The Prophecies of Daniel: Why They Don't Point To Us!
Pastor Dave
The Prophecies of Daniel: Why They Don't Point to Us,
by Gary DeMar
For Hal Lindsey, every news story is a sign that we are
living in the rapture generation. It wasn't too long ago
that he claimed in his wildly popular prophetic book,
"The Late Great Planet Earth" (1970) that the
"this generation" of Matthew 24:34 would end sometime
before 1988 (1948+40 years=1988).
In an interview published in Christianity Today (April 15,
1977), Ward Gasque asked Lindsey: But what if you're
wrong? Lindsey replied: Well, there just a split second
difference between a hero and a bum. I didn't ask to be
a hero, but I guess I have become one in the Christian
community. So I accept it. But if I'm wrong about this,
I guess I'll become a bum.
Well, Lindsey was wrong, and he didn't become a bum
in the eyes of so many Christians who yearn for the
rapture and catastrophic world events that will mean
the death of billions of people. They seem oblivious
to the history of failed predictions, including many
made by Lindsey. He still writes and sells books on
Bible prophecy, reports on prophetic events on his
website, and pens a regular column for WorldNetDaily.
His latest end-time prediction is that Daniel 12 is
referring to events in our day, more than 2600 years
from the time the prophecy was given to Daniel.
In reality, Lindsey is reading these prophecies through
the interpretive lens of today's newspaper headlines.
Lindsey begins his exposition by citing the following:
"When Daniel emerged from the vision, the angel
instructed him, "But you, Daniel, shut up the words
and seal the book until the time of the end; many shall
run to and fro, and knowledge shall increase (Dan. 12:4).
He then adds: The prophecies of Daniel were indeed
for centuries following the Reformation.
Contrast this with what the angel tells John in Rev 22:10:
And he said to me, "Do not seal up the words of the
prophecy of this book, for the time is near. Of Daniel's
sealed prophecy refers to our day, then to what time
does Revelation's unsealed prophecy refer? Contrary to
Lindsey, Revelation reopens the prophecy given to Daniel,
a fulfillment that was said to be near for John and
Revelation's first readers (Rev. 1:1, 3). The end time
of Daniel is a fulfilled reality by the time we get to
Revelation. We learn from Peter that the end of all things
is at hand (1 Pet. 4:7), that is, the end of all things
related to the Old Covenant (Heb. 1:1-2; 10:23-25).
The destruction of the temple in A.D. 70 brought to
an end any need for a temple, high priest, or animal
sacrifices.
Lindsey sees modern-day technological advancements
as a fulfillment of Daniel 12.
He says...
The angel told Daniel his vision would be unintelligible to
generations other than the one to whom it was addressed,
a generation whose hallmark would be that of ever-increasing
knowledge.
Thanks to Bell Labs' 1948 invention [of the transistor],
Moore's Law of Computer says that today's computers
get twice as smart every 18 months to two years.
That means we get twice as smart.
The angel also identified the generation of the time
of the end as one in which many would go to and fro;
the generation that witnessed the birth of rapid mass
transportation.
Many run to and fro, knowledge is increasing at an
exponential rate, and more books have been written
about the prophet Daniel in this generation than in
the last 2,500 years combined.
Like so much of Lindsey's prophetic speculation, his
exegesis is guided more by newspaper headlines than
the Bible. John Cumming (1807-1881), one of Lindsey's
favorite prophecy writers, practiced a similar form of
newspaper exegesis in his day. Robert H. Ellison, in an
insightful study of Cumming's views on Bible prophecy,
makes the following observation: [Cumming] asserts
that it is neither hasty nor irrelevant to compare
ancient prophecy with daily press reports and states that,
"This use of the modern newspaper is all the originality
I claim.".
Here are some examples of Cumming's "newspaper
exegesis", as detailed by Ellison:
Cumming's use of current events to interpret ancient
Scripture gets rather ingenious at times. He claims,
for example, that Daniel's phrase, "And knowledge
shall be increased" [Dan. 12:4] can also be translated,
"And knowledge shall be flashed along, a rendering
which anticipates the telegraph, the mysterious
whispering wire that can transmit a message to
the most distant capital of Europe in less than an
hour's time". Even more inventive is his interpretation
of the prophecy he sees in Isaiah 18:1-2: "Woe to the
land . . . beyond the rivers of Ethiopia: That sendeth
ambassadors by the sea, even in vessels of bulrushes
upon the waters". He asserts that the phrase "vessels
of bulrushes" is literally, "vessels of that which drinks
water", "a phrase which may have perplexed the translators
working in 1611 [when the King James version of the Bible
was published] but which can now be seen as a reference
to the steamship, a vessel whose . . . motive force from
beginning to end, is water".
Cumming also saw railway traveling as a reference to many
shall run to and fro (Dan. 12:4). Current prophecy writers
like Lindsey are just as ingenious when they see modern
transportation systems and computer technology as a
fulfillment of Daniel 12:4.
1) Hal Lindsey, The Prophecies of Daniel: Why They Point
to Us (August 24, 2007):
www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=57297
2) Robert H. Ellison, John Cumming and His Critics:
Some Victorian Perspectives on the End Times, Leeds,
Centre Working Papers in Victorian Studies: Platform
Pulpit Rhetoric, ed. Martin Hewitt, vol. 3 (Horsforth,
Leeds: Leeds Centre for Victorian Studies, 2000), 83,
note 20.
3) John Cumming, Behold, The Bridegroom Cometh:
The Last Warning Cry with Reasons for the Hope That
is in Me (London: James Nisbet & Co., 1865), 357-358.
Also see pages 189-190
4) Ellison, John Cumming and His Critics, 77.
5) Quoted in Ellison, John Cumming and His Critics, 79.
6) Ed Hindson and Lee Fredrickson, Future Wave: End Times
Prophecy, and the Technology Explosion (Eugene, OR: Harvest
House, 2001); Peter Lalonde and Paul Lalonde, Racing Toward
. . The Mark of the Beast: Your Money, Computers, and the
End of the World (Eugene, OR: Harvest House, 1994).
<Begin Pastor Dave inserted text>
I was listening to a "Christian" radio program this morning
and the guy said that; "Reading the Bible is like reading
today's news! Yes, those people back then who wrote
the Bible didn't understand what was going to take place,
because God did not open their eyes to it, because He was
waiting, to open our eyes to it today!".
Hmmm...
Doesn't that contradict what Paul said???
Romans 16:25-26
25) Now to him that is of power to establish you according
to my gospel, and the preaching of Jesus Christ, according
to the revelation of the mystery, which was kept secret
since the world began,
26) But *_NOW_* is made manifest, and by the Scriptures
of the prophets, according to the commandment of the
everlasting God, made known to all nations for the obedience
of faith.
There are many more verses, in which Paul states very
clearly, that the msyteries were revealed TO THEM,
BACK THEN! And frankly, it takes one Hell of an ego
to claim that those who walked with Christ and those
who had Christ appear to them AND WROTE THE BIBLE,
didn't know what was going on and need you to teach
them a thing or two! And yet, at the same time, you
claim that the Bible is the infallible word of God! But
at the same time say, "The Apostles were wrong in
their expectation of Christ returning in their generation".
The Bible is infallible, but they were wrong?!
You pay only lip service to your claims! It is sad indeed!
Oh wait, that's right... "It isn't that important anyway.".
COP OUT!!! It is the second most talked about subject
in the New Testament! And if it isn't that important
anyway, then why is it your favorite past time, to see
how "The prophecies of the Bible are being fulfilled
before our very eyes, today!" ???
the fact is, more "Christian" books, movies, etc.,
are sold about this subject, than any other! And
it isn't the authors buying up all those copies!
It's you! So do us both a favor and stop lying
about it, to try to avoid dealing with the facts!
Fact 1) The Apostles taught a return within their lifetime.
Fact 2) Either they were right, or the Bible isn't inerrant.
Fact 3) You don't like that and so, invent responses
on the fly, to avoid admitting it!
Oh wait, that's right! I forgot! To the Futurist, the word
"now" means, "In my time, in the 21st century, because
the Bible should be read as if it were written just the day
before *I* was born, because it's all about ME, ME, ME!!!".
Gee, my bad! (:
The fact is, this is how Futurists view it and THEY LOVE
viewing it this way! Ego and vanity take over and if they
don't get to play the, "How do the prophecies relate to
my time" puzzle game, then to them, the Bible is totally
useless! And they have admitted it more than once!
In fact, the famous line used, when they see their heroes
talking about the daily news is, "It's the prophecies of
the Bible, being fulfilled before our very eyes!".
Now all of you Futurists know this to be true! And what
never occurs to you is:
1) That every time it's been wrong!
2) This isn't the proper approach to Scripture!
3) If you get embarrassed by this and in response,
try to wiggle your way out of admitting it and
try to deny what any jack ass knows is true,
then that should tell you that you're on the
wrong track! But then, there's that ego and
vanity thing! (:
<End Pastor Dave inserted text>
--
Pastor Dave
The following is part of my auto-rotating
sig file and not part of the message body.
"If one does not know to which port one is sailing,
no wind is favorable." -Seneca
Bitterscroll
Pastor Dave:
What source do you have to confirm this statement that you wrote?
"The destruction of the temple in A.D. 70 brought to an end any need
for a temple, high priest, or animal
sacrifices."
And where in Scriptures does it say that the Temple will not be
rebuilt?
Ike E 11/16/09
"Pastor Dave" <ananias917_@_gmail.com> wrote in message
news:996jg5ttl8mhie9hr...@4ax.com...
>
> The Prophecies of Daniel: Why They Don't Point to Us,
Say the ignorant goofballs who don't understand how to read prophecy.
"That which has been is now, and that which is to be has already become, and
God requires that which is past." [Ecc 3:15]
Jesus and every one of His prophets followed this convention.
In fact, WITHOUT IT, Jesus couldn't even BE the Messiah, for the INITIAL
iteration of every prophecy BEGAN WITHIN THE LIFETIME OF THE PROPHET WHO
GAVE IT.
Idiot.
[snip]
Ike
Pastor Dave
<vkl...@gmail.com> spake thusly:
> Pastor Dave:
> What source do you have to confirm this statement
> that you wrote?
>
> "The destruction of the temple in A.D. 70 brought
> to an end any need for a temple, high priest,
> or animal sacrifices."
The Mosaic system is what involved animal sacrifices.
There is only one reason to have a temple and that
is to be able to perform animal sacrifices. Take that
away and you have no need for a temple. In fact,
that is what the temple was built around. Look into
its structure. Even the platforms were built above
channels that made the blood flow out and away
from where the sacrifices were being performed.
And then look through the Bible and what you'll
constantly see, is how to set it up for that purpose
and how to perform the sacrifices and offerings.
I.e., Read the Old Testament. Don't just look at
pieces of it, that some Futurist web site, book,
or preacher points you to and has given you
what they claim it means. It usually means
something else entirely.
And any Rabbi will tell you that Biblical Judaism
ended in 70 AD with the destruction of the temple.
> And where in Scriptures does it say that the Temple
> will not be rebuilt?
It is not my job to prove a negative. It is your job
to prove that what you claim is true and no offense,
but those who demand that the other person prove
a negative, are confessing that they are unable to
support their own doctrines. (:
I.e., You're arguing like an evolutionist does,
when they are challenged to prove their claims.
"Prove that it did not happen."
"What mechanism would stop it from occurring?"
The real question is; Why would you think that
since Christ, animal sacrifices would be necessary?
And why would you think that even though Jesus
said TO JEWS, that NO ONE can come to the Father,
except through Him, that there will be two ways to
be saved, one through Him and then one for Jews
through the Law and the temple system, which
would require animal sacrifices for sin and that
somehow, for some reason, Jesus would be sitting
in this temple, smiling away, waving Jews on in,
while they still openly reject Him as Messiah,
which they would have to be doing, if the Mosaic
temple system again stands?
What sense does that make? Forget about what
you have been taught and think it through! :)
No matter how often you will claim, "The Bible says...",
the reality is, that (no offense) you will be parroting
what you have been taught and not what the Bible
actually says, since nowhere does the Bible teach
two methods of salvation, one for Jews and one
for Gentiles.
And surely you will quote passages, as if I, a pastor
have somehow never seen them before. But you
will be doing that based on your reading of them,
which was handed to you. You were taught that
reading of them. And you will think that just because
you quote a passage, that it automatically means
what you think it does and that your belief simply
cannot be disputed! And yet, even Futurists like
yourself read the same passages and do not always
agree on what they mean, so how could that be true?
The fact is, that Jesus made Himself known as the only
way of salvation and He came and said that specifically
to Jews and stated that He came specifically to the Jews
and not the Gentiles.
"But he answered and said, I am not sent but unto
the lost sheep of the house of Israel." - Matthew 15:34
"These twelve Jesus sent forth, and commanded them,
saying; Go not into the way of the Gentiles and into
any city of the Samaritans enter ye not." - Matthew 10:5
"But when they persecute you in this city, flee ye into another:
for verily I say unto you, Ye shall not have gone over the
cities of Israel, till the Son of man be come." - Matthew 10:23
So how could it be that He would say this to Jews and yet,
for Jews, the Law will be a way to be saved, especially when
the Law includes animal sacrifices for sin, which excludes
Jesus as their Savior and yet, He said that it was to them
that He came and the first church was filled with Jewish
people, who looked to Jesus as their one time sacrifice
for sin? Would that make sense to you? I hope not! :)
So His message was to the Jews and when He said that
He was the only way to the Father, He said it to them.
"Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life:
no man cometh unto the Father, but by Me." - John 14:6
So you either believe Jesus, or your doctrine. It's that simple.
Again, I ask; How does your question refute what I have posted?
I ask, because it seems as if you are asking not to learn,
but to somehow show that it can't be true, since you
talk about a "rebuilt temple", as if it is in the Bible, period.
Maybe I am wrong and your intent is to learn???
--
Pastor Dave
The following is part of my auto-rotating
sig file and not part of the message body.
"The religion that does not begin at home, does not begin."
- Adrian Rogers
Ike E 11/16/09
Your doctrines "prove" so.
Ike
SwordoZ
"Ike E 11/16/09" <xhermanei...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:hedjjj$f3b$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
>
> "Pastor Dave" <ananias917_@_gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:996jg5ttl8mhie9hr...@4ax.com...
>>
>> The Prophecies of Daniel: Why They Don't Point to Us,
>
> Say the ignorant goofballs who don't understand how to read prophecy.
