Re: Revelation 6
Doug
in article <M6ednfpM4JPGvkLX...@giganews.com>:
> Text: Revelation 6
>
> Exegesis:
> 3. The things which shall be hereafter (4-22) A. Judgment on the
> inhabitants of the earth (4-19)
> 4. The seal judgments (6)
> a. Conquest
>
> In chapter six, the Lamb begins to open the seals on the book of
> judgment. The first seal releases the anti-christ (Christ does not
> return until later in the program (cf. Revelation 19:11).
>
> Riding a white horse, the antichrist is an agent of deception, who
> appears righteous to the inhabitants of the earth. The bow without an
> arrow may indicate that antichrist is able to conquer through
> disarmament and negotiation (cf. Daniel 8:25).
>
> b. War
>
> The second seal, a rider on a red horse, removes peace from the earth
> through war and bloodshed. That a great sword is given may confirm the
> extent to which this judgment will remove peace and bring bloodshed.
>
> c. Famine
>
> The black horse of the third seal brings famine, rationing of food, and
> inflation. "three quarts of barley for a denarius" may indicate that a
> single meal for a single person will cost a day's wages.
>
> d. Death
>
> Seal number four brings the pale, yellowish-green horse of death and
> hell. The extent of this judgment is such that "a fourth of the earth"
> will be killed by "sword and with famine and with pestilence and by the
> wild beasts of the earth".
>
> e. Martyrs
>
> The fifth seal reveals martyrs in heaven (probably those who were killed
> during the first judgments of the tribulation), who cry out for
> vengeance on those who murdered them.
>
> f. Terror
>
> When the Lamb opens the sixth seal, it issues forth in "a great
> earthquake", a blackening of the sun, a blood-red moon, stars falling to
> earth, the sky splitting apart like a scroll, and "every mountain and
> island" being moved out of their places. This global upheaval results in
> great dismay for the inhabitants of the earth.
Revelation 6:14-16
14 And the heaven departed as a scroll when it is rolled together; and
every mountain and island were moved out of their places. 15 And the kings
of the earth, and the great men, and the rich men, and the chief captains,
and the mighty men, and every bondman, and every free man, hid themselves
in the dens and in the rocks of the mountains; 16 And said to the
mountains and rocks, Fall on us, and hide us from the face of him that
sitteth on the throne, and from the wrath of the Lamb:
The literalists try to explain the mountains and islands being moved out
of their places as some sort of cataclysmic event, such as a world-wide
earthquake.
Jesus connected mountains with faith. He spoke of faith that could move
mountains. [Mat. 17:20; 21:21]
I suggest that the mountains and islands referred to in John's prophecy
are symbolic; they represent things that we can have faith in: God's
promises, and the prophecies and teachings of scripture.
The law was given on Mount Sinai, and it was written on two tablets of
stone, and those two tablets, pieces of rock from the top of Mount Sinai,
were carried in the ark by the Israelites through the desert, and
eventually were placed in the temple at Jerusalem. The words of God
written on them were associated with Mount Sinai, where Moses got them.
Similarly, other revelations of God were associated with the places where
they were given.
In prophecy, the mountains are symbolic. When John the Baptist preached
that the mountains would be made low, and the valleys exalted, which is
from Isaiah, what mountains were literally made low? What valleys were
literally filled up? Did he mean the Jordan Valley, part of the African
Rift system that contains the Dead Sea, would literally be filled up? Of
course not! Isaiah said:
Isaiah 40:4-5
Every valley shall be exalted, and every mountain and hill shall be made
low: and the crooked shall be made straight, and the rough places plain:
And the glory of the LORD shall be revealed, and all flesh shall see it
together: for the mouth of the LORD hath spoken it.
One of the mountains that was "made low," figuratively, was Mt. Sinai,
symbolic of the "Jerusalem which now is," [Gal. 4:24-25] and the Jews!
Jerusalem was eventually destroyed by the Romans, and so became low. The
temple was destroyed too. The temple was associated with Mount Zion, and
since the church is the new temple of God, it too is called Mount Zion (or
Sion), in Hebrews 12:22. This spiritual meaning is assigned to the name
Zion by Isaiah, who exhorts Zion to "get thee up into the high mountain."
It refers to the church.
Isaiah 40:9
O Zion, that bringest good tidings, get thee up into the high mountain; O
Jerusalem, that bringest good tidings, lift up thy voice with strength;
lift it up, be not afraid; say unto the cities of Judah, Behold your God!
The Olivet Discourse of Jesus is associated with the Mount of Olives.
Zechariah said the Mount of Olives will be cleaved in the midst, and half
of it moves to the north, and half to the south, forming a valley between.
[Zech. 14:4] IMO, the two halves of the mountain represent preterism and
dispensationalism, which misinterpret the prophecy Jesus gave to his
disciples on the Mount of Olives. This is an example of a mountain being
figuratively moved out of its position.
What about islands? John was detained on the island of Patmos, off the
west coast of what is now Turkey, when he wrote the prophecy of
Revelation, and so the prophecies of Revelation are represented by the
island of Patmos. They have been moved out of their places too, especially
by dispensationalists, who misinterpret most of the prophecies, denying
their application in the present age. They claim that from Rev. 4 to the
end of chapter 18 applies to Jews, in a future tribulation. This fulfils
John's prophecy about mountains and islands being moved out of their
positions.
The sermon on the mount associates many of the teachings of Jesus with a
mountain, although it is not specified which one. It is one of the
"mountains of Israel." Some dispensationalists have claimed it does not
apply to the church! David compared God's righteousness to great
mountains.
Psalm 36:6
Thy righteousness is like the great mountains; thy judgments are a great
deep: O LORD, thou preservest man and beast.
The prophecy of Rev. 6:14 says every mountain was moved out of its place;
if the mountains in the prophecy are interpreted, according to the
principles in scripture, this suggests the promises of God, and
prophecies, and the teachings in the scriptures are misinterpreted; and in
fact, many of the promises intended for the church have indeed been
wrongly applied to unbelieving Jews! That is an example of the "mountains"
being displaced from their proper positions.
Prophecies are represented by mountains; the promises of God in the gospel
are prophecies! The gospel itself is a prophecy! The kingdom of God is
represented by a mountain. [Isa. 2:2; Dan. 2:35] And sure enough, most
prophecies have been misinterpreted. This prophecy in Rev. 6:14 is an
example; there are many failed interpretations.
Here is an interpretation of the prophecy of the sixth seal by Peter
Clarkin in 1849, that speaks of men moving "every mountain and island of
hope and security offered to us in the gospel out of their places," and so
comes close to what I have suggested above.
<quote>
Verse 14: "And the heavens departed as a scroll when it is rolled
together; and every mountain and island were moved out of their places."
Such are the fatal effects when mankind fall into error, they have no
pleasure in contemplating heavenly objects -- their ideas concerning the
great work of creation are gross and absurd, and so are their notions of
redeeming love. Converse with such on the providential care and goodness
of God, they will admit it, but it affords them no comfort. Speak to them
on the subject of justifying faith in Jesus Christ, the influence of the
Holy Spirit, the new birth, and they have no conception of such things.
Such conversation is insipid to them. Such knowledge is to them like a
scroll, or sheet of paper, when it is rolled together.
The application of the latter clause of the verse, and every mountain and
island were moved out of their places, may be understood when it is
considered that the principles of popery removed by degrees every obstacle
in its way, and as it grew in power, it set up kings and dethroned them;
it absolved subjects from their allegiance, and granted pardon to the
rebellious; it changed even the commandments of God, by leaving out the
second, to make way for image worship, and divided the tenth into two, to
preserve the number; it made the scriptures of truth of no effect by its
traditions; it made the canon or decree of a general council of more
validity than any gospel authority; it set up the pope's infalibility in
opposition to Him who is Supreme Judge; it condemned the righteous and
justified the ungodly; it put the Redeemer into lymbus patrum, when the
avaricious road to purgatory was discovered; it substituted the sacrifice
of the mass in the room of that atoning sacrifice which was to take away
the sins of the world; and thus it gradually removed every mountain and
island of hope and security offered to us in the gospel out of their
places, and placed man's salvation in the merits of the church.
</quote>
Reflections on Revelations, by Peter Clarkin. Geo. C. Rand, Boston. 1849.
p. 50.
http://books.google.ca/books?id=ggYOAAAAYAAJ
Saying of the ritualistic Catholic worship, "it gradually removed every
mountain and island of hope and security offered to us in the gospel out
of their places" seems to capture some of the true meaning of John's
prophecy.
--
Doug
http://vinyl2.sentex.ca/~tcc/OP/
Doug
wrote in article <7kj7j0F...@mid.individual.net>:
> Randy wrote:
>> Text: Revelation 6
>>
>> Exegesis:
>> 3. The things which shall be hereafter (4-22) A. Judgment on the
>> inhabitants of the earth (4-19)
>> 4. The seal judgments (6)
>> a. Conquest
>>
>> In chapter six, the Lamb begins to open the seals on the book of
>> judgment. The first seal releases the anti-christ (Christ does not
>> return until later in the program (cf. Revelation 19:11).
>
> Randy,
>
> This is one of very few points of disagreement, but it is a big
> disagreement.
> That Christ doesn't return until later doesn't make the first horseman
> the antichrist.
Deceivers who came in the name of Christ were the first of the signs that
are mentioned in the Olivet Discourse in Mat. 24.
Matthew 24:3-5
3 And as he sat upon the mount of Olives, the disciples came unto him
privately, saying, Tell us, when shall these things be? and what shall be
the sign of thy coming, and of the end of the world?
4 And Jesus answered and said unto them, Take heed that no man deceive
you.
5 For many shall come in my name, saying, I am Christ; and shall deceive
many.
John said, there were already "many antichrists" in his time.
1 John 2:18
Little children, it is the last time: and as ye have heard that
antichrist shall come, even now are there many antichrists; whereby we
know that it is the last time.
So, it seems that the first seal is correctly identified as representing
the antichrist deceivers.
--
Doug
Fred A Stover
> On Sun, 25 Oct 2009 10:00:57 -0500, "Fred A Stover"
> <fst...@tx.rr.com> wrote in article
> <7kj7j0F...@mid.individual.net>:
>
>> Randy wrote:
>>> Text: Revelation 6
>>>
>>> Exegesis:
>>> 3. The things which shall be hereafter (4-22) A. Judgment on the
>>> inhabitants of the earth (4-19)
>>> 4. The seal judgments (6)
>>> a. Conquest
>>>
>>> In chapter six, the Lamb begins to open the seals on the book of
>>> judgment. The first seal releases the anti-christ (Christ does not
>>> return until later in the program (cf. Revelation 19:11).
>>
>> Randy,
>>
>> This is one of very few points of disagreement, but it is a big
>> disagreement.
>> That Christ doesn't return until later doesn't make the first
>> horseman the antichrist.
>
> Deceivers who came in the name of Christ were the first of the signs
> that are mentioned in the Olivet Discourse in Mat. 24.
That you're an antichrist doesn't make you the first horseman either.
His warning of you, doesn't remove the seven scriptures which tell us that
His enemies will be made His footstool before He returns (Ps 110:1, Mt
22:44, Mk12:36, Lk 20:42-43, Acts 2:34-35, Hb 1:13, Hb 10:12-13) and that
Michael needs to stand again (Dan 12:1).
<snip>
> So, it seems that the first seal is correctly identified as
> representing the antichrist deceivers.
Obviously not.
Rev. 6:1-2
And I saw when the Lamb opened one of the seals, and I heard, as it were
the noise of thunder, one of the four beasts saying, Come and see. [2] And I
saw, and behold a white horse: and he that sat on him had a bow; and a crown
was given unto him: and he went forth conquering, and to conquer.
There is nothing in the text, such as, "seems," "appears," "as if," or "as
though," and he wears a "stephanos"/victor's crown. Contending that Rev
6:1-2 is a deception would make the Author the deceiver.
--
His,
More @ www.selah-tx.net
ho echon ota akoueto Preparing the way of the
Lord
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Verily I say unto you, Whosoever
shall not receive the kingdom of God
as a little child, he shall not enter therein.
(Mark 10:15)
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
<)))))))><
Doug
wrote in article <7kr28bF...@mid.individual.net>:
Nonsense. Fred A Stover is confused, just like Ike. The very first sign
Jesus gave in the Olivet Discourse was false teachers who would come in
his name. This is represented by the first seal in Rev. 6, the rider with
a bow on a white horse.
Matthew 24:3-5
3 And as he sat upon the mount of Olives, the disciples came unto him
privately, saying, Tell us, when shall these things be? and what shall be
the sign of thy coming, and of the end of the world?
4 And Jesus answered and said unto them, Take heed that no man deceive
you.
5 For many shall come in my name, saying, I am Christ; and shall deceive
many.
Why a white horse? And what is the symbolism of the bow and the crown?
The armies who follow Christ in Rev. 19:14 all ride on white horses. The
false teachers are among the followers of Christ, as the false teachers
were who Peter mentioned in 2 Pet. 2.
2 Pet. 2:1
But there were false prophets also among the people, even as there shall
be false teachers among you, who privily shall bring in damnable
heresies, even denying the Lord that bought them, and bring upon
themselves swift destruction.
The rider's crown shows the many conquests; false teachings would
prevail. And scripture identifies arrows with "bitter words."
Psalm 64:3
Who whet their tongue like a sword, and bend their bows to shoot their
arrows, even bitter words:
History confirms many conquests by the armies of the nations of
Christendom in Western Europe. Much of it was done allegedly to "spread
the gospel among the heathen."
--
Doug
Ike E 2009
"Doug" <t...@sentex.net> wrote in message
news:VsidnaUc7pXixXXX...@sentex.net...
[snip]
> Nonsense. Fred A Stover is confused, just like Ike.
No, YOU'RE confused.
> The very first sign
> Jesus gave in the Olivet Discourse was false teachers who would come in
> his name. This is represented by the first seal in Rev. 6, the rider with
> a bow on a white horse.
THEY are "YOU."
Re 6:8 And I looked, and behold a pale horse: and his name that sat on him
was Death, and Hell followed with him.
JOHN TAUGHT HELL, you SATANIC BIBLE-REWRITING BEAST.
Death = "whosoever shall lose their life for My sake, and the Gospel's,
shall save it."
Hell = "whosoever shall save their life shall lose it."
YOU are doing THE WORK OF THE "FIRST HORSE" BY DENYING HELL, you fool.
Ike
Bear
Rubbish, the false teachers are represented by Doug with his
unbiblical replacement theology doctrine, which is proven by his
inability to answer questions.
Bear
Ike E 2009
"Bear" <tevan...@charter.net> wrote in message
news:4k2he51u7989jtdn6...@4ax.com...
[snip]
> Rubbish, the false teachers are represented by Doug with his
> unbiblical replacement theology doctrine, which is proven by his
> inability to answer questions.
As are you with your wrong form, wrong prophetic purpose, and wrong
Dispensationalist theology.
Revelation 6 = the "Beginning of Sorrows," and the whole reason it's there
is to EXHORT THE FAITHFUL to CONTINUE IN THE FAITH to the bitter end. THAT
fact BLOWS THE DOORS off of ALL your errant teachings, TOO.
Rapture? Scratch.
Front-loaded Gospel? Scratch.
Separate fates for Israelites and Christians? Scratch.
"Eternal security" doctrine? Scratch.
"Missing week" theory? Scratch.
I'm trying to figure out what you people teach that IS true...
Ike
Fred A Stover
Which everyone knows but has nothing to do with this discussion, Satan.
There is nothing in Rev 6:1-2 suggesting any kind of deception. The rider
wears the victors crown (stephanos), the 7 verses telling us that the Lord's
enemies will be made his footstool before He returns are still in scripture
(Ps 110:1, Mt 22:44, Mk12:36, Lk 20:42-43, Acts 2:34-35, Hb 1:13, Hb
10:12-13), as is the verse (Dan 12:1) that tells us Michael has to stand
again when the second horseman rides out, "And there went out another horse
that was red: and power was given to him that sat thereon to take peace from
the earth, and that they should kill one another: and there was given unto
him a great sword" (Rev 6:4).
<snip>
For the folks who do have His discernment: 1 Cor. 2:14
But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for
they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are
spiritually discerned.
Daniel 12:1-4
And at that time shall Michael stand up, the great prince which standeth
for the children of thy people: and there shall be a time of trouble, such
as never was since there was a nation even to that same time: and at that
time thy people shall be delivered, every one that shall be found written in
the book. [2] And many of them that sleep in the dust of the earth shall
awake, some to everlasting life, and some to shame and everlasting contempt.
[3] And they that be wise shall shine as the brightness of the firmament;
and they that turn many to righteousness as the stars for ever and ever. [4]
But thou, O Daniel, shut up the words, and seal the book, even to the time
of the end: many shall run to and fro, and knowledge shall be increased.
Randy ®
How long do you understand a "week" to be, according to the
prophecy in Daniel 9? Whom do you understand the prince of the
people to come to be in Daniel 9:27? Do you understand the
Tribulation to be the 70th week of Daniel's prophecy?
--
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
______________________________________________
Doug
wrote in article <7krtndF...@mid.individual.net>:
Fred A Stover would have to conclude that some of the leading
dispensationalists, such as John N. Darby, and his friend William Kelly,
and H. A. Ironside, etc., must have entirely lacked spiritual
discernment, because they all argued against the idea that the first seal
represents Christ, which he, Fred A Stover, thinks is discerned by the
spirit! That idea was proposed by men who were not dispensationalists;
does that tell you something Fred?
The ones who reject that theory must be deceivers, right Fred? John Darby
thought the first horseman represented "imperial conquests" presumably
referring to the Roman Empire.
Darby wrote: "The first seals are simple; nor have I anything to offer
very new upon them: first, imperial conquests then wars, then famine,
then pestilence, carrying with it what Ezekiel calls God's four sore
plagues (sword, famine, pestilence, and the beasts of the earth)."
[John Darby's Synopsis, by John N. Darby]
http://www.christnotes.org/commentary.php?com=drby&b=66
Harry Ironside thought the seals are opened after the "rapture" of the
church. He wrote: "The rider on the white horse evidently pictures man's
last effort to bring in a reign of order and peace while Christ is still
rejected. It will be the world's greatest attempt to pull things together
after the church is gone. It will be the devil's cunning scheme for
bringing in a mock millennium without Christ How long will it last?"
[Lectures on the Book of Revelation, by H. A. Ironside. Western book &
tract Co. Oakland, Cal., 1919. p. 103]
William Kelley's interpretation, given near the end of his discussion
below, is a little vague, IMO, but he argues that the first horseman does
*not* refer to Christ, as many commentators had thought. He dismisses
Darby's suggestion about the horse being the Roman Empire. He contrasts
the white horse with the red one which followed. He wrote:
<quote>
Next we come to the earthly course of "the things that must be after
these." The seals are not judgments executed by the Lord, but of a
providential nature. Some, because of the white horse, have thought that
the first seal applied to Christ. On the face of it, what more strange
than to conceive Him so represented, seeing that He it is who, as the
Lamb, opens the seals successively, and, when clearly alluded to under
the contents of the sixth seal, still preserves the name of the Lamb! And
yet stranger that He should enter on a course of conquest at the very
time, if you take it historically, when all Asia had turned away from
Paul; when Timothy had the sad and sure foreboding of evil men and
seducers waxing worse and worse; when John himself had written, or was
about to write, "Little children, it is the last time: and as ye have
heard that antichrist shall come, even now are there many antichrists;
whereby we know that it is the last time." Nevertheless most of the
ancients and not a few moderns begin their comments with this false start.
Some, again, refer it to the second advent; but this quite upsets the
order of the seals fixed by the Holy Ghost, and indeed the structure of
all the book. It is true that in Rev. xix. where the Lord comes
judicially and in person, He is represented as riding upon a white horse.
But there is all the difference possible between that vision of the white
horse and the opening of Rev. vi. This horse does not issue from heaven,
as that in chap. xix. does. Next, there is not a word in chap. vi. about
the rider, which necessarily means Christ; whereas iii chap. xix. He is
called Faithful and True, and said to judge and make war in
righteousness. Of whom could this be said save of One? His eyes were as a
flame of fire. His written name none knew but Himself. The Word of God--
King of kings, Lord of lords--can be the titles of none but Jesus. Not to
speak of the blood-dipped vesture, the sword proceeding out of the mouth,
the iron rod wherewith to rule, and the treading the wine-press of divine
wrath, are descriptions in chap. xix. to which nothing answers in the
rider of chap. vi. No armies followed here, clothed in fine linen, &c.
And though the rider is said to have a crown given to him, the word is
quite different from that employed in chap, xix., which signifies a
kingly diadem, the crown of royalty. The earlier Romans were fond of a
sort of chaplet, which did not to their mind, like the imperial diadem,
convey the idea of absolute authority; and that is the crown mentioned in
chapter vi.
Furthermore, there are two frequent figures or symbols used in scripture
to express power; the one is the throne, and the other is the horse. Thus
we have already seen the supreme throne above, and now we have the horse
with the rider on earth. The same thing is seen in chaps, xix. and xx.
The symbol of horses in the one chapter, and of thrones in the other. The
difference between the bearing is this: When power is meant by putting
down of rival or opposing authority on earth, "the horse" is taken, as
from its use in war, it is intended to subdue; but when the victory is
won, and it is a question not of subjugation, but of governing and
judging, "the throne" is used, as being the fit emblem of rule over those
who have been thus subdued or are subject. When Christ is going to put
down His enemies, He is seen in the vision of chap. xix. on the horse,
used to represent the exertion of His power to subdue; when the
subsequent sway is meant, thrones appear in chap. xx. It would be quite
weak, of course, for persons to confound this symbolic use with a
material horse or throne. The idea of the former is power to subdue, and
of the latter is dominion after the victory has been gained. The throne
may also be used, as it is afterwards, for the solemn and eternal
judgment of the dead--a throne of stainless holiness. Still even here, it
is Christ's judgment before the kingdom is given up to God. (1 Cor. xv.;
2 Tim. iv.)
Of course we cannot apply the four horses and their riders to the great
empires, three of which had long disappeared. Equally untenable at least
is the notion that four successive religions are intended, especially
when one hears it gravely laid down, that Infidelity closes the list,
which primitive Christianity opens, followed by Mahomedanism and Popery.
It is hard to say whether such thoughts are most opposed to time or
place, to congruity or context. Again, it is agreed that it is harsh in
the extreme, and in almost every point of view, to understand the first
seal of Christ or the church in early gospel triumphs, and then the three
subsequent ones of the Roman empire or emperors.
But it is important here to notice, that there is positive ground from
the Apocalypse itself to deny the assumption that the horse means the
Roman empire. I do not refer to passages like chapter ix.. 17, where
literal cavalry seem to be meant; but chapter xix. furnishes an example
of its symbolic use. Does the Lord on the white horse mean His direction
of the Roman empire? Or the white horses of the linen-clad hosts, do they
imply imperial powers? Surely we must look for an interpretation more in
keeping with its usage elsewhere. It means, in my judgment, a militant
aggresive agency towards the earth, though it may be from heaven. Hence,
as in Zech. i., it may apply to the Lord, or to the various imperial
powers which succeeded Babylon. And so the chariots with the horses of
various colours in Zech. vi. But as distinguished from the horns (chapter
i. 19), the former symbol rather refers to the providential instruments
behind the scene, and connected especially with these empires, than to
the rulers themselves or their realms. Plainly therefore there is no
ground from the book itself or from Zechariah, to which the allusion is
obvious, to interpret the horse simply of the Roman empire.
