Church Fathers & Death Destroyed!
Pastor Dave
Quote about how death was destroyed, by "church fathers":
Melito of Sardis: "Who will contend against me? Let him
stand before me. It is I who delivered the condemned.
It is I who gave life to the dead. It is I who raised up
the buried. Who will argue with me? It is I, says Christ,
who destroyed death. It is I who triumphed over the
enemy, and having trod down Hades, and bound the
Strong Man, and have snatched mankind up to the
heights of heaven."
St. Athanasius: "Now, however, that the devil, that tyrant
against the whole world, is slain, we do not approach a
temporal feast, my beloved, but an eternal and heavenly.
Not in shadows do we shew it forth, but we come to it in
truth. For they being filled with the flesh of a dumb lamb,
accomplished the feast, and having anointed their door-posts
with the blood, implored aid against the destroyer. For
no more does death reign; but instead of death henceforth
is life, since our Lord said, 'I am the life;' so that
everything is filled with joy and gladness; as it is
written, 'The Lord reigneth, let the earth rejoice.'
For when death reigned, 'sitting down by the rivers of
Babylon, we wept,' and mourned, because we felt the
bitterness of captivity; but now that death and the kingdom
of the devil is abolished, everything is entirely filled
with joy and gladness. And God is no longer known only
in Judaea, but in all the earth, 'their voice hath gone
forth, and the knowledge of Him hath filled all the earth.'
(Letter 256, Part 3)
Odes of Solomon: "Because He is my Sun and His rays have
lifted me up and His light hath dispelled all darkness from
my face. In Him I have acquired eyes and have seen His holy
day: The way of error I have left, and have walked towards
Him and have received salvation from Him, without grudging.
I have put on incorruption through His name: and have put
off corruption by His grace. Death hath been destroyed
before my face: and Sheol bath been abolished by my word."
--
Pastor Dave
Ever has it been, that love does not know its own depth,
until the pain of separation.
Abrams1117
> Quote about how death was destroyed, by "church fathers":
Quotes about how death will be destroyed, by the Bible:
For since by man came death, by man came also the resurrection of the
dead.
For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive.
But every man in his own order: Christ the firstfruits; afterward they
that are Christ's at his coming.
Then cometh the end, when he shall have delivered up the kingdom to G-
D, even the Father; when he shall have put down all rule and all
authority and power.
For he must reign, till he hath put all enemies under his feet.
The last enemy that shall be destroyed is death.
And G-D shall wipe away all tears from their eyes; and there shall be
no more death, neither sorrow, nor crying, neither shall there be any
more pain: for the former things are passed away.
And the sea gave up the dead which were in it; and death and hell
delivered up the dead which were in them: and they were judged every
man according to their works.
And death and hell were cast into the lake of fire.
This is the second death.
And whosoever was not found written in the book of life was cast into
the lake of fire.
@tampabay.rr.com Pastor Dave
<John...@peoplepc.com> spake thusly:
>On Jan 7, 4:35 am, Pastor Dave <ananias917_@_gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Quote about how death was destroyed, by "church fathers":
>
>Quotes about how death will be destroyed, by the Bible:
The quotes I gave were from people who were quoting
the Bible. And you're not fooling anyone. You think
because you quote a passage, that means it says what
your doctrine states.
--
Pastor Dave
"If you want to see what children can do, you must stop
giving them things." - Norman Douglas
Peter B.
> On Fri, 7 Jan 2011 05:20:35 -0800 (PST), Abrams1117
> <John...@peoplepc.com> spake thusly:
>
>>On Jan 7, 4:35 am, Pastor Dave <ananias917_@_gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Quote about how death was destroyed, by "church fathers":
>>
>>Quotes about how death will be destroyed, by the Bible:
>
> The quotes I gave were from people who were quoting
> the Bible. And you're not fooling anyone. You think
> because you quote a passage, that means it says what
> your doctrine states.
The Word Rules over the words of men.
@tampabay.rr.com Pastor Dave
> The Word Rules over the words of men.
You don't believe that.
--
Pastor Dave
"If the works are of perversity then the mouth's claim
of faith is void." - Unknown
Abrams1117
wrote:
> On Fri, 7 Jan 2011 12:57:03 -0800, "Peter B." <p...@b.org> spake thusly:
>
> > The Word Rules over the words of men.
>
> You don't believe that.
My wife's friend is a mathematician and I have a friend who wrote
algorithms for CERN's Large Hadron Collider. It would be interesting
to get them together and have them calculate to what degree the
meaning of a specific text is altered based upon the number of words
people use to describe that very same text.
The results would probably be similar to the old kids game of
whispering something into one persons ear and then that person
whispers the same statement into the next person's ear and then the
next, etc. And at the end of the line the last person tells everyone
what they were told. Then this statement is compared to the original
statement.
The last statement is usually very different from the original
statement.
The fewer of our own words that we use when discussing Scripture the
better.
If someone simply says: "Death will be cast into the lake of fire, the
last enemy that shall be destroyed is death, there shall be no more
death."
You can simply understand what they have said by reading it. And that
is 90%+ pure Scripture. You do not have to agree with them. But, you
will understand what they do believe and why they believe this. And
all of this with very few human words, too.
@tampabay.rr.com Pastor Dave
<John...@peoplepc.com> spake thusly:
>You can simply understand what they have said by reading it. And that
>is 90%+ pure Scripture. You do not have to agree with them. But, you
>will understand what they do believe and why they believe this. And
>all of this with very few human words, too.
If one does not have an intimate knowledge and understanding
of the peoples and the times that the text was written in, it is
impossible to understand the Scriptures, period. And you know
that, just as everyone else does, which is why they would never
claim to be able to understand any other ancient text without
this type of knowledge of those people, places and times. But
when it comes to the Bible, everyone wants to pretend to be
an expert and that the Holy Spirit is talking to them and they
act like asses when it comes to admitting that they are not
Go and didn't write it and so, maybe shouldn't proclaim that
they cannot err.
You and almost all others, approach the Bible by sitting down
and before opening it, telling yourselves how it was written
just for you, in your time, as if you are the only people that
have ever mattered. That is one Hell of an assumption that
you people make! That even though texts are specifically
addressed to specific people, that they are "really" (this is
the favorite word of the Futurist) written for you, in your time!
And when it comes to the New Testament, people try to read
this text as if it has nothing to do with the Old Testament and
open it up while assuming that the OT was for the Jews and
since they got it wrong, that means the NT is for them, today
and that it was written and then time stopped, until they
opened a Bible for the first time today and then time started
running again! What arrogance!!!
And if you want to *pretend* that you don't do that, then
explain why it is that when you see words like "we" and
"now" and "soon", you assume that:
We = 21st century believers.
Now = 21st century in our generation.
Soon = We, today, will see it soon.
...which YOU KNOW YOU DO assume.
So of course, back then, soon meant "it could be thousands of years",
but when you open it today, it changes meanings to, "our time, today",
but is the same word in the same verse. Yea, that's a good doctrine! (:
--
Pastor Dave
"The Scriptures become of no value when the Inspirer
is not also the Interpreter." - Unknown
Peter B.
When it comes to the matters of the heart, being born again, being baptized
in the spirit, filled and walking in the spirit, communicating in spirit
and truth, healing's, words of knowledge, words of wisdom, discerning of
things spiritual and spirits. There is no time frame, only the framing of
covenants.
The bulk of the Bible speaks to matters of the heart and our relationship
to God the Father, Worshiping Him, understanding Him, in the new covenant
the same through Jesus Christ real time, not forward looking as in times of
old.
Time? Days? Years? They are of no consequence to out daily lives. The time
frame comes in play the more we see the day approaching.
That is not to say clarity of definitions cannot be improved on, but the
KJV for instance had the wording updated to about 400 years ago and one can
take the 1825 Webster dictionary for the bulk of updating to todays
language. Those translators had far more time in the word and study than
yourself.
THE LORD
> healing's
WHAT does healing OWN???????
ANOTHER apostrophe of possession used as a plural!
> discerning of things spiritual
You can't even discern your OWN LANGUAGE!!!!
I quote:
###################################
Uneducated Peter B originally wrote: " You improperly sniped (sic) this
post, yes sniped (sic) ."
Uneducated Peter B now tries to defend his incorrect use if the INTRANSITIVE
VERB "snipe" in a TRANSITIVE FORM.
There is NO transitive form for the verb "snipe"!!!!!!
A transitive verb takes a direct object; that is, the verb transmits action
to an object.
Peter B's "snipe the post" is using snipe as a transitive verb - an action
done to the post - but snipe has no transitive form!
An intransitive verb does not take an object.
Snipe is an INTRANSITIVE VERB with NO OBJECT. One CANNOT "Snipe a post".
Peter B cannot understand this very simple difference.
Peter B remains ignorant.
##################################
seeker
wrote:
[...]
> You can't even discern your OWN LANGUAGE!!!!
>
> I quote:
>
> ###################################
>
Why do you attack people? Peter has left you alone for days. He was
minding his own business.
THE LORD
>> Uneducated Peter B . . .
...
> Peter has left you alone for days.
I haven't been here for days. DOH!
Peter B has also insulted me as a professional educator.
Peter B is incorrect.
Uneducated Peter B originally wrote: " You improperly sniped (sic) this
post, yes sniped (sic) ."
Uneducated Peter B now tries to defend his incorrect use if the INTRANSITIVE
VERB "snipe" in a TRANSITIVE FORM.
There is NO transitive form for the verb "snipe"!!!!!!
A transitive verb takes a direct object; that is, the verb transmits action
to an object.
Peter B's "snipe the post" is using snipe as a transitive verb - an action
done to the post - but snipe has no transitive form!
An intransitive verb does not take an object.
Snipe is an INTRANSITIVE VERB with NO OBJECT. One CANNOT "Snipe a post".
Peter B cannot understand this very simple difference.
Peter B remains ignorant.
IF
Peter B cannot understand his OWN language (English)
THEN
HOW can he possibly understand what was written in HEBREW and GREEK in the
bible????????????????
Peter B thinks he has the spirit of God therefore he knows more than any
educated person.
seeker
wrote:
> "seeker" wrote:
> >> Uneducated Peter B . . .
> ...
> > Peter has left you alone for days.
>
> I haven't been here for days. DOH!
>
> Peter B has also insulted me as a professional educator.
Yeah you followed him for months insulting him. Eventually he did
reply in kind. Now you wish for that to happen more.
> Peter B is incorrect.
>
> Uneducated Peter B originally wrote: " You improperly sniped (sic) this
> post, yes sniped (sic) ."
And you have made similar errors as we all do.
> Uneducated Peter B now tries to defend his incorrect use if the INTRANSITIVE
> VERB "snipe" in a TRANSITIVE FORM.
Just like you defend your lie that "Gee" is using the name "Jesus" in
vain.
Okay why do you do things so similar to what you persecute others for?
> There is NO transitive form for the verb "snipe"!!!!!!
Great. You have made spelling errors that you do not acknowledge.
Why make such a big deal out of it?
[...]
> IF
>
> Peter B cannot understand his OWN language (English)
>
> THEN
>
> HOW can he possibly understand what was written in HEBREW and GREEK in the
> bible????????????????
You demonstrate that you cannot understand the proper use of the
question mark. You also seem to have confused me with someone who
claims Peter does understand Hebrew, Greek, or the Bible. What are
you going to do about your errors?
> Peter B thinks he has the spirit of God therefore he knows more than any
> educated person.
I take it you cannot provide a quote and link to the place where Peter
says he understand more than any educated person? You lied about him
using the name "Jesus" in vain.
@tampabay.rr.com Pastor Dave
> Pastor Dave wrote:
>
>> Abrams1117 spake thusly:
>>
>>> You can simply understand what they have said
>>> by reading it. And that is 90%+ pure Scripture.
>>> You do not have to agree with them. But, you
>>> will understand what they do believe and why
>>> they believe this. And all of this with very few
>>> human words, too.
>>
>> If one does not have an intimate knowledge and
>> understanding of the peoples and the times that
>> the text was written in, it is impossible to understand
>> the Scriptures, period. And you know that, just as
>> everyone else does, which is why they would never
>> claim to be able to understand any other ancient
>> text without this type of knowledge of those people,
>> places and times. But when it comes to the Bible,
>> everyone wants to pretend to be an expert and
>> that the Holy Spirit is talking to them and they act
>> like asses when it comes to admitting that they are
>> not God and didn't write it and so, maybe shouldn't
That's just a bunch of double talk. If you want to make
a claim like that, then you should not be buying into the
idea that it's all about you today, as you do. It sounds
to me like now you're just trying to get out of admitting
that you do it. I mean, if you're so proud of your doctrine
and believe it's so right and I'm so wrong about the time
of it all, then why the double talk every time "time" is
brought up and the time statements of the Bible shown?
The fact is, there is a time frame when God says there
is one and He did, many times.
> Time? Days? Years? They are of no consequence
> to out daily lives.
Yes they are and you know that as well as I do.
Like I said, this is just more double talk. If time
was of no consequence, then you wouldn't be
so busy trying to make it about you today and
claiming "The Bible says so".
> The time frame comes in play the more we see
> the day approaching.
Which you think means your time and so, you do
exactly as I stated, so why do you pretend that
you don't? You assume that it is "approaching"
in your time. That's vanity and ego. It can be
nothing else, since it doesn't say that it's about
today, but rather, it says it's about back then.
The bottom line is, you want to pretend they're
meaningless at the time they were written,
but mean something today, because you want
to pretend that time froze until Peter was born.
That's vanity and ego, not proper interpretation.
--
Pastor Dave
The Last Days were in the first century:
Matthew 3:7,10,12
7) But when He saw many of the Pharisees and
Sadducees come to his baptism, he said unto
THEM, O GENERATION of vipers, who hath warned
YOU to flee from the wrath to come?
10) And NOW also the axe is laid unto the root
of the trees: therefore every tree which bringeth
not forth good fruit is hewn down, and cast into
the fire.
12) Whose fan is in his hand, and he will thoroughly
purge his floor, and gather his wheat into the garner;
but he will burn up the chaff with unquenchable fire.
Peter B.
>> When it comes to the matters of the heart, being
>> born again, being baptized in the spirit, filled and
>> walking in the spirit, communicating in spirit and
>> truth, healing's, words of knowledge, words of
>> wisdom, discerning of things spiritual and spirits.
>> There is no time frame, only the framing of covenants.
>
> That's just a bunch of double talk. If you want to make
> a claim like that, then you should not be buying into the
> idea that it's all about you today, as you do. It sounds
> to me like now you're just trying to get out of admitting
> that you do it. I mean, if you're so proud of your doctrine
> and believe it's so right and I'm so wrong about the time
> of it all, then why the double talk every time "time" is
> brought up and the time statements of the Bible shown?
I am studying to that end. No dbl talk. What is the Great Commission?
If you want to help others, then heal the sick, raise the dead, cast out
demons/devils and so on. Then lead them to the Lord.
Are you afraid of believing God?
THE LORD
> heal the sick, raise the dead, cast out demons/devils
ONLY found in the ADDED FORGERY tacked onto the end of Mark's gospel which
ends at 16:8.
You are basing a lot on a FORGERY.
Abrams1117
wrote:
> On Sat, 8 Jan 2011 11:25:30 -0800 (PST), Abrams1117
>
> >You can simply understand what they have said by reading it. And that
> >is 90%+ pure Scripture. You do not have to agree with them. But, you
> >will understand what they do believe and why they believe this. And
> >all of this with very few human words, too.
