»«::L::»«::L::»«::E::»«::D::», and
> you're always "right". In your mind. But what you really are is a
> big pain in the arse.
>
> Glory to God wants to follow you around and give you back some of what
> you give out here every day, if anyone deserves it, you do. It is far
> from healthy for him though, and that is the only reason I said
> anything to him about it, because it is certainly true that we should
> "Answer not a fool according to his folly, lest thou also be like unto
> him" (Prov. 26:4). But you've drawn to yourself someone just like you.
But also..
> Whatever. Everyone's a liar, and all Christians are "Futurists", and
> the Earth will always be as it is now full of sinners because
> EVERYTHING IS
> «::F::»«::U::»«::L::»«::F::»«::I::»«::L::»«::L::»«::E::»«::D::», and
> you're always "right". In your mind. But what you really are is a
> big pain in the arse.
>
> Glory to God wants to follow you around and give you back some of what
> you give out here every day, if anyone deserves it, you do. It is far
> from healthy for him though, and that is the only reason I said
> anything to him about it, because it is certainly true that we should
> "Answer not a fool according to his folly, lest thou also be like unto
> him" (Prov. 26:4). But you've drawn to yourself someone just like you.
Answer a fool according to his folly, or he
will be wise in his own eyes. (Proverbs
26:4-5 NIV)
> Are you happy now that you've managed to make the subject in this
> thread all about you, and the abuse poor little you takes after you
> attacked Randy as today's prime example of a lying Futurist? Randy's
> right; you are somewhat demented, and I'm right when I've said you're
> paranoid. And we're all right that you're a very dishonest person and
> do the very things you falsely accuse others of doing, and you do them
> daily to just about everyone. It's in writing Dave, so you can deny it
> all you like, but everyone on the ngs that knows you knows better.
> The only thing you're really interested in is attacking Christians and
> whining that you're mistreated. You're a bore, Dave; I am not
> interested in your drama, you big drama queen. You would try anyone's
> patience.
<chuckle>
--
For no matter how many promises God has made,
they are "Yes" in Christ. And so through him
the "Amen" is spoken by us to the glory of
God. (2Co 1:20)
Linda Lee
Feb 18, 2012, 11:57:47 PM2/18/12
to
I said, "you've drawn to yourself someone just like you" (because
you've done to me also what you're doing to Dave, so it isn't just you
mimicking Dave's behavior to Dave), so I don't know what you're
chuckling and applauding about.
Someone Born
Feb 19, 2012, 12:02:56 AM2/19/12
to
On 2/18/2012 8:58 PM, Linda Lee wrote:
> I just cannot believe that Heaven contains
> human beings when Heaven is the realm of angels and God!
> How do you expect that to mix?
It already mixed. Jesus came to earth as God
> I just cannot believe that Heaven contains
> human beings when Heaven is the realm of angels and God!
> How do you expect that to mix?
in the flesh. When does the Bible say it
unmixed? Why would there be no problem for
the two to mix on earth, then suddenly it
becomes a problem when Jesus goes back to
heaven, especially when Jesus' human body is
now in it's glorified condition?
Colossians 2:9 says Christ lives (present
tense, post- ascension) in bodily
("physically" - Strongs) form. And that book
wasn't written to refute the lie that God
doesn't have a bodily, spiritual form, but
that spiritual God could not become a
physical man.
--
and exchanged the glory of the immortal God
for images made to look like mortal man and
birds and animals and reptiles. (Rom 1:23)
Linda Lee
Feb 19, 2012, 12:30:25 AM2/19/12
to
On Feb 19, 12:02 am, Someone Born <someoneb...@throughfruit.org>
wrote:
Jude 1:14 And Enoch also, the seventh from Adam, prophesied of these,
saying, Behold, the Lord cometh with ten thousands of his saints,
Jud 1:15 To execute judgment upon all,
That prophesy in Jude 1:14 is concerning the return of Christ, and so
are these three below that are in Christ's own words, where the
“SAINTS” accompanying him on his return in judgment are identified as
ANGELS:
Matt. 16:27 “For the Son of man shall come in the glory of his Father
holy angels with him, then shall he sit upon the throne of his
glory”.
Luke 9:26 “For whosoever shall be ashamed of me and of my words, of
him shall the Son of man be ashamed, when he shall come in his own
glory, and in his Father's, and of the holy angels.”
wrote:
saying, Behold, the Lord cometh with ten thousands of his saints,
Jud 1:15 To execute judgment upon all,
That prophesy in Jude 1:14 is concerning the return of Christ, and so
are these three below that are in Christ's own words, where the
“SAINTS” accompanying him on his return in judgment are identified as
ANGELS:
Matt. 16:27 “For the Son of man shall come in the glory of his Father
with his angels; and then he shall reward every man according to his
works.”
Matt. 25:31 “When the Son of man shall come in his glory, and all the
works.”
holy angels with him, then shall he sit upon the throne of his
glory”.
Luke 9:26 “For whosoever shall be ashamed of me and of my words, of
glory, and in his Father's, and of the holy angels.”
Linda Lee
Feb 19, 2012, 12:10:35 AM2/19/12
to
> On 2/18/2012 8:58 PM, Linda Lee wrote:
>
> > I just cannot believe that Heaven contains
> > human beings when Heaven is the realm of angels and God!
> > How do you expect that to mix?
>
> It already mixed. Jesus came to earth as God
> in the flesh. When does the Bible say it
> unmixed?
The Bible says in John 4:24 that "God is a Spirit", and John wrote
>
> > I just cannot believe that Heaven contains
> > human beings when Heaven is the realm of angels and God!
> > How do you expect that to mix?
>
> It already mixed. Jesus came to earth as God
> in the flesh. When does the Bible say it
> unmixed?
that AFTER the Messiah lived, died, resurrected and ascended back to
Heaven. That's WHEN.
Why would there be no problem for
> the two to mix on earth, then suddenly it
> becomes a problem when Jesus goes back to
> heaven, especially when Jesus' human body is
> now in it's glorified condition?
>
> Colossians 2:9 says Christ lives (present
> tense, post- ascension) in bodily
> ("physically" - Strongs) form. And that book
> wasn't written to refute the lie that God
> doesn't have a bodily, spiritual form, but
> that spiritual God could not become a
> physical man.
>
> --
> and exchanged the glory of the immortal God
> for images made to look like mortal man and
> birds and animals and reptiles. (Rom 1:23)
4:24); they don't remain on Earth:
In John 18:36 CHRIST SAID, "MY KINGDOM IS _NOT_ OF THIS WORLD: if my
kingdom were of this world, then would my servants fight, that I
should not be delivered to the Jews: but NOW is my kingdom _NOT_ from
hence.
Rev. 11:12 “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.”
Rev. 19:1 “And after these things I heard a great voice of MUCH
PEOPLE IN HEAVEN, saying, Alleluia; Salvation, and glory, and honour,
and power, unto the Lord our God”.
Rev. 19:14 "And the ARMIES which were IN HEAVEN followed him upon
white horses, _clothed in fine linen,_ white and clean. ("for the fine
linen is the righteousness of SAINTS" - Rev. 19:8).
Matt. 5:3 "Blessed are the poor in spirit: for theirs is the KINGDOM
of HEAVEN."
CHRIST SAID:
Matt. 5:10 "Blessed are they which are persecuted for righteousness'
sake: for theirs is the KINGDOM of HEAVEN."
CHRIST SAID:
Matt. 5:12 "Rejoice, and be exceeding glad: for great is your reward
IN HEAVEN: for so persecuted they the prophets which were before
you."
CHRIST SAID:
Matt. 8:11 "And I say unto you, That many shall come from the east
and west, and shall sit down with Abraham, and Isaac, and Jacob, IN
THE KINGDOM OF HEAVEN."
CHRIST SAID:
Matt. 18:10 "Take heed that ye despise not one of these little ones;
for I say unto you, That IN HEAVEN THEIR ANGELS DO ALWAYS BEHOLD THE
FACE OF MY FATHER WHICH IS IN HEAVEN."
Col. 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”.
Linda Lee
Feb 19, 2012, 12:36:46 AM2/19/12
to
Jude 1:14 And Enoch also, the seventh from Adam, prophesied of these,
saying, Behold, the Lord cometh with ten thousands of his saints,
Jud 1:15 To execute judgment upon all,
That prophesy in Jude 1:14 is concerning the return of Christ, and so
are these three below that are in Christ's own words, where the
“SAINTS” accompanying him on his return in judgment are identified as
ANGELS:
Matt. 16:27 “For the Son of man shall come in the glory of his Father
with his angels; and then he shall reward every man according to his
works.”
Matt. 25:31 “When the Son of man shall come in his glory, and all the
holy angels with him, then shall he sit upon the throne of his
glory”.
Luke 9:26 “For whosoever shall be ashamed of me and of my words, of
him shall the Son of man be ashamed, when he shall come in his own
glory, and in his Father's, and of the holy angels.”
In Matt. 22:30 Christ said, "For in the resurrection they neither
saying, Behold, the Lord cometh with ten thousands of his saints,
Jud 1:15 To execute judgment upon all,
That prophesy in Jude 1:14 is concerning the return of Christ, and so
are these three below that are in Christ's own words, where the
“SAINTS” accompanying him on his return in judgment are identified as
ANGELS:
Matt. 16:27 “For the Son of man shall come in the glory of his Father
with his angels; and then he shall reward every man according to his
works.”
Matt. 25:31 “When the Son of man shall come in his glory, and all the
holy angels with him, then shall he sit upon the throne of his
glory”.
Luke 9:26 “For whosoever shall be ashamed of me and of my words, of
him shall the Son of man be ashamed, when he shall come in his own
glory, and in his Father's, and of the holy angels.”
marry, nor are given in marriage, but are as the angels of God in
heaven."
Sound No
Feb 19, 2012, 1:42:27 AM2/19/12
to
On 2/18/2012 9:11 PM, Linda Lee wrote:
> On Feb 18, 2:04 pm, Its Now<its...@seedsabundantly.net> wrote:
>> Notice neither of them answers the question.
>> They just play the victim, since answering
>> the question would expose them as the ones
>> promoting a false dichotomy that says things
>> have to be EITHER spiritual, OR physical, but
>> not both at the same time.
>
>
> You're a damn liar who ignores Christ's own words and tries to shut
> Gentiles out of the church of God and thinks believers don't go to
> Heaven. And unfortunately, that is not twisting your words or your
> beliefs.
Denying the church is "Israel" is not the
> On Feb 18, 2:04 pm, Its Now<its...@seedsabundantly.net> wrote:
>> Notice neither of them answers the question.
>> They just play the victim, since answering
>> the question would expose them as the ones
>> promoting a false dichotomy that says things
>> have to be EITHER spiritual, OR physical, but
>> not both at the same time.
>
>
> You're a damn liar who ignores Christ's own words and tries to shut
> Gentiles out of the church of God and thinks believers don't go to
> Heaven. And unfortunately, that is not twisting your words or your
> beliefs.
same as denying Gentiles are saved. Jews and
Gentiles are brought together in one body as
the "church" (Eph. 2 - 3), not as "Israel".
> Luke 23:43 "And Jesus said unto him, Verily I say unto thee, To day
> shalt thou be with me in PARADISE."
>
> Rev. 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."
>
> Gee, I wonder why Christ didn't tell him YOUR version of the "truth";
> that someday Christ live on the Earth with him in a few thousand or
> more years.
bring believers who have died back with Him,
to raise them from the dead (1 Thess.
4:13-18), proves:
1. You go to be with Jesus when you die.
2. You won't be reunited with your physical
body to be
raised from the dead till Christ comes
back with you.
Not to mention that some will still be alive
when the Lord returns, but will also have
their mortal bodies changed (1 Cor. 15:52-54;
1 Thess. 4:13-18). What do you contend
happens to their human bodies? Do they have
to be killed, because human bodies aren't
allowed in heaven?
No, 1 Corinthians 15 says "we shall not all
sleep", but we "shall all be changed".
Living believers won't be killed when the
Lord returns. Their human bodies will be
transformed, just like those who are raised
from the dead.
> Psa 23:1 "A Psalm of David. The LORD is my shepherd; I shall not
> want."
>
> Christ said:
> John 10:16 "And other sheep I have, which are not of this fold: them
> also I must bring, and they shall hear my voice; and there shall be
> ONE FOLD, and ONE SHEPHERD."
>
> ONE UNITED CHURCH OF GOD, CONTAINING BOTH ISRAELITES AND _GENTILES._
>
> You cannot take the hope of salvation and eternal life in Heaven with
> God away from Gentile Christians.
the same as denying Gentiles are saved. Jews
and Gentiles are brought together as one in
the "church", not as "Israel". Don't blame me
for repeating myself.
Linda Lee
Feb 19, 2012, 2:39:17 AM2/19/12
to
returns at the end of time?! Well, then you must think Christ lied to
the thief on the cross when he said he'd be in Paradise with him.
Maybe he was just trying to make the thief feel better?
Ever read this one?
2Co 5:8 "We are confident, I say, and willing rather to be absent
from the body, and to be present with the Lord."
Ever read this one (it's speaking of the human body as "the dust")?
Ecc. 12:7 "Then shall the dust return to the earth as it was: and the
spirit shall return unto God who gave it."
Ever read this one?
Hos. 6:2 "After two days will he revive us: in the third day he will
raise us up, and we shall live in his sight."