Nor is there better ground in profane history to maintain that the horse
is the special sign of that people and power. And no wonder. For the
Roman infantry was more characteristic of their military power than their
cavalry. No doubt the horse abounds on their medals, but not more
comparatively than among other warlike nations, particularly in the east,
who so set forth their victories. It had formerly been one of the Roman
standards of war, but for two centuries before Domitian all the varieties
had given way to the eagle.
Abstractly, then, the horse cannot be regarded as the necessary national
badge of Rome, or emblem of the Roman empire. Whether it be referred to
here must depend on contextual considerations. And here it appears to me
that the fourth seal rises up conclusively against such a view, the four
seals being providential judgments homogeneous in character but differing
in form. The Roman earth may be the sphere, but this has nothing to do
with the symbolic force of the horse in the passage.
Without further discussion let me state my own view. We have a regular
series of providential judgments. The first is the white horse, the
symbol of triumphant and prosperous power. "He that sat on him had a
bow" (verse 2). The bow is the symbol of distant warfare. His course is
evidently that of unchecked victory. The moment he appears, he conquers.
The battle is won without a struggle, and apparently without the carnage
of the second judgment, where the sword, the symbol of close hand-to-hand
fighting, is used. But this first conqueror is some mighty one who sweeps
over the earth, and gains victory after victory by the prestige of his
name and reputation. There is no intimation of slaughter here.
But the second judgment is of a more appalling character. There went out
a horse that was red, and the one who sits upon him is not the proudly
prosperous victor to whom people tamely submit, but one who, if he wins,
waves his standard over heaps of slain. Accordingly, he has a blood-red
horse--the symbol of power connected with frightful carnage. The result
of the first seal (i.e. of the victorious career of the white-horse
rider) may have been peace and comparatively bloodless changes; but all
is sanguinary under the second seal (ver. 4). Tlie fiery-red horse, the
peace taken from the earth, the mutual slaughter, the great sword, are
tokens too plain to be misunderstood.
</quote>
[Lectures on the Book of Revelation, by William Kelly p. 133]
http://books.google.ca/books?id=f5MXAAAAYAAJ
The white horse of the first seal, I think, pictures religious conquests,
by false teachers of all sorts, and so contrasts with the red horse which
clearly pictures military conquests and war.
--
Doug
Ike E 2009
"Randy �" <pulpi...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:icOdnd8wHoOjWXXX...@giganews.com...
[snip]
> How long do you understand a "week" to be...
Disregarding the prattling of fools, a "week" can be...
7 days.
7 x 7 + 1 days of weeks to make a year.
7 "weeks" of years to make a Sabbatical.
7 x 7 + 1 "weeks" of years to make a Jubilee.
7 one thousand year "days."
Any combination thereof up to the universal "week" that makes up the
universal "day."
But try to tell cultists what the Word says and the flip out, as it screws
up all of their FALSE PROGNOSTICATIONS.
> according to the prophecy in Daniel 9?
According to Daniel 9, the whole thing was supposed to take 70 YEARS, just
like six other prophecies say.
> Whom do you understand the prince of the people to come to be in Daniel
> 9:27?
Which one? The one that "was," the one that "is," or the one that is "yet to
come."
> Do you understand the Tribulation to be the 70th week of Daniel's
> prophecy?
There is no "70th week of Daniel's prophecy" apart from the first 69.
It "was" fulfilled, it "is" fulfilled, and it "will be fulfilled again, only
next time, not too short, and not too long, but to perfection.
Ike
Ike E 2009
[snip]
> The white horse of the first seal, I think, pictures religious conquests,
> by false teachers of all sorts...
Yes, and all you have to do is look in the mirror to find one: John taught
heaven and hell, which you deny.
Go figure.
[snip]
Ike
Fred A Stover
I was outside that box and didn't mention any of the weeks..
Daniel 9:25
Know therefore and understand, that from the going forth of the
commandment to restore and to build Jerusalem unto the Messiah the Prince
shall be seven weeks, and threescore and two weeks: the street shall be
built again, and the wall, even in troublous times.
Daniel 9:25 doesn't limit a week to 7 years?
What do you understand the prince of the people to come to be?
Tribulation is what we have in the world. It began with the fall and will
end when its cause is cast into the lake of fire. The seventieth week of
Daniel's prophecy is the seventieth week of Daniel's prophecy.
Fred A Stover
ROTFL!!!!!!!
Satan, you're an idiot.
It tells me you can't think outside your box. Christ is the fifth horseman
(Rev 19:11). The first horseman is the one who makes the Lord's enemies His
footstool
before He returns.
<satanic babble snipped>
Psalm 110:1
A Psalm of David.
The Lord said unto my Lord, Sit thou at my right hand, until I make
thine enemies thy footstool.
Matthew 22:44
The Lord said unto my Lord, Sit thou on my right hand, till I make thine
enemies thy footstool?
Mark 12:36
For David himself said by the Holy Ghost, The Lord said to my Lord, Sit
thou on my right hand, till I make thine enemies thy footstool.
Luke 20:42-43
And David himself saith in the book of Psalms, The Lord said unto my
Lord, Sit thou on my right hand, [43] Till I make thine enemies thy
footstool.
Acts 2:34-35
For David is not ascended into the heavens: but he saith himself, The
Lord said unto my Lord, Sit thou on my right hand, [35] Until I make thy
foes thy footstool.
Hebrews 1:13
But to which of the angels said he at any times, Sit on my right hand,
until I make thine enemies thy footstool?
Hebrews 10:12-13
But this man, after he had offered one sacrifice for sins for ever, sat
down on the right hand of God; [13] From henceforth expecting till his
enemies be made his footstool.
Randy ®
Fred A Stover <fst...@tx.rr.com> wrote:
>> How long do you understand a "week" to be, according to the
>> > prophecy in Daniel 9? Whom do you understand the prince of the
>> > people to come to be in Daniel 9:27? Do you understand the
>> > Tribulation to be the 70th week of Daniel's prophecy?
> I was outside that box and didn't mention any of the weeks..
>
> Daniel 9:25
> Know therefore and understand, that from the going forth of the
> commandment to restore and to build Jerusalem unto the Messiah the Prince
> shall be seven weeks, and threescore and two weeks: the street shall be
> built again, and the wall, even in troublous times.
>
> Daniel 9:25 doesn't limit a week to 7 years?
Well, yes, I believe it does.
The anti-christ sets himself up as God in the temple, in the
midst of the 70th week (Dan. 9:27; 2 Thess. 2):
Dan 9:27 And he shall confirm the covenant with many for one
week: and in the midst of the week he shall cause the sacrifice
and the oblation to cease, and for the overspreading of
abominations he shall make it desolate, even until the
consummation, and that determined shall be poured upon the desolate.
2Th 2:3 Let no man deceive you by any means: for that day shall
not come, except there come a falling away first, and that man of
sin be revealed, the son of perdition;
2Th 2:4 Who opposeth and exalteth himself above all that is
called God, or that is worshipped; so that he as God sitteth in
the temple of God, shewing himself that he is God.
Daniel calls half that 70th week "time, times, and half a time"
(Dan. 7:25; 12:7; cf. Rev. 12:14), which in Revelation, is
equated to 1,260 days (Rev. 11:3; 12:6) and 42 months (Rev.
11:2; 13:5).
[Time, times, and half a time]
Dan 7:25 And he shall speak great words against the most
High, and shall wear out the saints of the most High, and
think to change times and laws: and they shall be given into
his hand until a time and times and the dividing of time.
Dan 12:7 And I heard the man clothed in linen, which was upon
the waters of the river, when he held up his right hand and
his left hand unto heaven, and sware by him that liveth for
ever that it shall be for a time, times, and an half; and when
he shall have accomplished to scatter the power of the holy
people, all these things shall be finished.
Rev 12:14 And to the woman were given two wings of a great
eagle, that she might fly into the wilderness, into her place,
where she is nourished for a time, and times, and half a time,
from the face of the serpent.
[Equals 1,260 days]
Rev 11:3 And I will give power unto my two witnesses, and
they shall prophesy a thousand two hundred and threescore
days, clothed in sackcloth.
Rev 12:6 And the woman fled into the wilderness, where she
hath a place prepared of God, that they should feed her there
a thousand two hundred and threescore days.
[Equals 42 months]
Rev 11:2 But the court which is without the temple leave out,
and measure it not; for it is given unto the Gentiles: and the
holy city shall they tread under foot forty and two months.
Rev 13:5 And there was given unto him a mouth speaking great
things and blasphemies; and power was given unto him to
continue forty and two months.
Thus, 1,260 days = 42 months = half the 70th week. 1,260 days/42
months = 30 day months and 360 day years. The 70th week is
therefore seven years long, and seventy sevens = 490 years.
> What do you understand the prince of the people to come to be?
The man of sin (2 Thess. 2), a.k.a. anti-christ, the head of the
revived Roman empire.
> Tribulation is what we have in the world. It began with the fall and will
> end when its cause is cast into the lake of fire. The seventieth week of
> Daniel's prophecy is the seventieth week of Daniel's prophecy.
Which I believe is the Tribulation, which I believe is seven
years. Now the question is, how does your white horse fit into
the seventieth week of Daniel 9:27, since that week begins with
anti-christ posing as an agent of peace, confirming a "peace"
covenant with many, and Revelation refers to the Tribulation
beginning with a rider on a white horse who doesn't use weapons?
If I understand your view correctly, you would have people making
peace with the rider on the white horse (the anti-christ), as if
it were the enemies of Christ being made His footstool.
In reality, it is when Christ reigns on earth that His enemies
will be realized as His footstool:
Psalms 110:1-7 NASB
(1) A Psalm of David. The LORD says to my Lord: "Sit at My right
hand Until I make Your enemies a footstool for Your feet."
(2) The LORD will stretch forth Your strong scepter from Zion,
saying, "Rule in the midst of Your enemies."
(3) Your people will volunteer freely in the day of Your power;
In holy array, from the womb of the dawn, Your youth are to You
as the dew.
(4) The LORD has sworn and will not change His mind, "You are a
priest forever According to the order of Melchizedek."
(5) The Lord is at Your right hand; He will shatter kings in the
day of His wrath.
(6) He will judge among the nations, He will fill them with
corpses, He will shatter the chief men over a broad country.
(7) He will drink from the brook by the wayside; Therefore He
will lift up His head.
This is reiterated in Hebrews 1:13, which allows us to have a
close look at what is meant by the Greek:
Hebrews 1:13 NASB
(13) But to which of the angels has He ever said, "SIT AT MY
RIGHT HAND, UNTIL I MAKE YOUR ENEMIES A FOOTSTOOL FOR YOUR FEET"?
Hebrews 1:13 shows Christ sits at the Father's right hand "until
[the aorist tense means He sits with the Father until the point
in time when] I [the Father will (subjunctive)] make" [(The
subjunctive mood is the mood of possibility and potentiality.
The action described may or may not occur, depending upon
circumstances)] your enemies your footstool.
So Christ only sits with the Father, until the point in time
(aorist) when the Father will make His enemies His footstool, at
which time Christ gets up and destroys His enemies and reigns
over them. That would not mean He sits with the Father until the
enemies have already been established as His footstool, in which
case, He couldn't return in Revelation 19, because at that time
they are obviously rebelling against Him and attacking His people.
Doug
wrote in article <7kt9v3F...@mid.individual.net>:
Without any hesitation, Fred A Stover labels the views of other
dispensationalists, John N. Darby, H. Ironside, and William Kelly, as
"satanic babble."
Jesus said, "For with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged: and
with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again." [Matthew
7:2]
Dispensationalists like Fred sneer at every other interpretation but
their own, even those of their fellow dispensationalists, and so fulfil
Ezekiel's prophecy in Ezek. 38:21, "every man's sword shall be against
his brother. "
IMO, William Kelly's comments were quite interesting. Here is what
dispensationalist John F. Walvoord wrote, in "The Revelation of Jesus
Christ."
http://bible.org/series/revelation-jesus-christ
<quote>
Some believe the rider of the white horse is none other than Christ
Himself. This is characteristic of the historical school of
interpretation which regards the Revelation as history rather than
prophecy. However, some of this school regard this scene as future and as
picturing Christ as the ultimate Victor of the ages. A more plausible
explanation is that the rider of the white horse is none other than the
"prince that shall come" of Daniel 9:26, who is to head up the revived
Roman Empire and ultimately become the world ruler. Ainslie believes the
rider of the white horse will appear at the beginning of the seventieth
week of Daniel and that the rider himself "is the Roman prince of an
empire that must rise again to fulfill the great prophecies of the book
of Daniel." He is Satan's masterpiece and the counterfeit of all that
Christ is or claims to be. He is therefore cast in the role of a
conqueror, which seems to be the significance of the white horse.
Jennings states,
The whole context and character of these seals absolutely forbid our
thinking of this rider being the Lord Jesus, as so many affirm. His reign
shall not bring war, famine, and strife in its train.
</quote>
Walvoord cites John Cumming as an example of the historical
interpretation, and quoted his comments on the seven seals:
<quote>
John Cumming presents a typical historical interpretation of the seals,
trumpets, and vials in these words:
The first six seals contain the history of the temporal glory and decline
of Rome Pagan, the most illustrious empire of the ancient earth. This is
my strong, and I think demonstrable conviction. The first six trumpets,
which are comprehended in the seventh seal, contain the desolation of
Rome Christian by the Goths, the Saracens, and the Turks. The first six
vials, which are comprehended in the seventh trumpet, embody the events
that occurred subsequent to the breaking forth of the great European
revolution in 1793. Thus the twenty-one apocalyptic symbols, the seven
seals, the seven trumpets, and the seven vials, represent in succession
the progress of the church along the obstructions of time, her
vicissitudes of experience, her trials, her cruel mockings, her perils,
and her final triumph and permanent prosperity, contemporaneously with
overwhelming judgments on the nations, and on the apostasy.
[ John Cumming, Lectures on the Apocalypse, pp. 44-45.]
</quote>
Cumming applies the opening of the seals to the history of the Roman
empire and subsequent history.
False teachers, who Paul said may appear as "an angel of light" are
represented by the first seal, and the rider on a white horse, IMO. Jesus
warned of them, and gave it as the first sign of his coming; he said,
"Take heed that no man deceive you. For many shall come in my name,
saying, I am Christ; and shall deceive many." [Mat. 24:4-5]
--
Doug
Doug
in article <2PqdnUo4_r_2HHTX...@giganews.com>:
> On Thu, 10/29/09, at 5:25:22AM,
> Fred A Stover <fst...@tx.rr.com> wrote:
<snip>
> If I understand your view correctly, you would have people making peace
> with the rider on the white horse (the anti-christ), as if it were the
> enemies of Christ being made His footstool.
Obfuscation is Fred's expertise. He has jeered and scoffed at the views
of others, but is afraid to clearly state what he thinks the first
horseman is. He wrote in a recent post, "The first horseman is the one
who makes the Lord's enemies His footstool before He returns."
What does he mean? Maybe he supports a view such as that proposed by
David N. Lord in the quote below, but who knows?
From John F. Walvoord's "The Revelation of Jesus Christ"
http://bible.org/series/revelation-jesus-christ
<quote>
Following the historical school of interpretation, David N. Lord suggests
that the rider on the first horse represents the true minister of the
gospel. The rider on the second horse, who takes peace from the earth,
represents the succession of Roman rulers in early Christian centuries,
many of whom were usurpers. The rider of the third seal represents the
excessive taxation of the Roman Empire. The fourth seal represents Roman
rulers who destroyed by execution and famine those who opposed them. The
strained nature of such interpretation is apparent, and there is no real
support in the text for it.
McIlvaine makes the penetrating observation that the authority given to
the riders of the four horses to kill with sword, famine, death, and wild
beasts extends to all four equally or as a group. This would make
impossible identifying the first rider as Christ and the succeeding
riders as forces of evil, but would tie them together. Mcllvaine says,
It is in these words that we find our Seer's interpretation of the first
seal...it would be very surprising that no one seems ever to have thought
of reading this closing statement as a paragraph by itself, and
consequently as referring, not exclusively to the last, but to all of
these four seals... Here, then, according to the Seer's own
interpretation, this rider upon a white horse, with a crown and bow, and
called forth by the lion-like living creature, is the symbol of the
plague of wild beasts ... all the members of a class must be of the same
sort, so that they can be obtained by one principle of analysis; and this
principle in three of these, war, pestilence, and famine, is that of a
judgment or scourge; consequently, in the remaining one, that of the
first seal, it must be a judgment or scourge; otherwise the laws of
thought are violated in the classification.
Though McIlvaine's historical interpretation of this passage as having
been fulfilled in the early centuries of the Christian era should be
considered inadequate, his observation that these four seals form a unit
has a good deal of merit and would seem to forbid making Christ the rider
on the white horse.
</quote>
Why not quote your sources, Fred? Or are you afraid it will reveal which
cult you are involved it? Your attitude sure seems fearful and cult-like,
IMO.
--
Doug
Bear
>On Thu, 29 Oct 2009 06:50:06 -0500, Randy � <pulpi...@gmail.com> wrote
>in article <2PqdnUo4_r_2HHTX...@giganews.com>:
>
>> On Thu, 10/29/09, at 5:25:22AM,
>> Fred A Stover <fst...@tx.rr.com> wrote:
>
><snip>
>
>> If I understand your view correctly, you would have people making peace
>> with the rider on the white horse (the anti-christ), as if it were the
>> enemies of Christ being made His footstool.
>
>Obfuscation is Fred's expertise. He has jeered and scoffed at the views
>of others, but is afraid to clearly state what he thinks the first
>horseman is. He wrote in a recent post, "The first horseman is the one
>who makes the Lord's enemies His footstool before He returns."
>
>What does he mean? Maybe he supports a view such as that proposed by
>David N. Lord in the quote below, but who knows?
>
Does any one else ever notice how often Doug tries to prove his points
by quoting, and/or misquoting, this individual or that individual as
opposed to quoting scripture, accurately and in context?
I believe there is a good reason for him employing such tactics and
that is, he knows that he cannot prove his views with scripture so his
recourse is to scoff, mock and denigrate individuals that prove the
fallacy of his replacement theology doctrine. How can he prove
anything with scripture when he obviously does not believe those
scriptures to be the inspired word from God?
All one has to do to expose Doug's ludicrous doctrine is to ask him
questions and insist upon him using scripture to corroborate his
answers, he cannot do it.
Bear
Ike E 2009
[snip]
>> Daniel 9:25 doesn't limit a week to 7 years?
>
>
> Well, yes, I believe it does.
Good thing what you "believe" is irrelevant to the believers, as the Word
teaches a "week" can be MANY things...but the minute you acknowledge the
Word of Truth says a "week" can be many things, all of your lies will come
crashing down.
[snip]
Ike
Fred A Stover
> On Thu, 29 Oct 2009 06:50:06 -0500, Randy � <pulpi...@gmail.com>
> wrote in article <2PqdnUo4_r_2HHTX...@giganews.com>:
>
>> On Thu, 10/29/09, at 5:25:22AM,
>> Fred A Stover <fst...@tx.rr.com> wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
>> If I understand your view correctly, you would have people making
>> peace with the rider on the white horse (the anti-christ), as if it
>> were the enemies of Christ being made His footstool.
>
> Obfuscation is Fred's expertise. He has jeered and scoffed at the
> views of others, but is afraid to clearly state what he thinks the
> first horseman is. He wrote in a recent post, "The first horseman is
> the one who makes the Lord's enemies His footstool before He returns."
Satan, you're a liar. I only scoff at folks like you who contradict
scripture with their vain babblings.
Now you cite someone else without citing evidence that they still hold the
same view today, so you can hide the vanity of your contrascriptural
interpretation.
<drivel snipped>
Fred A Stover
> On Thu, 10/29/09, at 5:25:22AM,
> Fred A Stover <fst...@tx.rr.com> wrote:
>
>>> How long do you understand a "week" to be, according to the
>>>> prophecy in Daniel 9? Whom do you understand the prince of the
>>>> people to come to be in Daniel 9:27? Do you understand the
>>>> Tribulation to be the 70th week of Daniel's prophecy?
>> I was outside that box and didn't mention any of the weeks..
>>
>> Daniel 9:25
>> Know therefore and understand, that from the going forth of the
>> commandment to restore and to build Jerusalem unto the Messiah the
>> Prince shall be seven weeks, and threescore and two weeks: the
>> street shall be built again, and the wall, even in troublous times.
>>
>> Daniel 9:25 doesn't limit a week to 7 years?
>
>
> Well, yes, I believe it does.
>
>
> [Time, times, and half a time] ... [Equals 1,260 days] ... [Equals 42
> months] ... Thus, 1,260 days = 42 months = half the 70th week. 1,260
> months = 30 day months and 360 day years. The 70th week is
> therefore seven years long, and seventy sevens = 490 years.
>
No disagreement here.
>
>> What do you understand the prince of the people to come to be?
>
> The man of sin (2 Thess. 2), a.k.a. anti-christ, the head of the
> revived Roman empire.
The question was "what" not "who," are you saying the prince is a man, not a
power or principality?
>> Tribulation is what we have in the world. It began with the fall and
>> will end when its cause is cast into the lake of fire. The
>> seventieth week of Daniel's prophecy is the seventieth week of
>> Daniel's prophecy.
>
> Which I believe is the Tribulation, which I believe is seven
> years.
Because you choose to add "the tribulation," to scripture? Is the most
severe tribulation ever experienced a part of your "the tribulation?"
Apparenly not, for it proceeds the gathering of His elect (Matt 24:29-31,
21) any you have him gathering His elect before "the tribulation." The Great
Tribulation is in one verse in scripture, Rev 7:14, do you notice that
people are coming out of it after the church has departed?
Rev. 7:9-14
After this I beheld, and, lo, a great multitude, which no man could
number, of all nations, and kindreds, and people, and tongues, stood before
the throne, and before the Lamb, clothed with white robes, and palms in
their hands; [10] And cried with a loud voice, saying, Salvation to our God
which sitteth upon the throne, and unto the Lamb. [11] And all the angels
stood round about the throne, and about the elders and the four beasts, and
fell before the throne on their faces, and worshipped God, [12] Saying,
Amen: Blessing, and glory, and wisdom, and thanksgiving, and honour, and
power, and might, be unto our God for ever and ever. Amen. [13] And one of
the elders answered, saying unto me, What are these which are arrayed in
white robes? and whence came they? [14] And I said unto him, Sir, thou
knowest. And he said to me, These are they which came out of great
tribulation, and have washed their robes, and made them white in the blood
of the Lamb.
The first resurrection is the few chosen of the many called (Rev 20:4-5),
the ones coming out of the Great Tribulation [tes thlipeos tes tes megales]
are an innumerable multitude coming out of the Great Tribulation in the
millennium. They are of the resurrection of judgment among the rest of the
dead who don't live again until the thousand years are finished.
> Now the question is, how does your white horse fit into
> the seventieth week of Daniel 9:27, since that week begins with
> anti-christ posing as an agent of peace, confirming a "peace"
> covenant with many, and Revelation refers to the Tribulation
> beginning with a rider on a white horse who doesn't use weapons?