>
> If one does not have an intimate knowledge and understanding
> of the peoples and the times that the text was written in, it is
> impossible to understand the Scriptures, period.
You also need to allow Scripture is interpret itself.
> And you know
> that, just as everyone else does, which is why they would never
> claim to be able to understand any other ancient text without
> this type of knowledge of those people, places and times.
There is 'no other ancient text'. Who can you compare to G-D?
Alexander the Great? Anyone? No. That is silly.
It is the same with the Bible. G-D says I declare the end form the
beginning and there is none like me. there is nothing to compare the
Bible to.
>But
> when it comes to the Bible, everyone wants to pretend to be
> an expert and that the Holy Spirit is talking to them and they
> act like asses when it comes to admitting that they are not
> Go and didn't write it and so, maybe shouldn't proclaim that
> they cannot err.
Not true. I will say this and people can say I am crazy if they wish.
Three times, in times of stress, I heard a voice. And if you ever hear
this you have nothing to compare it to. The closest thing I have ever
seen is in the Movie the Amityville Horror when that voice out of no
where said 'Get Out'. Who knows, maybe that did happen and it was an
angel warning him to leave. Anyway, if these events were in my
imagination or not I have had no 'word' from G-D telling me anything
about the Bible. Evereyone pretends the Holy Spirit is talking to
them? I never said that and never would.
>
> You and almost all others, approach the Bible by sitting down
> and before opening it, telling yourselves how it was written
> just for you, in your time, as if you are the only people that
> have ever mattered.
In a direct response to you I said I think Jesus Christ will return
around 2070. If it is about me it will be a miracle and I will be
older than dirt. Yes, maybe it was written for an ancient senile old
man drooling on his face and soiling himself while trying to figure
out what type of plant he really is......I think not.
>That is one Hell of an assumption that
> you people make! That even though texts are specifically
> addressed to specific people, that they are "really" (this is
> the favorite word of the Futurist) written for you, in your time!
>
> And when it comes to the New Testament, people try to read
> this text as if it has nothing to do with the Old Testament and
> open it up while assuming that the OT was for the Jews and
> since they got it wrong, that means the NT is for them, today
> and that it was written and then time stopped, until they
> opened a Bible for the first time today and then time started
> running again! What arrogance!!!
There is more 'repetition in Scripture of things, people and events
than we understand or have even numbered. Read the Bible and see how
many things are similar and 'repeat'. We do not understand why this
is, we just know that it is. Daniel determined it would be 70 years
then they would be freed - the angle came and said told him there
would be 70 weeks of years. The Babylonians destroyed the temple and
later the Romans destroyed the re-built temple in the very same month,
AV, on the very same day, the 9th. One was in 586 B.C the other was
586 years later. The Jews were freed after 70 years to re-build the
temple which was destroyed in 70 AD - the Bible is filled with these
things which we simply cannot understand.
>
> And if you want to *pretend* that you don't do that, then
> explain why it is that when you see words like "we" and
> "now" and "soon", you assume that:
>
> We = 21st century believers.
>
> Now = 21st century in our generation.
>
> Soon = We, today, will see it soon.
>
> ...which YOU KNOW YOU DO assume.
Preterists like to say that soon means 37 years later. Using their
logic I have never considered 30+ years of waiting to be 'soon'.
Daniel was given a prophecy and 580 or so years later Jesus Christ
said it had not yet happened. Then Preterists insist that it could not
possible be about something that will happen 2,000 years later! Right,
because we are mortal and think it is a long time? Or because 2,000
years is 'really' a long time compared to 580 years? To who? Man? G-
D?
>
> So of course, back then, soon meant "it could be thousands of years",
> but when you open it today, it changes meanings to, "our time, today",
> but is the same word in the same verse. Yea, that's a good doctrine! (:
AND IF I SAY WAIT RIGHT THERE FOR MY ANSWER, IT WILL BE HERE SOON!?
( AROUND 2041)
We are trying to force an eternal almighty all-knowing spirit being to
live by our understanding of time and physics. Truly we are cavemen
hiding in caves from the moon, the giant sky eye, so it cannot see
us.
That is why the only...o-n-l-y way to understand the Bible is to let
it speak. I said it before and will continue to say it as long as I
live -Scripture says we will understand clearly..that is w-i-l-l....we
will understand clearly.
To do this, someone has to shut up! And let the Bible speak. Then when
it is all together it will be easy to understand.
The pre-trib rapture is dead - it just does not know it yet.
Little by little truth is coming out and nothing can stop it. Why? G-D
said it.
Deny doctrine and seek truth.
I considered that Ike might be right and looked into what he says.
Just search for the Ike Doctrine....but, it is really bad.
But as for truth , it will come out, because G-D said it will.
@tampabay.rr.com Pastor Dave
> Pastor Dave wrote:
Snipping text an trying to turn it into an attack on me,
implying that I don't believe in God, because I don't
agree with you, is just par for the course when it comes
to dealing with you, Peter. (:
--
Pastor Dave
"The religion that does not begin at home, does not begin."
- Adrian Rogers
@tampabay.rr.com Pastor Dave
<John...@peoplepc.com> spake thusly:
> You also need to allow Scripture is interpret itself.
And yet, you don't.
>>�And you know that, just as everyone else does,
>> which is why they would never claim to be able
>> to understand any other ancient text without
>> this type of knowledge of those people, places
>> and times. �
>
> There is 'no other ancient text'.
Really? There are no other ancient texts? Really?!?
> Who can you compare to G-D? Alexander the Great?
> Anyone? No. That is silly.
My statement did not claim that anyone compares to God.
The point is that neither do you, so stop pretending that
you get to ignore common sense!
> It is the same with the Bible.
The Bible being a work above all works means that we
should be EVEN MORE careful in our approach, not less!
> G-D says I declare the end form the beginning
> and there is none like me. There is nothing to
> compare the Bible to.
It is not about comparing it to other works for
the quality of the statements within it and you
know that, so stop twisting what I say!
It is about the approach that one makes to any
ancient text! It is flat out stupid to claim that
one can understand the Bible, without taking
into account the times and peoples involved
and it is this lack of understanding that leads
to so much false doctrines and interpretations,
whether you want to admit it or not!
What I find (and this includes you especially),
is that people who claim what you do, are those
who know that they are completely ignorant of
the times and the peoples involved in the Bible
and of the Scriptures themselves, not having
even read them thoroughly and through!
>> But when it comes to the Bible, everyone wants
>> to pretend to be an expert and that the Holy Spirit
>> is talking to them and they act like asses when it
>> comes to admitting that they are not God and didn't
>> write it and so, maybe shouldn't proclaim that they
>> cannot err.
>
> Not true.
It is absolutely true and you prove it with your next comment!
> I will say this and people can say I am crazy if they wish.
> Three times, in times of stress, I heard a voice. And if
> you ever hear this you have nothing to compare it to.
> The closest thing I have ever seen is in the Movie the
> Amityville Horror when that voice out of no where said
> 'Get Out'. Who knows, maybe that did happen and it
> was an angel warning him to leave. Anyway, if these
> events were in my imagination or not I have had no 'word'
> from G-D telling me anything about the Bible. Everyone
> pretends the Holy Spirit is talking to them? I never said
> that and never would.
Right. You know that you're saying that it was God
talking to you as well as I know that's what you're
claiming, so please, cut the games out!
The fact is, you want to claim that you don't need
to study the Bible times and peoples and places
like others might need to, because God talks to you
and tells you what the Scriptures mean! And we
both know that you have claimed in the past that
He tells you what it means!
>> You and almost all others, approach the Bible
>> by sitting down and before opening it, telling
>> yourselves how it was written just for you,
>> in your time, as if you are the only people
>> that have ever mattered. �
>
> In a direct response to you I said I think Jesus Christ
> will return around 2070. If it is about me it will be
> a miracle and I will be older than dirt. Yes, maybe
> it was written for an ancient senile old man drooling
> on his face and soiling himself while trying to figure
> out what type of plant he really is...... I think not.
You said "2070" in response to something I said
similar to this and to avoid admitting to how you
approach Scripture prophecy.
>> That is one Hell of an assumption that you people make!
>> That even though texts are specifically addressed to
>> specific people, that they are "really" (this is the favorite
>> word of the Futurist) written for you, in your time!
>>
>> And when it comes to the New Testament, people try
>> to read this text as if it has nothing to do with the Old
>> Testament and open it up while assuming that the OT
>> was for the Jews and since they got it wrong, that means
>> the NT is for them, today and that it was written and then
>> time stopped, until they opened a Bible for the first time
>> today and then time started running again!
>>
>> �What arrogance!!!
>
> There is more 'repetition in Scripture of things, people
> and events than we understand or have even numbered.
> Read the Bible and see how many things are similar and
> 'repeat'. We do not understand why this is, we just know
> that it is.
Yea, I should read it, because of course, I've never done
that before, right? :)
> Daniel determined it would be 70 years then they
> would be freed - the angel came and said told him
> there would be 70 weeks of years.
Excuse me? Jeremiah said 70 years. Daniel mentioned
that as his basis for the "70 weeks of years" and that is
what he "determined".
You didn't know that about what Daniel said and tell me
that *I* should read the Bible? Huh? :)
> The Babylonians destroyed the temple and later
> the Romans destroyed the re-built temple in the
> very same month, AV, on the very same day,
> the 9th. One was in 586 B.C the other was 586
> years later. The Jews were freed after 70 years
> to re-build the temple which was destroyed in
> 70 AD - the Bible is filled with these things which
> we simply cannot understand.
Do not claim that your lack of understanding is mine!
Maybe *you* don't understand it, but that does *not*
mean that I do not understand it!
And isn't it interesting that the Futurist has finally been
silenced by the Scriptures! :) Actually, this is a good
thing and a great day! Finally, we see no fantastical,
wild, made up from some fantasy in the back of his
mind attempt at an explaining away these words! :)
He simply "cannot understand it", he says!
What is a shame, is that you say this about the one
thing in the Bible that is real simple to understand
and that we both know that you do understand! (:
So isn't it interesting that the guy who constantly claims
to understand everything we talk about when mystical,
super sci-fi, fantastic sounding statements are made
by the writers of the Bible, now, when it comes to what
are very plain and clear statements made in the Bible,
suddenly claims that they are things that "we simply
cannot understand" and in his effort to avoid having
to deal with them, thinks he can claim that others
besides himself cannot understand them either!
I.e., Not only do you wish to claim that you don't
understand them, but you want to by default disable
anyone else from responding with anything that will
accept the statements as they actually read!
And why do you do this, sir? Simple! It is because
you don't like what you know damn well they say!
So let's not play with each other here, sir!
The truth is, you understand them just fine and you
know very well what they say and it is not a mystery
at all to you! You just *don't* *like* what they say!
You are trying to avoid the clear and simple time
statements of the Scriptures regarding what Jesus
said about the time frame of when it would happen!
Now as for the Temple...
The fact is, the Romans destroyed it just as Jesus
said it would be. Every stone torn apart from each
other! And so, unless you can show me where Jesus
Himself said to His disciples; "But skip it the first time
it happens, guys!", then I'm sorry, but I can't believe
your claims about the future fulfillment of these things,
because they contradict what Jesus said and what
history shows, period, end of story!
My Scriptural obligation is to please God in the believing
of His word and not to you, to make you happy with what
you can pretend they say, or pretend no one can get!
>> And if you want to *pretend* that you don't do that,
>> then explain why it is that when you see words like
>> "we" and "now" and "soon", you assume that:
>>
>> We = 21st century believers.
>>
>> Now = 21st century in our generation.
>>
>> Soon = We, today, will see it soon.
>>
>> ...which YOU KNOW YOU DO assume.
>
> Preterists like to say that soon means 37 years later.
This isn't about what Preterists say. It is about what
Futurists say, being hypocrites, contradicting themselves!
But it does not surprise me that you stop up your ears
and do not want to hear this and try to change what
the subject is! (:
> Daniel was given a prophecy and 580 or so years later,
> Jesus Christ said it had not yet happened.
1) Daniel was told to "seal up the vision, for the time
is not yet". John was told NOT to seal the vision,
"for the time is at hand". A plain difference there
and one that Futurists know they are ignoring!
2) Jesus said that it WAS happening! He even quoted
Daniel 12 and applied it to His time!
>> So of course, back then, soon meant "it could be
>> thousands of years", but when you open it today,
>> it changes meanings to, "our time, today", but is
>> the same word in the same verse. �Yea, that's
>> a good doctrine! (:
>
> AND IF I SAY WAIT RIGHT THERE FOR MY ANSWER,
> IT WILL BE HERE SOON (AROUND 2041)?!
So 37 years cannot equal "soon", but (assuming a starting
date of 26 AD) 2,046 years does equal "soon"?
Do you have any idea how foolish that makes you look,
to claim such a thing?!
And don't bother trying to weasel your way out of this!
Even if you don't get dogmatic about a 2070 AD date,
that is irrelevant! You still think it may happen then
and that means that *you* *do* claim what I stated
above! And even for the rest who don't claim an
exact date, they still think that almost 2,000 years
(so far) equals "soon", since the Bible does say "soon"
and they claim that He hasn't returned yet!
It is stupid for you to try to make fun of 37 years being
soon, while trying to make "thousands of years = soon".
Now, to deal with what you said about the "37 years"...
1) Yes, even if it were "37 years", that would be "soon"
when it comes to the fulfillment of Biblical prophecy
and it would definitely be "soon" when compared to
the Futurist idea of "almost 2,000 years and counting"!
2) The fact is, that the word "soon" was not used on Day 1.
What Jesus said on "Day 1" was "this generation" and that
gives Him 40 years to get it done within. So at the start,
the time frame was only said to be within that very same
generation (Matt 24:34) and also to occur before all of
the disciples standing there died and that most of them
would die before it occurred, since only "some (at least
one, but not most) would be left then (Matt 16:27-28).
The bottom line is, after Jesus had died and then risen,
the Apostles were left with the concept to preach of it
happening within that same generation and that is why,
as time progresses... (see #3 below).
3) Futurists need to stop treating the New Testament as if
all of the writings contained within it were written on the
same day. The truth is, they were written over decades
and the immanency statements getting stronger and
stronger are seen as getting to be just that, as the
writings get later and later and these things were said
after years had gone by and as it got closer to the time
of the Jewish War, which began in 66 AD, which means
that we are not dealing with "37 years", but rather, we
are dealing with time frames of anywhere from just a
few years, to maybe 10 or 15 years from the time that
the Jewish War occurred and so, your statement of a
37 year period is not accurate.
The bottom line, is that none of the arguments/claims
that you made here make any sense whatsoever, sir!
--
Pastor Dave
A clear conscience makes a soft pillow.
Abrams1117
wrote:
> On Sun, 9 Jan 2011 07:40:09 -0800 (PST), Abrams1117
>
> > You also need to allow Scripture is interpret itself.
>
> And yet, you don't.
Who does? Who can? Who tries?
I try.
>
> >> And you know that, just as everyone else does,
> >> which is why they would never claim to be able
> >> to understand any other ancient text without
> >> this type of knowledge of those people, places
> >> and times.
>
> > There is 'no other ancient text'.
>
> Really? There are no other ancient texts? Really?!?
>
> > Who can you compare to G-D? Alexander the Great?
> > Anyone? No. That is silly.
>
> My statement did not claim that anyone compares to God.
> The point is that neither do you, so stop pretending that
> you get to ignore common sense!
If common sense were truly common we would have nothing to argue
about.
Truly language is a poor substitute for communication.
(just made those up - its too hot, no complaining!)
>
> > It is the same with the Bible.