> "That which has been is now, and that which is to be has already become,
> and God requires that which is past." [Ecc 3:15]
SoZ:
As I've shown and explained in the past to you ... Ecc 3:15 refers to this
world's creation ... NOT prophecy.
> Jesus and every one of His prophets followed this convention.
> In fact, WITHOUT IT, Jesus couldn't even BE the Messiah, for the INITIAL
> iteration of every prophecy BEGAN WITHIN THE LIFETIME OF THE PROPHET WHO
> GAVE IT.
SoZ:
Hey ... anyone ever inform you to quit beating the "dead" horse, you'll
never resurrect it. :)
Ike E 11/23/9
"SwordoZ" <mar...@enter.net> wrote in message
news:4b0b6976$0$4063$cd3e...@news.enter.net...
>
> "Ike E 11/16/09" <xhermanei...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:hedjjj$f3b$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
>>
>> "Pastor Dave" <ananias917_@_gmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:996jg5ttl8mhie9hr...@4ax.com...
>>>
>>> The Prophecies of Daniel: Why They Don't Point to Us,
>>
>> Say the ignorant goofballs who don't understand how to read prophecy.
>
>
>> "That which has been is now, and that which is to be has already become,
>> and God requires that which is past." [Ecc 3:15]
>
Bub, you haven't "shown or explained" anything.
Meanwhile, back on the ranch, every single Messianic prophecy was couched in
a HISTORICAL TIME PERIOD with HISTORICAL CONSEQUENCES FIRST, and THEN they
go on to speak of the Messiah.
Jesus couldn't even BE the Messiah if not for prophetic multiplicity.
Idiot.
> ... Ecc 3:15 refers to this world's creation ... NOT prophecy.
Horseshit.
It refers to the fact that what is was seen in what was, and what will be is
seen in what is, and it all started with what was.
>> Jesus and every one of His prophets followed this convention.
>> In fact, WITHOUT IT, Jesus couldn't even BE the Messiah, for the INITIAL
>> iteration of every prophecy BEGAN WITHIN THE LIFETIME OF THE PROPHET WHO
>> GAVE IT.
>
> Hey ... anyone ever inform you to quit beating the "dead" horse, you'll
> never resurrect it. :)
Hey, moron: Who was Nathan prophesying about in the following prophecy?
Solomon or Jesus?
2Sa 7:12-17
And when thy days be fulfilled, and thou shalt sleep with thy fathers, I
will set up thy seed after thee, which shall proceed out of thy bowels, and
I will establish his kingdom. He shall build an house for my name, and I
will stablish the throne of his kingdom for ever. I will be his father, and
he shall be my son. If he commit iniquity, I will chasten him with the rod
of men, and with the stripes of the children of men: But my mercy shall not
depart away from him, as I took it from Saul, whom I put away before thee.
And thine house and thy kingdom shall be established for ever before thee:
thy throne shall be established for ever.
According to all these words, and according to all this vision, so did
Nathan speak unto David.
Who did Nathan and David think the prophecy was about?
SOLOMON.
And he did these thing--TEMPORALLY.
But did SOLOMON'S "house" that he built last forever? Did God establish
Solomon's throne forever? Was God specifically Solomon's "father?" Did
Solomon's throne last forever?
NO.
They were all destroyed in 587 BC.
So the TEMPORAL interpretation was about Solomon, but the ULTIMATE
interpretation is about Jesus.
But where are JESUS' "house," and "throne," and "kingdom?"
They are yet to be revealed in the world.
So that brings us to the THIRD iteration of the SAME PROPHECY.
Like I said, according to the stupid rules of Preterism, Jesus couldn't even
BE the Messiah because interpreting prophecy REQUIRES multiplicity before
you can APPLY them to Jesus.
Idiot.
Ike
randy
"Ike E 11/23/9"
> ....Who was Nathan prophesying about in the following prophecy? Solomon or
> Jesus?...
> Who did Nathan and David think the prophecy was about? SOLOMON. And he did
> these thing--TEMPORALLY. But did SOLOMON'S "house" that he built last
> forever? Did God establish Solomon's throne forever? Was God specifically
> Solomon's "father?" Did Solomon's throne last forever? NO. They were all
> destroyed in 587 BC.
Solomon's throne was established forever in a unique way. Not only did
David's dynasty become an ongoing dynasty, but it was destined to be
*restored* once it had fallen into disrepair.
Amos 9:11 In that day I will raise up the booth of David that is fallen and
repair its breaches, and raise up its ruins, and rebuild it as in the days
of old...
We know that Israel was restored following the Babylonian Captivity, but
without a restoration of the monarchy. That restoration took place uniquely
when Christ himself, the heir to the throne of David, was raised from the
dead. He inherited the throne as a unique heir, not as one to rule
immediately as king, but one who had royal power, who could exercise that
royal power, and would in fact rule with that power. That power was
demonstrated in his deity, in his ability to rise from the dead. And that
also is how his Kingdom was established for eternity.
randy
Ike E 11/23/9
"randy" <rkl...@wavecable.com> wrote in message
news:DbCdnUnL5pWrHpbW...@wavecable.com...
As usual, the point goes completely over your head.
If you had asked Nathan or David what the prophecy was about, they would
have said "Solomon." THAT was the kingdom builder THEY thought the prophecy
was about. And in the immediate sense, IT WAS. (But not in the ultimate
sense.)
They wouldn't have even known what you were talking about if you said
"Jesus." In THEIR thinking, David WAS the "messiah," i.e. "chosen one" [alt.
"anointed one"], because HE WAS the "anointed one:" God "anointed" him to be
King of Israel.
(In this, David was one of the figures for Christ.)
But THEY would have LAUGHED at a FUTURE reinterpretation of the prophecy in
regards to Jesus--why would they need Jesus? Their kingdom was JUST
BEGINNING.
Same thing with every other prophecy of the Bible.
Ask the Jews what any Old Testament prophecy was about, and they'll tell you
the same thing--the history of Israel. And they would be RIGHT--in the FIRST
context, THEY WERE about the history of Israel. ALL of them were.
Prophecy didn't occur in a VACUUM--they were given by SPECIFIC PROPHETS in
SPECIFIC TIMES AND PLACES, and the FIRST meaning of those prophecies was
IMMEDIATE.
Any application to Christ is a SECOND application of the prophecy.
Any application to Christ's second advent is a THIRD application of the
prophecy (if it's distinct from the first--Isaiah was a master of
intertwining Jesus' first and second advents, even though he "didn't know
what he was talking about."
But therein lies the rub: NONE of these guys thought they were talking about
THE DISTANT FUTURE--THEY thought they were talking about events CONTEMPORARY
TO THEM.
In this is the failure of Preterism, Dispensationalism, Idealism, and even
Historicism, i.e. they fail to separate prophecies into THREE DISTINCT
INTERPRETATIONS (and sometimes even four) based on that which "was," that
which "is," and that which "it to come," NOT in segments and lines, but in
STATEMENTS which were COMPLETE UNTO THEMSELVES (to the extent that they were
"complete" unto themselves).
So, back to the question: Who was Nathan prophesying about? Solomon or
Jesus?
Answer: Nathan wouldn't have even known who Jesus WAS, or WHY THERE WOULD BE
ANOTHER, so HE would have said Solomon; but, ultimately, he was prophesying
about Jesus--he just didn't know it.
And every single prophecy of the Old Testament IS THE SAME.
This shoots the hell out of Preterism: If multiplicity is required to
reinterpret a prophecy about the past as a prophecy about the future, then
their "rule" is totally arbitrary when they apply it to Jesus' present to
Jesus' future.
And then Jesus takes up the SAME LANGUAGE in His prophecies, which winds up
creating TRIUNISM between the three points of view--the "was," the "is," and
the "is to come."
Of course, this ALSO shoots the hell out of Dispensationalism, because those
fools are busy about the process of trying to cobble up prophecy, even if it
means they have to completely ignore history to do it.
This also shoots the hell out of Historicism, as it arrives in the right
place, but fails to see the reset between the end of what "is" and the
beginning of what "is to come."
And the foolishness of Idealism is self-evident.
Ike
randy
"Ike E 11/23/9"
randy
>> We know that Israel was restored following the Babylonian Captivity, but
>> without a restoration of the monarchy. That restoration took place
>> uniquely when Christ himself, the heir to the throne of David, was raised
>> from the dead. He inherited the throne as a unique heir, not as one to
>> rule immediately as king, but one who had royal power, who could exercise
>> that royal power, and would in fact rule with that power. That power was
>> demonstrated in his deity, in his ability to rise from the dead. And that
>> also is how his Kingdom was established for eternity.
> As usual, the point goes completely over your head.
I think, rather, the point has gone over your head! I'm saying that what we
have is not two or three "iterations" of prophecy, as you term it, but one
consistent explanation of a single prophecy. The dynasty of David was to
remain forever, but it was not to be fulfilled by an endless succession of
kings. Rather, the kings following in David's line would continue for a
time, but would experience the same fate that all mortals do. There would be
judgment, and an apparent failure in the prophecy.
But the prophecy would be fulfilled when a descendant of David would appear
to fulfil the real kind of king that God always intended to be fulfilled for
Israel. This descendant of David would be divine, and rule as a *divine*
king--not just as a king over some earthly nation and over an earthly army.
Deity reigns over all creation, and demonstrates its power in the form of
omnipotence. This is a kind of royalty many Jews had not been expecting. But
this is how the prophecy of David's eternal reign was actually brought to
fulfillment.
I tried to post a separate thread on this, but it has been difficult for me
to communicate it, because this idea of "king" is so different from what we
have been conditioned to conceive of. For many years David's successors were
merely kings in the mold of David. But the king God had in mind to fulfil
the prophecy was different than all these kings. Just as God had told Samuel
He was the true king over Israel, so messiah would be a *divine* king. This
is a very unique concept, and requires some serious thought.
randy
theologynut
Matthew and Luke's attempts to tie Jesus to the line of David differ
and are clumsy at best. Being from Galilee to the north, where people
often mixed with aliens, it's unlikely that Jesus was of the tribe of
Judah. Judah was a southern tribe. The synoptic authors knew all
about messianic prerequisites--they'd
read them all their lives in the Septuagint. As Greek Jews, they
assumed the woman in Isaiah was parthenon (virgin) rather than almah
(young woman). They knew that the "one like a son of man riding
clouds of glory" was Israel's common hope--although it could be argued
that since the beasts emerging from the sea represented nations, so
could the nonhuman figure that appears before the Ancient of Days--
that is, Israel herself in the form of Michael the archangel, her
traditional protector. Since the Messianic Age had to consist of the
blind seeing, lame walking, poor recieving good news, and a Davidic
messiah riding clouds of glory, the gospels dutifully echoed all of
these attributes from Hebrew scripture. Look up Book of Daniel in
Wikipedia for the arguments that maintain Daniel is second-temple
apocalyptic Phariseeism (meaning angels, ressurrection, and judgment
are espoused) and not contemporaneous with the other prophets. Why do
you think Jews categorize it under writings (ketuvim)? "Sealed until
the time of the end" explains why it suddenly appeared in 165 BC, why
it wasn't there all along with the other prophets. Its author
believed that the time of the end was 490 years after the exile, not
49 or whatever. He extended the timeline to encompass his own era,
because like every other eschatological scatterbrain, he thought his
time WAS the time of the end.
Ike E 11/23/9
>
> "Ike E 11/23/9"
> randy
>>> We know that Israel was restored following the Babylonian Captivity, but
>>> without a restoration of the monarchy. That restoration took place
>>> uniquely when Christ himself, the heir to the throne of David, was
>>> raised from the dead. He inherited the throne as a unique heir, not as
>>> one to rule immediately as king, but one who had royal power, who could
>>> exercise that royal power, and would in fact rule with that power. That
>>> power was demonstrated in his deity, in his ability to rise from the
>>> dead. And that also is how his Kingdom was established for eternity.
>
>> As usual, the point goes completely over your head.
>
> I think, rather, the point has gone over your head!
Nope.
David's line ended with the destruction of the first temple.
End of story.
But the story didn't end.
It took on ANOTHER form for the second iteration.
And it will take yet another form altogether in the third.
Like I said, the point went completely over your head.
If you had asked Nathan or David what the prophecy was about, they would
have told you Solomon--and they would be RIGHT...up to a point.
Likewise, if you asked pretty much any Jew what the prophecy was about, they
also would tell you the same thing--Solomon. And they would be RIGHT...up to
a point.
And you can save the Reformation Era Historicist bullshit for someone
else--it doesn't work, and it never did.
Daniel's prophecies were true from the destruction of the temple to the end
of the Maccabean Revolt.
End of round 1.
Daniel's prophecies were true AGAIN from the defilement of the temple by
Pompey to the end of the Simon bar Cochba Revolt (only running backwards),
which reset Daniel's prophecies back to the beginning--the temple was
destroyed, and the Jews were in exile all over again, a condition that
persists to this day.
End of round 2.
Round three is yet to come--not just the end of the story, but the WHOLE
BLASTED THING, from the beginning.
"That which has been is now, and that which is to be has already become, and
God requires that which is past." [Ecc 3:15]
Same device John used in Revelation, rotating "was," "is," and "is to come"
throughout the book.
Ike
Ike E 11/23/9
"theologynut" <sharonkath...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1b5ab00f-60b1-43dc...@r24g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
[snip]
> Matthew and Luke's attempts to tie Jesus to the line of David...
Take off, hoser: You don't have a clue as to what you're talking about, and
never did.
You have GOT to stop reading the Word-of-Truth-killing garbage from the
Jesus Seminar.
[snip]
Ike
randy
"theologynut"
randy
> I tried to post a separate thread on this, but it has been difficult for
> me
> to communicate it, because this idea of "king" is so different from what
> we
> have been conditioned to conceive of. For many years David's successors
> were
> merely kings in the mold of David. But the king God had in mind to fulfil
> the prophecy was different than all these kings. Just as God had told
> Samuel
> He was the true king over Israel, so messiah would be a *divine* king.
> This
> is a very unique concept, and requires some serious thought.
> randy
"Matthew and Luke's attempts to tie Jesus to the line of David differ
and are clumsy at best. Being from Galilee to the north, where people
often mixed with aliens, it's unlikely that Jesus was of the tribe of
Judah. Judah was a southern tribe...."
You're just arguing with the record--not with inconsistencies in the
accounts themselves. The record of the gospels indicates that although
Jesus's family lived in the region of Galilee, in the town of Nazareth,
their place of origins was Judah. We know that because the census required
that they go to Bethlehem, in Judea.
