A reminder of what the Law is
randy
blessing. It was not the basis by which God determined if He would keep His
promises to the patriarchs, to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. Those promises are
eternal, and cannot be revoked. But the Law was a means by which the
national posterity of these patriarchs could be blessed and prosper. The Law
was an ongoing means by which ancient Israel could not only fulfil God's
promises to the patriarchs, but also enjoy God's blessings.
This is what the Law promised, in terms of health and prosperity....
Deut 6:18 And you shall do what is right and good in the sight of the LORD,
that it may go well with you, and that you may go in and take possession of
the good land which the LORD swore to give to your fathers
19 by thrusting out all your enemies from before you, as the LORD has
promised.
God's promise under the Law was that if Israel would obey the Law, they
would be blessed and inherit the land of Canaan. Failure to do so would
bring curses, destruction, and death. But it could not negate God's promises
to the patriarchs, that they would have a national posterity forever. The
Law was merely the means by which this nation could enjoy health, wealth,
and prosperity, while at the same time fulfilling God's promises to their
fathers.
The conditional nature of this Law was unmistakeable. If Israel would obey
the Law, God would keep the covenant. The implication, obviously, was that
if Israel did not keep the Law, God would *not* keep this covenant promising
health, wealth, and prosperity. The end result would be not just the end of
the covenant of Law, but also destruction and death, which obviously is
something less than the enjoyment of a covenant relationship. This is what
the Law said...
Deut 7:9 Know therefore that the LORD your God is God, the faithful God who
keeps covenant and steadfast love with those who love him and keep his
commandments, to a thousand generations,
10 and requites to their face those who hate him, by destroying them...
So it is clear that the Lord insinuated that if Israel did *not* keep the
covenant that God would not keep His end of the agreement either. Rather,
Israel would be destroyed, and not experience any more of the blessings that
the covenant was designed to provide.
Again, the failure of this covenant would not negate the promises God made
irrevokably with the patriarchs, with Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. Rather, a
failure in this covenant would only bring death and failure for the
generation that failed to obey the Law. Future generations could again enter
into a covenant relationship with God. But in view of the fact the covenant
was broken, it was a matter of God's choice as to whether He would renew the
same covenant in future generations, or establish an entirely new covenant.
And Jeremiah indicated that after a period of great failure under the Law by
the Israelis, God would initiate a brand new covenant, "not like the
covenant at Sinai"....
Jer 31:31 "Behold, the days are coming, says the LORD, when I will make a
new covenant with the house of Israel and the house of Judah,
32 not like the covenant which I made with their fathers when I took them
by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt, my covenant which they
broke, though I was their husband, says the LORD.
randy
vince garcia
You are absolutely right. And what a pity our jewish friends cannot see
they are under an unending curse for failing to keep the law, yet
cleaving to it and accepting the curse FOR failing to keep it.
28 And the rest of the people, the priests, the Levites, the porters,
the singers, the Nethinims, and all they that had separated themselves
from the people of the lands unto the law of God, their wives, their
sons, and their daughters, every one having knowledge, and having
understanding;
29 They clave to their brethren, their nobles, and entered into a curse,
and into an oath, to walk in God's law, which was given by Moses the
servant of God, and to observe and do all the commandments of the LORD
our Lord, and his judgments and his statutes;
randy
"vince garcia"
randy
> You are absolutely right. And what a pity our jewish friends cannot see
> they are under an unending curse for failing to keep the law, yet
> cleaving to it and accepting the curse FOR failing to keep it.
You know, the strange thing about it, Vince, is that I'm seeing a similar
thing happening in the church. You may or may not agree with me, but there
has been a call to focus on health, wealth, and prosperity, as if applying
ourselves to the gospel can bring about the *same blessings* as the
blessings promised under the Law.
Well, I do feel that the Law did provide a measure of blessings. But the
example of the Law showed the ultimate futility of trying to focus
exclusively on *nationalistic* salvation, as opposed to *individual*
salvation. Of course we want to see our nation saved, and we want to see our
nation prosper in the righteousness of God. But in due course all nations
fall into moral and spiritual decline, just as Israel did. In the end, it is
only a *faithful remnant* who maintain God's good favor.
And so, it is only a relatively small remnant that can enter into blessings
with the Lord. The nation as a whole falls under curses from God, and the
nation's curses become our own curses. Because we live in a cursed country,
we experience the same curses.
So I think the lesson is that we shouldn't focus primarily on the health,
wealth, and prosperity gospel, because we live in nations that are
experiencing spiritual and moral decline. And we will inevitably experience
illness, trouble, and persecution. We cannot base our faith on prosperity
alone, but largely, on the spiritual prosperity that comes to us internally,
through the residence of God's Spirit.
It is sad indeed that the Jews continue to focus on their national salvation
at the expense of *present* contentment. We might all long to see our nation
saved. But the path of this salvation begins with a relatively small remnant
who like Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob persevere all their lives in pleasing
the Lord. When we do so promises come down to us from heaven, and give us
eternal hope. We will see a reward. Let Christians and let faithful Jews be
so encouraged.
randy
vince garcia
>
> "vince garcia"
> randy
>
> > You are absolutely right. And what a pity our jewish friends cannot see
> > they are under an unending curse for failing to keep the law, yet
> > cleaving to it and accepting the curse FOR failing to keep it.
>
> You know, the strange thing about it, Vince, is that I'm seeing a similar
> thing happening in the church. You may or may not agree with me, but there
> has been a call to focus on health, wealth, and prosperity, as if applying
> ourselves to the gospel can bring about the *same blessings* as the
> blessings promised under the Law.
No, i'm aware of that. In fact, I teach that charistians who tithe in
obedience to malachai are bringing themselves under a curse if they
think obeying that comamndments will obligate God to bless them
>
> Well, I do feel that the Law did provide a measure of blessings. But the
> example of the Law showed the ultimate futility of trying to focus
> exclusively on *nationalistic* salvation, as opposed to *individual*
> salvation. Of course we want to see our nation saved, and we want to see our
> nation prosper in the righteousness of God. But in due course all nations
> fall into moral and spiritual decline, just as Israel did. In the end, it is
> only a *faithful remnant* who maintain God's good favor.
>
> And so, it is only a relatively small remnant that can enter into blessings
> with the Lord. The nation as a whole falls under curses from God, and the
> nation's curses become our own curses. Because we live in a cursed country,
> we experience the same curses.
>
> So I think the lesson is that we shouldn't focus primarily on the health,
> wealth, and prosperity gospel, because we live in nations that are
> experiencing spiritual and moral decline. And we will inevitably experience
> illness, trouble, and persecution. We cannot base our faith on prosperity
> alone, but largely, on the spiritual prosperity that comes to us internally,
> through the residence of God's Spirit.
Yes. Though it's equally wrong to equate poverty w/righteousness, and
IGNORE some NT verses that DO seem to say material prosperity is a part
of blessing
Sam Taylor
the Sky, and asked Him if He could enter into the Greath Neveland in
the Sky.
Big daddy answered him, that depends upon what does "Was" Mean?
On Sat, 26 Sep 2009 04:44:54 -0700, "randy" <rkl...@wavecable.com>
wrote:
Sam Taylor
IN the Law, BUT if He DOES NOT He is a LAWBREAKER and a Sinner.
so even now the LAW is the standard not a gut feeling You have with
Your whole Liver.
vince garcia
>
> QA man is a Law unto Himself ONLY if He DOES the things contained
> IN the Law, BUT if He DOES NOT He is a LAWBREAKER and a Sinner.
> so even now the LAW is the standard not a gut feeling You have with
> Your whole Liver.
Why are you posting on the shabbes?
Sam Taylor
It's shabbis,
the wonders of a solar powered home
on batteries.
Why I can even talk on my Ham radio equiptment
as it is also a Time for me to do pleasurable things.
Sam Taylor
NOW MY QUESTION!
What sort of SICK PERVERTED EGO cause Xtians like You
Pastor Dave, Terry Cross , even Randy
to come on a Messianic newsgroup insulting jews
and telling us Your G-D is going to toast us on his
Bar B Que, for being jews.
and decieved us By his Wonderfull Law
that you know nothing of, and Shows mercy on those
whom try to keep it.
If Your Xtians Jesus changes You so much
why does it make you Evil?
vince garcia
>
> On Sat, 26 Sep 2009 15:00:30 -0700, vince garcia
> <vggar...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>
> >Sam Taylor wrote:
> >>
> >> QA man is a Law unto Himself ONLY if He DOES the things contained
> >> IN the Law, BUT if He DOES NOT He is a LAWBREAKER and a Sinner.
> >> so even now the LAW is the standard not a gut feeling You have with
> >> Your whole Liver.
> >
> >Why are you posting on the shabbes?
> It's shabbis,
Not according to jews here which is where I got the spelling from. One
of them used to post each friday morning a GOOD SHABBES note for
everyone.
> the wonders of a solar powered home
> on batteries.
> Why I can even talk on my Ham radio equiptment
> as it is also a Time for me to do pleasurable things.
My bible says you should turn aside from doing your own pleasure on the
sabbath!
If thou turn away thy foot from the sabbath, from doing THY PLEASURE on
my holy day; and call the sabbath a delight, the holy of the LORD,
honourable; and shalt honour him, NOT DOING THINE OWN WAYS, nor finding
thine own pleasure, nor speaking thine own words:
This is what I mean about jews not keeping the law while saying they do!
Sam Taylor
since I have 1 G-D YHWH not Jesus.
since I don't build idols
since I don't pray to Idols or Bow down to Mary statues
I set aside Saturday to not Work on, but go to Temple
and don't cook on
Since I don't Steal,
since I don't murder
I don't covert others stuff
Nor sleep with their wives, or Girlfreinds
nor do I bear false wittness to others I am a Sinner to you
Xtians, and Your G-D jesus will destroy me for being so evil?
On Sat, 26 Sep 2009 17:27:44 -0700, vince garcia
vince garcia
>
> On Sat, 26 Sep 2009 15:00:30 -0700, vince garcia
> <vggar...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>
> >Sam Taylor wrote:
> >>
> >> QA man is a Law unto Himself ONLY if He DOES the things contained
> >> IN the Law, BUT if He DOES NOT He is a LAWBREAKER and a Sinner.
> >> so even now the LAW is the standard not a gut feeling You have with
> >> Your whole Liver.
> >
> >Why are you posting on the shabbes?
>
> NOW MY QUESTION!
> What sort of SICK PERVERTED EGO cause Xtians like You
> Pastor Dave, Terry Cross , even Randy
> to come on a Messianic newsgroup
First, this NG was specifically created for CHRISTIAN MESSIANICS, and
not Jews! You are the guest here, not us. If you'd been here for 12
years like I've been, you'd know that!
insulting jews
> and telling us Your G-D is going to toast us on his
> Bar B Que, for being jews.
I'll tell you whose ego--GOD'S ego! And just so there is no
misunderstanding, I will reiterate it again with NO apology and no
regard whatever for how offended you may be by it: If you reject the
atonement of Jesus Christ for your sins, you will die in them and
'toast' for eternity in hell, and the hypocrisy you call "torah
observance" won't cut you so much as one iota of slack. Further, let me
REALLY offend you by THIS truth: it makes no difference whatever whether
you're gunned down by a mobster while reading the paper, dying in a Nazi
gas chamber, or dying peacefully in your sleep--you reject Christ,
God...rejects...YOU!
Offended? Good!!! That means I am articulating an accurate,
uncompromised Gospel. The true Gospel will ALWAYS be an offense to an
unbelieving jew because it calls him out from his religious beliefs to a
savior he doesn't think he needs, a sacrifice for sin he denies, and a
covenant he rejects!
> and decieved us By his Wonderfull Law
> that you know nothing of, and Shows mercy on those
> whom try to keep it.
> If Your Xtians Jesus changes You so much
> why does it make you Evil?
What would be "evil" would be to hold back one iota from proclaiming the
TRUTH to you in order to befriend you and try to wean you off judaism
into the Gospel by neing "nice" and showing a good witness to you by
being a friendly, non-confrontational person!
OR...
Presenting a false gospel of torah observance with Christ added to it as
the Messianic tries to deceive you with.
vince garcia
>
> now let Me get this right
> since I have 1 G-D YHWH not Jesus.
> since I don't build idols
> since I don't pray to Idols or Bow down to Mary statues
> I set aside Saturday to not Work on, but go to Temple
> and don't cook on
> Since I don't Steal,
> since I don't murder
> I don't covert others stuff
> Nor sleep with their wives, or Girlfreinds
> nor do I bear false wittness to others I am a Sinner to you
> Xtians, and Your G-D jesus will destroy me for being so evil?
No--he will destroy you for NOT BELIEVING.
And you notice how you ducked the verse I provided that nailed you?
>My bible says you should turn aside from doing your own pleasure on the
> >sabbath!
> >
> >If thou turn away thy foot from the sabbath, from doing THY PLEASURE on
> >my holy day; and call the sabbath a delight, the holy of the LORD,
> >honourable; and shalt honour him, NOT DOING THINE OWN WAYS, nor finding
> >thine own pleasure, nor speaking thine own words:
> >
> >This is what I mean about jews not keeping the law while saying they do!
It still is
Sam Taylor
here in portugal sundown was
hours ago btw,
Sam Taylor
HE IS A PERVERT!
On Sat, 26 Sep 2009 17:46:04 -0700, vince garcia
Sam Taylor
<vggar...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>Sam Taylor wrote:
>>
>> On Sat, 26 Sep 2009 15:00:30 -0700, vince garcia
>> <vggar...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>>
>> >Sam Taylor wrote:
>> >>
>> >> QA man is a Law unto Himself ONLY if He DOES the things contained
>> >> IN the Law, BUT if He DOES NOT He is a LAWBREAKER and a Sinner.
>> >> so even now the LAW is the standard not a gut feeling You have with
>> >> Your whole Liver.
>> >
>> >Why are you posting on the shabbes?
>>
>> NOW MY QUESTION!
>> What sort of SICK PERVERTED EGO cause Xtians like You
>> Pastor Dave, Terry Cross , even Randy
>> to come on a Messianic newsgroup
>
>First, this NG was specifically created for CHRISTIAN MESSIANICS, and
>not Jews! You are the guest here, not us. If you'd been here for 12
>years like I've been, you'd know that!
It Was created for Messianic jews are messianic jews whom accept Jesus
as Messiah to discuss dogma
NOT FOR XTIAN SNIPERS AND CROSS POSTERS
BTW I was on this group 12 Years ago when Jews actualy DID POST
but were driven off by Insulting Xtians.
even Jews4 Jesus were not listened to
but most were UJMC
Union of Jewish Messianic Congregations and Jews.
WE DID NOT INSULT EACH OTHER even Subtily.
and Slyly
vince garcia
>
> On Sat, 26 Sep 2009 17:46:04 -0700, vince garcia
> <vggar...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>
> >Sam Taylor wrote:
> >>
> >> On Sat, 26 Sep 2009 15:00:30 -0700, vince garcia
> >> <vggar...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> >Sam Taylor wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> QA man is a Law unto Himself ONLY if He DOES the things contained
> >> >> IN the Law, BUT if He DOES NOT He is a LAWBREAKER and a Sinner.
> >> >> so even now the LAW is the standard not a gut feeling You have with
> >> >> Your whole Liver.
> >> >
> >> >Why are you posting on the shabbes?
> >>
> >> NOW MY QUESTION!
> >> What sort of SICK PERVERTED EGO cause Xtians like You
> >> Pastor Dave, Terry Cross , even Randy
> >> to come on a Messianic newsgroup
> >
> >First, this NG was specifically created for CHRISTIAN MESSIANICS, and
> >not Jews! You are the guest here, not us. If you'd been here for 12
> >years like I've been, you'd know that!
>
> It Was created for Messianic jews are messianic jews whom accept Jesus
> as Messiah to discuss dogma
> NOT FOR XTIAN SNIPERS AND CROSS POSTERS
I don't xpost, and I don't remember ever dialoguing with you. I sure
remember Shulman, Wolfe, Shoshani, Cohen, Joel, Zvi, and many
others...but I don't rememeber YOU at all.
> BTW I was on this group 12 Years ago when Jews actualy DID POST
> but were driven off by Insulting Xtians.
Really? And who are these poor jews who were so shy they were driven off
by the insults of Christians?
>
> even Jews4 Jesus were not listened to
> but most were UJMC
> Union of Jewish Messianic Congregations and Jews.
> WE DID NOT INSULT EACH OTHER even Subtily.
> and Slyly
Like i said...articulating the TRUE gospel will always be an offense to
an unbelieving jew like you.
There may in the past have been some menpleasers and gospel-compromisers
who kiss up to you and stroke you, but the very people you hate--like me
and moshe jr or randy, or whoever--are the ones who tell you the TRUTH!
By the way--I'm not aware of your converting after noting the example of
the selfless love of mother teresa, so the BS argument that I am an
abrasive jerk so that's a good reason to reject Christianity is just
that--BS.
You can use me, randy, or anything else as an excuse not to believe, but
that won't cut you any slack either at the Last Judgment
vince garcia
>
> If that is Your jesus G-D form of Love
> HE IS A PERVERT!
No, He is the savior of the world...the very same savior who gave THIS
warning to the jews (like you) who would not accept Him:
But those mine enemies, which would not that I should reign over them,
bring hither, and slay them before me.
The same savior who said this through john:
He that hath the Son hath life; and he that hath not the Son of God hath
not life.
The same savior who said this through john the baptist:
He that believeth on the Son hath everlasting life: and he that
believeth not the Son shall not see life; but the wrath of God abideth
on him.
THAT is the Jesus you have to look forward to at the last judgment, not
the false messiah Rob and the liars present who saves everyone if he IS
the messiah, jew and gentile, whether they believe in him or not. And it
makes no difference whether I'm a polite, smiling, respectful guy whose
tone you find no fault with--or a rude, abrasive SOB. Truth is truth,
and you will be judged not by how polite I am, but whether or not you
believe.
And no one is telling you to bow down to a statue of mary
vince garcia
>
> here in portugal sundown was
> hours ago btw,
>
But you still said you could do pleasurable things on the sabbath, like
post, so I don't know if you were kidding now...
You are Portuguese?? So am i (some)
Sam Taylor
5 of my tuna boats are ready to come off the ways
and be sent back to california.
Am visiting them and my Wifes relatives
Whom are also Jewish
Rob Strom
> Sam Taylor wrote:
>
...
> > NOW MY QUESTION!
> > What sort of SICK PERVERTED EGO cause Xtians like You
> > Pastor Dave, Terry Cross , even Randy
> > to come on a Messianic newsgroup
>
> First, this NG was specifically created for CHRISTIAN MESSIANICS, and
> not Jews! You are the guest here, not us. If you'd been here for 12
> years like I've been, you'd know that!
I've been here since 1991 when it was founded,
and you should know better.
It was founded for debate *between*
Messianics and their Christian supporters on one side,
and Jews on the other.
You can still read Andrew Burt's founding messages.
>
> insulting jews
>
> > and telling us Your G-D is going to toast us on his
> > Bar B Que, for being jews.