>
> The Bible being a work above all works means that we
> should be EVEN MORE careful in our approach, not less!
>
> > G-D says I declare the end form the beginning
> > and there is none like me. There is nothing to
> > compare the Bible to.
>
> It is not about comparing it to other works for
> the quality of the statements within it and you
> know that, so stop twisting what I say!
>
> It is about the approach that one makes to any
> ancient text! It is flat out stupid to claim that
> one can understand the Bible, without taking
> into account the times and peoples involved
> and it is this lack of understanding that leads
> to so much false doctrines and interpretations,
> whether you want to admit it or not!
But, you have to start from somewhere - and after putting it all
together either you have all of the answers or you need a new
approach. Thomas Edison discovered a thousand ways not to invent the
light bulb! To me it makes sense to accept Scripture as literal and to
use that to try and understand it. So many prophecies were literal
this makes sense, too me. After that you can change anything and
everything, in fact you must and you have no choice, when Scripture
says something. Quick examples, many ppl say the dragon in Revelation
is this or that but Scripture plainly says it is Satan and many people
say that the woman in Revelation is this or that , especially the
church, while Scripture uses the very same language only when
describing Jacob, Rachel, Joseph and his brothers - thus to me it
means Israel. To extend this system and change that to mean 'the
church' is a big step that I do not see in Scripture, thus you are
probably falling through a hole in the floor where you doctrine is
based upon nothing but air.
>
> What I find (and this includes you especially),
> is that people who claim what you do, are those
> who know that they are completely ignorant of
> the times and the peoples involved in the Bible
> and of the Scriptures themselves, not having
> even read them thoroughly and through!
Compare Revelation to the Old Testament. How much of that is the same?
Why?
>
> >> But when it comes to the Bible, everyone wants
> >> to pretend to be an expert and that the Holy Spirit
> >> is talking to them and they act like asses when it
> >> comes to admitting that they are not God and didn't
> >> write it and so, maybe shouldn't proclaim that they
> >> cannot err.
>
> > Not true.
>
> It is absolutely true and you prove it with your next comment!
>
> > I will say this and people can say I am crazy if they wish.
> > Three times, in times of stress, I heard a voice. And if
> > you ever hear this you have nothing to compare it to.
> > The closest thing I have ever seen is in the Movie the
> > Amityville Horror when that voice out of no where said
> > 'Get Out'. Who knows, maybe that did happen and it
> > was an angel warning him to leave. Anyway, if these
> > events were in my imagination or not I have had no 'word'
> > from G-D telling me anything about the Bible. Everyone
> > pretends the Holy Spirit is talking to them? I never said
> > that and never would.
>
> Right. You know that you're saying that it was God
> talking to you as well as I know that's what you're
> claiming, so please, cut the games out!
I hope so. Otherwise I was hallucinating. Either way, I have been
given no special knowledge. Period.
>
> The fact is, you want to claim that you don't need
> to study the Bible times and peoples and places
> like others might need to, because God talks to you
> and tells you what the Scriptures mean! And we
> both know that you have claimed in the past that
> He tells you what it means!
Well, G-D is more than able to teach anyone anything whenever and
however HE likes. And if I discover something true today I will
instantly replace the untrue belief. You could not even imagine how
many time is have done this - even in this forum. I used to think
coals on someones head was a way to get them punished - the second I
read your post about it I accepted it - G-D IS LOVE.
>
> >> You and almost all others, approach the Bible
> >> by sitting down and before opening it, telling
> >> yourselves how it was written just for you,
> >> in your time, as if you are the only people
> >> that have ever mattered.
No, I can read thousands and thousands of words and simply read them
like any other place you find the same words in the English language
you cannot. It does not make sense that we need a book of translations
to look up each and every word: In this verse lion means
this.....water means that....etc times 1,000+.
>
> > In a direct response to you I said I think Jesus Christ
> > will return around 2070. If it is about me it will be
> > a miracle and I will be older than dirt. Yes, maybe
> > it was written for an ancient senile old man drooling
> > on his face and soiling himself while trying to figure
> > out what type of plant he really is...... I think not.
>
> You said "2070" in response to something I said
> similar to this and to avoid admitting to how you
> approach Scripture prophecy.
I have said this before. While it is not in Scripture- Scripture does
hint that there will be something like 6 days of 1,000 years each and
then comes 'the end'. Thus the year 70 AD and the destruction of
Jerusalem is probably the latest date that we can use to add 1,000
years to - you could say 2033 Jesus Death and Resurrection or 2070 -
I, copying newton prefer the latter date - how many ppl are crying end
of the world for 2011 and 2012? I think that is all nonsense.
But, I can see no reason why it would go much beyond 2070. If it were
2080 now, for example, I might be working from the preterist view
now.
I have to go. I do like the new Dave much better than the old one.
@tampabay.rr.com Pastor Dave
<John...@peoplepc.com> spake thusly:
> Pastor Dave wrote:
>
>> Abrams1117 spake thusly:
>>
>>> You also need to allow Scripture is interpret itself.
>>
>> And yet, you don't.
>
> Who does? Who can? Who tries?
The Apostles did! That's why they didn't take
the statements of Joel as being physically literal
when Peter applied them to THEIR time! They
were no meant to be taken that way! Do yourself
a favor and go read what Peter quoted!
And I do that, so don't try to place your own
shortcomings that you admit to here on others,
thinking that if you can lower everyone else,
that it will make you seem correct! All it does,
is make everyone incorrect! How is that in any
way a defense of your approach and your claims
that you know what this or that means? Hello?!
You Futurists really need to think through what
you're about to say, meaning BEFORE you say it!
It is my thinking that if you did that, you would
not say half of what you say!
> I try.
But you fail at it and frankly, if you didn't keep
trying to defend the idea that your ignorance
is okay and actually did the work, then you
would succeed much more often, since it
really isn't hard to do at all, when one knows
the people and times and therefore, knows
the Scriptures much better, especially having
actually read them through and through again!
I have done this. I am not trying to brag here.
I am just saying that I have done it and I have
read the entire Bible through 15 times and the
New Testament through hundreds of times and
various sections of the NT thousands of times
and various portions of the OT hundreds of times,
as well as studying about the Israelites/Jews and
the other peoples involved in the Scriptures for
years, sir!
Now do you think I did all that work, because it
was not necessary to a good understanding of
what the Scripture say?! The truth is, that people
like you will claim to know that the Scriptures
combined show a unifying theme throughout,
but in reality, they do not really see it! It is not
just the theme of Jesus coming and dying and
rising that is all through it, but the covenant of
God and Israel running throughout it and it is
simply not about national Israel being saved
and this is seen throughout the Scriptures and
is right there, in the very first book of the Bible
and is stated all the way through it, all the way
to the last book of the Bible!
So yes, I do let them interpret themselves! But
thank you "Abrams117", for admitting that you
do not, which makes the question one of;
"Who are you to point your finger at anyone,
when by your own admission, what you do
is to promote your own ideas and call them
Scripture (which you do when you say that
"The Bible says..." and yet now admit that
what the Bible actually says isn't what you're
promoting here)?
>>>> And you know that, just as everyone else does,
>>>> which is why they would never claim to be able
>>>> to understand any other ancient text without
>>>> this type of knowledge of those people, places
>>>> and times.
>>>
>>> There is 'no other ancient text'.
>>
>> Really? There are no other ancient texts?
>> Really?!?
What, no answer here? Gee, I wonder why not? :)
>>> Who can you compare to G-D?
>>> Alexander the Great? Anyone?
>>> No. That is silly.
>>
>> My statement did not claim that anyone
>> compares to God. The point is that neither
>> do you, so stop pretending that you get to
>> ignore common sense!
>
> If common sense were truly common,
> we would have nothing to argue about.
There is "common sense"! And you trying to deny
that common sense exists, only shows that you do
know that you are violating it and wish to try to
avoid admitting it. Only the truly desperate would
deny that common sense even exists. <chuckle>
It is common sense that when one approaches
an ancient text, that one cannot understand
all that is said, without understanding the times
and this is no different than 2,000 ears from now,
someone reading statements like "Hey, that's cool!"
probably would not immediately understand what
is being said without understanding the times
and studying the people and language involved,
as to how it is used.
> Truly language is a poor substitute for communication.
Language is an excellent method of communication,
if you know how to use it and if you use it properly!
And to claim that it is a "poor substitute", implies by
the word "substitute", that something else is there
and that language has been placed in as a substitute.
So what is that other thing? Show us all. And don't
forget that you'll have to show us all, without using
words, even though you're posting in a news group.
But if the other method is so much better, then this
shouldn't be a problem for you, should it! :)
Truly for you it is a poor method however, given what
you think you can get away with saying and thinking
that you will still look intelligent. :)
> (just made those up - its too hot, no complaining!)
So you make things up and think no one will mind?
Thanks for revealing your approach!
Sorry, but you left yourself wide open for that one. :)
>>> It is the same with the Bible.
>>
>> The Bible being a work above all works means
>> that we should be EVEN MORE careful in our
>> approach, not less!
What, no answer here, either? :)
The truth is, that you didn't answer, because you know
that you were arguing against logic itself, to make the
claim that we must be careful about understanding
the peoples and times with regard to the text, with
all other ancient texts *except* the Bible! What your
response showed, was desperation, not intelligence!
>>> G-D says I declare the end form the beginning
>>> and there is none like me. There is nothing to
>>> compare the Bible to.
>>
>> It is not about comparing it to other works for
>> the quality of the statements within it and you
>> know that, so stop twisting what I say!
>>
>> It is about the approach that one makes to any
>> ancient text! It is flat out stupid to claim that
>> one can understand the Bible, without taking
>> into account the times and peoples involved
>> and it is this lack of understanding that leads
>> to so much false doctrines and interpretations,
>> whether you want to admit it or not!
>
> But, you have to start from somewhere
Yes you do, but not from "anywhere". :)
You do not have to start from the approach of ignorance
and then trying to defend approaching it with ignorance.
Once again, you wish to pretend that you're making
a logical, intelligent statement in response, but what
we both know you are doing, is writing nonsense. (:
It is *nonsense* to claim that a valid starting point
is one of ignorance and why would you even try to
argue such a ridiculous thing?
Now one may at first read the Bible without knowing
all about the peoples and times, but to sit there and
think that this is a good thing, is nonsense! And it is
complete and utter nonsense to then, years later,
instead of even beginning to study these things,
try to defend not doing so and what is just absolute
*_G-A-R-B-A-G-E_* is to actually try to argue with
someone that you have a better understanding than
someone who knows well what is being said by the
statements within these texts, because they have a
good, thorough and intimate understanding of both
the peoples/times and the Old Testament Scriptures!
You, on the other hand, do not even know what the
Old Testament Scriptures say (besides a few passages
here and there and taken out of context, let alone
what the New Testament Scriptures say, given that
they require an intimate understanding of the OT
Scriptures and up to half of a text within the NT
consists of quotes of Old Testament Scriptures.
And yes, I did say "UP TO HALF".
How can someone who has no knowledge of those
who lived then and wrote them and doesn't even
know what they say, even think about claiming to
be able to correct someone who does?! Please!!!
> - and after putting it all together either you have
> all of the answers, or you need a new approach.
Let me solve this little dilemma for you...
You need a new approach! :)
> Thomas Edison discovered a thousand ways not
> to invent the light bulb! To me it makes sense
> to accept Scripture as literal and to use that to
> try and understand it.
1) There is a huge difference between Thom and you
and that difference is that Thom didn't look at the
bulb after it failed to work and think he got it right.
2) One should take the Scriptures literally, until it is
impossible to do so. And when it speaks of things
that you promote as being literal, it is impossible
in most of those places, given both what they say
and what they say when the Old Testament is also
considered and says the same thing, but was not
being physically literal.
3) Your statement about taking it literally is not accurate
as far as you are concerned, since that's *not* what
you do and you know it. So that means that you are
lying when you claim to do so! In reality, you take the
fantastic statements of Scripture and claim that they are
physically literal and then take the plain, clear statements
of Scripture and claim that they mean something else
and are not literal!
Abrams117 with a fantastic statement from Scripture:
ABRAMS: "Yes, Jesus will ride a cloud down out of the sky!"
Abrams117 with a clear and simple statement from Scripture:
ABRAMS: "Soon? Oh, well, what that really means is
thousands of years away!"
And why do you say that? According to YOUR OWN words,
you do it, because somehow it doesn't make sense to think
of 37 years as being "soon", but it does make sense to you
to think of 2,046 years as "soon". <chuckle>
Like I said; "You need a new approach!". :)
> So many prophecies were literal, this makes sense,
> too me.
Actually, that's not true and you're not being honest here!
Most of them were not physically literal as far as the "how"
and used language that was highly symbolic/metaphorical
and hyperbolic when speaking of the prophecies that had
yet to be fulfilled and that is a fact!
Furthermore, your approach does show us that you don't
let Scripture interpret Scripture, since you violate that rule
all the time. Or it proves that you are completely ignorant
of what the OT Scriptures say, or both (but at least one)!
For example, God said about the *fulfilled in the 6th century*
prophecy about the time He used the Assyrians to conquer
(and thereby judge) the nation of Egypt (God usually used
one nation to judge another) in the 6th century B.C. and
said about it (before it happened)...
"The burden of Egypt. Behold, the Lord rideth upon
a swift cloud and shall come into Egypt: and the idols
of Egypt shall be moved at his presence, and the heart
of Egypt shall melt in the midst of it." - Isaiah 19:1
Now, above we have Isaiah telling the prophecy given
to him by God, that the Lord would "ride a cloud".
And that was fulfilled. So when did the Egyptians see God
physically riding on a cloud? They didn't. It was symbolism.
How do we know that? Because the Assyrians did teach
Egypt a lesson in the 6th century B.C., after that prophecy
was stated by Isaiah and because they considered it to be
just that; fulfilled.
And what did Jesus say?
"...and they shall see the Son of Man coming in the clouds
of heaven, with great power and glory!" - Matthew 24:30b
Now, if you truly did let Scripture interpret Scripture, which
is THE #1 RULE of proper Scriptural interpretation, then you
would state that Jesus' statement was also symbolism. But
instead, what do you Futurists say in response, when shown
this simple thing (the prophecy from Isaiah)?
FUTURISTS: "Well, just because it wasn't literal in Isaiah,
that doesn't mean that Jesus wasn't literal!"
Now what is that saying, except that Jesus, for some reason
and even though (as even Futurists admit) He was the One
who actually imparted the word to us (and is the Word/Logos),
somehow came to the same people that He had been giving
hat word to, through all of those centuries and decided to
stalk to the people in "opposite of God speak". Ridiculous!
And what gets me, is just how *ridiculous* Futurists are!
Yes, some Futurists actually responded to that by saying
that "Yes, He did."!
Anything, no mater how ridiculous, to try to keep their foolish
doctrine (it is obviously foolish, if these are the lengths that
they have to go to, to try to "defend" it!)!
So apparently, to the Futurist, God had a real cloud to ride!
And a swift one at that! God must have a great mechanic! :)
> After that you can change anything and everything,
> in fact you must and you have no choice, when
> Scripture says something. Quick examples, many
> ppl say the dragon in Revelation is this or that but
> Scripture plainly says it is Satan and many people
> say that the woman in Revelation is this or that,
> especially the church, while Scripture uses the very
> same language only when describing Jacob, Rachel,
> Joseph and his brothers - thus to me it means Israel.
> To extend this system and change that to mean
> 'the church' is a big step that I do not see in Scripture,
> thus you are probably falling through a hole in the floor
> where you doctrine is based upon nothing but air.