If you conclude your assumptions, you're going to arrive at the conclusion
that you've already assumed. Where is your "peace covenant" in scripture?
John Walvoord said there are no scriptures identifying the first horseman as
the antichrist. What do you find that he missed?
Where is your tribulation beginning with a rider on a white horse who
doesn't use weapons? The first horseman is armed with a bow (toxon is an
archer's bow in case you have the old Strong's which seems to have him
riding out with a ribbon in his hair) riding out to conquer and conquering.
> If I understand your view correctly, you would have people making
> peace with the rider on the white horse (the anti-christ), as if
> it were the enemies of Christ being made His footstool.
>
> In reality, it is when Christ reigns on earth that His enemies
> will be realized as His footstool:
In reality His enemies will be made His footstool before He returns. Read
the seven scripture citings again. His enemies will be in rebellion when He
returns, with the antichrist claiming to be God. You keep ignoring the fact
that Michael stands in Daniel 12:1 because he wasn't standing when the
rebellion began. And when the Lord returns, He will reign until His enemies
are under His feet again: "For he must reign, till he hath put all enemies
under his feet" (1Cor 15:25).
.
>
> Psalms 110:1-7 NASB
> (1) A Psalm of David. The LORD says to my Lord: "Sit at My right
> hand Until I make Your enemies a footstool for Your feet."
> (2) The LORD will stretch forth Your strong scepter from Zion,
> saying, "Rule in the midst of Your enemies."
> (3) Your people will volunteer freely in the day of Your power;
> In holy array, from the womb of the dawn, Your youth are to You
> as the dew.
> (4) The LORD has sworn and will not change His mind, "You are a
> priest forever According to the order of Melchizedek."
> (5) The Lord is at Your right hand; He will shatter kings in the
> day of His wrath.
> (6) He will judge among the nations, He will fill them with
> corpses, He will shatter the chief men over a broad country.
> (7) He will drink from the brook by the wayside; Therefore He
> will lift up His head.
Yes, He reigns after He returns.
> This is reiterated in Hebrews 1:13, which allows us to have a
> close look at what is meant by the Greek:
>
> Hebrews 1:13 NASB
> (13) But to which of the angels has He ever said, "SIT AT MY
> RIGHT HAND, UNTIL I MAKE YOUR ENEMIES A FOOTSTOOL FOR YOUR FEET"?
> Hebrews 1:13 shows Christ sits at the Father's right hand "until
> [the aorist tense means He sits with the Father until the point
> in time when] I [the Father will (subjunctive)] make" [(The
> subjunctive mood is the mood of possibility and potentiality.
> The action described may or may not occur, depending upon
> circumstances)] your enemies your footstool.
Which is irrelevant since the potential action is confirmed as occuring in
Dan 12:1 when Michael stands because He wasn't standing.
>
> So Christ only sits with the Father, until the point in time
> (aorist) when the Father will make His enemies His footstool, at
> which time Christ gets up and destroys His enemies and reigns
> over them.
And it is the first horseman by which His Father makes His enemies His
footstool, and He returns when they rebel.
> That would not mean He sits with the Father until the
> enemies have already been established as His footstool, in which
> case, He couldn't return in Revelation 19, because at that time
> they are obviously rebelling against Him and attacking His people.
It means He returns after His enemies have been made His footstool, and they
are in rebellion when He returns with the antichrist deeming himself God.
Fred A Stover
ROTFL!!!!
Satan, you're an idiot.
The leading dispensationalist I follow are Isaiah, who told of the
uncircumcised gentiles coming into the kingdom not under the law (Is 2:2),
Zechariah, who tells of the Old Covenant Jews being saved after the Lord
returns (Zech 12:10), Jesus, who tells us we will judgethe twelve tribes of
Israel in the millennial world to come (Luke 22:30), Paul, who tells us
Israel will be saved after the fulness of the gentiles has entered (Rom
11:25-29).
All the things you can't discern in scripture because they are discerned by
the Holy Spirit, not the spirits of devils. 1 Cor. 2:14
But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for
they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are
spiritually discerned.
You can make the writings of men your gospel, but I'll follow the
scriptures.
Randy ®
Bear <tevan...@charter.net> wrote:
> Does any one else ever notice how often Doug tries to prove his points
> by quoting, and/or misquoting, this individual or that individual as
> opposed to quoting scripture, accurately and in context?
>
> I believe there is a good reason for him employing such tactics and
> that is, he knows that he cannot prove his views with scripture so his
> recourse is to scoff, mock and denigrate individuals that prove the
> fallacy of his replacement theology doctrine. How can he prove
> anything with scripture when he obviously does not believe those
> scriptures to be the inspired word from God?
>
> All one has to do to expose Doug's ludicrous doctrine is to ask him
> questions and insist upon him using scripture to corroborate his
> answers, he cannot do it.
>
> Bear
Yeah, I noticed that also.
Bear
Fred, how can you expect Doug to follow scripture when he does not
believe that it comes from God? He cannot prove his ridiculous
doctrine with scripture so he has to find writings of men to mock and
ridicule as a diversion.
Bear
Ike E 10/29/09
> On Thu, 10/29/09, at 8:49:50AM,
> Bear <tevan...@charter.net> wrote:
>
>> Does any one else ever notice how often Doug tries to prove his points
>> by quoting, and/or misquoting, this individual or that individual as
>> opposed to quoting scripture, accurately and in context?
>>
>> I believe there is a good reason for him employing such tactics and
>> that is, he knows that he cannot prove his views with scripture so his
>> recourse is to scoff, mock and denigrate individuals that prove the
>> fallacy of his replacement theology doctrine. How can he prove
>> anything with scripture when he obviously does not believe those
>> scriptures to be the inspired word from God?
>>
>> All one has to do to expose Doug's ludicrous doctrine is to ask him
>> questions and insist upon him using scripture to corroborate his
>> answers, he cannot do it.
>>
>> Bear
>
>
> Yeah, I noticed that also.
Which is pretty much the same thing you two do.
Go figure.
Ike
Fred A Stover
He doesn't follow it. He thinks he's God and makes it up as he goes.
Doug
wrote in article <7kuc3aF...@mid.individual.net>:
> Randy ® wrote:
>> On Thu, 10/29/09, at 5:25:22AM,
>> Fred A Stover <fst...@tx.rr.com> wrote:
>>
<snip>
>> Now the question is, how does your white horse fit into the seventieth
>> week of Daniel 9:27, since that week begins with anti-christ posing as
>> an agent of peace, confirming a "peace" covenant with many, and
>> Revelation refers to the Tribulation beginning with a rider on a white
>> horse who doesn't use weapons?
>
> If you conclude your assumptions, you're going to arrive at the
> conclusion that you've already assumed. Where is your "peace covenant"
> in scripture? John Walvoord said there are no scriptures identifying the
> first horseman as the antichrist. What do you find that he missed?
Looks like Fred just shot himself in the foot! Walvoord's interpretation
identifies the white horse with the beast out of the sea in Revelation
13.
John F. Walvoord, The Revelation of Jesus Christ
http://bible.org/series/revelation-jesus-christ
6. The Beginning Of The Great Day Of God's Wrath
While the dispute as to the identity of the rider cannot be finally
settled, especially in the brief compass of this discussion, the
conclusion identifying him as the world ruler of the tribulation, the
same individual described as the beast out of the sea in Revelation 13,
is preferred.
> Where
> is your tribulation beginning with a rider on a white horse who doesn't
> use weapons? The first horseman is armed with a bow (toxon is an
> archer's bow in case you have the old Strong's which seems to have him
> riding out with a ribbon in his hair) riding out to conquer and
> conquering.
Walvoord's interpretation is no help to Fred. And it looks as though Fred
and Randy have a disagreement about the identity of the rider of the
white horse, as do most dispensationalists. There is little agreement
amongst dispensationalists about the first seal, or about the events of
the sixth seal, or about the trumpets, and they appear to find this
embarrassing, as they respond with great hostility when this fact is
demonstrated.
They fulfil the prophecy of Ezekiel, about the invaders who, deceived by
Satan, come against the church.
Ezekiel 38:21
And I will call for a sword against him throughout all my mountains,
saith the Lord GOD: every man's sword shall be against his brother.
John interprets Ezekiel's prophecy for us in Rev. 20:8-9, and shows these
invaders are people who are deceived, and who come against the saints, or
the church. They "compassed the camp of the saints about, and the beloved
city," which is the church.
American televangelist Pat Robertson is one of those who have
misinterpreted Ezekiel's prophecy. In 2007 he posted the following on his
web site:
http://www.patrobertson.com/pressreleases/PatRobertsonRegardingGeorgia.asp
<quote>
About 2600 years ago, God gave the Prophet Ezekiel a description of an
invasion of Israel after the Jews had been regathered to the Promised
Land from all over the world in the "latter days." Ezekiel wrote of an
invasion force led by Russia that would include Iran and "Cush," which is
Sudan. The other parties described by Ezekiel that constituted the
invading force could include some of the Muslim nations in the former
Soviet Caucasus region and possibly Turkey. According to Ezekiel 38:12,
they would come seeking "plunder and loot." What greater plunder than
the oil riches of the Persian Gulf?
Will this unfold all at once? It's difficult to say. But what is clear
is this: The Israeli strike against Iran will be the trigger. From then
on, dramatic events will follow in quick succession. It all will
conclude when God has rained fire on the islands of the sea and on the
invading force coming against Israel.
Where will the United States be in all of this conflict? According to
Ezekiel, the "young lions of Tarshish" will be questioning the Russians
about their aggression - questioning, but not acting to stop it. Who are
these "young lions of Tarshish?" Tarshish was the region beyond Cadiz in
Spain. In antiquity, explorers from Tarshish came to Ireland, then
across the ocean to North America, traveling the Mississippi River as far
as the present-day site of Davenport, Iowa.
I believe the term "young lions of Tarshish" refers to England and the
United States of America. According to Ezekiel, when the Middle East
trouble begins, the young lions of Tarshish will warn Russia and Iran,
but refuse to act. We will suffer grave economic damage, but will not
engage in military action to stop the conflict. However, we may not be
spared nuclear strikes against coastal cities.
In conclusion, it is my opinion that we have between 75 and 120 days
before the Middle East starts spinning out of control.
...
Watch the year 2007, because that's 40 years after the Jews took over
Jerusalem, but it's also 400 years after the first permanent English
settlers started the United States of America.
</quote>
What became of Robertson's speculations about 75 to 120 days? What was
significant about 2007? The nuclear conflagration that he hinted might
occur did not happen. Robertson showed that he is among the deluded horde
of Gog and Magog, who come against the church, deceiving people, and
soliciting money!
Another example is Paul McGuire. He wrote:
<quote>
An Israeli strike on Iran would destabilize the entire Middle East. Such
an attack would embolden Shi'ite attacks in Iraq. It would energize the
Taliban fighters and al Qaeda to take Pakistan. Nations where America and
Britain have military interests such as Qatar and Bahrain would be
attacked. But, from the Achilles heel of the United States, the EU,
Russia and China is oil. The Iranians would attempt to stop the flow of
oil to the West from the Persian Gulf region. This would also give Russia
the excuse they need to control 60% of the oil coming into Europe through
the Caspian Sea region. It is also conceivable that an Ezekiel 38
scenario would occur with Russia, Iran and Middle Eastern allied
launching and invasion on the nation of Israel which the U.S. and Great
Britain would be helpless to stop in the face of a nuclear Taliban and
the high likelihood of Iranian nuclear and WMD sleeper cells inside the
U.S., Great Britain and Europe. A Russian suitcase nuke going off in a
U.S. city or an Iranian EMP attack is not all that farfetched.
More Bible prophecy has been fulfilled in our lifetime since Israel was
reformed as a nation in 1948. The convergence major prophetic factors are
seismic in its proportions. The possibility of the War and Magog in
Ezekiel 38, (sic) where Russia, Iran and an alliance of Islamic nations
attack Israel in the latter days. These latter days were only possible
when the Jews were regathered into the land in 1948 as predicted by
Ezekiel, Jeremiah and other prophets. The rise of a global government,
the "Revived Roman Empire" and the "Fourth Beast" predicted by the
prophet Daniel are all prophetic signs. In addition, the coming one world
religion and the coming one world economic system is being put into place
as outlined by the Apostle John in Revelation 13.
...
The Church in America which believes in Israel and Bible prophecy must be
silenced in order for the agenda of militant Islam to progress. In any
Ezekiel 38 scenario including supporting Israel's right to defend itself
from Iran, you can be sure that tremendous criticism of Christians and
Jews will surface in the United States and Europe. The criticism is not
spontaneous it is orchestrated.
</quote>
http://moriel.org/MorielArchive/index.php/news/the-coming-confrontation-
ezekiel-38-israel-and-iran
McGuire predicts criticism of his extreme Zionist position. Criticism of
the views of Christian Zionists like Mike Evans, Paul McGuire, Tim LaHaye,
David Hocking, Joel Rosenberg, Chuck Missler, Pat Robertson, Hal Lindsey
and others, seems to mostly come from Jews themselves, and from Anglican
clergy such as Bishop Tom Wright, and Rev. Stephen Sizer.
Christian Zionists Attack Bishop Tom Wright
http://barthsnotes.wordpress.com/2009/04/20/christian-zionist-attack-on-
bishop-tom-wright/
http://www.stephensizer.com/category/christian-zionism/
--
Doug
Ike E 10/29/09
> On Thu, 29 Oct 2009 14:59:55 -0500, "Fred A Stover" <fst...@tx.rr.com>
> wrote in article <7kuc3aF...@mid.individual.net>:
>
>> Randy � wrote:
>>> On Thu, 10/29/09, at 5:25:22AM,
>>> Fred A Stover <fst...@tx.rr.com> wrote:
>>>
>
> <snip>
>
>>> Now the question is, how does your white horse fit into the seventieth
>>> week of Daniel 9:27, since that week begins with anti-christ posing as
>>> an agent of peace, confirming a "peace" covenant with many, and
>>> Revelation refers to the Tribulation beginning with a rider on a white
>>> horse who doesn't use weapons?
>>
>> If you conclude your assumptions, you're going to arrive at the
>> conclusion that you've already assumed. Where is your "peace covenant"
>> in scripture? John Walvoord said there are no scriptures identifying the
>> first horseman as the antichrist. What do you find that he missed?
>
> Looks like Fred just shot himself in the foot! Walvoord's interpretation
> identifies the white horse with the beast out of the sea in Revelation
> 13.
So what? You sit on your brain, but keeping it warm doesn't help since it's
in the wrong place...
Dispensationalists couldn't interpret prophecy to save their asses [quite
literally, as it turns out], and neither can you.
Ike
Bear
Does any one else ever notice how often Doug tries to prove his points
by quoting, and/or misquoting, this individual or that individual as
opposed to quoting scripture, accurately and in context?
I believe there is a good reason for him employing such tactics and
that is, he knows that he cannot prove his views with scripture so his
recourse is to scoff, mock and denigrate individuals that prove the
fallacy of his replacement theology doctrine. How can he prove
anything with scripture when he obviously does not believe those
scriptures to be the inspired word from God?
All one has to do to expose Doug's ludicrous doctrine is to ask him
questions and insist upon him using scripture to corroborate his
answers, he cannot do it.
Bear
Ike E 10/29/09
[snip]
> Does any one else ever notice how often Doug tries to prove his points
> by quoting, and/or misquoting, this individual or that individual as
> opposed to quoting scripture, accurately and in context?
>
> I believe there is a good reason for him employing such tactics and
> that is, he knows that he cannot prove his views with scripture so his
> recourse is to scoff, mock and denigrate individuals that prove the
> fallacy of his replacement theology doctrine.
Hmmm. Just like you.
> All one has to do to expose Doug's ludicrous doctrine is to ask him
> questions and insist upon him using scripture to corroborate his
> answers, he cannot do it.
Hmmmm. Just like you.
Speaking of which, if Jeremiah's prophecies were only about the past, why
does John quote him in Revelation; and if Jeremiah's prophecies were only
about the future, why wasn't he stoned as a false prophet?
[This is usually the point where Bear employs the exact same tactics which
he accuses Doug of employing, nevermind the fact that he can't make a case
for his false teachings from scripture EITHER.]
[snip]
Ike
Doug
article <f5sle513er85ahgnm...@4ax.com>:
Ted Evans is in a precarious position, because he has been shown that
there is much disagreement amongst dispensationalists. He is like a man
who has one foot on a boat, that is gradually pulling away from a dock,
still holding onto the dock, with his body suspended over the water, and
legs separating wider and wider apart.
Which way will you jump, Ted? Do you support Randy, who says the rider on
the white horse is antichrist, or Fred, who says no, "The first horseman
is the one who makes the Lord's enemies His footstool before He returns"?
How long are you going to post in this thread, and remain so timid and
fearful, that you can't even express your opinion? Your feet will soon be
stretched too far apart for you to make any respectable response. Quick!
Call Chuck Missler! Ask for his advice! Or Jack Kelley! What do they say?
Do they agree?
Show us how ready and willing you are to answer questions!
--
Doug
Ike E 10/29/09
[snip]
> Which way will you jump, Ted? Do you support Randy, who says the rider on
> the white horse is antichrist, or Fred, who says no, "The first horseman
> is the one who makes the Lord's enemies His footstool before He returns"?
The answer is "D: None of the above." (Your answer being pretty much "C,"
since you're one of the "false prophets" to whom the passage refers.)
Ike
Doug
<xhermanei...@gmail.com> wrote in article
<hceufi$u2s$1...@news.eternal-september.org>:
> "Bear" <tevan...@charter.net> wrote in message
> news:f5sle513er85ahgnm...@4ax.com...
>
> [snip]
>
>> Does any one else ever notice how often Doug tries to prove his points
>> by quoting, and/or misquoting, this individual or that individual as
>> opposed to quoting scripture, accurately and in context?
>>
>> I believe there is a good reason for him employing such tactics and
>> that is, he knows that he cannot prove his views with scripture so his
>> recourse is to scoff, mock and denigrate individuals that prove the
>> fallacy of his replacement theology doctrine.
>
> Hmmm. Just like you.
>
>> All one has to do to expose Doug's ludicrous doctrine is to ask him
>> questions and insist upon him using scripture to corroborate his
>> answers, he cannot do it.
>
> Hmmmm. Just like you.
Um, Ted's posts are not a bit like mine. He persists in defamation and
stalking, which I avoid. And he admits to being a troll, and degrades the
forum by spamming, which IMO is shameful.
Most of his responses to me are off topic. His questions are generally
off topic, which is one reason I have ignored them.
Now it will be interesting to see how he responds to my question, about
the interpretation of the first seal, and the rider on the white horse.
Will he support Randy, or Fred, or some other opinion? What about Ike's
interpretation?
Here is what Jack Kelley wrote about the first seal:
<quote>
Now I watched when the Lamb opened one of the seven seals, and I heard
one of the four living creatures say with a voice like thunder, “Come!”
and I looked, and behold, a white horse! And its rider had a bow, and a
crown was given to him, and he came out conquering, and to conquer.
(Rev 6:1-2)
6 1 And I saw when the Lamb opened one of the seals, and I heard, as it
were the noise of thunder, one of the four beasts saying, Come and see.
2 And I saw, and behold a white horse: and he that sat on him had a bow;
and a crown was given unto him: and he went forth conquering, and to
conquer.
The first of the seven seals is broken early in the 70th week of Daniel,
after the church has disappeared. Liberal scholars often identify the
rider of the white horse as the Lord Jesus, pointing to his crown and the
fact that he’s a conqueror. I think some part of their conclusion comes
from watching all those TV westerns as kids, where the good guys always
rode white horses. I say that because this rider is most definitely not
Jesus. He’s the anti-Christ.
What Makes You Think So?
In the first place he carries a bow. The Lord’s weapon of choice is a
sword. The reason he has no arrows is that he won’t use force to make his
initial impact on Earth. He comes as a peacemaker
(Daniel 8:25)
25 And through his policy also he shall cause craft to prosper in his
hand; and he shall magnify himself in his heart, and by peace shall
destroy many: he shall also stand up against the Prince of princes; but
he shall be broken without hand.
Since the Book of Revelation is filled with symbolism explained elsewhere
in the Bible, I looked for the first mention of a man with a bow, hoping
to get an additional clue to this rider’s identity. I found it in Genesis
21:20
20 And God was with the lad; and he grew, and dwelt in the wilderness,
and became an archer.
As details of Islamic eschatology become more widely known, prophecy
students are discovering a striking similarity between descriptions of al
Mahdi, a Messianic figure from the Shiite tradition, and a figure
Christians call the anti-Christ. (I’m not saying that al Mahdi is the
Moslem anti-Christ, called the Dajjal, but that he resembles the
Christian anti-Christ.) Both come on the scene during a time of great
turmoil on Earth, both come claiming a desire to restore peace, both have
a seven year reign, both head a one world religion and one world
government, both claim supernatural origins, and both reigns end in a
battle between good and evil that brings Earth’s final judgment.
The number of similarities between the two defies coincidence and
continues to grow as knowledge of al Mahdi increases. Now with the
connection between the Bible’s first archer and the man with a bow in
Rev. 6, another piece of the puzzle may have fallen into place. Mohammed
was descended from Kedar, second son of Ishmael, and Al Mahdi is the 12th
Iman descended from Mohammed. Jack Kinsella, in his commentary entitled
“The Third Pillar of anti-Christ” makes an excellent case for Islam being
the religion of anti-Christ. (The Omega Letter Intelligence Digest Vol:
53 Issue: 25 – Saturday, February 25, 2006 www.omegaletter.com) When you
read it, you’ll understand that after the Church is gone, those who also
call themselves the church, but have been left behind, won’t have much
trouble at all accepting Islam. And like Paul said, the addition of a few
“miracles” into the mix will be all it takes to deceive the whole world
(2 Thes.2:9).
Got Anything Else?
In the second place this guy’s wearing the wrong kind of crown. The Greek
word for a king’s crown is diadem. But this one wears a stephanos, or
victor’s crown. It was the award given to winners in the ancient Olympics
and other public games. It was typically an ivy wreath, and in fact the
word stephanos comes from a root meaning wreath. It identifies the wearer
as a conqueror, but not as royalty. And in Revelation 13 where the Great
Tribulation begins, we’re told that He was given power to make war
against the saints and to conquer them. And he was given authority over
every tribe, people, language and nation. (Rev. 13:7) Why would Jesus
make war with the tribulation saints to conquer them? Like I said, while
he fools people into thinking he’s the Christ, he’s really the anti-
Christ.
</snip>
>
> Speaking of which, if Jeremiah's prophecies were only about the past,
> why does John quote him in Revelation; and if Jeremiah's prophecies were
> only about the future, why wasn't he stoned as a false prophet?
>
> [This is usually the point where Bear employs the exact same tactics
> which he accuses Doug of employing, nevermind the fact that he can't
> make a case for his false teachings from scripture EITHER.]
>
> [snip]
>
> Ike
--
Doug
Doug
<xhermanei...@gmail.com> wrote in article
<hcf09b$edr$1...@news.eternal-september.org>:
Supplemental Notes - Daniel's 70 Weeks - Chuck Missler
http://www.scribd.com/doc/6724082/Supplemental-Notes-Daniels-70-Weeks-
Chuck-Missler
<quote>
The Coming World Leader
[A complete discussion of this man of destiny is available in out
briefing package, Behold a White Horse.]