>
> I'll tell you whose ego--GOD'S ego!
And you know this how?
> And just so there is no
> misunderstanding, I will reiterate it again with NO apology and no
> regard whatever for how offended you may be by it:
Of course if I imply in the slightest that I know
more than you, you are the first to get offended
that I have breached some rule of manners,
but when you are mouthing off you make
it clear that you don't believe in manners.
> If you reject the
> atonement of Jesus Christ for your sins, you will die in them and
> 'toast' for eternity in hell, and the hypocrisy you call "torah
> observance" won't cut you so much as one iota of slack.
I think I'll take the chance.
It's much more likely that Jesus will reject Sarah Palin than me.
For her sake, I hope they're wrong about the hell part.
>
> Further, let me
> REALLY offend you by THIS truth: it makes no difference whatever whether
> you're gunned down by a mobster while reading the paper, dying in a Nazi
> gas chamber, or dying peacefully in your sleep--you reject Christ,
> God...rejects...YOU!
>
> Offended? Good!!! That means I am articulating an accurate,
> uncompromised Gospel.
No. You're articulating the exaggerations of
the polemics of reformers like Luther, before
later generations toned down the rhetoric
and slowly buried the unsavory language.
> The true Gospel will ALWAYS be an offense to an
> unbelieving jew
I think you meant to write "believing Jew".
Most believing Jews accept 95% of what Jesus
said; they reject most of Paul's nonsense,
and all of the fundamentalists' nonsense.
...
>
> What would be "evil" would be to hold back one iota from proclaiming the
> TRUTH to you in order to befriend you and try to wean you off judaism
> into the Gospel by neing "nice" and showing a good witness to you by
> being a friendly, non-confrontational person!
That sword cuts both ways. It's amazing how arrogant
some of the Christians here think I am when I tell
them that God and Jesus both consider them
sinners for voting with the Republicans. I
> Presenting a false gospel of torah observance with Christ added to it as
> the Messianic tries to deceive you with.
The whole idea of being saved based upon
guessing right about what unprovable
events to believe in is ridiculous and I
reject it. There isn't a syllable in the
real Bible about that anyway.
--
Rob Strom
Sam Taylor
Believe in the Law, and try to keep it, as part of their Jewishness
They keep the Holy days of Israel.
they REJECT the Trinity
but not the G-Dship of G-D
They believe in the MAN sent by
YHWH.
You confuse Pauls teachings as applying to the Messianic Congregations
IT NEVER DID
Paul was sent to gentiles,not Jews
He was set apart (Sanctified) to the Gentile
ministry.
When constantine started His Pagan "CHURCH"
HE DESTROYED TO MINISTRY OF YAHSHUAH
and set up a False Religion.
The Messianicf Ministry differs greatly from the Gentile Church, and
that is all You hear of on this NG now
with INSULTS TO JEWS, whom We consider Kinsman.
WE hAVE ONLY one G-D YHWH
We don't believe in a Holy heavenly siamese tripplette
or a g-D with Multiple Personality disorder.
NOR KEEP PAGAN CELEBRATIONS.
On Sat, 26 Sep 2009 18:24:05 -0700, vince garcia
bob young
randy wrote:
> The Law was a conditional covenant. It was a covenant of prosperity and
> blessing. It was not the basis by which God determined if He would keep His
> promises to the patriarchs, to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. Those promises are
> eternal, and cannot be revoked. But the Law was a means by which the
> national posterity of these patriarchs could be blessed and prosper. The Law
> was an ongoing means by which ancient Israel could not only fulfil God's
> promises to the patriarchs, but also enjoy God's blessings.
Biblical law was written by men of the time who, in the absence of Law
Enforcement and Court's of Law to continue the process, had no alternative but
to adopt an imaginary god who, through fear, would punish any bad guys [see
original post below] who broke their simple primitive laws, sometimes referred
to as The Ten Commandments..
All rather primitive wasn't it ?.
Modern law has nothing at all to do with religion and everything to do with
humanity and Humanism.
>
> This is what the Law promised, in terms of health and prosperity....
> Deut 6:18 And you shall do what is right and good in the sight of the LORD .
> . . .
Example above
vince garcia
So you fish for yellow fin, then?
vince garcia
>
> Most messianic jews whom accept Yahshuah Messiah
> Believe in the Law, and try to keep it, as part of their Jewishness
> They keep the Holy days of Israel.
Agreed
> they REJECT the Trinity
And that is VERY problematic, but not, i would say, utterly
insurmountable
> but not the G-Dship of G-D
> They believe in the MAN sent by
> YHWH.
> You confuse Pauls teachings as applying to the Messianic Congregations
> IT NEVER DID
If you're saying the messianics here have a different gospel than the
one paul preached, i agree
> Paul was sent to gentiles,not Jews
> He was set apart (Sanctified) to the Gentile
> ministry.
> When constantine started His Pagan "CHURCH"
> HE DESTROYED TO MINISTRY OF YAHSHUAH
> and set up a False Religion.
no. What the Christian church believed, so far as the law goes, was
believed from the start, cuz it's in the BIBLE, not because of
constantine
The messianics of paul's time--i mean the group you seem to approve
of--were a pox in the faith, and a constant frustration to paul, because
of their similar beliefs to what messianics here believe.
That's why Snow is honest enough to reject paul--snow and paul have
different messiahs and different gospels
> The Messianicf Ministry differs greatly from the Gentile Church, and
> that is all You hear of on this NG now
> with INSULTS TO JEWS, whom We consider Kinsman.
Are you saying you're a christian messianic???
vince garcia
>
> On Sep 26, 8:46 pm, vince garcia <vggarci...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
> > Sam Taylor wrote:
> >
> ...
> > > NOW MY QUESTION!
> > > What sort of SICK PERVERTED EGO cause Xtians like You
> > > Pastor Dave, Terry Cross , even Randy
> > > to come on a Messianic newsgroup
> >
> > First, this NG was specifically created for CHRISTIAN MESSIANICS, and
> > not Jews! You are the guest here, not us. If you'd been here for 12
> > years like I've been, you'd know that!
>
> I've been here since 1991 when it was founded,
> and you should know better.
>
> It was founded for debate *between*
> Messianics and their Christian supporters on one side,
> and Jews on the other.
but its creation was to get the messianics out the the jewish NGs
because the jews wished them gone. You denying that?
Rob Strom
More specifically, it was to get *discussions* pro and con
about Jesus and evangelism out of the Jewish groups.
--
Rob Strom
Sam Taylor
I AM NOT XTIAN ANYTHING!
I AM NO PAGAN WORSHIPER
Terry Cross
Most ironic. Every time the Jews invade this group, they assert that
"Jesus was a Jew." All Jews are legitimate subject for discussion in
SCJ, but Jesus is not.
Similarly, when they admit Jesus existed, they claim he was a good
rabbi but cannot explain why the Sanhedrin wanted him crucified.
TCross
Sam Taylor
actualy the keeping of Sunday sabboth did NOT happen
in your church until the 6th century, 200 Years later
they adopted the Trinity
THE RCC started with the Saturday Sabboth and
believed in the Law for 300 years.
and even Today there is no scriptural reason
FOR SUNDAY WORSHIP!
Sam Taylor
My family Owns a Tuna Fleet of which these 5 new boats will be a part
of.
We also own a Winery in norther California, and I am
myself not a wine Maker.
btw I am not a xtian I AM JEWISH.
Xtianity is a Gentile Church.
On Sun, 27 Sep 2009 01:43:15 GMT, cyg...@cncnet.com (Sam Taylor)
wrote:
Terry Cross
No? Then why are the months of the Jewish calendar named for the
Babylonian gods?
TCross
Sam Taylor
wrote:
>I am a Ships Pilot and a Member of the Master Mates & Pilots
>My family Owns a Tuna Fleet of which these 5 new boats will be a part
>of.
>We also own a Winery in norther California, and I am
>myself not a wine Maker.
>btw I am not a xtian I AM JEWISH.
>Xtianity is a Gentile Church.
the romans DID NOT CRUCIFY until 35 Years after Yahshuah's death He
Was Impalled not on a cross but a Single upright pole.
The Cross is a Pagan Symbol of a Man & Woman having sex.
it predates Xtianity thousands of Years.
just as much of Xtianity mingles much of earlier symbolisms.
Your Easter is the celebration of the Quen of Heaven,
with it's Sunday sunrise services, "Hot Cross" buns
Easter bunnies, and bunny eggs.
The symbol constantine used to Conquer was
NOT a Sign of messianic Worship
but Worship of that queen, they made Mary
out to be venus.
btw there were 5 Impalled with Yahshuah
2 robbers , burglers, and 2 muggers or
highwaymen.
the Reason rome Crucified was it was a roman symbol
adopted 35 Years after Yahshuahs death.
It would have been abhoreant to any jew who saw it.
it was after even Massada that it became an impliment of roman
executions.
Pastor Dave
<rkl...@wavecable.com> spake thusly:
>The Law was a conditional covenant. It was a covenant of prosperity and
>blessing. It was not the basis by which God determined if He would keep His
>promises to the patriarchs, to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. Those promises are
>eternal, and cannot be revoked. But the Law was a means by which the
>national posterity of these patriarchs could be blessed and prosper. The Law
>was an ongoing means by which ancient Israel could not only fulfil God's
>promises to the patriarchs, but also enjoy God's blessings.
>
>This is what the Law promised, in terms of health and prosperity....
>Deut 6:18 And you shall do what is right and good in the sight of the LORD,
I understand where you're trying to go here,
but the problem with your argument is threefold:
1) They did not always possess the land.
And in fact, God said that He would
"destroy them off of the land" is they
did not obey the covenant.
2) The Law is done and over with. Nailed
to the cross with Christ and God is not
running two covenants, side by side.
If that were true, then Jews don't need
Christ and there are two ways to salvation
and animal sacrifices are still valid. You
don't get to pick and choose parts of
the Mosaic Covenant and claim this part
is active, but that part isn't and you can
use this part, but not that and need Christ.
3) The true Israel is the church in Christ,
not a strip of land and this was always
the plan.
The fact is, that it all culminated in the destruction
of the temple in 70 AD, almost 2,000 years ago
and yet, still no temple. And as any Rabbi can
tell you, Biblical Judaism ended in 70 AD. And
whether you want to believe in what I do about
eschatology or not is irrelevant. This is still a fact.
As I have said, I believe that Leviticus and Hebrews
combined is the key to understanding the entire Bible.
And we should read about Abraham in Hebrews.
Hebrews 11:8-16
8) By faith Abraham, when he was called to go out
into a place which he should after receive for an
inheritance, obeyed; and he went out, not knowing
whither he went.
9) By faith he sojourned in the land of promise, AS IN
A STRANGE COUNTRY, dwelling in tabernacles with
Isaac and Jacob, the heirs with him of the same promise:
10) FOR HE LOOKED FOR A CITY which hath foundations,
whose builder and maker [is] God.
11) Through faith also Sara herself received strength
to conceive seed, and was delivered of a child when
she was past age, because she judged him faithful
who had promised.
12) Therefore sprang there even of one, and him
as good as dead, [so many] as the stars of the sky
in multitude, and as the sand which is by the sea
shore innumerable.
13) These all died in faith, not having received the
promises, but having seen them afar off, and were
persuaded of [them] , and embraced [them] , and
confessed that THEY WERE STRANGER AND PILGRIMS
on the earth.
14) For they that say such things declare plainly that
THEY SEEK A COUNTRY.
15) And truly, if they had been mindful of that [country]
from whence they came out, they might have had
opportunity to have returned.
16) But now they DESIRE A BETTER COUNTRY, that is,
AN HEAVENLY: wherefore God is not ashamed to be
called their God: for he hath prepared for them a city.
So even though they did indeed live in the physical land
that God had promised them, it wasn't that land that
they looked for, but a Heavenly city, whose builder and
maker is God. And they dwelt in the land of promise,
as if in a foreign land, because even though they were
there, they still sought a country. Now why would they
do that, if they had landed in the true promised land?
Think about it. There's a lot there! :)
--
Pastor Dave
The following is part of my auto-rotating
sig file and not part of the message body.
You're only as sick as your secrets.
Pastor Dave
<rkl...@wavecable.com> spake thusly:
>The Law was a conditional covenant. It was a covenant of prosperity and
>blessing. It was not the basis by which God determined if He would keep His
>promises to the patriarchs, to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. Those promises are
>eternal, and cannot be revoked. But the Law was a means by which the
>national posterity of these patriarchs could be blessed and prosper. The Law
>was an ongoing means by which ancient Israel could not only fulfil God's
>promises to the patriarchs, but also enjoy God's blessings.
>
>This is what the Law promised, in terms of health and prosperity....
>Deut 6:18 And you shall do what is right and good in the sight of the LORD,
>that it may go well with you, and that you may go in and take possession of
>the good land which the LORD swore to give to your fathers
>19 by thrusting out all your enemies from before you, as the LORD has
>promised.
God kept them, because the Promise was to the Seed.
Not to "seeds", as of many, but the "Seed", singular.
Galatians 3:13-17
13) Christ hath redeemed us from the curse of the law,
being made a curse for us: for it is written, Cursed [is]
every one that hangeth on a tree:
14) That the blessing of Abraham might come on the
Gentiles through Jesus Christ; that we might receive
the promise of the Spirit through faith.
15) Brethren, I speak after the manner of men; Though
[it be] but a man's covenant, yet [if it be] confirmed,
no man disannulleth, or addeth thereto.
16) Now to Abraham and his seed were the promises
made. He saith not, And to seeds, as of many; but as
of one, And to thy seed, which is Christ.
17) And this I say, [that] the covenant, that was confirmed
before of God in Christ, the law, which was four hundred
and thirty years after, cannot disannul, that it should make
the promise of none effect.
--
Pastor Dave
The following is part of my auto-rotating
sig file and not part of the message body.
"If you keep doing what you always do, you keep
getting what you always got." - Orlando
vince garcia
thou'rt splitting hairs. The christians were wanted out of the jewish
NGs because they argued about JESUS
Terry Cross
In Christianity, a person can worship any day of the week without
offending. The day of worship is established among the worshipers.
The Christian God does not need an appointment.
TCross
Sam Taylor
the title of the NG should give you a hint "messianic"
Xtians are NOT Messianic for they DON'T have a Messiah
For their G-D died for them thus disqualifying that G-D
from being a Messiah.
G-D cannot Mediate between G-D and Himself
nor be an unbiased mediator between G-D and Man.
it was not for Xtians to come and Insult Jews,
and call them all kind of Dog's.
or cry about Adolph Hitler being abused.
no matter what your "pastor" might say.
Sam Taylor
>>> --
>>> Rob Strom
>>
>>thou'rt splitting hairs. The christians were wanted out of the jewish
>>NGs because they argued about JESUS
>
>the title of the NG should give you a hint "messianic"
>Xtians are NOT Messianic for they DON'T have a Messiah
>For their G-D died for them thus disqualifying that G-D
>from being a Messiah.
>G-D cannot Mediate between G-D and Himself
Maybe he can Mediate between not himself but the other 2
Xtian G-D's
when those 2 G-D's argue about stuff, like
which G-D gets to use the Bathroom first.
Terry Cross
> >>> --
> >>> Rob Strom
>
> >>thou'rt splitting hairs. The christians were wanted out of the jewish
> >>NGs because they argued about JESUS
>
> >the title of the NG should give you a hint "messianic"
> >Xtians are NOT Messianic for they DON'T have a Messiah
> >For their G-D died for them thus disqualifying that G-D
> >from being a Messiah.
> >G-D cannot Mediate between G-D and Himself
>
> Maybe he can Mediate between not himself but the other 2
> Xtian G-D's
> when those 2 G-D's argue about stuff, like
> which G-D gets to use the Bathroom first.
Funny thing about the Jewish obsession with sex and potty stuff. Do
you know the Talmud rabbis boasted of never touching their sexual
organs when they urinated to avoid the temptation to masturbate?
But has it not been taught: R. Eliezer said, 'Whoever holds his
membrum when he makes water is as though he had brought a flood on the
world'? To this Abaye replied. 'With a thick rag'. Raba replied: It
may even be said to apply to a soft rag for once the semen has been
detached the subsequent touch does no longer matter. And Abaye? -- He
made provision against the possibility of an additional discharge. And
Raba? -- He does not consider the possibility of any additional
discharges. But does he not, seeing that it was taught, 'To what may
this be compared? To the putting of a finger upon the eye where, as
long as the finger remains on it, the eye continues to tear'? Now
Raba? -- It is quite uncommon for one to get heated twice in immediate
succession.
[Reverting to] the main text: 'R. Eliezer said, Whoever holds his
membrum when he makes water is as though he had brought a flood on the
world'. But, they said to R. Eliezer, would not the spray bespatter
his feet and he would appear to be maimed in his privy parts so that
he would be the cause of casting upon his children the reflection of
being illegitimate? -- Niddah 13a
http://come-and-hear.com/niddah/niddah_13.html
TCross
Pastor Dave
<tcro...@hotmail.com> spake thusly:
>On Sep 28, 12:24�pm, cyg...@cncnet.com (Sam Taylor) wrote:
>
>> >>> Rob Strom
>>
>> >>thou'rt splitting hairs. The christians were wanted out of the jewish
>> >>NGs because they argued about JESUS
>>
>> >the title of the NG should give you a hint "messianic"
>> >Xtians are NOT Messianic for they DON'T have a Messiah
>> >For their G-D died for them thus disqualifying that G-D
>> >from being a Messiah.
>> >G-D cannot Mediate between G-D and Himself
>>
>> Maybe he can Mediate between not himself but the other 2
>> Xtian G-D's
>> when those 2 G-D's argue about stuff, like
>> which G-D gets to use the Bathroom first.
>
>Funny thing about the Jewish obsession with sex and potty stuff.
Yes, they do seem to be obsessed with those things. :)
>Do
>you know the Talmud rabbis boasted of never touching their sexual
>organs when they urinated to avoid the temptation to masturbate?
Hahaha!!! If I get that bad, then it's time to shoot me! :)
--
Pastor Dave
The following is part of my auto-rotating
sig file and not part of the message body.
"The truth may set you free, but first
it's going to piss you off." - Alec Baldwin
randy
"vince garcia"
randy
> No, i'm aware of that. In fact, I teach that charistians who tithe in
> obedience to malachai are bringing themselves under a curse if they
> think obeying that comamndments will obligate God to bless them
I've made a number of Christian ministers angry with my belief on the
"tithe." It is, in fact, under the Law, and causes Christian ministers to
tremble with fear that I'm advocating no money be given them or the church!
In fact, I think giving money to the church is as necessary as paying our
monthly utility bills. We need to finance any operation that God has truly
sanctioned. And we should do so not by dropping a dollar in the plate, but
by making out a healthy check (if we can).
God does not discriminate against poor people who can afford only a dollar!