I agree with you and I don't want you to think that I am
unfair here. I agree with you that the woman is indeed
Israel (technically Judah, since Israel was divorced long
ago and Judah was all that was left and was about to be
divorced as well). I agree that this is the only thing that
makes sense, although for different reasons than your
reasons. But that does not make mine better than yours.
Just different reasons that brought us both to the same
conclusions, that's all. :)
As for the dragon, it may say that it is Satan, but that
does not mean that the statement is not symbolic of
something else. But I by no means try to denigrate
the approach that wishes to just believe what it says
at face value. I am only just saying that this becomes
tougher in what may be the most symbolic book.
As for me myself, I am still up in the air on that one. :)
What I think is ridiculous though, is when Futurists claim
that Jesus riding a horse down from the sky is physically
literal, but then, when shown that the sword they thought
He killed people with is actually sticking out of His mouth
and that means that He would have to swing His head
from side to side to kill people, then, instead of admitting
that maybe Jesus riding the horse is symbolic, all of the
sudden, Jesus riding the horse is physically literal, but the
sword (and only the sword) is symbolic of the word of God,
just as I showed them it was.
And then, to top it all off, they are such liars (which they
repeatedly prove by situations like this), that they then
pretend that they always believed that!
The truth is, that they change their beliefs on the fly,
but just can't admit that the "Preterist" showed it to them!
The responses of Futurists are ridiculous! Responses like
"Gumby Jesus", "Superman Jesus", "the outer space lake
of fire", "the just outside the gate lake of fire", etc., etc..
I can tell you what all of those are, if you wish to have
a good laugh! :)
But your problem here, is that you cite something about
the Old Testament influencing your decision and yet,
keep trying to defend not having to know the OT,
which makes you a hypocrite!
See further down as to exactly how and why.
>> What I find (and this includes you especially),
>> is that people who claim what you do, are those
>> who know that they are completely ignorant of
>> the times and the peoples involved in the Bible
>> and of the Scriptures themselves, not having
>> even read them thoroughly and through!
>
> Compare Revelation to the Old Testament.
> How much of that is the same? Why?
Almost all of it! This is where you make your fatal mistake!
You do not realize that almost all of Revelation is a repeat
of what is found in the Old Testament!
And let me ask you; How can you possibly argue that
it isn't, when by your own admission, you are defending
the idea that one doesn't have to know the OT to get
what the Bible is saying?!
What you stated about why you believe what you do
about the woman in Revelation is indeed a good approach
to interpreting the passage and yes, you are right, it is
the method that does not look to the OT Scriptures that
leads to bad interpretation, as they try to examine Revelation
on its own, rather than realizing that it is a compilation of
many OT prophecies and borrows heavily from books like
Daniel, Isaiah, Hosea and others.
But if that's the case and you know it, you make yourself
a hypocrite when you try to argue against the proper
method being to know the OT Scriptures! And I know
that you can see that, which is why you typing it makes
you such a liar and a hypocrite and I know that you can
see that as well! So stop doing it!!!
>>> I will say this and people can say I am crazy if they wish.
>>> Three times, in times of stress, I heard a voice. And if
>>> you ever hear this you have nothing to compare it to.
>>> The closest thing I have ever seen is in the Movie the
>>> Amityville Horror when that voice out of no where said
>>> 'Get Out'. Who knows, maybe that did happen and it
>>> was an angel warning him to leave. Anyway, if these
>>> events were in my imagination or not I have had no 'word'
>>> from G-D telling me anything about the Bible. Everyone
>>> pretends the Holy Spirit is talking to them? I never said
>>> that and never would.
>>
>> Right. You know that you're saying that it was God
>> talking to you as well as I know that's what you're
>> claiming, so please, cut the games out!
>
> I hope so. Otherwise I was hallucinating. Either way,
> I have been given no special knowledge. Period.
So other than God speaking to you audibly, you have
been given no special knowledge? You claim to get
what you know directly from God, by Him speaking
to you audibly and then try to make it sound like
you're not claiming anything special? Puhlease!!!
People like you make such claims, thinking hey,
who can argue with God Himself speaking to me?
And now I don't have to defend my claims and
can just say that God told me! Oh, but at the
same time, I'll claim that I'm not like those
crazies who claim that the Holy Spirit told them!
Please! <Chuckle!>
>> The fact is, you want to claim that you don't need
>> to study the Bible times and peoples and places
>> like others might need to, because God talks to you
>> and tells you what the Scriptures mean! And we
>> both know that you have claimed in the past that
>> He tells you what it means!
>
> Well, G-D is more than able to teach anyone anything
> whenever and however HE likes.
See what I mean? You think by claiming that it is God
Himself who teaches you, that you can avoid having to
prove your claims. Sorry, but that crap doesn't fly here!
The fact is, you are wrong now and have been wrong
many times before! And since God is never wrong,
that means that it isn't God teaching you!
And don't bother trying to respond by saying that you
know that God isn't wrong and that it's just man who
interprets what He says incorrectly, since this isn't
about whether or not God is wrong! He never is!
And my response to such a response from you,
would b to say that I never said that He could be
wrong and the fact that even if He did talk to you,
you admitting that you have interpreted His words
incorrectly, is an admission then that not everything
you say is correct and my whole point has been
that you should be studying and that God would
never tell you what you claim, which is the claim
that being ignorant of His word and still being able
to teach others about it is somehow okay and that
this makes sense, which is flat out ridiculous and
yet, you keep trying to defend that idea! (:
The fact is, there is NO EXCUSE for remaining ignorant
of the Old Testament Scriptures, nor the peoples/times
involved in them! NONE WHATSOEVER!
As Paul, who met the Lord and was taught directly
by Him, said to Timothy:
2 Timothy 3:14-17
14) But continue thou in the things which thou
hast learned and hast been assured of, knowing
of whom thou hast learned them;
15) And that from a child thou hast known the
holy scriptures, which are able to make thee wise
unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus.
16) All scripture is given by inspiration of God and
is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction,
for instruction in righteousness:
17) That the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly
furnished unto all good works.
Paul, above, was talking about the Old Testament.
Therefore, your claim contradicts God's word.
Guess who I choose to believe, Abrams???
Now to believe that you are taught by the Lord and yet,
get things wrong, would be to say that since Paul was
taught by the Lord directly (which is what Paul said),
that means that we cannot trust Scripture, since who
can know if he got it all right, or if he misunderstood it?
Guess what? Guess whose claim out of these two,
I choose to believe, Abrams? :)
> And if I discover something true today,
> I will instantly replace the untrue belief.
If you were being taught directly by God,
then you wouldn't have any "untrue beliefs".
Furthermore, that is an untrue statement,
since it's not what you do, as has been
demonstrated here by you repeatedly!
> You could not even imagine how many times
> is have done this - even in this forum. I used
> to think coals on someones head was a way to
> get them punished - the second I read your
> post about it I accepted it - G-D IS LOVE.
And yet, even with all the proof that I show you
regarding what the Bible says about the last days,
you still reject it and stick with has been proved
not to make any sense.
>>>> You and almost all others, approach the Bible
>>>> by sitting down and before opening it, telling
>>>> yourselves how it was written just for you,
>>>> in your time, as if you are the only people
>>>> that have ever mattered.
>
> No, I can read thousands and thousands of words
> and simply read them like any other place you find
> the same words in the English language you cannot.
> It does not make sense that we need a book of
> translations to look up each and every word: In this
> verse lion means this.....water means that....etc
> times 1,000+.
Your response has nothing to do with what I said!
But to respond to it, your problem is multiple!:
1) The Bible was not written in English.
2) The Bibles out there in modern English,
are mostly garbage, since they are not
even translated from the proper texts.
3) Water may not mean water, since that
could be a bad translation of the word,
just like "world" is in Matt 24:3 and "Hell"
is in Rev 20:14, in the KJV!
There are more issues to deal with here, but the point
is that the issue is you trying to defend the idea of it
being okay to be ignorant of the Scriptures/people/times
ad still being able to understand what is being said!
>> > In a direct response to you I said I think Jesus Christ
>> > will return around 2070. If it is about me it will be
>> > a miracle and I will be older than dirt. Yes, maybe
>> > it was written for an ancient senile old man drooling
>> > on his face and soiling himself while trying to figure
>> > out what type of plant he really is...... I think not.
>>
>> You said "2070" in response to something I said
>> similar to this and to avoid admitting to how you
>> approach Scripture prophecy.
>
> I have said this before. While it is not in Scripture
It doesn't matter if you're saying that it's in Scripture
or not! What matters is that you approach Scripture
with the idea that it's about THIS century!
> I do like the new Dave much better than the old one.
But this Dave, so far, doesn't like you very much. :)
--
Pastor Dave
"There can be no happiness if the things we believe in are
different from the things we do." - Freya Madeline Stark
Abrams1117
wrote:
> On Mon, 10 Jan 2011 09:51:12 -0800 (PST), Abrams1117
>
> > Pastor Dave wrote:
>
> >> Abrams1117 spake thusly:
>
> >>> You also need to allow Scripture is interpret itself.
>
> >> And yet, you don't.
>
> > Who does? Who can? Who tries?
>
> The Apostles did!
Did the Apostles understand Scripture or Jesus Christ?
My goodness, how long a list would that be?????
Where are you going? Why can't we follow? Will you now establish the
Kingdom? Will John live forever? What the Apostles did not
understand?: This would be a very, very long list.
>That's why they didn't take
> the statements of Joel as being physically literal
> when Peter applied them to THEIR time! They
> were no meant to be taken that way! Do yourself
> a favor and go read what Peter quoted!
What did Peter say? What does Scripture say?
Acts 2:
14 Then Peter stood up with the Eleven, raised his voice and addressed
the crowd: “Fellow Jews and all of you who live in Jerusalem, let me
explain this to you; listen carefully to what I say. 15 These people
are not drunk, as you suppose. It’s only nine in the morning! 16 No,
this is what was spoken by the prophet Joel:
17 “‘In the last days, G-D says,
I will pour out my Spirit on all people.
Your sons and daughters will prophesy,
your young men will see visions,
your old men will dream dreams.
18 Even on my servants, both men and women,
I will pour out my Spirit in those days,
and they will prophesy.
19 I will show wonders in the heavens above
and signs on the earth below,
blood and fire and billows of smoke.
20 The sun will be turned to darkness
and the moon to blood
before the coming of the great and glorious day of the Lord.
21 And everyone who calls
on the name of the Lord will be saved.’[c]
What did Peter say was literal?
Acts 2:
Dreams and visions = literal
17 “‘In the last days, G-D says,
I will pour out my Spirit on all people.
Your sons and daughters will prophesy,
your young men will see visions,
your old men will dream dreams.
18 Even on my servants, both men and women,
I will pour out my Spirit in those days,
and they will prophesy.
Wonders in heaven = literal
19 I will show wonders in the heavens above
and signs on the earth below,
blood and fire and billows of smoke.
20 The sun will be turned to darkness
and the moon to blood
before the coming of the great and glorious day of the Lord.
21 And everyone who calls
on the name of the Lord will be saved.’[c]
Don't preterists say these are literal?
>That's why they didn't take
> the statements of Joel as being physically literal
> when Peter applied them to THEIR time!
What was the timing?
Their time? Based upon what?
Peter was saying the speaking in tongues was fulfilling verses 17 and
18:
16 No, this is what was spoken by the prophet Joel:
17 “‘In the last days, G-D says,
I will pour out my Spirit on all people.
Your sons and daughters will prophesy,
your young men will see visions,
your old men will dream dreams.
18 Even on my servants, both men and women,
I will pour out my Spirit in those days,
and they will prophesy.
Preterists insist that the following verses were in Peter's future and
literal:
19 I will show wonders in the heavens above
and signs on the earth below,
blood and fire and billows of smoke.
20 The sun will be turned to darkness
and the moon to blood
before the coming of the great and glorious day of the Lord.
21 And everyone who calls
on the name of the Lord will be saved.’[c]
Never said that, never did that and never will. That is nonsense and
only a confused person could even think up such a concept. Even the
nonsense you teach is not a lie because you believe it.
>
> >>>> And you know that, just as everyone else does,
> >>>> which is why they would never claim to be able
> >>>> to understand any other ancient text without
> >>>> this type of knowledge of those people, places
> >>>> and times.
>
> >>> There is 'no other ancient text'.
>
> >> Really? �There are no other ancient texts?
> >>�Really?!?
>
> What, no answer here? Gee, I wonder why not? :)
>
> >>> Who can you compare to G-D?
> >>> Alexander the Great? Anyone?
> >>> No. �That is silly.
>
> >> My statement did not claim that anyone
> >> compares to God. The point is that neither
> >> do you, so stop pretending that you get to
> >> ignore common sense!
>
> > If common sense were truly common,
> > we would have nothing to argue about.
>
> There is "common sense"! And you trying to deny
> that common sense exists, only shows that you do
> know that you are violating it and wish to try to
> avoid admitting it. Only the truly desperate would
> deny that common sense even exists. <chuckle>
As an outsider what do you think of the human race?
Sorry, I couldn't resist. All of these self righteous people, like
you, who never discuss Scripture just human nonsense is starting to
get on my nerves, again.
You people can spend millions of words and countless hours saying
nothing at all and this makes you feel self-righteous. It is amazing.
And you think that common sense is common?
I make up saying all the time. I have been posting them for years, I'm
certain that you have ignored scores of them, already. But, since you
know what I meant you are condemning yourself before G-D in a vain
attempt to look good to man? That is really silly.
>
> Sorry, but you left yourself wide open for that one. :)
>
> >>> It is the same with the Bible.
>
> >> The Bible being a work above all works means
> >> that we should be EVEN MORE careful in our
> >> approach, not less!
>
> What, no answer here, either? :)
>
> The truth is, that you didn't answer, because you know
> that you were arguing against logic itself, to make the
> claim that we must be careful about understanding
> the peoples and times with regard to the text, with
> all other ancient texts *except* the Bible! What your
> response showed, was desperation, not intelligence!
>
> >>> G-D says I declare the end form the beginning
> >>> and there is none like me. �There is nothing to
> >>> compare the Bible to.
>
> >> It is not about comparing it to other works for
> >> the quality of the statements within it and you
> >> know that, so stop twisting what I say!
>
> >> It is about the approach that one makes to any
> >> ancient text! �It is flat out stupid to claim that
> >> one can understand the Bible, without taking
> >> into account the times and peoples involved
> >> and it is this lack of understanding that leads
> >> to so much false doctrines and interpretations,
> >> whether you want to admit it or not!
>
> > But, you have to start from somewhere
>
> Yes you do, but not from "anywhere". :)
>
> You do not have to start from the approach of ignorance
> and then trying to defend approaching it with ignorance.
>
> Once again, you wish to pretend that you're making
> a logical, intelligent statement in response, but what
> we both know you are doing, is writing nonsense. (:
>
> It is *nonsense* to claim that a valid starting point
> is one of ignorance and why would you even try to
> argue such a ridiculous thing?
I have posted the very same Scriptures to you about times, this month,
in response to this very same point. It is amazing that everyone asks
and reads the answer repeatedly, over an dover and over and then they
simply pretend that this never happened.
How many fulfilled prophecies are literal? That is the only way to
begin.
>
> Now one may at first read the Bible without knowing
> all about the peoples and times, but to sit there and
> think that this is a good thing, is nonsense! And it is
> complete and utter nonsense to then, years later,
> instead of even beginning to study these things,
> try to defend not doing so and what is just absolute
> *_G-A-R-B-A-G-E_* is to actually try to argue with
> someone that you have a better understanding than
> someone who knows well what is being said by the
> statements within these texts, because they have a
> good, thorough and intimate understanding of both
> the peoples/times and the Old Testament Scriptures!