I really don't know where you're getting your information, but it is
not biblical. You seem to just ignore a lot of the Scriptures and
misinterpret others.
>
> 1. You go to be with Jesus when you die.
>
> 2. You won't be reunited with your physical
> body to be
> raised from the dead till Christ comes
> back with you.
dead but "with Jesus" until the end of time, and then they're
resurrected from the dead. In fact, believers possess eternal life
before they die.
>
> Not to mention that some will still be alive
> when the Lord returns, but will also have
> their mortal bodies changed (1 Cor. 15:52-54;
> 1 Thess. 4:13-18). What do you contend
> happens to their human bodies? Do they have
> to be killed, because human bodies aren't
> allowed in heaven?
transfigured while still in his human body; obviously still being
alive in the flesh doesn't prevent the transformation.
>
> No, 1 Corinthians 15 says "we shall not all
> sleep", but we "shall all be changed".
> Living believers won't be killed when the
> Lord returns. Their human bodies will be
> transformed, just like those who are raised
> from the dead.
resurrect from the dead?
>
> > Psa 23:1 "A Psalm of David. The LORD is my shepherd; I shall not
> > want."
>
> > Christ said:
> > John 10:16 "And other sheep I have, which are not of this fold: them
> > also I must bring, and they shall hear my voice; and there shall be
> > ONE FOLD, and ONE SHEPHERD."
>
> > ONE UNITED CHURCH OF GOD, CONTAINING BOTH ISRAELITES AND _GENTILES._
>
> > You cannot take the hope of salvation and eternal life in Heaven with
> > God away from Gentile Christians.
>
> Again, denying the church is "Israel" is not
> the same as denying Gentiles are saved.
ultimately only be one fold of sheep, and he is our shepherd. and you
reject Paul's words in Romans 11 that we (the Gentile "branches") are
graffed into the olive tree that is Israel.
And you reject Paul's words here:
Rom 2:28 For he is not a Jew, which is one outwardly; neither is that
circumcision, which is outward in the flesh:
Rom 2:29 But he is a Jew, which is one inwardly; and circumcision is
that of the heart, in the spirit, and not in the letter; whose praise
is not of men, but of God.
> Jews
> and Gentiles are brought together as one in
> the "church", not as "Israel".
> Don't blame me
> for repeating myself.
think.
Under Fall
Feb 19, 2012, 2:53:25 AM2/19/12
to
On 2/18/2012 11:10 PM, Linda Lee wrote:
> On Feb 19, 12:02 am, Someone Born<someoneb...@throughfruit.org>
> wrote:
>> > On 2/18/2012 8:58 PM, Linda Lee wrote:
>> >
>>> > > I just cannot believe that Heaven contains
>>> > > human beings when Heaven is the realm of angels and God!
>>> > > How do you expect that to mix?
>> >
>> > It already mixed. Jesus came to earth as God
>> > in the flesh. When does the Bible say it
>> > unmixed?
> The Bible says in John 4:24 that "God is a Spirit", and John wrote
> that AFTER the Messiah lived, died, resurrected and ascended back to
> Heaven. That's WHEN.
*scratches head*
> On Feb 19, 12:02 am, Someone Born<someoneb...@throughfruit.org>
> wrote:
>> > On 2/18/2012 8:58 PM, Linda Lee wrote:
>> >
>>> > > I just cannot believe that Heaven contains
>>> > > human beings when Heaven is the realm of angels and God!
>>> > > How do you expect that to mix?
>> >
>> > It already mixed. Jesus came to earth as God
>> > in the flesh. When does the Bible say it
>> > unmixed?
> The Bible says in John 4:24 that "God is a Spirit", and John wrote
> that AFTER the Messiah lived, died, resurrected and ascended back to
> Heaven. That's WHEN.
And your point is? How is the fact God is a
Spirit supposed to prohibit God from dwelling
in or with a human body, since if it did, He
couldn't have become a man to begin with, or
sent the Spirit to dwell in men?
--
Now to the King eternal, immortal, invisible,
the only God, be honor and glory for ever and
ever. Amen. (1Ti 1:17)
Such Mystery
Feb 19, 2012, 4:03:15 AM2/19/12
to
On 2/18/2012 11:10 PM, Linda Lee wrote:
Sorry, didn't see this in the previous
response, because you posted it under my
signature.
>> > Why would there be no problem for
>> > the two to mix on earth, then suddenly it
>> > becomes a problem when Jesus goes back to
>> > heaven, especially when Jesus' human body is
>> > now in it's glorified condition?
>> >
>> > Colossians 2:9 says Christ lives (present
>> > tense, post- ascension) in bodily
>> > ("physically" - Strongs) form. And that book
>> > wasn't written to refute the lie that God
>> > doesn't have a bodily, spiritual form, but
>> > that spiritual God could not become a
>> > physical man.
> Believers go to HEAVEN with God/Christ who now "is a Spirit" (John
> 4:24); they don't remain on Earth:
> 4:24); they don't remain on Earth:
The fact that when Christ comes, He will
bring believers who have died back with Him,
to raise them from the dead (1 Thess.
4:13-18), proves:
bring believers who have died back with Him,
to raise them from the dead (1 Thess.
4:13-18), proves:
1. You go to be with Jesus when you die.
2. You won't be reunited with your physical
body to be
raised from the dead till Christ comes
back with you.
2. You won't be reunited with your physical
body to be
raised from the dead till Christ comes
back with you.
Not to mention that some will still be alive
when the Lord returns, but will also have
their mortal bodies changed (1 Cor. 15:52-54;
1 Thess. 4:13-18). What do you contend
happens to their human bodies? Do they have
to be killed, because human bodies aren't
allowed in heaven?
when the Lord returns, but will also have
their mortal bodies changed (1 Cor. 15:52-54;
1 Thess. 4:13-18). What do you contend
happens to their human bodies? Do they have
to be killed, because human bodies aren't
allowed in heaven?
No, 1 Corinthians 15 says "we shall not all
sleep", but we "shall all be changed". Living
believers won't be killed when the Lord
returns. Their human bodies will be
"transformed", just like those who are raised
sleep", but we "shall all be changed". Living
believers won't be killed when the Lord
returns. Their human bodies will be
from the dead.
> In John 18:36 CHRIST SAID, "MY KINGDOM IS_NOT_ OF THIS WORLD: if my
> kingdom were of this world, then would my servants fight, that I
> should not be delivered to the Jews: but NOW is my kingdom_NOT_ from
> hence.
Which is correct. Immediately after Israel
> should not be delivered to the Jews: but NOW is my kingdom_NOT_ from
> hence.
rejected Him as King, by attributing His
power to cast out demons to Satan in chapter
12, Jesus introduced the "secret" form of the
kingdom (which is the church age), and began
speaking to the Jews in parables, while
explaining everything to the disciples
(Matthew 13).
Paul confirms that Israel was set aside to
bring in the fullness of the Gentiles
("mystery" of the church) and provoke Israel
to jealousy, so she could be saved. Thus,
His servants won't fight, and He won't come
back to save Israel from the kings of the
earth until the fullness of the Gentiles be
come in (Rom. 11:25ff.).
After they come in, Revelation 19 shows He
comes back with the saints to wage war on the
kings of the earth, and rule them with a rod
of iron. At that time, His servants WILL
fight and defeat the kings of the earth, and
He will establish His rule on this earth for
1,000 years (Rev. 19 - 20).
> Rev. 11:12 “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.”
>
> Rev. 19:1 “And after these things I heard a great voice of MUCH
> PEOPLE IN HEAVEN, saying, Alleluia; Salvation, and glory, and honour,
> and power, unto the Lord our God”.
>
> Rev. 19:14 "And the ARMIES which were IN HEAVEN followed him upon
> white horses, _clothed in fine linen,_ white and clean. ("for the fine
> linen is the righteousness of SAINTS" - Rev. 19:8).
from heaven, to the marriage supper on earth,
where they will dine on the flesh of the
kings of the EARTH in battle, then rule the
nations with a rod of iron (Rev. 19 - 20).
> Matt. 5:3 "Blessed are the poor in spirit: for theirs is the KINGDOM
> of HEAVEN."
Matthew's gospel. Matthew was primarily
written to Jews, explaining about Messiah and
His promised kingdom to Israel.
As noted above, Jesus was offering the Jews
the literal restoration of their kingdom in
fulfillment of OT prophecy, until the leaders
rejected it in Matthew 12, after which He
introduced the "secret" and "mystery" form of
the kingdom, which is the church age.
So in Matthew 5, Jesus was still offering the
literal restoration of the kingdom to Israel,
and that includes a literal reign on this
earth, as is evident from the following
verses you omitted in Matthew 5:5:
Blessed are the meek: for they shall inherit
the earth.
(Matthew 5:5)
and in how he taught them to pray in Matthew 6:
Your kingdom come. Your will be done in
earth, as it is in heaven.
(Matthew 6:10)
None of this presents any problem at all to
someone who understands that God's kingdom is
not limited to EITHER earth, OR heaven. It's
both earth and heaven. There will be a
literal restoration of the kingdom to Israel
for a thousand years, and then there will be
an eternity in the new heavens and earth
(Rev. 21 - 22).
> CHRIST SAID:
> Matt. 5:10 "Blessed are they which are persecuted for righteousness'
> sake: for theirs is the KINGDOM of HEAVEN."
> CHRIST SAID:
> Matt. 5:12 "Rejoice, and be exceeding glad: for great is your reward
> IN HEAVEN: for so persecuted they the prophets which were before
> you."
things as if they have to be either/or? God's
program for Israel also includes a literal
restoration of her kingdom.
> CHRIST SAID:
> Matt. 8:11 "And I say unto you, That many shall come from the east
> and west, and shall sit down with Abraham, and Isaac, and Jacob, IN
> THE KINGDOM OF HEAVEN."
that it therefore means that kingdom will be
fulfilled exclusively in heaven. The kingdom
of heaven includes God's will being done on
earth as it is in heaven, and that is the
kingdom Jesus told Israel to pray would come,
so that His will would be done on earth as it
is in heaven.
> CHRIST SAID:
> Matt. 18:10 "Take heed that ye despise not one of these little ones;
> for I say unto you, That IN HEAVEN THEIR ANGELS DO ALWAYS BEHOLD THE
> FACE OF MY FATHER WHICH IS IN HEAVEN."
angels of the little ones who are on earth
are with God now in heaven. Thus, you'd
better not mess with the little ones, or
their angels might tell on you, then you'll
get your ass kicked.
Nothing in that prohibits His kingdom from
coming to earth and His will being done on
earth. In fact, knowing that promotes God's
will being done on earth.
Did you just look up the word heaven, and
throw in everything?
> Col. 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”.
someone who understands that God's kingdom is
not limited to EITHER earth, OR heaven. It's
both earth and heaven. There will be a
literal restoration of the kingdom to Israel
for a thousand years, and then there will be
an eternity in the new heavens and earth
(Rev. 21 - 22).
--
to the only wise God be glory forever through
Jesus Christ! Amen. (Rom 16:27)
Otherwise Makes
Feb 19, 2012, 4:06:14 AM2/19/12
to
On 2/19/2012 1:39 AM, Linda Lee wrote:
> On Feb 19, 1:42 am, Sound No<soun...@behalfdeath.org> wrote:
>> > The fact that when Christ comes, He will
>> > bring believers who have died back with Him,
>> > to raise them from the dead (1 Thess.
>> > 4:13-18), proves:
> Huh? You think the saints who have died remain dead until Christ
> returns at the end of time?!
No, I don't. Only their dead body stays dead
> On Feb 19, 1:42 am, Sound No<soun...@behalfdeath.org> wrote:
>> > The fact that when Christ comes, He will
>> > bring believers who have died back with Him,
>> > to raise them from the dead (1 Thess.
>> > 4:13-18), proves:
> Huh? You think the saints who have died remain dead until Christ
> returns at the end of time?!
till they are brought back and raised with it.
--
To this he replied: "Brothers and fathers,
listen to me! The God of glory appeared to
our father Abraham while he was still in
Mesopotamia, before he lived in Haran. (Act 7:2)
Hundred Worthless
Feb 19, 2012, 4:10:36 AM2/19/12
to
On 2/19/2012 1:39 AM, Linda Lee wrote:
>> 1. You go to be with Jesus when you die.
>> >
>> > 2. You won't be reunited with your physical
>> > body to be
>> > raised from the dead till Christ comes
>> > back with you.
> Baloney! Believers have eternal life when they die, they don't remain
> dead but "with Jesus" until the end of time, and then they're
> resurrected from the dead. In fact, believers possess eternal life
> before they die.
We're not talking about their living souls,
>> >
>> > 2. You won't be reunited with your physical
>> > body to be
>> > raised from the dead till Christ comes
>> > back with you.
> Baloney! Believers have eternal life when they die, they don't remain
> dead but "with Jesus" until the end of time, and then they're
> resurrected from the dead. In fact, believers possess eternal life
> before they die.
but their "dead" bodies. That's why the
resurrection of the dead has to be the
resurrection of the dead body, because the
believer's soul is already alive before his
body even dies:
Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that hears
my word, and believes on him that sent me,
has everlasting life, and shall not come into
condemnation; but is passed from death unto
life.
(John 5:24)
--
through whom we have gained access by faith
into this grace in which we now stand. And we
rejoice in the hope of the glory of God.