God does not require ten percent from people who have nothing left after
they've paid their bills! Frankly, if we were to follow the spirit of the
Law, poor people or needy people should only have to catch pigeons and offer
them up as food for the pastors. Poor people were allowed, under the Law, to
use what was freely available to them to offer to God without almost zero
cost. All God seemed to want was that we express real desire and exert
minimal effort. Sometimes to "love God with all our strength" means we can
only just barely stand up and hand a small token to God.
>> So I think the lesson is that we shouldn't focus primarily on the health,
>> wealth, and prosperity gospel, because we live in nations that are
>> experiencing spiritual and moral decline. And we will inevitably
>> experience
>> illness, trouble, and persecution. We cannot base our faith on prosperity
>> alone, but largely, on the spiritual prosperity that comes to us
>> internally,
>> through the residence of God's Spirit.
> Yes. Though it's equally wrong to equate poverty w/righteousness, and
> IGNORE some NT verses that DO seem to say material prosperity is a part
> of blessing
You're very balanced, I'm happy to say, my friend...
randy
randy
"bob young"
randy
> Biblical law was written by men of the time who, in the absence of Law
> Enforcement and Court's of Law to continue the process, had no alternative
> but
> to adopt an imaginary god who, through fear, would punish any bad guys
> [see
> original post below] who broke their simple primitive laws, sometimes
> referred
> to as The Ten Commandments..
> All rather primitive wasn't it ?.
It appears primitive because it was an ancient law dealing with an ancient
people. There were circumstances unique to that time requiring God to tell
Hebrews not to have goatees and tatoos, for example. But otherwise the Law
was a very holy document, with a strong indication that the author was
divine. It is an amazing document inasmuch as we still refer to it today.
And it has influenced the largest religions on this planet. So it deserves
more respect than your diminutions.
Keep in mind that the Law was a conditional contract that could be done away
with. And I believe it was. God knew Israel would not just violate the
covenant, but smash it entirely. And so the Law was done away with as a
covenant, still leaving the promises made to the patriarchs intact.
Today God intends to fulfil His promises to the patriarchs and to Israel in
an entirely different way. And that's why we discuss things here on
alt.messianic.
randy
randy
"Pastor Dave"
randy
>>Again, the failure of this covenant would not negate the promises God made
>>irrevokably with the patriarchs, with Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. Rather, a
>>failure in this covenant would only bring death and failure for the
>>generation that failed to obey the Law. Future generations could again
>>enter
>>into a covenant relationship with God.
> I understand where you're trying to go here,
> but the problem with your argument is threefold:
> 1) They did not always possess the land.
> And in fact, God said that He would
> "destroy them off of the land" is they
> did not obey the covenant.
That is not a problem with my argument. That is *part* of my argument. The
Law was a *temporary* agreement, conditioned on Israel's obedience. Yes, the
covenant was designed to handle minor infractions and even some serious
setbacks. But it was not designed to survive national apostasy and a
complete letdown in the agreement.
And if the Law was conditional and could not be guaranteed perpetuity, then
it was just a temporary agreement at best. Not only could God discontinue
blessing Israel, but all that went with those blessings could be revoked as
well, including the inheritance of the land.
> 2) The Law is done and over with. Nailed
> to the cross with Christ and God is not
> running two covenants, side by side.
> If that were true, then Jews don't need
> Christ and there are two ways to salvation
> and animal sacrifices are still valid. You
> don't get to pick and choose parts of
> the Mosaic Covenant and claim this part
> is active, but that part isn't and you can
> use this part, but not that and need Christ.
Obviously you aren't understanding where I was going with my argument. But I
don't blame you--I just don't always communicate very well. What I'm trying
to say is that the Law is indeed passe and can no longer guarantee Israel
prosperity, health, and blessing. That was a temporary covenant designed to
accompany the eternal promises God gave to Israel, so that Abraham, Isaac,
and Jacob would always have heirs to inherit eternal blessings. Until the
end of the age, this is always true, that Abraham's heirs have opportunity
to contribute to the church.
> 3) The true Israel is the church in Christ,
> not a strip of land and this was always
> the plan.
In my theology, the church is both. It is that group of people who believe
in Jesus as the Messiah and the body of Christians that exist in all
nations. That means the church exists in Israel as much as in America. And
so, nations do play a role in God's plan. Otherwise, God would only be for
individuals, and not for society.
> The fact is, that it all culminated in the destruction
> of the temple in 70 AD, almost 2,000 years ago
> and yet, still no temple. And as any Rabbi can
> tell you, Biblical Judaism ended in 70 AD. And
> whether you want to believe in what I do about
> eschatology or not is irrelevant. This is still a fact.
I agree that Israel under the Law ended at that time. There is no more Law
of Moses, and there was no more Israel up until 1947-48. But I do believe
that it is significant that Israel was reborn as a nation--just as
significant as the existence of any nation on the earth, and even moreso
because of Israel's place in biblical prophecy. I do realize that you
believe biblical prophecy is realized, and that you're a preterist, or
historicist interpretor. That's okay. I won't split company with you over
it.
> So even though they did indeed live in the physical land
> that God had promised them, it wasn't that land that
> they looked for, but a Heavenly city, whose builder and
> maker is God. And they dwelt in the land of promise,
> as if in a foreign land, because even though they were
> there, they still sought a country. Now why would they
> do that, if they had landed in the true promised land?
The land was held under a temporary promise, the Law of Moses. So the land
represented something more important, which is God Himself. However, God did
design for us to have an eternal place to dwell. So He is not just
interested in us, but in a place for us to dwell. Israel could not find that
lasting place under the Law. But they can find it under Christ. As Jesus
said, "the meek will inherit the earth."
randy
Terry Cross
> "Pastor Dave"
> randy
>
> >>Again, the failure of this covenant would not negate the promises God made
> >>irrevokably with the patriarchs, with Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. Rather, a
> >>failure in this covenant would only bring death and failure for the
> >>generation that failed to obey the Law. Future generations could again
> >>enter
> >>into a covenant relationship with God.
> > I understand where you're trying to go here,
> > but the problem with your argument is threefold:
> > 1) They did not always possess the land.
> > And in fact, God said that He would
> > "destroy them off of the land" is they
> > did not obey the covenant.
>
> That is not a problem with my argument. That is *part* of my argument. The
> Law was a *temporary* agreement, conditioned on Israel's obedience. Yes, the
> covenant was designed to handle minor infractions and even some serious
> setbacks. But it was not designed to survive national apostasy and a
> complete letdown in the agreement.
>
> And if the Law was conditional and could not be guaranteed perpetuity, then
> it was just a temporary agreement at best. Not only could God discontinue
> blessing Israel, but all that went with those blessings could be revoked as
> well, including the inheritance of the land.
Randy, I need a little help understanding this line of reasoning.
If Israel was so wicked that they were expelled from the land, we
should be able to identify the wickedness. We already know about the
Assyrian invasion and the Babylonian Captivity, but after that, the
Jew were permitted to return to Israel. So whatever happened to earn
the diaspora happened between 400 BC and 70 AD.
According to all the Jewish records, the Jews were nice folks, kept
the law, etc. Christians don't say too much about that except that
the Jews had Jesus Crucified, but even saying that is considered in
bad taste.
So far as anyone knows, the Judaism of Jerusalem at the time of Jesus
was pretty much the Judaism of Israel today, except for the Temple,
which nobody seems to know how to get going again.
So what was that Great Sin that you allege and Rob denies?
TCross
bob young
randy wrote:
> "bob young"
> randy
>
> > Biblical law was written by men of the time who, in the absence of Law
> > Enforcement and Court's of Law to continue the process, had no alternative
> > but
> > to adopt an imaginary god who, through fear, would punish any bad guys
> > [see
> > original post below] who broke their simple primitive laws, sometimes
> > referred
> > to as The Ten Commandments..
> > All rather primitive wasn't it ?.
>
> It appears primitive because it was an ancient law dealing with an ancient
> people. There were circumstances unique to that time requiring God to tell
> Hebrews not to have goatees and tatoos, for example. But otherwise the Law
> was a very holy document, with a strong indication that the author was
> divine.
Such as ? Apart from those ot the time saying so !
How come today Laws are made by men not gods ?
> It is an amazing document inasmuch as we still refer to it today.
Yes I am well aware of that and aware also of the lunacy of so doing.
It is all a means to an end, of course.
The more I study religions the more I am convinced that man never worshipped
anything but himself.
[Richard Burton]
>
> And it has influenced the largest religions on this planet. So it deserves
> more respect than your diminutions.
In that case respect young children and make sure they are not inculcated with
nonsense before they are old enough to make free decisions of their own. It
should be a criminal offense, maybe one day it will be, when humanity comes to
it's senses.
>
> Keep in mind that the Law was a conditional contract that could be done away
> with. And I believe it was. God knew Israel would not just violate the
> covenant, but smash it entirely. And so the Law was done away with as a
> covenant, still leaving the promises made to the patriarchs intact.
>
> Today God intends to fulfil His promises to the patriarchs and to Israel in
> an entirely different way. And that's why we discuss things here on
> alt.messianic.
He told you that 'Himself' did He ? If so why does "He' need a mere human to
pass on his word ?
Or is it simply a case of it al being the work of humans
from the first Christian to the last.
How come your god is a 'He' - because the men who made it up were also 'He's'
That's' why
Women were chattels in those days
Bob
Humanist, atheist, realist, sentimentalist Brit.
Member of S.M.A.S.H.
(Sarcastic Middle-aged Atheists with a Sense of Humor)
Man creates his gods in his own image,
then spends the rest of his life
manipulating them to his heart's content
R E L I G I O N - it is all in the mind,
an escape from life's realities and hardships,
sixty percent ritual, forty percent fantasy
>
>
Terry Cross
Is that Richard Burton the actor, or Sir Richard Francis Burton, the
explorer who translated the On Thousand Nights and One Night into
English ?
TCross
bob young
Terry Cross wrote:
You will have to take your pick I have no idea, but I would put my bet on the
actor.
>
>
> TCross
Pastor Dave
<rkl...@wavecable.com> spake thusly:
>"Pastor Dave"
>
>>randy
>>
>>> Again, the failure of this covenant would not
>>> negate the promises God made irrevokably
>>> with the patriarchs, with Abraham, Isaac,
>>> and Jacob. Rather, a failure in this covenant
>>> would only bring death and failure for the
>>> generation that failed to obey the Law.
>>> Future generations could again enter into
>>> a covenant relationship with God.
>>
>> I understand where you're trying to go here,
>> but the problem with your argument is threefold:
>>
>> 1) They did not always possess the land.
>> And in fact, God said that He would
>> "destroy them off of the land" is they
>> did not obey the covenant.
>
> That is not a problem with my argument.
> That is *part* of my argument.
Yea, I don't know how I misread that. :)
Unless I was commenting to the poster
before you? You snipped that, so I am
not sure, as I deleted the message from
my system.
>> 2) The Law is done and over with. Nailed
>> to the cross with Christ and God is not
>> running two covenants, side by side.
>> If that were true, then Jews don't need
>> Christ and there are two ways to salvation
>> and animal sacrifices are still valid. You
>> don't get to pick and choose parts of
>> the Mosaic Covenant and claim this part
>> is active, but that part isn't and you can
>> use this part, but not that and need Christ.
>
> Obviously you aren't understanding where
> I was going with my argument.
Obviously. :) But see above. I'm not saying
I didn't take what you said wrong. I'm just
wondering if I was actually responding to
the poster before you and simply messed
up the attribution.
--
Pastor Dave
The following is part of my auto-rotating
sig file and not part of the message body.
"Tragedy is a tool for the living to gain wisdom,
not a guide by which to live."
Pastor Dave
<rkl...@wavecable.com> spake thusly:
>randy
>
>> The fact is, that it all culminated in the destruction
>> of the temple in 70 AD, almost 2,000 years ago
>> and yet, still no temple. And as any Rabbi can
>> tell you, Biblical Judaism ended in 70 AD. And
>> whether you want to believe in what I do about
>> eschatology or not is irrelevant. This is still a fact.
>
> I agree that Israel under the Law ended at that time.
> There is no more Law of Moses, and there was no
> more Israel up until 1947-48. But I do believe that
> it is significant that Israel was reborn as a nation--
> just as significant as the existence of any nation on
> the earth, and even moreso because of Israel's place
> in biblical prophecy.
It may be significant to Jews and even to the world
as far as politics and the military is concerned, but
it is not significant to Biblical prophecy.
> I do realize that you believe biblical prophecy is realized
> and that you're a preterist, or historicist interpretor.
> That's okay. I won't split company with you over it.
Well, logically, you'd have to prove me wrong to do so. :)
--
Pastor Dave
The following is part of my auto-rotating
sig file and not part of the message body.
"Knowledge and timber shouldn't be much used
till they are seasoned." -Oliver Wendell Holmes
Pastor Dave
<tcro...@hotmail.com> spake thusly:
>> That is not a problem with my argument. That is *part* of my argument. The
>> Law was a *temporary* agreement, conditioned on Israel's obedience. Yes, the
>> covenant was designed to handle minor infractions and even some serious
>> setbacks. But it was not designed to survive national apostasy and a
>> complete letdown in the agreement.
>>
>> And if the Law was conditional and could not be guaranteed perpetuity, then
>> it was just a temporary agreement at best. Not only could God discontinue
>> blessing Israel, but all that went with those blessings could be revoked as
>> well, including the inheritance of the land.
>
>Randy, I need a little help understanding this line of reasoning.
>
>If Israel was so wicked that they were expelled from the land, we
>should be able to identify the wickedness. We already know about the
>Assyrian invasion and the Babylonian Captivity, but after that, the
>Jew were permitted to return to Israel. So whatever happened to earn
>the diaspora happened between 400 BC and 70 AD.
It's listed in the New Testament.
>According to all the Jewish records, the Jews were nice folks, kept
>the law, etc. Christians don't say too much about that except that
>the Jews had Jesus Crucified, but even saying that is considered in
>bad taste.
>
>So far as anyone knows, the Judaism of Jerusalem at the time of Jesus
>was pretty much the Judaism of Israel today, except for the Temple,
>which nobody seems to know how to get going again.
Biblical Judaism centered around the temple
and trying to minimize it won't change that
fact. Biblical Judaism ended in 70 AD.
> So what was that Great Sin that you allege and Rob denies?
I'll let Jesus Himself tell you. :)
Matthew 21:33-43
33) Hear another parable: There was a certain
landowner who planted a vineyard and set
a hedge around it, dug a winepress in it and
built a tower. And he leased it to vinedressers
and went into a far country.
34) Now when vintage-time drew near, he sent
his servants to the vinedressers, that they might
receive its fruit.
35) And the vinedressers took his servants,
beat one, killed one, and stoned another.
36) Again he sent other servants, more than
the first, and they did likewise to them.
37) Then last of all he sent his son to them,
saying, They will respect my son.
38) But when the vinedressers saw the son,
they said among themselves, This is the heir.
Come, let us kill him and seize his inheritance.
39) So they took him and cast him out of
the vineyard and killed him.
40) Therefore, when the owner of the vineyard
comes, what will he do to those vinedressers?
41) They said to Him, He will destroy those
wicked men miserably, and lease his vineyard
to other vinedressers who will render to him
the fruits in their seasons.
42) Jesus said to them, Have you never read
in the Scriptures: The stone which the builders
rejected Has become the chief cornerstone.
This was the Lord's doing and it is marvelous
in our eyes?
43) Therefore I say to you, the kingdom of God
will be taken from you and given to a nation
bearing the fruits of it.
--
Pastor Dave
The following is part of my auto-rotating
sig file and not part of the message body.
Theistic evolutionists are out to please men,
rather than God. They claim to believe in a
virgin birth, people rising from the dead, water
turned into wine and yet, they don't believe that
God created the heaven and the earth in six literal
days, thereby making hypocrites of themselves. Why?
Because man says it isn't so and they would rather
try to please men, instead of choosing to believe
God and stand up for Him. Preachers who claim
theistic evolution are the biggest hypocrites of all
and are in the most danger. Why? Read Isaiah 9:16;
Jeremiah 23:1, 50:6. What do YOU stand for?
"...choose this day whom you will serve. ...as for
me and my house, we will serve the Lord." - Jos 24:15
randy
"bob young"
randy
>> It appears primitive because it was an ancient law dealing with an
>> ancient
>> people. There were circumstances unique to that time requiring God to
>> tell
>> Hebrews not to have goatees and tatoos, for example. But otherwise the
>> Law
>> was a very holy document, with a strong indication that the author was
>> divine.
> Such as ? Apart from those ot the time saying so !
It's not the mere assertion of such that indicates this. It is the
reasonableness behind the whole package, the separation from the ways of
this world, leading to isolation with God, in order to teach partnership
between God and man. The whole concept of holiness being not just moral
laws, but also, a partnership with God, appeals to the universal conscience
of man. I say this not because *all* men accept it as such, but because out
of every nation on earth a substantial number of people have felt compelled
to obey this God--not the Law as such, but the Gospel that emerged out of
that plan, which began with Israel.
> How come today Laws are made by men not gods ?
The laws of God were always meant to be written on the heart. To get God
into our life to the place where we partner together with Him is a matter of
keeping ourselves away from unholy distractions. Therefore, laws can help us
preserve our lives intact long enough for God's spirituality to establish
itself in us, and grow up in us. But once we are firmly established in
relationship with God, the laws are unnecessary any longer. (I'm here
talking about rigid laws having to do with ritual or routine, rather than
with moral laws in general, which are always applicable.)
>> It is an amazing document inasmuch as we still refer to it today.
> Yes I am well aware of that and aware also of the lunacy of so doing.
> It is all a means to an end, of course.
It is not lunacy to start a nation off with external, ritualistic laws,
designed to establish in one nation a testimony for all other nations, the
testimony of a real relationship between God and man. That relationship may
not be important to you, but for millions and millions of people, this
spirituality has become the source of meaning for their lives, and their
ultimate happiness. What else is life for? You just want to preserve your
life a few more years, to prolong death, and then kaput?
> The more I study religions the more I am convinced that man never
> worshipped
> anything but himself.
> [Richard Burton]
God spoke against idolatry for just this reason. Idols were the invention of
man so that men could manipulate them to say anything they wanted them to
say. But the true God speaks for Himself. He speaks in our hearts through
our consciences. Since all men have consciences I would have to assume that
all men can have an experience with God.
>> And it has influenced the largest religions on this planet. So it
>> deserves
>> more respect than your diminutions.
> In that case respect young children and make sure they are not inculcated
> with
> nonsense before they are old enough to make free decisions of their own.
> It
> should be a criminal offense, maybe one day it will be, when humanity
> comes to
> it's senses.
I'm all for freewill, and for children to be able to grow up and decide
things for themselves. However, at a young age they are not all that
concerned with philosophy and religion to the extent they exercise critical
judgments. We do have to cultivate in them some sense of morality. And if
we've had an experience with God we like to instill that sense of the divine
presence in them as well. Nothing wrong with that, if indeed we've really
had such an experience. Regardless, the faith experience must come from the
individual, and cannot be forced upon anybody.
>> Today God intends to fulfil His promises to the patriarchs and to Israel
>> in
>> an entirely different way. And that's why we discuss things here on
>> alt.messianic.