"The synoptic authors knew all about messianic prerequisites--they'd
read them all their lives in the Septuagint. As Greek Jews, they
assumed the woman in Isaiah was parthenon (virgin) rather than almah
(young woman)."
There was no way to know Isaiah spoke specifically of a "virgin" from the
original Hebrew text itself. For all they knew, nearly all women who give
birth to their firstborn were "virgins!"
"They knew that the "one like a son of man riding
clouds of glory" was Israel's common hope--although it could be argued
that since the beasts emerging from the sea represented nations, so
could the nonhuman figure that appears before the Ancient of Days--
that is, Israel herself in the form of Michael the archangel, her
traditional protector."
I'm sure Hebrew scholars had a variety of opinions about the passage in
Daniel regarding the "son of man. I should think at least some of them
thought this "son of man" was the promised Messiah."
"Since the Messianic Age had to consist of the
blind seeing, lame walking, poor recieving good news, and a Davidic
messiah riding clouds of glory, the gospels dutifully echoed all of
these attributes from Hebrew scripture."
Trouble is, this wasn't done in a "dutiful" way. It was the application of
messianic attributes to someone in Israel who was actually accomplishing
them in real time. It was not an attempt to find someone to fulfil these
prophecies. Rather, it was witnessing someone who did amazing things that,
looking back on biblical prophecies, realized that this was actually
biblical prophecy.
"Look up Book of Daniel in Wikipedia for the arguments that maintain Daniel
is second-temple
apocalyptic Phariseeism (meaning angels, ressurrection, and judgment
are espoused) and not contemporaneous with the other prophets. Why do
you think Jews categorize it under writings (ketuvim)?"
There must've been debate over when Daniel was actually written, and over
whether it contained actual prophecy. Or perhaps it was just the fact Daniel
was so different from the other prophetic books, and deserved a different
category.
"Sealed until the time of the end" explains why it suddenly appeared in 165
BC, why
it wasn't there all along with the other prophets."
I don't think "the time of the end" is particularly significant. When Daniel
describes the rise and fall of kings, it simply describes the "end" of these
dynasties. It doesn't have to mean the end of time itself. In fact I don't
think there is any such thing as an "end of time" biblically.
"Its author believed that the time of the end was 490 years after the exile,
not
49 or whatever...."
No, 490 years, or 70 weeks of years, was decreed until the coming of an
"Anointed One," the Messiah. He would appear to fail, and Jerusalem would be
destroyed. It would seem like an end to everything that Jews had hoped for.
This was not a prophecy of the "end of time." It was a prophecy that Jesus
saw as being fulfilled in his own generation, when the Romans would come to
utterly destroy Jerusalem and its temple.
randy
randy
"Ike E 11/23/9"
randy
> David's line ended with the destruction of the first temple.
Not in the least. It was the end of a succession of kings, but not an end to
the prophecy of a Davidic successor. A successor would have to come for
David who would be king forever. My argument is that this was fulfilled in a
completely different way than by the ordinary succession of kings. It would
be someone coming in the line of David's descendants who would be a *divine*
king.
> It took on ANOTHER form for the second iteration.
No--just a single "iteration." David was promised an heir who would be king
"forever." This could only take place by a *divine* successor, who could
somehow bypass the normal state of mortality afflicting mankind. It
therefore had to be God in the flesh, who would be unafflicted with human
sin and unafflicted with the state of mortality we all experience.
> Likewise, if you asked pretty much any Jew what the prophecy was about,
> they also would tell you the same thing--Solomon. And they would be
> RIGHT...up to a point.
No. I do think the passage talked about the reign of Solomon, who would
simply represent the beginning of David's successors. It's just that at the
end of David's royal dynasty, as you say at the temple's destruction, then
there would be a long time in which there would be no king. Hosea refers to
this. But then someone else would come in David's lineage who would reign as
a completely-different kind of king, a *divine* king. This alone would
fulfil what Solomon only began!
Hosea 3:4 For the children of Israel shall dwell many days without king or
prince, without sacrifice or pillar, without ephod or teraphim.
5 Afterward the children of Israel shall return and seek the LORD their
God, and David their king; and they shall come in fear to the LORD and to
his goodness in the latter days.
randy
Ike E 11/23/9
>
> "Ike E 11/23/9"
> randy
>> David's line ended with the destruction of the first temple.
>
> Not in the least. It was the end of a succession of kings, but not an end
> to the prophecy of a Davidic successor.
Yes, but the POINT of Nathan's prophecy was "the throne and the kingdom
would last forever."
It didn't.
It STOPPED in 587 BC.
The Jews even tried to revive it, and failed.
> A successor would have to come for David who would be king forever. My
> argument is that this was fulfilled in a completely different way than by
> the ordinary succession of kings.
This I know.
It STILL doesn't change the fact that DAVID'S LINE of kings ENDED, which
shifts the prophecy from the literal to the figurative.
First iteration = literal.
Second iteration = figurative.
Third iteration = BOTH.
(And this is without even getting into the subject of the eternal "New
Jerusalem."
> It would be someone coming in the line of David's descendants who would
> be a *divine* king.
Which ENDED in 587 BC.
>> It took on ANOTHER form for the second iteration.
>
> No
YES.
JESUS DIDN'T SIT ON THE LITERAL "THRONE OF DAVID" DURING HIS FIRST ADVENT.
HE WON'T DO THAT UNTIL HIS SECOND.
HENCE, THE SECOND ITERATION WAS METAPHORICAL, NOT LITERAL.
First iteration = literal, but failed.
Second iteration = figurative, but failed.
Third iteration = both, and they WON'T fail.
> --just a single "iteration."
wrong.
That's the nonsense of historicism, which is ALMOST as bad as Preterism and
Dispensationalism.
Prophecy is NOT fulfilled in lines and segments--IT'S FULFILLED IN
STATEMENTS.
> David was promised an heir who would be king "forever."
Which Nathan and David would have thought was Solomon--they had no idea that
there would be another beyond that.
> This could only take place by a *divine* successor, who could somehow
> bypass the normal state of mortality afflicting mankind.
Concepts that they would not have been aware of.
> It therefore had to be God in the flesh,
ANOTHER concept they were totally unaware of.
> who would be unafflicted with human sin and unafflicted with the state of
> mortality we all experience.
This is one of the major blunders of historicism--you're backward reading
the Revelation of Jesus Christ INTO their prophecies, which would apply to
US, but not THEM.
>> Likewise, if you asked pretty much any Jew what the prophecy was about,
>> they also would tell you the same thing--Solomon. And they would be
>> RIGHT...up to a point.
>
> No.
YES.
PROPHECY WASN'T GIVEN IN A VACUUM.
They were given in HISTORICAL SETTINGS, and they APPLIED TO THE HISTORY OF
THE TIME FIRST.
That's the another of the failures of historicism--just like the
Dispensationalists, you IGNORE THE FIRST CONTEXT of prophecy, which was
HISTORY, and then fail to COMPARTMENTALIZE them according to their
FULFILLMENTS, MULTIPLE, not SINGULAR.
> I do think the passage talked about the reign of Solomon, who would
> simply represent the beginning of David's successors.
There's the key word--"represents."
In Daniel's prophecies, Antiochus Epiphanes REPRESENTED the antichrist,
Menelaus REPRESENTED the false prophet, and Judas Maccabeus REPRESENTED
Jesus at His second coming, and the prophecy was fulfilled (to the extent it
was supposed to be fulfilled in a DEFICIENT fulfillment).
Then the whole thing began to rewind until the Jews wound up right back to
where they started--exiled, and without a temple.
> It's just that at the end of David's royal dynasty, as you say at the
> temple's destruction,
Which began the first iteration...
> then there would be a long time in which there would be no king. Hosea
> refers to this. But then someone else would come in David's lineage who
> would reign as a completely-different kind of king, a *divine* king.
Which is a SECOND interpretation of the prophecy BEYOND its original
context.
And yet that SECOND iteration led right back to the beginning of the
FIRST--the temple was destroyed AGAIN, and the Jews wound up BACK IN EXILE
(i.e. the Diaspora).
> This alone would fulfil what Solomon only began!
No, SOLOMON was the beginning of a LITERAL fulfillment.
Jesus was the beginning of a SPIRITUAL fulfillment.
In the third iteration, A and B will come together to form C.
> Hosea 3:4 For the children of Israel shall dwell many days without king
> or prince, without sacrifice or pillar, without ephod or teraphim.
> 5 Afterward the children of Israel shall return and seek the LORD their
> God, and David their king; and they shall come in fear to the LORD and to
> his goodness in the latter days.
This won't come to pass until the THIRD iteration--the prophecy was to
Israelites about Israelites FIRST, and it will be about "whole Israel" last,
as it "was," as it "is," and as it "is to come."
(And this is without even getting into the subject of the eternal
fulfillment in the collective body called "New Jerusalem.")
Ike
randy
"Ike E 11/23/9"
randy
>> ....It was the end of a succession of kings, but not an end to the
> Yes, but the POINT of Nathan's prophecy was "the throne and the kingdom
> would last forever." It didn't. It STOPPED in 587 BC.
As I go on to explain, the eternal kingdom promised to David was the
*messianic* kingdom, the Kingdom of God. It only began with Solomon and with
David's dynasty. Even though this succession of kings failed, the prophecy
did not fail, because the prophecy foretold the coming of a different kind
of kingdom, not contingent upon a continuous succession. All that was
required was that the messiah be descended from David and be a king. It
didn't matter that this king would have an entirely different kind of
kingdom, as long as it belonged to David's line. What made the messianic
kingdom different from the earlier kingdoms was that this kingdom was
*divine.* Nothing like it had ever existed, and it is the only one we will
ever have.
> It STILL doesn't change the fact that DAVID'S LINE of kings ENDED, which
> shifts the prophecy from the literal to the figurative.
No, the end of a succession of kings did not end David's bloodline, which
was all that was necessary to bring forth the messianic fulfillment. This
king could be an entirely different king, unlike any of those who had been
part of the earlier succession of Davidic kings. This was a *divine* king,
who had no need whatsoever to come *in the immediate succession* of kings
who sprang from David. All the messianic kingdom had to have, to fulfil the
promise to David, was *eternity* in its rule. And this required a divine
king.
> JESUS DIDN'T SIT ON THE LITERAL "THRONE OF DAVID" DURING HIS FIRST ADVENT.
Jesus was a king directly descended from David, yes! If you say otherwise,
you're saying that deity is not a king!
>> David was promised an heir who would be king "forever."
> Which Nathan and David would have thought was Solomon--they had no idea
> that there would be another beyond that.
I think the concept of a coming Messiah was very early, though undeveloped.
However, the focus had always been on *God* as king over Israel--not on a
human ruler. It was thought, perhaps early on, that God would send a great
judge, to deliver Israel forever. Nobody could've seen that this king would
be God Himself. And that was the *only way* that anything could've been
established forever, because only God had the keys of eternity.
>> who would be unafflicted with human sin and unafflicted with the state
>> of mortality we all experience.
> This is one of the major blunders of historicism--you're backward reading
> the Revelation of Jesus Christ INTO their prophecies, which would apply to
> US, but not THEM.
On the contrary, God hid them there all along--ideas such as the unblemished
animal sacrifice. God had to be the Savior, and not just human religion.
Without the role God played in our religion, our religion would be utterly
meaningless.
> They were given in HISTORICAL SETTINGS, and they APPLIED TO THE HISTORY OF
> THE TIME FIRST.
Well no doubt. After all, prophecies were given to the people receiving
them, to change their world--not somebody else's world. However, the
concepts God employed had to be consistent in the progress of time, so that
when Christ came, his coming would be consistent with all that went before.
In sum, I reject your "iterations." Yes, the Scriptures do use a lot of
subtle references and symbolism. Lots of Old Testament figures *prefigured"
Messiah. However, prophecy always has a literal meaning--not some kind of
threefold meaning.
randy
Ike E 11/23/9
[snip]
> In sum, I reject your "iterations."
Of course--than you would have to admit that you're all wet and haven't the
FOGGIEST notion what you're talking about.
Nevertheless, what you're ACTUALLY rejecting is THE WORD, 'cause that's how
He speaks--IN ITERATIONS.
Joh 5:25 Verily, verily, I say unto you, The hour is coming [future], and
now is [present], when the dead shall hear the voice of the Son of God: and
they that hear shall live.
What happened "now?"
The resurrection that Matthew and Paul (by accident) documented.
What will happen when the hour "comes?"
The BIG event.
And that's pretty much how every single prophecy of the Bible works.
But you go on with your Historicist nonsense if you want--you'll be standing
there wondering what the hell happened when it happens just like all the
rest of your ilk.
[snip]
Ike
randy
"Ike E 11/23/9"
randy
>> In sum, I reject your "iterations."
> Of course--than you would have to admit that you're all wet and haven't
> the FOGGIEST notion what you're talking about.
On the contrary, I gave the *biblical* truth--not some personal theology. I
reject anybody's beliefs if they are not in conformity with Scriptures. If
your theology is part-true and part-out of conformity with Scriptures, then
allow your theology to change to conform with Scriptures. Otherwise, you
lack humility, and you lack obedience. You'll find yourself a puffed-up
self-proclaimed prophet. And the Scriptures warn us about such, whose desire
it is to exalt themselves and gain followers for themselves. They want to be
seen as wise, and worthy of admiration. And they will get followers. But
they will not get God's approval.
> Joh 5:25 Verily, verily, I say unto you, The hour is coming [future], and
> now is [present], when the dead shall hear the voice of the Son of God:
> and they that hear shall live.
> What happened "now?"
Jesus was present then. Everything to come in the future is contingent upon
our participation in Jesus *now,* in the matter of our participation in his
spirituality. If we participate in his spirit now, we already have eternal
life, even before we are ultimately raised from the dead. These are not
"iterations." We live in the Spirit today, so that we will be rewarded
together with Jesus in the future.
randy
Ike E 11/23/9
>
> "Ike E 11/23/9"
> randy
>>> In sum, I reject your "iterations."
>
>> Of course--than you would have to admit that you're all wet and haven't
>> the FOGGIEST notion what you're talking about.
>
> On the contrary, I gave the *biblical* truth
No, you didn't.
> --not some personal theology.
It's NOT "personal theology." It's what the Word says repeatedly.
> I reject anybody's beliefs if they are not in conformity with Scriptures.
Well, you better start with your own, because THEY'RE not "in conformity
with the scriptures."
Mt 17:10-13
And [Jesus'] disciples asked him, saying, Why then say the scribes that
Elias must first come?
And Jesus answered and said unto them, Elias truly shall [FUTURE tense]
first come, and restore all things.