(Rom 5:2)
Seen Bodies
Feb 19, 2012, 4:20:08 AM2/19/12
to
On 2/19/2012 1:39 AM, Linda Lee wrote:
>> Not to mention that some will still be alive
>> > when the Lord returns, but will also have
>> > their mortal bodies changed (1 Cor. 15:52-54;
>> > 1 Thess. 4:13-18). What do you contend
>> > happens to their human bodies? Do they have
>> > to be killed, because human bodies aren't
>> > allowed in heaven?
> Their bodies will be changed to spiritual bodies
And now you get to the point! Their physical
>> > when the Lord returns, but will also have
>> > their mortal bodies changed (1 Cor. 15:52-54;
>> > 1 Thess. 4:13-18). What do you contend
>> > happens to their human bodies? Do they have
>> > to be killed, because human bodies aren't
>> > allowed in heaven?
> Their bodies will be changed to spiritual bodies
bodies will not be left behind dead and
corrupting, because it is their physical,
human bodies (whether dead or alive), which
will be "changed" into the resurrection body.
It says the same thing about those who have
already died as those who are still alive:
I will explain a mystery to you. Not every
one of us will die, but we will all be CHANGED.
(1 Corinthians 15:51)
--
saying: "Amen! Praise and glory and wisdom
and thanks and honor and power and strength
be to our God for ever and ever. Amen!" (Rev
7:12)
Do One
Feb 19, 2012, 4:26:38 AM2/19/12
to
On 2/19/2012 1:39 AM, Linda Lee wrote:
>> No, 1 Corinthians 15 says "we shall not all
>> > sleep", but we "shall all be changed".
>> > Living believers won't be killed when the
>> > Lord returns. Their human bodies will be
>> > transformed, just like those who are raised
>> > from the dead.
> The believers, some of whom have been dead for ages, who finally
> resurrect from the dead?
Yep. That doesn't mean their soul was dead.
>> > sleep", but we "shall all be changed".
>> > Living believers won't be killed when the
>> > Lord returns. Their human bodies will be
>> > transformed, just like those who are raised
>> > from the dead.
> The believers, some of whom have been dead for ages, who finally
> resurrect from the dead?
It was alive and well with God. It just
means their living soul won't be reunited
with their resurrected body till Jesus brings
their soul back when He comes:
For if we believe that Jesus died and rose
again, even so God will also BRING WITH Him
all THOSE WHO HAVE FALLEN ASLEEP through
Jesus. For we say this to you in the Word of
the Lord, that we the living who remain to
the coming of the Lord will not at all go
before those who have fallen asleep. Because
the Lord Himself shall come down from Heaven
with a commanding shout of an archangel's
voice, and with God's trumpet. And THE DEAD
IN CHRIST WILL RISE AGAIN first. Then we who
remain alive will be caught up together with
them in the clouds to a meeting with the Lord
in the air. And so we will always be with the
Lord.
(1 Thessalonians 4:14-17 LITV)
--
The god of this age has blinded the minds of
unbelievers, so that they cannot see the
light of the gospel of the glory of Christ,
who is the image of God. (2Co 4:4)
Linda Lee
Feb 19, 2012, 1:33:30 PM2/19/12
to
On Feb 19, 4:26 am, Do One <do...@differspower.org> wrote:
> On 2/19/2012 1:39 AM, Linda Lee wrote:
>
> >> No, 1 Corinthians 15 says "we shall not all
> >> > sleep", but we "shall all be changed".
> >> > Living believers won't be killed when the
> >> > Lord returns. Their human bodies will be
> >> > transformed, just like those who are raised
> >> > from the dead.
> > The believers, some of whom have been dead for ages, who finally
> > resurrect from the dead?
>
> Yep.
That's ridiculous. No.
> On 2/19/2012 1:39 AM, Linda Lee wrote:
>
> >> No, 1 Corinthians 15 says "we shall not all
> >> > sleep", but we "shall all be changed".
> >> > Living believers won't be killed when the
> >> > Lord returns. Their human bodies will be
> >> > transformed, just like those who are raised
> >> > from the dead.
> > The believers, some of whom have been dead for ages, who finally
> > resurrect from the dead?
>
> Yep.
That the spirits of believers are raised from death, i.e. from hell/
Hades, is what is meant by the resurrection of the dead. Hades is the
realm where the spirits of the dead are imprisoned unless and/or until
they are resurrected; Hades does not contain bodies. (Both bodies and
spirits can be thrown into the everlasting fire/the lake of fire, but
Hades is not the lake of fire (that is symbolized as Gehenna); Hades
is solely the realm of spirits.
In the days after Christ's death, before his resurrection, I Pet.
3:18-19 indicates that Christ BY HIS "SPIRIT" descended into hell
(i.e. Hades) to preach the Gospel to "the SPIRITS in prison" there.
Then he (his Spirit) was raised from the realm of death, i.e. Hades.
And Christ showed the apostles and disciples he had overcome death
(meaning "the second death", the death of the spirit) for believers by
showing them his body as a "SIGN" of the resurrection from the realm
of death (Matt. 12:39 & John 20:30). (NOTE: Angels often appeared to
be men in the Hebrew Scriptures, and they ate and drank just like
Christ did following his resurrection.)
So YES, 'Christ resurrected from the dead', so don't try to claim I'm
saying he did not. If that's what you get from this, it is due to your
own ignorance of the Scriptures, and I won't waste my time further.
1Pe 3:18 For Christ also hath once suffered for sins, the just for
the unjust, that he might bring us to God, being put to death in the
flesh, but quickened by THE SPIRIT:
1Pe 3:19 BY WHICH ALSO HE WENT AND PREACHED unto the SPIRITS in
prison;
1Pe 3:20 Which sometime were disobedient, when once the longsuffering
of God waited in the days of Noah, while the ark was a preparing,
wherein few, that is, eight souls were saved by water.
Linda Lee
Feb 19, 2012, 1:45:28 PM2/19/12
to
On Feb 19, 2:53 am, Under Fall <underf...@whompleased.us> wrote:
> On 2/18/2012 11:10 PM, Linda Lee wrote:
>
> > On Feb 19, 12:02 am, Someone Born<someoneb...@throughfruit.org>
> > wrote:
> >> > On 2/18/2012 8:58 PM, Linda Lee wrote:
>
> >>> > > I just cannot believe that Heaven contains
> >>> > > human beings when Heaven is the realm of angels and God!
> >>> > > How do you expect that to mix?
>
> >> > It already mixed. Jesus came to earth as God
> >> > in the flesh. When does the Bible say it
> >> > unmixed?
> > The Bible says in John 4:24 that "God is a Spirit", and John wrote
> > that AFTER the Messiah lived, died, resurrected and ascended back to
> > Heaven. That's WHEN.
>
> *scratches head*
>
> And your point is? How is the fact God is a
> Spirit supposed to prohibit God from dwelling
> in or with a human body,
> since if it did, He
> couldn't have become a man to begin with, or
> sent the Spirit to dwell in men?
Since God created man from the dust of the ground, and He is
> On 2/18/2012 11:10 PM, Linda Lee wrote:
>
> > On Feb 19, 12:02 am, Someone Born<someoneb...@throughfruit.org>
> > wrote:
> >> > On 2/18/2012 8:58 PM, Linda Lee wrote:
>
> >>> > > I just cannot believe that Heaven contains
> >>> > > human beings when Heaven is the realm of angels and God!
> >>> > > How do you expect that to mix?
>
> >> > It already mixed. Jesus came to earth as God
> >> > in the flesh. When does the Bible say it
> >> > unmixed?
> > The Bible says in John 4:24 that "God is a Spirit", and John wrote
> > that AFTER the Messiah lived, died, resurrected and ascended back to
> > Heaven. That's WHEN.
>
> *scratches head*
>
> And your point is? How is the fact God is a
> Spirit supposed to prohibit God from dwelling
> in or with a human body,
> since if it did, He
> couldn't have become a man to begin with, or
> sent the Spirit to dwell in men?
omnipotent, I would think God could incarnate in the flesh through the
seed of Abraham whenever He felt like it, even though He normally
doesn't inhabit a human body.
And Christ is called the Spirit eight times in the book of Revelation;
once he ascended to Heaven he was once again Spirit.
Linda Lee
Feb 19, 2012, 1:55:53 PM2/19/12
to
that the Scriptures say that the Messiah said, "MY KINGDOM IS_NOT_ OF
THIS WORLD" (John 18:36); that "PEOPLE" ARE "IN HEAVEN" (Rev. 19:1);
that believers inherit the kingdom of HEAVEN (go to HEAVEN); that the
saints will return with Christ (Rev. 19:8 & 14) and that this is the
same return of Christ where elsewhere it says Christ returns with the
angels, and you ignore it all!
I give up; you cannot understand a thing I've said. Believe what you
want; ignore the Scriptures that you choose to ignore.
duke
Feb 19, 2012, 2:16:51 PM2/19/12
to
On Sat, 18 Feb 2012 10:18:06 -0800 (PST), Linda Lee <lindag...@juno.com>
wrote:
>On Feb 18, 12:40 pm, On Victory <onvict...@unlessincorruptible.us>
>wrote:
>>
>> __________________________
>>
>> I do not contend Gentiles are not saved. I
>> just don't confuse what Ephesians calls the
>> "new man", and what the New Testament calls
>> the "church" 115 times, with "Old man
>> Israel". When Jews and Gentiles are combined
>> into one body, it is called a "new man", not
>> an addition to Old Man Israel, and is called
>> the "church", not "Israel".
>
>You deny that Gentile believers become one fold with the lost sheep of
>Israel and thereby deny the Messiah's own words.
>
>>
>> > and your seeming
>> > denial that Christ is God who "is a Spirit" (John 4:24)does not
>> >> glorify God.
>>
>> Cite reference:
>>
>> _________________________
>>
>> I do not deny Christ is God who is a Spirit.
>> I just do not deny He is also a man.
>
>You expect him to come back to Earth and reside here with us as A MAN.
>So you are denying he is God as "God is a Spirit".
Now linda, God became man once before. He can do it again.
duke, American - American
*****
1 John 3:4-6
4 Everyone who sins breaks the law; in fact,
sin is lawlessness. 5 But you know that he
appeared so that he might take away our sins.
And in him is no sin. 6 No one who lives in
him keeps on sinning. No one who continues to
sin has either seen him or known him.
*****
wrote:
>On Feb 18, 12:40 pm, On Victory <onvict...@unlessincorruptible.us>
>wrote:
>> On 2/18/2012 10:13 AM, Linda Lee wrote:
>>
>> > Your attempt to contend that Gentiles are not saved,
>>
>> Cite reference:
>>
>> > Your attempt to contend that Gentiles are not saved,
>>
>>
>> __________________________
>>
>> I do not contend Gentiles are not saved. I
>> just don't confuse what Ephesians calls the
>> "new man", and what the New Testament calls
>> the "church" 115 times, with "Old man
>> Israel". When Jews and Gentiles are combined
>> into one body, it is called a "new man", not
>> an addition to Old Man Israel, and is called
>> the "church", not "Israel".
>
>You deny that Gentile believers become one fold with the lost sheep of
>Israel and thereby deny the Messiah's own words.
>
>>
>> > and your seeming
>> > denial that Christ is God who "is a Spirit" (John 4:24)does not
>> >> glorify God.
>>
>> Cite reference:
>>
>> _________________________
>>
>> I do not deny Christ is God who is a Spirit.
>> I just do not deny He is also a man.
>
>You expect him to come back to Earth and reside here with us as A MAN.
>So you are denying he is God as "God is a Spirit".
Now linda, God became man once before. He can do it again.
duke, American - American
*****
1 John 3:4-6
4 Everyone who sins breaks the law; in fact,
sin is lawlessness. 5 But you know that he
appeared so that he might take away our sins.
And in him is no sin. 6 No one who lives in
him keeps on sinning. No one who continues to
sin has either seen him or known him.
*****
duke
Feb 19, 2012, 2:27:50 PM2/19/12
to
On Sat, 18 Feb 2012 23:39:17 -0800 (PST), Linda Lee <lindag...@juno.com>
wrote:
>> The fact that when Christ comes, He will
>> bring believers who have died back with Him,
>> to raise them from the dead (1 Thess.
>> 4:13-18), proves:
>Huh? You think the saints who have died remain dead until Christ
>returns at the end of time?!
Saints on earth who died are not saints in heaven unless the Holy Spirit reveals
such. That's basic Christianity.
> Well, then you must think Christ lied to
>the thief on the cross when he said he'd be in Paradise with him.
>Maybe he was just trying to make the thief feel better?
OR - there is no time in heaven. Today is as good as billions of years. Jesus
likely saw salvation in the thief's eyes, but it likely doesn't become real
until the end of time.
However, it matters not to us. One day we die, and one day (to us) we go up or
we go down. We know no difference.
wrote:
>> The fact that when Christ comes, He will
>> bring believers who have died back with Him,
>> to raise them from the dead (1 Thess.
>> 4:13-18), proves:
>Huh? You think the saints who have died remain dead until Christ
>returns at the end of time?!
such. That's basic Christianity.
> Well, then you must think Christ lied to
>the thief on the cross when he said he'd be in Paradise with him.
>Maybe he was just trying to make the thief feel better?
likely saw salvation in the thief's eyes, but it likely doesn't become real
until the end of time.
However, it matters not to us. One day we die, and one day (to us) we go up or
we go down. We know no difference.