> He told you that 'Himself' did He ? If so why does "He' need a mere human
> to
> pass on his word ?
Yes, God has determined by His own initiative to use man in the preaching of
the gospel. It was His plan to give this planet to mankind, and so it is by
mankind that the Fall took place and by mankind that God recovers men from
the Fall. When men experience redemption and display it, it becomes the
means by which others are convicted of the truth. Assertions alone have
little value.
As for my source for God's promises to the patriarchs it's found in the
Scriptures, Gen 12 and Gen 17, along with many other places.
> How come your god is a 'He' - because the men who made it up were also
> 'He's'
> That's' why
It was God's initiative to set up a family structure in which the male was
physically dominant (though both sexes are essentially equal, in terms of
spiritual value). The female's inferiority is actually a plus in the sense
that she models the role mankind is to play in its relationship with God. In
other words, the sexes are roles we play for different purposes--not a
matter of superiority in a spiritual sense. There will be no further need
for sexual differences in the eternal Kingdom of God.
randy
Rob Strom
>
> > More specifically, it was to get *discussions* pro and con
> > about Jesus and evangelism out of the Jewish groups.
>
> > --
> >Rob Strom
>
> thou'rt splitting hairs. The christians were wanted out of the jewish
> NGs because they argued about JESUS
Not splitting hairs. People were talking about who were
"guests" and who were properly here.
Usenet etiquette regulates what *topics* are
encouraged/discouraged to be posted,
not what *people* may post, and alt.messianic is no exception.
This newsgroup is for debates *about* messianic
Judaism pro and con, which can range widely
from things like whether Jesus is the messiah or not,
to whether sola scriptura is right or not, to
is it right or not for Gentiles
and former Jews to put on yarmulkes and
affect yiddish accents, and conceal that
they are funded by the Southern Baptists,
to lure naive Jews.
--
Rob Strom
Terry Cross
Since you have no idea who was convinced, let me suggest the quote is
worthless to you. It might as well have been Zaphod Beeblebrox.
TCross
randy
"Terry Cross"
randy
> That is not a problem with my argument. That is *part* of my argument. The
> Law was a *temporary* agreement, conditioned on Israel's obedience. Yes,
> the
> covenant was designed to handle minor infractions and even some serious
> setbacks. But it was not designed to survive national apostasy and a
> complete letdown in the agreement.
> And if the Law was conditional and could not be guaranteed perpetuity,
> then
> it was just a temporary agreement at best. Not only could God discontinue
> blessing Israel, but all that went with those blessings could be revoked
> as
> well, including the inheritance of the land.
"Randy, I need a little help understanding this line of reasoning.
If Israel was so wicked that they were expelled from the land, we
should be able to identify the wickedness. We already know about the
Assyrian invasion and the Babylonian Captivity, but after that, the
Jew were permitted to return to Israel. So whatever happened to earn
the diaspora happened between 400 BC and 70 AD."
It's a good question, but I believe the answer is in the gospels, where
Jesus himself condemned the religious leaders. Earlier, prior to the
Assyrian and the Babylonian captivities, Israel's problem was in mingling
with the surrounding pagan nations, with adopting their pagan idolatry, and
with accepting their licentious ways.
But after the Persian restoration Israel began its more rabbinical form of
Judaism, though the intermarriage with foreigners and with foreign religion
continued to some extent. You can read about this in Ezra and in Nehemiah.
And then you can read in books like Zechariah and Malachi that Israel
continued in their infidelity to God in other ways, by following after the
rituals of the Law without following God with their hearts.
So when we come to the gospels, we find Jesus condemning the religious
leaders for having murder in their hearts towards himself and towards
others, while at the same time offering up worship at the temple, studying
the Torah, giving tithes, etc. etc. The ultimate sin, according to
Christianity, was the rejection of Messiah himself and the rejection of his
teachings. In so doing the Jews rejected the extension of their religion to
other nations, and continued in isolation, which I believe became a form of
self-absorption and arrogance. Hatred for Christ was translated into hatred
for Christians, as we can see how Paul as a Jew hunted down Christians, had
them arrested, and sometimes even sanctioned their stoning. And later, after
Paul became a Christian, he also was persecuted and abused by Jews, who
tried to stamp out Christianity as a heresy within their own religion.
These are some of the things that I believe led to an international
dispersion of the Jews from their land. Whether Jews today have been given
access back to their land by God is a matter of your own personal
conviction, and must be based on your own relationship with God.
randy
vince garcia
And you have heard me repeatedly denounce this practice, correct?
> --
> Rob Strom
randy
"Pastor Dave"
randy
>> I agree that Israel under the Law ended at that time.
>> There is no more Law of Moses, and there was no
>> more Israel up until 1947-48. But I do believe that
>> it is significant that Israel was reborn as a nation--
>> just as significant as the existence of any nation on
>> the earth, and even moreso because of Israel's place
>> in biblical prophecy.
> It may be significant to Jews and even to the world
> as far as politics and the military is concerned, but
> it is not significant to Biblical prophecy.
It is an arguable point since ancient prophecy is just that--ancient. But
I'm certainly not ready to concede that God simply disappeared off the face
of the map, and since 70 AD has let the world continue on its own course,
without any direction from God. And if God continues to be God and continues
to direct history, then there must be some sort of intelligent design to
what we see even today in modern history.
>> I do realize that you believe biblical prophecy is realized
>> and that you're a preterist, or historicist interpretor.
>> That's okay. I won't split company with you over it.
> Well, logically, you'd have to prove me wrong to do so. :)
If it was that easy, it would've been done a long time ago. I believe that
when Christians disagree, there are two possibilities. Either one of the
parties is too proud to change. Or, there may be truth enough in both sides
to somewhat justify the disagreement. The one more in error simply cannot
see the truth if the truth is not being presented properly.
I suppose a third possibility is neither of us see the truth of this matter
clearly enough. Why not assume the best?
randy
Pastor Dave
spake thusly:
>"Pastor Dave"
>randy
>
>>> I agree that Israel under the Law ended at that time.
>>> There is no more Law of Moses, and there was no
>>> more Israel up until 1947-48. But I do believe that
>>> it is significant that Israel was reborn as a nation--
>>> just as significant as the existence of any nation on
>>> the earth, and even moreso because of Israel's place
>>> in biblical prophecy.
>
>> It may be significant to Jews and even to the world
>> as far as politics and the military is concerned, but
>> it is not significant to Biblical prophecy.
>
> It is an arguable point since ancient prophecy
> is just that--ancient. But I'm certainly not ready
> to concede that God simply disappeared off the
> face of the map
That is not a reasonable conclusion and all it says,
is that to you, if it isn't all about your time, then
it isn't worth reading. After all, you just said that
if it isn't about now, then God must have disappeared.
> and since 70 AD has let the world continue on
> its own course, without any direction from God.
That's a ridiculous thing to say!
--
Pastor Dave
The following is part of my auto-rotating
sig file and not part of the message body.
"Hence, the coming of the Lord to get His own
is and has been IMMINENT. It could happen
any moment. It might not happen for a couple
more thousand years. The coming for the saints
(pretribualtion rapture/resurrection) is and
has been IMMINENT and shall remain so. Amen!:
- Futurist Usenet poster
How is something "imminent" for two thousand years?
And how does something "remain imminent" for thousands
of years more? This is Biblical acrobatics, designed
to make the Bible all about you today!
Imminent = About to occur; impending.
And there is no way around that! The Futurist word
play regarding the Second Coming and the fact that
both Christ and the Apostles taught that it was indeed
immiment and so, they are forced into these Biblical
acrobatics to try to explain this fact away!
Terry Cross
That is pretty much the same answer as Dave's. It is a critical
point, and rather controversial. Some churches preach that the Jews
do not HAVE to accept Jesus. The Jews teach -- at least by
implication -- that the great sacrifice of the "Holocaust" (burnt
offering) redeemed the Jews, though they are less than explicit about
the sin that earned them the Diaspora.
Do you see the Jews in the same position now as when Jesus walked the
Earth? I do not suggest you judge the Jews, but merely to state
whether anything significant has happened between that time and this.
TCross
Rob Strom
> Rob Strom wrote:
>
> > On Sep 28, 7:31 am, vince garcia <vggarci...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>
> > Not splitting hairs. People were talking about who were
> > "guests" and who were properly here.
>
> > Usenet etiquette regulates what *topics* are
> > encouraged/discouraged to be posted,
> > not what *people* may post, and alt.messianic is no exception.
>
> > This newsgroup is for debates *about* messianic
> > Judaism pro and con, which can range widely
> > from things like whether Jesus is the messiah or not,
> > to whether sola scriptura is right or not, to
> > is it right or not for Gentiles
> > and former Jews to put on yarmulkes and
> > affect yiddish accents, and conceal that
> > they are funded by the Southern Baptists,
> > to lure naive Jews.
>
> And you have heard me repeatedly denounce this practice, correct?
>
I'm not accusing you of this practice. I'm stating
that you were wrong to say this:
"... this NG was specifically created for CHRISTIAN MESSIANICS, and
not Jews! You are the guest here, not us. If you'd been here for 12
years like I've been, you'd know that!"
--
Rob Strom
vince garcia
That is my interpretation of the issue. They wanted discussions about
Jesus--which were coming from chistian messianics--out of the jewish NG.
So this was started for the messianics to discuss those things here.
SAM, on the other hand, seems to believe THIS is a JEWSIH NG, and we're
wrong for criticizing judaism here.
No. That is the purpose of this NG--for us to deny judaism, and advance
Christ, while you take the other side
Rob Strom
Yes.
> So this was started for the messianics to discuss those things here.
For anybody to discuss these things and anything else about messianic
judaism,
including their evangelization techniques, here.
> SAM, on the other hand, seems to believe THIS is a JEWSIH NG, and we're
> wrong for criticizing judaism here.
>
> No. That is the purpose of this NG--for us to deny judaism, and advance
> Christ, while you take the other side
The purpose of this NG is for both sides to debate, so it is
wrong for anyone to say that the other side doesn't belong.
What is debated actually is "messianic judaism", not 'christ',
so I think both conventional Jews and conventional Christians
will have issues to debate here.
--
Rob Strom
Pastor Dave
<tcro...@hotmail.com> spake thusly:
>On Oct 1, 9:39�am, "randy" wrote:
>
>> "Terry Cross"
Interesting, considering that Jesus preached
what He preached specifically to the Jews.
> The Jews teach -- at least by
>implication -- that the great sacrifice of the "Holocaust" (burnt
>offering) redeemed the Jews, though they are less than explicit about
>the sin that earned them the Diaspora.
Another interesting view, considering that
the Scriptures do not call for human sacrifice,
nor can humans who sinned be a sacrifice
for others.
>Do you see the Jews in the same position now as when Jesus walked the
>Earth? I do not suggest you judge the Jews, but merely to state
>whether anything significant has happened between that time and this.
The thing with what Jesus preached about
condemnation, He always spoke to that
generation. It's in everything He was saying
to them and He said it was about their
generation and that it was specifically for
rejecting Him. Matt 24:34; Luke 21:20-22
are key here.
--
Pastor Dave
The following is part of my auto-rotating
sig file and not part of the message body.
"The only place you find chaos in the universe
is in mans' heart." - Vume
Pastor Dave
<vggar...@ix.netcom.com> spake thusly:
Wouldn't this group be for Jews who accept Christ
and others would be guests in it?
--
Pastor Dave
The following is part of my auto-rotating
sig file and not part of the message body.
Abortion = 1 dead, 1 wounded.
bob young
Terry Cross wrote:
Then I can assume the same about the quote you just made.
It never ceases to amaze me why trying to justify the existence of imaginary gods has
folks performing verbal and written gymnastics of the weirdest kind !
Here you are - try blowing your mind on this one
To talk of immaterial existences is to talk of nothings. To say that
the human soul, angels, god, are immaterial, is to say they are
nothings, or that there is no god, no angels, no soul. I cannot reason
otherwise ... without plunging into the fathomless abyss of dreams and
phantasms. I am satisfied, and sufficiently occupied with the things
which are, without tormenting or troubling myself about those which
may indeed be, but of which I have no evidence.
[Thomas Jefferson, letter to John Adams, August 15, 1820]
>
>
bob young
randy wrote:
ROFL - you don't have any choice do you ? Since 'He' never shows like your
good book claims He showed to Moses on that mountain top
You really are a bad case of brainwashing no doubt from the cradle.
I know a Hindu who is just as convinced about his god as you are, only he prays
to Ganesh, this god has a man's body and a very fat belly with the head of an
elephant. His belief is no more irrational than yours is.
You never see animals going through the absurd and often horrible fooleries of
magic and religion. Only man behaves with such gratuitous folly. It is the
price he has to pay for being intelligent but not, as yet, quite intelligent
enough.
[Aldous Leonard Huxley]
> It was His plan to give this planet to mankind, and so it is by
> mankind that the Fall took place and by mankind that God recovers men from
> the Fall. When men experience redemption and display it, it becomes the
> means by which others are convicted of the truth. Assertions alone have
> little value.
Tell that to the parents of the hundreds of children killed and drowned in
earthquakes, tsunamis and floods this past week in The Philippines and
Indonesia.
Your book of fables claims god created the heaven and earth and all things in
it and that includes us, how come he sits quietly
up there' watching all these innocent [I repeat INNOCENT] kids drown ?
I'll tell you why - because 'he' does not exist outside of human imagination
>
> As for my source for God's promises to the patriarchs it's found in the
> Scriptures, Gen 12 and Gen 17, along with many other places.
They were all written by humans, everything in there about gods is purely
imaginary
> > How come your god is a 'He' - because the men who made it up were also
> > 'He's'
> > That's' why
>
> It was God's initiative to set up a family structure in which the male was
> physically dominant (though both sexes are essentially equal, in terms of
> spiritual value).
GROAN See my definition, it is much more convincing
bob young
randy wrote:
Well structured reply randy, but as ever based purely on imagination and an old
book of fables.
Now tell me how come another confrontation happened in more recent times, the
wholsale slaughter by gun and explosion between Protestans and Catholics in
Northern Ireland during the preriod they now refer to as 'The Troubles'
It happened in your time and mine.
Thanks
vince garcia
that's what i think too, but rob says no.
Funny, though, how he doesn't attack sam for calling this a JEWISH
newsgroup, but is right there to attack a christian who calls it a
CHRISTIAN newsgroup
vince garcia
>
> I am a Ships Pilot and a Member of the Master Mates & Pilots
> My family Owns a Tuna Fleet of which these 5 new boats will be a part
> of.
awesome. We used to hold a lot of dives off Monterey
> We also own a Winery in norther California, and I am
> myself not a wine Maker.
> btw I am not a xtian I AM JEWISH.
> Xtianity is a Gentile Church.
I forget what thread I was going to mention this in, but if the idea of
the trinity offends you, and you need a jewish type of explanation of
the Godhead to view Christ through, you could say He was the shekhina of
God, manifesting on earth
randy
"bob young"
randy
>> Yes, God has determined by His own initiative to use man in the preaching
>> of
>> the gospel.
> ROFL - you don't have any choice do you ? Since 'He' never shows like
> your
> good book claims He showed to Moses on that mountain top
As the experience of Moses shows us, we as human beings are somewhat
separated from God by our inherited sin nature. We can only have limited
experiences with God. That doesn't mean we are unable to come into His
presence, when we come in through the means he gives us. It just means that
we "see in part, know in part, and are perfect in part." In our current
imperfect bodies we cannot perceive God cleanly and without hindrance.
But to think that God cannot use men to speak to us, or to exhibit
Christ-like qualities, seems ludicrous. Equally ridiculous is the notion
that God should not limit Himself to using mankind, when He is the one who
planned this to begin with. Why, for example, should God follow *your* plan,
doing what *you* think He should do?
But as I said before, God determined to put man in charge of this planet. If
the planet falls, it falls because of man's behavior. If it is redeemed, it
is redeemed because of human efforts at redemption. But redemption must take
place in cooperation with God, because only God can ameliorate the effects
of rebellion in our lives. Only God can placate His own anger against us,
because of our choice to live without Him. When we have God reaching out to
us a second time, and when we choose to repent and accept His help, His
wrath is placated, just as He has always had in mind. God has always had a
backup plan, to give man renewed access to Himself, thus fulfilling His
original plan to make earth a picture of God's glory through man.
> Tell that to the parents of the hundreds of children killed and drowned in
> earthquakes, tsunamis and floods this past week in The Philippines and
> Indonesia.
That is the result of original sin, when our original parents chose to rebel
against God. They got what they wanted, an autonomous existence in which
they could make choices apart from divine interference. But is that what we,
their children, now want? It seems to be what *you* want!
> I'll tell you why - because 'he' does not exist outside of human
> imagination
He exists in the conscience--not in the imagination.
randy
randy
"Terry Cross"
randy
> These are some of the things that I believe led to an international
> dispersion of the Jews from their land. Whether Jews today have been given
> access back to their land by God is a matter of your own personal
> conviction, and must be based on your own relationship with God.
"That is pretty much the same answer as Dave's. It is a critical
point, and rather controversial. Some churches preach that the Jews
do not HAVE to accept Jesus. The Jews teach -- at least by
implication -- that the great sacrifice of the "Holocaust" (burnt
offering) redeemed the Jews, though they are less than explicit about
the sin that earned them the Diaspora."
Yes, it's true that some more-liberal churches teach that the wrong in
imposing religion on another cultural group is worse than letting them
pursue God for themselves. And to some extent I would agree. It is never
right to *force* religion down the throat of anybody. The preaching of the
gospel must always take place by the inspiration of God's Spirit, with the
right attitude and with the proper conduct. Manipulation is not to be part
of the gospel ministry. If people are not interested in the gospel, we are
to "shake the dust off our feet and leave that town." It's better to have
peace between peoples than to force spirituality upon them, even if we
believe that spirituality holds the key to lasting peace on earth.
On the other hand, to say that there are other paths to God beyond
Christianity that achieves eternal redemption is very misleading. I would
say that even if a nonChristian obtains eternal life, he does so by the
mercies of Christ. For even if they don't know Christ holds the keys to
eternal life, by their righteous and noble life they may obtain mercy from
him nonetheless. In this sense, all who obtain eternal life must obtain it
by the mercies of Christ.
But I would not go so far as to say everyone in the world and everyone in
history is lost because they were not a Christian. I believe Paul in his
letter to the Romans, chapter 2, expresses that God looks at the heart and
judges, whether or not they have the full understanding of truth.
Christianity is essential largely because it brings us immediately into the
presence of God in the closest way, and enables us now to participate in
joint ventures with God that please Him.
"Do you see the Jews in the same position now as when Jesus walked the
Earth? I do not suggest you judge the Jews, but merely to state
whether anything significant has happened between that time and this."