His career
The leader will be the Son of Satan, the "Seed of the Serpent" Gen 3:15;
Isa. 27:1; Ezek. 28:12; Rev. 13. He will be:
An intellectual genius: Dan 7:20; 8:23; Ezek. 28:3
An persuasive orator: Dan 7:20; Rev 13:2
A political manipulator: Dan 11:21
A commercial genius: Dan 8:25; Rev 13:17; Ps 52:7; Dan 11:38, 43; Ezek
28:4,5
A military leader: Dan 8:24; Rev 6:2; Rev 13:4; Isa 4:16
A powerful organizer: Rev 13:1,3; 17:17
A unifying religious guru: 2 Tess 2:4 ("Allah"?); Rev 13:3, 14, 15
He will be able to appeal to Jew and Muslim alike! 2 Thess 2:4 (includes
Allah!) See also: Ps 10, 52, 55; Isa 10, 11, 13, 14; Jer 49-51; Zech 5;
Rev 18, et al.
Some believe this leader will be a Jew. Ezek 21:25-27; Ezek 28:2-10 (of
the circumcision); Dan 11:36, 37; Jn 5:43 (allos, not hetros: thus, a
Jew, not a Gentile); He will be received by Israel, Jn 5:43; Ps 55.
Others believe he will be a Gentile: Roman Prince, from Dan 9:26, 27,
etc. [But remember, there are two players in Rev 13!] In no previous
period of mankind have "the kingdoms of this world become the kingdoms of
the Lord and of His Christ." (Rev 11:15). Christ's unfulfilled mandate as
our "Avenger of Blood" (Isa 61:2) is about to begin.
An Alien Alliance?
Is this Coming World Leader a hybrid? If you have a background on the
strange activities of Genesis 6, then there are some bizarre
possibilities hinted at in Scripture. The Final World Empire described is
expressed in Daniel Chapter 2 with the idiom of "iron mixed with clay."
It is clear that the iron represents the Roman Empire. What does the
"miry clay" represent? Daniel interprets it for us! Daniel 2:43: "And
whereas thou sawest iron mixed with miry clay, they shall mingle
themselves with the seed of men: but they shall not cleave one to
another, even as iron is not mixed with clay." Just what (or who) are
"mingling with the seed of men?" Who are these non-seed? It staggers the
mind to contemplate the potential significance of Daniel's passage and
its implications for the future global governance. Could this be a hint
of a return to the mischief of Genesis 6? Are "Aliens" and their hybrid
offspring part of the political makeup of this emergent world empire?
[This is explored in our book, Alien Encounters.]
</quote>
Missler refers to a book by Arthur W. Pink, The Antichrist, written when
Pink was a dispensationalist, but he later rejected that position
entirely. He wrote a series of articles exposing dispensationalism as a
delusion. Missler makes no mention of the fact that Pink rejected
dispensationalism, which seems rather dishonest, IMO.
http://www.theologue.org/refutation-pink.html
http://www.fivesolas.com/applican.htm
--
Doug
Doug
wrote in article <7kvut9F...@mid.individual.net>:
Ted probably think you don't follow scripture either, in your
interpretation of the first seal. Ted follows Chuck Missler, and Jack
Kelley, who both say it is the antichrist. But Ted has yet to clearly
state his opinion. I have asked him, but he seems to be reluctant to do
so.
Hmm...
Is he afraid of being called nasty names by Fred A Stover? What else
could he be afraid of?
--
Doug
Bear
Doug, I know that you are an intelligent person so why do you find it
necessary to be so hypocritical and dishonest?
Where have I ever stated, suggested, inferred or implied that I think
all dispensationalist agree with one another on all doctrine, or even
if they should?
Since you seem to be lacking the capability of comprehension and just
have not been able to get it from the many responses that I have made
to your post, does it really matter what any individual believes are
what his views are, if, they do not agree with scripture?
Take a look at the majority of your post Doug, look at the number of
lines that you devote to what others say, how they disagree, how
foolish they are etc, compared to the number of lines that you devote
to what scripture says. I believe there is a very good reason for
that, and it is because you know that you cannot support your
blasphemous doctrine with scripture so your recourse is to ridicule
and denigrate others.
>Which way will you jump, Ted? Do you support Randy, who says the rider on
>the white horse is antichrist, or Fred, who says no, "The first horseman
>is the one who makes the Lord's enemies His footstool before He returns"?
>
FYI Doug, I have not seen one person in these forums that I agree with
one hundred percent of the time, including Randy and Fred and I am
positive they disagree with me even more. However, I do believe, on
the majority of Biblical doctrines, I do agree with them.
With Revelation 6, I fully agree with Randy and it is my opinion that
Fred is mistaken in his views. When I read the scriptures, I see it
the same as Randy, Jack, Chuck and multitudes of others that the
person on this horse is the one spoken of in Daniel, Matthew and other
verses. Jack and Chuck have both presented strong arguments for this
view and I have not seen where one person has refuted their views,
using scripture. Obviously, Fred and others disagree and that is
certainly their right to do so. However, I have not seen one time
where Fred blatantly lied about what scripture said trying to prove
his view the way you do, consistently.
>How long are you going to post in this thread, and remain so timid and
>fearful, that you can't even express your opinion?
Yep, I am very timid about expressing my opinions, eh Doug. Is that
why you tried your intimidation tactic to shut me up, because of my
"timidity"?
>Your feet will soon be
>stretched too far apart for you to make any respectable response. Quick!
>Call Chuck Missler! Ask for his advice! Or Jack Kelley! What do they say?
>Do they agree?
>
It is the "Antichrist" and yes, they agree.
>Show us how ready and willing you are to answer questions!
>
How can you be so juvenile and such a hypocrite Doug? I have asked
you dozens upon dozens of questions that you will not answer and when
I answer yours, you just move on to another topic without answering
any of my questions.
Like this one for an example�..
"Remember when you asked me which version of Dispensationalism that I
subscribed to Doug, which I answered for you, then I asked which
version of Supersessionism you would label yourself being, why is it
that you choose not to answer my question? Which by the way is one of
those questions that you asked me, "what questions"? Well now is your
chance to answer."
And if proclaim that you answered the question, then quote the answer.
I read your response and their was no answer to it.
Here is another one of those proposals that I have offered you a
number of times but you do not have the guts to accept any of them,
and it is obvious why you refuse.
You list all the questions that you have asked me that I did not
answer and I promise to answer them for you. Then I will list all
that I have asked you and you promise to answer them. What is not
fair about that? You will not do it because you are as phony as a
seven dollar bill when it comes to scripture, IMO.
Bear
Ike E 10/29/09
> On Fri, 30 Oct 2009 09:50:23 -0500, "Ike E 10/29/09"
> <xhermanei...@gmail.com> wrote in article
> <hceufi$u2s$1...@news.eternal-september.org>:
>
>> "Bear" <tevan...@charter.net> wrote in message
>> news:f5sle513er85ahgnm...@4ax.com...
>>
>> [snip]
>>
>>> Does any one else ever notice how often Doug tries to prove his points
>>> by quoting, and/or misquoting, this individual or that individual as
>>> opposed to quoting scripture, accurately and in context?
>>>
>>> I believe there is a good reason for him employing such tactics and
>>> that is, he knows that he cannot prove his views with scripture so his
>>> recourse is to scoff, mock and denigrate individuals that prove the
>>> fallacy of his replacement theology doctrine.
>>
>> Hmmm. Just like you.
>>
>>> All one has to do to expose Doug's ludicrous doctrine is to ask him
>>> questions and insist upon him using scripture to corroborate his
>>> answers, he cannot do it.
>>
>> Hmmmm. Just like you.
>
> Um, Ted's posts are not a bit like mine.
They're exactly the same, but in opposite extremes...
...and you're both wrong, which makes your arguments a battle of wits
between unarmed opponents.
[snip]
Ike
Ike E 10/29/09
> On Fri, 30 Oct 2009 10:21:13 -0500, "Ike E 10/29/09"
> <xhermanei...@gmail.com> wrote in article
> <hcf09b$edr$1...@news.eternal-september.org>:
>
>> "Doug" <t...@sentex.net> wrote in message
>> news:_JKdnYSt1MFFYHfX...@sentex.net...
>>
>> [snip]
>>
>>> Which way will you jump, Ted? Do you support Randy, who says the rider
>>> on the white horse is antichrist, or Fred, who says no, "The first
>>> horseman is the one who makes the Lord's enemies His footstool before
>>> He returns"?
>>
>> The answer is "D: None of the above." (Your answer being pretty much
>> "C," since you're one of the "false prophets" to whom the passage
>> refers.)
>>
>> Ike
>
> Supplemental Notes - Daniel's 70 Weeks - Chuck Missler
> http://www.scribd.com/doc/6724082/Supplemental-Notes-Daniels-70-Weeks-
> Chuck-Missler
Notice no response to the point, as usual.
[snip]
Ike
Ike E 10/29/09
[snip]
> Doug, I know that you are an intelligent person so why do you find it
> necessary to be so hypocritical and dishonest?
Probably for the same reasons as you--if he WEREN'T, his false teachings
would fall apart (just like yours).
The minute either one of you applied a little integrity, your ships would
sink, which is why you agreed together to LIE.
Absolutely amazing.
[snip]
Ike
Bear
>On Fri, 30 Oct 2009 09:50:23 -0500, "Ike E 10/29/09"
><xhermanei...@gmail.com> wrote in article
><hceufi$u2s$1...@news.eternal-september.org>:
>
>> "Bear" <tevan...@charter.net> wrote in message
>> news:f5sle513er85ahgnm...@4ax.com...
>>
>> [snip]
>>
>>> Does any one else ever notice how often Doug tries to prove his points
>>> by quoting, and/or misquoting, this individual or that individual as
>>> opposed to quoting scripture, accurately and in context?
>>>
>>> I believe there is a good reason for him employing such tactics and
>>> that is, he knows that he cannot prove his views with scripture so his
>>> recourse is to scoff, mock and denigrate individuals that prove the
>>> fallacy of his replacement theology doctrine.
>>
>> Hmmm. Just like you.
>>
>>> All one has to do to expose Doug's ludicrous doctrine is to ask him
>>> questions and insist upon him using scripture to corroborate his
>>> answers, he cannot do it.
>>
>> Hmmmm. Just like you.
>
>Um, Ted's posts are not a bit like mine.
At least there is one thing that we agree on.
>He persists in defamation
Would you first clarify your definition of defamation? If I remember
correctly, in your conversation with Randy, at one time you said it
was stating something that was not true and then another time, I
believe you suggested that even truth could be defaming, quite
contradictory, don't you think? Then would you provide some quotes of
me defaming you?
>and
>stalking, which I avoid.
After you provide your definition of defamation, I will provide
evidence where you engage in exactly what you say you do not, very
dishonest and, hypocritical.
> And he admits to being a troll, and degrades the
>forum by spamming, which IMO is shameful.
>
Well it is good that you think my "spamming" is "shameful"; I happen
to think your dishonesty is inexcusable and disgusting. What you
refer to as "spamming", I view it as furnishing a caveat about your
dishonesty to those that are not familiar with your writings.
I have offered previously to refrain from "spamming" you, however, you
found it to be unacceptable, and why is that Doug?
Do you remember this offer?
**********
Hey Doug, if you think my postings are spam and you would like for me
to stop, then here is a proposition for you.
What is the matter Doug, does it make you uncomfortable for me to post
a caveat to your post about your use of deception, dishonesty, quoting
verses out of context and changing words in scripture in an attempt to
advance your unbiblical views? Now are you trying intimidation?
Forget it, as long as you continue to employ your dishonest tactics I
will continue with my "spam".
I will make one promise unilaterally, you refute each one of the
accusations I make in the caveat with proof that my accusations are
false and I will immediately refrain from using the caveat.
In the event you choose not to do this, then I, and I would assume
most, will interpret your refusal as an admission that the accusations
I make are not false and you are guilty of the offenses.
However, I will offer a comprise to you, you refrain from those
tactics and only post comments you can prove with unadulterated
scripture and I promise to not post the caveat about you that I am
presently doing, you know this one:
A caveat about Doug for those who are not familiar with him. It is
advisable to read judiciously the referenced material he uses in his
comments for accuracy.
Doug really likes to use the NT so may I suggest those reading his
post to remember,
Acts 17:11 Now these were more noble-minded than those in
Thessalonica, for they received the word with great eagerness,
EXAMINING THE SCRIPTURES DAILY TO SEE WHETHER THESE THINGS WERE SO.
I would make the challenge for those reading Doug to prove, with
scripture, "whether these things were so". I don't believe it can be
done.
Unfortunately, Doug is not above some selective editing, deception and
dishonesty to promote his views.
******
>Most of his responses to me are off topic. His questions are generally
>off topic, which is one reason I have ignored them.
>
What idiotic nonsense! You refuse to answer the same question you
asked me and I answered for you. BTW, what is the other reason for
you ignoring them?
Is it because you cannot do so?
>Now it will be interesting to see how he responds to my question, about
>the interpretation of the first seal, and the rider on the white horse.
>Will he support Randy, or Fred, or some other opinion? What about Ike's
>interpretation?
>
I gave you my answer so just how interesting was it? Chuck and Jack
both answered the question, using unadulterated scripture, which you
cannot refute doing likewise.
>Here is what Jack Kelley wrote about the first seal:
>
I noticed that you did not jump in and answer the questions Jack
asked, nor did you refute his views. But of course you do not answer
questions do you Doug, especially when you are expected to provide
scripture that supports those answers. It is impossible to do when
you do not believe the Bible is the word of God.
Oh heavens, did I just "defame" you again with that statement? If it
is not true, I apologize.
Anyone care to guess how many of my questions Doug will answer?
Bear
Bear
Speaking of being dishonest Doug, how about the example that you
provide for us in the following example?
********
Unfortunately, Doug is not above some selective editing to promote
his views.
Following is a dialogue I had with him that proves this accusation
and this is not an isolated occurrence.
The comments by Doug are enclosed in brackets ([]).
[ Doug
""The question of whether Daniel 9:24 says "holy place" or not is
unimportant; in the context it clearly refers to the anointing of
Christ.]
[ Most translators and commentators seem to have realized this. The
Jamieson-Fausset-Brown Bible Commentary says on this phrase in Dan
9:24:
<quote
anoint the Most Holy-primarily, to "anoint," or to consecrate after
its pollution "the Most Holy" place but mainly Messiah, the antitype
to the Most Holy place (Joh 2:19-22).
</quote "" ]
Bear
""This is the kind of stuff Doug employs consistently. He quotes a
very small portion of JFB's commentary on Dan 9:24 implying that JFB
supports his views. What he conveniently left off (in upper case) of
the commentary was,""
[the antitype to the Most Holy place (Joh 2:19-22). HIS BODY BEING
"THE TEMPLE," "THE SANCTUARY, AND THE TRUE TABERNACLE, WHICH THE LORD
PITCHED, AND NOT MAN"..........."SO HEREAFTER, GOD-MESSIAH WILL
"ANOINT" OR CONSECRATE WITH HIS PRESENCE THE HOLY PLACE AT JERUSALEM
AFTER ITS POLLUTION BY ANTICHRIST, OF WHICH THE FEAST OF DEDICATION
AFTER THE POLLUTION BY ANTIOCHUS WAS A TYPE".]
"Points
1 " Messiah will anoint with his presence the holy place at
Jerusalem", not that He will be anointed in the time this is referring
to.
2. "After it's (the holy place) pollution by the Antichrist", in the
middle of the 70th week, still future.
3. "of which the feast of dedication after the pollution by
Antiochus was a type", notice it says "Antiochus was a TYPE" of the
future pollution.
There is a huge difference in the context and meaning when the
commentary is not "edited" by Doug. This is not an isolated occurrence
of this ploy by Doug, he exercises it frequently.
I do not know if he thinks no one knows any better and/or will not do
some research to find out if what he says is accurate.
Doug is forced to make these misleading statements because his
replacement theology falls apart when measured against scripture."
[ Doug
""So they think the holy place and the temple were typical of
Christ."" ]
Bear
"No, Doug just makes it appear "they think" by some selective editing
and ignoring the context of the commentary and hoping everyone will
overlook it."
**********
Now folks, that is blatantly dishonest, courtesy of Doug.
Bear
>http://www.theologue.org/refutation-pink.html
>http://www.fivesolas.com/applican.htm
Bear
Yea, coming from the hypocrite who wants his questions answered
immediately but refuses to answer questions asked of him at all.
I answered your question, now why do you not answer mine? Is it
because you cannot and you do not have the guts to say so? What else
could it be?
>Hmm...
>Is he afraid of being called nasty names by Fred A Stover? What else
>could he be afraid of?
Fred and I have disagreed on scripture before and neither of us found
it necessary to indulge in "nasty names".
Everyone is not as dumb as you would like to believe Doug. You cannot
support your blasphemous doctrine so you like to steer the discussion
into one of personalities rather than scripture. Is that why you
refuse to accept my suggestion that we take a chapter verse by verse,
phrase by phrase and word by word and have a discussion without using
so and so said this and this person disagrees with that person and oh
my, it is all the fault of those evil dispensationalist.
That seems to be your area of expertise, how pathetic!
Bear
Ike E 10/29/09
[snip]
> Doug really likes to use the NT so may I suggest those reading his
> post to remember,
>
> Acts 17:11 Now these were more noble-minded than those in
> Thessalonica, for they received the word with great eagerness,
> EXAMINING THE SCRIPTURES DAILY TO SEE WHETHER THESE THINGS WERE SO.
When are you going to take your own advice?
CITE "the end of the age is seven years" from scripture.
CITE "the rapture of the church-at-large" from scripture.
CITE "prophecy starts, stops, then starts again somewhere else" from
scripture.
CITE "prophecy is NOT fulfilled in iterations" from scripture.
And so on, and so forth...
Ike
Ike E 10/29/09
[snip]
> Everyone is not as dumb as you would like to believe Doug. You cannot
> support your blasphemous doctrine so you like to steer the discussion
> into one of personalities rather than scripture.
Oh, now THIS is the EPITOME OF HYPOCRISY.
You do the SAME GODAMNED THING [literally] TO ME, when you CAN'T DEAL WITH
THE FACTUAL CONTENT OF WHAT I RIGHT.
You people are SUCH bastards...
Ike
Ike E 10/29/09
"Ike E 10/29/09" <xhermanei...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:hcgoq5$rrm$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
Er, "write."
Then again, what I "write" is "right," so I suppose it still works.
Doug
article <e79ne59jggtpn55b6...@4ax.com>:
As usual, Ted tries to change the topic.
Here is some of what Arthur Pink said about dispensationalism, which he
had spent a good part of his life promoting, but was rescued from it near
the end of life, being led by the spirit of Christ.
<quote>
This is a device of the Enemy, designed to rob the children of no small
part of that bread which their heavenly Father has provided for their
souls; a device wherein the wily serpent appears as an angel of light,
feigning to "make the Bible a new book" by simplifying much in it which
perplexes the spiritually unlearned. It is sad to see how widely
successful the devil has been by means of this subtle innovation. It is
likely that some of our own readers, when perusing the articles upon the
interpretation of the Scriptures, felt more than once that we were taking
an undue liberty with Holy Writ, that we made use of certain passages in
a way altogether unjustifiable, that we appropriated to the saints of
this Christian era what does not belong to them but is rather addressed
unto those who lived in an entirely different dispensation of the past,
or one which is yet future.
This modern method of mishandling the Scriptures -- for modern it
certainly is, being quite unknown to Christendom till little more than a
century ago, and only within recent years being adopted by those who are
outside the narrow circle where it originated -- is based upon 2 Timothy
2:15, "Study to show thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth
not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth." Very little or
nothing at all is said upon the first two clauses of that verse, but on
the third one, which is explained as "correctly partitioning the
Scriptures unto the different peoples to whom they belong." These
mutilators of the Word tell us that all of the Old Testament from Genesis
12 onwards belongs entirely to Israel after the flesh, and that none of
its precepts (as such) are binding upon those who are members of the
Church which is the Body of Christ, nor may any of the promises found
therein be legitimately appropriated by them. And this, be it duly noted,
without a single word to that effect by either the Lord or any of His
Apostles, and despite the use which the Holy Spirit makes of the earliest
Scriptures in every part of the New Testament. So far from the Holy
Spirit teaching Christians practically to look upon the Old Testament
much as they would upon an obsolete almanac, He declares, "For whatsoever
things were written aforetime were written for our learning, that we
through patience and comfort of the (Old Testament) Scriptures might have
hope" (Rom. 15:4).
Not satisfied with their determined efforts to deprive us of the Old
Testament, these would-be super-expositors dogmatically assert that the
four Gospels are Jewish, and that the Epistles of James and Peter, John
and Jude are designed for a "godly Jewish remnant" in a future
"tribulation period," that nothing but the Pauline Epistles contain
"Church truth," and thousands of gullible souls have accepted their ipse
digit -- those who decline so doing are regarded as untaught and
superficial. Yet God Himself has not uttered a single word to that
effect. Certainly there is nothing whatever in 2 Timothy 2:15, to justify
such a revolutionizing method of interpreting the Word: that verse has no
more to do with the sectioning of Scripture between different
"dispensations" than it has with distinguishing between stars of varying
magnitude. If that verse be carefully compared with Matthew 7:6, John
16:12 and 1 Corinthians 3:2, its meaning is clear. The occupant of the
pulpit is to give diligence in becoming equipped to give the different
classes of his hearer "their portion of meat in due season" (Luke 12:42).
To rightly divide the Word of Truth is for him to minister it suitably
unto the several cases and circumstances of his congregation: to sinners
and saints, the indifferent and the inquiring, the babes and fathers, the
tempted and afflicted, the backslidden and fallen.
While there be great variety in the teaching of the Word, there is an
unmistakable unity underlying the whole. Though He employed many
mouthpieces, the Holy Scriptures have but one Author; and while He "at
sundry times and in divers manners spake in time past unto the fathers by
the prophets" and "hath in these last days spoken unto us by His
Son" (Heb. 1:1,2), yet He who spoke by them was and is One "with whom is
no variableness, neither shadow of turning" (Jam. 1:17), who throughout
all ages declares: "I am the Lord, I change not" (Mal. 3:6). Throughout
there is perfect agreement between every part of the Word: it sets forth
one system of doctrine (we never read of "the doctrines of God," but
always "the doctrine": see Deut 32:2; Prov 4:2; Matt 7:28; John 7:17;
Rom. 16:17, and contrast Mark 7:7; Col. 2:22; 1 Tim. 4:1; Heb. 13:9)
because it is one single and organic whole. That Word presents uniformly
one way of salvation, one rule of faith. From Genesis to Revelation there
is one immutable Moral Law, one glorious Gospel for perishing sinners.
The Old Testament believers were saved with the same salvation, were
indebted to the same Redeemer, were renewed by the same Spirit, and were
partakers of the same heavenly inheritance as are New Testament believers.