But I say unto you, That Elias is come [PRESENT tense] already, and they
knew him not, but have done unto him whatsoever they listed. Likewise shall
also the Son of man suffer of them.
Then the disciples understood that he spake unto them of John the
Baptist.
Figure then; literal later.
Jn 5:25-29
Verily, verily, I say unto you, The hour is coming [future], and now is
[present], when the dead shall hear the voice of the Son of God: and they
that hear shall live.
For as the Father hath life in himself; so hath he given to the Son to
have life in himself, and hath given him authority to execute judgment also,
because he is the Son of man.
Marvel not at this: for the hour is coming [drop the "now"], in the
which ALL that are in the graves shall hear his voice, and shall come forth;
they that have done good, unto the resurrection of life; and they that have
done evil, unto the resurrection of damnation.
And that's precisely what happened: There was a limited resurrection THEN,
with the FULL resurrection YET TO COME.
Jn 4:19-24
The woman saith unto him, Sir, I perceive that thou art a prophet: Our
fathers worshipped in this mountain; and ye say, that in Jerusalem is the
place where men ought to worship.
Jesus saith unto her, Woman, believe me, the hour cometh [future], when
ye shall neither in this mountain, nor yet at Jerusalem, worship the Father.
Ye worship ye know not what: we know what we worship: for salvation is
of the Jews.
But the hour cometh [future], and now is [present], when the true
worshippers shall worship the Father in spirit and in truth: for the Father
seeketh such to worship him. God is a Spirit: and they that worship him must
worship him in spirit and in truth.
Same pattern.
Joh 16:32 Behold, the hour cometh [future], yea, is now come [present], that
ye shall be scattered, every man to his own, and shall leave me alone: and
yet I am not alone, because the Father is with me.
The believers were scatted when Jesus was "cut off" then; the believers will
be scattered again when Jesus is run out of His own churches (which has
already started in some quarters).
And this pattern is nothing new--it STARTED in the Old Testament...
Eze 7:1-6
Moreover the word of the LORD came unto me, saying...
Also, thou son of man, thus saith the Lord GOD unto the land of Israel:
An end,
the end
is come upon the four corners of the land.
Now is the end come upon thee, and I will send mine anger upon thee, and
will judge thee according to thy ways, and will recompense upon thee all
thine abominations. And mine eye shall not spare thee, neither will I have
pity: but I will recompense thy ways upon thee, and thine abominations shall
be in the midst of thee: and ye shall know that I am the LORD.
Thus saith the Lord GOD:
An evil,
an only evil,
behold,
is come.
An end is come,
the end is come:
it watcheth for thee;
behold, it is come.
It is "an" evil or "the only evil?"
Is it to be "beheld" (i.e. watched for), or is it come?
Is it "an end" or is it "the end?"
Everyone one of Ezekiel's prophecies had "a" fulfillment contemporary to
him; and yet Ezekiel said to watch for "the" end of his prophecies beyond
that.
So did every OTHER prophecy of the Bible.
> If your theology is part-true and part-out of conformity with Scriptures,
> then allow your theology to change to conform with Scriptures.
Nope. "My" theology is God's theology, and it's ALL true.
It's YOUR theology that is only "part true."
THAT'S THE PROBLEM.
> Otherwise, you lack humility, and you lack obedience.
Nope. That would be you. You lack the humility and obedience to scripture to
ADMIT YOU'RE WRONG, and stick with a failed approach to eschatology.
> You'll find yourself a puffed-up self-proclaimed prophet.
I'm not "puffed up." I'm right.
In fact, you might as well tell Jesus and the prophets that THEY are "puffed
up," 'cause it CAME FROM THEM, unlike YOUR doctrines, which came from men,
starting with Tertullius.
> And the Scriptures warn us about such, whose desire it is to exalt
> themselves and gain followers for themselves. They want to be seen as
> wise, and worthy of admiration. And they will get followers. But they will
> not get God's approval.
Not looking for followers OR admirers--I'm looking for the truth, to return
it to the churches. Unfortunately, they are too stubborn and prideful to
accept the truth because it SCREWS UP THEIR PRIVATE AGENDAS.
>> Joh 5:25 Verily, verily, I say unto you, The hour is coming [future], and
>> now is [present], when the dead shall hear the voice of the Son of God:
>> and they that hear shall live.
>
>> What happened "now?"
>
> Jesus was present then.
That's right, and a resurrection HAPPENED then.
Not "THE" resurrection but "A" resurrection.
And thus the pattern was established.
> Everything to come in the future is contingent upon our participation in
> Jesus *now,* in the matter of our participation in his spirituality.
Rhetorical bullshit.
Jesus was talking about TWO resurrections, one "NOW" (from His perspective)
which Matthew and Paul (accidentally) confirmed, and one "COMING" in the End
of the Age.
Then Jesus split dichotomies AGAIN (as John does in Revelation) between the
resurrection of the just and the resurrection of the unjust, creating
triunism.
Nothing need be spiritualized. Nothing need be allegorized.
He said TWO, and ONE of them ALREADY HAPPENED...NOW (from Jesus'
perspective).
> If we participate in his spirit now, we already have eternal life, even
> before we are ultimately raised from the dead.
Irrelevant: What Jesus said was QUITE LITERAL, and it HAPPENED LITERALLY,
and it will HAPPEN LITERALLY AGAIN.
No bullshit "analysis" required.
> These are not "iterations."
Yes, they are.
The first iteration closed the book on the age of Israel.
The next iteration will close the book on the age of the Gentiles.
The final iteration, AFTER the millennial reign, will close the book on
EVERYTHING.
> We live in the Spirit today, so that we will be rewarded together with
> Jesus in the future.
Totally irrelevant to Jesus' prophecy.
First resurrection = documented by Matthew and Paul.
Second resurrection = at the End of the Age.
Third and final resurrection = at the end of ALL THINGS.
Totally literal. No theological interjection required.
Same with every other prophecy above.
Its just like Jeremiah's [7:4] statement "Say ye not 'the temple of the
Lord, the temple of the Lord, the temple of the Lord are these.'"
First temple, destroyed.
Second temple, destroyed.
Third temple (which has yet to be built), will be destroyed at the
"brightness of His coming."
Until you COMPARTMENTALIZE the prophecies according the age past, age
present, and age yet to come, you'll NEVER get prophecy right.
That's why Preterism, Dispensationalism, Idealism, and even Historicism are
all FAILED SCHOOLS OF PROPHETIC THOUGHT.
Ego has nothing to do with it; it's just a plain fact, summed up in the
statement...
"That which has been is now, and that which is to be has already become, and
God requires that which is past." [Ecc 3:15]
And hence John ROTATES the "was," "is," and "is to come" statements ALL
THROUGH REVELATION.
Now QUOTE where scripture says prophecy is fulfilled in one long line,
because that's NOT what God said, and that's NOT what history demonstrates.
Ike
randy
"Ike E 11/23/9"
randy
> Mt 17:10-13 And [Jesus'] disciples asked him, saying, Why then say the
> scribes that Elias must first come?
> And Jesus answered and said unto them, Elias truly shall [FUTURE tense]
> first come, and restore all things.
> But I say unto you, That Elias is come [PRESENT tense] already, and
> they knew him not, but have done unto him whatsoever they listed. Likewise
> shall also the Son of man suffer of them.
> Then the disciples understood that he spake unto them of John the
> Baptist.
Some people think that Jesus is saying two things (not iterations). He is
saying that yes, Elijah is coming sometime in the future to prepare the way
for Jesus' second coming. But he was also saying that if you're going to
look for Elijah to come, you had better understand that one kind of "Elijah"
has already come, John the Baptist. They come for exactly the same reasons,
to prepare the way for the coming of the Lord.
> Jn 5:25-29
>
> Verily, verily, I say unto you, The hour is coming [future], and now is
> [present], when the dead shall hear the voice of the Son of God: and they
> that hear shall live.
> For as the Father hath life in himself; so hath he given to the Son to
> have life in himself, and hath given him authority to execute judgment
> also, because he is the Son of man.
> Marvel not at this: for the hour is coming [drop the "now"], in the
> which ALL that are in the graves shall hear his voice, and shall come
> forth; they that have done good, unto the resurrection of life; and they
> that have done evil, unto the resurrection of damnation.
The hour had come in which Jesus was granted authority to raise mankind to
immortality. It does not mean that the first great resurrection was to take
place immediately, in the generation of Jesus. It only meant that Jesus was
able to immediately bring about the authority to raise the dead and to grant
them immortality, by forgiving all their sins. Spiritual life begins *now,*
and not at the resurrection.
> Jn 4:19-24
> ...But the hour cometh [future], and now is [present], when the true
> worshippers shall worship the Father in spirit and in truth: for the
> Father seeketh such to worship him. God is a Spirit: and they that worship
> him must worship him in spirit and in truth.
Spiritual life begins now. The resurrection takes place later. Eternal
spirituality has already begun. Our immortal physical endowment takes place
later.
> Everyone one of Ezekiel's prophecies had "a" fulfillment contemporary to
> him; and yet Ezekiel said to watch for "the" end of his prophecies beyond
> that.
Some people think that every time the word "end" is used by the prophets,
they have in mind the "end of the world!" Nothing could be farther from the
truth. The prophets spoke of the end of eras, the end of kingdoms, the end
of blessings, etc. etc. The idea of the end of the ages has more to do with
the fulfillment of God's eternal Kingdom, which was promised to Israel.
>>> Joh 5:25 Verily, verily, I say unto you, The hour is coming [future],
>>> and now is [present], when the dead shall hear the voice of the Son of
>>> God: and they that hear shall live.
>>> What happened "now?"
>> Jesus was present then.
> That's right, and a resurrection HAPPENED then. Not "THE" resurrection but
> "A" resurrection.
That's totally absurd. The only resurrection that mattered in Jesus' day was
*his own!*
>> Everything to come in the future is contingent upon our participation in
>> Jesus *now,* in the matter of our participation in his spirituality.
> Rhetorical bullshit.
On the contrary, that is fundamental Christianity, living in the Spirit.
Your iterations business is something you invented as a novelty to explain
what seemed to you apparent contradictions. But they really aren't
contradictions at all.
randy
Ike E 11/23/9
>
> "Ike E 11/23/9"
> randy
>
>> Mt 17:10-13 And [Jesus'] disciples asked him, saying, Why then say the
>> scribes that Elias must first come?
>> And Jesus answered and said unto them, Elias truly shall [FUTURE
>> tense] first come, and restore all things.
>> But I say unto you, That Elias is come [PRESENT tense] already, and
>> they knew him not, but have done unto him whatsoever they listed.
>> Likewise shall also the Son of man suffer of them.
>> Then the disciples understood that he spake unto them of John the
>> Baptist.
>
> Some people think that Jesus is saying two things (not iterations). He is
> saying that yes, Elijah is coming sometime in the future to prepare the
> way for Jesus' second coming. But he was also saying that if you're going
> to look for Elijah to come, you had better understand that one kind of
> "Elijah" has already come, John the Baptist. They come for exactly the
> same reasons, to prepare the way for the coming of the Lord.
???
Precisely.
Jesus' "Elias" was John the Baptist, as a figure.
The literal Elias will be along at the End of the Age.
Yet Elias was a prophet of history.
Hence, Elijah "was," Elijah "is," and Elijah "is to come," and triunism is
established.
>
>> Jn 5:25-29
>>
>> Verily, verily, I say unto you, The hour is coming [future], and now
>> is [present], when the dead shall hear the voice of the Son of God: and
>> they that hear shall live.
>> For as the Father hath life in himself; so hath he given to the Son to
>> have life in himself, and hath given him authority to execute judgment
>> also, because he is the Son of man.
>> Marvel not at this: for the hour is coming [drop the "now"], in the
>> which ALL that are in the graves shall hear his voice, and shall come
>> forth; they that have done good, unto the resurrection of life; and they
>> that have done evil, unto the resurrection of damnation.
>
> The hour had come in which Jesus was granted authority to raise mankind to
> immortality.
There's the failure of historicism again.
Jesus was speaking literally.
There was "a" resurrection "now," recorded by Matthew and, by accident,
Paul.
This foreshadowed the resurrection "coming."
But then Jesus split dichotomies again, as John records in Revelation.
Once again, triunism is established: The resurrection "was," the
resurrection "is," and the resurrection "it to come," no ALLEGORIZATION
required.
> It does not mean that the first great resurrection was to take place
> immediately, in the generation of Jesus.
IT DID take place immediately, IN THE GENERATION OF JESUS.
> It only meant that Jesus was able to immediately bring about the authority
> to raise the dead and to grant them immortality, by forgiving all their
> sins. Spiritual life begins *now,* and not at the resurrection.
Thanks for demonstrating the failures of Historicism.
>> Jn 4:19-24
>> ...But the hour cometh [future], and now is [present], when the true
>> worshippers shall worship the Father in spirit and in truth: for the
>> Father seeketh such to worship him. God is a Spirit: and they that
>> worship him must worship him in spirit and in truth.
>
> Spiritual life begins now.
There you go again, allegorizing when Jesus was speaking LITERALLY.
And you even CUT OFF the first part of the prophecy SO YOU COULD DO IT.
Jesus said the believers would reject the literal Jerusalem THEN, and
they'll have to do it in the FUTURE, too.
> The resurrection takes place later.
Which one? The one that "was," "is," or "is to come?"
> Eternal spirituality has already begun. Our immortal physical endowment
> takes place later.
Once again, you're allegorizing when Jesus was speaking LITERALLY.
>> Everyone one of Ezekiel's prophecies had "a" fulfillment contemporary to
>> him; and yet Ezekiel said to watch for "the" end of his prophecies beyond
>> that.
>
> Some people think that every time the word "end" is used by the prophets,
> they have in mind the "end of the world!"
Totally irrelevant to the point.
> Nothing could be farther from the truth. The prophets spoke of the end of
> eras, the end of kingdoms, the end of blessings, etc. etc. The idea of the
> end of the ages has more to do with the fulfillment of God's eternal
> Kingdom, which was promised to Israel.
NO, it has to do with THE END OF THIS AGE, and the BEGINNING OF THE NEXT.
Jesus' first advent where "the last days" of the Israelite's age.
Jesus' second advent will be "the last days" of the Churches' age.
The "last days" of EVERYTHING will come after that.
Hence, the "last days" were, are, and are yet to come.
LITERALLY.
No allegorization required.
>>>> Joh 5:25 Verily, verily, I say unto you, The hour is coming [future],
>>>> and now is [present], when the dead shall hear the voice of the Son of
>>>> God: and they that hear shall live.