Linda Lee
Feb 19, 2012, 2:29:02 PM2/19/12
to
On Feb 19, 1:55 pm, Linda Lee <lindagirl...@juno.com> wrote:
> On Feb 19, 4:03 am, Such Mystery <suchmyst...@jesusfather.info> wrote:
>
>
> > So in Matthew 5, Jesus was still offering the
> > literal restoration of the kingdom to Israel,
> > and that includes a literal reign on this
> > earth, as is evident from the following
> > verses you omitted in Matthew 5:5:
No it isn't "evident" from that.
> On Feb 19, 4:03 am, Such Mystery <suchmyst...@jesusfather.info> wrote:
>
>
> > So in Matthew 5, Jesus was still offering the
> > literal restoration of the kingdom to Israel,
> > and that includes a literal reign on this
> > earth, as is evident from the following
> > verses you omitted in Matthew 5:5:
>
> > Blessed are the meek: for they shall inherit
> > the earth.
> > (Matthew 5:5)
shall inherit the Promised Land', which is commonly used as a term for
Heaven i.e. Paradise.
>
> > and in how he taught them to pray in Matthew 6:
>
> > Your kingdom come. Your will be done in
> > earth, as it is in heaven.
> > (Matthew 6:10)
Earth, just as they were in Heaven.
>
> > None of this presents any problem at all to
> > someone who understands that God's kingdom is
> > not limited to EITHER earth, OR heaven.
> > It's
> > both earth and heaven. There will be a
he was killed (John 18:36-37). YOU can ignore not to hear Christ's
voice if you want; I choose not to do so.
Joh 18:36 Jesus answered, MY KINGDOM IS _NOT_ OF THIS WORLD: if my
kingdom were of this world, then would my servants fight, that I
should not be delivered to the Jews: but NOW is my kingdom not from
hence.
Joh 18:37 Pilate therefore said unto him, Art thou a king then? Jesus
answered, Thou sayest that I am a king. To this end was I born, and
for this cause came I into the world, that I should bear witness unto
the truth. Every one that is of the truth heareth my voice.
Linda Lee
Feb 19, 2012, 2:40:56 PM2/19/12
to
On Feb 19, 2:16 pm, duke <duckgumb...@cox.net> wrote:
> On Sat, 18 Feb 2012 10:18:06 -0800 (PST), Linda Lee <lindagirl...@juno.com>
Of course God can do anything he wants; that's why God who is a Spirit
could become a man. But the prophesies only indicate that God would
incarnate one time to act as the Saviour.
> On Sat, 18 Feb 2012 10:18:06 -0800 (PST), Linda Lee <lindagirl...@juno.com>
could become a man. But the prophesies only indicate that God would
incarnate one time to act as the Saviour.
duke
Feb 19, 2012, 4:06:36 PM2/19/12
to
On Sun, 19 Feb 2012 11:40:56 -0800 (PST), Linda Lee <lindag...@juno.com>
wrote:
Maybe God doesn't have to "incarnate" a 2nd time as he came as a man, died as a
man, rose as a man, ascended as a man and thus could return as a man.
Hebrews 9:28 (New International Version)
28 so Christ was sacrificed once to take away the sins of many; and he will
appear a second time, not to bear sin, but to bring salvation to those who are
waiting for him.
I think the apocalyptic dream of Revelation regarding the great war on the plain
is easily misunderstood. Besides, we'll all be dead and under the ground in the
appropriate attention of God for billions of years before it happens anyway, if
it does.
wrote:
man, rose as a man, ascended as a man and thus could return as a man.
Hebrews 9:28 (New International Version)
28 so Christ was sacrificed once to take away the sins of many; and he will
appear a second time, not to bear sin, but to bring salvation to those who are
waiting for him.
I think the apocalyptic dream of Revelation regarding the great war on the plain
is easily misunderstood. Besides, we'll all be dead and under the ground in the
appropriate attention of God for billions of years before it happens anyway, if
it does.
duke
Feb 19, 2012, 4:31:46 PM2/19/12
to
On Sun, 19 Feb 2012 03:26:38 -0600, Do One <do...@differspower.org> wrote:
>On 2/19/2012 1:39 AM, Linda Lee wrote:
>>> No, 1 Corinthians 15 says "we shall not all
>>> > sleep", but we "shall all be changed".
>>> > Living believers won't be killed when the
>>> > Lord returns. Their human bodies will be
>>> > transformed, just like those who are raised
>>> > from the dead.
>
>> The believers, some of whom have been dead for ages, who finally
>> resurrect from the dead?
>
>Yep. That doesn't mean their soul was dead.
The soul is indestructible. It's not an organ.
>On 2/19/2012 1:39 AM, Linda Lee wrote:
>>> No, 1 Corinthians 15 says "we shall not all
>>> > sleep", but we "shall all be changed".
>>> > Living believers won't be killed when the
>>> > Lord returns. Their human bodies will be
>>> > transformed, just like those who are raised
>>> > from the dead.
>
>> The believers, some of whom have been dead for ages, who finally
>> resurrect from the dead?
>
>Yep. That doesn't mean their soul was dead.
>It was alive and well with God. It just
>means their living soul won't be reunited
>with their resurrected body till Jesus brings
>their soul back when He comes:
>For if we believe that Jesus died and rose
>again, even so God will also BRING WITH Him
>all THOSE WHO HAVE FALLEN ASLEEP through
>Jesus. For we say this to you in the Word of
>the Lord, that we the living who remain to
>the coming of the Lord will not at all go
>before those who have fallen asleep. Because
>the Lord Himself shall come down from Heaven
>with a commanding shout of an archangel's
>voice, and with God's trumpet. And THE DEAD
>IN CHRIST WILL RISE AGAIN first. Then we who
>remain alive will be caught up together with
>them in the clouds to a meeting with the Lord
>in the air. And so we will always be with the
>Lord.
>(1 Thessalonians 4:14-17 LITV)
You're baptized.
You follow Jesus in life.
You die.
God takes care of the rest.
He doesn't need your help.
He doesn't need your further understanding.
Why complicate the issue?
They Pleased
Feb 19, 2012, 5:21:37 PM2/19/12
to
On 2/19/2012 1:29 PM, Linda Lee wrote:
> No. Christ said "now" "my kingdom is not of this Earth" right before
> he was killed (John 18:36-37). YOU can ignore not to hear Christ's
> voice if you want; I choose not to do so.
I already answered that in another place, and
> No. Christ said "now" "my kingdom is not of this Earth" right before
> he was killed (John 18:36-37). YOU can ignore not to hear Christ's
> voice if you want; I choose not to do so.
did not ignore it:
Sun, 19 Feb 2012 03:03:15 -0600, in article
<Id6dnZs9SOhAJ93S...@giganews.com>,
"Such Mystery <suchm...@jesusfather.info>"
wrote:
>Which is correct. Immediately after Israel
>rejected Him as King, by attributing His
>power to cast out demons to Satan in chapter
>12, Jesus introduced the "secret" form of the
>kingdom (which is the church age), and began
>speaking to the Jews in parables, while
>explaining everything to the disciples
>(Matthew 13).
>
>Paul confirms that Israel was set aside to
>bring in the fullness of the Gentiles
>("mystery" of the church) and provoke Israel
>to jealousy, so she could be saved. Thus,
>His servants won't fight, and He won't come
>back to save Israel from the kings of the
>earth until the fullness of the Gentiles be
>come in (Rom. 11:25ff.).
>
>After they come in, Revelation 19 shows He
>comes back with the saints to wage war on the
>kings of the earth, and rule them with a rod
>of iron. At that time, His servants WILL
>fight and defeat the kings of the earth, and
>He will establish His rule on this earth for
>1,000 years (Rev. 19 - 20).
would not fight. Later, they will.
Inherit Why
Feb 19, 2012, 8:12:51 PM2/19/12
to
On 2/19/2012 12:45 PM, Linda Lee wrote:
> Since God created man from the dust of the ground, and He is
> omnipotent, I would think God could incarnate in the flesh through the
> seed of Abraham whenever He felt like it, even though He normally
> doesn't inhabit a human body.
>
> And Christ is called the Spirit eight times in the book of Revelation;
> once he ascended to Heaven he was once again Spirit.
By saying He was "once again Spirit", that
> Since God created man from the dust of the ground, and He is
> omnipotent, I would think God could incarnate in the flesh through the
> seed of Abraham whenever He felt like it, even though He normally
> doesn't inhabit a human body.
>
> And Christ is called the Spirit eight times in the book of Revelation;
> once he ascended to Heaven he was once again Spirit.
seems to imply you think He ceased to be
Spirit when He was a man, which would mean He
ceased to be God when a man, because God is
spirit.
Or did you mean He was once again _only_
Spirit? Either way, what verses of Scripture
said either of those things?
--
filled with the fruit of righteousness that
comes through Jesus Christ—to the glory and
praise of God. (Php 1:11)
Asleep First
Feb 19, 2012, 8:17:42 PM2/19/12
to
On 2/19/2012 12:33 PM, Linda Lee wrote:
> On Feb 19, 4:26 am, Do One<do...@differspower.org> wrote:
>> > On 2/19/2012 1:39 AM, Linda Lee wrote:
>> >
>>>> > >> No, 1 Corinthians 15 says "we shall not all
>>>>> > >> > sleep", but we "shall all be changed".
>>>>> > >> > Living believers won't be killed when the
>>>>> > >> > Lord returns. Their human bodies will be
>>>>> > >> > transformed, just like those who are raised
>>>>> > >> > from the dead.
>>> > > The believers, some of whom have been dead for ages, who finally
>>> > > resurrect from the dead?
>> >
>> > Yep.
> That's ridiculous. No.
> On Feb 19, 4:26 am, Do One<do...@differspower.org> wrote:
>> > On 2/19/2012 1:39 AM, Linda Lee wrote:
>> >
>>>> > >> No, 1 Corinthians 15 says "we shall not all
>>>>> > >> > sleep", but we "shall all be changed".
>>>>> > >> > Living believers won't be killed when the
>>>>> > >> > Lord returns. Their human bodies will be
>>>>> > >> > transformed, just like those who are raised
>>>>> > >> > from the dead.
>>> > > The believers, some of whom have been dead for ages, who finally
>>> > > resurrect from the dead?
>> >
>> > Yep.
> That's ridiculous. No.
For if we believe that Jesus died and rose
again, even so God will also bring with Him
all those who have fallen asleep through
Jesus. For we say this to you in the Word of
the Lord, that we the living who remain to
the coming of the Lord will not at all go
before those who have fallen asleep. Because
the Lord Himself shall come down from Heaven
with a commanding shout of an archangel's
voice, and with God's trumpet. And the dead
the Lord, that we the living who remain to
the coming of the Lord will not at all go
before those who have fallen asleep. Because
the Lord Himself shall come down from Heaven
with a commanding shout of an archangel's
in Christ will rise again first. Then we who
remain alive will be caught up together with
them in the clouds to a meeting with the Lord
in the air. And so we will always be with the
Lord.
(1 Thessalonians 4:14-17 LITV)
--
encouraging, comforting and urging you to
them in the clouds to a meeting with the Lord
in the air. And so we will always be with the
Lord.
(1 Thessalonians 4:14-17 LITV)
--
live lives worthy of God, who calls you into
his kingdom and glory. (1Th 2:12)
Twelve Rose
Feb 19, 2012, 8:31:08 PM2/19/12
to
On 2/19/2012 12:33 PM, Linda Lee wrote:
> by
> showing them his body as a "SIGN" of the resurrection from the realm
> of death
Spiritually, the realm of death is our old,
> showing them his body as a "SIGN" of the resurrection from the realm
> of death
fallen, unregenerate nature (Ephesians 2).
Salvation from spiritual death occurs the
moment one hears and believes in Jesus:
Truly, truly, I say to you, The one who hears
My Word, and believes the One who has sent
Me, has everlasting life, and does not come
into judgment, but has passed out of death
into life.
(John 5:24 LITV)
even we being dead in deviations, He made us
alive together with Christ (by grace you are
being saved), and raised us up together and
seated us together in the heavenlies in
Christ Jesus,
(Ephesians 2:5-6 LITV)
So a believer isn't waiting for his spirit to
be resurrected from the dead. It already
was. The only thing that dies for a believer
is his body, and that is plainly stated as
what is resurrected from the dead in 1
Corinthians 15. It is the dead, perishable,
mortal, and corruptible, which is raised,
changed, and which puts on immortality and
incorruption.
Linda Lee
Feb 19, 2012, 9:04:08 PM2/19/12
to
On Feb 19, 4:06 pm, duke <duckgumb...@cox.net> wrote:
> On Sun, 19 Feb 2012 11:40:56 -0800 (PST), Linda Lee <lindagirl...@juno.com>
"God is a Spirit" (John 4:24). I don't think John was mistaken.
> On Sun, 19 Feb 2012 11:40:56 -0800 (PST), Linda Lee <lindagirl...@juno.com>
Linda Lee
Feb 19, 2012, 9:13:12 PM2/19/12
to
On Feb 19, 5:21 pm, They Pleased <theyplea...@restperhaps.info> wrote:
> On 2/19/2012 1:29 PM, Linda Lee wrote:
>
> > No. Christ said "now" "my kingdom is not of this Earth" right before
> > he was killed (John 18:36-37). YOU can ignore not to hear Christ's
> > voice if you want; I choose not to do so.