It is quite true that the Epistle to the Hebrews makes mention of a
better hope (7:19), a better testament or covenant (7:22), better
promises (8:6), better sacrifices (9:23), some better thing for us
(11:40), and yet it is important to recognize that the contrast is
between the shadows and the substance. Romans 12:6, speaks of "the
proportion [or "analogy"] of faith." There is a due proportion, a perfect
balance, between the different parts of God's revealed Truth which must
needs be known and observed by all who would preach and write according
to the mind of the Spirit. In arguing from this analogy, it is essential
to recognize that what is made known in the Old Testament was typical of
what is set forth in the New, and therefore the terms used in the former
are strictly applicable unto the latter. Much needless wrangling has
occurred over whether or not the nation of Israel were a regenerate
people. That is quite beside the real point: outwardly they were regarded
and addressed as the people of God, and, as the Spirit through Paul
affirmed, "who are Israelites: to whom pertaineth the adoption, and the
glory, and the covenants, and the giving of the law, and the service of
God, and the promises: whose are the fathers, and of whom as concerning
the flesh Christ came" (Rom. 9:4,5).
Regeneration or non-regeneration affected the salvation of individuals
among them, but it did not affect the covenant relationship of the people
as a whole. Again and again God addressed Israel as "backsliders," but
never once did He so designate any heathen nation. It was not to the
Egyptians or Canaanites that Jehovah said, "Return, ye backsliding
children, and I will heal your backslidings," or "Turn, 0 backsliding
children...for I am married unto you" (Jer. 3:22, 14). Now it is this
analogy or similarity between the two covenants and the peoples under
them which is the basis for the transfer of Old Testament terms to the
New. Thus the word "circumcision" is used in the latter not with identity
of meaning, but according to analogy, for circumcision is now "of the
heart, in the spirit" (Rom. 2:29), and not of the flesh. In like manner,
when John closes his first Epistle with "Little children, keep yourselves
from idols," he borrows an Old Testament term and uses it in a New
Testament sense, for by "idols" he refers not to material statues made of
wood and stone (as the prophets did when employing the same word), but to
inward objects of carnal and sensual worship. So too are we to see the
antitypical and spiritual "Israel" in Galatians 6:16, and the celestial
and eternal "Mount Zion" in Hebrews 12:22.
</quote>
Ike E 10/29/09
[snip]
Ever notice how much the cultists rely on the spurious book of "Hebrews?"
Ike
Doug
<xhermanei...@gmail.com> wrote in article
<hcgojl$qqa$1...@news.eternal-september.org>:
> "Bear" <tevan...@charter.net> wrote in message
> news:9v7ne519v6muov693...@4ax.com...
>
> [snip]
>
>> Doug really likes to use the NT so may I suggest those reading his post
>> to remember,
>>
>> Acts 17:11 Now these were more noble-minded than those in
>> Thessalonica, for they received the word with great eagerness,
>> EXAMINING THE SCRIPTURES DAILY TO SEE WHETHER THESE THINGS WERE SO.
>
> When are you going to take your own advice?
>
> CITE "the end of the age is seven years" from scripture.
Chuck Missler said it, who got it from Hal Lindsey, who got it from John
F. Walvoord, who got it from Lewis S. Chafer, who got it from C. I.
Scofield, who got it from James H. Brookes, who got it from John N.
Darby, who got it from the Jesuit priests Francisco Ribera (1537-1591) of
Salamanca Spain, and Robert Bellarmine (1542-1621), who became a
Cardinal, and is famous for his role in the persecution and trial of
Galileo Galilei.
>
> CITE "the rapture of the church-at-large" from scripture.
Chuck Missler said it, who got it from Hal Lindsey, who got it from John
F. Walvoord, who got it from Lewis S. Chafer, who got it from C. I.
Scofield, who got it from James H. Brookes, who got it from John N.
Darby, who got it from Edward Irving, who got it from a mysterious
utterance by Miss Margaret MacDonald from Port Glasgow, Scotland. She had
seen a vision about the end of the world while under a trance. John Darby
travelled to Scotland to visit her.
>
> CITE "prophecy starts, stops, then starts again somewhere else" from
> scripture.
Chuck Missler said it, who got it from Hal Lindsey, who got it from John
F. Walvoord, who got it from Lewis S. Chafer, who got it from C. I.
Scofield, who got it from James H. Brookes, who got it from John N.
Darby, who got it from the Jesuit priests Francisco Ribera (1537-1591) of
Salamanca Spain, and Robert Bellarmine (1542-1621), who became a
Cardinal, and is famous for his role in the persecution and trial of
Galileo Galilei.
>
> CITE "prophecy is NOT fulfilled in iterations" from scripture.
See above.
>
> And so on, and so forth...
>
> Ike
--
Doug
Doug
<xhermanei...@gmail.com> wrote in article
<hch4o2$vba$1...@news.eternal-september.org>:
The author of Hebrews, guided by the spirit of Christ, identified the
Church with mount Zion, and Jerusalem, as did Isaiah.
Isaiah 40:9
O Zion, that bringest good tidings, get thee up into the high mountain; O
Jerusalem, that bringest good tidings, lift up thy voice with strength;
lift it up, be not afraid; say unto the cities of Judah, Behold your God!
Do you think Isaiah meant to tell a literal hill in Jerusalem to climb a
high mountain? Do you think a literal hill as a voice?
The Spirit of Christ inspired both Isaiah and the author of Hebrews, who
wrote about the saints who bring the true gospel and expose the lies of
the false prophets.
--
Doug
Randy ®
Bear <tevan...@charter.net> wrote:
> Everyone is not as dumb as you would like to believe Doug. You cannot
> support your blasphemous doctrine so you like to steer the discussion
> into one of personalities rather than scripture. Is that why you
> refuse to accept my suggestion that we take a chapter verse by verse,
> phrase by phrase and word by word and have a discussion without using
> so and so said this and this person disagrees with that person and oh
> my, it is all the fault of those evil dispensationalist.
That's what I've observed also. He ends up pitting people
against people, instead of arguing his case from the Scripture
itself.
--
Have you heard Christ died for our sins, and God raised Him
from the dead? Did you know God saves you from hell and
gives you eternal life through faith in this finished work alone,
not your merits (Jn. 3:16; 1 Cor. 15:1-3; Eph. 2:8-10; 2 Thess.
1:8-9)? This is so man cannot boast, and God alone gets the
glory (Eph. 2:8-9).
______________________________________________
www.faithguard.org
www.twitter.com/faithguard
www.facebook.com/faithguard
______________________________________________
Fred A Stover
> On Fri, 30 Oct 2009 09:50:23 -0500, "Ike E 10/29/09"
> <xhermanei...@gmail.com> wrote in article
> <hceufi$u2s$1...@news.eternal-september.org>:
>
>> "Bear" <tevan...@charter.net> wrote in message
>> news:f5sle513er85ahgnm...@4ax.com...
>>
>> [snip]
>>
>>> Does any one else ever notice how often Doug tries to prove his
>>> points by quoting, and/or misquoting, this individual or that
>>> individual as opposed to quoting scripture, accurately and in
>>> context?
>>>
>>> I believe there is a good reason for him employing such tactics and
>>> that is, he knows that he cannot prove his views with scripture so
>>> his recourse is to scoff, mock and denigrate individuals that prove
>>> the fallacy of his replacement theology doctrine.
>>
>> Hmmm. Just like you.
>>
>>> All one has to do to expose Doug's ludicrous doctrine is to ask him
>>> questions and insist upon him using scripture to corroborate his
>>> answers, he cannot do it.
>>
>> Hmmmm. Just like you.
>
> Um, Ted's posts are not a bit like mine. He persists in defamation and
> stalking, which I avoid. And he admits to being a troll, and degrades
> the forum by spamming, which IMO is shameful.
Satan, you're a liar. Calling a liar a liar isn't defamation. Calling a
blasphemer a blasphemer isn't defamation. It's a matter of warning the folks
you would deceive.
Fred A Stover
> On Fri, 30 Oct 2009 05:50:48 -0500, "Fred A Stover"
> <fst...@tx.rr.com> wrote in article
> <7kvut9F...@mid.individual.net>:
>
<snip>
>
> Hmm...
> Is he afraid of being called nasty names by Fred A Stover? What else
> could he be afraid of?
More of your lies: lie after lie after lie after lie................. I
agree with very few, but it is only the satanists, blasphemers, and liars I
warn people about.
Satan you're a liar. Identifying liars, blasphemers, and satanists isn't
name calling. It is a warning for all who would fear God.
--
His,
More @ www.selah-tx.net
ho echon ota akoueto Preparing the way of the
Lord
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Verily I say unto you, Whosoever
shall not receive the kingdom of God
as a little child, he shall not enter therein.
(Mark 10:15)
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
<)))))))><
Fred A Stover
> On Thu, 29 Oct 2009 05:43:21 -0500, "Fred A Stover"
> <fst...@tx.rr.com> wrote in article
> <7kt9v3F...@mid.individual.net>:
>> <satanic babble snipped>
>
> Without any hesitation, Fred A Stover labels the views of other
> dispensationalists, John N. Darby, H. Ironside, and William Kelly, as
> "satanic babble."
More of your lies, Satan, it's your babble that I snip.
With you it's lie after lie after lie after lie......
> Jesus said, "For with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged: and
> with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again."
> [Matthew 7:2]
And you're establishing the rules of evidence by which you will be judged.
1 Cor. 2:14
But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for
they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are
spiritually discerned.
--
Fred A Stover
> On Thu, 29 Oct 2009 14:59:55 -0500, "Fred A Stover"
> <fst...@tx.rr.com> wrote in article
> <7kuc3aF...@mid.individual.net>:
>
>> Randy wrote:
>>> On Thu, 10/29/09, at 5:25:22AM,
>>> Fred A Stover <fst...@tx.rr.com> wrote:
>>>
>
> <snip>
>
>>> Now the question is, how does your white horse fit into the
>>> seventieth week of Daniel 9:27, since that week begins with
>>> anti-christ posing as an agent of peace, confirming a "peace"
>>> covenant with many, and Revelation refers to the Tribulation
>>> beginning with a rider on a white horse who doesn't use weapons?
>>
>> If you conclude your assumptions, you're going to arrive at the
>> conclusion that you've already assumed. Where is your "peace
>> covenant" in scripture? John Walvoord said there are no scriptures
>> identifying the first horseman as the antichrist. What do you find
>> that he missed?
>
> Looks like Fred just shot himself in the foot! Walvoord's
> interpretation identifies the white horse with the beast out of the
> sea in Revelation
> 13.
ROTFL!!!!!
Satan you're still an idiot. He gives no verses identifying the first
horseman as
the antichrist.
When asked why he did, he admitted that there is no scripture identifying
the first horseman as the antichrist, he just seems to fit into prophecy
around that point, which is also true when identifying.
Don't get any dumber than Doug.
Bear
As usual, Doug hates it when he is proven to being the liar and
deceiver that he is.
BTW hypocrite, I answered your questions, why do you not answer mine?
Are you too timid, are you afraid of showing what a hypocrite that you
really are, no guts, or, perhaps you do not have any answers?
Typical actions of a liberal, throw out your accusations and
falsehoods and then run so you do not have to answer for them. Yep,
demonstrates one of great intestinal fortitude, don't you think?
I think it is quite revealing when I have accused you repeatedly of
lying, however, you have not challenged me one time to prove it. Yep,
very revealing. OTOH, if you did challenge me to do so, when I
provided the proof, you would only ignore it and move to another
subject.
Bear
Bear
wrote:
>On Fri, 10/30/09, at 10:00:19PM,
>Bear <tevan...@charter.net> wrote:
>
>> Everyone is not as dumb as you would like to believe Doug. You cannot
>> support your blasphemous doctrine so you like to steer the discussion
>> into one of personalities rather than scripture. Is that why you
>> refuse to accept my suggestion that we take a chapter verse by verse,
>> phrase by phrase and word by word and have a discussion without using
>> so and so said this and this person disagrees with that person and oh
>> my, it is all the fault of those evil dispensationalist.
>
>
>That's what I've observed also. He ends up pitting people
>against people, instead of arguing his case from the Scripture
>itself.
Exactly, and I believe there is a very good reason for that tactic; he
has no argument that he can prove with scripture.
Bear
Doug
wrote in article <7l2rtcF...@mid.individual.net>:
> Doug wrote:
>> On Thu, 29 Oct 2009 05:43:21 -0500, "Fred A Stover" <fst...@tx.rr.com>
>> wrote in article
>> <7kt9v3F...@mid.individual.net>:
>
>>> <satanic babble snipped>
>>
>> Without any hesitation, Fred A Stover labels the views of other
>> dispensationalists, John N. Darby, H. Ironside, and William Kelly, as
>> "satanic babble."
Fred responds with his fiercest scowl, like one of locusts in Joel 2, who
make loud clattering noises with their wings, and have lions' teeth:
GROWL GROWL More HISS of CLATTER your HISS lies, Satan, HISS CLATTER
it's GROWL SNARL CLATTER your CLATTER babble CLATTER that CLATTER CLATTER
I HISS snip. CLATTER SNARL GROWL
With CLATTER CLATTER CLATTER CLATTER you CLATTER CLATTER it's SNARL HISS
lie CLATTER after lie after SNARL CLATTER lie CLATTER after CLATTER
CLATTER lie......
--
Doug
Doug
wrote in article <7l2rtdF...@mid.individual.net>:
> Doug wrote:
>> On Fri, 30 Oct 2009 05:50:48 -0500, "Fred A Stover" <fst...@tx.rr.com>
>> wrote in article
>> <7kvut9F...@mid.individual.net>:
>>
>>
> <snip>
>
>
>> Hmm...
>> Is he afraid of being called nasty names by Fred A Stover? What else
>> could he be afraid of?
>
Again, Fred responds with his very fiercest, meanest scowl, showing he is
one of locusts in Joel 2, who make loud clattering noises with their
wings, and have lions' teeth:
GROWL More GROWL HISS HISS of your lies: GROWL lie GROWL CLATTER GROWL
after HISS lie after lie CLATTER GROWL after HISS lie................. I
GROWL agree SNARL with CLATTER very CLATTER HISS few, SNARL but CLATTER
it is only SNARL the HISS satanists, CLATTER CLATTER blasphemers, CLATTER
CLATTER HISS and SNARL liars CLATTER HISS I CLATTER warn people CLATTER
CLATTER about. GROWL SNARL
SNARL Satan GROWL you're GROWL GROWL CLATTER GROWL a CLATTER liar. GROWL
HISS Identifying SNARL SNARL liars, CLATTER blasphemers, SNARL GROWL
CLATTER and SNARL SNARL SNARL satanists HISS HISS isn't HISS SNARL name
HISS calling. It GROWL is CLATTER SNARL HISS a CLATTER CLATTER warning
for CLATTER SNARL all CLATTER GROWL who would CLATTER fear CLATTER God.
--
Doug
Bear
>On Fri, 30 Oct 2009 08:58:05 -0500, Bear <tevan...@charter.net> wrote in
>article <f5sle513er85ahgnm...@4ax.com>:
>
>> On Fri, 30 Oct 2009 08:50:46 -0500, Doug <t...@sentex.net> wrote:
>>
>>>On Thu, 29 Oct 2009 14:59:55 -0500, "Fred A Stover" <fst...@tx.rr.com>
>>>wrote in article <7kuc3aF...@mid.individual.net>:
>>>
>>>> Randy � wrote:
>>>>> On Thu, 10/29/09, at 5:25:22AM,
>>>>> Fred A Stover <fst...@tx.rr.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>><snip>
>>>
>>>>> Now the question is, how does your white horse fit into the
>>>>> seventieth week of Daniel 9:27, since that week begins with
>>>>> anti-christ posing as an agent of peace, confirming a "peace"
>>>>> covenant with many, and Revelation refers to the Tribulation
>>>>> beginning with a rider on a white horse who doesn't use weapons?
>>>>
>>>> If you conclude your assumptions, you're going to arrive at the
>>>> conclusion that you've already assumed. Where is your "peace covenant"
>>>> in scripture? John Walvoord said there are no scriptures identifying
>>>> the first horseman as the antichrist. What do you find that he missed?
>>>
>>>Looks like Fred just shot himself in the foot! Walvoord's interpretation
>>>identifies the white horse with the beast out of the sea in Revelation
>>>13.
>>>
>>>John F. Walvoord, The Revelation of Jesus Christ
>>>http://bible.org/series/revelation-jesus-christ 6. The Beginning Of The
>>>Great Day Of God's Wrath
>>>
>>>While the dispute as to the identity of the rider cannot be finally
>>>settled, especially in the brief compass of this discussion, the
>>>conclusion identifying him as the world ruler of the tribulation, the
>>>same individual described as the beast out of the sea in Revelation 13,
>>>is preferred.
>>>
>> Does any one else ever notice how often Doug tries to prove his points
>> by quoting, and/or misquoting, this individual or that individual as
>> opposed to quoting scripture, accurately and in context?
>>
>> I believe there is a good reason for him employing such tactics and that
>> is, he knows that he cannot prove his views with scripture so his
>> recourse is to scoff, mock and denigrate individuals that prove the
>> fallacy of his replacement theology doctrine. How can he prove anything
>> with scripture when he obviously does not believe those scriptures to be
>> the inspired word from God?
>>
>> All one has to do to expose Doug's ludicrous doctrine is to ask him
>> questions and insist upon him using scripture to corroborate his
>> answers, he cannot do it.
>>
>> Bear
>
>Ted Evans is in a precarious position, because he has been shown that
>there is much disagreement amongst dispensationalists. He is like a man
>who has one foot on a boat, that is gradually pulling away from a dock,
>still holding onto the dock, with his body suspended over the water, and
>legs separating wider and wider apart.
>
>Which way will you jump, Ted? Do you support Randy, who says the rider on
>the white horse is antichrist, or Fred, who says no, "The first horseman
>is the one who makes the Lord's enemies His footstool before He returns"?
>
>How long are you going to post in this thread, and remain so timid and
>fearful, that you can't even express your opinion? Your feet will soon be
>stretched too far apart for you to make any respectable response. Quick!
>Call Chuck Missler! Ask for his advice! Or Jack Kelley! What do they say?
>Do they agree?
>
>Show us how ready and willing you are to answer questions!
>
Well, I showed you Doug, I was willing and able to answer your
questions. But as is typical for you, throw out your little barbs and
then run like a scolded rabbit when you are asked questions. That
really shows character, and credibility, don't you think Doug? You
must, why else would it be a trait of yours?
Doug
article <f5doe51hhs630micv...@4ax.com>:
Ted response reminds us of the ferocious, small minded locusts in Joel 2.
They make loud clattering noises with their wings, and have lions' teeth.
Here is Ted's post enhanced with added "clatter" to scare and terrorize
those who doubt dispensationalism:
As hiss usual, hiss Doug clatter hiss hiss hates snarl growl it hiss
clatter when snarl he snarl is growl hiss clatter hiss proven to hiss
being the snarl snarl clatter liar and clatter clatter deceiver clatter
clatter that snarl clatter snarl he hiss hiss is. clatter
clatter snarl BTW clatter growl hypocrite, clatter I growl answered hiss
clatter growl your snarl questions, growl hiss clatter why snarl snarl
growl clatter do snarl you clatter clatter not hiss answer hiss mine?
growl clatter clatter Are clatter you clatter snarl too growl hiss hiss
timid, are you clatter hiss afraid growl of hiss clatter showing hiss
what clatter hiss a hypocrite growl that snarl clatter you growl clatter
really clatter are, no guts, or, snarl growl perhaps hiss you do clatter
clatter not snarl have hiss clatter snarl any hiss answers? clatter
clatter Typical clatter actions hiss clatter of hiss snarl clatter a
clatter growl liberal, growl throw growl out clatter your accusations
clatter and falsehoods and hiss growl then growl clatter clatter run
growl growl snarl so snarl you do clatter not have to answer clatter
growl for hiss growl them. clatter clatter Yep, clatter clatter
demonstrates one snarl clatter growl of great clatter growl intestinal
clatter fortitude, snarl don't clatter you hiss clatter think? clatter
clatter
clatter snarl I clatter think clatter hiss it clatter snarl is hiss quite
growl revealing clatter clatter when I hiss growl have snarl accused
snarl you repeatedly of snarl lying, clatter however, snarl growl you
clatter have clatter snarl not clatter challenged snarl hiss me clatter
hiss one clatter growl growl time to hiss prove it. growl Yep, snarl very
hiss growl revealing. hiss OTOH, clatter if clatter clatter you clatter
did challenge growl hiss growl me to growl clatter do clatter so, when I
clatter provided clatter hiss clatter the clatter proof, hiss you clatter
would clatter hiss clatter only clatter hiss ignore it growl clatter and
growl clatter move growl to clatter hiss another clatter subject. clatter
Real scary, huh?
--
Doug
Bear
Again Doug provides us with a prime example as his questions below
amply demonstrate.
"Ted, how much of your investment in Enron did you say that you lost?
"What did your think of your stock losses?"
"Hmm... Did you say you live near Crossville, TN?"
So go ahead Doug, explain to everyone just how those questions apply
to the "topic".
Bear
Bear
wrote:
Does anyone have suggestions as to why Doug would refuse such a
generous offer? After all, he detests my caveat about his phony
doctrine and here is a great opportunity for him to shut me up, so why
does he not take advantage of the offer?
Not a peep from the "timid" Doug, what is he afraid of, the truth
perhaps?
Doug
wrote in article <7l2rtcF...@mid.individual.net>:
> Doug wrote:
>> On Fri, 30 Oct 2009 09:50:23 -0500, "Ike E 10/29/09"
>> <xhermanei...@gmail.com> wrote in article
>> <hceufi$u2s$1...@news.eternal-september.org>:
>>
>>> "Bear" <tevan...@charter.net> wrote in message
>>> news:f5sle513er85ahgnm...@4ax.com...
>>>
>>> [snip]
>>>
>>>> Does any one else ever notice how often Doug tries to prove his
>>>> points by quoting, and/or misquoting, this individual or that
>>>> individual as opposed to quoting scripture, accurately and in
>>>> context?
>>>>
>>>> I believe there is a good reason for him employing such tactics and
>>>> that is, he knows that he cannot prove his views with scripture so
>>>> his recourse is to scoff, mock and denigrate individuals that prove
>>>> the fallacy of his replacement theology doctrine.
>>>
>>> Hmmm. Just like you.
>>>
>>>> All one has to do to expose Doug's ludicrous doctrine is to ask him
>>>> questions and insist upon him using scripture to corroborate his
>>>> answers, he cannot do it.
>>>
>>> Hmmmm. Just like you.
>>
>> Um, Ted's posts are not a bit like mine. He persists in defamation and
>> stalking, which I avoid. And he admits to being a troll, and degrades
>> the forum by spamming, which IMO is shameful.
With his very fiercest scowl, Fred responds, doing his best impersonation
of one of the scary locusts of Joel's prophecy. They make a loud
clattering noise with their wings, like the sound of horses and chariots
running to battle. Below, Fred's response is shown with added
"clatter" (since it's halloween).
SNARL CLATTER Satan, you're CLATTER a GROWL GROWL GROWL liar. GROWL
CLATTER Calling CLATTER SNARL a SNARL SNARL liar HISS a CLATTER liar
CLATTER CLATTER HISS isn't GROWL SNARL CLATTER defamation. SNARL Calling
CLATTER GROWL a CLATTER CLATTER blasphemer CLATTER a blasphemer GROWL
isn't defamation. GROWL It's SNARL CLATTER a matter GROWL of HISS warning
HISS SNARL SNARL the CLATTER folks you would deceive.