>
>>>> What happened "now?"
>
>>> Jesus was present then.
>
>> That's right, and a resurrection HAPPENED then. Not "THE" resurrection
>> but "A" resurrection.
>
> That's totally absurd.
WHAT?!?
Mt 27:50-53
Jesus, when he had cried again with a loud voice, yielded up the ghost.
And, behold, the veil of the temple was rent in twain from the top to
the bottom; and the earth did quake, and the rocks rent, and the graves were
opened.
And many bodies of the saints which slept arose, and came out of the
graves after his resurrection, and went into the holy city, and appeared
unto many.
> The only resurrection that mattered in Jesus' day was *his own!*
Bullshit.
You better go back and read Matthew's Gospel again, and then compare it to
the catalyst for Paul's books of Thessalonians, because "A" resurrection DID
happen "now," which foreshadows the resurrections coming.
>>> Everything to come in the future is contingent upon our participation
>>> in Jesus *now,* in the matter of our participation in his spirituality.
>
>> Rhetorical bullshit.
>
> On the contrary,
Rhetorical bullshit.
In every instance where Jesus' used His dualistic manner of speaking, it
resulted in LITERAL events happening which FORESHADOWED FUTURE EVENTS.
This points out the failure of Historicism: You have to try and ALLEGORIZE
the LITERAL to CREATE A SINGLE LINE that DOESN'T EXIST.
> that is fundamental Christianity, living in the Spirit.
> Your iterations business is something you invented as a novelty to explain
> what seemed to you apparent contradictions.
Bullshit. It's right there in the texts, and in history.
> But they really aren't contradictions at all.
Who said anything about "contradictions?"
The only contradictions are the ones YOU'RE creating by IGNORING
INFORMATION.
Ike
randy
"Ike E 11/23/9"
randy
>> Some people think that Jesus is saying two things (not iterations). He is
>> saying that yes, Elijah is coming sometime in the future to prepare the
>> way for Jesus' second coming. But he was also saying that if you're going
>> to look for Elijah to come, you had better understand that one kind of
>> "Elijah" has already come, John the Baptist. They come for exactly the
>> same reasons, to prepare the way for the coming of the Lord.
> Precisely. Jesus' "Elias" was John the Baptist, as a figure. The literal
> Elias will be along at the End of the Age.
I guess we have no quarrel then.
>>> Jn 5:25-29
>>>
>>> Verily, verily, I say unto you, The hour is coming [future], and now
>>> is [present], when the dead shall hear the voice of the Son of God: and
>>> they that hear shall live.
>> The hour had come in which Jesus was granted authority to raise mankind
>> to immortality.
> There's the failure of historicism again. Jesus was speaking literally.
No, Jesus consistently said that eternal life begins now, and not at the
resurrection. He said those who accept him "will never die." That is not a
failuire of literalism. Rather, that is a statement regarding spirituality.
The spirituality that begins now with Christ is a new spirituality that
lives forever. The older spirituality was interrupted by death. But today's
spirituality in Christ can never be interrupted by death, because it
continues forever, unencumbered by death. It was a statement that this
spirituality overcomes death, and will one day actually experience
resurrection.
> There was "a" resurrection "now," recorded by Matthew and, by accident,
> Paul.
The power of resurrection exists now, and is displayed on occasion when
various people experience "miracles" of resurrection. However, Jesus was not
speaking of this primarily. He was rather speaking of the nature of our
spirituality in him, which is an *eternal* spirituality, unencumbered by
death. Living by this spirituality we will be raised from the dead, when it
takes place at the great resurrection.
> IT DID take place immediately, IN THE GENERATION OF JESUS.
Jesus was *not* speaking about the great resurrection, or even about
miracles of resurrection from the dead. Rather, he was speaking of the new,
eternal nature of our spirituality in him!
> Thanks for demonstrating the failures of Historicism.
I don't think you understand that Jesus was giving a new theology, a
theology of eternal spirituality. So you miss the point entirely. The Law
fell short precisely because it was not and could not be eternal. It could
forgive only temporarily, because men were limited by their mortality and
had no authority to overcome death. But the spirituality that Jesus gives us
is stronger than death, and will overcome death. It is, in fact, a guarantee
of our immortality, because it is the very life that Jesus had when he
personally rose from the dead. And of course, he had this life in him even
before he died. He claimed to be able to communicate this life to us simply
by verbal means, by speaking his words to us!
If you don't understand these things, you don't understand Jesus' theology
at all. Indeed, his words must appear a total failure to you.
>>> Jn 4:19-24
>>> ...But the hour cometh [future], and now is [present], when the true
>>> worshippers shall worship the Father in spirit and in truth: for the
>>> Father seeketh such to worship him. God is a Spirit: and they that
>>> worship him must worship him in spirit and in truth.
>> Spiritual life begins now.
> There you go again, allegorizing when Jesus was speaking LITERALLY.
I'm not allegorizing! Jesus was *literally* speaking of the spirituality
that he was providing to the human race, particularly to his disciples. It
was a spirituality effective immediately, but authorized for resurrection
only *after* Jesus himself had risen from the dead.
>> Some people think that every time the word "end" is used by the prophets,
>> they have in mind the "end of the world!"
> Totally irrelevant to the point.
On the contrary, that was my entire point. You want to use the word "end,"
thinking it refers to the "endtimes." Or so it seems. But that isn't
necessarily the case. Many times the prophets refer to the "end," in
reference to the end of a king, dynasty, or kingdom.
>>...The idea of the end of the ages has more to do with the fulfillment of
>>God's eternal Kingdom, which was promised to Israel.
> NO, it has to do with THE END OF THIS AGE, and the BEGINNING OF THE NEXT.
Not always. That is your error. Sometimes, the word "end" refers to the end
of an historical kingdom. Sometimes it simply refers to the end of a
particular sets of prophecies. When Jesus spoke of the end of the age, he
was talking about the era involving his judgments against Jerusalem.
> Mt 27:50-53 Jesus, when he had cried again with a loud voice, yielded up
> the ghost.
> And, behold, the veil of the temple was rent in twain from the top to
> the bottom; and the earth did quake, and the rocks rent, and the graves
> were opened.
> And many bodies of the saints which slept arose, and came out of the
> graves after his resurrection, and went into the holy city, and appeared
> unto many.
>> The only resurrection that mattered in Jesus' day was *his own!*
> Bullshit. You better go back and read Matthew's Gospel again, and then
> compare it to the catalyst for Paul's books of Thessalonians, because "A"
> resurrection DID happen "now," which foreshadows the resurrections coming.
I was very well aware of that miracle of resurrection, but that was not the
central emphasis in Jesus' theology. He did miracles of resurrection only to
prove his authority over death. But spirituality only overcame death *for
us* after Jesus' rose from the dead. We obtain eternal life when we receive
his spirituality, in particular after he rose from the dead. We have eternal
life *now,* but our resurrection comes in the distant future.
You appear to not believe in Jesus' own theology, which is that we can
receive his life now, through the Spirit, so that we may overcome death
later. Our hope is not in the fact a few people experienced miracles of
resurrection. They died again, and retained their mortality. Mortality is
only overcome following the resurrection of Jesus. Jesus' emphasis was on
the fact that we should live by his spirituality today so that now we are
able to experience resurrection in the future, when that event takes place.
randy
Ike E 11/23/9
>
> "Ike E 11/23/9"
> randy
>>> Some people think that Jesus is saying two things (not iterations). He
>>> is saying that yes, Elijah is coming sometime in the future to prepare
>>> the way for Jesus' second coming. But he was also saying that if you're
>>> going to look for Elijah to come, you had better understand that one
>>> kind of "Elijah" has already come, John the Baptist. They come for
>>> exactly the same reasons, to prepare the way for the coming of the Lord.
>
>> Precisely. Jesus' "Elias" was John the Baptist, as a figure. The literal
>> Elias will be along at the End of the Age.
>
> I guess we have no quarrel then.
Sure we do.
Elijah was for the "was."
"Elijah" in John the Baptist is for the "is."
Elijah will come for that which "is to come."
That's triunism.
>>>> Jn 5:25-29
>>>>
>>>> Verily, verily, I say unto you, The hour is coming [future], and now
>>>> is [present], when the dead shall hear the voice of the Son of God: and
>>>> they that hear shall live.
>
>>> The hour had come in which Jesus was granted authority to raise mankind
>>> to immortality.
>
>> There's the failure of historicism again. Jesus was speaking literally.
>
> No.
Yes.
Mt 27:51-53
And, behold, the veil of the temple was rent in twain from the top to
the bottom; and the earth did quake, and the rocks rent, and the graves were
opened.
And many bodies of the saints which slept arose and came out of the
graves after his resurrection, and went into the holy city, and appeared
unto many.
[snip the allegorization]
>> There was "a" resurrection "now," recorded by Matthew and, by accident,
>> Paul.
[snip the allegorization]
Mt 27:51-53
And, behold, the veil of the temple was rent in twain from the top to
the bottom; and the earth did quake, and the rocks rent, and the graves were
opened.
And many bodies of the saints which slept arose and came out of the
graves after his resurrection, and went into the holy city, and appeared
unto many.
>> IT DID take place immediately, IN THE GENERATION OF JESUS.
[snip the allegorization]
Mt 27:51-53
And, behold, the veil of the temple was rent in twain from the top to
the bottom; and the earth did quake, and the rocks rent, and the graves were
opened.
And many bodies of the saints which slept arose and came out of the
graves after his resurrection, and went into the holy city, and appeared
unto many.
>> Thanks for demonstrating the failures of Historicism.
>
> I don't think you understand...
Nope.
YOU'RE the one who doesn't understand.
Mt 27:51-53
And, behold, the veil of the temple was rent in twain from the top to
the bottom; and the earth did quake, and the rocks rent, and the graves were
opened.
And many bodies of the saints which slept arose and came out of the
graves after his resurrection, and went into the holy city, and appeared
unto many.
> If you don't understand these things, you don't understand Jesus' theology
> at all. Indeed, his words must appear a total failure to you.
Nope.
Mt 27:51-53
And, behold, the veil of the temple was rent in twain from the top to
the bottom; and the earth did quake, and the rocks rent, and the graves were
opened.
And many bodies of the saints which slept arose and came out of the
graves after his resurrection, and went into the holy city, and appeared
unto many.
>>>> Jn 4:19-24
>>>> ...But the hour cometh [future], and now is [present], when the true
>>>> worshippers shall worship the Father in spirit and in truth: for the
>>>> Father seeketh such to worship him. God is a Spirit: and they that
>>>> worship him must worship him in spirit and in truth.
>
>>> Spiritual life begins now.
>
>> There you go again, allegorizing when Jesus was speaking LITERALLY.
>
> I'm not allegorizing!
Yes, you are.
THIS is the reality of the situation...
Mt 27:51-53
And, behold, the veil of the temple was rent in twain from the top to
the bottom; and the earth did quake, and the rocks rent, and the graves were
opened.
And many bodies of the saints which slept arose and came out of the
graves after his resurrection, and went into the holy city, and appeared
unto many.
[snip the allegorization]
>>> Some people think that every time the word "end" is used by the
>>> prophets, they have in mind the "end of the world!"
>
>> Totally irrelevant to the point.
>
> On the contrary...
Nope.
Mt 27:51-53
And, behold, the veil of the temple was rent in twain from the top to
the bottom; and the earth did quake, and the rocks rent, and the graves were
opened.
And many bodies of the saints which slept arose and came out of the
graves after his resurrection, and went into the holy city, and appeared
unto many.
>>>...The idea of the end of the ages has more to do with the fulfillment of
>>>God's eternal Kingdom, which was promised to Israel.
>
>> NO, it has to do with THE END OF THIS AGE, and the BEGINNING OF THE NEXT.
>
> Not always.
Yes, always.
Mt 27:51-53
And, behold, the veil of the temple was rent in twain from the top to
the bottom; and the earth did quake, and the rocks rent, and the graves were
opened.
And many bodies of the saints which slept arose and came out of the
graves after his resurrection, and went into the holy city, and appeared
unto many.
> That is your error.
Nope. Yours.
Mt 27:51-53
And, behold, the veil of the temple was rent in twain from the top to
the bottom; and the earth did quake, and the rocks rent, and the graves were
opened.
And many bodies of the saints which slept arose and came out of the
graves after his resurrection, and went into the holy city, and appeared
unto many.
>> Mt 27:50-53 Jesus, when he had cried again with a loud voice, yielded up
>> the ghost.
>> And, behold, the veil of the temple was rent in twain from the top to
>> the bottom; and the earth did quake, and the rocks rent, and the graves
>> were opened.
>> And many bodies of the saints which slept arose, and came out of the
>> graves after his resurrection, and went into the holy city, and appeared
>> unto many.
>
>>> The only resurrection that mattered in Jesus' day was *his own!*
>
>> Bullshit. You better go back and read Matthew's Gospel again, and then
>> compare it to the catalyst for Paul's books of Thessalonians, because "A"
>> resurrection DID happen "now," which foreshadows the resurrections
>> coming.
>
> I was very well aware of that miracle of resurrection, but that was not
> the central emphasis in Jesus' theology.
Oh, of this I am aware.
But FIRST you have to undestand the TRIUNE FORM in what Jesus was saying,
which established the "was," "is," and "is to come" of the thing.
[snip]
> You appear to not believe in Jesus' own theology
This IS Jesus' own theology...
Verily, verily, I say unto you, The hour is coming [future], and now is
[present], when the dead shall hear the voice of the Son of God: and they
that hear shall live.
Mt 27:51-53
And, behold, the veil of the temple was rent in twain from the top to
the bottom; and the earth did quake, and the rocks rent, and the graves were
opened.
And many bodies of the saints which slept arose and came out of the
graves after his resurrection, and went into the holy city, and appeared
unto many.
There had to be an "was" before there could be an "is" and an "is to come,"
just as in every other prophecy of the Bible.
> , which is that we can receive his life now, through the Spirit, so that
> we may overcome death later. Our hope is not in the fact a few people
> experienced miracles of resurrection. They died again, and retained their
> mortality.
Nope. Not the ones who were raised after Him...
Rev 14:1-5
And I looked, and, lo, a Lamb stood on the mount Sion, and with him an
hundred forty and four thousand, having his Father's name written in their
foreheads.
And I heard a voice from heaven, as the voice of many waters, and as the
voice of a great thunder: and I heard the voice of harpers harping with
their harps: And they sung as it were a new song before the throne, and
before the four beasts, and the elders: and no man could learn that song but
the hundred and forty and four thousand, which were redeemed from the earth.