I meant to type: You can choose not to hear Christ's voice if you
> On 2/19/2012 1:29 PM, Linda Lee wrote:
>
> > No. Christ said "now" "my kingdom is not of this Earth" right before
> > he was killed (John 18:36-37). YOU can ignore not to hear Christ's
> > voice if you want; I choose not to do so.
want; I choose to hear him and believe him. Christ said "now" "my
kingdom is not of this Earth" right before he was killed (John
18:36-37).
>
18:36-37).
>
> I already answered that in another place, and
> did not ignore it:
>
> Sun, 19 Feb 2012 03:03:15 -0600, in article
> <Id6dnZs9SOhAJ93SnZ2dnUVZ_gudn...@giganews.com>,
> did not ignore it:
>
> Sun, 19 Feb 2012 03:03:15 -0600, in article
> "Such Mystery <suchmyst...@jesusfather.info>"
kingdom was not of this world - and he said that because he was about
to leave the Earth and his kingdom is in Heaven. You prove you really
cannot understand the voice of the Word of God. And according to the
Messiah, that is a really bad sign.
John 18:36 "Jesus answered, My kingdom is not of this world: if my
kingdom were of this world, then would my servants fight, that I
should not be delivered to the Jews: but now is my kingdom not from
hence."
Joh 8:43 Why do ye not understand my speech? even because ye cannot
hear my word.
Joh 8:44 Ye are of your father the devil, and the lusts of your
father ye will do. He was a murderer from the beginning, and abode not
in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he speaketh a
lie, he speaketh of his own: for he is a liar, and the father of it.
Joh 8:45 And because I tell you the truth, ye believe me not.
>
> --
> The god of this age has blinded the minds of
> unbelievers, so that they cannot see the
> light of the gospel of the glory of Christ,
> who is the image of God. (2Co 4:4)
Anathema
Feb 19, 2012, 10:05:36 PM2/19/12
to
"Linda Lee" wrote:
> Hope Fruit wrote:
> >
>
> Wow. You sound just like Dave; are you sure you aren't
> another personality of Dave's and that he has Multiple
> Personality Disorder and is fighting with himself?
There are some similarities.
Anathema
Feb 19, 2012, 10:12:40 PM2/19/12
to
"Linda Lee" wrote:
> Someone Born wrote:
> >
>
> Jude 1:14 And Enoch also, the seventh from Adam, prophesied
> of these, saying, Behold, the Lord cometh with ten thousands of
> his saints, Jud 1:15 To execute judgment upon all
>
> >
>
> Jude 1:14 And Enoch also, the seventh from Adam, prophesied
> of these, saying, Behold, the Lord cometh with ten thousands of
> his saints, Jud 1:15 To execute judgment upon all
>
> That prophesy in Jude 1:14 is concerning the return of Christ,
> and so are these three below that are in Christ's own words,
> where the "SAINTS" accompanying him on his return in judgment
> are identified as ANGELS:
Though I am sure you are aware of it:
> and so are these three below that are in Christ's own words,
> where the "SAINTS" accompanying him on his return in judgment
> are identified as ANGELS:
Jude there is a quote from the Book of Enoch.
Abounding How
Feb 19, 2012, 11:22:09 PM2/19/12
to
that He wouldn't have been delivered up.
He didn't say, "never". He said "now".
Later, Revelation 19 shows He and His
servants fighting the "kings of the earth" in
Revelation 19, then ruling over them with a
rod of Iron (19 - 20).
--
A man ought not to cover his head, since he
is the image and glory of God; but the woman
is the glory of man. (1Co 11:7)
H.E. Eickleberry, Jr.
Feb 20, 2012, 6:13:10 AM2/20/12
to
On 2/18/2012 12:10 PM, Cease Born wrote:
> On 2/18/2012 10:13 AM, Linda Lee wrote:
>>> > (e.g. the saints dead bodies
> On 2/18/2012 10:13 AM, Linda Lee wrote:
>>> > will come back to life, Christ will return
>>> > visibly in His risen, glorified, human body,
>
>> Not a human body, but a glorified body, a spiritual body.
>
>
> When Christ the "Firstfruits" of the resurrection rose from the dead,
> was there a dead human body left lying in His tomb? What happened to it?
> It rose from the dead. When a butterfly emerges from a cocoon, will you
> find a dead caterpillar inside? Are you contending that when our dead
> human bodies are raised from the dead, they stay dead and corrupting in
> the tomb?
>
> When Jesus rose from the dead, the disciples recognized Him as Jesus.
Not always.
We have several stories in the Gospels in which Jesus hid His form until
a key moment in the story, like Lk 24:13-35 and Jn 21:1-7.
> They didn't go, "Oh my God, what the hell is that?!" They heard Him
> talking, they saw Him standing there. He challenged them to "touch me
> and see" that He had "flesh and bones", and was not a ghost.
He had flesh and bones because He chose to manifest flesh and bones. He
could change His form. He could come in the Spirit. Or in a vision, as
to Paul.
The "body" that came out of the resurrection wasn't the same body that
went into it.
1Co 15:
42 So also is the resurrection of the dead. It is sown in corruption;
it is raised in incorruption:
43 It is sown in dishonour; it is raised in glory: it is sown in
weakness; it is raised in power:
44 It is sown a natural body; it is raised a spiritual body. There is a
natural body, and there is a spiritual body.
> Then they
> watched Him eat a fish. What is it about all that that makes you think a
> resurrected body stops being human?
The essence of the former person is there, but it's not a "human" body,
unless the bearer chooses to manifest him- or herself as "human."
> On the other hand, Jesus challenged Thomas to thrust His hands into His
> side, yet He did not bleed to death from the opening. He was already
> capable of passing through locked doors without even opening them. Are
> those things a regular physical body can do? What is it about all that
> which makes you think Jesus' resurrected body was not also a spiritual one?
Precisely. But it was not "also" a spiritual one, but ONLY a spiritual,
manifested (or not) however He saw fit.
> Thus, Jesus post-resurrection appearances prove it was His dead body
> that came back to life. When He came back to life, He had both a
> physical, human body, yet one that was capable of doing things no mortal
> flesh is capable of. Can anyone contend that Jesus the "Firstfruits'"
> esurrected body was either not human or that it was not also spiritual?
I can. It was only "human" to the extent Jesus chose to manifest it as
human; it was only his "form" as He chose to manifest it as His form; at
other times He chose NOT to manifest it that way, but in another form
which people did NOT know. He could appear in Spirit only, as to Paul on
the road to Damascus.
And so on, and so forth.
You tie the former and the latter "bodies" too tightly together.
Ike
--
http://thetriunist.weebly.com/index.html
http://www.facebook.com/home.php#!/pages/The-Triune-Hypothesis/102657386473773
Baptized Himself
Feb 20, 2012, 6:19:12 AM2/20/12
to
On 2/20/2012 5:13 AM, H.E. Eickleberry, Jr.
wrote:
his identity from them. When He did not,
they recognized Him as Jesus.
--
Yet he did not waver through unbelief
regarding the promise of God, but was
strengthened in his faith and gave glory to
God, (Rom 4:20)
wrote:
>>
>> When Jesus rose from the dead, the
>> disciples recognized Him as Jesus.
>
> Not always.
>
> We have several stories in the Gospels in
> which Jesus hid His form until a key moment
> in the story, like Lk 24:13-35 and Jn 21:1-7.
But as you note, that was because He "hid"
>> When Jesus rose from the dead, the
>> disciples recognized Him as Jesus.
>
> Not always.
>
> We have several stories in the Gospels in
> which Jesus hid His form until a key moment
> in the story, like Lk 24:13-35 and Jn 21:1-7.
his identity from them. When He did not,
they recognized Him as Jesus.
--
Yet he did not waver through unbelief
regarding the promise of God, but was
strengthened in his faith and gave glory to
God, (Rom 4:20)
H.E. Eickleberry, Jr.
Feb 20, 2012, 6:21:55 AM2/20/12
to
On 2/18/2012 1:59 PM, Where Order wrote:
[snippeth]
> It would be like some moron watching a butterfly come out of a cocoon,
> and concluding that since a caterpillar is what went in, there must
> still be a dead caterpillar inside, and that this here flying thing must
> have just come out of nowhere! After all, look at it! It's completely
> different. The caterpillar must still be dead inside the cocoon!
>
> "Well hey there. This here resurrected body is immortal and
> incorruptible, but the one that went in the ground was mortal and
> corruptible. Yep. Can't possibly be the body that was sown in the
> ground. That one must still be there, dead and corrupting!
>
> Uh...yeah...THAT'S it!
>
> Please!
>
> But hey, folks, how freaking convenient for Preterism, and the fact the
> saints dead bodies did not rise from the dead in A.D 70, is that folks?!
>
> Now the resurrection of the dead doesn't have to raise what was dead
> from the dead at all, and the Preterist can pretend it all happened
> "spiritually" in A.D. 70
Except your way is just as false as his, as there is nothing requiring
that any graves be opened for those bodies to leave, or for anyone to
see anything at all.
Jesus ONLY tied the "grave opening" requirement to the THIRD
resurrection, and John says NOTHING about any "graves" being opened, or
anyone seeing anything at all UNTIL THE TWO WITNESSES RISE FROM THE DEAD
AND ASCEND.
THAT'S the exact moment when the people of the world begin to suspect
that the unholy trinity has been lying to them.
Hence, no mass disappearance, and no "rapture." (Not that Jesus, Paul,
and John were talking about "you" in the first place.)
[snippeth]
> It would be like some moron watching a butterfly come out of a cocoon,
> and concluding that since a caterpillar is what went in, there must
> still be a dead caterpillar inside, and that this here flying thing must
> have just come out of nowhere! After all, look at it! It's completely
> different. The caterpillar must still be dead inside the cocoon!
>
> "Well hey there. This here resurrected body is immortal and
> incorruptible, but the one that went in the ground was mortal and
> corruptible. Yep. Can't possibly be the body that was sown in the
> ground. That one must still be there, dead and corrupting!
>
> Uh...yeah...THAT'S it!
>
> Please!
>
> But hey, folks, how freaking convenient for Preterism, and the fact the
> saints dead bodies did not rise from the dead in A.D 70, is that folks?!
>
> Now the resurrection of the dead doesn't have to raise what was dead
> from the dead at all, and the Preterist can pretend it all happened
> "spiritually" in A.D. 70
Except your way is just as false as his, as there is nothing requiring
that any graves be opened for those bodies to leave, or for anyone to
see anything at all.
Jesus ONLY tied the "grave opening" requirement to the THIRD
resurrection, and John says NOTHING about any "graves" being opened, or
anyone seeing anything at all UNTIL THE TWO WITNESSES RISE FROM THE DEAD
AND ASCEND.
THAT'S the exact moment when the people of the world begin to suspect
that the unholy trinity has been lying to them.
Hence, no mass disappearance, and no "rapture." (Not that Jesus, Paul,
and John were talking about "you" in the first place.)
H.E. Eickleberry, Jr.
Feb 20, 2012, 6:29:25 AM2/20/12
to
On 2/19/2012 8:12 PM, Inherit Why wrote:
> On 2/19/2012 12:45 PM, Linda Lee wrote:
>> Since God created man from the dust of the ground, and He is
>> omnipotent, I would think God could incarnate in the flesh through the
>> seed of Abraham whenever He felt like it, even though He normally
>> doesn't inhabit a human body.
>>
>> And Christ is called the Spirit eight times in the book of Revelation;
>> once he ascended to Heaven he was once again Spirit.
???
> On 2/19/2012 12:45 PM, Linda Lee wrote:
>> Since God created man from the dust of the ground, and He is
>> omnipotent, I would think God could incarnate in the flesh through the
>> seed of Abraham whenever He felt like it, even though He normally
>> doesn't inhabit a human body.
>>
>> And Christ is called the Spirit eight times in the book of Revelation;
>> once he ascended to Heaven he was once again Spirit.
Christ isn't called a "Spirit" ANYWHERE in Revelation.
In fact, there is only ONE reference to a singular "Spirit" anywhere in
the book, and that's in the last chapter. And there is NO reference to
the "Holy Spirit" [pneuma hagion] per se anywhere in the book.
Instead, John presents us with the Seven (plus One) individual spirits,
which are the seven spirits of God, a.k.a. the Church eternal.
Now John does represent Jesus in the Spirit using the "Lamb of God"
metaphor (as opposed to Jesus in the flesh using the "son of God"
metaphor), but there isn't one reference which distinctly connects Jesus
to a "spirit" anywhere in the book.
H.E. Eickleberry, Jr.
Feb 20, 2012, 6:31:50 AM2/20/12
to
prove you wrong, like examples of Jesus handling prophecy.
Same thing Imposter Dave does when he doesn't want to face the fact that
Jesus handled prophecy in multiple applications, i.e. Triunely.
All we get from you is "oy vay" and you run for the nearest exit.
H.E. Eickleberry, Jr.
Feb 20, 2012, 6:38:02 AM2/20/12
to
now-known spurious Essene works such as "Enoch" and "the Assumption of
Moses," and contains Essene-influenced Ebionite eschatology, not
Christian eschatology.
Same with Hebrews and 2 Peter.
(But try telling the latter-day cultists that without them getting up in
arms.)
And Linda Liar's claims here are false--the author of Jude was
SEPARATING the concepts of man and angel, as per the heathen Babylonian
traditions, and NOT Christian reality, as presented by John in Revelation.