In some respects Judaism has the same old problems from Jesus' time,
inasmuch as it is still deadset against Christianity being a branch off of
Judaism. It still absolutely rejects Jesus as a possible Messiah for the
Jews. On the other hand time heals. We've gone a long ways from the time
Jews crucified Jesus and sanctioned that rejection of Jesus as a false
Messiah. Many Jews today are not remotely like the Jews of Jesus'
generation, and may not know a single thing about that generation.
randy
randy
"bob young"
randy
> Now tell me how come another confrontation happened in more recent times,
> the
> wholsale slaughter by gun and explosion between Protestans and Catholics
> in
> Northern Ireland during the preriod they now refer to as 'The Troubles'
> It happened in your time and mine.
I cannot and will not defend everything men have done in the name of
Christianity. I only defend true Christianity, as imperfect as it may be.
randy
randy
"Pastor Dave"
randy
>>> It may be significant to Jews and even to the world
>>> as far as politics and the military is concerned, but
>>> it is not significant to Biblical prophecy.
>> It is an arguable point since ancient prophecy
>> is just that--ancient. But I'm certainly not ready
>> to concede that God simply disappeared off the
>> face of the map
> That is not a reasonable conclusion and all it says,
> is that to you, if it isn't all about your time, then
> it isn't worth reading. After all, you just said that
> if it isn't about now, then God must have disappeared.
I don't read the Bible simply for its "historical* interest. I read it for
its moral value, first of all, and then to see how ancient truths may affect
me today.
>> and since 70 AD has let the world continue on
>> its own course, without any direction from God.
> That's a ridiculous thing to say!
That is my whole point. Since God continues to direct history today, I
should think that ancient biblical writings must somehow deal with today's
world directly. Don't get me wrong. I don't believe all that passes today as
"future prophecy" is accurate in the least. I'm not a pretrib rapturist; I'm
not a dispensationalist; I don't look for Antichrist in every European
leader alive today. I just think there is a more balanced theology in the
ancient Scriptures that explains the continuation of history far beyond the
time of Jesus.
randy
bob young
randy wrote:
The above is truely sickening and pathetic.
Your really do make me feel so pleased that
I became an atheist around age twenty three
You know of course my point was logical with a common sense approach but when
it comes to religions common sense and logic is always thrown out of the
window.
How terribly terribly sad.
>
>
> > I'll tell you why - because 'he' does not exist outside of human
> > imagination
>
> He exists in the conscience--not in the imagination.
> randy
NOTHING 'EXISTS' in anyone's conscience.
Your god and all the other gods are myths - period
'there are only two things that have no end,
human stupidity and the universe,
and I'm not sure about the universe'
[Albert Einstein]
bob young
randy wrote:
If Christianity was worth following and it's god were for real it would not be
imperfect.
So take my advice and give it up - I did at age 24.
bob young
randy wrote:
> "Pastor Dave"
> randy
>
> >>> It may be significant to Jews and even to the world
> >>> as far as politics and the military is concerned, but
> >>> it is not significant to Biblical prophecy.
>
> >> It is an arguable point since ancient prophecy
> >> is just that--ancient. But I'm certainly not ready
> >> to concede that God simply disappeared off the
> >> face of the map
>
> > That is not a reasonable conclusion and all it says,
> > is that to you, if it isn't all about your time, then
> > it isn't worth reading. After all, you just said that
> > if it isn't about now, then God must have disappeared.
>
> I don't read the Bible simply for its "historical* interest. I read it for
> its moral value, first of all, and then to see how ancient truths may affect
> me today.
You mean these kind of moral truths?
CRUEL, UNMERCIFUL, DESTRUCTIVE, and FEROCIOUS or KIND, MERCIFUL, and GOOD:
"I will not pity, nor spare, nor have mercy, but destroy." (JER 13:14) "Now go
and smite Amalek, and utterly destroy all that they have, and spare them not,
but slay both man and woman, infant and suckling."
"The Lord is very pitiful and of tender mercy." (JAS 5:11)
"For his mercy endureth forever." (1CH 16:34)
"The Lord is good to all, and his tender mercies are over all his works." (PSA
145:9)
"God is love." (1JO 4:16)
God CAN be seen:
"And I will take away my hand, and thou shalt see my backparts." (EXO 33:23)
"And the Lord spake to Moses face to face, as a man speaketh to his friend."
(EXO 33:11)
"For I have seen God face to face, and my life is preserved." (GEN 32:30)
God CANNOT be seen:
"No man hath seen God at any time." (JOH 1:18)
"And he said, Thou canst not see my face; for there shall no man see me and
live." (EXO 33:20)
"Whom no man hath seen nor can see." (1TIM 6:16)
Pastor Dave
spake thusly:
I have answered specifically and directly to your claims
in this post. I hope you will take the time to read it
slowly and very carefully, before hitting the "Reply"
button. It isn't that long anyway. :)
And please pay special attention to the part that starts
talking about the cross and goes into the Kingdom of God.
> "Pastor Dave"
>
>> Randy
>>
>>>> It may be significant to Jews and even to the world
>>>> as far as politics and the military is concerned, but
>>>> it is not significant to Biblical prophecy.
>>>
>>> It is an arguable point since ancient prophecy
>>> is just that--ancient. But I'm certainly not ready
>>> to concede that God simply disappeared off the
>>> face of the map
>>
>> That is not a reasonable conclusion and all it says,
>> is that to you, if it isn't all about your time, then
>> it isn't worth reading. After all, you just said that
>> if it isn't about now, then God must have disappeared.
>
> I don't read the Bible simply for its "historical* interest.
Neither do I and it is disingenuous to associate my belief
with reading the Bible only for that purpose.
> I read it for its moral value, first of all, and then to see
> how ancient truths may affect me today.
To assume that it has no moral value if it isn't all about
you and your time, doesn't make sense. Nor does
assuming that it has no spiritual value, if all of the
prophecies have been fulfilled and by saying this in
the context of this discussion means that that is indeed
exactly what you're saying.
>>> and since 70 AD has let the world continue on
>>> its own course, without any direction from God.
>
>> That's a ridiculous thing to say!
>
> That is my whole point. Since God continues
> to direct history today, I should think that
> ancient biblical writings must somehow deal
> with today's world directly.
Why must an ancient writing specifically mention
specific events in our current events, in order to be
spiritually valuable? Honestly, you need to really think
that claim through, Randy and you should think hard!
And you can say that's not what you're saying,
but when you say these things in response to
the context of this discussion, then that is indeed
exactly what you're saying.
The Bible deals with today's world far as salvation
and a moral code, just as it did during those other
times when no prophecies were being fulfilled, but
the people who worshipped God still read and lived
by Scripture and had their own spiritual relationship
with Him. And God was still in control. In fact, even
though they're listed in the Bible, there were no real
"prophecies" being fulfilled during the time of many
of the kings and yet, those who worshipped God did
have a relationship with Him and did prosper, just
as this nation can prosper, if it turns to God. This
country need not be specifically listed in the Bible,
in order for that to happen. God is always in control.
Also, we must understand that the prophecies having
been fulfilled and the Kingdom of God being established,
means that Christ kept His promise and that makes the
Bible more valuable to me, not less! I can point at it
and say that Jesus kept His promise! Can you? No.
The real difference between our beliefs, is that when
you show someone the words of Jesus and they do
point out what He said about the "when", you must
come up with ways to reword what He said and you
add to it, to try to make it say the opposite, telling
them "what Jesus really meant", as if He was not
capable of saying what He actually meant. But when
I show it to someone and they point it out, then I say;
"Yes and He did come back and this is when and this
is what happened. Yes, Jesus kept His promises!"
But somehow, to you, the Bible becomes of no value,
because the prophecies have been fulfilled and I can
do that. (:
And while Futurists have to keep changing who, what
and where the prophecies are about, to match the
daily news, I can point to what happened and my belief
stays the same.
Furthermore, you are erroneously trying to equate God
directing history with a requirement that not all of the
prophecies of the Bible be fulfilled yet and that makes
no sense at all. God has always been in control of what
happens, regardless of whether or not it's even mentioned
in the Bible, let alone listed as a prophecy. And He remains
in control, whether all prophecies have been fulfilled or not.
But your logic says that we are going aimlessly and
directionless through time, if the prophecies of the Bible
are not all about you and your time and I'm sorry, but
that is a sad outlook, at best and it is one that says that
once something becomes fulfilled, that part of the Bible is
useless and it also by default means that the generations
just before us and since the time of the Apostles have
been wandering aimlessly through time, because the
prophecies were not about them and their time, Randy.
That is the only logical conclusion, if what you are saying
is true.
So why is Christ of any use to you? After all, the prophecy
of the cross has been fulfilled. So how, according to your
logic of it now just being history, is the cross of any use to
anyone, after it has been fulfilled? This is the same thing!
If having the prophecies fulfilled, demotes the Bible to
just being a history book, then the cross is also just a
matter of history and cannot affect us today, since you
claim that if all of the prophecies of the Bible have been
fulfilled, then it means that God isn't directing history.
Well then, He isn't directing anything at all, since once
you say that He is directing anything, those things do
indeed become part of history. You can't have it both
ways, Randy.
If being fulfilled makes the Bible just some history book
and of no real use otherwise, then the cross became
useless as soon as it was fulfilled!
But the truth is, we look to the cross for our very souls;
our salvation and it doesn't matter that it is in the past!
It's effect goes on and on!
And the truth is, that the same is true of all the other
prophecies that were fulfilled. The effect of them
also goes on and on.
In fact, you argue all the time that now the people of God
are those in Christ and that all can enter into Christ today
and yet, that very argument depends on those prophecies
being FULFILLED PROPHECIES, that guess what??? Yes!
That have a continuing effect on all generations that have
followed and that has affected history greatly, with God
being in control of it all! That's right, Randy! Prophecies
that have already been fulfilled have changed everything!
And it is now no longer about the physical, but is about
the spiritual, as you well know (as far as worshipping
God is concerned) and the Kingdom of God, as Jesus
clearly and specifically said, was to be spiritual and not
physical (Luke 17:20-21).
So why are you not a hypocrite for saying what you did
in response here, yet preaching the exact opposite
every day, Randy??? You are contradicting yourself
and it is hypocrisy (unintentional, I'm sure)!
And furthermore, while you Futurists look to and await
the physical Kingdom of God, which Jesus specifically
said would not happen, you forget that your very salvation
rests on the effect of the cross being a spiritual thing that
happens within you when you are born again and then
enter into the Kingdom of God spiritually, at that time,
just as Jesus said the Kingdom of God is (Luke 17:20-21).
This is why I constantly tell you and the rest that Futurism
always, always, always ends up being self-contradictory!!!
> Don't get me wrong. I don't believe all that passes
> today as "future prophecy" is accurate in the least.
> I'm not a pretrib rapturist; I'm not a dispensationalist;
> I don't look for Antichrist in every European leader
> alive today. I just think there is a more balanced
> theology in the ancient Scriptures that explains the
> continuation of history far beyond the time of Jesus.
There is not one verse in the Bible that says that
when all prophecy is fulfilled, that time itself ends.
Rather, it specifically says that the world goes on,
as does building houses, farming, reaping, etc..
--
Pastor Dave
The following is part of my auto-rotating
sig file and not part of the message body.
Forgive your enemies. It messes up their heads.
Pastor Dave
spake thusly:
>As the experience of Moses shows us, we as human beings are somewhat
>separated from God by our inherited sin nature. We can only have limited
>experiences with God.
Be careful here!!! We are not in the time of Moses!
"To wit, that God was in Christ, reconciling the world
unto himself, not imputing their trespasses unto them;
and hath committed unto us the word of reconciliation."
- 2 Corinthians 5:19
Hebrews 4:15-16
15) For we have not an high priest which cannot be
touched with the feeling of our infirmities; but was
in all points tempted like as we are, yet without sin.
16) Let us therefore come BOLDLY unto the throne
of grace, that we may obtain mercy, and find grace
to help in time of need.
bob young
Pastor Dave wrote:
> On Sat, 26 Sep 2009 04:44:54 -0700, "randy"
> <rkl...@wavecable.com> spake thusly:
>
> >The Law was a conditional covenant. It was a covenant of prosperity and
> >blessing. It was not the basis by which God determined if He would keep His
> >promises to the patriarchs, to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. Those promises are
> >eternal, and cannot be revoked. But the Law was a means by which the
> >national posterity of these patriarchs could be blessed and prosper. The Law
> >was an ongoing means by which ancient Israel could not only fulfil God's
> >promises to the patriarchs, but also enjoy God's blessings.
> >
> >This is what the Law promised, in terms of health and prosperity....
> >Deut 6:18 And you shall do what is right and good in the sight of the LORD,
> >that it may go well with you, and that you may go in and take possession of
> >the good land which the LORD swore to give to your fathers
> >19 by thrusting out all your enemies from before you, as the LORD has
> >promised.
>
> God kept them, because the Promise was to the Seed.
> Not to "seeds", as of many, but the "Seed", singular.
Briliant - a mere human who knows what a god thinks.
Need we say more !
>
>
> Galatians 3:13-17
>
> 13) Christ hath redeemed us from the curse of the law,
> being made a curse for us: for it is written, Cursed [is]
> every one that hangeth on a tree:
> 14) That the blessing of Abraham might come on the
> Gentiles through Jesus Christ; that we might receive
> the promise of the Spirit through faith.
> 15) Brethren, I speak after the manner of men; Though
> [it be] but a man's covenant, yet [if it be] confirmed,
> no man disannulleth, or addeth thereto.
> 16) Now to Abraham and his seed were the promises
> made. He saith not, And to seeds, as of many; but as
> of one, And to thy seed, which is Christ.
> 17) And this I say, [that] the covenant, that was confirmed
> before of God in Christ, the law, which was four hundred
> and thirty years after, cannot disannul, that it should make
> the promise of none effect.
>
> --
>
> Pastor Dave
>
> The following is part of my auto-rotating
> sig file and not part of the message body.
>
> "If you keep doing what you always do, you keep
> getting what you always got." - Orlando
Terry Cross
> Pastor Dave wrote:
> > On Sat, 26 Sep 2009 04:44:54 -0700, "randy"
> > <rkl...@wavecable.com> spake thusly:
>
> > >The Law was a conditional covenant. It was a covenant of prosperity and
> > >blessing. It was not the basis by which God determined if He would keep His
> > >promises to the patriarchs, to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. Those promises are
> > >eternal, and cannot be revoked. But the Law was a means by which the
> > >national posterity of these patriarchs could be blessed and prosper. The Law
> > >was an ongoing means by which ancient Israel could not only fulfil God's
> > >promises to the patriarchs, but also enjoy God's blessings.
>
> > >This is what the Law promised, in terms of health and prosperity....
> > >Deut 6:18 And you shall do what is right and good in the sight of the LORD,
> > >that it may go well with you, and that you may go in and take possession of
> > >the good land which the LORD swore to give to your fathers
> > >19 by thrusting out all your enemies from before you, as the LORD has
> > >promised.
>
> > God kept them, because the Promise was to the Seed.
> > Not to "seeds", as of many, but the "Seed", singular.
>
> Briliant - a mere human who knows what a god thinks.
>
> Need we say more !
Would like to read another 7,500 words from you on the subject, Bob.
Not plagiarized, mind you, but your own thoughts.
Pastor Dave
<tcro...@hotmail.com> spake thusly:
"Now to Abraham and his seed were the promises made.
He saith not, And to seeds, as of many; but as of one,
And to thy seed, which is Christ." - Galatians 3:16
--
Pastor Dave
The following is part of my auto-rotating
sig file and not part of the message body.
"To know what is right and not to do it is the worst cowardice."
- Confucius
bob young
Terry Cross wrote:
Going by your disconcerted response Terry
that comment of mine must have really hit home.,
Which, of course, is the result of pandering after imaginary things,
sometimes referred to as disillusionment.
bob young
Pastor Dave wrote:
Stick with it Pastor. Read enough of that old stuff and even you may one day realise
where it all hails from, and it don't hail from the mouth or mind of any god .
"We discover in the gospels a groundwork of vulgar ignorance, of things impossible,
of superstition, fanaticism and fabrication."
It is always better to have no ideas than false ones; to believe nothing, than to
believe what is wrong.
[Thomas Jefferson]
randy
"bob young"
randy
>> That is the result of original sin, when our original parents chose to
>> rebel
>> against God. They got what they wanted, an autonomous existence in which
>> they could make choices apart from divine interference. But is that what
>> we,
>> their children, now want? It seems to be what *you* want!
> The above is truely sickening and pathetic.
What is sickening and pathetic is that mankind, created by God, chooses an
autonomous life, separated from God. It is sickening that we reject divine
wisdom, when God made that necessary for us to make enlightened decisions.
If we do not seek inspiratioin in our lives, we will not be happy.
> Your really do make me feel so pleased that
> I became an atheist around age twenty three
Atheists are never ultimately happy, I should think. They have a very grim
future. Whether it's Hell or worms in the ground, it is a very depressing
thought.
> You know of course my point was logical with a common sense approach but
> when
> it comes to religions common sense and logic is always thrown out of the
> window.
You mean those who disagree with you are "unreasonable?" How you hope to
demonstrate "reason" in your own thought processes is beyond me!
> How terribly terribly sad.
Indeed.
> NOTHING 'EXISTS' in anyone's conscience.
God's spiritual word exists in our conscience. Denying it does seem to have
the effect of diminishing its light.
> Your god and all the other gods are myths - period
You can have your "myths." I will take the spiritual reality that is already
mine.
randy
randy
"Pastor Dave"
randy
>>As the experience of Moses shows us, we as human beings are somewhat
>>separated from God by our inherited sin nature. We can only have limited
>>experiences with God.
> Be careful here!!! We are not in the time of Moses!
I'm careful. ;)
> 16) Let us therefore come BOLDLY unto the throne
> of grace, that we may obtain mercy, and find grace
> to help in time of need.
Amen! :)
randy
randy
"bob young"
randy
> If Christianity was worth following and it's god were for real it would
> not be
> imperfect.
> So take my advice and give it up - I did at age 24.
Take my advice, and get back on that wagon.
randy
randy
"bob young"
randy
>> I don't read the Bible simply for its "historical* interest. I read it
>> for
>> its moral value, first of all, and then to see how ancient truths may
>> affect
>> me today.
> You mean these kind of moral truths?
> CRUEL, UNMERCIFUL, DESTRUCTIVE, and FEROCIOUS or KIND, MERCIFUL, and GOOD:
Justice is a had lesson to learn, but it is nevertheless just. Mankind has
chosen to lead its life without God. We reap what we sow. But there is a
plan in place to help us succeed in the midst of failure. It's the gospel of
Jesus. It is just and merciful. It is compassionate and forgiving. It shows
us the path of righteousness, but does not ignore wrongdoing. We need not an
idealistic gospel, but a *real* gospel. The gospel Jesus delivered to us was
as real as the cross. But if we're strong enough to face injustice and
cruelty, we might see love and forgiveness on the other side.
randy
randy
"Pastor Dave"
randy
> I have answered specifically and directly to your claims
> in this post. I hope you will take the time to read it
> slowly and very carefully, before hitting the "Reply"
> button. It isn't that long anyway. :)
I resent the insinuation that I ignore anybody's points of rebuttal. I'm
here to try to answer *every point* you care to bring up. I do not hit the
"Reply" button in order to ignore any point whatsoever. If I do not cover
every point it is because the number of points is too long, or because I
don't have enough time. If you want very specific and responses in detail,
please confine your posts to just one or two issues. Otherwise, you're
inviting omissions of one kind or another.