These are they which were not defiled with women; for they are virgins.
THESE ARE THEY WHICH FOLLOW THE LAMB WHITHERSOEVER* HE GOETH. These were
redeemed from among men, being the firstfruits unto God and to the Lamb. And
in their mouth was found no guile: for they are without fault before the
throne of God.
*Withersoever isn't "wherever." It is "when," too.
They don't just follow Jesus from place to place, but from time to time.
So to follow the Lamb "whithersoever" He goes, they had to be right behind
Him at all times and in all places, INCLUDING the resurrection.
He was raised. They were raised.
He goes back in time. They go back in time.
He goes forward in time. They go forward in time.
They been right on His heels the whole time, "whithersoever He goeth."
No. These did NOT resume their previous lives, or we would have a thousand
thousand Lazarus stories.
But what does Matthew write?
"And they APPEARED unto many," just as Jesus appeared and disappeared unto
many between His resurrection and ascension, so did these "firstfruits."
[snip the rest of the allegorization]
Ike
randy
"Ike E 11/23/9"
randy
> Elijah was for the "was." "Elijah" in John the Baptist is for the "is."
> Elijah will come for that which "is to come." That's triunism.
There is no point in calling it a "triunism."
> Mt 27:51-53 And, behold, the veil of the temple was rent in twain from the
> top to the bottom; and the earth did quake, and the rocks rent, and the
> graves were opened.
> And many bodies of the saints which slept arose and came out of the
> graves after his resurrection, and went into the holy city, and appeared
> unto many.
This is not the resurrection that Jesus focused upon. Jesus did display the
power to raise people from the dead even before his own death and
resurrection. But this resurrection was temporary, and did not raise men to
immortality. They had to die again!
The eternal life that Jesus focused upon was the spirituality that we now
receive from him *after* his resurrection. That spirituality is now
qualified to endure death, grant us resurrection, and provide us with
immortal bodies.
Since you just repeat your passage, I'll discontinue the discussion here.
randy
Ike E 11/23/9
>
> "Ike E 11/23/9"
> randy
>
>> Elijah was for the "was." "Elijah" in John the Baptist is for the "is."
>> Elijah will come for that which "is to come." That's triunism.
>
> There is no point in calling it a "triunism."
Sure there is. that's what it is--Triunism. Just as in every other prophecy
of the Bible.
>> Mt 27:51-53 And, behold, the veil of the temple was rent in twain from
>> the top to the bottom; and the earth did quake, and the rocks rent, and
>> the graves were opened.
>> And many bodies of the saints which slept arose and came out of the
>> graves after his resurrection, and went into the holy city, and appeared
>> unto many.
>
> This is not the resurrection that Jesus focused upon.
No, it's the resurrection YOU WISH HAD NOT HAPPENED, because IT PROVES
LINEAR HISTORICISM WRONG.
[snip the rest of the moron's attempts to allegorize the literal]
Ike
randy
"Ike E 11/23/9"
randy
>>> Mt 27:51-53 And, behold, the veil of the temple was rent in twain from
>>> the top to the bottom; and the earth did quake, and the rocks rent, and
>>> the graves were opened.
>>> And many bodies of the saints which slept arose and came out of the
>>> graves after his resurrection, and went into the holy city, and appeared
>>> unto many.
>> This is not the resurrection that Jesus focused upon.
> No, it's the resurrection YOU WISH HAD NOT HAPPENED, because IT PROVES
> LINEAR HISTORICISM WRONG.
No, the resurrection that Jesus focused upon was *his own,* because only his
own resurrection had the power to grant us a resurrection that led to
immortality. People who were raised from the dead before
Jesus' own resurrection had to die again. And quite frankly, even if someone
today is raised from the dead, he or she must also die again, because we
remain mortal.
But our hope is in a resurrection to *immortality,* in the kind of
resurrection that Jesus represented. The resurrection he experienced was
offered on behalf of the human race, to grant his followers hope in a
resurrection to immortality. Any resurrection short of this is not what
Jesus focused on. Demonstrating the ability to raise the dead was only
intended to show that Jesus had the power to raise from the dead. But the
important element is on the use of this power to raise us to
*immortality*--not just for the sake of being raised from the dead, only to
die again.
Your theology of triple interpretations, though interesting, is unnecessary.
As I understand it, the church father Origen liked to offer multiple
interpretations, like you do. It is interesting, but can really confuse the
central import of a message. And we do not speak in duplicities or
triplicities. Rather, we speak a central message, and this is how we should
interpret it.
randy
Ike E 11/23/9
>
> "Ike E 11/23/9"
> randy
>
>>>> Mt 27:51-53 And, behold, the veil of the temple was rent in twain from
>>>> the top to the bottom; and the earth did quake, and the rocks rent, and
>>>> the graves were opened.
>>>> And many bodies of the saints which slept arose and came out of the
>>>> graves after his resurrection, and went into the holy city, and
>>>> appeared
>>>> unto many.
>
>>> This is not the resurrection that Jesus focused upon.
>
>> No, it's the resurrection YOU WISH HAD NOT HAPPENED, because IT PROVES
>> LINEAR HISTORICISM WRONG.
>
> No
Yes.
> the resurrection that Jesus focused upon was *his own,* because only his
> own resurrection had the power to grant us a resurrection that led to
> immortality.
Notice how randy has to go into his tap-dance to avoid the plain facts of
the matter--Jesus prophesied of "a" resurrection to occur, and "a"
resurrection DID occur.
> People who were raised from the dead before
> Jesus' own resurrection had to die again.
These weren't raised from the dead before Jesus--the were raised AFTER.
> And quite frankly, even if someone
> today is raised from the dead, he or she must also die again, because we
> remain mortal.
These were raised IMMORTAL, not mortal, as Matthew writes "and the APPEARED
unto many..."
They weren't hanging around--they were just visiting to prove the power of
the resurrection.
[snip the rest of the shuck-and-jive which is totally irrelevant to the
point]
> Your theology of triple interpretations, though interesting, is
> unnecessary.
Nope: It's ABSOLUTELY necessary, or one winds up teaching abominable
doctrines like your Satanic Historicism/Covenantalism, or the Satanic
Dispensationalism, or the Satanic Preterism, or the Satanic Idealism, all of
which lead the believers astray.
> As I understand it, the church father Origen...
The "church fathers" were totally clueless as to how prophecy would work
out.
> liked to offer multiple
> interpretations, like you do.
> It is interesting, but can really confuse the
> central import of a message.
No, it IS the message.
> And we do not speak in duplicities or
> triplicities. Rather, we speak a central message, and this is how we
> should
> interpret it.
Once again, the moron attempts to make the Profound profane, the Sacred
secular, and the Holy unrighteous. He has no idea that God conveys SEVERAL
"central messages" at the same time, as prophecy is THREE DIMENSIONAL, not
one dimensional, like him.
Ike
randy
"Ike E 11/23/9"
randy
>> the resurrection that Jesus focused upon was *his own,* because only his
>> own resurrection had the power to grant us a resurrection that led to
>> immortality.
> Notice how randy has to go into his tap-dance to avoid the plain facts of
> the matter--Jesus prophesied of "a" resurrection to occur, and "a"
> resurrection DID occur.
The plain facts of the matter is that Jesus' theology focused on *his own
resurrection.* The resurrection that took place in the tombs was just
immediate evidence of the power of Jesus' message to transform us, both
spiritually and physically (particularly in the future resurrection).
>> People who were raised from the dead before
>> Jesus' own resurrection had to die again.
> These weren't raised from the dead before Jesus--the were raised AFTER.
I stand corrected on that. Yes, these people were raised from the tombs
after Jesus' resurrection. But the central focus of Jesus was on *his own
resurrection,* and on our future resurrection to immortality. The incident
of resurrection in the tombs was an actual historical incident designed, I
believe, to confirm the transforming power of Jesus' resurrection to
guarantee us a future resurrection to immortality.
Jesus' message was never strictly about the future resurrection to
immortality that cements our eternal hope. Jesus' message also concerned our
present spiritual life, and Jesus considered that when we receive his
message we have *already* received eternal life.
None of this destroys "historicism." These are just factual accounts, or
incidents, that surrounded Jesus' resurrection, confirming that one day the
saints will be raised to immortality. None of this conveys some kind of
dualistic message, some kind of "dimentional" interpretation. The message of
Jesus' resurrection brings spiritual life to men now. It has the capacity to
bring about physical renewal even in the present, but its ultimate hope is
aimed towards the future resesurrection to immortality.
> These were raised IMMORTAL, not mortal, as Matthew writes "and the
> APPEARED unto many..."
Where doese it say they were raised "immortal?"
> Once again, the moron attempts to make the Profound profane, the Sacred
> secular, and the Holy unrighteous. He has no idea that God conveys SEVERAL
> "central messages" at the same time, as prophecy is THREE DIMENSIONAL, not
> one dimensional, like him.
Maybe you think you're talking in three dimensions. I don't see it.
randy
Ike E 11/23/9
>
> "Ike E 11/23/9"
> randy
>>> the resurrection that Jesus focused upon was *his own,* because only
>>> his
>>> own resurrection had the power to grant us a resurrection that led to
>>> immortality.
>
>> Notice how randy has to go into his tap-dance to avoid the plain facts of
>> the matter--Jesus prophesied of "a" resurrection to occur, and "a"
>> resurrection DID occur.
>
> The plain facts of the matter is that Jesus' theology focused on *his own
> resurrection.*
Rhetorical bullshit.
Here's Jesus TRIUNE statement on the resurrections, and He NEVER MENTIONED
HIMSELF AT ALL, you prevaricating fraud...
Jn 5:25-30
Verily, verily, I say unto you, The hour is coming, and now is, when the
dead shall hear the voice of the Son of God: and they that hear shall live.
For as the Father hath life in himself; so hath he given to the Son to
have life in himself, and hath given him authority to execute judgment also,
because he is the Son of man.
Marvel not at this: for the hour is coming, in the which all that are in
the graves shall hear his voice, and shall come forth; they that have done
good, unto the resurrection of life; and they that have done evil, unto the
resurrection of damnation.
I can of mine own self do nothing: as I hear, I judge: and my judgment
is just; because I seek not mine own will, but the will of the Father which
hath sent me.
THERE ISN'T A SINGLE STATEMENT ABOUT JESUS' OWN RESURRECTION IN THE ENTIRE
PASSAGE.
You're SUCH a fraud.
> The resurrection that took place in the tombs was just immediate evidence
> of the power of Jesus' message to transform us, both spiritually and
> physically (particularly in the future resurrection).
ONCE AGAIN, YOU'RE PREVARICATING TO AVOID THE POINT. IT DOESN'T MATTER WHAT
MANNER OF RESURRECTION IT WAS: IT STILL "WAS," AND IT ESTABLISHED THE
PRECEDENCE FOR THE "IS" AND "IS TO COME," WHICH MEANS YOU'RE NOTHING BUT A
POMPOUS ASS TRYING TO ARGUE HIS WAY OUT OF THE TRUTH--PROPHECY IS TRIUNE.
Asshole.
Here's an idea: If you're TOO STUPID to understand PROPHECY, maybe you
should STAY OFF THE TOPIC, and spend your time basketweaving instead.
(Then again, your problem isn't intelligence; IT'S OBSTINACY.)
[snip]
Ike
®
Ike E 11/23/9 <xhermanei...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Asshole.
>
> Here's an idea: If you're TOO STUPID to understand PROPHECY, maybe you
> should STAY OFF THE TOPIC, and spend your time basketweaving instead.
Send president McCain my regards, prophet.
Meanwhile, where were the ages of eternal righteousness your
first two iterations ushered in?
<chuckle>
--
Have you heard Christ died for our sins, and God raised Him
from the dead? Did you know God saves you from hell and
gives you eternal life through faith in this finished work alone,
not your merits (Jn. 3:16; 1 Cor. 15:1-3; Eph. 2:8-10; 2 Thess.
1:8-9)? This is so man cannot boast, and God alone gets the
glory (Eph. 2:8-9).
______________________________________________
www.faithguard.org
www.twitter.com/faithguard
www.facebook.com/faithguard
______________________________________________
Ike E 11/23/9
"�" <pulpi...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:cp6dnb6t2PMVnYPW...@giganews.com...
> On Tue, 12/08/09, at 1:14:06AM,
> Ike E 11/23/9 <xhermanei...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Asshole.
>>
>> Here's an idea: If you're TOO STUPID to understand PROPHECY, maybe you
>> should STAY OFF THE TOPIC, and spend your time basketweaving instead.
>
>
> Send president McCain my regards, prophet.
Who said anything about "prophecy" and "McCain?"
> Meanwhile, where were the ages of eternal righteousness your first two
> iterations ushered in?
In the precedences established in the temple (what "was"), and in the blood
of Christ (what "is") which will make the culmination possible in the "is to
come."
Idiot.
Ike
®
Ike E 11/23/9 <xhermanei...@gmail.com> wrote:
> "�"<pulpi...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:cp6dnb6t2PMVnYPW...@giganews.com...
>> On Tue, 12/08/09, at 1:14:06AM,
>> Ike E 11/23/9<xhermanei...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Asshole.
>>>
>>> Here's an idea: If you're TOO STUPID to understand PROPHECY, maybe you
>>> should STAY OFF THE TOPIC, and spend your time basketweaving instead.
>>
>>
>> Send president McCain my regards, prophet.
>
> Who said anything about "prophecy" and "McCain?"
Didn't you confidently assert he would win (foretelling the
future), based on your interpretation of the polling data?
>> Meanwhile, where were the ages of eternal righteousness your first two
>> iterations ushered in?
>
> In the precedences established in the temple (what "was"), and in the blood
> of Christ (what "is") which will make the culmination possible in the "is to
> come."
Sounds like you're finally about ready to admit your first two
"iterations" were merely types of the ACTUAL fulfillment, which
HASN'T happened yet, other than TYPICALLY.
> Idiot.
Again, send president McCain my regards.
Ike E 11/23/9
"�" <pulpi...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:yPqdnRY1JblGoYPW...@giganews.com...
> On Tue, 12/08/09, at 2:09:42AM,
> Ike E 11/23/9 <xhermanei...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> "�"<pulpi...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:cp6dnb6t2PMVnYPW...@giganews.com...
>>> On Tue, 12/08/09, at 1:14:06AM,
>>> Ike E 11/23/9<xhermanei...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Asshole.
>>>>
>>>> Here's an idea: If you're TOO STUPID to understand PROPHECY, maybe you
>>>> should STAY OFF THE TOPIC, and spend your time basketweaving instead.