Where she got the notion that the author of Jude was CONNECTING man and
angel when he was separating them is anyone's guess.
Come An
Feb 20, 2012, 6:48:55 AM2/20/12
to
On 2/20/2012 5:13 AM, H.E. Eickleberry, Jr.
wrote:
wrote:
> The "body" that came out of the resurrection
> wasn't the same body that went into it.
Does the fact a butterfly has a different
> wasn't the same body that went into it.
body than a caterpillar mean there must
therefore be a dead caterpillar in the
cocoon? No, it proves the opposite. Since it
changed into a butterfly, there CANNOT still
be a caterpillar in the cocoon.
Likewise, the fact that it (the dead body) is
"changed" from mortal to immortal, from
corruptible to incorruptible, and from
perishable to imperishable, PROVES it can't
still be dead in the grave (1 Cor. 15:52-54)!
BUWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!
--
At that very hour there was a severe
earthquake and a tenth of the city collapsed.
Seven thousand people were killed in the
earthquake, and the survivors were terrified
and gave glory to the God of heaven. (Rev 11:13)
H.E. Eickleberry, Jr.
Feb 20, 2012, 6:50:30 AM2/20/12
to
On 2/19/2012 1:42 AM, Sound No wrote:
[snippeth]
> Denying the church is "Israel" is not the same as denying Gentiles are
> saved.
One more time for the dull and slow witted: There are THREE concepts of
"Israel" in the Word.
1) The literal Israel of the Old Testament.
2) The spiritual Israel of the New Testament.
3) The combination of both that will be the THIRD Israel that will
emerge from the End of the Age (i.e. the "man child" of what was),
starting with the Remnant that will "keep the commandments of God AND
have the faith of Jesus," etc, etc.
> Jews and Gentiles are brought together in one body as the
> "church" (Eph. 2 - 3), not as "Israel".
That's a blasphemous anti-Semitic lie...
Rom 11:
17 And if some of the branches be broken off, and thou, being a wild
olive tree, wert graffed in among them, and with them partakest of the
root and fatness of the olive tree;
18 Boast not against the branches. But if thou boast, thou bearest not
the root, but the root thee.
The Gentile believers are grafted into THE TREE OF ISRAEL, and NOT the
other way around.
Now, a marriage is a two-way street (and that's precisely what we're
talking about here), but your lie is flat-out wrong.
>> Luke 23:43 "And Jesus said unto him, Verily I say unto thee, To day
>> shalt thou be with me in PARADISE."
>>
>> Rev. 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."
>>
>> Gee, I wonder why Christ didn't tell him YOUR version of the "truth";
>> that someday Christ live on the Earth with him in a few thousand or
>> more years.
ONLY Jesus and His entourage, the 144,000 return; everyone else remains
behind in heaven, just as John documents in Revelation.
> 1. You go to be with Jesus when you die.
Ah, no. You go to the first part of the resurrection at the Seventh
Trump, and then go BACK through history to parse evil from good, and to
parse the wicked from the righteous.
This is illustrated in Jesus' argument with the Sadducees, who thought
that the Patriarchs were dead, and Jesus assured them that they were
very much alive, even though NO RESURRECTION HAD TAKEN PLACE YET, which
is a quirk of three-dimensional time.
> 2. You won't be reunited with your physical body to be
> raised from the dead till Christ comes back with you.
You won't be reunited with a "physical body" at all; physicality is
PROJECTED, i.e. MANIFESTED by the resurrected dead; it's not required
(as Jesus demonstrated several times).
> Not to mention that some will still be alive when the Lord returns,
JUST the Remnant.
>but
> will also have their mortal bodies changed (1 Cor. 15:52-54; 1 Thess.
> 4:13-18). What do you contend happens to their human bodies? Do they
> have to be killed, because human bodies aren't allowed in heaven?
You have no idea what happens with the Remnant, so don't even go there.
> No, 1 Corinthians 15 says "we shall not all sleep", but we "shall all be
> changed". Living believers won't be killed when the Lord returns. Their
> human bodies will be transformed, just like those who are raised from
> the dead.
You have no idea what Paul is talking about in regards to the Remnant.
All Paul said was that it was a "mystery;" and it's one you're not ready
for.
>> Psa 23:1 "A Psalm of David. The LORD is my shepherd; I shall not
>> want."
>>
>> Christ said:
>> John 10:16 "And other sheep I have, which are not of this fold: them
>> also I must bring, and they shall hear my voice; and there shall be
>> ONE FOLD, and ONE SHEPHERD."
>>
>> ONE UNITED CHURCH OF GOD, CONTAINING BOTH ISRAELITES AND _GENTILES._
>>
>> You cannot take the hope of salvation and eternal life in Heaven with
>> God away from Gentile Christians.
>
>
> Again, denying the church is "Israel" is not the same as denying
> Gentiles are saved.
OH, yes it is.
Paul said the Gentiles are GRAFTED INTO the tree of Israel, and NOT the
other way around, and NOT to BOAST AGAINST THE BRANCHES (i.e. Israel).
Then you do EXACTLY that.
> Jews and Gentiles are brought together as one in the
> "church", not as "Israel". Don't blame me for repeating myself.
No, we'll just blame you for lying, which is true.
[snippeth]
> Denying the church is "Israel" is not the same as denying Gentiles are
> saved.
One more time for the dull and slow witted: There are THREE concepts of
"Israel" in the Word.
1) The literal Israel of the Old Testament.
2) The spiritual Israel of the New Testament.
3) The combination of both that will be the THIRD Israel that will
emerge from the End of the Age (i.e. the "man child" of what was),
starting with the Remnant that will "keep the commandments of God AND
have the faith of Jesus," etc, etc.
> Jews and Gentiles are brought together in one body as the
> "church" (Eph. 2 - 3), not as "Israel".
That's a blasphemous anti-Semitic lie...
Rom 11:
17 And if some of the branches be broken off, and thou, being a wild
olive tree, wert graffed in among them, and with them partakest of the
root and fatness of the olive tree;
18 Boast not against the branches. But if thou boast, thou bearest not
the root, but the root thee.
The Gentile believers are grafted into THE TREE OF ISRAEL, and NOT the
other way around.
Now, a marriage is a two-way street (and that's precisely what we're
talking about here), but your lie is flat-out wrong.
>> Luke 23:43 "And Jesus said unto him, Verily I say unto thee, To day
>> shalt thou be with me in PARADISE."
>>
>> Rev. 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."
>>
>> Gee, I wonder why Christ didn't tell him YOUR version of the "truth";
>> that someday Christ live on the Earth with him in a few thousand or
>> more years.
>
>
> The fact that when Christ comes, He will bring believers who have died
> back with Him, to raise them from the dead (1 Thess. 4:13-18), proves:
FALSE.
>
> The fact that when Christ comes, He will bring believers who have died
> back with Him, to raise them from the dead (1 Thess. 4:13-18), proves:
ONLY Jesus and His entourage, the 144,000 return; everyone else remains
behind in heaven, just as John documents in Revelation.
> 1. You go to be with Jesus when you die.
Trump, and then go BACK through history to parse evil from good, and to
parse the wicked from the righteous.
This is illustrated in Jesus' argument with the Sadducees, who thought
that the Patriarchs were dead, and Jesus assured them that they were
very much alive, even though NO RESURRECTION HAD TAKEN PLACE YET, which
is a quirk of three-dimensional time.
> 2. You won't be reunited with your physical body to be
> raised from the dead till Christ comes back with you.
PROJECTED, i.e. MANIFESTED by the resurrected dead; it's not required
(as Jesus demonstrated several times).
> Not to mention that some will still be alive when the Lord returns,
>but
> will also have their mortal bodies changed (1 Cor. 15:52-54; 1 Thess.
> 4:13-18). What do you contend happens to their human bodies? Do they
> have to be killed, because human bodies aren't allowed in heaven?
> No, 1 Corinthians 15 says "we shall not all sleep", but we "shall all be
> changed". Living believers won't be killed when the Lord returns. Their
> human bodies will be transformed, just like those who are raised from
> the dead.
All Paul said was that it was a "mystery;" and it's one you're not ready
for.
>> Psa 23:1 "A Psalm of David. The LORD is my shepherd; I shall not
>> want."
>>
>> Christ said:
>> John 10:16 "And other sheep I have, which are not of this fold: them
>> also I must bring, and they shall hear my voice; and there shall be
>> ONE FOLD, and ONE SHEPHERD."
>>
>> ONE UNITED CHURCH OF GOD, CONTAINING BOTH ISRAELITES AND _GENTILES._
>>
>> You cannot take the hope of salvation and eternal life in Heaven with
>> God away from Gentile Christians.
>
>
> Again, denying the church is "Israel" is not the same as denying
> Gentiles are saved.
OH, yes it is.
Paul said the Gentiles are GRAFTED INTO the tree of Israel, and NOT the
other way around, and NOT to BOAST AGAINST THE BRANCHES (i.e. Israel).
Then you do EXACTLY that.
> Jews and Gentiles are brought together as one in the
> "church", not as "Israel". Don't blame me for repeating myself.
No, we'll just blame you for lying, which is true.
H.E. Eickleberry, Jr.
Feb 20, 2012, 7:03:16 AM2/20/12
to
On 2/19/2012 8:17 PM, Asleep First wrote:
> On 2/19/2012 12:33 PM, Linda Lee wrote:
>> On Feb 19, 4:26 am, Do One<do...@differspower.org> wrote:
>>> > On 2/19/2012 1:39 AM, Linda Lee wrote:
>>> >
>>>>> > >> No, 1 Corinthians 15 says "we shall not all
>>>>>> > >> > sleep", but we "shall all be changed".
>>>>>> > >> > Living believers won't be killed when the
>>>>>> > >> > Lord returns. Their human bodies will be
>>>>>> > >> > transformed, just like those who are raised
>>>>>> > >> > from the dead.
>>>> > > The believers, some of whom have been dead for ages, who finally
>>>> > > resurrect from the dead?
>>> >
>>> > Yep.
>
>> That's ridiculous. No.
>
> For if we believe that Jesus died and rose again, even so God will also
> bring with Him all those who have fallen asleep through Jesus.
Going up, not coming down, at the FIRST part of the resurrection--the
> On 2/19/2012 12:33 PM, Linda Lee wrote:
>> On Feb 19, 4:26 am, Do One<do...@differspower.org> wrote:
>>> > On 2/19/2012 1:39 AM, Linda Lee wrote:
>>> >
>>>>> > >> No, 1 Corinthians 15 says "we shall not all
>>>>>> > >> > sleep", but we "shall all be changed".
>>>>>> > >> > Living believers won't be killed when the
>>>>>> > >> > Lord returns. Their human bodies will be
>>>>>> > >> > transformed, just like those who are raised
>>>>>> > >> > from the dead.
>>>> > > The believers, some of whom have been dead for ages, who finally
>>>> > > resurrect from the dead?
>>> >
>>> > Yep.
>
>> That's ridiculous. No.
>
> For if we believe that Jesus died and rose again, even so God will also
> bring with Him all those who have fallen asleep through Jesus.
outbound part--at the seventh, i.e. "last," trump.
The inbound part isn't until the last manifestation of God's anger in
the seven vials, i.e. the Second Coming.
> For we
> say this to you in the Word of the Lord, that we the living who remain
> to the coming of the Lord will not at all go before those who have
> fallen asleep. Because the Lord Himself shall come down from Heaven with
> a commanding shout of an archangel's voice, and with God's trumpet. And
> the dead in Christ will rise again first. Then we who remain alive will
> be caught up together with them in the clouds to a meeting with the Lord
> in the air. And so we will always be with the Lord.
> (1 Thessalonians 4:14-17 LITV)
be the Remnant.
Everyone else will be dead, or they'll have quit and joined the
apostasy, i.e.
"Whoever shall save their life shall lose it; but whoever shall lose his
life for [Jesus'] sake, and the Gospels, shall save it."
John even works this passage into Revelation with his "hell" or "death"
dichotomy, i.e. one can deny Christ, live today, and die eternally
("hell"), or keep the faith, die today, and live eternally ("death").
Those will be the only two options ANYONE has in the End of the Age
(with the exception of the Remnant; but that's a different story
altogether).
Ephesus Spirit
Feb 20, 2012, 7:03:21 AM2/20/12
to
On 2/20/2012 5:21 AM, H.E. Eickleberry, Jr.
wrote:
can be seen that there's no dead caterpillar
in the cocoon. It requires at a minimum that
the dead body is no longer in the grave, and
that can be verified by sight. Since the
saints' dead bodies are still in their
graves, the resurrection of their dead bodies
did not happen in A.D. 70, and Preterism is
exposed as a lie.
Not only that, but it isn't just the dead who
will be "changed". It's also the living.
The living believer's body is ALSO "this
mortal", and "this corruptible" body, and IT
will also be changed into an immortal,
incorruptible one. "We shall not all sleep,
but we shall all be changed". If you have a
bunch of living people who suddenly transform
from mortal to immortal, and then caught up,
that will be seen. At least as a disappearance.
--
and has made us to be a kingdom and priests
to serve his God and Father—to him be glory
and power for ever and ever! Amen. (Rev 1:6)
wrote:
> there is nothing requiring that any graves be
> opened for those bodies to leave, or for
> anyone to see anything at all.