> And please pay special attention to the part that starts
> talking about the cross and goes into the Kingdom of God.
The Scriptures exhorts us to serve one another, to consider the other more
highly than ourself. Your points are not more important than mine, nor are
you, in God's eyes, superior to me.
>> I read it for its moral value, first of all, and then to see
>> how ancient truths may affect me today.
> To assume that it has no moral value if it isn't all about
> you and your time, doesn't make sense....
The Scriptures were written down for our instruction. That's what Paul said
(not me).
>> That is my whole point. Since God continues
>> to direct history today, I should think that
>> ancient biblical writings must somehow deal
>> with today's world directly.
> Why must an ancient writing specifically mention
> specific events in our current events, in order to be
> spiritually valuable? Honestly, you need to really think
> that claim through, Randy and you should think hard!
That's not the claim I was making. Some prophecies certainly have moral
value for me today, even though they were fulfilled long ago. But my
argument is that if God was interested in long ago, He must somehow be
equally interested in our day. If so, then I might expect that some
prophecies were fulfilled, whereas others may have a fulfillment in our day.
> And you can say that's not what you're saying,
> but when you say these things in response to
> the context of this discussion, then that is indeed
> exactly what you're saying.
Let me speak for myself, thankyou.
> The Bible deals with today's world far as salvation
> and a moral code, just as it did during those other
> times when no prophecies were being fulfilled, but
> the people who worshipped God still read and lived
> by Scripture and had their own spiritual relationship
> with Him. And God was still in control. In fact, even
> though they're listed in the Bible, there were no real
> "prophecies" being fulfilled during the time of many
> of the kings and yet, those who worshipped God did
> have a relationship with Him and did prosper, just
> as this nation can prosper, if it turns to God. This
> country need not be specifically listed in the Bible,
> in order for that to happen. God is always in control.
I agree.
> Also, we must understand that the prophecies having
> been fulfilled and the Kingdom of God being established,
> means that Christ kept His promise and that makes the
> Bible more valuable to me, not less! I can point at it
> and say that Jesus kept His promise! Can you? No.
Yes I can. Jesus kept his promise at the cross, where he opened up his
Kingdom to all men. But he is *still* keeping his promises, by making his
cross available in *all* generations! I'm not saying that prophecy details
every single event in history. I'm just saying that if prophecy at any time
deciphered for Israel what God's plan was, I'm sure that the plan God spoke
of necessarily encompassed our time as well.
> The real difference between our beliefs, is that when
> you show someone the words of Jesus and they do
> point out what He said about the "when", you must
> come up with ways to reword what He said and you
> add to it, to try to make it say the opposite, telling
> them "what Jesus really meant", as if He was not
> capable of saying what He actually meant. But when
> I show it to someone and they point it out, then I say;
> "Yes and He did come back and this is when and this
> is what happened. Yes, Jesus kept His promises!"
I don't deny that.
> But somehow, to you, the Bible becomes of no value,
> because the prophecies have been fulfilled and I can
> do that. (:
No, I find there is great value in the idea that Jesus fulfilled his
promises at the cross. But history didn't end there--nor should our view of
what God is doing in our day.
> And while Futurists have to keep changing who, what
> and where the prophecies are about, to match the
> daily news, I can point to what happened and my belief
> stays the same.
That is not necessarily a virtue. To ignore what God is doing in
contemporary history is to close our eyes to the Holy Spirit and to God's
activity in the world today. We must somehow come to grips with what is
happening in the world, and see these things in the light of what God
predicted would happen.
> Furthermore, you are erroneously trying to equate God
> directing history with a requirement that not all of the
> prophecies of the Bible be fulfilled yet and that makes
> no sense at all. God has always been in control of what
> happens, regardless of whether or not it's even mentioned
> in the Bible, let alone listed as a prophecy. And He remains
> in control, whether all prophecies have been fulfilled or not.
Actually I think your position is somewhat irrational. If God directs
history, then He *has not* finished anticipating history. That is, God's
prophetic word is still functioning, determing history in accordance with
His plan. What happened at the cross is what is determining current history,
because current history is partly an unfolding of the gospel mission, to
forgive sin and to redeem mankind. Sinners, in the meantime are given their
chance, until they are committed to judgment. All this is a matter of
fulfilling God's prophetic word. It did not all end at the cross, but
rather, that was where prophecy in the NT age began to be fulfilled.
> But your logic says that we are going aimlessly and
> directionless through time, if the prophecies of the Bible
> are not all about you and your time and I'm sorry, but
> that is a sad outlook, at best and it is one that says that
> once something becomes fulfilled, that part of the Bible is
> useless and it also by default means that the generations
> just before us and since the time of the Apostles have
> been wandering aimlessly through time, because the
> prophecies were not about them and their time, Randy.
> That is the only logical conclusion, if what you are saying
> is true.
I don't see any argument in that. It is absolutely true that if we don't
have God's prophetic word guiding current history we are indeed wandering
aimlessly.
> So why is Christ of any use to you? After all, the prophecy
> of the cross has been fulfilled. So how, according to your
> logic of it now just being history, is the cross of any use to
> anyone, after it has been fulfilled? This is the same thing!
The cross is in the past, yes, but it is useful precisely because it is
acting out in history in accordance with God's prophetic word. God's
prophetic word today *is* the word of the cross. It is the word of the cross
bringing salvation in our day, and judgment for those who oppose the gospel.
> If having the prophecies fulfilled, demotes the Bible to
> just being a history book, then the cross is also just a
> matter of history and cannot affect us today, since you
> claim that if all of the prophecies of the Bible have been
> fulfilled, then it means that God isn't directing history.
> Well then, He isn't directing anything at all, since once
> you say that He is directing anything, those things do
> indeed become part of history. You can't have it both
> ways, Randy.
Actually I can. God made history on the cross, but it remains His prophetic
word. In that way the cross becomes effective for me today because the word
of the cross *is* God's prophetic word. God applies the cross to me today by
presenting this word to me directly and by giving me access to His Spirit by
the same word.
> But the truth is, we look to the cross for our very souls;
> our salvation and it doesn't matter that it is in the past!
> It's effect goes on and on!
We are not disagreeing on that. I just believe that God has gone beyond the
central event in history, the cross, to make that cross apply to future
history--our history--and so bring the age to a culmination. The age did not
culminate in 30 AD or in 70 AD. Rather, the cross only *began* to take root
in world history at that point, and continues to take root in our own day!
> ...That's right, Randy! Prophecies
> that have already been fulfilled have changed everything!...
We do not disagree on that.
> So why are you not a hypocrite for saying what you did
> in response here, yet preaching the exact opposite
> every day, Randy??? You are contradicting yourself
> and it is hypocrisy (unintentional, I'm sure)!
I think you're confusing a moral issue with an intellectual issue. It is not
"hypocrasy" to state a theological conviction.
> And furthermore, while you Futurists look to and await
> the physical Kingdom of God, which Jesus specifically
> said would not happen, you forget that your very salvation
> rests on the effect of the cross being a spiritual thing that
> happens within you when you are born again and then
> enter into the Kingdom of God spiritually, at that time,
> just as Jesus said the Kingdom of God is (Luke 17:20-21).
I completely agree that the cross is a spiritual thing, taking place in all
generations. So we can leave this argument behind.
> This is why I constantly tell you and the rest that Futurism
> always, always, always ends up being self-contradictory!!!
What is contradictory is thinking that because the word of the cross is
spiritual that God can no longer speak of future history.
> There is not one verse in the Bible that says that
> when all prophecy is fulfilled, that time itself ends.
> Rather, it specifically says that the world goes on,
> as does building houses, farming, reaping, etc..
Yes, and God's word goes on, with all of its prophetic capabilities. You
deny that? Our only difference seems to be that you emphasize the ongoing
word of the gospel, while I equate that with God's prophetic word. If God's
word can speak to us today, saving our souls, that same word operates in
full prophetic capacity, determing the future and sometimes even
enlightening us as to what is going to happen. And some of this was even
anticipated, I believe, by the ancient prophets when they said Antichrist
was coming.
randy
Pastor Dave
spake thusly:
>"Pastor Dave"
>
>> Randy
>>
>> I have answered specifically and directly to your claims
>> in this post. I hope you will take the time to read it
>> slowly and very carefully, before hitting the "Reply"
>> button. It isn't that long anyway. :)
>
> I resent the insinuation that I ignore anybody's points
> of rebuttal.
And yet, you did just that, first snipping the context
and you did not respond on point in more than one
instance below.
And FYI, the insinuation was that folks who tend to
"respond as they go", end up causing the other
person to repeat themselves and that is what I was
trying to avoid and if you use the "respond as you go"
method, there is no way you can know if I have dealt
further down, with what you are about to type,
since you haven't gotten there to read it yet!
And yes Randy, YOU HAVE BEEN GUILTY of making me
repeat myself on more than one occasions and I was
simply trying to avoid that AND YOU KNOW THAT, so
do us both a favor and cut out the fake outrage.
What you're doing, is acting all upset because of what
you saw below and it makes you angry that your original
claim has been shown to be illogical and has indeed been
disproved and it makes you angry that I have made
transparent exactly what it is that you believe and what
you have admitted to belief in. But whatever amount
of your anger is real, is about that and is not because
of what you falsely accuse me of above. So instead of
falsely accusing me and spewing out your anger in my
direction, why not direct it inward, since you were the
one who made the claim in the first place.
> I'm here to try to answer *every point*
> you care to bring up
But you didn't do that, as is evidenced below.
In fact, you snipped what defined the context
of what I said, trying to avoid dealing with
the fact that what I said was accurate, given
the actual context, which I have restored here.
> I do not hit the "Reply" button in order to ignore
> any point whatsoever.
That is not what I said you do and it is disingenuous
to claim that I said that and that is another false
accusation Randy, since all I said was as follows:
PD: I have answered specifically and directly to your
claims in this post. I hope you will take the time
to read it slowly and very carefully, before hitting
the "Reply" button. It isn't that long anyway. :)
The insinuation is simply that folks who do tend to
"respond as they go", end up making the other
person repeat themselves.
The fact is, that when people do the "respond as you go"
method, then they don't see what's further down, where
the response that they are about to type may have already
been dealt with and I end up typing it all again, repeating
myself, which is obviously rude of the other person to make
me do.
Furthermore, it is impossible to grasp the entire context that
one's statements are made in, with that method. A context
that may change the reader's view of what it is the person
has said.
THAT was the "insinuation", Randy and that's ALL it was
and you know that I did not say what you accuse me of!
>> And please pay special attention to the part
>> that starts talking about the cross and goes
>> into the Kingdom of God.
>
> The Scriptures exhorts us to serve one another,
> to consider the other more highly than ourself.
> Your points are not more important than mine,
> nor are you, in God's eyes, superior to me.
A person and a point are two different things and yes
indeed, one point can be more important than another.
For example, a person may claim that Jesus never lived
and I would say that yes, He did and give reasons for
that claim, making my point. Now who's point has more
importance Scripturally, Randy? Mine, of course! :)
Now it seems to me that you did read my message and
didn't like what it says and you are now responding in
an angry manner. Your tone gives you away.
And again, it is disingenuous for you to claim that I am
saying something I never said, nor even implied, which
I believe you are doing to try to distract people from
what has happened in this thread, which was not good
for your original claim. :)
Can you quote me saying that I am superior to you
as a person? Of course you can't!
The bottom line here Randy, is that after you read this
message, I do not expect you to respond to the points
that I have made in it. Rather, because you will see
and know that your original claim failed, instead of just
admitting that and doing the right thing by changing
your stance on this issue, it is my belief that like almost
everyone else in usenet, your ego will get in the way
and since your doctrine is obviously (by what you said
and did in your last response, quoted in this message)
you will make some insulting remarks toward me, as
you just did in this message, your last response to me
and then run away, continuing on with a doctrine that
you now without a doubt know is a lie (and that is proved
by your own admissions further down in this message).
Your insulting tone; your having applied words to me
and attitudes that I did not say, nor even imply, your
snippage of the context of my response and the overall
direction that you took here after seeing my last response,
tells me that this will be the case and that is sad. (:
And you can get as upset as you want to about it.
But the fact is, that while yes, I hope I am wrong,
in the past, you have done it to me and so, I am
citing experience and not just hurling insults at you,
so don't bother with any more fake outrage.
>>> I read it for its moral value, first of all,
>>> and then to see how ancient truths
>>> may affect me today.
>
>> To assume that it has no moral value if it
>> isn't all about you and your time, doesn't
>> make sense....
>
> The Scriptures were written down for our instruction.
> That's what Paul said (not me).
I notice that you snipped the context of the post here
and that is disingenuous. Above, you make a big deal
out of claiming that you respond to EVERY POINT
(your words) and yet, the first thing you do, is snip
the context to avoid my point.
The context of my statement was your implication that
if all Bible prophecy has been fulfilled, then the Bible
is just a history book and has no moral value for us
today and that it makes God an absentee landlord,
since you said that it would also mean that God is
no longer directing things and the discussion went
as follows and not as you now try to make it appear:
*****************************************************************************
>>>> It may be significant to Jews and even to the world
>>>> as far as politics and the military is concerned, but
>>>> it is not significant to Biblical prophecy.
>>>
>>> It is an arguable point since ancient prophecy
>>> is just that--ancient. But I'm certainly not ready
>>> to concede that God simply disappeared off the
>>> face of the map
>>
>> That is not a reasonable conclusion and all it says,
>> is that to you, if it isn't all about your time, then
>> it isn't worth reading. After all, you just said that
>> if it isn't about now, then God must have disappeared.
>
> I don't read the Bible simply for its "historical* interest.
Neither do I and it is disingenuous to associate my belief
with reading the Bible only for that purpose.
> I read it for its moral value, first of all, and then to see
> how ancient truths may affect me today.
To assume that it has no moral value if it isn't all about
you and your time, doesn't make sense. Nor does
assuming that it has no spiritual value, if all of the
prophecies have been fulfilled and by saying this in
the context of this discussion means that that is indeed
exactly what you're saying.
*****************************************************************************
Note that above, you insinuate that if the prophecies of
the Bible have been fulfilled, that:
1) God has disappeared off the face of the map.
2) We would be reading it only for its historical value.
3) By saying that you read it for its "moral value"
and associating the prophecies being fulfilled
with it being just a history book, you are indeed
saying that if the prophecies have been fulfilled,
then the Bible no longer has any moral value.
And before you say that you're not saying that, just below,
you outright state that if the Bible's prophecies (which is
the subject matter here) does not deal with us today, then
God is not directing history any more.
You claim that if God is directing history today, that means
that the prophecies of the Bible MUST therefore deal with
our time, today (see next paragraph). But that is nothing
more than pride and ego, which btw, by default also says
that since the many generations before us and after the
Apostles did not see (according to your belief) these
prophecies being fulfilled, that for them, the Bible was
simply a history book, with no moral value. And you can
claim that's not what you believe, but that is irrelevant.
This is about what your original claims say and that is
unavoidably what they imply, Randy! It is simple logic!
But wait, let me guess... You will say that, "They got to
look forward to us!", right? Maybe? No? IF that would
have been your response and was the response that
had just popped into your head, THEN again Randy,
that would be PURE EGO!!! And it would be nothing
more than an attempt to dodge the facts presented.
>>> That is my whole point. Since God continues
>>> to direct history today, I should think that
>>> ancient biblical writings must somehow deal
>>> with today's world directly.
>
>> Why must an ancient writing specifically mention
>> specific events in our current events, in order to be
>> spiritually valuable? Honestly, you need to really think
>> that claim through, Randy and you should think hard!
>
> That's not the claim I was making.
So then, the prophecies have nothing to do with
spiritual value? If you exclude that from your claim,
then that is what you're saying. You can't have it
both ways! Your Futurist belief will keep digging
these holes for you Randy and yet, as we both know,
you STILL WILL NOT abandon it and will continue to
go on with it, even knowing that this is true! (:
> Some prophecies certainly have moral value for me
> today, even though they were fulfilled long ago.
> But my argument is that if God was interested in
> long ago, He must somehow be equally interested
> in our day. If so, then I might expect that some
> prophecies were fulfilled, whereas others may have
> a fulfillment in our day.
That is not a logical conclusion. There need not be
prophecies that are about us today, for God to be
interested in us today. That is not a logical conclusion
and is based on nothing but your own pure conjecture.
The fact is, that what you're saying is really not any
different than any Futurist, in that you're saying that
if the Bible isn't about you and your time, then it is of
no use to us today. And you have repeatedly implied
that, as you did above and also again, below.
>> And you can say that's not what you're saying,
>> but when you say these things in response to
>> the context of this discussion, then that is indeed
>> exactly what you're saying.
>
> Let me speak for myself, thank you.
You did and I showed you exactly what you said.
And you tried to remove the context, but I restored it.
>> The Bible deals with today's world far as salvation
>> and a moral code, just as it did during those other
>> times when no prophecies were being fulfilled, but
>> the people who worshipped God still read and lived
>> by Scripture and had their own spiritual relationship
>> with Him. And God was still in control. In fact, even
>> though they're listed in the Bible, there were no real
>> "prophecies" being fulfilled during the time of many
>> of the kings and yet, those who worshipped God did
>> have a relationship with Him and did prosper, just
>> as this nation can prosper, if it turns to God. This
>> country need not be specifically listed in the Bible,
>> in order for that to happen. God is always in control.
>
> I agree.
But that contradicts your claim! You agree that it is not
necessary for Bible prophecy to be about a specific time
for the Bible to be useful to people for spiritual value,
which is what it is about anyway and yet, you claim that
if the prophecies of the Bible are not about us, then the
Bible is relegated to a history book and that this means
that God is no longer directing history! Again, you can't
have it both ways, switching your claim whenever you
think it's convenient for your argument and I would
think that you would certainly know that I would not
fall for that, which would require me to completely
forget your original claim, Randy!
>> Also, we must understand that the prophecies having
>> been fulfilled and the Kingdom of God being established,
>> means that Christ kept His promise and that makes the
>> Bible more valuable to me, not less! I can point at it
>> and say that Jesus kept His promise! Can you? No.
>
> Yes I can. Jesus kept his promise at the cross, where
> he opened up his Kingdom to all men.
No, you cannot Randy! And you are trying to twist what
the subject is here, changing it to suit your desire to avoid
admitting that your original claim makes no sense and
your snippage of the context further demonstrates that.
You cannot point to His promises about HIS RETURN and
say that Jesus kept His promises! I can! And you know
very well that's what I was talking about and it was quite
disingenuous of you to try to avoid that, especially while
claiming near the top of this message that you deal with
every point Randy! (:
>> The real difference between our beliefs, is that when
>> you show someone the words of Jesus and they do
>> point out what He said about the "when", you must
>> come up with ways to reword what He said and you
>> add to it, to try to make it say the opposite, telling
>> them "what Jesus really meant", as if He was not
>> capable of saying what He actually meant. But when
>> I show it to someone and they point it out, then I say;
>> "Yes and He did come back and this is when and this
>> is what happened. Yes, Jesus kept His promises!"