--
Doug
Bear
And here is what Vlach writes to prove the fallacy of Doug's
replacement theology.
Does Matthew 21:43 Support Replacement Theology?
By Michael J. Vlach, Ph.D.
One text often used by supersessionists to support the
idea of the permanent rejection of national Israel is Matt 21:43.[1]
In this verse, which Frederick Dale Bruner calls "one of the most
important verses in Matthew,"[2] Jesus addressed the unbelief of the
leaders of the nation Israel and announced his rejection of them
because of their stubborn unbelief: "Therefore I say to you, the
kingdom of God will be taken away from you and given to a nation
producing the fruit of it."
What is the significance of Jesus' words in Matt 21:43?
Supersessionists often assert that Jesus was making two major points.
The first was that the nation Israel had been permanently rejected as
the people of God. The second is that the "nation" to whom the kingdom
would be given is the church.
This view that Matt 21:43 teaches the replacement of Israel with the
church was held in the Patristic Era. As Origen declared, "Our Lord,
seeing the conduct of the Jews not to be at all in keeping with the
teaching of the prophets, inculcated by a parable that the kingdom of
God would be taken from them, and given to the converts from
heathenism."[3] Irenaeus and Chrysostom, too, believed this text
taught the permanent rejection of the Jews.[4] This understanding of
Matt 21:43, though, goes beyond just the Patristic Era. According to
W. D. Davies and Dale Allison, this view that Matt 21:43 teaches the
replacement of national Israel with the church is "the dominant
interpretation in Christian history."[5]
This view of Matt 21:43, however, is improbable for several
reasons. The first problem concerns the identity of the "you" from
whom the kingdom would be taken. Several interpreters have pointed out
that the "you" probably refers to the current leaders of Israel and
not the nation as a whole as supersessionists have claimed. M. Eugene
Boring, for instance, states: "Who is represented by the 'you' from
whom the kingdom is taken? Who is the 'nation' to whom it is given? In
the context, the addressees are clearly the chief priests and
Pharisees . . . i.e., the Jewish leadership, not the people as a
whole."[6] Making a similar point, David D. Kupp writes, "Jesus'
growing antipathy to the Jewish leaders has never spelled outright
rejection of the Jewish crowds, the people of Israel. Even in 21.43
the target audience is explicitly the leaders, not the people."[7]
Boring and Kupp appear correct in their observations. Matt
21:45 states that the religious leaders "understood that He [Jesus]
was speaking about them." Anthony J. Saldarini argues that the
supersessionist view is more in line with supersessionist
presuppositions than with the actual meaning of Matthew 21:43: "This
reading, which fits later Christian supercessionist interpretations of
Jewish-Christian relations, is beset by several problems, the most
obvious of which is that Matthew makes the chief priests and Pharisees
apply the parable to themselves (21:45), not to Israel as a whole."[8]
Since the context indicates that Jesus was speaking specifically to
the religious leaders of his day, the supersessionist assertion that
Jesus was announcing the permanent rejection of the nation Israel
appears unlikely.
Another problem with the view that Jesus is declaring the
permanent rejection of Israel is that other sections of Matthew's
gospel appear to reaffirm or hint at a future for Israel. As Sanders
has pointed out, Matt 19:28 "confirms the view that Jesus looked for
the restoration of Israel."[9] M. A. Elliott asserts that in Matthew's
gospel "nothing explicit is found regarding the rejection of
Israel."[10]
A second problem concerns the supersessionist view that
the nation to whom the kingdom would be given is the Christian
church.[11] The context of Matthew 21 makes it unlikely that the
"nation" of whom Jesus is referring is the church. As Turner writes,
"In verse 46 it is clear that the religious leaders believed Jesus was
talking about them, not Israel as a whole. Thus it is reading too much
into this verse to view it as indicating the replacement of Israel by
the Gentile church."[12] Saldarini points out that theologians who
interpret "nation" as the church "are reading in second-century
Christian theology" into Matt 21:43.[13]
Thus, Matthew 21:43 is not a supporting text for replacement
theology.
Bear
>On Sat, 31 Oct 2009 01:46:27 -0500, "Fred A Stover" <fst...@tx.rr.com>
>wrote in article <7l2rtcF...@mid.individual.net>:
>
>> Doug wrote:
>>> On Thu, 29 Oct 2009 05:43:21 -0500, "Fred A Stover" <fst...@tx.rr.com>
>>> wrote in article
>>> <7kt9v3F...@mid.individual.net>:
>>
>>>> <satanic babble snipped>
>>>
>>> Without any hesitation, Fred A Stover labels the views of other
>>> dispensationalists, John N. Darby, H. Ironside, and William Kelly, as
>>> "satanic babble."
>
>Fred responds with his fiercest scowl, like one of locusts in Joel 2, who
>make loud clattering noises with their wings, and have lions' teeth:
>
Once again Doug is reduced to his childish responses which in my
opinion superbly demonstrates his intellectual capacity.
Bear
Bear
>On Sat, 31 Oct 2009 01:51:33 -0500, "Fred A Stover" <fst...@tx.rr.com>
>wrote in article <7l2rtdF...@mid.individual.net>:
>
>> Doug wrote:
>>> On Fri, 30 Oct 2009 05:50:48 -0500, "Fred A Stover" <fst...@tx.rr.com>
>>> wrote in article
>>> <7kvut9F...@mid.individual.net>:
>>>
>>>
>> <snip>
>>
>>
>>> Hmm...
>>> Is he afraid of being called nasty names by Fred A Stover? What else
>>> could he be afraid of?
>>
>
>Again, Fred responds with his very fiercest, meanest scowl, showing he is
>one of locusts in Joel 2, who make loud clattering noises with their
>wings, and have lions' teeth:
>
Once again Doug is reduced to his childish responses which in my
opinion superbly demonstrates his intellectual capacity.
Bear
> GROWL More GROWL HISS HISS of your lies: GROWL lie GROWL CLATTER GROWL
Bear
I do not think anyone is surprised that this is the best response that
you can come up with Doug. Would you say that your response is right
on "topic"?
Does anyone see why it is useless engaging in a discussion with one
who responds with such profound thoughts. Oh well, that is all he
has.
Bear
Bear
How ludicrous can you get Doug? Is this the best that you have to
offer?
Bear
Doug
> On Fri, 10/30/09, at 10:00:19PM,
> Bear <tevan...@charter.net> wrote:
>
>> Everyone is not as dumb as you would like to believe Doug. You cannot
>> support your blasphemous doctrine so you like to steer the discussion
>> into one of personalities rather than scripture. Is that why you
>> refuse to accept my suggestion that we take a chapter verse by verse,
>> phrase by phrase and word by word and have a discussion without using
>> so and so said this and this person disagrees with that person and oh
>> my, it is all the fault of those evil dispensationalist.
>
>
> That's what I've observed also. He ends up pitting people against
> people, instead of arguing his case from the Scripture itself.
Actually scripture tells us it is God who pits his enemies against each
other.
Ezekiel 38:21
And I will call for a sword against him throughout all my mountains,
saith the Lord GOD: every man's sword shall be against his brother.
Zechariah 14:13
And it shall come to pass in that day, that a great tumult from the LORD
shall be among them; and they shall lay hold every one on the hand of his
neighbour, and his hand shall rise up against the hand of his neighbour.
So the dispensationalists fight against preterists, and each of those two
groups is divided into numerous smaller groups who fight amongst
themselves, such as progressive dispensationalists against classical
dispensationalists, and both against hyper-dispensationalists; similarly,
hyper-preterists and partial preterists war against each other, all of
which fulfils the prophecies of Ezekiel and Zechariah, which are
interpreted by John in Rev. 20:8-9, as an invasion of people all over the
world, who are deceived by Satan, and who come against the church, which
is the "camp of the saints" and "the beloved city." Dispensationalists
misinterpret most of the prophecies of scripture, so they come against
the prophets of Israel, who Paul said are the church's foundation, Eph.
2:20.
These are all false teachers, enemies of the church, who suffer the
plague described in Zech. 14:12, "And this shall be the plague wherewith
the LORD will smite all the people that have fought against Jerusalem;
Their flesh shall consume away while they stand upon their feet, and
their eyes shall consume away in their holes, and their tongue shall
consume away in their mouth." IMO, this seems to describe a spiritual
affliction, that involves blindness. They are blind to the flaws in their
respective doctrines. And many suffer from problems of the flesh, such as
addiction to pornography.
Even the horses, asses, mules, and camels are afflicted, Zechariah says,
and the Psalmist shows that these may represent those who have no
understanding, and Isaiah suggests they are those who are carnally minded.
Psalm 32:9
Be ye not as the horse, or as the mule, which have no understanding:
whose mouth must be held in with bit and bridle, lest they come near unto
thee.
Jeremiah 5:8
They were as fed horses in the morning: every one neighed after his
neighbour's wife.
Dispensationalists have claimed the plague in Zechariah describes the
effects of a nuclear war, but don't follow the teachings of the apostles,
when they try to interpret scripture. Peter said "no prophecy of the
scripture is of any private interpretation." [2 Peter 1:20] They follow
their own delusions, and so they have become false prophets, and
deceivers, who are counted as enemies of God in Zech. 14:3, and in Ezek.
38:18.
Eschew dispensationalism! Eschew preterism! Zechariah said to flee to the
valley between the two halves of the mount of Olives, when they move to
the north and to the south, which represents those delusions, that
misinterpret the Olivet prophecy of Jesus. Prophecy applies to the
church, and to history, and the present day, not to the events of 70 AD,
or a future 7 years tribulation!
--
Doug
Doug
article <frkoe5lcubr6jk395...@4ax.com>:
> On Sat, 31 Oct 2009 09:45:24 -0500, Doug <t...@sentex.net> wrote:
>
>>On Sat, 31 Oct 2009 01:51:33 -0500, "Fred A Stover" <fst...@tx.rr.com>
>>wrote in article <7l2rtdF...@mid.individual.net>:
>>
>>> Doug wrote:
>>>> On Fri, 30 Oct 2009 05:50:48 -0500, "Fred A Stover"
>>>> <fst...@tx.rr.com> wrote in article
>>>> <7kvut9F...@mid.individual.net>:
>>>>
>>>>
>>> <snip>
>>>
>>>
>>>> Hmm...
>>>> Is he afraid of being called nasty names by Fred A Stover? What else
>>>> could he be afraid of?
>>>
>>>
>>Again, Fred responds with his very fiercest, meanest scowl, showing he
>>is one of locusts in Joel 2, who make loud clattering noises with their
>>wings, and have lions' teeth:
>>
More locust noise!
Once clatter clatter again Doug clatter is reduced clatter hiss to growl
his clatter childish responses which in clatter my growl clatter clatter
opinion superbly demonstrates clatter his clatter growl intellectual
clatter clatter capacity.
>
> Bear
>
>> GROWL More GROWL HISS HISS of your lies: GROWL lie GROWL CLATTER GROWL
>>after HISS lie after lie CLATTER GROWL after HISS lie................. I
>>GROWL agree SNARL with CLATTER very CLATTER HISS few, SNARL but CLATTER
>>it is only SNARL the HISS satanists, CLATTER CLATTER blasphemers,
>>CLATTER CLATTER HISS and SNARL liars CLATTER HISS I CLATTER warn people
>>CLATTER CLATTER about. GROWL SNARL
>>
>>SNARL Satan GROWL you're GROWL GROWL CLATTER GROWL a CLATTER liar. GROWL
>>HISS Identifying SNARL SNARL liars, CLATTER blasphemers, SNARL GROWL
>>CLATTER and SNARL SNARL SNARL satanists HISS HISS isn't HISS SNARL name
>>HISS calling. It GROWL is CLATTER SNARL HISS a CLATTER CLATTER warning
>>for CLATTER SNARL all CLATTER GROWL who would CLATTER fear CLATTER God.
--
Doug
Doug
article <8jkoe5l108tcnpadp...@4ax.com>:
> On Sat, 31 Oct 2009 09:42:43 -0500, Doug <t...@sentex.net> wrote:
>
>>On Sat, 31 Oct 2009 01:46:27 -0500, "Fred A Stover" <fst...@tx.rr.com>
>>wrote in article <7l2rtcF...@mid.individual.net>:
>>
>>> Doug wrote:
>>>> On Thu, 29 Oct 2009 05:43:21 -0500, "Fred A Stover"
>>>> <fst...@tx.rr.com> wrote in article
>>>> <7kt9v3F...@mid.individual.net>:
>>>
>>>>> <satanic babble snipped>
>>>>
>>>> Without any hesitation, Fred A Stover labels the views of other
>>>> dispensationalists, John N. Darby, H. Ironside, and William Kelly, as
>>>> "satanic babble."
>>
>>Fred responds with his fiercest scowl, like one of locusts in Joel 2,
>>who make loud clattering noises with their wings, and have lions' teeth:
>>
Noisy locusts sound like horses and chariots going over stony streets of
ancient cities.
clackety Once clatter squeak again clack clatter clack squeak Doug is
clack clack reduced clackety to clack clackety clatter his clack squeak
childish clatter responses clackety which squeak in squeak squeak my
clatter opinion squeak superbly clatter demonstrates clackety his clack
clack clatter intellectual clack capacity.
>
> Bear
>
>> GROWL GROWL More HISS of CLATTER your HISS lies, Satan, HISS CLATTER
>>it's GROWL SNARL CLATTER your CLATTER babble CLATTER that CLATTER
>>CLATTER I HISS snip. CLATTER SNARL GROWL
>>
>>With CLATTER CLATTER CLATTER CLATTER you CLATTER CLATTER it's SNARL HISS
>>lie CLATTER after lie after SNARL CLATTER lie CLATTER after CLATTER
>>CLATTER lie......
--
Doug
Doug
article <lskoe599mkgj1e99a...@4ax.com>:
Locusts of Joel's prophecy make a noise with their wings like the noise
of chariots and horses running to battle:
growl I do growl not clatter think anyone snarl is clatter surprised
snarl clatter clatter that clatter this snarl is clatter clatter the best
hiss response hiss that snarl you snarl hiss can clatter clatter come
snarl up clatter hiss with clatter Doug. growl Would growl clatter you
clatter say growl hiss that your growl response is right snarl snarl
clatter on "topic"? hiss growl clatter
Does snarl anyone see hiss clatter why it growl is useless clatter
engaging clatter in hiss a discussion snarl growl with clatter clatter
one clatter snarl who hiss responds clatter with clatter such profound
growl growl clatter thoughts. growl clatter clatter Oh well, growl that
growl clatter is growl all clatter he growl has.
--
Doug
Doug
article <88koe5d2t85rvd9us...@4ax.com>:
Dispensationalists like Michael J. Vlach are examples of noisy locusts,
the great plague described in Joel 1 & 2. They are invaders who spoil the
fruit of the land, which is symbolic of the spiritual fruit of the church.
snarl One text hiss often snarl used clatter by clatter snarl
supersessionists snarl to snarl hiss support the clatter idea of the
clatter growl permanent rejection clatter growl of snarl national clatter
growl clatter Israel clatter hiss is snarl Matt clatter snarl clatter
21:43.[1] In this clatter snarl verse, clatter hiss which snarl clatter
Frederick clatter Dale snarl clatter Bruner calls clatter "one clatter of
clatter clatter clatter the clatter snarl most important growl verses in
clatter clatter Matthew,"[2] Jesus clatter addressed snarl growl the
snarl unbelief snarl of snarl hiss hiss snarl the leaders of the hiss
nation growl growl growl Israel clatter snarl and announced clatter snarl
snarl his growl growl rejection clatter of hiss clatter them because
snarl snarl of clatter their stubborn clatter unbelief: "Therefore I
growl say snarl to clatter clatter you, clatter the kingdom snarl clatter
of snarl God clatter growl hiss will hiss be snarl snarl taken clatter
clatter away snarl from snarl growl you clatter snarl clatter and hiss
clatter given growl to hiss a clatter nation hiss producing clatter hiss
the growl hiss fruit of hiss it."
--
Doug
Doug
article <o9loe55co6eelb90r...@4ax.com>:
More locust noises from Bear.
snarl hiss How clatter clatter clatter ludicrous snarl growl can snarl
you clatter get Doug? snarl Is clatter this hiss the clatter best clatter
snarl that you have clatter to offer?
>
> Bear
>
>>SNARL CLATTER Satan, you're CLATTER a GROWL GROWL GROWL liar. GROWL
>>CLATTER Calling CLATTER SNARL a SNARL SNARL liar HISS a CLATTER liar
>>CLATTER CLATTER HISS isn't GROWL SNARL CLATTER defamation. SNARL Calling
>>CLATTER GROWL a CLATTER CLATTER blasphemer CLATTER a blasphemer GROWL
>>isn't defamation. GROWL It's SNARL CLATTER a matter GROWL of HISS
>>warning HISS SNARL SNARL the CLATTER folks you would deceive.
--
Doug
Bear
>On Sat, 31 Oct 2009 10:11:03 -0500, Bear <tevan...@charter.net> wrote in
>article <frkoe5lcubr6jk395...@4ax.com>:
>
>> On Sat, 31 Oct 2009 09:45:24 -0500, Doug <t...@sentex.net> wrote:
>>
>>>On Sat, 31 Oct 2009 01:51:33 -0500, "Fred A Stover" <fst...@tx.rr.com>
>>>wrote in article <7l2rtdF...@mid.individual.net>:
>>>
>>>> Doug wrote:
>>>>> On Fri, 30 Oct 2009 05:50:48 -0500, "Fred A Stover"
>>>>> <fst...@tx.rr.com> wrote in article
>>>>> <7kvut9F...@mid.individual.net>:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>> <snip>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> Hmm...
>>>>> Is he afraid of being called nasty names by Fred A Stover? What else
>>>>> could he be afraid of?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>Again, Fred responds with his very fiercest, meanest scowl, showing he
>>>is one of locusts in Joel 2, who make loud clattering noises with their
>>>wings, and have lions' teeth:
>>>
>
>More locust noise!
>
I do not think anyone is surprised that this is the best response that
you can come up with Doug. Would you say that your response is right
on "topic"?
Does anyone see why it is useless engaging in a discussion with one
who responds with such profound thoughts. Oh well, that is all he
has.
How ludicrous can you get Doug? Is this the best that you have to
offer, obviously, it is?
Bear
Bear
>On Sat, 31 Oct 2009 10:10:05 -0500, Bear <tevan...@charter.net> wrote in
>article <8jkoe5l108tcnpadp...@4ax.com>:
>
>> On Sat, 31 Oct 2009 09:42:43 -0500, Doug <t...@sentex.net> wrote:
>>
>>>On Sat, 31 Oct 2009 01:46:27 -0500, "Fred A Stover" <fst...@tx.rr.com>
>>>wrote in article <7l2rtcF...@mid.individual.net>:
>>>
>>>> Doug wrote:
>>>>> On Thu, 29 Oct 2009 05:43:21 -0500, "Fred A Stover"
>>>>> <fst...@tx.rr.com> wrote in article
>>>>> <7kt9v3F...@mid.individual.net>:
>>>>
>>>>>> <satanic babble snipped>
>>>>>
>>>>> Without any hesitation, Fred A Stover labels the views of other
>>>>> dispensationalists, John N. Darby, H. Ironside, and William Kelly, as
>>>>> "satanic babble."
>>>
>>>Fred responds with his fiercest scowl, like one of locusts in Joel 2,
>>>who make loud clattering noises with their wings, and have lions' teeth:
>>>
>
>Noisy locusts sound like horses and chariots going over stony streets of
>ancient cities.
>
Wow, look at all the spamming Doug is doing, like I said, he is a
hypocrite.
Bear
I do not think anyone is surprised that this is the best response that
you can come up with Doug. Would you say that your response is right
on "topic"?
Does anyone see why it is useless engaging in a discussion with one
who responds with such profound thoughts. Oh well, that is all he
has.
How ludicrous can you get Doug? Is this the best that you have to
Bear
I do not think anyone is surprised that this is the best response that
Bear
I do not think anyone is surprised that this is the best response that
you can come up with Doug. Would you say that your response is right
on "topic"?
Does anyone see why it is useless engaging in a discussion with one
who responds with such profound thoughts. Oh well, that is all he
has.
How ludicrous can you get Doug? Is this the best that you have to
Bear
>On Sat, 31 Oct 2009 08:14:25 -0500, Randy � <pulpi...@gmail.com> wrote
>in article <B9mdnUlbhIGtpXHX...@giganews.com>:
>
>> On Fri, 10/30/09, at 10:00:19PM,
>> Bear <tevan...@charter.net> wrote:
>>
>>> Everyone is not as dumb as you would like to believe Doug. You cannot
>>> support your blasphemous doctrine so you like to steer the discussion
>>> into one of personalities rather than scripture. Is that why you
>>> refuse to accept my suggestion that we take a chapter verse by verse,
>>> phrase by phrase and word by word and have a discussion without using
>>> so and so said this and this person disagrees with that person and oh
>>> my, it is all the fault of those evil dispensationalist.
>>
>>
>> That's what I've observed also. He ends up pitting people against
>> people, instead of arguing his case from the Scripture itself.
>
>
>So the dispensationalists fight against preterists,
Well at least we dispensationalists are not ashamed of our beliefs as
the replacement theologist as you are. We are not such wimps that we
have to refuse to answer questions as you do.
I respond to your post point by point and answer your questions and
how do you respond to mine? With your absolutely idiotic and juvenile
clickity clatter nonsense that does not impress anyone but you
apparently.
Bear
And here is what Vlach writes to prove the fallacy of Doug's
replacement theology.
Does Matthew 21:43 Support Replacement Theology?
By Michael J. Vlach, Ph.D.
Randy ®
Bear <tevan...@charter.net> wrote:
Correct. Not to mention Romans 11. That chapter flatly states
God temporarily set Israel aside so he could bring in the
Gentiles, then that when the fullness of the Gentiles be come in,
God would graft them in again, and resume the gifts and calling
for Israel, which are without repentance.
--
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
______________________________________________
Doug
article <nksoe5pml9hg04t49...@4ax.com>:
Locust "clatter" is the noise of the locusts of Joel 2, invaders who
misinterpret the scriptures, saying they prophecies should be taken
literally. They are like locusts because they insert huge "hops" of
thousands of years in Daniel's prophecies and they have tiny little
minds.
hiss clatter I snarl do clatter growl not hiss growl think growl anyone
hiss growl clatter is clatter hiss surprised clatter clatter that growl
this clatter is clatter the snarl clatter best response growl clatter
that clatter snarl you clatter can clatter come growl clatter up hiss
with Doug. snarl Would growl you snarl say that hiss your snarl snarl
response snarl is clatter clatter snarl right growl on hiss "topic"?
clatter
clatter Does anyone clatter see clatter hiss why it clatter is clatter
hiss useless growl clatter engaging in a growl clatter discussion growl
hiss with snarl growl snarl one clatter growl growl who responds growl
snarl with hiss clatter such snarl hiss profound growl hiss snarl
thoughts. Oh well, snarl that is clatter snarl all he clatter has. clatter
snarl How clatter snarl ludicrous clatter can snarl you hiss growl hiss
get hiss Doug? growl Is this clatter hiss the clatter clatter clatter
best hiss that clatter you snarl clatter have clatter to growl hiss
offer, clatter growl obviously, hiss it growl is?