When a caterpillar becomes a butterfly, it
> opened for those bodies to leave, or for
> anyone to see anything at all.
can be seen that there's no dead caterpillar
in the cocoon. It requires at a minimum that
the dead body is no longer in the grave, and
that can be verified by sight. Since the
saints' dead bodies are still in their
graves, the resurrection of their dead bodies
did not happen in A.D. 70, and Preterism is
exposed as a lie.
Not only that, but it isn't just the dead who
will be "changed". It's also the living.
The living believer's body is ALSO "this
mortal", and "this corruptible" body, and IT
will also be changed into an immortal,
incorruptible one. "We shall not all sleep,
but we shall all be changed". If you have a
bunch of living people who suddenly transform
from mortal to immortal, and then caught up,
that will be seen. At least as a disappearance.
--
and has made us to be a kingdom and priests
to serve his God and Father—to him be glory
and power for ever and ever! Amen. (Rev 1:6)
Inherit Why
Feb 20, 2012, 7:06:05 AM2/20/12
to
On 2/20/2012 5:29 AM, H.E. Eickleberry, Jr.
wrote:
--
If anyone speaks, he should do it as one
speaking the very words of God. If anyone
serves, he should do it with the strength God
provides, so that in all things God may be
praised through Jesus Christ. To him be the
glory and the power for ever and ever. Amen.
(1Pe 4:11)
wrote:
> On 2/19/2012 8:12 PM, Inherit Why wrote:
>> On 2/19/2012 12:45 PM, Linda Lee wrote:
>>> Since God created man from the dust of the
>>> ground, and He is
>>> omnipotent, I would think God could
>>> incarnate in the flesh through the
>>> seed of Abraham whenever He felt like it,
>>> even though He normally
>>> doesn't inhabit a human body.
>>>
>>> And Christ is called the Spirit eight
>>> times in the book of Revelation;
>>> once he ascended to Heaven he was once
>>> again Spirit.
>
> ???
>
> Christ isn't called a "Spirit" ANYWHERE in
> Revelation.
You're responding to Linda's comments, not mine.
>> On 2/19/2012 12:45 PM, Linda Lee wrote:
>>> Since God created man from the dust of the
>>> ground, and He is
>>> omnipotent, I would think God could
>>> incarnate in the flesh through the
>>> seed of Abraham whenever He felt like it,
>>> even though He normally
>>> doesn't inhabit a human body.
>>>
>>> And Christ is called the Spirit eight
>>> times in the book of Revelation;
>>> once he ascended to Heaven he was once
>>> again Spirit.
>
> ???
>
> Christ isn't called a "Spirit" ANYWHERE in
> Revelation.
--
If anyone speaks, he should do it as one
speaking the very words of God. If anyone
serves, he should do it with the strength God
provides, so that in all things God may be
praised through Jesus Christ. To him be the
glory and the power for ever and ever. Amen.
(1Pe 4:11)
Jesus Living
Feb 20, 2012, 7:08:35 AM2/20/12
to
On 2/20/2012 5:31 AM, H.E. Eickleberry, Jr.
wrote:
>>
Hebrews, 2 Peter, and so many other passages
of Scripture, by claiming they are
"spurious", that Paul didn't know what he was
talking about, etc., since your claims flatly
contradict what they say.
--
to the only wise God be glory forever through
Jesus Christ! Amen. (Rom 16:27)
wrote:
>>
>> There are some similarities.
>
> Yeah, like a propensity for cutting
> significant facts when they start to prove
> you wrong
Which is why you are constantly forced to cut
>
> Yeah, like a propensity for cutting
> significant facts when they start to prove
> you wrong
Hebrews, 2 Peter, and so many other passages
of Scripture, by claiming they are
"spurious", that Paul didn't know what he was
talking about, etc., since your claims flatly
contradict what they say.
--
to the only wise God be glory forever through
Jesus Christ! Amen. (Rom 16:27)
H.E. Eickleberry, Jr.
Feb 20, 2012, 7:11:02 AM2/20/12
to
On 2/19/2012 8:31 PM, Twelve Rose wrote:
> On 2/19/2012 12:33 PM, Linda Lee wrote:
>> by
>> showing them his body as a "SIGN" of the resurrection from the realm
>> of death
>
> Spiritually, the realm of death is our old, fallen, unregenerate nature
> (Ephesians 2).
Nonsense. We live suspended between the two, and choose one or the other.
> On 2/19/2012 12:33 PM, Linda Lee wrote:
>> by
>> showing them his body as a "SIGN" of the resurrection from the realm
>> of death
>
> Spiritually, the realm of death is our old, fallen, unregenerate nature
> (Ephesians 2).
> Salvation from spiritual death occurs the moment one
> hears and believes in Jesus:
>
> Truly, truly, I say to you, The one who hears My Word, and believes the
> One who has sent Me, has everlasting life, and does not come into
> judgment, but has passed out of death into life.
> (John 5:24 LITV)
were alive, even though no resurrection had taken place yet; NOT that
one has already passed from the death to life before they are proven,
which is determined by the END of matters, not the beginning of them, i.e.
"Whoever shall endure TO THE END shall be saved."
> even we being dead in deviations, He made us alive together with Christ
> (by grace you are being saved), and raised us up together and seated us
> together in the heavenlies in Christ Jesus,
> (Ephesians 2:5-6 LITV)
Unfortunately, the "gospel" of the so-called "evangelicals" leaves out
the "if."
> So a believer isn't waiting for his spirit to be resurrected from the
> dead. It already was.
He said the Partiarch were alive and well, even though no resurrection
had happened yet.
If one is REALLY a believer (and not a fraud, which is true in 3/4 of
all cases, at best), they have always been, are now, and forever shall
be with the LORD.
But that's IF they are found to be true, as in...
"Be thou faithful, even unto death, and I will give you a crown of life."
> The only thing that dies for a believer is his
> body, and that is plainly stated as what is resurrected from the dead in
> 1 Corinthians 15. It is the dead, perishable, mortal, and corruptible,
> which is raised, changed, and which puts on immortality and incorruption.
bearer chooses it to be, as Jesus did (or didn't) after His resurrection.
1Co 15:44 It is sown a natural body; it is raised a spiritual body.
There is a natural body, and there is a spiritual body.
Makes Seeds
Feb 20, 2012, 7:15:21 AM2/20/12
to
On 2/20/2012 5:50 AM, H.E. Eickleberry, Jr.
wrote:
Gentiles who are now being saved as the
"church". Not once does it call that body
"Israel".
> Rom 11:
> 17 And if some of the branches be broken
> off, and thou, being a wild olive tree, wert
> graffed in among them, and with them
> partakest of the root and fatness of the
> olive tree;
> 18 Boast not against the branches. But if
> thou boast, thou bearest not the root, but
> the root thee.
>
> The Gentile believers are grafted into THE
> TREE OF ISRAEL, and NOT the other way around.
That doesn't say the tree is ISRAEL. The
tree is God's blessing to both Jews and
Gentiles in the Abrahamic covenant. The
natural _BRANCHES_ are Israel.
> Now, a marriage is a two-way street (and
> that's precisely what we're talking about
> here), but your lie is flat-out wrong.
The church is the marriage of Jews and
Gentiles, as one body and bride to Christ,
not the marriage of Jews to Gentiles:
For we are members of his body, of his flesh,
and of his bones. For this cause shall a man
leave his father and mother, and shall be
joined unto his wife, and they two shall be
one flesh. This is a great mystery: but I
speak concerning Christ and the church.
(Ephesians 5:30-32 KJV)
--
All this is for your benefit, so that the
grace that is reaching more and more people
may cause thanksgiving to overflow to the
glory of God. (2Co 4:15)
wrote:
>> Jews and Gentiles are brought together in
>> one body as the
>> "church" (Eph. 2 - 3), not as "Israel".
>
> That's a blasphemous anti-Semitic lie...
115 times the NT refers to the Jews and
>> one body as the
>> "church" (Eph. 2 - 3), not as "Israel".
>
> That's a blasphemous anti-Semitic lie...
Gentiles who are now being saved as the
"church". Not once does it call that body
"Israel".
> Rom 11:
> 17 And if some of the branches be broken
> off, and thou, being a wild olive tree, wert
> graffed in among them, and with them
> partakest of the root and fatness of the
> olive tree;
> 18 Boast not against the branches. But if
> thou boast, thou bearest not the root, but
> the root thee.
>
> The Gentile believers are grafted into THE
> TREE OF ISRAEL, and NOT the other way around.
tree is God's blessing to both Jews and
Gentiles in the Abrahamic covenant. The
natural _BRANCHES_ are Israel.
> Now, a marriage is a two-way street (and
> that's precisely what we're talking about
> here), but your lie is flat-out wrong.
Gentiles, as one body and bride to Christ,
not the marriage of Jews to Gentiles:
For we are members of his body, of his flesh,
and of his bones. For this cause shall a man
leave his father and mother, and shall be
joined unto his wife, and they two shall be
one flesh. This is a great mystery: but I
speak concerning Christ and the church.
(Ephesians 5:30-32 KJV)
--
All this is for your benefit, so that the
grace that is reaching more and more people
may cause thanksgiving to overflow to the
glory of God. (2Co 4:15)
Kingdom Has
Feb 20, 2012, 7:23:30 AM2/20/12
to
On 2/20/2012 5:50 AM, H.E. Eickleberry, Jr.
wrote:
wrote:
> You won't be reunited with a "physical body"
> at all; physicality is PROJECTED, i.e.
> MANIFESTED by the resurrected dead; it's not
> required (as Jesus demonstrated several times).
There wasn't a dead physical body in Christ's
> at all; physicality is PROJECTED, i.e.
> MANIFESTED by the resurrected dead; it's not
> required (as Jesus demonstrated several times).
tomb when He rose from the dead.
"This mortal" must put on immortality. "This
corruptible" must put on incorruption. This
"perishable" will be "changed" to the
imperishable (1 Cor. 15:52-54).
That a butterfly comes out of a cocoon with a
different body than it went in, doesn't mean
there's still a dead caterpillar in the
cocoon. It proves the opposite. The fact a
butterfly came out means there CAN'T still be
a dead caterpillar in the cocoon. The
caterpillar CHANGED into the butterfly.
Likewise, the MORTAL is what is "changed"
into the "immortal", which PROVES it can't
still be dead and mortal in the ground.
Gives Brothers
Feb 20, 2012, 7:36:08 AM2/20/12
to
On 2/20/2012 5:50 AM, H.E. Eickleberry, Jr.
wrote:
wrote:
> >but
>> will also have their mortal bodies changed
>> (1 Cor. 15:52-54; 1 Thess.
>> 4:13-18). What do you contend happens to
>> their human bodies? Do they
>> have to be killed, because human bodies
>> aren't allowed in heaven?
>
> You have no idea what happens with the
> Remnant, so don't even go there.
You don't want to go there, because it RUINS
>> will also have their mortal bodies changed
>> (1 Cor. 15:52-54; 1 Thess.
>> 4:13-18). What do you contend happens to
>> their human bodies? Do they
>> have to be killed, because human bodies
>> aren't allowed in heaven?
>
> You have no idea what happens with the
> Remnant, so don't even go there.
your eschatology, AND your false gospel.
1 Corinthians 15:52-54 says "we shall not all
sleep, but we shall all be changed". The
living believers will also be "changed", so
that "this mortal" puts on immortality, and
"this corruptible" puts on incorruption.
That means their mortal bodies will be
transformed into immortal ones, while they
are STILL ALIVE.
That fact ruins your lie that the
resurrection of the dead "REALLY" means their
mortal body falls to the ground dead when
their head is cut off.
BUWAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHA!
Oh, and hey, just as a tip. The word
"Triune" has already been taken. Most
already associate it with the doctrine of
God. Try to come up with something original.
--
through whom we have gained access by faith
into this grace in which we now stand. And we
rejoice in the hope of the glory of God.
(Rom 5:2)
Glory Heaven
Feb 20, 2012, 7:39:12 AM2/20/12
to
On 2/20/2012 6:11 AM, H.E. Eickleberry, Jr.
wrote:
body was "changed".
<snicker>
--
For he received honor and glory from God the
Father when the voice came to him from the
Majestic Glory, saying, "This is my Son, whom
I love; with him I am well pleased." (2Pe 1:17)
wrote:
>> The only thing that dies for a believer is his
>> body, and that is plainly stated as what is
>> resurrected from the dead in
>> 1 Corinthians 15. It is the dead,
>> perishable, mortal, and corruptible,
>> which is raised, changed, and which puts on
>> immortality and incorruption.
>
> In a totally new form, which is SPIRITUAL,
> and not PHYSICAL, unless the bearer chooses
> it to be, as Jesus did (or didn't) after His
> resurrection.
No one was able to cut his head off after His
>> body, and that is plainly stated as what is
>> resurrected from the dead in
>> 1 Corinthians 15. It is the dead,
>> perishable, mortal, and corruptible,
>> which is raised, changed, and which puts on
>> immortality and incorruption.
>
> In a totally new form, which is SPIRITUAL,
> and not PHYSICAL, unless the bearer chooses
> it to be, as Jesus did (or didn't) after His
> resurrection.
body was "changed".
<snicker>
--
For he received honor and glory from God the
Father when the voice came to him from the
Majestic Glory, saying, "This is my Son, whom
I love; with him I am well pleased." (2Pe 1:17)
H.E. Eickleberry, Jr.