>
> You, on the other hand, do not even know what the
> Old Testament Scriptures say (besides a few passages
> here and there and taken out of context, let alone
> what the New Testament Scriptures say, given that
> they require an intimate understanding of the OT
> Scriptures and up to half of a text within the NT
> consists of quotes of Old Testament Scriptures.
>
> And yes, I did say "UP TO HALF".
>
> How can someone who has no knowledge of those
> who lived then and wrote them and doesn't even
> know what they say, even think about claiming to
> be able to correct someone who does?! Please!!!
I bought and read many of 'the greatest' books about the Bible
written by the world's greatest and most knowledgeable Bible experts!
These were supposed to be 'the authorities'. There was one large book
for each Book in the Bible. And I read Daniel, Isaiah, Ezekiel,
Jeremiah etc.
And all of them were empty broken pots totally devoid of anything of
value. These experts explained away everything. There was no 'Adam and
Eve', no tree of the knowledge of good and evil, no flaming sword, no
serpent, no worldwide flood, no Noah - the list was truly endless. In
short nothing the Bible says ever happened.
But, what does the Creator Jesus Christ say about Scripture!
Luke 17:27
They did eat, they drank, they married wives, they were given in
marriage, until the day that Noah entered into the ark, and the flood
came, and destroyed them all.
Matthew 24:15
When ye therefore shall see the abomination of desolation, spoken of
by Daniel the prophet, stand in the holy place, (whoso readeth, let
him understand:)
Matthew 12
3But he said unto them, Have ye not read what David did, when he was
an hungred, and they that were with him;
THE FLOOD, NOAH, DANIEL, DAVID ARE REAL! LITERAL! TRUE!
I believe G-D!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
> >>> Three times, in times of stress, I heard a voice. �And if
> >>> you ever hear this you have nothing to compare it to.
> >>> The closest thing I have ever seen is in the Movie the
> >>> Amityville Horror when that voice out of no where said
> >>> 'Get Out'. �Who knows, maybe that did happen and it
> >>> was an angel warning him to leave. �Anyway, if these
> >>> events were in my imagination or not I have had no 'word'
> >>> from G-D telling me anything about the Bible. �Everyone
> >>> pretends the Holy Spirit is talking to them? �I never said
> >>> that and never would.
>
> >> Right. �You know that you're saying that it was God
> >> talking to you as well as I know that's what you're
> >> claiming, so please, cut the games out!
>
> > I hope so. Otherwise I was hallucinating. Either way,
> > I have been given no special knowledge. Period.
>
> So other than God speaking to you audibly, you have
> been given no special knowledge? You claim to get
> what you know directly from God, by Him speaking
> to you audibly and then try to make it sound like
> you're not claiming anything special? Puhlease!!!
>
> People like you make such claims, thinking hey,
> who can argue with God Himself speaking to me?
> And now I don't have to defend my claims and
> can just say that God told me! Oh, but at the
> same time, I'll claim that I'm not like those
> crazies who claim that the Holy Spirit told them!
>
> Please! <Chuckle!>
>
> >> The fact is, you want to claim that you don't need
> >> to study the Bible times and peoples and places
> >> like others might need to, because God talks to you
> >> and tells you what the Scriptures mean! �And we
> >> > will return around 2070. �If it is about me it will be
> >> > a miracle and I will be older than dirt. �Yes, maybe
Abrams1117
Or you do.
>
> > > Thomas Edison discovered a thousand ways not
> > > to invent the light bulb! To me it makes sense
> > > to accept Scripture as literal and to use that to
> > > try and understand it.
>
> > 1) There is a huge difference between Thom and you
> > and that difference is that Thom didn't look at the
> > bulb after it failed to work and think he got it right.
You do not understand, If you have to make the bulb, only then can you
test it.
>
> > 2) One should take the Scriptures literally, until it is
> > impossible to do so. And when it speaks of things
> > that you promote as being literal, it is impossible
> > in most of those places, given both what they say
> > and what they say when the Old Testament is also
> > considered and says the same thing, but was not
> > being physically literal.
>
> > 3) Your statement about taking it literally is not accurate
> > as far as you are concerned, since that's *not* what
> > you do and you know it. So that means that you are
> > lying when you claim to do so! In reality, you take the
> > fantastic statements of Scripture and claim that they are
> > physically literal and then take the plain, clear statements
> > of Scripture and claim that they mean something else
> > and are not literal!
I said take it literal unless or until Scripture explains it. A great
red dragon? Ok, its some type of Dragon. Scripture says it is Satan.
Ok, it is not some type of 'dragon' it means Satan. It is simple to
understand.
>
> > Abrams117 with a fantastic statement from Scripture:
>
> > ABRAMS: "Yes, Jesus will ride a cloud down out of the sky!"
>
> > Abrams117 with a clear and simple statement from Scripture:
>
> > ABRAMS: "Soon? Oh, well, what that really means is
> > thousands of years away!"
>
> > And why do you say that? According to YOUR OWN words,
> > you do it, because somehow it doesn't make sense to think
> > of 37 years as being "soon", but it does make sense to you
> > to think of 2,046 years as "soon". <chuckle>
Gabriel spoke to Daniel then to Joseph about 550 years later. And it
is only logical to think of time based upon human understanding?
Really?
According to you what Daniel said happened about 630 years later. That
was very soon, right?
>
> > Like I said; "You need a new approach!". :)
>
> > > So many prophecies were literal, this makes sense,
> > > too me.
>
> > Actually, that's not true and you're not being honest here!
>
> > Most of them were not physically literal as far as the "how"
> > and used language that was highly symbolic/metaphorical
> > and hyperbolic when speaking of the prophecies that had
> > yet to be fulfilled and that is a fact!
Most? Most prophecies were not physically literal? Says who? What is
the percentage? And if they were do you now have to become a
'futurist'?
I have to go back to work
*******************
Abrams1117
Isaiah 19:
Isaiah 19
1The burden of Egypt. Behold, the LORD rideth upon a swift cloud, and
shall come into Egypt: and the idols of Egypt shall be moved at his
presence, and the heart of Egypt shall melt in the midst of it.
2And I will set the Egyptians against the Egyptians: and they shall
fight every one against his brother, and every one against his
neighbour; city against city, and kingdom against kingdom.
3And the spirit of Egypt shall fail in the midst thereof; and I will
destroy the counsel thereof: and they shall seek to the idols, and to
the charmers, and to them that have familiar spirits, and to the
wizards.
4And the Egyptians will I give over into the hand of a cruel lord;
and a fierce king shall rule over them, saith the Lord, the LORD of
hosts.
5And the waters shall fail from the sea, and the river shall be
wasted and dried up.
6And they shall turn the rivers far away; and the brooks of defence
shall be emptied and dried up: the reeds and flags shall wither.
7The paper reeds by the brooks, by the mouth of the brooks, and every
thing sown by the brooks, shall wither, be driven away, and be no
more.
8The fishers also shall mourn, and all they that cast angle into the
brooks shall lament, and they that spread nets upon the waters shall
languish.
9Moreover they that work in fine flax, and they that weave networks,
shall be confounded.
10And they shall be broken in the purposes thereof, all that make
sluices and ponds for fish.
11Surely the princes of Zoan are fools, the counsel of the wise
counsellors of Pharaoh is become brutish: how say ye unto Pharaoh, I
am the son of the wise, the son of ancient kings?
12Where are they? where are thy wise men? and let them tell thee now,
and let them know what the LORD of hosts hath purposed upon Egypt.
13The princes of Zoan are become fools, the princes of Noph are
deceived; they have also seduced Egypt, even they that are the stay of
the tribes thereof.
14The LORD hath mingled a perverse spirit in the midst thereof: and
they have caused Egypt to err in every work thereof, as a drunken man
staggereth in his vomit.
15Neither shall there be any work for Egypt, which the head or tail,
branch or rush, may do.
16In that day shall Egypt be like unto women: and it shall be afraid
and fear because of the shaking of the hand of the LORD of hosts,
which he shaketh over it.
17And the land of Judah shall be a terror unto Egypt, every one that
maketh mention thereof shall be afraid in himself, because of the
counsel of the LORD of hosts, which he hath determined against it.
18In that day shall five cities in the land of Egypt speak the
language of Canaan, and swear to the LORD of hosts; one shall be
called, The city of destruction.
19In that day shall there be an altar to the LORD in the midst of the
land of Egypt, and a pillar at the border thereof to the LORD.
20And it shall be for a sign and for a witness unto the LORD of hosts
in the land of Egypt: for they shall cry unto the LORD because of the
oppressors, and he shall send them a saviour, and a great one, and he
shall deliver them.
21And the LORD shall be known to Egypt, and the Egyptians shall know
the LORD in that day, and shall do sacrifice and oblation; yea, they
shall vow a vow unto the LORD, and perform it.
22And the LORD shall smite Egypt: he shall smite and heal it: and
they shall return even to the LORD, and he shall be intreated of them,
and shall heal them.
23In that day shall there be a highway out of Egypt to Assyria, and
the Assyrian shall come into Egypt, and the Egyptian into Assyria, and
the Egyptians shall serve with the Assyrians.
24In that day shall Israel be the third with Egypt and with Assyria,
even a blessing in the midst of the land:
25Whom the LORD of hosts shall bless, saying, Blessed be Egypt my
people, and Assyria the work of my hands, and Israel mine inheritance.
I say it has not happened yet. Simple and to the point.
A preterist has to say something like this (probably while also
judging, being mean, using bad language etc.):
Isaiah 19
* G-D and of Jesus Christ did not go to Egypt and/or come on a cloud
or through them:
1The burden of Egypt. Behold, the LORD rideth upon a swift cloud, and
shall come into Egypt: and the idols of Egypt shall be moved at his
presence, and the heart of Egypt shall melt in the midst of it.
* The Egyptians were not set Egyptian against Egyptian either city
against city or kingdom against kingdom:
2And I will set the Egyptians against the Egyptians: and they shall
fight every one against his brother, and every one against his
neighbour; city against city, and kingdom against kingdom.
3And the spirit of Egypt shall fail in the midst thereof; and I will
destroy the counsel thereof: and they shall seek to the idols, and to
the charmers, and to them that have familiar spirits, and to the
wizards.
4And the Egyptians will I give over into the hand of a cruel lord;
and a fierce king shall rule over them, saith the Lord, the LORD of
hosts.
* Their waters did not dry up:
5And the waters shall fail from the sea, and the river shall be
wasted and dried up.
6And they shall turn the rivers far away; and the brooks of defence
shall be emptied and dried up: the reeds and flags shall wither.
7The paper reeds by the brooks, by the mouth of the brooks, and every
thing sown by the brooks, shall wither, be driven away, and be no
more.
* The fishermen did not mourn:
8The fishers also shall mourn, and all they that cast angle into the
brooks shall lament, and they that spread nets upon the waters shall
languish.
9Moreover they that work in fine flax, and they that weave networks,
shall be confounded.
10And they shall be broken in the purposes thereof, all that make
sluices and ponds for fish.
11Surely the princes of Zoan are fools, the counsel of the wise
counsellors of Pharaoh is become brutish: how say ye unto Pharaoh, I
am the son of the wise, the son of ancient kings?
12Where are they? where are thy wise men? and let them tell thee now,
and let them know what the LORD of hosts hath purposed upon Egypt.
13The princes of Zoan are become fools, the princes of Noph are
deceived; they have also seduced Egypt, even they that are the stay of
the tribes thereof.
14The LORD hath mingled a perverse spirit in the midst thereof: and
they have caused Egypt to err in every work thereof, as a drunken man
staggereth in his vomit.
15Neither shall there be any work for Egypt, which the head or tail,
branch or rush, may do.
16In that day shall Egypt be like unto women: and it shall be afraid
and fear because of the shaking of the hand of the LORD of hosts,
which he shaketh over it.
* Judah was not a terror to Egypt and they did not fear Judah:
17And the land of Judah shall be a terror unto Egypt, every one that
maketh mention thereof shall be afraid in himself, because of the
counsel of the LORD of hosts, which he hath determined against it.
* Cities in Egypt did did not swear to the Lord:
18In that day shall five cities in the land of Egypt speak the
language of Canaan, and swear to the LORD of hosts; one shall be
called, The city of destruction.
19In that day shall there be an altar to the LORD in the midst of the
land of Egypt, and a pillar at the border thereof to the LORD.
20And it shall be for a sign and for a witness unto the LORD of hosts
in the land of Egypt: for they shall cry unto the LORD because of the
oppressors, and he shall send them a saviour, and a great one, and he
shall deliver them.
* The Egyptians did not know the Lord:
21And the LORD shall be known to Egypt, and the Egyptians shall know
the LORD in that day, and shall do sacrifice and oblation; yea, they
shall vow a vow unto the LORD, and perform it.
22And the LORD shall smite Egypt: he shall smite and heal it: and
they shall return even to the LORD, and he shall be intreated of them,
and shall heal them.
* This highway never existed:
23In that day shall there be a highway out of Egypt to Assyria, and
the Assyrian shall come into Egypt, and the Egyptian into Assyria, and
the Egyptians shall serve with the Assyrians.
24In that day shall Israel be the third with Egypt and with Assyria,
even a blessing in the midst of the land:
25Whom the LORD of hosts shall bless, saying, Blessed be Egypt my
people, and Assyria the work of my hands, and Israel mine inheritance.
And Preterists believe the Bible but 'futurists' do not? uTTER
nONSENSE.
>
> > > And what did Jesus say?
>
> > > "...and they shall see the Son of Man coming in the clouds
> > > of heaven, with great power and glory!" - Matthew 24:30b
>
> > > Now, if you truly did let Scripture interpret Scripture, which
> > > is THE #1 RULE of proper Scriptural interpretation, then you
> > > would state that Jesus' statement was also symbolism. But
> > > instead, what do you Futurists say in response, when shown
> > > this simple thing (the prophecy from Isaiah)?
ISAIAH 19 HAS NOT HAPPENED.
>
> > > FUTURISTS: "Well, just because it wasn't literal in Isaiah,
> > > that doesn't mean that Jesus wasn't literal!"
No. It will happen.
>
> > > Now what is that saying, except that Jesus, for some reason
> > > and even though (as even Futurists admit) He was the One
> > > who actually imparted the word to us (and is the Word/Logos),
> > > somehow came to the same people that He had been giving
> > > hat word to, through all of those centuries and decided to
> > > stalk to the people in "opposite of God speak". Ridiculous!
>
> > > And what gets me, is just how *ridiculous* Futurists are!
> > > Yes, some Futurists actually responded to that by saying
> > > that "Yes, He did."!
No. And what does some futurists have to do with anything? Hitler was
evil so all Germans are evil? More utter nonsense.
>
> > > Anything, no mater how ridiculous, to try to keep their foolish
> > > doctrine (it is obviously foolish, if these are the lengths that
> > > they have to go to, to try to "defend" it!)!
>
> > > So apparently, to the Futurist, God had a real cloud to ride!
> > > And a swift one at that! God must have a great mechanic! :)
How silly, G-D coming in or on a cloud? Huh?
Mocking G-D? What are these? Here G-D comes on a cloud and what are
these wheels?
Ezekiel seems to fear G-D , but, you seem not to.
You will.
Ezekiel 1:
3The word of the LORD came expressly unto Ezekiel the priest, the son
of Buzi, in the land of the Chaldeans by the river Chebar; and the
hand of the LORD was there upon him.