> Bear
--
Doug
Doug
article <llsoe5pfv2hl7o44s...@4ax.com>:
The locusts of Joel 2 make a loud clattering noise with their wings, but
there is no intelligence in it. The locusts are invaders who misinterpret
the scriptures, saying they prophecies should be taken literally. They
are like locusts because they insert huge "hops" of thousands of years in
Daniel's prophecies and they have tiny little minds.
clatter I clatter hiss do snarl growl not snarl think growl clatter
anyone clatter is surprised growl snarl that this snarl clatter is the
growl clatter best snarl hiss response clatter that snarl clatter you
clatter growl can snarl clatter come snarl snarl up clatter with growl
Doug. Would you clatter growl say growl growl that hiss your growl
clatter response hiss snarl hiss is right on growl "topic"?
snarl clatter Does clatter clatter growl anyone clatter see why it
clatter is useless clatter growl engaging growl in a discussion snarl
hiss with growl one snarl clatter who hiss responds hiss clatter with
hiss growl hiss such snarl profound thoughts. snarl clatter Oh hiss well,
that snarl is all he hiss clatter growl has.
snarl How growl hiss hiss snarl ludicrous snarl growl can clatter you get
snarl Doug? Is growl clatter clatter this clatter clatter the hiss
clatter best growl hiss that snarl clatter growl you snarl clatter have
snarl to clatter offer, obviously, clatter hiss clatter it growl is?
Doug
wrote in article <7l2rtdF...@mid.individual.net>:
> Doug wrote:
>> On Thu, 29 Oct 2009 14:59:55 -0500, "Fred A Stover" <fst...@tx.rr.com>
>> wrote in article
>> <7kuc3aF...@mid.individual.net>:
>>
>>> Randy wrote:
>>>> On Thu, 10/29/09, at 5:25:22AM,
>>>> Fred A Stover <fst...@tx.rr.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>> <snip>
>>
>>>> Now the question is, how does your white horse fit into the
>>>> seventieth week of Daniel 9:27, since that week begins with
>>>> anti-christ posing as an agent of peace, confirming a "peace"
>>>> covenant with many, and Revelation refers to the Tribulation
>>>> beginning with a rider on a white horse who doesn't use weapons?
>>>
>>> If you conclude your assumptions, you're going to arrive at the
>>> conclusion that you've already assumed. Where is your "peace covenant"
>>> in scripture? John Walvoord said there are no scriptures identifying
>>> the first horseman as the antichrist. What do you find that he missed?
>>
>> Looks like Fred just shot himself in the foot! Walvoord's
>> interpretation identifies the white horse with the beast out of the sea
>> in Revelation
>> 13.
>
Fred A Stover scowls as fiercely as he can, and yells (enhanced with
"clatter" characteristic of the great locust plague described in Joel 2):
HISS ROTFL!!!!! CLATTER SNARL
SNARL SNARL GROWL CLATTER Satan CLATTER GROWL you're HISS still GROWL an
GROWL GROWL idiot. CLATTER SNARL He HISS gives HISS HISS SNARL no GROWL
verses HISS GROWL identifying the CLATTER CLATTER first CLATTER GROWL
horseman CLATTER HISS CLATTER CLATTER as GROWL CLATTER CLATTER the
antichrist. GROWL HISS
HISS When asked why he GROWL did, SNARL he HISS SNARL admitted CLATTER
GROWL that SNARL SNARL there CLATTER CLATTER is SNARL SNARL no CLATTER
CLATTER CLATTER scripture identifying CLATTER the CLATTER first horseman
CLATTER SNARL as CLATTER the antichrist, GROWL SNARL CLATTER HISS he
SNARL just seems HISS to GROWL GROWL fit into CLATTER HISS prophecy SNARL
SNARL around HISS that CLATTER SNARL point, CLATTER SNARL which GROWL
SNARL GROWL is SNARL SNARL CLATTER also CLATTER GROWL true CLATTER
CLATTER when SNARL identifying. CLATTER
Don't CLATTER get any CLATTER dumber CLATTER than Doug.
--
Doug
Doug
in article <K5CdnZS6YaxF6nHX...@giganews.com>:
You will probably like this enhanced version even more!
clatter One growl text hiss clatter often clatter clatter used growl
hiss by supersessionists growl clatter clatter to snarl clatter hiss
support the snarl snarl idea snarl of snarl snarl the permanent rejection
growl clatter growl of growl national Israel clatter clatter is Matt
clatter clatter 21:43.[1] In growl this clatter clatter verse, clatter
which growl Frederick growl Dale growl clatter growl Bruner calls snarl
clatter "one growl of the hiss growl most important clatter verses snarl
hiss growl in Matthew,"[2] Jesus snarl addressed snarl snarl the clatter
unbelief of the snarl leaders hiss clatter of snarl the growl nation
Israel and announced clatter snarl his clatter clatter rejection clatter
of them hiss because clatter growl of growl clatter their stubborn
unbelief: "Therefore I snarl say hiss to you, the hiss kingdom of hiss
God clatter growl will hiss be taken growl hiss away snarl from you
clatter and given snarl snarl to a snarl nation snarl growl producing the
clatter hiss fruit clatter clatter of it."
growl hiss clatter What is clatter the clatter clatter clatter hiss
significance clatter hiss of snarl Jesus' clatter words growl growl
clatter in snarl Matt clatter snarl 21:43? hiss Supersessionists often
assert hiss growl that Jesus was snarl making clatter two snarl snarl
major points. clatter clatter clatter The hiss first hiss was clatter
snarl that clatter snarl the hiss snarl nation growl Israel clatter
clatter hiss clatter had clatter clatter been growl clatter clatter
permanently hiss rejected growl hiss as the clatter people growl of
clatter God. The second is clatter that clatter clatter clatter clatter
the clatter "nation" snarl growl to clatter clatter whom snarl the
kingdom snarl clatter would be clatter given hiss clatter is hiss snarl
growl the clatter snarl church.
clatter clatter growl This clatter snarl view hiss clatter that Matt
growl snarl 21:43 teaches clatter the clatter replacement clatter growl
of Israel clatter hiss hiss clatter with hiss the church was held in
clatter the clatter Patristic Era. clatter clatter As Origen declared,
growl "Our Lord, clatter snarl seeing snarl hiss the snarl snarl conduct
hiss of the snarl Jews growl clatter clatter not growl to snarl growl be
at snarl growl growl all in hiss snarl clatter keeping snarl growl with
clatter clatter clatter hiss the clatter teaching clatter clatter clatter
hiss of snarl the growl clatter prophets, inculcated by snarl clatter a
snarl parable hiss clatter snarl that the clatter kingdom hiss snarl
snarl of hiss hiss God would clatter hiss snarl be clatter clatter snarl
taken from clatter them, snarl and growl given to hiss the hiss hiss
converts clatter snarl clatter from hiss heathenism."[3] snarl growl
Irenaeus clatter growl and Chrysostom, clatter snarl too, clatter
believed this clatter text clatter taught growl the snarl permanent
rejection snarl growl hiss hiss of clatter the hiss clatter hiss Jews.[4]
This clatter understanding clatter of Matt clatter hiss 21:43, snarl
clatter snarl though, goes growl hiss beyond just hiss the growl hiss
Patristic snarl Era. According growl hiss clatter to growl clatter W.
growl D. Davies and snarl Dale clatter hiss hiss Allison, growl hiss hiss
this clatter growl view growl snarl snarl that hiss Matt hiss 21:43 hiss
teaches the snarl replacement clatter hiss of snarl national Israel growl
with clatter snarl clatter the snarl church is clatter hiss "the snarl
clatter dominant interpretation hiss in clatter Christian clatter clatter
hiss history."[5] snarl
This snarl view clatter clatter of snarl Matt 21:43, growl however, is
clatter improbable for clatter several snarl reasons. The clatter first
clatter problem hiss clatter clatter concerns snarl the clatter identity
clatter of clatter the "you" clatter from whom snarl the growl growl
clatter kingdom would clatter snarl be clatter clatter taken. growl hiss
Several growl hiss interpreters clatter clatter have pointed clatter
snarl out hiss that clatter hiss snarl the "you" snarl probably snarl
snarl growl clatter refers hiss to the growl current growl growl growl
clatter leaders clatter growl of growl Israel clatter and growl not snarl
clatter the nation as snarl a snarl growl whole snarl as supersessionists
have clatter growl clatter claimed. M. hiss Eugene clatter growl Boring,
hiss for clatter instance, clatter states: clatter clatter "Who snarl
clatter snarl is clatter clatter hiss represented hiss clatter by the
'you' growl snarl clatter from clatter whom snarl growl growl the kingdom
is growl taken? hiss clatter Who hiss clatter clatter is the clatter hiss
'nation' growl hiss to snarl snarl whom growl clatter it is clatter snarl
given? growl In hiss the snarl context, the snarl growl addressees are
growl clearly the growl chief growl clatter priests and clatter snarl
Pharisees clatter hiss . clatter . clatter growl . snarl clatter i.e.,
the Jewish hiss snarl clatter leadership, not clatter the snarl snarl
people hiss hiss snarl as clatter a growl whole."[6] clatter Making hiss
clatter clatter a growl hiss snarl similar clatter point, clatter David
clatter D. hiss Kupp growl writes, "Jesus' growl snarl growing antipathy
hiss growl to hiss snarl the snarl Jewish hiss clatter leaders has never
clatter hiss spelled outright clatter clatter rejection snarl clatter of
clatter the growl Jewish growl crowds, snarl the people of Israel. Even
snarl in clatter growl 21.43 the target clatter audience hiss is
explicitly snarl the clatter leaders, not clatter the snarl people."[7]
Boring clatter clatter clatter and clatter clatter hiss hiss Kupp appear
correct in their observations. clatter clatter clatter Matt clatter hiss
21:45 clatter snarl states clatter that growl the clatter religious
leaders "understood that growl growl hiss He clatter clatter [Jesus] was
snarl speaking about clatter them." clatter snarl Anthony hiss J. growl
Saldarini hiss argues snarl that the supersessionist hiss growl view
growl hiss is snarl clatter more clatter in snarl line with growl snarl
supersessionist hiss presuppositions growl growl than hiss snarl clatter
with the clatter clatter actual growl meaning clatter growl of clatter
Matthew hiss 21:43: clatter growl "This hiss snarl reading, hiss clatter
hiss which fits later clatter Christian supercessionist clatter hiss
interpretations growl of Jewish-Christian snarl clatter relations, growl
is hiss hiss beset growl by several hiss hiss problems, clatter hiss the
clatter growl most hiss obvious clatter hiss of growl clatter which
clatter is that clatter Matthew snarl hiss makes clatter the clatter
growl growl chief priests growl clatter and snarl Pharisees apply clatter
clatter the hiss parable to themselves clatter (21:45), snarl not to
Israel clatter snarl clatter as snarl a whole."[8] snarl Since the
clatter context snarl hiss indicates that snarl snarl clatter Jesus
clatter was growl speaking growl specifically to snarl clatter the
clatter growl religious clatter snarl clatter leaders hiss of clatter
growl his snarl day, clatter snarl the clatter snarl supersessionist
assertion snarl hiss that Jesus clatter was hiss announcing clatter hiss
the hiss permanent hiss hiss rejection clatter clatter clatter clatter of
growl the nation clatter Israel clatter growl clatter appears clatter
hiss snarl clatter unlikely.
hiss growl growl growl Another snarl problem growl with snarl snarl the
hiss clatter view that Jesus clatter clatter is clatter declaring hiss
the hiss permanent snarl clatter rejection growl of clatter Israel growl
hiss clatter hiss is snarl clatter that clatter other sections clatter
snarl of hiss Matthew's clatter gospel growl snarl appear to reaffirm
clatter growl or hiss growl clatter clatter hint at growl clatter a snarl
future for snarl Israel. clatter As clatter growl Sanders clatter has
hiss pointed growl hiss out, clatter Matt growl 19:28 growl growl growl
"confirms the view clatter that snarl clatter Jesus clatter looked for
clatter growl hiss the clatter restoration clatter of growl Israel."[9]
M. clatter snarl A. clatter Elliott growl growl asserts that in snarl
clatter Matthew's clatter growl gospel snarl "nothing hiss clatter hiss
explicit growl is hiss growl snarl hiss found hiss regarding the hiss
clatter rejection clatter growl clatter of growl hiss Israel."[10] snarl
A clatter second problem hiss concerns the growl supersessionist clatter
growl view that snarl clatter the clatter nation to clatter whom hiss the
hiss clatter snarl kingdom hiss clatter would clatter be clatter clatter
given is clatter the growl hiss Christian hiss growl church.[11] clatter
The snarl hiss context hiss clatter of clatter clatter Matthew 21 makes
clatter it snarl growl unlikely clatter that growl hiss the growl
"nation" clatter of snarl clatter whom clatter clatter Jesus clatter
growl is referring snarl is the church. hiss hiss hiss As clatter Turner
snarl clatter hiss writes, snarl clatter "In clatter clatter snarl verse
46 it clatter growl clatter is hiss clatter growl clear clatter snarl
that hiss the religious growl hiss leaders hiss believed Jesus snarl hiss
clatter was snarl hiss talking snarl clatter about clatter them, not hiss
clatter clatter hiss Israel snarl as clatter a whole. Thus hiss growl it
clatter hiss is snarl reading growl too clatter clatter much growl into
hiss clatter this clatter clatter verse to clatter view hiss growl it
hiss as clatter indicating hiss the replacement snarl of clatter Israel
by the Gentile church."[12] Saldarini clatter points out clatter clatter
that clatter theologians hiss who clatter hiss interpret clatter clatter
"nation" hiss snarl as growl clatter the hiss church snarl "are clatter
reading hiss clatter in snarl second-century Christian hiss clatter
theology" clatter snarl into snarl growl snarl Matt 21:43.[13] snarl growl
clatter growl Thus, snarl growl Matthew growl clatter 21:43 hiss growl is
clatter clatter not clatter a snarl clatter supporting clatter hiss growl
hiss text hiss hiss snarl for growl snarl growl replacement snarl
theology.
--
Doug
Randy ®
Doug <t...@sentex.net> wrote:
>> Correct.
> You will probably like this enhanced version even more!
> clatter One growl text hiss clatter often clatter clatter used growl
> hiss by supersessionists growl clatter clatter to snarl clatter hiss
So your response is to avoid Romans 11, and post this kind of
juvenile rhetoric? Romans 11 clearly refutes replacement
theology. The gifts and calling of God are without repentance,
God will graft Israel in again, and they will be saved.
Doug
article <3hsoe5pboq7rf06t3...@4ax.com>:
> On Sat, 31 Oct 2009 11:05:53 -0500, Doug <t...@sentex.net> wrote:
>
>>On Sat, 31 Oct 2009 10:11:03 -0500, Bear <tevan...@charter.net> wrote
>>in article <frkoe5lcubr6jk395...@4ax.com>:
>>
>>> On Sat, 31 Oct 2009 09:45:24 -0500, Doug <t...@sentex.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Sat, 31 Oct 2009 01:51:33 -0500, "Fred A Stover"
>>>><fst...@tx.rr.com> wrote in article
>>>><7l2rtdF...@mid.individual.net>:
>>>>
>>>>> Doug wrote:
>>>>>> On Fri, 30 Oct 2009 05:50:48 -0500, "Fred A Stover"
>>>>>> <fst...@tx.rr.com> wrote in article
>>>>>> <7kvut9F...@mid.individual.net>:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>> <snip>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> Hmm...
>>>>>> Is he afraid of being called nasty names by Fred A Stover? What
>>>>>> else could he be afraid of?
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>Again, Fred responds with his very fiercest, meanest scowl, showing he
>>>>is one of locusts in Joel 2, who make loud clattering noises with
>>>>their wings, and have lions' teeth:
>>>>
>>>>
>>More locust noise!
>>
Ted Evans of Crrossville TN, your regular noisy locust spammer. His spam
has been enhanced in a completely original way below, for halloween 2009!
I do growl growl not hiss growl think hiss clatter anyone growl is
clatter surprised snarl that clatter this hiss is snarl snarl the clatter
best hiss snarl clatter hiss response that you hiss can come growl up
snarl snarl with Doug. Would you hiss say hiss snarl that your clatter
response is snarl right clatter clatter hiss on growl "topic"? clatter
snarl Does growl anyone see clatter why it clatter growl clatter is
useless engaging in a clatter clatter discussion snarl clatter with growl
clatter one who clatter responds with snarl clatter such clatter profound
thoughts. Oh hiss well, clatter that growl growl is growl growl all
clatter hiss snarl he snarl hiss clatter has. snarl growl clatter
clatter How ludicrous snarl hiss can snarl you clatter get clatter Doug?
hiss Is clatter clatter this the growl snarl best that clatter you
clatter clatter clatter have growl hiss to offer, clatter obviously, it
clatter is?
Doug
article <0isoe55034727nckt...@4ax.com>:
> On Sat, 31 Oct 2009 11:08:08 -0500, Doug <t...@sentex.net> wrote:
>
>>On Sat, 31 Oct 2009 10:10:05 -0500, Bear <tevan...@charter.net> wrote
>>in article <8jkoe5l108tcnpadp...@4ax.com>:
>>
>>> On Sat, 31 Oct 2009 09:42:43 -0500, Doug <t...@sentex.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Sat, 31 Oct 2009 01:46:27 -0500, "Fred A Stover"
>>>><fst...@tx.rr.com> wrote in article
>>>><7l2rtcF...@mid.individual.net>:
>>>>
>>>>> Doug wrote:
>>>>>> On Thu, 29 Oct 2009 05:43:21 -0500, "Fred A Stover"
>>>>>> <fst...@tx.rr.com> wrote in article
>>>>>> <7kt9v3F...@mid.individual.net>:
>>>>>
>>>>>>> <satanic babble snipped>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Without any hesitation, Fred A Stover labels the views of other
>>>>>> dispensationalists, John N. Darby, H. Ironside, and William Kelly,
>>>>>> as "satanic babble."
>>>>
>>>>Fred responds with his fiercest scowl, like one of locusts in Joel 2,
>>>>who make loud clattering noises with their wings, and have lions'
>>>>teeth:
>>>>
>>>>
>>Noisy locusts sound like horses and chariots going over stony streets of
>>ancient cities.
>>
Ted's spam and defamation output has been enhanced below, with locust
"clatter."
GROWL SNARL Wow, CLATTER CLATTER look HISS at CLATTER CLATTER all
CLATTER HISS the HISS spamming GROWL Doug is CLATTER doing, HISS CLATTER
like I said, SNARL he is CLATTER a HISS hypocrite. SNARL HISS HISS
SNARL CLATTER I CLATTER do CLATTER not SNARL think CLATTER CLATTER anyone
CLATTER is CLATTER surprised HISS CLATTER that this CLATTER HISS SNARL is
HISS HISS GROWL the best CLATTER response that CLATTER CLATTER CLATTER
you CLATTER CLATTER CLATTER can SNARL CLATTER come CLATTER GROWL up
CLATTER with GROWL HISS Doug. GROWL GROWL Would GROWL HISS you say
CLATTER that GROWL HISS your CLATTER response is CLATTER right HISS
CLATTER on HISS CLATTER "topic"? GROWL
HISS CLATTER Does CLATTER SNARL anyone SNARL CLATTER GROWL see GROWL why
CLATTER GROWL CLATTER it GROWL is GROWL CLATTER useless SNARL SNARL
engaging CLATTER in HISS a SNARL HISS discussion CLATTER with SNARL one
who CLATTER responds CLATTER with CLATTER such SNARL HISS profound SNARL
SNARL thoughts. CLATTER Oh SNARL SNARL well, CLATTER that CLATTER is
GROWL SNARL SNARL all CLATTER CLATTER GROWL he SNARL SNARL SNARL has. HISS
CLATTER CLATTER How HISS SNARL ludicrous can you GROWL get SNARL HISS
Doug? SNARL CLATTER Is this CLATTER CLATTER the best HISS that CLATTER
you CLATTER HISS have GROWL HISS CLATTER to SNARL offer, SNARL obviously,
it HISS HISS is?
Doug
article <umsoe5hb44b7sg62e...@4ax.com>:
More locust noise.
snarl I clatter growl do not clatter snarl clatter think clatter anyone
snarl hiss is clatter growl surprised hiss that snarl this is snarl the
clatter best clatter hiss clatter response hiss that you clatter hiss can
come clatter up hiss clatter with snarl Doug. Would clatter you say growl
clatter that your growl clatter response hiss snarl is clatter clatter
snarl right on clatter growl "topic"? snarl clatter growl
hiss Does anyone clatter see clatter clatter clatter why hiss hiss growl
it clatter snarl is useless clatter engaging clatter clatter snarl in
snarl a growl growl hiss discussion clatter growl with clatter growl one
growl who responds growl with hiss clatter such clatter growl clatter
profound growl growl clatter thoughts. clatter growl Oh well, clatter
growl that hiss is hiss all hiss he hiss has. hiss
growl How clatter hiss ludicrous can hiss you clatter get growl clatter
Doug? Is hiss this the clatter best hiss growl that clatter you hiss have
to snarl offer, clatter obviously, it clatter is?
Bear
>On Sat, 31 Oct 2009 12:23:59 -0500, Bear <tevan...@charter.net> wrote in
>article <nksoe5pml9hg04t49...@4ax.com>:
>
>> On Sat, 31 Oct 2009 11:10:23 -0500, Doug <t...@sentex.net> wrote:
>>
>>>On Sat, 31 Oct 2009 10:16:28 -0500, Bear <tevan...@charter.net> wrote
>>>in article <lskoe599mkgj1e99a...@4ax.com>:
>>>
>>>> On Sat, 31 Oct 2009 09:52:38 -0500, Doug <t...@sentex.net> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>On Sat, 31 Oct 2009 08:21:30 -0500, Bear <tevan...@charter.net>
>>>>>wrote in article <f5doe51hhs630micv...@4ax.com>:
>>>>>
>
>Locust "clatter" is the noise of the locusts of Joel 2,
Bear
>On Sat, 31 Oct 2009 12:24:35 -0500, Bear <tevan...@charter.net> wrote in
>article <llsoe5pfv2hl7o44s...@4ax.com>:
>
>> On Sat, 31 Oct 2009 11:15:09 -0500, Doug <t...@sentex.net> wrote:
>>
>>>On Sat, 31 Oct 2009 10:03:44 -0500, Bear <tevan...@charter.net> wrote
>>>in article <88koe5d2t85rvd9us...@4ax.com>:
>>>
>>>> On Sat, 31 Oct 2009 05:28:46 -0500, Doug <t...@sentex.net> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>On Fri, 30 Oct 2009 21:46:29 -0500, Bear <tevan...@charter.net>
>>>>>wrote in article <e79ne59jggtpn55b6...@4ax.com>:
>>>>>
>
>The locusts of Joel 2 make a loud clattering noise with their wings,
I do not think anyone is surprised that this is the best response that
Bear
>On Sat, 31 Oct 2009 08:20:07 -0500, "Fred A Stover" <fst...@tx.rr.com>
>wrote in article <7l2rtdF...@mid.individual.net>:
>
>> Doug wrote:
>>> On Thu, 29 Oct 2009 14:59:55 -0500, "Fred A Stover" <fst...@tx.rr.com>
>>> wrote in article
>>> <7kuc3aF...@mid.individual.net>:
>>>
>>>> Randy wrote:
>>>>> On Thu, 10/29/09, at 5:25:22AM,
>>>>> Fred A Stover <fst...@tx.rr.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>> <snip>
>>>
>>> Looks like Fred just shot himself in the foot! Walvoord's
>>> interpretation identifies the white horse with the beast out of the sea
>>> in Revelation
>>> 13.