>>>
>>>
>>> Send president McCain my regards, prophet.
>>
>> Who said anything about "prophecy" and "McCain?"
>
>
> Didn't you confidently assert
WHO SAID ANYTHING ABOUT "PROPHECY" AND "McCAIN?"
> he would win (foretelling the future), based on your interpretation of
> the polling data?
>
>
>>> Meanwhile, where were the ages of eternal righteousness your first two
>>> iterations ushered in?
>>
>> In the precedences established in the temple (what "was"), and in the
>> blood
>> of Christ (what "is") which will make the culmination possible in the "is
>> to
>> come."
>
>
> Sounds like you're finally about ready to admit your first two
> "iterations" were merely types of the ACTUAL fulfillment, which HASN'T
> happened yet, other than TYPICALLY.
SOUNDS LIKE YOU STILL DON'T HAVE A CLUE AS TO HOW PROPHECY WORKS.
>> Idiot.
Still stands.
Ike
randy
"Ike E 11/23/9"
randy
>> The plain facts of the matter is that Jesus' theology focused on *his own
>> resurrection.*
> Here's Jesus TRIUNE statement on the resurrections, and He NEVER MENTIONED
> HIMSELF AT ALL, you prevaricating fraud... Jn 5:25-30 Verily, verily, I
> say unto you, The hour is coming, and now is, when the dead shall hear the
> voice of the Son of God: and they that hear shall live.
> For as the Father hath life in himself; so hath he given to the Son to
> have life in himself, and hath given him authority to execute judgment
> also, because he is the Son of man.
> Marvel not at this: for the hour is coming, in the which all that are
> in the graves shall hear his voice, and shall come forth; they that have
> done good, unto the resurrection of life; and they that have done evil,
> unto the resurrection of damnation.
> I can of mine own self do nothing: as I hear, I judge: and my judgment
> is just; because I seek not mine own will, but the will of the Father
> which hath sent me.
Jesus said the life of God was in his voice when he spoke--not just as some
unknown time in the future. He was able to raise the dead as he spoke, and
did this during his ministry. Peter said Jesus died and spoke to spirits in
prison, though this is somewhat ambiguous. The fact is, Jesus emphasized
*his own resurrection* as the basis for our own resurrection! Need I prove
this?
As to your use of this text to prove that Jesus referred to this
resurrection from the tombs notice that Jesus referred to his *voice* as the
source of life. The deceased in the tombs surely didn't hear his voice, did
they?
Jesus said, "The hour is coming, and now is, when the dead shall hear the
voice of the Son of God: and they that hear shall live." Are you suggesting
that those who rose up out of the tombs, after Jesus' death, heard his
voice? Are you suggesting they heard his voice from within the tombs?
But Jesus clearly indicated that his voice already had eternal life in it,
and that when he spoke life to his disciples, it granted them eternal life.
Jesus said his words contained spirit and life, so that he could communicate
his own spiritual life and virtue to us, when we believe in him. But in
terms of giving resurrection life in the last hour of the age, we know that
the Apostle John understood this to be a metaphorical hour, so that we can
describe the entire period of the endtimes as "the last hour." It is the day
of salvation, the period of time when the salvation of men is determined
until the promises of God can be fulfilled.
randy
Ike E 12/10/2009
>
> "Ike E 11/23/9"
> randy
>>> The plain facts of the matter is that Jesus' theology focused on *his
>>> own resurrection.*
>
>> Here's Jesus TRIUNE statement on the resurrections, and He NEVER
>> MENTIONED HIMSELF AT ALL, you prevaricating fraud... Jn 5:25-30 Verily,
>> verily, I say unto you, The hour is coming, and now is, when the dead
>> shall hear the voice of the Son of God: and they that hear shall live.
>> For as the Father hath life in himself; so hath he given to the Son to
>> have life in himself, and hath given him authority to execute judgment
>> also, because he is the Son of man.
>> Marvel not at this: for the hour is coming, in the which all that are
>> in the graves shall hear his voice, and shall come forth; they that have
>> done good, unto the resurrection of life; and they that have done evil,
>> unto the resurrection of damnation.
>> I can of mine own self do nothing: as I hear, I judge: and my judgment
>> is just; because I seek not mine own will, but the will of the Father
>> which hath sent me.
>
Once again, notice the prevarication: The fraud wants to go to the second
and third levels of the prophecy while IGNORING THE FIRST LEVEL, because
that would prove ME RIGHT and HIM WRONG.
This argument is NOT about any ALLEGORIZATION of the prophecy, which is
secondary and tertiary to the LITERAL aspects of it--IT'S ABOUT THE LITERAL
ASPECTS OF IT THAT LITERALLY CAME TRUE.
Jesus SAID that a resurrection would happen "now" and one would happen
"later" (and then He split dichotomies again, as John does in Revelation).
Matthew and Paul (by accident) DECLARED that a LITERAL RESURRECTION HAPPENED
"NOW," which PROVES TRIUNISM IN PROPHECY.
Oh, but nooooo: The fool has to try to duck the facts by ALLEGORIZATION.
Why?
BECAUSE HISTORICISM DOESN'T WORK AND TRIUNISM DOES, and THE EVENTS PROVE IT.
[snip the rest of the moron's attempts to circumvent the facts with
allegorizations]
Ike
randy
"Ed Form"
randy
>> The fact is, Jesus emphasized his own resurrection as the basis
>> for our own resurrection! Need I prove this?
> Nope! But you do need to explain how it can possibly be valid since, If
> Jesus is God as you claim, the fact that he was resurrected can have no
> bearing on whether or not we humans can look forward to receiving the same
> treatment. The only way that the resurrection of Jesus can be the basis of
> human hope is if Jesus actually was human and not some half-baked godman.
"Half-baked?" ;)
My goodness, Ed, you know that for centuries Christians have believed and
argued that Jesus is 100% God and 100% human! None of this is "half-baked."
It has been thoroughly gone over in the extreme. The writings of the early
church fathers testify that the whole subject was so thoroughly "grilled"
that few today seem willing to revisit the old issues that determined proper
Christology and proper Trinitarian orthodoxy.
The answer to your question, therefore, has been available for centuries and
is well-known. The resurrection of Jesus communicates to the fact of our own
resurrection by virtue of the person whose body was raised from the dead,
namely Christ. As he raised up his own body from the dead, so he shares with
us his own spirit and his own power to raise us up from the dead.
The idea, obviously, is to get us to live by his spirit and by his virtues
so that as we prove our righteousness to him so he will prove our ability to
rise from the dead to us. The same spirit that raised him from the dead, by
virtue of its deity, will raise us up from the dead after we have displayed
a virtuous life. The life we live, therefore, is *his* life, and not just
our own. We live in conjunction with and in compliance with the spirit that
was in him. And so we already have a downpayment on our future resurrection.
But I'm sure you know this, Ed, since I know you are well-educated and quite
an intelligent man. And I think you are a fairly friendly man as well. :)
randy
randy
"Ike E 12/10/2009"
randy
>> Jesus said the life of God was in his voice when he spoke...
> Once again, notice the prevarication: The fraud wants to go to the second
> and third levels of the prophecy while IGNORING THE FIRST LEVEL, because
> that would prove ME RIGHT and HIM WRONG.
There are *no levels!* Nobody would know what you're talking about, because
people do not normally communicate in triplicate!
> This argument is NOT about any ALLEGORIZATION of the prophecy, which is
> secondary and tertiary to the LITERAL aspects of it--IT'S ABOUT THE
> LITERAL ASPECTS OF IT THAT LITERALLY CAME TRUE.
I have said nothing different. I'm all about discussing the *literal*
meaning. It is only *you* who wants to indulge himself in multiple meanings!
> Jesus SAID that a resurrection would happen "now" and one would happen
> "later" (and then He split dichotomies again, as John does in Revelation).
Jesus' reference to a metaphorical "hour" does not take away from the
literal sense in which Jesus communicated his message of immortality. The
hour of salvation is referred to as such because there is a close connection
between the message that Jesus spoke in his generation and the fulfillment
of this message at a final resurrection, at the end of the age. It is all a
process that is tied together in a tight little bundle. The word that Jesus
spoke is the message that has been spoken throughout the age, and the very
message that will result in our resurrection at the end of the age.
In other words, Jesus' words were not just general guidance and counsel, to
offer us encouragement until after several thousand years the miracle of
resurrection takes place. On the contrary, the words that Jesus spoke
immediately *became* the source of this resurrection, because the ability to
rise from the dead was coincident with the voice of Jesus that we hear every
time his message is communicated!
That's why Jesus said, "Verily, verily, I say unto you, The hour is coming,
and now is, when the dead shall hear the voice of the Son of God: and they
that hear shall live. (Jn 5:25-30)
And as I said, if you want to take the verse ultra-literally, you'll have to
explain how those who rose up out of the tombs actually *heard* Jesus'
voice, as he indicated? Obviously, you avoided answering that question! Now
that's "prevarication!" But it seems plain to me that when Jesus spoke of
"hearing" his voice, he referred to our ability to hear his voice
*spiritually.* His voice was in a sense contained in his message.
Jesus made it abundatnly clear that hearing his voice *immediately* resulted
in eternal life, even prior to our resurrection. The message of Jesus
contained within it a spirit that had the ability to communicate his life
and its qualities to us, so that we could not only live like him, but so
that we could also ultimately rise from the dead like he did.
The fact that Jesus wanted to communicate this spiritual life to us
immediatley, and not just in the future, is evident in the following
passage...
Joh 5:24 Truly, truly, I say to you, he who hears my word and believes him
who sent me, has eternal life; he does not come into judgment, but has
passed from death to life.
randy
Ike E 12/10/2009
>
> "Ike E 12/10/2009"
> randy
>>> Jesus said the life of God was in his voice when he spoke...
>
>> Once again, notice the prevarication: The fraud wants to go to the second
>> and third levels of the prophecy while IGNORING THE FIRST LEVEL, because
>> that would prove ME RIGHT and HIM WRONG.
>
> There are *no levels!*
You are SUCH an ignorant sot.
There are ALWAYS three levels, horizontally, vertically, and/or
perpendicularly: Was, is, and will be; thesis, generality, antithesis;
and/or literal, figurative, spiritual.
Once again, you demonstrate that you don't have A CLUE as to how prophecy
works.
> Nobody would know what you're talking about, because people do not
> normally communicate in triplicate!
One more time for the moron: Prophecy is NOT "normal communication," you
ass, and it is NOT limited by your feeble intellect.
Quite trying to make the Holy profane.
>> This argument is NOT about any ALLEGORIZATION of the prophecy, which is
>> secondary and tertiary to the LITERAL aspects of it--IT'S ABOUT THE
>> LITERAL ASPECTS OF IT THAT LITERALLY CAME TRUE.
>
> I have said nothing different.
Notice how the fraud has to keep PREVARICATING now that his argument has
collapsed. Jesus spoke LITERALLY (as well as figuratively and spiritually),
and it's at the LITERAL LEVEL that you have to interpret this prophecy
FIRST.
Jesus SAID that there would be a resurrection "now" and "coming," and there
WAS A LITERAL RESURRECTION "NOW"--THE ONE MATTHEW DOCUMENTED.
And thus Triunism is proven true.
> I'm all about discussing the *literal* meaning. It is only *you* who
> wants to indulge himself in multiple meanings!
You are SO clueless.
>> Jesus SAID that a resurrection would happen "now" and one would happen
>> "later" (and then He split dichotomies again, as John does in
>> Revelation).
>
> Jesus' reference to a metaphorical "hour"...
You prevaricating ass.
Matthew 27:51-53
And, behold, the veil of the temple was rent in twain from the top to
the bottom; and the earth did quake, and the rocks rent, and the graves were
opened.
And many bodies of the saints which slept arose, and came out of the
graves after his resurrection, and went into the holy city, and appeared
unto many.
THIS WAS LITERAL.
SO WAS PAUL SPEAKING LITERALLY WHEN HE ACCIDENTALLY AND IMPROPERLY CHASTISED
THOSE WHO SAID A RESURRECTION WAS PAST when one ACTUALLY WAS PAST.
QUIT TRYING TO GET AROUND IT WITH YOUR PREVARICATIONS: TRIUNISM IS TRUE;
IT'S HISTORICISM (and Dispensationalism, and Preterism, and Idealism) THAT'S
A CROCK.
Ike
randy
"Ike E 12/10/2009"
randy
>> There are *no levels!*
> You are SUCH an ignorant sot. There are ALWAYS three levels, horizontally,
> vertically, and/or perpendicularly: Was, is, and will be; thesis,
> generality, antithesis; and/or literal, figurative, spiritual. Once again,
> you demonstrate that you don't have A CLUE as to how prophecy works.
You create your own theology out of thin air, and you think I'm foolish to
reject you?
>> Nobody would know what you're talking about, because people do not
>> normally communicate in triplicate!
> One more time for the moron: Prophecy is NOT "normal communication," you
> ass, and it is NOT limited by your feeble intellect.
So you think the biblical authors were not normal communicators, speaking in
triplicate? Good grief!
>> Jesus' reference to a metaphorical "hour"...
> You prevaricating ass. Matthew 27:51-53 And, behold, the veil of the
> temple was rent in twain from the top to the bottom; and the earth did
> quake, and the rocks rent, and the graves were opened.
> And many bodies of the saints which slept arose, and came out of the
> graves after his resurrection, and went into the holy city, and appeared
> unto many. THIS WAS LITERAL.
The event was literal, but *does not completely fulfil* what Jesus meant
when he said the hour has come when people will hear him and be able to rise
from the dead! It was just a beginning demonstration of divine power to
raise from the dead. Ultimately fulfillment for Jesus meant a resurrection
to *immortality*--not merely rising from the dead, only to die again. And
this was the state of those who rose from the tombs. Jesus' theology was
centered on our receiving life *now* spiritually, so that we never have to
die spiritually. And if we have spiritual life now, we will certainly obtain
a resurrection to immortality.
randy
Ike E 12/10/2009
>
> "Ike E 12/10/2009"
> randy
>>> There are *no levels!*
>
>> You are SUCH an ignorant sot. There are ALWAYS three levels,
>> horizontally, vertically, and/or perpendicularly: Was, is, and will be;
>> thesis, generality, antithesis; and/or literal, figurative, spiritual.
>> Once again, you demonstrate that you don't have A CLUE as to how prophecy
>> works.
>
Thanks for demonstrating that you can't even read THE BIBLE, let alone
prophecy...