Feb 20, 2012, 9:02:58 AM2/20/12
to
On 2/20/2012 6:19 AM, Baptized Himself wrote:
> On 2/20/2012 5:13 AM, H.E. Eickleberry, Jr. wrote:
>>>
>>> When Jesus rose from the dead, the
>>> disciples recognized Him as Jesus.
>>
>> Not always.
>>
>> We have several stories in the Gospels in
>> which Jesus hid His form until a key moment
>> in the story, like Lk 24:13-35 and Jn 21:1-7.
>
> But as you note, that was because He "hid" his identity from them. When
> He did not, they recognized Him as Jesus.
The point went right over your head, as usual.
> On 2/20/2012 5:13 AM, H.E. Eickleberry, Jr. wrote:
>>>
>>> When Jesus rose from the dead, the
>>> disciples recognized Him as Jesus.
>>
>> Not always.
>>
>> We have several stories in the Gospels in
>> which Jesus hid His form until a key moment
>> in the story, like Lk 24:13-35 and Jn 21:1-7.
>
> But as you note, that was because He "hid" his identity from them. When
> He did not, they recognized Him as Jesus.
1) Jesus could appear as Himself, and just as readily disappear.
2) Jesus could appear as another, and just as readily change.
3) Jesus could appear as "angel," as in the story from Judges.
4) Jesus could not "appear" at all, but manifest Himself in a vision.
And so on, and so forth.
manifested; subdued (human), or glorified (angelic), etc, etc.
Your preoccupation with physicality is directly tied to your nonsense
about graves having to be opened whenever there is a resurrection, which
ISN'T REQUIRED.
H.E. Eickleberry, Jr.
Feb 20, 2012, 9:04:33 AM2/20/12
to
On 2/20/2012 7:03 AM, Ephesus Spirit wrote:
> On 2/20/2012 5:21 AM, H.E. Eickleberry, Jr. wrote:
>> there is nothing requiring that any graves be
>> opened for those bodies to leave, or for
>> anyone to see anything at all.
>
> When a caterpillar becomes a butterfly...
> On 2/20/2012 5:21 AM, H.E. Eickleberry, Jr. wrote:
>> there is nothing requiring that any graves be
>> opened for those bodies to leave, or for
>> anyone to see anything at all.
>
[yawn]
We're not talking about metaphors here; we're talking about the
parameters of the SPIRITUAL body as it can or cannot be manifested after
a resurrection, and Jesus demonstrated them ALL at one time or another.
Your constant reference to physicality is rhetorical nonsense.
H.E. Eickleberry, Jr.
Feb 20, 2012, 9:05:51 AM2/20/12
to
On 2/20/2012 7:06 AM, Inherit Why wrote:
> On 2/20/2012 5:29 AM, H.E. Eickleberry, Jr. wrote:
>> On 2/19/2012 8:12 PM, Inherit Why wrote:
>>> On 2/19/2012 12:45 PM, Linda Lee wrote:
>>>> Since God created man from the dust of the
>>>> ground, and He is
>>>> omnipotent, I would think God could
>>>> incarnate in the flesh through the
>>>> seed of Abraham whenever He felt like it,
>>>> even though He normally
>>>> doesn't inhabit a human body.
>>>>
>>>> And Christ is called the Spirit eight
>>>> times in the book of Revelation;
>>>> once he ascended to Heaven he was once
>>>> again Spirit.
>>
>> ???
>>
>> Christ isn't called a "Spirit" ANYWHERE in
>> Revelation.
>
>
> You're responding to Linda's comments, not mine.
I'm responding to both sides, and the response proved you both wrong.
> On 2/20/2012 5:29 AM, H.E. Eickleberry, Jr. wrote:
>> On 2/19/2012 8:12 PM, Inherit Why wrote:
>>> On 2/19/2012 12:45 PM, Linda Lee wrote:
>>>> Since God created man from the dust of the
>>>> ground, and He is
>>>> omnipotent, I would think God could
>>>> incarnate in the flesh through the
>>>> seed of Abraham whenever He felt like it,
>>>> even though He normally
>>>> doesn't inhabit a human body.
>>>>
>>>> And Christ is called the Spirit eight
>>>> times in the book of Revelation;
>>>> once he ascended to Heaven he was once
>>>> again Spirit.
>>
>> ???
>>
>> Christ isn't called a "Spirit" ANYWHERE in
>> Revelation.
>
>
> You're responding to Linda's comments, not mine.
But, of course, you cut the response without marking the omission,
KNOWING that it proved your side wrong as well, and as usual.
H.E. Eickleberry, Jr.
Feb 20, 2012, 9:09:19 AM2/20/12
to
On 2/20/2012 7:08 AM, Jesus Living wrote:
> On 2/20/2012 5:31 AM, H.E. Eickleberry, Jr. wrote:
>>>
>>> There are some similarities.
>>
>> Yeah, like a propensity for cutting
>> significant facts when they start to prove
>> you wrong
>
> Which is why you are constantly forced to cut Hebrews, 2 Peter, and so
> many other passages of Scripture, by claiming they are "spurious", that
> Paul didn't know what he was talking about, etc., since your claims
> flatly contradict what they say.
What a moron: The books of the antilegomena WEREN'T IN "SCRIPTURE" UNTIL
> On 2/20/2012 5:31 AM, H.E. Eickleberry, Jr. wrote:
>>>
>>> There are some similarities.
>>
>> Yeah, like a propensity for cutting
>> significant facts when they start to prove
>> you wrong
>
> Which is why you are constantly forced to cut Hebrews, 2 Peter, and so
> many other passages of Scripture, by claiming they are "spurious", that
> Paul didn't know what he was talking about, etc., since your claims
> flatly contradict what they say.
THE MID-FOURTH CENTURY, you idiot.
********
The church councils (which occurred starting in 325 AD) ignored the
early church fathers through the first three centuries and disregarded
the criteria they lived by...
1) The book had to have known origin.
2) The book had to have a traceable history of usage.
3) The book had to fully conform to the teachings of Jesus Christ.
********
The Muratorian Canon (c. 170 as it refers to Pius I, Bishop of Rome,
142-157 AD)
Accepted books
"The third book of the Gospel is that according to Luke… The fourth… is
that of John… the acts of all the apostles… As for the Epistles of Paul…
To the Corinthians first, to the Ephesians second, to the Philippians
third, to the Colossians fourth, to the Galatians fifth, to the
Thessalonians sixth, to the Romans seventh… once more to the Corinthians
and to the Thessalonians… one to Philemon, one to Titus, and two to Timothy…
“Antilegomena,” i.e. writings spoken against
"to the Laodiceans, [and] another to the Alexandrians, [both] forged in
Paul's name to [further] the heresy of Marcion… the epistle of Jude and
two of the above-mentioned (or, bearing the name of) John… and [the book
of] Wisdom…”
Explanation of the apocalyptic books
“We receive only the apocalypses of John and Peter, though some of us
are not willing that the latter be read in church. But Hermas wrote the
Shepherd very recently… And therefore it ought indeed to be read; but it
cannot be read publicly to the people in church."
There is no mention of Hebrews, either Epistle of Peter, or James, all
of which come after the Epistles of Paul, but before Jude and John’s
Revelation in every other New Testament canon.
********
Origen (c. 185-253)
One finds in [Origen’s writings] citations of all the books of the New
Testament, though he expressed reservations concerning James, 2 Peter,
and 2nd and 3rd John.
Origen on Hebrews
Throughout Origen's writings he quotes from the Epistle to the Hebrews
more than 200 times, and in the vast majority of his references he is
content to attribute it to Paul as its author. But near the close of his
life (after 245 CE), where Origen is speaking as a scholar in his
Homilies, he admits that the tradition of its authorship is wholly
uncertain.
“That the character of the diction of the Epistles entitled 'To the
Hebrews' has not the apostle's rudeness in speech, who acknowledged
himself to be rude in speech (2 Cor. 6:6), that is, in style, but that
the Epistle is better Greek in the framing of its diction, will be
admitted by everyone who is able to discern differences of style. But
again, on the other hand, that the thoughts of the Epistle are
admirable, and not inferior to the acknowledged writings of the apostle,
this also everyone who carefully examines the apostolic text will admit…
“If I gave my opinion, I should say that the thoughts are those of the
apostle, but the style and composition belong to some one who remembered
the apostle's teachings and wrote down at his leisure what had been said
by his teacher. Therefore, if any church holds that this Epistle is by
Paul, let it be commended for this also. For it is not without reason
that the men of old time have handed it down as Paul's. But who wrote
the Epistle in truth, God knows. Yet the account that has reached us [is
twofold] , some saying that Clement, bishop of Rome, wrote the Epistle,
and others, that it was Luke, the one who wrote the Gospel and the Acts.”
********
Irenaeus' Canon (2nd century AD - c. 202), by citation,
Matthew
Mark
Luke
John
Acts of the Apostles
Romans
1 Corinthians
2 Corinthians
Galatians
Ephesians
Philippians
Colossians
1 Thessalonians
2 Thessalonians
1 Timothy
2 Timothy
Titus
1 Peter
1 John
2 John
Revelation to John
No Hebrews, 2 Peter, 3rd John, James, or Jude
********
Eusebius' (c 263-339) Canon
Eusebius [c. 303-325 AD] applied the term "Antilegomena" ["writings
spoken against"] to 2nd Peter, 2nd and 3rd John, the Epistle of James,
the Epistle of Jude, the Acts of Paul, the Shepherd of Hermas, the
Apocalypse of Peter, the Epistle of Barnabas, the Didache, the
Apocalypse of John, and the Gospel according to the Hebrews.
Quote from Eusebius:
"Among the disputed writings, [ton antilegomenon] which are nevertheless
recognized by many, are extant the so-called epistle of James and that
of Jude, also the second epistle of Peter, and those that are called the
second and third of John, whether they belong to the evangelist or to
another person of the same name.
“Among the rejected writings must be reckoned also the Acts of Paul, and
the so-called Shepherd, and the Apocalypse of Peter, and in addition to
these the extant epistle of Barnabas, and the so-called Teachings of the
Apostles; and besides, as I said, the *Apocalypse of John, if it seem
proper, which some, as I said, reject, but which others class with the
accepted books. And among these some have placed also the Gospel
according to the Hebrews, with which those of the Hebrews that have
accepted Christ are especially delighted. And all these may be reckoned
among the disputed books."
(*Eusebius marginalized the Apocalypse of John in this list, but
accepted it in another.)
********
Cheltenham/Mommsen Canon (c. 360 AD)
The Cheltenham Canon, c. 365-390, is a Latin list that was discovered by
the German classical scholar Theodor Mommsen (published 1886) in a 10th
century manuscript (chiefly patristic) belonging to the library of
Thomas Phillips at Cheltenham, England. The list probably originated in
North Africa soon after the middle of the 4th century.
It has a 24-book Old Testament and 24-book New Testament which provides
syllable and line counts but omits Hebrews, Jude and James, and seems to
question the epistles of John and Peter beyond the first, citing the
number of lines for the whole (because they were traditionally printed
together), but annotating the entry with the words “one only,”
indicating that he thought that only the first epistles attributed to
Peter and John were authentic, which is in line with the previous canons.
From a list contained in a tenth-century Latin manuscript of
miscellaneous content (chiefly patristic) that once belonged to the
library of Thomas Phillipps at Cheltenham, England; it was identified in
1886 by Theodor Mommsen.
[An Old Testament list is followed by:]
Likewise the catalogue of the New Testament:
Four Gospels: Matthew, 2700 lines
Mark, 1700 lines
John, 1800 lines
Luke, 3300 lines
All the lines make 10,000 lines
Epistles of Paul, 13 in number
The Acts of the Apostles, 3600 lines
The Apocalypse, 1800 lines
Three Epistles of John, 350 lines
One only
Two Epistles of Peter, 300 lines
One only
Since the index of lines [= stichometry] in the city of Rome is not
clearly given, and elsewhere too through avarice for gain they do not
preserve it in full, I have gone through the books singly, counting
sixteen syllables to the line, and have appended to every book the
number of Virgilian hexameters.
*******
Diatessaron and Syriac Church
"By the fifth century the Syrian Bible, called the Peshitta, became
formalized somehow into its present form: Philemon was accepted, along
with James, 1 Peter and 1 John, but the remaining books are still
expelled (2 John, 3 John, 2 Peter, Jude and Revelation). After the
Council of Ephesus in 431 A.D., the Eastern Syrian church, in turn
divided between the Nestorian and the Syriac Orthodox Church, broke
away, and retained this canon of only 22-books (the Peshitta) up to the
present day."
*******
Luther’s Antilegomena
Luther likewise believed that Hebrews, 2 Peter, 2nd and 3rd John, James,
and Jude were spurious, though he found James admirable. He held
Hebrews, James, Jude and Revelation in low esteem. Erasmus likewise
questioned these four books, as did Luther’s Roman Catholic opponent at
Augsburg, Cardinal Cajetan.
[The only book they were all wrong about was Revelation]
********
Conclusion
There are many other canons, especially the ones in the Latin tradition,
which adheres to the canon as found in the Catholic Bible.
But the fact remains that the church fathers by and large rejected
Hebrews, 2 Peter, 2nd & 3rd John, James, Jude, and they had mixed
feelings about Revelation, although the consensus was that Revelation
was authentic.
********
It is loading more messages.
0 new messages