>
> I don't deny that.
And for some reason, that is not a problem for you!
And that is truly sad! (:
And also, you just contradicted what you just said above
about being able to point to His promises, proving for me
that you did know exactly what I was talking about,
which of course, we both know you did anyway. It seems
that you are not even keeping things straight for yourself
even within a couple of paragraphs! (:
And look at what you just said that you do agree with:
1) Jesus' words are recorded for us.
2) You know that His actual words say that He
would return within that same generation.
3) You admit that in order to avoid admitting
to what you know is true, that you openly
admit that you:
a) Reword it.
b) Add words.
c) Try to make it say the opposite of what it
actually says.
d) Pretend that you can zip back through time,
read Jesus' mind and then come back here
and tell people "what Jesus really meant".
e) Claim (this is implicit in your admission) that
Jesus was not capable of saying what He
really meant and needs you to help Him
speak properly.
f) The Bible isn't really all truth, because hey,
Jesus didn't say it right and needs you to
correct Him (since you admit to A-E, you
are indeed saying this, since it cannot be
that the Bible is all true AND that Jesus
didn't say it right and needs YOU to tell
us "what He really meant").
And yet Randy, even this won't be a problem for you
and that is truly, truly sad and is not anywhere near
the same planet as honesty and integrity in the faith!
And you can claim all you want that you didn't say
any of it, but you did indeed and it is quoted above,
as is your admission to it!
>> But somehow, to you, the Bible becomes of no value,
>> because the prophecies have been fulfilled and I can
>> do that. (:
>
> No, I find there is great value in the idea that Jesus
> fulfilled his promises at the cross.
No Randy. You see, now, after reading my response,
you have seen that your claim that the prophecies
being fulfilled relegates the Bible to being a history
book, makes no sense in the light of the cross. And
so now you wish to act as if you said that it has more
value than what you previously said it would if all of
the prophecies have been fulfilled. And maybe this
is also why you snipped the context earlier in this
message, which as I said, I did restore.
The fact is, you claimed that it would only have value
as a history book, if all of the prophecies of the Bible
have been fulfilled. And now that I have shown you
how that cannot possibly be true, you are doing a
double shuffle. No offense. That's simply the truth.
You are now trying to move the goal posts, period.
> But history didn't end there--nor should our view
> of what God is doing in our day.
That is not what I said. It is what you said would be
the case, if all of the prophecies of the Bible have been
fulfilled. And while you state; "Let me speak for myself."
in this message, you seem to have no problem making
these claims and trying to attribute them to me, which
is hypocritical, at best.
I have already proved to you that prophecy being fulfilled
has zero effect on whether or not God is directing things
in our time. I proved it by:
1) Demonstrating that there were many times
in which there were no prophecies being
fulfilled and yet, God was directing history
in that same time, as the Bible shows and
you agreed with this.
2) Demonstrating by the example of the cross,
that a fulfilled prophecy does not mean that
the Bible is of no use to us, other than for
history, since the effect of the cross goes on.
And yet, now you flip-flop again. You keep changing
what you're saying, every time I disprove what you're
saying and compare it to your original claims.
Furthermore Randy, when you claim that the Bible
is useless to us other than as a history book (and
yes, that indeed was your claim which I have quoted),
what you're saying at the same time, is that any of
the prophecies that were fulfilled are no longer of
any use to us, as they are now just history!
Now I know that you will want to deny that you're
saying that, but logically, it is impossible for you
to do so. Why? Very simple, Randy! :)
Because Randy, if the sum total of all prophecies
being fulfilled relegates the Bible to a history book
and means that God is no longer directing, then
it is impossible to deny that each fulfilled prophecy
was a building block toward that end result and it
is therefore impossible to apply any usefulness to
any of them for us today, because if you do, then
your first claim is falsified, since if any fulfilled prophecy
is of use to us today, then that means that it is impossible
that all of the prophecies of the Bible being fulfilled
relegates the Bible to merely a history book and us
to a time in which God is no longer directing, which
was indeed your original claim.
That is simple logic, Randy and I disproved your
"theory" (for lack of a better word) by demonstrating
that the cross disproves it.
You may now wish to act as if you weren't making
the argument that you did make, because I have
shown you what effect that would have on the cross
and the fulfillment of the prophecies of the cross,
but you did make the argument and relegating
the cross to mere history is the result of your claim
that if the prophecies of the Bible are fulfilled, then
it makes the Bible a history book and our time a
time in which God is no longer directing, whether
you wish to admit that or not.
And the fact is, when you see what your claim does
to the things like the doctrine of the cross, then
instead of denying you said what I quote you saying,
integrity would demand that am honest person say;
"You're right. That would be the effect. I was wrong
and I need to change that belief of mine. Prophecies
of the Bible being fulfilled, does not mean that God
has disappeared from the planet, since it is obvious
that He hasn't, since people are still saved today,
due to Jesus' work on the cross."
But are we seeing that from you, Randy? No. Instead,
what we are seeing, is you constantly trying to shift
your claims around, changing them even from one
paragraph to the next, constantly trying to claim that
you didn't say what you said and then later saying
that you didn't say what you changed it to! Huh? (:
You see Randy, the Futurist doctrine, as I have said
repeatedly, always ends up contradicting itself and
always leaves the believer in it stranded out on a
desert island somewhere, with no water and some
very dry air! :) The Futurist doctrine will always,
every time, leave the believer in it in a place in
which they don't want to be and one which does
contradict what the Bible says and it really is
that simple Randy!
And look at what you ended up admitting that
you believe and that you do and that it springs
out of Futurism! And yet Randy, you still cling
to Futurism, which shows that to you, it is the
doctrine that is all important and not the Bible,
since the Bible, as you admitted even about
Jesus' words, disagrees with your doctrine and
forces you to dishonestly change the words of
Jesus and add to them and claim that He needs
you to tell us what He "really meant"! So what
other conclusion is there to draw from your words?
The bottom line is that to you, the Bible is useless
as anything other than a history book, if all of the
prophecies of the Bible have been fulfilled. You
may NOW be trying to claim that you say that it
also has some spiritual/moral value, but that is
just you, now, trying to recover from the blow to
your original claim that the prophecy of the cross
did to your claim and it was not part of your original
claim, in which you did indeed relegate the Bible to
nothing more than a history book and you DID say
that if all of the prophecies of the Bible have been
fulfilled, that God is no longer directing us today
and that is a fact, period! You said that it would
mean that He "disappeared from the planet",
thereby making God an absentee landlord!
Gee, nice doctrine you have there, Randy! (:
So to you, if the Bible is not all about YOU and
YOUR time, then it is a useless waste of paper
and ink when it comes to the faith, in today's time,
since it would be, according to you, nothing but
a history book, with God as an absentee landlord!
Don't like that assessment? Good! You shouldn't!
But it is what you're saying and I quoted your
claim here and this is the logical result of it!!!
You see Randy, I don't sit here and argue back
and forth with you, nor others. And if you think
that I do, then you haven't been paying attention.
What I actually do, is respond to what people say
and then show them what they have just said and
what it means. This allows them to read it again
and to withdraw a statement, if they did not mean
to say that. But if they don't withdraw it (and you
did not), then what I do, is let them go on and on
and probably they will snip, which reveals a lot about
what they know just happened and don't want seen
and I simply let them argue on, trying to change
their claims and move the goal posts, while they
end up having to admit some things and so Randy,
what I am really doing, is nothing more than:
1) Reminding them what they originally said.
2) Showing them what the implications are.
3) Let them paint themselves into a corner.
And the fact is, that after doing #'s 1&2, if they
still kept going, then they deserve #3 and it isn't
about me and my opinion. That isn't what I have
given you here, Randy. I have done nothing but
deal with what YOU said and echoed it back to you,
showing you what the implications are and did so
with irrefutable logic, such as the part about the
"sum of" when dealing with the prophecies.
Logic is logic and it is what it is and as I said,
you have even admitted to doing some pretty
sneaky things with Jesus' words, etc.. (:
So what I would suggest here, is that if you do consider
yourself to be a man of integrity (and I'm not saying
that you're not), that you NOW APPLY said integrity,
since there is NO integrity in the following:
1) Snipping the context to try to change the
appearance of what I said, to try to pretend
it was about something other than what it
was about.
2) Changing Jesus' words to suit your doctrine.
3) Relegating the Bible to a history book if it
does not suit your self-centered doctrine
that it is all about you and your time, or it
has no value beyond a history book (again,
see original claim and remember that you
did specifically say that if it isn't about our
time, then God is not around).
And btw, it was hypocrisy for you to claim that
no one should consider themselves more important
than anyone else and yet, here you Futurists are,
constantly putting forth the idea that if the Bible
is not all about YOU and YOUR time, then it is of
no use beyond a history book!
And in fact, I have had more than one Futurist
admit to me; "If the Bible's not all about us today,
then what good is it?".
And as we both know Randy, that is exactly how
you feel and believe and you are NOW simply trying
to avoid saying it AGAIN, because you see how it
makes your doctrine look.
And it is one really sad doctrine that would actually
say that if it isn't about us and our time, that God
is not around! Think about that! God is not around
if it isn't about you, today?!? Huh?!? What?!?
But hey, no ego there, right Randy? (:
>> And while Futurists have to keep changing who, what
>> and where the prophecies are about, to match the
>> daily news, I can point to what happened and my belief
>> stays the same.
>
> That is not necessarily a virtue. To ignore what God
> is doing in contemporary history is to close our eyes
> to the Holy Spirit and to God's activity in the world today.
Again, you misrepresent what I said and what I do!
I said nothing about ignoring what God is doing today!
God doing things today, does not automatically mean
that the prophecies of the Bible are about us today
and that is a selfish, egotistical view that is full of pride!
The fact is, that you are now trying to defend changing
supposed fulfillments to match the daily news, when all
that does, is make you a "newspaper prophet"!
And the fact is, that you have already admitted that
there have been many times in the Bible, where the
prophecies were not about their specific time and yet,
God was present and those who worshipped Him did
prosper! So you yourself have defeated your claim
through that admission, that the prophecies must be
about our time, for God to be doing anything today!
> We must somehow come to grips with what is
> happening in the world, and see these things
> in the light of what God predicted would happen.
No, that is your claim, not proof. But thank you
for admitting that your doctrine is guided by the
daily news, instead of Scripture, which also means
that you by default admit that what you view as
supposed "fulfillments" are always wrong, since
they always change with what's on the news today!
>> Furthermore, you are erroneously trying to equate God
>> directing history with a requirement that not all of the
>> prophecies of the Bible be fulfilled yet and that makes
>> no sense at all. God has always been in control of what
>> happens, regardless of whether or not it's even mentioned
>> in the Bible, let alone listed as a prophecy. And He remains
>> in control, whether all prophecies have been fulfilled or not.
>
> Actually I think your position is somewhat irrational.
> If God directs history, then He *has not* finished
> anticipating history.
That is your claim, not proof. And it is the claim
of a man who admit to changing the words of
Jesus to avoid what Jesus actually said.
You have no problem with Jesus being wrong
and yet, claim that the Bible is true (God's word).
That is a self-contradictory claim and don't bother
saying that you don't believe that Jesus was wrong,
because you already admitted to changing His words
to avoid what He actually said about when it was
to happen.
Now you can go on and on, but all you have done,
is make claims and those claims rest on admitted
deception on your part and also on your admission
that fulfilled prophecies do not mean that God
isn't directing things.
>> But your logic says that we are going aimlessly and
>> directionless through time, if the prophecies of the Bible
>> are not all about you and your time and I'm sorry, but
>> that is a sad outlook, at best and it is one that says that
>> once something becomes fulfilled, that part of the Bible is
>> useless and it also by default means that the generations
>> just before us and since the time of the Apostles have
>> been wandering aimlessly through time, because the
>> prophecies were not about them and their time, Randy.
>> That is the only logical conclusion, if what you are saying
>> is true.
>
> I don't see any argument in that. It is absolutely true
> that if we don't have God's prophetic word guiding
> current history we are indeed wandering aimlessly.
Thank you for admitting that if it isn't all about you,
then there's no point in it. But hey, no pride and ego
there, huh Randy?
And what about all of those generations before you?
I guess they were "wandering aimlessly", huh?
Oh, but wait, they had to go through their time,
so that it could be all about your time! But hey,
no pride or ego there, huh Randy?
Nothing you say will change the fact that if it is
all about you, then all of the generations before
you since Christ, "wandered aimlessly", since it
wasn't about them. Gee, how special you are!
And the truth is, that when you die and it still
didn't happen, that will mean that all you did
was wander aimlessly too. Awww, poor Randy!
The bottom line is that your doctrine is one of
pride, ego and self-interest and it is one which
places you at the top of the heap of all mankind,
at any time and also says that you know more
even than the Apostles and even than Jesus did!
To you, the Bible is a waste of paper and ink,
if it isn't all about you and that is pure ego
and pure pride and it is as self-centered as
it gets, to demand that the culmination of
all that God has done and will do, be about
you, in your time!
That is so sad, Randy! You have no problem
with this, nor with making Jesus out to be a liar,
since you say that He was wrong, every time
you change His words to suit your doctrine!
And how you can actually sit there and claim
to worship and believe in God and in His word
and then admit to changing Jesus' words, is
beyond me! How you cannot see how deluded
you are, I have no idea, but I do know that it is
not God who puts these ideas in your head!
He would never tell anyone to change Jesus'
words to suit their doctrine!
You filter the Bible through your doctrine,
changing anything in the Bible, as you
admitted to doing, that doesn't suit you,
instead of the other way around, as would
be proper, which would be to filter your
doctrine through the Bible and toss out
whatever doesn't fit in said doctrine,
which may mean the entire doctrine!
And with that, I'm done with this. All you keep
doing, is putting words into my mouth that
I did not say and falsifying words and even
admitting to making false claims about what
Jesus said and you just don't care what the
Bible actually says. You need it to be about
you, or it can go into the garbage as far as
you're concerned and that I know is true!
--
Pastor Dave
The following is part of my auto-rotating
sig file and not part of the message body.
"If the Bible is too old fashioned for Christians
then no one else can be expected to obey."
- unknown
Rob Strom
> Pastor Dave wrote:
> ...
> > >wrong for criticizing judaism here.
>
> > >No. That is the purpose of this NG--for us to deny judaism, and advance
> > >Christ, while you take the other side
>
> > Wouldn't this group be for Jews who accept Christ
> > and others would be guests in it?
>
> that's what i think too, but rob says no.
>
> Funny, though, how he doesn't attack sam for calling this a JEWISH
> newsgroup, but is right there to attack a christian who calls it a
> CHRISTIAN newsgroup
It isn't a Jewish newsgroup or a Christian newsgroup.
That's what I said. I didn't attack anyone. I pointed
out what was correct and what was incorrect, and
it turns out that you and Sam are both wrong.
It's a debate newsgroup and always has been. And
you shouldn't say "that's what I think" when it's been
explained to you many times what the history was.
--
Rob Strom
vince garcia
>
> On Oct 2, 7:33 am, vince garcia <vggarci...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
> > Pastor Dave wrote:
> > ...
> > > >wrong for criticizing judaism here.
> >
> > > >No. That is the purpose of this NG--for us to deny judaism, and advance
> > > >Christ, while you take the other side
> >
> > > Wouldn't this group be for Jews who accept Christ
> > > and others would be guests in it?
> >
> ...
>
> > that's what i think too, but rob says no.
> >
> > Funny, though, how he doesn't attack sam for calling this a JEWISH
> > newsgroup, but is right there to attack a christian who calls it a
> > CHRISTIAN newsgroup
>
> It isn't a Jewish newsgroup or a Christian newsgroup.
> That's what I said.
But you SHOULD have said it immediately to sam, and not say it to ME,
who was following up HIS original incorrect point.
Notice how you didn't respond to his post at all, and then to mine, to
be even-handed? Instead, you went straight to get on ME, and said not
one word to him, who by your own words said something equally wrong to
start with
I'd like to see you target jews who say things you disagree with,
instead of focusing on us
I didn't attack anyone. I pointed
> out what was correct and what was incorrect, and
> it turns out that you and Sam are both wrong.
>
> It's a debate newsgroup and always has been. And
> you shouldn't say "that's what I think" when it's been
> explained to you many times what the history was.
You've given me your polite spin on it many times, yes. But I think my
assessment of how the jews wanted the christians out cuts more deeply to
the truth of the motivation behind its formation
Ed Form
rkl...@wavecable.com says...
> And some of this was even
> anticipated, I believe, by the ancient prophets when they said Antichrist
> was coming.
>
>
Where exactly in Scripture does any prophet say that?
Ed Form
randy
"Ed Form"
>> And some of this was even
>> anticipated, I believe, by the ancient prophets when they said Antichrist
>> was coming.
> Where exactly in Scripture does any prophet say that?
My old friend, Ed! Well, Ed Form, those references are so worn out I'm
afraid even you might not be able to recognize them anymore! ;)
I would begin with Daniel 7, the "little horn," and probably end with the
"beast rising out of the sea" in Rev 13. The Apostle John said this, "By
this you know the Spirit of God: every spirit which confesses that Jesus
Christ has come in the flesh is of God, and every spirit which does not
confess Jesus is not of God. This is the spirit of antichrist, of which you
heard that it was coming, and now it is in the world already."
Though this is a reference to a spirituality that is generally hostile to
Christianity, John also references the Antichrist as a person yet to come.
This is what he says elsewhere...
1 John 2:18 Children, it is the last hour; and as you have heard that
antichrist is coming, so now many antichrists have come; therefore we know
that it is the last hour.
No matter how much we may disagree here, it's nice to "hear your voice"
again! :)
randy
Ed Form
rkl...@wavecable.com says...
>
> "Ed Form"
>
> >> And some of this was even
> >> anticipated, I believe, by the ancient prophets when they said Antichrist
> >> was coming.
>
> > Where exactly in Scripture does any prophet say that?
>
> My old friend, Ed! Well, Ed Form, those references are so worn out I'm
> afraid even you might not be able to recognize them anymore! ;)
>
> I would begin with Daniel 7, the "little horn," and probably end with the
> "beast rising out of the sea" in Rev 13.
The meaning of the symbols in Daniel is made plain by the explanation
given to Daniel by the angel who sowed him the visions. The fourth beast
was plainly the Roman Empire and the horns were developments of its
governing powers - the final, little, horn was identified by Christian
thinkers as the Papacy as long ago as the third century. The Daniel
symbols are the basis of the symbols in Revelation where persecution of
true followers of Jesus by a renegade church claiming to be a 'holy'
extension of the Roman Empire and the progress of the Empire from a
dragon/pagan power to a false-christian power, still practising the
pagan behaviour of the dragon, is outlined using them.
The **only** use of the term 'antichrist' in Scripture is by John, and
the context shows that he referred directly to something active in his
own time. The passage you quote in the excerpt below makes that plain...