1Co 9:9-10
For it is written in the law of Moses, Thou shalt not muzzle the mouth
of the ox that treadeth out the corn.
Doth God take care for oxen? Or saith he it altogether for our sakes?
For our sakes, no doubt, this is written: that he that ploweth should
plow in hope; and that he that thresheth in hope should be partaker of his
hope.
Level 1: An Old Testament law...
De 25:4 Thou shalt not muzzle the ox when he treadeth out the corn.
Level 2: The FIGURATIVE WORDS used...
Muzzle = to cut off sustenance.
An Ox = a faithful minister of the Word.
Treading the corn = doing the work of God.
Level 3: THE SPIRITUAL CONCLUSION...
"...he that ploweth should plow in hope; and that he that thresheth in hope
should be partaker of his hope."
But NONE of this changes the fact that it was A LITERAL OLD TESTAMENT LAW
FIRST, jackass.
(And I don't make ANYTHING up out of "thin air," Satan.)
> , and you think I'm foolish to reject you?
It's not ME you're rejecting; it's THE WORD.
>>> Nobody would know what you're talking about, because people do not
>>> normally communicate in triplicate!
>
>> One more time for the moron: Prophecy is NOT "normal communication," you
>> ass, and it is NOT limited by your feeble intellect.
>
> So you think the biblical authors were not normal communicators, speaking
> in triplicate? Good grief!
Thanks for demonstrating that you can't "hear" the Word, therefore you have
no part in it.
Paul DEMONSTRATED how to read the Bible IN LAYERS, yet you INSIST on
REJECTING BASIC PROPHETIC CONCEPTS forwarded by the men who actually GAVE
prophecy.
>>> Jesus' reference to a metaphorical "hour"...
>
>> You prevaricating ass. Matthew 27:51-53 And, behold, the veil of the
>> temple was rent in twain from the top to the bottom; and the earth did
>> quake, and the rocks rent, and the graves were opened.
>> And many bodies of the saints which slept arose, and came out of the
>> graves after his resurrection, and went into the holy city, and appeared
>> unto many. THIS WAS LITERAL.
>
> The event was literal...
NO SHIT, SHERLOCK.
And that means Jesus was speaking LITERALLY FIRST, NO ALLEGORIZATION
REQUIRED FOR THE FIRST LEVEL, WHICH MEANS HE WAS SPEAKING DUALISTICALLY
(actually, triunely) WHICH MEANS THAT HISTORICISM (as well as Preterism,
Dipsysensationalism, and Idealism) ARE ALL WRONG.
[snip the rest of the prevaricating asses' attempt to get around the
biblical facts by ignoring the FIRST meaning of scripture, because he knows
it will PROVE HIS ESCHATOLOGY WRONG to confess otherwise]
This is where your Satanic heart comes into play: You ACCUSE FIRST when in
fact you're totally ignorant of how prophecy works, and I'm not. Hence, it's
YOUR pride, arrogance, and obstinancy that's the problem here, not mine.
Ike
randy
"Ike E 12/10/2009"
randy
>> You create your own theology out of thin air...
> Thanks for demonstrating that you can't even read THE BIBLE, let alone
> prophecy...
I can read, and I can understand. I can also compare the Bible's theology
with yours and recognize that you are creating your own stylized
interpretative system. The trouble is, people do not speak in triplicate.
You don't speak in triplicate. The biblical authors did not speak in
triplicate. You are just using some kind of cabalistic interpretation to
derive spiritual truths from literal statements so that they have more
universal application. Nothing wrong with this, except that it makes the
literal value of the Bible subject to personal whims.
> 1Co 9:9-10 For it is written in the law of Moses, Thou shalt not muzzle
> the mouth of the ox that treadeth out the corn.
> Doth God take care for oxen? Or saith he it altogether for our sakes?
> For our sakes, no doubt, this is written: that he that ploweth should
> plow in hope; and that he that thresheth in hope should be partaker of his
> hope.
Nobody questions that the Law of Moses used symbolism. The rejection of
symbols of paganism was part of God's methodology in getting Israel to
completely separate themselves from the world around them, together with its
paganism. The symbolism was designed to get them to be conscious of how they
present themselves to the world as the people of God.
The primary focus of Scriptures and of biblical prophecy is to focus on the
literal message. If it is designed to be understood both literally and
symbolically, then the context would admit that. Otherwise, it is wrong to
do that, to view all biblical passages as having both literal and symbolic
value.
randy
Ike E 12/10/2009
>
> "Ike E 12/10/2009"
> randy
>>> You create your own theology out of thin air...
>
>> Thanks for demonstrating that you can't even read THE BIBLE, let alone
>> prophecy...
>
> I can read, and I can understand.
Apparently not.
> I can also compare the Bible's theology with yours and recognize that you
> are creating your own stylized interpretative system.
You've done no such comparison.
The only thing you've done is prevaricate.
> The trouble is, people do not speak in triplicate.
Notice how the fraud keeps putting "he says" before God says.
> You don't speak in triplicate. The biblical authors did not speak in
> triplicate.
Well, then Jesus "must not be the Messiah," because every single prophecy
had its OWN context and fulfillment long before Jesus came along
> You are just using some kind of cabalistic interpretation to derive
> spiritual truths from literal statements so that they have more universal
> application.
Bullshit: I'm going word for word, statement for statement through the
Bible.
You're just prevaricating because what the Bible ACTUALLY SAYS makes hay of
your foolish reliance on erroneous positions.
> Nothing wrong with this, except that it makes the literal value of the
> Bible subject to personal whims.
Nope.
I've been citing, and comparing, and demonstrating what the Bible actually
says.
>> 1Co 9:9-10 For it is written in the law of Moses, Thou shalt not muzzle
>> the mouth of the ox that treadeth out the corn.
>> Doth God take care for oxen? Or saith he it altogether for our sakes?
>> For our sakes, no doubt, this is written: that he that ploweth should
>> plow in hope; and that he that thresheth in hope should be partaker of
>> his hope.
>
> Nobody questions that the Law of Moses used symbolism.
But the statement was LITERAL FIRST, fraud: What happened to your "there are
no levels" nonsense.
> The rejection of symbols of paganism was part of God's methodology in
> getting Israel to completely separate themselves from the world around
> them, together with its paganism. The symbolism was designed to get them
> to be conscious of how they present themselves to the world as the people
> of God.
Where do you come up with this totally irrelavent bullshit?
> The primary focus of Scriptures and of biblical prophecy is to focus on
> the literal message. If it is designed to be understood both literally and
> symbolically, then the context would admit that. Otherwise, it is wrong to
> do that, to view all biblical passages as having both literal and symbolic
> value.
Notice for all his rhetorical bullshit, randy can't overcome the fact that
Jesus was speaking of a LITERAL "now" fulfillment of His resurrection
statements, and THAT'S WHAT HAPPENED--"A" RESURRECTION TOOK PLACE "NOW," and
that event FORESHADOWS THE EVENTS YET TO COME, which is how pretty much ALL
PROPHECY WORKS.
You can shuck and jive and prevaricate all you want, it still doesn't change
the fact that Historicism is as much a crock as Dispensationalism,
Preterism, and Idealism, and YOU HAVE NO IDEA WHAT YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT.
In the end, what it really comes down to is your PRIDE is getting in your
own way.
Ike
randy
"Ike E 12/10/2009"
randy
>> I can also compare the Bible's theology with yours and recognize that
>> you are creating your own stylized interpretative system.
> You've done no such comparison.
I said, *I* can also compare the Bible's theology with yours. I never said
you did any such comparison at all. If you did, you might understand that
your system of interpretation is unbiblical.
>> You don't speak in triplicate. The biblical authors did not speak in
>> triplicate.
> Well, then Jesus "must not be the Messiah," because every single prophecy
> had its OWN context and fulfillment long before Jesus came along
You are a very confused person.
> I've been citing, and comparing, and demonstrating what the Bible actually
> says.
No, you've been asserting that everything the Bible says is *speaking in
triplicate.* How confusing is that? I don't have a problem using different
systems of interpretation, as long as you understand that there is *one
literal meaning* to a given passage.
randy
Ike E 12/10/2009
>
> "Ike E 12/10/2009"
> randy
>>> I can also compare the Bible's theology with yours and recognize that
>>> you are creating your own stylized interpretative system.
>
>> You've done no such comparison.
>
> I said, *I* can also compare the Bible's theology with yours.
And you've DONE NO SUCH THING.
> I never said you did any such comparison at all.
That's the problem, moron.
> If you did, you might understand that your system of interpretation is
> unbiblical.
Bullshit: It's the only thing that is.
>>> You don't speak in triplicate. The biblical authors did not speak in
>>> triplicate.
>
>> Well, then Jesus "must not be the Messiah," because every single prophecy
>> had its OWN context and fulfillment long before Jesus came along
>
> You are a very confused person.
No, you are: Every prophecy was given in A HISTORICAL CONTEXT, and that
HISTORICAL CONTEXT came FIRST.
Anything beyond that is another statement of the prophecy in a NEW context.
>> I've been citing, and comparing, and demonstrating what the Bible
>> actually says.
>
> No
Yes.
> , you've been asserting that everything the Bible says is *speaking in
> triplicate.* How confusing is that?
I'll say it once again: YOUR INABILITY TO COMPREHEND DOESN'T MEAN IT ISN'T
TRUE, oh, lame-brained one.
> I don't have a problem using different systems of interpretation, as long
> as you understand that there is *one literal meaning* to a given passage.
Notice how the fraud AGAIN puts "he says" against what the Word says...
1Co 9:9-10
For it is written in the law of Moses, Thou shalt not muzzle the mouth
of the ox that treadeth out the corn.
Doth God take care for oxen? Or saith he it altogether for our sakes?
For our sakes, no doubt, this is written: that he that ploweth should
plow in hope; and that he that thresheth in hope should be partaker of his
hope.
Level 1: Literal law.
Level 2: Metaphorical system.
Level 3: Spiritual statement.
BUT NONE OF THIS CHANGES THE FACT THAT IT WAS A LITERAL LAW FIRST, oh,
clueless one.
Same thing with Jesus' statements on the resurrection: That there was
substantial spiritual meaning behind what He said IN NO WAY CHANGES THE FACT
THAT IT WAS LITERAL FIRST.
There was a LITERAL resurrection that was "now," which foreshadowed WHAT "IS
TO COME." (And then Jesus split dichotomies again, as affirmed by John in
Revelation.)
And, thus, Triunism is established, DESPITE your attempts to TAP DANCE
AROUND THE LITERAL FACTS.
And WHY do you attempt to tap dance around the literal facts?
PRIDE.
Ike
randy
"Ike E 12/10/2009"
randy
>> I said, *I* can also compare the Bible's theology with yours.
> And you've DONE NO SUCH THING.
I've done it before, and I'm doing it now. I judge everything you say and
teach by the Scriptures. Beyond that I can only say that your notion that
prophetic language speaks in triplicate is terribly bizaare! *Nobody* speaks
in triplicate! People always have a central focus, a singular message. You
can't say two different things at the same time, unless you're simply using
a double meaning in the conventional sense. But you're suggesting that it
*all* has a triple meaning, which is strange, to say the least!
Now, I'd like to hear the other two secret meanings in the words I just gave
you! ;)
randy
Ike E 12/10/2009
>
> "Ike E 12/10/2009"
> randy
>>> I said, *I* can also compare the Bible's theology with yours.
>
>> And you've DONE NO SUCH THING.
>
> I've done it before, and I'm doing it now.
No, you're not. You're arguing from opinions taught to you, not scriptural
facts.
> I judge everything you say and teach by the Scriptures.
No, you're not. You're not even LOOKING at what they say.
> Beyond that I can only say that your notion that prophetic language
> speaks in triplicate is terribly bizaare!
Again, that's OPINION, not FACT.
> *Nobody* speaks in triplicate!
God does.
> People always have a central focus, a singular message. You can't say two
> different things at the same time, unless you're simply using a double
> meaning in the conventional sense.
Notice how the fool puts his "logic" above the Word. In fact, his ENTIRE
ARGUMENT derives from what HE thinks, NOT what the prophecies actually say.
Like I said, you're not even LOOKING at what the Bible says--you're arguing
FROM YOUR OWN OPINIONS.
> But you're suggesting that it *all* has a triple meaning, which is
> strange, to say the least!
Since when are the complicated matters of God's truths limited TO YOUR
PERCEPTIONS?
> Now, I'd like to hear the other two secret meanings in the words I just
> gave you! ;)
You mean, LIKE PAUL DID? (which is one of many FACTS which you STILL HAVEN'T
ADDRESSED.)
Ike
randy
"Ike E 12/10/2009"
randy
>> *Nobody* speaks in triplicate!
> God does.
God speaks in a million languages, but He doesn't speak to any one of us in
triplicate! We have one central nervous system, one brain. And our train of
thought is very limited, compared with an unlimited God. Don't be
ridiculous. We're not talking about *God's* capabilities, but about the way
He speaks with us, His finite human creatures.
randy
Ike E 12/10/2009
>
> "Ike E 12/10/2009"
> randy
>>> *Nobody* speaks in triplicate!
>
>> God does.
>
More moronical shucking and jiving.
Paul even SHOWED you how God speaks on three levels at once (in that case,
perpendicularly rather than horizontally), and yet you CONTINUE TO
BLASPHEME.
Like I said, your inability to comprehend is no limitation on God's
cleverness.
Ike
randy
"Ike E 12/10/2009"
randy
> Paul even SHOWED you how God speaks on three levels at once (in that case,
> perpendicularly rather than horizontally), and yet you CONTINUE TO
> BLASPHEME.
Sandbox theology. Sorry, Ike, Paul showed us nothing of the kind. And
"blasphemy" is a charge leveled at those who offend *God*--not at those who
offend Ike (unless Ike thinks he is god).
randy
Ike E 12/10/2009
>
> "Ike E 12/10/2009"
> randy
>
>> Paul even SHOWED you how God speaks on three levels at once (in that
>> case, perpendicularly rather than horizontally), and yet you CONTINUE TO
>> BLASPHEME.
>
> Sandbox theology.
You are truly pathetic.
Note how the moron has to try and find SOME WAY to prop up his failed
position in light of the facts.
FACT: PAUL TOOK AN OLD TESTAMENT LAW (which no one would even normally think
of as a "prophecy"), and demonstrated that it had OTHER LAYERS OF MEANING
BEYOND THE LITERAL; but AT NO TIME did that change the fact THAT IT WAS A
LITERAL LAW, FIRST.
Blasphemer.
[snippeth]
Ike