4And I looked, and, behold, a whirlwind came out of the north, a
great cloud, and a fire infolding itself, and a brightness was about
it, and out of the midst thereof as the colour of amber, out of the
midst of the fire.
5Also out of the midst thereof came the likeness of four living
creatures. And this was their appearance; they had the likeness of a
man.
6And every one had four faces, and every one had four wings.
7And their feet were straight feet; and the sole of their feet was
like the sole of a calf's foot: and they sparkled like the colour of
burnished brass.
8And they had the hands of a man under their wings on their four
sides; and they four had their faces and their wings.
9Their wings were joined one to another; they turned not when they
went; they went every one straight forward.
10As for the likeness of their faces, they four had the face of a
man, and the face of a lion, on the right side: and they four had the
face of an ox on the left side; they four also had the face of an
eagle.
11Thus were their faces: and their wings were stretched upward; two
wings of every one were joined one to another, and two covered their
bodies.
12And they went every one straight forward: whither the spirit was to
go, they went; and they turned not when they went.
13As for the likeness of the living creatures, their appearance was
like burning coals of fire, and like the appearance of lamps: it went
up and down among the living creatures; and the fire was bright, and
out of the fire went forth lightning.
14And the living creatures ran and returned as the appearance of a
flash of lightning.
15Now as I beheld the living creatures, behold one wheel upon the
earth by the living creatures, with his four faces.
16The appearance of the wheels and their work was like unto the
colour of a beryl: and they four had one likeness: and their
appearance and their work was as it were a wheel in the middle of a
wheel.
17When they went, they went upon their four sides: and they turned
not when they went.
18As for their rings, they were so high that they were dreadful; and
their rings were full of eyes round about them four.
19And when the living creatures went, the wheels went by them: and
when the living creatures were lifted up from the earth, the wheels
were lifted up.
20Whithersoever the spirit was to go, they went, thither was their
spirit to go; and the wheels were lifted up over against them: for the
spirit of the living creature was in the wheels.
21When those went, these went; and when those stood, these stood; and
when those were lifted up from the earth, the wheels were lifted up
over against them: for the spirit of the living creature was in the
wheels.
22And the likeness of the firmament upon the heads of the living
creature was as the colour of the terrible crystal, stretched forth
over their heads above.
23And under the firmament were their wings straight, the one toward
the other: every one had two, which covered on this side, and every
one had two, which covered on that side, their bodies.
24And when they went, I heard the noise of their wings, like the
noise of great waters, as the voice of the Almighty, the voice of
speech, as the noise of an host: when they stood, they let down their
wings.
25And there was a voice from the firmament that was over their heads,
when they stood, and had let down their wings.
26And above the firmament that was over their heads was the likeness
of a throne, as the appearance of a sapphire stone: and upon the
likeness of the throne was the likeness as the appearance of a man
above upon it.
27And I saw as the colour of amber, as the appearance of fire round
about within it, from the appearance of his loins even upward, and
from the appearance of his loins even downward, I saw as it were the
appearance of fire, and it had brightness round about.
28As the appearance of the bow that is in the cloud in the day of
rain, so was the appearance of the brightness round about. This was
the appearance of the likeness of the glory of the LORD. And when I
saw it, I fell upon my face, and I heard a voice of one that spake.
********************************************
Ike E 1/1/11
news:cqcpi69o6k004l1an...@4ax.com...
> On Mon, 10 Jan 2011 09:51:12 -0800 (PST), Abrams1117
> <John...@peoplepc.com> spake thusly:
>
>
>> Pastor Dave wrote:
>>
>>> Abrams1117 spake thusly:
>>>
>>>> You also need to allow Scripture is interpret itself.
>>>
>>> And yet, you don't.
>>
>> Who does? Who can? Who tries?
>
> The Apostles did! That's why they didn't take
> the statements of Joel as being physically literal
> when Peter applied them to THEIR time! They
> were no meant to be taken that way! Do yourself
> a favor and go read what Peter quoted!
Funny you should mention that since I discuss it in my new book.
FIRST, there were/are/will be THREE Pentecosts.
The first was when God took the spirit that rested on Moses and placed in
the seventy elders, which foreshadowed the second, when God took the Spirit
that rested on Jesus and poured it out on the Disciples, which foreshadowed
the THIRD, which John describes in Revelation 14, when God take BOTH aspects
that came before, and pours them out on the Remnant that will "keep the
commandments of God AND have the testimony of Jesus Christ," etc, etc.
Second, you're right about Peter's application of the prophecy for THEIR
times; but the prophecy wasn't ONLY for their times--the context of Joel's
prophecy is THE END OF THE AGE.
Just more examples of triunism at work.
<chuckle>
[snip the rest of the idiot's dawdle]
Ike
--
********
Which of the following is the correct way to read Bible prophecy?
A. Immediacy
B. Historicism
C. Dispensationalism
D. Preterism (Full or Partial)
E. Idealism
F. Realized/Sapiential Eschatology
G. All of the above
H. None of the above
Based on an examination of how (not just what) Jesus and the prophets
prophesied, "The Triune Hypothesis" is a guide to reading the Bible
prophetically in all three dimensions of interpretation-the horizontal axis
in time (what was, is, and/or is to come), the perpendicular axis in
application (literal, figurative, and/or spiritual), and the vertical axis
in context (thesis, generality, and/or antithesis).
Topics of discussion include the resurrections, the triune "Last Days," the
Pentecosts, the one-baptism-in-three-parts, the triple application of the
Elijah prophecies, the Temples in Jerusalem, the Abominations of Desolation,
the Triune Israel, the devolution of prophecy, and much more.
Kindle Version:
Print Version:
Facebook: (discussions enabled)
http://www.facebook.com/home.php#!/pages/The-Triune-Hypothesis/102657386473773
Web: (filtered blog comments enabled)
http://thetriunist.weebly.com/index.html
Ike E 1/1/11
news:0caebc1e-0f18-4e63...@fm22g2000vbb.googlegroups.com...
> On Jan 11, 7:47 pm, Pastor Dave <newsgroup-mail @ tampabay.rr.com>
> wrote:
>> On Mon, 10 Jan 2011 09:51:12 -0800 (PST), Abrams1117
>> <John1...@peoplepc.com> spake thusly:
>
>>> Pastor Dave wrote:
>
>>>> Abrams1117 spake thusly:
>
>>>>> You also need to allow Scripture is interpret itself.
>
>>>> And yet, you don't.
>
>>> Who does? Who can? Who tries?
>
>> The Apostles did!
> Did the Apostles understand Scripture or Jesus Christ?
> My goodness, how long a list would that be?????
> Where are you going? Why can't we follow? Will you now establish the
> Kingdom? Will John live forever? What the Apostles did not
> understand?: This would be a very, very long list.
>> That's why they didn't take
>> the statements of Joel as being physically literal
>> when Peter applied them to THEIR time! They
>> were no meant to be taken that way! Do yourself
>> a favor and go read what Peter quoted!
> What did Peter say? What does Scripture say?
LOL
The blind continues to try and lead the blind.
I cover this one in my new book.
FIRST PENTECOST: God takes the spirit that rested on Moses and places it on
the seventy elders.
SECOND PENTECOST: God takes the Spirit that rested on Jesus and places it on
the Disciples.
THIRD PENTECOST: This one fits the WHOLE context of Joel, as John describes
the Pentecost that will come to the REMNANT in Revelation 14, but in BOTH
ASPECTS of the previous two Pentecosts, i.e. "these are they who keep the
commandments of God AND have the faith of Jesus." [Rev 14:12b]
When are you two numbskulls going to realize that NEITHER ONE OF YOU KNOWS
WHAT YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT?
<chuckle and snip>
Peter B.
I hope you do, it will be a ded giveaway.
Pentecost = 50 Days
> FIRST PENTECOST: God takes the spirit that rested on Moses and places it on
> the seventy elders.
>
It is an annointing, only.
> SECOND PENTECOST: God takes the Spirit that rested on Jesus and places it on
> the Disciples.
>
Again it is an annointing.
Pentecost after Christs ressurection the 120 were babptized in the Spirit.
Infilling.
Then the countless baptisms and infilling up unto the Day of The Lords
re-appearance.
Then the 144K Jews will be annointed as in the OT Days.
> THIRD PENTECOST: This one fits the WHOLE context of Joel, as John describes
> the Pentecost that will come to the REMNANT in Revelation 14, but in BOTH
> ASPECTS of the previous two Pentecosts, i.e. "these are they who keep the
> commandments of God AND have the faith of Jesus." [Rev 14:12b]
>
> When are you two numbskulls going to realize that NEITHER ONE OF YOU KNOWS
> WHAT YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT?
>
> <chuckle and snip>
>
> Ike
If you actually paid a vanity press to print those books you will wish you
had't wasted your money. ;)
Doug
If you think the 144,000 of Revelation 7 and 14 are ethnic Jews you
have misunderstood; they are called "the firstfruits unto God and to
the Lamb." [Revelation 14:4]
According to James the church is the "firstfruits." He was one
himself, so it is not referring to ethnic Jews in a future age.
James 1:18
Of his own will begat he us with the word of truth, that we should be
a kind of firstfruits of his creatures.
Furthermore, they are all virgins; this discredits a literal
interpretation as it says they were "not defiled with women."
Revelation 14:4
These are they which were not defiled with women; for they are
virgins. These are they which follow the Lamb whithersoever he goeth.
The statement they are "not defiled with women" has to be understood
in a spiritual sense or else it would imply they are all males, so
supporting racist and sexist views. I think the prophecy implies there
are no seducers among them, those who seduce by false teachings.
See Mark 13:22, 1 Timothy 5:15, 2 Timothy 3:13, 1 John 2:26,
Revelation 2:20.
Paul said he wished to present the church at Corinth as a "chaste
virgin" to Christ. This is what the 144,000 are, "chaste" in the sense
they have not been seduced nor do they seduce others by false
doctrine, not that they were unmarried and virgins literally in a
carnal way.
2 Corinthians 11:2-3
For I am jealous over you with godly jealousy: for I have espoused you
to one husband, that I may present you as a chaste virgin to Christ.
But I fear, lest by any means, as the serpent beguiled Eve through his
subtilty, so your minds should be corrupted from the simplicity that
is in Christ.
Eschew dispensationalism! Escher preterism!
>
>> THIRD PENTECOST: This one fits the WHOLE context of Joel, as John describes
>> the Pentecost that will come to the REMNANT in Revelation 14, but in BOTH
>> ASPECTS of the previous two Pentecosts, i.e. "these are they who keep the
>> commandments of God AND have the faith of Jesus." [Rev 14:12b]
>>
>> When are you two numbskulls going to realize that NEITHER ONE OF YOU KNOWS
>> WHAT YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT?
>>
>> <chuckle and snip>
>>
>> Ike
>
> If you actually paid a vanity press to print those books you will wish you
> had't wasted your money. ;)
--
Doug
@tampabay.rr.com Pastor Dave
<John...@peoplepc.com> spake thusly:
> Pastor Dave wrote:
>
>> Abrams1117 spake thusly:
>>
>>> Pastor Dave wrote:
>>>
>>>> Abrams1117 spake thusly:
>>>>
>>>>> You also need to allow Scripture is interpret itself.
>>>>
>>>> And yet, you don't.
>>>
>>> Who does? Who can? Who tries?
>>
>> The Apostles did!
>
> Did the Apostles understand Scripture or Jesus Christ?
Yes, they did. Why would you think they didn't?
> My goodness, how long a list would that be?????
>
> Where are you going? Why can't we follow?
> Will you now establish the Kingdom? Will
> John live forever? What the Apostles did
> not understand?: This would be a very,
> very long list.
John, please tell me you're not one of those people
who thinks that they got it wrong and only today,
with the knowledge we have now, can we truly
understand the Scriptures. Please tell me that
you're not one of those people and remember,
you included Jesus in your "question".
The reality is, that you should never have included
Jesus in that statement, nor "the Apostles", since
when they had some misunderstandings about
Scripture, they were "the disciples", not Apostles.
The truth is, they did know their Scriptures and
they knew them very well! Even when they were
just "disciples", they knew them well! But that is
with regard to knowing what they say and what
they meant to them and how they all tied together.
You on the other hand, are trying to promote
the idea that ignorance of even what they say
is okay and that with that, you can understand
them and teach others what they say and mean!
And that is not me taking liberties with what
you said! I quoted you saying just that idea!
Now as for "understanding", that is quite another
thing altogether and still, you should not have
included either Jesus or the Apostles in that,
since of course Jesus understood the Scriptures!
So how dare you say such a thing about Jesus!
Now you want to place your own understanding
above His and yet, would claim to get it from Him!
Hello??? Self-contradictory hypocrite??? Hello???
The truth is, that as disciples, they knew the OT,
but did not have a full understanding of it, since
they made one fatal flaw, which is the same fatal
flaw that Futurism makes, which is that they read
the Scriptures "with the veil on", as Paul said.
The reason that they had asked questions like;
"Will you now restore the kingdom to Israel?"
...is because they took these Scriptures as being
physically literal, just as you do, which is how they
read the Scriptures, "with the veil on".
And it was beyond what you're comprehending out
of it, since if you paid attention, you would know
that they were assuming things about the kingdom
that they shouldn't have, because they assumed
those Scriptures to be physically literal, such as
the fact that they must have been thinking that
with the Roman occupation, came the giving of
the kingdom of God to another nation, trying to
pull that Scripture also into a physically literal idea,
when in reality, that Scripture was not about who
was occupying a strip of dirt!
Why is it that Futurists think that the culmination
of all of God's work, is to again own a strip of dirt
(as if anything could be taken away from God)?!
You shrink God's plan down to owning a strip of dirt!
That is just so damn sad! It really makes me sad to
watch you people tear down the Bible, to suit your
own perverse need for your physical world to be
a paradise, when the physical was only there to be
a shadow of the spiritual! All through the Scriptures,
God tells us this and you just won't listen! Hebrews
states this SO PLAINLY!!! And yet you still reject it!
When one *knows* the Scriptures *and* the times
and the peoples, then one knows that Leviticus and
Hebrews together, are the key to understanding the
entirety of the Holy Scriptures!
You said that one need not have common sense
and you are ruled by whatever fantasy you can
think up of the fantastical, magical Jesus, who
flies on clouds and cares not what Scripture says
and does not care that He would be speaking in
"opposite of God speak". (:
Francis Goya said; "Fantasy abandoned by reason,
produces impossible monsters."
Let us remember this, when interpreting the Bible
and before claiming that fantastic sounding language
in the Bible should be taken as being physically literal!
Nowhere near what you claim!
>Acts 2:
>
> Dreams and visions = literal
>
> 17 “‘In the last days, G-D says, I will pour out
> my Spirit on all people. Your sons and daughters
> will prophesy, your young men will see visions,
> your old men will dream dreams.
> 18 Even on my servants, both men and women,
> I will pour out my Spirit in those days, and they
> will prophesy.
>
> Wonders in heaven = literal
>
> 19 I will show wonders in the heavens above
> and signs on the earth below, blood and fire
> and billows of smoke.
> 20 The sun will be turned to darkness and
> the moon to blood before the coming of the
> great and glorious day of the Lord.
> 21 And everyone who calls on the name
> of the Lord will be saved.’
>
> Don't preterists say these are literal?
No, they do not! And they are not literal!
Verses 19-20:
The wonders in the heavens above have nothing
to do with Jesus flying through the sky on a cloud
and nothing to do with the Sun literally turning dark,
nor with the Moon literally turning to blood!