> The Apostle John said this, "By this you know the Spirit of God:
> every spirit which confesses that Jesus Christ has come in the
> flesh is of God, and every spirit which does not confess Jesus
> is not of God. This is the spirit of antichrist, of which you
> heard that it was coming, and now it is in the world already."
This is one of only four passages containing the Greek word
'antichristos', all of which occur in John's first two letters. The word
means 'one diametrically opposed to Jesus and teaching that Jesus is not
Christ'. In John's day that role was exclusively filled by Jewish
religious activists and their leaders.
1Jo 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.
There were multiple antichrists in John's own time, and the christian
community, to whom John wrote, had been warned that it would happen. The
fact that they were out there was a sign that John's own day was the
last time - in the context it should be pretty obvious that the sack of
Jerusalem and the end of the Jewish commonwealth was the 'last time' to
which John referred.
1Jo 2:22
Who is a liar but he that denieth that Jesus is
the Christ? He is antichrist, that denieth the
Father and the Son.
This is John's definition of what the word he coined meant - Anyone who
denied that Jesus was Christ and by that denial actually denied both
Jesus and the father who sent him and certified him as Christ by way of
the power he granted to him and finally by his resurrection.
1Jo 4:3
And every spirit that confesseth not that Jesus
Christ is come in the flesh is not of God: and
this is that spirit of antichrist, whereof ye
have heard that it should come; and even now
already is it in the world.
John's first letter was very plainly a preface to his Gospel and was
probably sent out with it to explain why the gospel was written. The
gospel is an extended polemic against the false religion called Judaism
and in this verse John speaks of the Jewish denial that the flesh and
blood human being, Jesus of Nazareth, is the Christ [Messiah]. The word
'spirit' in this verse has no metaphysical context whatever - you keep
using airy-fairy words like 'spirituality' - the word means 'a way of
thinking' - an attitude of mind'.
2Jo 1:7
For many deceivers are entered into the world,
who confess not that Jesus Christ is come in
the flesh. This is a deceiver and an antichrist.
Again, John's meaning is plain. things have moved on a bit since the
early, first letter was sent out, and the church was greatly plagued
with a fifth column of false brethren teaching that Jesus was not
Messiah - John tells his readers plainly that Jesus is Messiah and they
should discount the false teaching of these 'antichrists'.
All four of these passages refer to false teachings current in the world
in which John lived and wrote. They do not refer to some latter-day
villain, and very definitely not to a supernatural one.
> Though this is a reference to a spirituality that is generally hostile to
> Christianity, John also references the Antichrist as a person yet to come.
> This is what he says elsewhere...
>
> 1 John 2:18 Children, it is the last hour; and as you have heard that
> antichrist is coming, so now many antichrists have come; therefore we know
> that it is the last hour.
I've told you a number of times in the past that you cannot read plain
language, Randy. The verse you cite here does not refer to anything 'yet
to come'. It says plainly 'have come'. Sit down and parse the sentence
word by word until you get it into your bonce that it does not say what
you claim. @Have come' does not mean 'yet to come'.
> No matter how much we may disagree here, it's nice to "hear your voice"
> again! :)
Nice to see your name again.
Ed Form
Sam Taylor
would that include those whom believe He came as 100% G-D
and 100% Flesh or actualy 50% G-D 50% Man
a half and Half or as just another name but G-D
it seems to Me that no one in Xtianity actually believes
"Jesus christ is the ONLY begotten son of G-D"
that these are only flowery words used in scripture
for the Hidden Mystery truth.
Ed Form
says...
> > 1Jo 4:3
> > And every spirit that confesseth not that Jesus
> > Christ is come in the flesh is not of God: and
> > this is that spirit of antichrist, whereof ye
> > have heard that it should come; and even now
> > already is it in the world.
>
> would that include those whom believe He came as 100% G-D
> and 100% Flesh or actualy 50% G-D 50% Man
> a half and Half or as just another name but G-D
> it seems to Me that no one in Xtianity actually believes
> "Jesus christ is the ONLY begotten son of G-D"
> that these are only flowery words used in scripture
> for the Hidden Mystery truth.
>
>
I can't answer for those who espouse silly trinitarian ideas; I find
only a simple description in Scripture of a human being brought into
existence by the miraculous action of God on a virgin Jewish lady. He
was stronger than you or I and he was watched over and aided at every
turn in his life, but he was a human being.
Ed Form
randy
"Ed Form"
rkl...@wavecable.com
>> I would begin with Daniel 7, the "little horn," and probably end with the
>> "beast rising out of the sea" in Rev 13.
> The meaning of the symbols in Daniel is made plain by the explanation
> given to Daniel by the angel who sowed him the visions. The fourth beast
> was plainly the Roman Empire and the horns were developments of its
> governing powers - the final, little, horn was identified by Christian
> thinkers as the Papacy as long ago as the third century....
And if I believe these Christians thinkers are an invalid source of
authority for this interpretation? I agree that the 4th beast is the Roman
Empire, and that the "two legs" of Nebuchadnezzar's great image represented
the two halves of the ancient Roman Empire, the Western Empire and the
Eastern Empire. But that's as far as I can go with this view.
The division into "ten toes" takes us into modern times, since it was only
relatively late in history that Roman imperialism fell on hard times. Today
we have a number of European states, and perhaps even the U.S. to represent
the old Roman tradition. The "ten toes" of Nebuchadnezzar's great image is a
matter of anybody's interpretation at this point.
I believe the "little horn," however, is Antichrist himself--not the Papacy.
Where I think your "Christian thinkers" are right is that the Papacy did
fall into corruption, and began to carry some aspects of Antichristianity,
or the Antichristian *spirit.* Oddly, Catholics feel it is the reverse, that
Protestantism began to carry some aspects of the Antichristian spirit, and
was a precursor to the ultimate Antichrist. Actually, both may be true! ;)
> The **only** use of the term 'antichrist' in Scripture is by John, and
> the context shows that he referred directly to something active in his
> own time. The passage you quote in the excerpt below makes that plain...
I'm not really concerned with exclusive use of the single term "antichrist."
It is what John referred to that I'm concerned with. I'm convinced he was
referring directly back to Daniel 7, where the "little horn" was mentioned.
Beyond this, I think John evolved his own view of this "little horn" by
drawing upon Jesus' warning that false christs would come and "deceive
many." Jesus did not predict an immediate coming of this "little horn," but
instead indicated that "many" antichrists would precede his/its own coming.
But that is my guess, and my interpretation of things.
> There were multiple antichrists in John's own time, and the christian
> community, to whom John wrote, had been warned that it would happen. The
> fact that they were out there was a sign that John's own day was the
> last time - in the context it should be pretty obvious that the sack of
> Jerusalem and the end of the Jewish commonwealth was the 'last time' to
> which John referred.
Yes, I agree Jesus regarded the coming fall of Jerusalem as the beginning of
the end for Israel. And yet, history has stretched out far longer than
Jesus' narrow focus upon his own time. I'm not suggesting that Jesus himself
was narrow--only that he felt we should focus more on our own time and needs
than on speculating about the distant future.
So I believe although the endtimes began with the fall of Jerusalem, I think
for many nations in history things hadn't even yet begun for them. Many
nations have risen and fallen, and the endtimes began at different times for
many different nations.
But in another sense, the "last days" is a matter of determining how the
gospel plays out in each nation. We are in the "last times" precisely
because there is a gospel in the world calling all men into account. At the
point where they hear the gospel, they enter into a place of eternal
scrutiny, in which their final destiny is determined. And when the whole
world comes into this final scrutiny, the end of the age will actually take
place.
> John's first letter was very plainly a preface to his Gospel and was
> probably sent out with it to explain why the gospel was written. The
> gospel is an extended polemic against the false religion called Judaism
> and in this verse John speaks of the Jewish denial that the flesh and
> blood human being, Jesus of Nazareth, is the Christ [Messiah]. The word
> 'spirit' in this verse has no metaphysical context whatever - you keep
> using airy-fairy words like 'spirituality' - the word means 'a way of
> thinking' - an attitude of mind'.
Sometimes "spirit" can indeed just mean an attitude of mind. But I disagree,
and think that *spirituality* is key to the message of Jesus. As a divine
being he can actually transmit to us *his own spirit.* As participants in
that spirit we obtain his actual virtue, and participate in his actual
character and holiness. And so we can also trust in our ultimate hope to be
raised from the dead and obtain an immortal body--just like Jesus' immortal
body.
Spirituality for me is key because we need divine virtue to obtain a higher
level of righteousness than simply "doing good." In order to do good in a
way that pleases God we must do things *in direct partnership with God.* To
do this we must enter into a spiritual relationship with God, I believe. And
this fulfils what God promised the patriarchs, that He would be their God,
and they would be His people.
I don't believe we can ever get enough satisfaction in just "doing good." It
is a worthwhile cause, but we psychologically need more evidence that we
live in close proximity to God. We need to actually *feel* God, to
intellectually encounter Him. In the Scriptures God indicates that He
"stretches out" His hands and arms. That means to me that He reaches down
into our world where we can actually experience His Spirit and presence.
...A very critical element to me.
> All four of these passages refer to false teachings current in the world
> in which John lived and wrote. They do not refer to some latter-day
> villain, and very definitely not to a supernatural one.
John was definitely addressing his own time, as Jesus had said that should
be their priority--not a speculative eschatology trying to decode history
and understand who will be the Antichrist. ;)
However, I believe John also referenced a very specific eschatology of Jesus
regarding a coming Antichrist. And this is detailed in the book of
Revelation, the "beast" as I mentioned earlier.
>> 1 John 2:18 Children, it is the last hour; and as you have heard that
>> antichrist is coming, so now many antichrists have come; therefore we
>> know
>> that it is the last hour.
> I've told you a number of times in the past that you cannot read plain
> language, Randy. The verse you cite here does not refer to anything 'yet
> to come'. It says plainly 'have come'. Sit down and parse the sentence
> word by word until you get it into your bonce that it does not say what
> you claim. @Have come' does not mean 'yet to come'.
The verse I referenced indicated "is coming"--not "have come." I will have
to defer to experts in the Greek language in this respect. But in context,
the idea of a "coming" Antichrist seems plainly in John's mind.
>> No matter how much we may disagree here, it's nice to "hear your voice"
>> again! :)
> Nice to see your name again.
Glad you're still around and kicking...and as ornery as ever. ;)
randy
Ed Form
rkl...@wavecable.com says...
>
> "Ed Form"
> rkl...@wavecable.com
>
> The division into "ten toes" takes us into modern times, since it was only
> relatively late in history that Roman imperialism fell on hard times. Today
> we have a number of European states, and perhaps even the U.S. to represent
> the old Roman tradition. The "ten toes" of Nebuchadnezzar's great image is a
> matter of anybody's interpretation at this point.
I didn't mention the ten toes, Randy. I spoke of the horns of Daniel's
fourth beast and I followed the fairly standard idea that they represent
ten forms of government - an idea that actually follows from the obvious
identity of the notable horn of the goat in Daniel 8:5 with Alexander
the Great and the four notable horns that came up after the great horn
was broken [Daniel 8:8] with the four generals between whom Alexander's
empire was divided.
> I believe the "little horn," however, is Antichrist himself--not the Papacy.
You've made up a connection with John's words that simply doesn't exist.
John spoke of Jewish religious activists who tried to destroy
Christianity by denying that Jesus was the Christ.
> > The **only** use of the term 'antichrist' in Scripture is by
> > John, and the context shows that he referred directly to
> > something active in his own time. The passage you quote in
> > the excerpt below makes that plain...
>
> I'm not really concerned with exclusive use of the single term "antichrist."
> It is what John referred to that I'm concerned with. I'm convinced he was
> referring directly back to Daniel 7, where the "little horn" was mentioned.
Show a connection then!
The whole idea of a latter-day Antichrist is a nonsense originated by
the RCC as a smokescreen to divert attention from their blindingly
obvious, and ancient, identification as the Great Whore riding on the
Dragon - as the corrupters of Christianty by the introduction of pagan
ideas and practices. The false idea that a single future Antichrist will
appear is actually the thing that will gather all nations together into
a place called in the Hebrew tongue, Armageddon. The RCC and her
daughter churches will identify the Lord Jesus himself as Antichrist and
preach a crusade against him.
> Beyond this, I think John evolved his own view of this "little horn" by
> drawing upon Jesus' warning that false christs would come and "deceive
> many." Jesus did not predict an immediate coming of this "little horn," but
> instead indicated that "many" antichrists would precede his/its own coming.
> But that is my guess, and my interpretation of things.
Jesus spoke of Pseudochrists, not antichrists [False Christs, not
opponents of Christ]: events preceding the destruction of the Jewish
commonwealth by the Romans is full of them - most notably Simon bar
Kochbar whom the cretin Akiva suggested could be the Messiah and who got
the Romans so pissed they finally finished the job.
Ed Form
Pastor Dave
>>>> And some of this was even anticipated, I believe,
>>>> by the ancient prophets when they said Antichrist
>>>> was coming.
>>>
>>> Where exactly in Scripture does any prophet say that?
>>
>> I would begin with Daniel 7, the "little horn,"
>> and probably end with the "beast rising out
>> of the sea" in Rev 13.
>
> The meaning of the symbols in Daniel is made plain
> by the explanation given to Daniel by the angel who
> sowed him the visions. The fourth beast was plainly
> the Roman Empire and the horns were developments
> of its governing powers - the final, little, horn was
> identified by Christian thinkers as the Papacy as
> long ago as the third century.
It cannot be the papacy however, since Daniel only
spoke of four kingdoms, not five and never said a
word about a "revived Roman Empire" and never
said a thing about one of them being religious.
What Futurists do, is ignore what Daniel actually said
and look at the statue and claim that the toes are
a fifth kingdom, or a revived fourth kingdom and
they base an entire doctrine that runs counter to
what Daniel actually said, on nine words that don't
even say what their doctrine does!
"...his feet part of iron and part of clay"
That's it! Their whole doctrine of this supposedly
coming kingdom is based on those nine words
that do not even say one single word about
some "coming kingdom thousands of years later"!
> The Daniel symbols are the basis of the symbols
> in Revelation where persecution of true followers
> of Jesus by a renegade church claiming to be
> a 'holy' extension of the Roman Empire and the
> progress of the Empire from a dragon/pagan power
> to a false-christian power, still practising the pagan
> behaviour of the dragon, is outlined using them.
That's if you believe that the RCC is in the Bible.
Otherwise, your theory falls apart. And if that
is what you believe, then it runs counter to
what you say further down, about John's time
being the last days.
> The **only** use of the term 'antichrist' in Scripture
> is by John, and the context shows that he referred
> directly to something active in his own time. The
> passage you quote in the excerpt below makes
> that plain...
Yes, it does.
>> The Apostle John said this, "By this you know
>> the Spirit of God: every spirit which confesses
>> that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is of God
>> and every spirit which does not confess Jesus
>> is not of God. This is the spirit of antichrist,
>> of which you heard that it was coming, and
>> now it is in the world already."
>
> This is one of only four passages containing the
> Greek word 'antichristos', all of which occur in
> John's first two letters. The word means 'one
> diametrically opposed to Jesus and teaching that
> Jesus is not Christ'. In John's day that role was
> exclusively filled by Jewish religious activists and
> their leaders.
Yes indeed it was! And there is a lot of persecution
by the Jews listed in the New Testament.
> 1Jo 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.
>
> There were multiple antichrists in John's own time
> and the christian community, to whom John wrote,
> had been warned that it would happen. The fact
> that they were out there was a sign that John's own
> day was the last time - in the context it should be
> pretty obvious that the sack of Jerusalem and the
> end of the Jewish commonwealth was the 'last time'
> to which John referred.
Which is also made obvious by Jesus' words
in Luke 21:20-22, in which He also said that
this event would be the fulfillment of all
things written.
Actually, it was not about a Jewish denial of Christ
being flesh and blood, but a false Gnostic belief.
The verse above has nothing to do with the Jews
denying Jesus as Messiah. It has to do with the
Gnostic claim that Christ only appeared to have
come in the flesh and was not really human flesh.
The Gnostics believed that all matter was evil and
therefore taught that Jesus Christ was not actually
a human being of flesh and blood, but rather,
some "spirit being" and therefore, did not believe
that Jesus Christ had come in the flesh.
> 2Jo 1:7
> For many deceivers are entered into the world,
> who confess not that Jesus Christ is come in
> the flesh. This is a deceiver and an antichrist.
>
> Again, John's meaning is plain. things have
> moved on a bit since the early, first letter
> was sent out, and the church was greatly
> plagued with a fifth column of false brethren
> teaching that Jesus was not Messiah - John
> tells his readers plainly that Jesus is Messiah
> and they should discount the false teaching
> of these 'antichrists'.
See above.
> All four of these passages refer to false teachings
> current in the world in which John lived and wrote.
> They do not refer to some latter-day villain, and
> very definitely not to a supernatural one.
That is true.
>> Though this is a reference to a spirituality
>> that is generally hostile to Christianity,
>> John also references the Antichrist as
>> a person yet to come. This is what he
>> says elsewhere...
>>
>> 1 John 2:18 Children, it is the last hour;
>> and as you have heard that antichrist is
>> coming, so now many antichrists have
>> come; therefore we know that it is the
>> last hour.
>
> I've told you a number of times in the past
> that you cannot read plain language, Randy.
> The verse you cite here does not refer to
> anything 'yet to come'. It says plainly 'have come'.
> Sit down and parse the sentence word by word
> until you get it into your bonce that it does not
> say what you claim. 'Have come' does not mean
> 'yet to come'.
Let us not forget that John did not say;
"antichrist is coming".
Rather, he said "YOU HAVE HEARD...".
Heard from whom? John may be correcting them
regarding a false rumor based on a false doctrine.
And much of what he wrote in these epistles are
correction of false doctrines.
Also, I will say it again about Futurists... They simply
ignore that which means that it isn't all about them
in their time, because to them, if the Bible isn't all
about us today, then it is useless and worthless.
The fact is, that John opens that verse with:
"IT IS THE LAST HOUR".
Let me quote that again... "It *_IS_* the last hour".
That places the last HOUR in John's day.
--
Pastor Dave
The following is part of my auto-rotating
sig file and not part of the message body.
One good thing about Alzheimers is that you meet
new people every day.
Pastor Dave
<ed....@theformsonline.com> spake thusly:
>I can't answer for those who espouse silly trinitarian ideas; I find
>only a simple description in Scripture of a human being brought into
>existence by the miraculous action of God on a virgin Jewish lady. He
>was stronger than you or I and he was watched over and aided at every
>turn in his life, but he was a human being.
"In the beginning was the Word, and the Word
was with God, and the Word was God. The same
was in the beginning with God. All things were
made by him; and without him was not any thing
made that was made." - John 1:1-3
"Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you,
Before Abraham was, I am." - John 8:58
"And now, O Father, glorify thou me with thine own
self with the glory which I had with thee before the
world was." - John 17:5
--
Pastor Dave
The following is part of my auto-rotating
sig file and not part of the message body.
Save the Earth! It's the only planet with chocolate!