>>
>
>Fred A Stover scowls as fiercely as he can, and yells (enhanced with
>"clatter" characteristic of the great locust plague described in Joel 2):
>
Bear
>On Sat, 31 Oct 2009 12:21:57 -0500, Bear <tevan...@charter.net> wrote in
>article <3hsoe5pboq7rf06t3...@4ax.com>:
>
>> On Sat, 31 Oct 2009 11:05:53 -0500, Doug <t...@sentex.net> wrote:
>>
>>>On Sat, 31 Oct 2009 10:11:03 -0500, Bear <tevan...@charter.net> wrote
>>>in article <frkoe5lcubr6jk395...@4ax.com>:
>>>
>>>> On Sat, 31 Oct 2009 09:45:24 -0500, Doug <t...@sentex.net> wrote:
>>>
>
>Ted Evans of Crrossville TN, your regular noisy locust spammer.
I do not think anyone is surprised that this is the best response that
Bear
>On Sat, 31 Oct 2009 12:23:20 -0500, Bear <tevan...@charter.net> wrote in
>article <0isoe55034727nckt...@4ax.com>:
>
>> On Sat, 31 Oct 2009 11:08:08 -0500, Doug <t...@sentex.net> wrote:
>>
>>>On Sat, 31 Oct 2009 10:10:05 -0500, Bear <tevan...@charter.net> wrote
>>>in article <8jkoe5l108tcnpadp...@4ax.com>:
>>>
>>>> On Sat, 31 Oct 2009 09:42:43 -0500, Doug <t...@sentex.net> wrote:
>>>>
>
>Ted's spam and defamation output
Bear
>On Sat, 31 Oct 2009 12:25:17 -0500, Bear <tevan...@charter.net> wrote in
>article <umsoe5hb44b7sg62e...@4ax.com>:
>
>> On Sat, 31 Oct 2009 11:18:14 -0500, Doug <t...@sentex.net> wrote:
>>
>
>More locust noise.
Doug
in article <jPudnfFT-PJq4nHX...@giganews.com>:
> On Sat, 10/31/09, at 1:16:43PM,
> Doug <t...@sentex.net> wrote:
>
>>> Correct.
>> You will probably like this enhanced version even more! clatter One
>> growl text hiss clatter often clatter clatter used growl hiss by
>> supersessionists growl clatter clatter to snarl clatter hiss
>
>
> So your response is to avoid Romans 11, and post this kind of juvenile
> rhetoric? Romans 11 clearly refutes replacement theology. The gifts
> and calling of God are without repentance, God will graft Israel in
> again, and they will be saved.
Since I don't believe in "replacement theology" this seems rather
meaningless to me.
The doctrines of John N. Darby seem to have convinced many
dispensationalists that God's people are not those who believe in Christ,
but those who are Jews by race, or those who have adopted Judaism. What a
lie that is!
To them, it seems, any unbelieving Jew is more precious in the eyes of
God than a Gentile who believes in Christ.
They swoon and gush over Jews, and lament when any territory in Israel is
surrendered to Palestinians.
They invariably apply Zech. 2:8 to those who are Jews by race, not to the
church: "he that toucheth you toucheth the apple of his eye."
Who is the "apple of his eye"? Unbelieving Jews, or the saints?
The NT clearly teaches that the church is the bride of Christ.
Anyone teaching that unbelieving Jews are the "apple of his eye" suggests
that Christ is involved in adulterous affairs! What else could it mean?
And similarly, those who adore and gush over Jews, even those accused of
war crimes, and corruption, commits what the NT calls adultery.
James 4:4
Ye adulterers and adulteresses, know ye not that the friendship of the
world is enmity with God? whosoever therefore will be a friend of the
world is the enemy of God.
This applies to dispensationalists. They label the traditional teaching
of all the Reformers, that identified Israel with the church "replacement
theology." But that is false, as when Christ adds believers to Israel,
those believers do not replace anyone.
Dispensationalists claim most of the prophecies of Revelation apply to
Jews in the future tribulation, and not to the centuries of the history
of the church, as the Reformers believed. Thus they adopt the
interpretations of the Jesuits, and undo what the Reformers achieved.
The Jesuits, who opposed the protestant Reformation, and defended the
papacy, were the ones who said that the Antichrist was a literal human
who would appear in a Jewish temple at the end of the age, claiming to be
God.
The Jesuits, Francisco Ribera (1537-1591) of Salamanca Spain, and Robert
Bellarmine (1542-1621), who became a Cardinal, and who is famous (or
infamous) for his role in the persecution and trial of Galileo Galilei,
said the 1,260 days and 42 months and the time, times and a half of
Revelation 11, 12 and 13 refers to a period of three and a half literal
years at the end of the age.
These ideas were incorporated into Darby's theory of dispensationalism,
that was promoted in America after the civil war in the nineteenth
century.
Dispensationalism became such a contentious issue in 20th century America
that churches were split over the issue of Covenant Theology vs.
dispensationalism.
One example of this occurred in the Orthodox Presbyterian Church. A
Wikipedia article says:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bible_Presbyterian_Church
<quote>
Two main issues made the existence of these factions within the Orthodox
Presbyterian Church evident. The first had to do with a classic Reformed
piety over against a piety of fundamentalism. It came down to a conflict
of the use of alcoholic beverages. The "orthodox" side condemned
drunkenness, but nevertheless did not agree that Scripture prescribed
Christians to totally abstain from drinking alcoholic beverages, while
the "Bible" side asserted that the Bible prohibited the consumption of
alcohol entirely (see also Christianity and alcohol).
The second issue was over faithfulness to Covenant Theology versus the
toleration of Dispensationalism. Those on the "Bible" side had come to
tolerate, and even use, the popular Scofield Reference Bible whose notes
taught the theological system called Dispensationalism, rather than the
Covenant Theology historically held by many Reformed churches. Scofield's
notes were under considerable criticism by faculty members of Westminster
Theological Seminary, who led the "orthodox" faction. Historic
premillennialism was tolerated within the Orthodox Presbyterian Church,
yet the Dispensational form of premillennialism was considered to be
serious error. Those who came to call themselves "Bible Presbyterians"
saw the serious criticisms against Scofield's notes as a swipe against
historic premillennialism itself, rather than merely the Dispensational
form of premillennialism, and wanted the freedom to use the Scofield
Reference Bible. The formal exodus of Bible Presbyterian churches came
about in 1938, only two years after the forming of the Orthodox
Presbyterian Church, but it was not on unkind terms, as was the case with
the original split with the PCUSA. It should be noted that the Bible
Presbyterian Church has always maintained the unity of the covenant of
grace (a decidedly non-dispensational position), and, in later years,
passed resolutions against dispensationalism in its annual Synod meetings.
In 1955-1956, a split occurred in the Bible Presbyterian Church. One
faction eventually took the name Evangelical Presbyterian Church. A few
years later this group merged with the Reformed Presbyterian Church in
North America, General Synod to form the Reformed Presbyterian Church,
Evangelical Synod; that body in turn merged with the Presbyterian Church
in America in 1982. The remaining synod retained the name Bible
Presbyterian Church. The group experienced another split in 1979; the
American Presbyterian Church left the BPC over roughly the same concerns
that led to the original OPC/BPC split decades earlier.
</quote>
Thousands of denominations and sects have formed, because of the
divisiveness of dispensationalism and its supporters.
A particularly contentious form of dispensationalism is called
ultradispensationalism, or "consistent" dispensationalism or
Bullingerism. One of the leading dispensationalists, H. A. Ironside,
wrote of its "pernicious" effects:
<quote>
It is right here then that we need to be careful, and not read into the
Word of God ideas out of our own minds which are not really there.
Through doing this, some have ignored dispensational truth altogether.
Others have swung to an ultra-dispensationalism which is most pernicious
in its effect upon one's own soul and upon testimony for God generally.
Of these ultra-dispensational systems, one in particular has come into
prominence of late years, which, for want of a better name, is generally
called "Bullingerism," owing to the fact that it was first advocated some
years ago by Dr. E. W. Bullinger, a clergyman of the Church of England.
These views have been widely spread through the notes of "The Companion
Bible," a work partly edited by Dr. Bullinger, though he died before it
was completed. This Bible has many valuable features and has been a help
in certain respects to God's servants who have used it conservatively,
but it contains interpretations which are utterly subversive of the
truth. Some of Dr. Bullinger's positions are glaringly opposed to what
is generally accepted as orthodox teaching, as, for instance, the sleep
of the soul between death and resurrection; and it is a most significant
fact that while he did not apparently fully commit himself to any
eschatological position as to the final state of the impenitent, most of
his followers in Great Britain have gone off into annihilation, and there
is quite a sect in America who began with his teaching who now are
restorationists of the broadest type, teaching what they are pleased to
call universal reconciliation, which to their minds involves the final
salvation not only of all men, but of Satan and all the fallen angels.
These two views, diverse as they are, are nevertheless the legitimate
offspring of the ultra-dispensational system to which we refer.
...
Having had most intimate acquaintance with Bullingerism as taught by many
for the last forty years, I have no hesitancy in saying that its fruits
are evil. It has produced a tremendous crop of heresies throughout the
length and breadth of this and other lands, it has divided Christians and
wrecked churches and assemblies without number; it has lifted up its
votaries in intellectual and spiritual pride to an appalling extent, so
that they look with supreme contempt upon Christians who do not accept
their peculiar views; and in most instances where it has been long
tolerated, it has absolutely throttled Gospel effort at home and sown
discord on missionary fields abroad. So true are these things of this
system that I have no hesitancy in saying it is an absolutely Satanic
perversion of the truth. Instead of rightly dividing the Word, I shall
seek to show that these teachers wrongly divide the Word, and that their
propaganda is anything but conducive to spirituality and enlightenment in
divine things.
</quote>
Eschew dispensationalism! Eschew preterism!
--
Doug
Ike E 10/29/09
> On Sat, 31 Oct 2009 05:49:36 -0500, "Ike E 10/29/09"
> <xhermanei...@gmail.com> wrote in article
> <hch4o2$vba$1...@news.eternal-september.org>:>> news:yfWdnUiVto_DjHHX...@sentex.net...
>>
>> [snip]
>>
>>> It is quite true that the Epistle to the Hebrews makes mention of a
>>> better hope (7:19), a better testament or covenant (7:22), better
>>> promises (8:6), better sacrifices (9:23), some better thing for us
>>> (11:40), and yet it is important to recognize that the contrast is
>>> between the shadows and the substance. Romans 12:6, speaks of "the
>>> proportion [or "analogy"] of faith." There is a due proportion, a
>>> perfect balance, between the different parts of God's revealed Truth
>>> which must needs be known and observed by all who would preach and
>>> write according to the mind of the Spirit. In arguing from this
>>> analogy, it is essential to recognize that what is made known in the
>>> Old Testament was typical of what is set forth in the New, and
>>> therefore the terms used in the former are strictly applicable unto the
>>> latter. Much needless wrangling has occurred over whether or not the
>>> nation of Israel were a regenerate people. That is quite beside the
>>> real point: outwardly they were regarded and addressed as the people of
>>> God, and, as the Spirit through Paul affirmed, "who are Israelites: to
>>> whom pertaineth the adoption, and the glory, and the covenants, and the
>>> giving of the law, and the service of God, and the promises: whose are
>>> the fathers, and of whom as concerning the flesh Christ came" (Rom.
>>> 9:4,5).
>>>
>>> Regeneration or non-regeneration affected the salvation of individuals
>>> among them, but it did not affect the covenant relationship of the
>>> people as a whole. Again and again God addressed Israel as
>>> "backsliders," but never once did He so designate any heathen nation.
>>> It was not to the Egyptians or Canaanites that Jehovah said, "Return,
>>> ye backsliding children, and I will heal your backslidings," or "Turn,
>>> 0 backsliding children...for I am married unto you" (Jer. 3:22, 14).
>>> Now it is this analogy or similarity between the two covenants and the
>>> peoples under them which is the basis for the transfer of Old Testament
>>> terms to the New. Thus the word "circumcision" is used in the latter
>>> not with identity of meaning, but according to analogy, for
>>> circumcision is now "of the heart, in the spirit" (Rom. 2:29), and not
>>> of the flesh. In like manner, when John closes his first Epistle with
>>> "Little children, keep yourselves from idols," he borrows an Old
>>> Testament term and uses it in a New Testament sense, for by "idols" he
>>> refers not to material statues made of wood and stone (as the prophets
>>> did when employing the same word), but to inward objects of carnal and
>>> sensual worship. So too are we to see the antitypical and spiritual
>>> "Israel" in Galatians 6:16, and the celestial and eternal "Mount Zion"
>>> in Hebrews 12:22.
>>
>> Ever notice how much the cultists rely on the spurious book of
>> "Hebrews?"
>>
>> Ike
>
> The author of Hebrews, guided by the spirit of Christ...
The author of Hebrews was a non-Christian FRAUD, you dolt...
"Hebrews" was written as a direct assault on John's "Revelation" to turn
Christian eschatology and theology into Essene/Gnostic eschatology and
theology (as the author was probably an Ebionite, which was a Jewish
"Christian" sect that seemed to have derived its doctrines from the earlier
apocalyptic cults).
Watch...
Revelation/Hebrews parallels.
On the surface, it looks like the author of Hebrews is supporting John's
Revelation. But note that the author hardly EVER quotes John word for word.
And, as we'll find in a moment, the author of Hebrews insidiously changes
John's Revelation...
1) "But call to remembrance the former days, in which after ye were
illuminated ye endured a great fight of afflictions" (Heb.10:32) compared to
"Remember from whence thou art fallen...will remove thy lampstands
(illumination) ....I know thy works and thy labour" (Rev 2:1-7).
2) "God is not unrighteous to forget your work and the love, which ye showed
towards his name" (Heb.6:10) compared to "I know thy works and thy labour
and thy patience"(Rev 2:2).
3) "...that ye wax not weary fainting in your souls"(Heb.12:3) compared to
"..and hast borne, and hast patience and for my names sake hast laboured and
hast not fainted"(Rev 2:3).
4) "That no man fall after the same example of disobedience" (Heb.4:11)
compared to "Remember therefore from whence thou art fallen" (Rev 2:5).
5) ".how much more shall we not escape, who turn away from him that warneth
from heaven"(Heb.12:26) compared to the fact that Revelation is the only
message from Jesus spoken from heaven to the churches.
6) "And this word, yet once more signifieth the removing of those things
that are shaken" (Heb.12: 27) compared to "I will remove thy lampstand.."
(Rev 2:5, in terms of the Spirit's gifts & dependence on the Temple).
7) The word of God (Heb 4:12) compared to The word of God (Rev 19:13). (Only
John ever directly used the term "the Word of God" as a Name for Jesus.)
8) .."is sharper than a two-edged sword" (Heb 4:12) compared to "with a
sharp two-edged sword (Rev 1:16; 19:15).
9) "The city which hath (the: RV) foundations, whose builder and maker is
God" (Heb 11:10) compared to "The wall of the city (of God) had 12
foundations" (Rev 21:14).
And this whole sequence from Hebrews chapter 12:
10) "Mount Zion" compared to "The Lamb on Mount Zion (Rev 14:1)."
11) "Heavenly Jerusalem" compared to "New Jerusalem" out of heaven (Rev
21:2).
12) "The city of the living God" compared to "The God of the living
creatures" (Rev 4:6).
13) "An innumerable company of angels" compared to "The voice of many
angels" (Rev 5:11).
14) "The general assembly" compared to "The 144,000 sealed out of Israel"
(Rev ch.7&14).
15) "Written in heaven" compared to "Written in the Lamb's book of life"
(Rev 13:8; 21:27).
16) "God the judge of all" compared to "The dead standing before God to be
judged" (Rev 20:12).
17) "Jesus the mediator of a new covenant" compared to "A Lamb as it had
been slain" (Rev 5:5,6).
18) "The blood of sprinkling" compared to "Thou hast redeemed us to God by
thy blood" (Rev 5:9).
19) "Let us serve God" compared to "They serve him day and night in his
Temple" (7:15)
That's 19 paraphrases of Revelation statements in Hebrews, but not ONE
MENTION of the source, and hardly a direct quote in the bunch.
WHY?
First, it tells us that Hebrews was written AFTER JOHN WROTE REVELATION,
sometime in the second century.
But WHY doesn't the author acknowledge John, and why does he keep CHANGING
John's statements?
Simple: the author is SPECIFICALLY REVERSING REVELATION THEOLOGY and
ESCHATOLOGY (and, likewise, Gospel and Epistle theology) into ESSENE/GNOSTIC
theology and eschatology.
1) The author of Hebrews draws a distinction between man and angel that
neither Jesus, Paul, nor John drew. In fact, one of the functions of
Revelation is to CONNECT man to angel (and subsequently, demons) through the
"star = angel = ministers of the Word" trichotomy. This is specifically
clarified when the last angel of the Bible DECLARES that he was 1) a
fellowservant, 2) a brother in tribulation, and 3) of those who kept the
sayings of the book, i.e. A MARTYR. In other words, he was a MAN before he
was an "angel."
Who taught a distinction between man and angel, right down to their
creation?
The Essenes "Sons of Light" cult.
Hmmmmm.
2) The author of Hebrews teaches REPLACEMENT THEOLOGY, saying that the Old
Testament is "passed away," when Jesus, Paul, and John specifically said
otherwise.
Jesus SAID the all the law and the prophets would stand until the end of
heaven and earth.
Paul said, in terms of Israel as it was, wrote "for the gifts and callings
of God are WITHOUT REPENTANCE. Paul ALSO said that the law would be the
basis for the judgment of the world.
John taught dualism in a coming Remnant that will "keep the commandments of
God AND have the faith of Jesus" that will arise in the End of the Age. (Ah,
but the author of Hebrews REMOVES the 144,000 from his story.)
THIS is a BIGGIE.
Who taught that Judaism had passed away, and only they were the "true
remnant" of the old Israel?
The Essenes.
Hmmmmm.
3) The author of Hebrews changes the concept of a COVENANT (i.e. a TWO-PARTY
AGREEMENT) into the concept of A WILL (i.e. a one-party agreement). A
Covenant is binding on both parties, and both parties have responsibilities
in a Covenant. A will is only binding on one party, and only one party has
any responsibilities.
Haven't quite figured out how this one fits into the Essene picture.
Hmmmmm.
4) The author of Hebrews SKIPS the Millennium and jumps to the End of the
World, whereas Jesus, Paul, and John all treated the End of the Age and the
End of the World as TWO SEPARATE EVENTS (filled by the "happy kingdom"
prophecies of Isaiah and Jeremiah et al).
Who taught the imminent "End of the World" war between the righteous and
wicked, the angels and demons, and God and Satan?
The Essenes.
Hmmmmm.
5) Hebrews teaches the traditional seven-literal-days-past creation account
[ch 4], but John's Revelation says that creation is still ongoing (i.e. "for
you have created all things, and for your pleasure they are and were
created"), which means the seven days of creation are Macrocosmic (creation
days), not Microcosmic (literal days).
Who was an ultra-tradition faction of Judaism that taught strict biblical
literalism?
The Essenes.
Hmmmmm.
6) Hebrews 6 & 12 speaks of striving for perfection in the flesh by works
and laws, which was Asceticism, i.e. the concept that were are saved for
sins past by the Gospel (or, in the case of the Essenes, ritual baptism and
cleansing), but NOT sins future.
There's those Essenes again.
Hmmmmm.
********
Now, there are many good observations in Hebrews, but someone was playing it
fast and loose with their eschatological and theological claims, and it is
especially disturbing that whoever the author insinuated that he was Paul,
and copied from Paul's writings, too, when Paul was martyred before the
temple was destroyed, and Revelation was written soon afterward, with this
book coming up a distant third.
Ike
Fred A Stover
> On Sat, 31 Oct 2009 01:32:32 -0500, "Fred A Stover"
> <fst...@tx.rr.com> wrote in article
> <7l2rtcF...@mid.individual.net>:
>
>> Doug wrote:
>>> On Fri, 30 Oct 2009 09:50:23 -0500, "Ike E 10/29/09"
>>> <xhermanei...@gmail.com> wrote in article
> CLATTER Calling CLATTER SNARL a SNARL SNARL liar HISS a CLATTER liar
> CLATTER CLATTER HISS isn't GROWL SNARL CLATTER defamation. SNARL
> Calling CLATTER GROWL a CLATTER CLATTER blasphemer CLATTER a
> blasphemer GROWL isn't defamation. GROWL It's SNARL CLATTER a matter
> GROWL of HISS warning HISS SNARL SNARL the CLATTER folks you would
> deceive.
Your usual inane attempt at "thinking."
--
His,
More @ www.selah-tx.net
ho echon ota akoueto Preparing the way of the
Lord
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Verily I say unto you, Whosoever
shall not receive the kingdom of God
as a little child, he shall not enter therein.
(Mark 10:15)
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
<)))))))><
Fred A Stover
> On Sat, 31 Oct 2009 01:46:27 -0500, "Fred A Stover">>> On Thu, 29 Oct 2009 05:43:21 -0500, "Fred A Stover"
>>> <fst...@tx.rr.com> wrote in article
>>> <7kt9v3F...@mid.individual.net>:
>>
>>>> <satanic babble snipped>
>>>
>>> Without any hesitation, Fred A Stover labels the views of other
>>> dispensationalists, John N. Darby, H. Ironside, and William Kelly,
>>> as "satanic babble."
>
> Fred responds with his fiercest scowl, like one of locusts in Joel 2,
> who make loud clattering noises with their wings, and have lions'
> teeth:
No, Satan, you're the source of your Satanic babble.
How old are you? 8? 9? Don't know??
--
His,
More @ www.selah-tx.net
ho echon ota akoueto Preparing the way of the
Lord
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Verily I say unto you, Whosoever
shall not receive the kingdom of God
as a little child, he shall not enter therein.
(Mark 10:15)
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
<)))))))><
>
> GROWL GROWL More HISS of CLATTER your HISS lies, Satan, HISS CLATTER
> it's GROWL SNARL CLATTER your CLATTER babble CLATTER that CLATTER
> CLATTER I HISS snip. CLATTER SNARL GROWL
>
> With CLATTER CLATTER CLATTER CLATTER you CLATTER CLATTER it's SNARL
> HISS lie CLATTER after lie after SNARL CLATTER lie CLATTER after
> CLATTER CLATTER lie......
Fred A Stover
> On Sat, 31 Oct 2009 10:05:29 -0500, Doug <t...@sentex.net> wrote:
>
>> On Sat, 31 Oct 2009 01:32:32 -0500, "Fred A Stover"
He keeps proving he's an idiot.
--
His,
More @ www.selah-tx.net
ho echon ota akoueto Preparing the way of the
Lord
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Verily I say unto you, Whosoever
shall not receive the kingdom of God
as a little child, he shall not enter therein.
(Mark 10:15)
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
<)))))))><
>
> Bear