In fact, you Futurists do not claim that the Moon
will be actual "blood", but simply "red" and yet,
you scream about being literal?!
The fact is, that IF YOU KNEW ANYTHING ABOUT
THE PEOPLE AND THE TIMES AND THE RELIGION
AND THE OLD TESTAMENT, then you would know
that both the Sun and the Moon were symbolic of
something else. The Sun represents God's Light
onto the world and the Moon represents the nation
of Israel, which, just as the Moon reflects the light
of the Sun onto the Earth, so also was Israel supposed
to reflect the Light of God to the other nations. And
again, if you knew the OT Scriptures, then you would
also know that this is stated in the Bible as their job!
This is about the desolation of Jerusalem and Judea
and when the Sun went dark, it was symbolic of
God turning away from the nation of Israel and
when the Moon turned to blood, it was symbolic
of the bloodshed that came to the Jews, as a result
of God turning His back on them. How else do you
think they were desolated, if God hadn't turned His
back on them, contrary to your Futurist claims?!
Joel also states the blood and smoke, which is what
happened when Jerusalem was set ablaze, hello?!
And what you fail to do, is to pay attention to what
else Peter said! How he prefaced his statements!
Peter said two things about Joel's prophecy when
he quoted it and said them very clearly and you
skip right by it, because it doesn't work for your
Futurist doctrine!
1) "In the last days..."
2) "This is that which was spoken by the prophet Joel..."
Peter placed the fulfillment of Joel's prophecy right there,
into their generation! And that also prevents people like
you from trying to stretch it out to our time, yet you do it
anyway, don't you!
>> That's why they didn't take the statements of Joel
>> as being physically literal when Peter applied them
>> to THEIR time!
>
> What was the timing?
>
> Their time? Based upon what?
And here comes the cop out! Yea, they were being
literal about the fantastical things said, but hey, if the
REALLY SIMPLE time statements they said get in your
way and prevent you from making it all about yourself,
in your time, then just make up a story about it and
pretend that it doesn't (here comes the favorite word
for the Futurist) "really" mean what it says, after
claiming that the rest does "really" mean what it says!
> Peter was saying the speaking in tongues was
> fulfilling verses 17 and 18.
>
> 16 No, this is what was spoken by the prophet Joel:
> 17 “‘In the last days, G-D says,
> I will pour out my Spirit on all people.
> Your sons and daughters will prophesy,
> your young men will see visions,
> your old men will dream dreams.
> 18 Even on my servants, both men and women,
> I will pour out my Spirit in those days,
> and they will prophesy.
>
> Preterists insist that the following verses were
> in Peter's future and literal:
Don't tell me what Preterist insist on! I have
already proved you wrong many times as to
what "Preterists insist on"!
> 19 I will show wonders in the heavens above
> and signs on the earth below,
> blood and fire and billows of smoke.
> 20 The sun will be turned to darkness
> and the moon to blood
> before the coming of the great and
> glorious day of the Lord.
> 21 And everyone who calls
> on the name of the Lord will be saved.’
I have gone over this above and it is Futurists
who look at the Sun going dark and the Moon
turning to blood as being literal and that's why
they twist the Scriptures up beyond recognition
and without shame, to try to make their doctrine
sound like it works! But it doesn't!
>> So you make things up and think no one will mind?
>> Thanks for revealing your approach!
>
> I make up saying all the time. I have been posting
> them for years, I'm certain that you have ignored
> scores of them, already. But, since you know what
> I meant you are condemning yourself before G-D
> in a vain attempt to look good to man?
Once again you admit that you make things up.
>>>> It is about the approach that one makes to any
>>>> ancient text! �It is flat out stupid to claim that
>>>> one can understand the Bible, without taking
>>>> into account the times and peoples involved
>>>> and it is this lack of understanding that leads
>>>> to so much false doctrines and interpretations,
>>>> whether you want to admit it or not!
>>>
>>> But, you have to start from somewhere
>>
>> Yes you do, but not from "anywhere". :)
>>
>> You do not have to start from the approach of ignorance
>> and then trying to defend approaching it with ignorance.
>>
>> Once again, you wish to pretend that you're making
>> a logical, intelligent statement in response, but what
>> we both know you are doing, is writing nonsense. (:
>>
>> It is *nonsense* to claim that a valid starting point
>> is one of ignorance and why would you even try to
>> argue such a ridiculous thing?
>
> I have posted the very same Scriptures to you about
> times, this month, in response to this very same point.
> It is amazing that everyone asks and reads the answer
> repeatedly, over an dover and over and then they simply
> pretend that this never happened.
Once again, you're not making sense and you're
avoiding the point, as is usual for you! Your
response has nothing to do with the fact that
you are trying to defend the idea of starting from
a point of ignorance of the Scriptures, times and
peoples involved in the Scriptures!
> How many fulfilled prophecies are literal?
> That is the only way to begin.
That's ridiculous! The only ay to begin is to
see how many you can make literal?! All that
is, is your attempt to save your doctrine! You
are stating that your approach is to assume
your doctrine and then go through the Bible
tryin to find anything you can to try to back
that same doctrine up!
An honest person who is interested in the truth,
WHATEVER IT MAY BE, opens their Bible with
no assumptions and their doctrine does not come
from anywhere other than what the Bible says
and not from a preassumed position!
Says who? And I don't care about that! What does
that have to do with what I said?! You have this
really bad habit of trying to change the subject
and then claiming that you responded on point! (:
Reading books about the Bible has nothing to do
with the fact that you yourself are ignorant of what
the Scriptures say and that you promote the idea
of ignorance being an okay approach and your
claim to be able to impart knowledge to others,
when you admit your ignorance!
Do you even get the problem with that claim?!?
> But, what does the Creator Jesus Christ say about Scripture!
>
> Luke 17:27
> They did eat, they drank, they married wives,
> they were given in marriage, until the day that
> Noah entered into the ark, and the flood came,
> and destroyed them all.
>
> Matthew 24:15
> When ye therefore shall see the abomination
> of desolation, spoken of by Daniel the prophet,
> stand in the holy place, (whoso readeth, let him
> understand:)
>
> Matthew 12
> 3 But he said unto them, Have ye not read what
> David did, when he was an hungred, and they
> that were with him;
>
> THE FLOOD, NOAH, DANIEL, DAVID ARE REAL!
> LITERAL! TRUE!
>
> I believe G-D!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
No you don't. If you did, then you wouldn't have
just tried to weasel out of your problem by citing
what are obviously literal events. No one disputes
that Genesis 1-11 are literal events, so what the
Hell is your point?!
Boy, you really are a dishonest idiot, aren't you?!
Did you really think that by citing the above,
that your claim that Jesus was saying in them
that "all prophecies have a physically literal
fulfillment", which is exactly what your claiming
He's saying there, would work?! Huh?!?
Please tell me you're not that dumb!
I know I'm not that dumb, that I would fall for that!
Please! <chuckle>
There is no point in trying to have a discussion with you.
You do not understand my belief system at all.
But then again, you did say that ignorance is
the right approach, so this is to be expected.
You make claims all the time and never back them up.
You love to lie about what it is I have said and are
constantly making nonsensical statements in response,
that have absolutely nothing to do with what I said!
But again, since you claim that there is no such thing
as "common sense", this is to be expected from you.
Now if you one day decide that you don't know
everything and wish to stay on point and will quit
putting words into my mouth and the mouth of
the Lord, believing that He had it wrong, but you
have it right, then let me know.
Of course, I do not expect you to answer the first
question I posted just now near the top of this
message anyway. :)
--
Pastor Dave
“If an injury has to be done to a man it should be so severe
that his vengeance need not be feared.” - Niccolo Machiavelli
Peter B.
They are, and they are 12K from every tribe, or do you ignore that part?
> According to James the church is the "firstfruits." He was one
> himself, so it is not referring to ethnic Jews in a future age.
>
> James 1:18
> Of his own will begat he us with the word of truth, that we should be
> a kind of firstfruits of his creatures.
>
"A kind of firstfruits", the GT shifts focus back to the Jew.
> Furthermore, they are all virgins; this discredits a literal
> interpretation as it says they were "not defiled with women."
>
So you think they have to be defiled with women to be virgins?
> Revelation 14:4
> These are they which were not defiled with women; for they are
> virgins. These are they which follow the Lamb whithersoever he goeth.
>
> The statement they are "not defiled with women" has to be understood
> in a spiritual sense or else it would imply they are all males, so
> supporting racist and sexist views. I think the prophecy implies there
> are no seducers among them, those who seduce by false teachings.
> See Mark 13:22, 1 Timothy 5:15, 2 Timothy 3:13, 1 John 2:26,
> Revelation 2:20.
>
They are all men. Women were not to lead men but be under a covering. How
is that racist? They are all going to be killed as well.
> Paul said he wished to present the church at Corinth as a "chaste
> virgin" to Christ. This is what the 144,000 are, "chaste" in the sense
> they have not been seduced nor do they seduce others by false
> doctrine, not that they were unmarried and virgins literally in a
> carnal way.
>
Straw alert, straw alert. Scripturally unfounded, Why makes things up?
> 2 Corinthians 11:2-3
> For I am jealous over you with godly jealousy: for I have espoused you
> to one husband, that I may present you as a chaste virgin to Christ.
> But I fear, lest by any means, as the serpent beguiled Eve through his
> subtilty, so your minds should be corrupted from the simplicity that
> is in Christ.
>
The Church is the Bride of Christ.
> Eschew dispensationalism! Escher preterism!
>
You should learn about Covenant living and truths.
>>
>>> THIRD PENTECOST: This one fits the WHOLE context of Joel, as John describes
>>> the Pentecost that will come to the REMNANT in Revelation 14, but in BOTH
>>> ASPECTS of the previous two Pentecosts, i.e. "these are they who keep the
>>> commandments of God AND have the faith of Jesus." [Rev 14:12b]
>>>
>>> When are you two numbskulls going to realize that NEITHER ONE OF YOU KNOWS
>>> WHAT YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT?
>>>
>>> <chuckle and snip>
>>>
>>> Ike
>>
>> If you actually paid a vanity press to print those books you will wish you
>> hadn't wasted your money. ;)
Abrams1117
wrote:
> On Wed, 12 Jan 2011 06:22:12 -0800 (PST), Abrams1117
>
> > Pastor Dave wrote:
>
> >> Abrams1117 spake thusly:
>
> >>> Pastor Dave wrote:
>
> >>>> Abrams1117 spake thusly:
>
> >>>>> You also need to allow Scripture is interpret itself.
>
> >>>> And yet, you don't.
>
> >>> Who does? Who can? Who tries?
>
> >> The Apostles did!
>
> > Did the Apostles understand Scripture or Jesus Christ?
>
> Yes, they did. Why would you think they didn't?
>
> > My goodness, how long a list would that be?????
>
> > Where are you going? Why can't we follow?
> > Will you now establish the Kingdom? Will
> > John live forever? What the Apostles did
> > not understand?: This would be a very,
> > very long list.
>
> John, please tell me you're not one of those people
> who thinks that they got it wrong and only today,
> with the knowledge we have now, can we truly
> understand the Scriptures. Please tell me that
> you're not one of those people and remember,
> you included Jesus in your "question".
Where? We get answers From Jesus Christ. I have said this before the
order of authority is G-D , then Jesus Christ then and angel then a
prophet.
And you know that everyone from Daniel to the apostles did not
understand everything.
>
> The reality is, that you should never have included
> Jesus in that statement, nor "the Apostles", since
> when they had some misunderstandings about
> Scripture, they were "the disciples", not Apostles.
Ah, ok, now I understand you statement, you misunderstood me, do you
think the Apostles understood what Scripture says or what Jesus Christ
said to them?
Are you so desperately looking for mistakes in grammar etc that you
will latch onto anything? Is your faith so weak? LOL
Sorry, but that is sad. Change anything you have ever said and re-
explain it because I seek G-D'S TRUTH not the respect of men.
> The truth is, they did know their Scriptures and
> they knew them very well! Even when they were
> just "disciples", they knew them well! But that is
> with regard to knowing what they say and what
> they meant to them and how they all tied together.
>
> You on the other hand, are trying to promote
> the idea that ignorance of even what they say
> is okay and that with that, you can understand
> them and teach others what they say and mean!
>
> And that is not me taking liberties with what
> you said! I quoted you saying just that idea!
YOU KNOW THEY DID NOT UNDERSTAND.
>
> Now as for "understanding", that is quite another
> thing altogether and still, you should not have
> included either Jesus or the Apostles in that,
> since of course Jesus understood the Scriptures!
> So how dare you say such a thing about Jesus!
I did not.
> Now you want to place your own understanding
> above His and yet, would claim to get it from Him!
> Hello??? Self-contradictory hypocrite??? Hello???
>
> The truth is, that as disciples, they knew the OT,
> but did not have a full understanding of it, since
> they made one fatal flaw, which is the same fatal
> flaw that Futurism makes, which is that they read
> the Scriptures "with the veil on", as Paul said.
They knew he would die? That is not literal? Really?
I have to go, but, it is fascinating that I posted the Scriptures
about his crucifixion several time sin response to you - and later you
ask questions that they answer and still you do not see. The apostles
understood what? Care to reconsider?
Doug
Why ignore the fact that John was a Christian, and an apostle, and in
Christ, there is neither Jew nor Greek?
Romans 10:12
For there is no difference between the Jew and the Greek: for the same
Lord over all is rich unto all that call upon him.
To deny this, is to distort and pervert the gospel. Hmm..
Dispensationalism does seem to divide the church into two parts on the
basis of race, or nationality, but that is an error.
John refers to the church as "Jerusalem," "the temple of God," "the
camp of the saints," etc.; he refers to an altar, Mount Zion, etc in a
spiritual sense, not literal. "And I looked, and, lo, a Lamb stood on
the mount Sion" Is the Lamb literal? No, of course it is not, but it
is a symbol for Christ. So, what about mount Sion? Is it literal? No,
in this case, it refers to the name applied to the church in Hebrews
12:22. So why say the 144,000 who are with Christ means literally so
many ethnic Jews? The number is clealy symbolic, 12 x 12 x 1,000. To
not realize the symbolism, IMO, is to be blind!
The tribes which are named are not tribes that are normally identified
with the twelve tribes, as Dan is omitted. The order is unusual too;
it is not the order of birth. But the names are arranged in such a
way that they make a psalm, when the meanings given to the names in
Genesis are put in the order that John uses. It is a psalm that
applies to the church. Many psalms begin with an exhortation to praise
God, and this does too.
I will praise the LORD, (Judah)
Surely the LORD hath looked upon my affliction, (Reuben)
He has granted me good fortune, (Gad)
Happy am I, (Asher)
With great wrestlings have I wrestled, (Naphtali)
But God will make me forget all my toil, (Manasseh)
The LORD hath heard me, (Simeon)
He has joined Himself to me, (Levi)
He has purchased me, (Issachar)
He will dwell with me always, (Zebulun)
The LORD shall add more children to me, (Joseph)
By the son of His right hand. (Benjamin)
Dan means "judgment," and the omission of his name suggests that those
included in the 144,000 will escape the judgment, which supports their
identification with the church.
The 144,000 have the seal of God in their foreheads, and if Gentile
believers were not included among them, they would suffer the first
"woe" of chapter 9, the plague of scorpion-locusts, "And it was
commanded them that they should not hurt the grass of the earth,
neither any green thing, neither any tree; but only those men which
have not the seal of God in their foreheads." [Revelation 9:4]
Saints of all nations have the name of Jesus in their foreheads, in
Revelation 22:4.
>
>> According to James the church is the "firstfruits." He was one
>> himself, so it is not referring to ethnic Jews in a future age.
>>
>> James 1:18
>> Of his own will begat he us with the word of truth, that we should be
>> a kind of firstfruits of his creatures.
>>
> "A kind of firstfruits", the GT shifts focus back to the Jew.
Who is GT? The gospel shows that in Christ, there is no difference
between Jew and Greek.
Galatians 3:28
There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there
is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus.
Colossians 3:11
Where there is neither Greek nor Jew, circumcision nor uncircumcision,
Barbarian, Scythian, bond nor free: but Christ is all, and in all.
Paul does not say, "there is neither Jew nor Gentile," perhaps because
in prophecy, "Jew" and "Gentile" are symbols, that are used to
distinguish the saints from unbelievers.
>
>> Furthermore, they are all virgins; this discredits a literal
>> interpretation as it says they were "not defiled with women."
>>
> So you think they have to be defiled with women to be virgins?
"Virgins" in this context represents faithfulness to Christ, and not
following after seducing spirits.
>
>> Revelation 14:4
>> These are they which were not defiled with women; for they are
>> virgins. These are they which follow the Lamb whithersoever he goeth.
>>
>> The statement they are "not defiled with women" has to be understood
>> in a spiritual sense or else it would imply they are all males, so
>> supporting racist and sexist views. I think the prophecy implies there
>> are no seducers among them, those who seduce by false teachings.
>> See Mark 13:22, 1 Timothy 5:15, 2 Timothy 3:13, 1 John 2:26,
>> Revelation 2:20.
>>
>
> They are all men. Women were not to lead men but be under a covering. How
> is that racist? They are all going to be killed as well.
Saying "they are all men" adds to what John wrote in Revelation, which
we are warned not to do. He does not say they are all men, does he? He
says they are not "defiled" with women. Why take it to mean something
carnal, of the flesh, as if he was referring to sexual relations? John
wrote "virgins" as that word has a spiritual meaning. It has to do
with the church's status as the bride and wife of Christ.
IMO, saying "they are all going to be killed" also adds to what John
wrote in Revelation, which we are warned not to do.
>
>> Paul said he wished to present the church at Corinth as a "chaste
>> virgin" to Christ. This is what the 144,000 are, "chaste" in the sense
>> they have not been seduced nor do they seduce others by false
>> doctrine, not that they were unmarried and virgins literally in a
>> carnal way.
>>
>
> Straw alert, straw alert. Scripturally unfounded, Why makes things up?
Literalism is "straw" fit for the flames! Its effect is to kill the
message of the prophets! Paul said, "for the letter killeth, but the
spirit giveth life." [2 Corinthians 3:6] The truth, however, will
endure flames, and will remain forever. See 1 Corinthians 3:11-13.
>
>> 2 Corinthians 11:2-3
>> For I am jealous over you with godly jealousy: for I have espoused you
>> to one husband, that I may present you as a chaste virgin to Christ.
>> But I fear, lest by any means, as the serpent beguiled Eve through his
>> subtilty, so your minds should be corrupted from the simplicity that
>> is in Christ.
>>
>
> The Church is the Bride of Christ.
>
>> Eschew dispensationalism! Escher preterism!
Er.. that should be: Eschew dispensationalism! Eschew preterism!
>>
>
> You should learn about Covenant living and truths.
>
>
>>>
>>>> THIRD PENTECOST: This one fits the WHOLE context of Joel, as John describes
>>>> the Pentecost that will come to the REMNANT in Revelation 14, but in BOTH
>>>> ASPECTS of the previous two Pentecosts, i.e. "these are they who keep the
>>>> commandments of God AND have the faith of Jesus." [Rev 14:12b]
>>>>
>>>> When are you two numbskulls going to realize that NEITHER ONE OF YOU KNOWS
>>>> WHAT YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT?
>>>>
>>>> <chuckle and snip>
>>>>
>>>> Ike
>>>
>>> If you actually paid a vanity press to print those books you will wish you
>>> hadn't wasted your money. ;)
--
Doug
@tampabay.rr.com Pastor Dave
<John...@peoplepc.com> spake thusly:
>> And that is not me taking liberties with what
>> you said! I quoted you saying just that idea!
>
> YOU KNOW THEY DID NOT UNDERSTAND.
Why did you not answer with regard to your quote
of Acts 2? Hmmm... I wonder why. :)
THE LORD
Real name: Herman Eugene Eickleberry Jr
47807 TERRE HAUTE
Northwest Indiana
Email: xhermanei...@gmail.com
Age 49 *[HOW can he study the bible for over forty years as in next quote?
Obvious he started before the age of 9!]
Previously lived in
Valparaiso, IN
Crown Point, IN
Terre Haute, IN
- http://www.intelius.com/results.php?ReportType=1&searchform=publicrecords
~Mr. Eickleberry earned his bachelors degree in general, choral, and
instrumental music education and computer literacy ... He is a former
teacher and musician. .... He currently resides with His wife of twenty-six
years, Sarah, in Northwest Indiana.
He has been studying the Bible--especially it's eschatological aspects--for
over forty years.
- http://www.amazon.com/H.E.-Eickleberry-Jr/e/B004CXX7XS
Taught Music and Computer. K-12
- http://dc.doe.in.gov/public/EducatorLookup/SPNDetail.aspx?SPN=sF1aU%2...
BOOK REJECTED BY WIKIPEDIA
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
H.E. Eickleberry, Jr.
N Not done. You were shamelessly trying to promote your own self-published
"book" without even pretending to try to claim that it was in any way
notable. Not every book is notable enough for an encyclopedia article; and
even notable books need actual articles about them, not blatant promotional
material. --Orange Mike | Talk 20:11, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_undeletion/Archive_24~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
*[Ike speaking]
I run my own percussion teaching studio
...
He has spent $1,000 to promote his book. *[ The Character Map: An
Introduction to the Introductions in Revelation ]...
....
"Some folks think I am nuts. *[ Amen!]
...
"I spent quite a bit of money for a marketing package from VirtualBookworm,
most of which was wasted,"
...
-
https://groups.google.com/group/alt.christnet/browse_thread/thread/f567aff130eb701d/5e7c468301616953?hl=en&lnk=gst&q=Eickleberry+indiana#5e7c468301616953
He has been studying the Bible since he began to read, but he has no formal
theological training. Due to circumstances beyond his control, he has
attended just about every kind of church one can think of, and even a few
one would not. (He is currently a Lutheran, but they are not sure how to
take him.) ... Why do I get the feeling they keep kicking him out due to
his novel beliefs? ... maybe they kept kicked him out due to his unrepentant
vulgarity... maybe they kept kicking him out due to his insulting nature...
You heard the one about the rock and roll band? You know, six musicians and
a drummer??!! :-) *[Ike being the drummer] No formal theological training.
... In other words you are a "self-appointed scholar" of many words, nasty
language, and so disagreeable that you cannot seem to get along with ANYONE
AT ALL!
Mr. Eickleberry grew up in northwest Indiana, where he currently
resides with his wife, Sarah, and daughter; Erin. ...
So lets get this straight.
You have graduate work in MUSIC.....nothing to do with bible.
You have NO theological training.
You're barely a member of a church....
(btw Luther is known for being one of the biggest antisemites this
side of the century....that said, he has the likes of Hitler by his
side....while the church of Luther currently have renounced his
antisemitic teachings, and much of his work has been cut out....I
don't believe you can be lutheran and consider yourself free of his
antisemitism.
Basically, your authority is moot.
You have a book, lets see how many takers on Amazon you have....
then we can talk....also, your graduate work is not in the same field
- that is a sure sign of disaster.
THE LORD
Ike E 1/1/11
Did you mean "dead," oh, illiterate one?
> Pentecost = 50 Days
???
Yes, Pentecost means "50 days;" but it was a JEWISH holy day THOUSANDS of
years BEFORE it was a Christian holy day.
In fact, THAT'S what the Disciples had assembled for--THE JEWISH HOLY DAY.
You're not making any sense: How was this supposed to dispute THE FACT that
there "was" a Pentecost involving Moses, and THEN a Pentecost involving the
Disciples, yet John speaks of ANOTHER Pentecost yet to come to the Remnant
in Revelation 14?
>> FIRST PENTECOST: God takes the spirit that rested on Moses and places it
>> on
>> the seventy elders.
>>
> It is an annointing, only.
Bullshit.
The seventy elders began to PROPHECY, just as the Disciples would a couple
of thousand years later.
>> SECOND PENTECOST: God takes the Spirit that rested on Jesus and places it
>> on
>> the Disciples.
>>
>
> Again it is an annointing.
More bullshit--it was an OUTPOURING of the Holy Spirit.
> Pentecost after Christs ressurection the 120 were babptized in the Spirit.
> Infilling.
JUST LIKE THE SEVENTY ELDERS IN MOSES DAY!
What? You didn't realize that the Holy Spirit is spoken of THROUGHOUT THE
OLD TESTAMENT, BEFORE the Christian Pentecost?
> Then the countless baptisms and infilling up unto the Day of The Lords
> re-appearance.
Which is all part of the SECOND iteration.
That doesn't account for the FIRST, nor the THIRD.
> Then the 144K Jews will be annointed as in the OT Days.
THEY ARE NOT "JEWS."
THEY WILL BE "ISRAELITES" AND "CHRISTIANS," i.e. "these are they who keep
the commandments of God AND have the faith of Jesus," etc, etc.
In other words, they will be the "MAN CHILD" of Israel as it "was" and "is."
>> THIRD PENTECOST: This one fits the WHOLE context of Joel, as John
>> describes
>> the Pentecost that will come to the REMNANT in Revelation 14, but in BOTH
>> ASPECTS of the previous two Pentecosts, i.e. "these are they who keep the
>> commandments of God AND have the faith of Jesus." [Rev 14:12b]
>>
>> When are you two numbskulls going to realize that NEITHER ONE OF YOU
>> KNOWS
>> WHAT YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT?
>>
>> <chuckle and snip>
>>
>> Ike
>
> If you actually paid a vanity press to print those books you will wish you
> had't wasted your money. ;)
Well, first off, I don't have to pay ANYTHING anymore since I can do it
through various public publishing programs.
Second, since I'm going against ALL of the churches and academics to one
degree or another, I'll have to do it independently, just as Jesus had to go
against the pseudo-"academics" and pseudo-"theologians" of HIS day.
So what?
Great thing about our time is all of the pieces are falling into place for a
great movement AGAINST the modern pseudo-scholars and pseudo-theologians of
today.
Ike
P.S. You STILL haven't cited those scriptures that say that the End of the
Age is seven years BY THEMSELVES.
<chuckle>
Peter B.
That is an understood, but your emphasis on neither J nor G is a bit
strange.
> Romans 10:12
> For there is no difference between the Jew and the Greek: for the same
> Lord over all is rich unto all that call upon him.
>
To the Lord, not necessarily towards men.
> To deny this, is to distort and pervert the gospel. Hmm..
> Dispensationalism does seem to divide the church into two parts on the
> basis of race, or nationality, but that is an error.
>
No error and your premise is wrong.
> John refers to the church as "Jerusalem," "the temple of God," "the
> camp of the saints," etc.; he refers to an altar, Mount Zion, etc in a
> spiritual sense, not literal. "And I looked, and, lo, a Lamb stood on
> the mount Sion" Is the Lamb literal? No, of course it is not, but it
> is a symbol for Christ. So, what about mount Sion? Is it literal? No,
> in this case, it refers to the name applied to the church in Hebrews
> 12:22. So why say the 144,000 who are with Christ means literally so
> many ethnic Jews? The number is clealy symbolic, 12 x 12 x 1,000. To
> not realize the symbolism, IMO, is to be blind!
>
You are going to have to spell it out to me, I'm not grasping it ATM.
> The tribes which are named are not tribes that are normally identified
> with the twelve tribes, as Dan is omitted. The order is unusual too;
> it is not the order of birth. But the names are arranged in such a
> way that they make a psalm, when the meanings given to the names in
> Genesis are put in the order that John uses. It is a psalm that
> applies to the church. Many psalms begin with an exhortation to praise
> God, and this does too.
>
> I will praise the LORD, (Judah)
> Surely the LORD hath looked upon my affliction, (Reuben)
> He has granted me good fortune, (Gad)
> Happy am I, (Asher)
> With great wrestlings have I wrestled, (Naphtali)
> But God will make me forget all my toil, (Manasseh)
> The LORD hath heard me, (Simeon)
> He has joined Himself to me, (Levi)
> He has purchased me, (Issachar)
> He will dwell with me always, (Zebulun)
> The LORD shall add more children to me, (Joseph)
> By the son of His right hand. (Benjamin)
>
So just where is that found?
> Dan means "judgment," and the omission of his name suggests that those
> included in the 144,000 will escape the judgment, which supports their
> identification with the church.
>
> The 144,000 have the seal of God in their foreheads, and if Gentile
> believers were not included among them, they would suffer the first
> "woe" of chapter 9, the plague of scorpion-locusts, "And it was
> commanded them that they should not hurt the grass of the earth,
> neither any green thing, neither any tree; but only those men which
> have not the seal of God in their foreheads." [Revelation 9:4]
>
If any are born again at the time. The 144K are sealed first.
> Saints of all nations have the name of Jesus in their foreheads, in
> Revelation 22:4.
>
But do you know the reason of do you blend this is with something else?
>>
>>> According to James the church is the "firstfruits." He was one
>>> himself, so it is not referring to ethnic Jews in a future age.
>>>
>>> James 1:18
>>> Of his own will begat he us with the word of truth, that we should be
>>> a kind of firstfruits of his creatures.
>>>
>> "A kind of firstfruits", the GT shifts focus back to the Jew.
>
> Who is GT? The gospel shows that in Christ, there is no difference
> between Jew and Greek.
>
Great Tribulation
> Galatians 3:28
> There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there
> is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus.
>
> Colossians 3:11
> Where there is neither Greek nor Jew, circumcision nor uncircumcision,
> Barbarian, Scythian, bond nor free: but Christ is all, and in all.
>
> Paul does not say, "there is neither Jew nor Gentile," perhaps because
> in prophecy, "Jew" and "Gentile" are symbols, that are used to
> distinguish the saints from unbelievers.
>
No, the Jew and the Gentile outside of the Lord are always distinct. God
never did away with the Law, not the Jew. If you paid attention to the
position of the Gentile believer in Christ Jesus, they are grafted into the
Olive tree, Grafted into the "root" they never became the tree, and the
root was never transferred to the Gentile or the Church.
As I recall adopted sons are treated special with the Hebrews maybe a
little better than a default son. The natural child never won't lose its
inheritence to the adopted son.
>>
>>> Furthermore, they are all virgins; this discredits a literal
>>> interpretation as it says they were "not defiled with women."
>>>
>> So you think they have to be defiled with women to be virgins?
>
> "Virgins" in this context represents faithfulness to Christ, and not
> following after seducing spirits.
>
No, virgins, as having never known women. Reason being that they are not
encumbered with the cares of this life, and can carry out Gods work in the
tribulations to its fullest extent.
>>
>>> Revelation 14:4
>>> These are they which were not defiled with women; for they are
>>> virgins. These are they which follow the Lamb whithersoever he goeth.
>>>
>>> The statement they are "not defiled with women" has to be understood
>>> in a spiritual sense or else it would imply they are all males, so
>>> supporting racist and sexist views. I think the prophecy implies there
>>> are no seducers among them, those who seduce by false teachings.
>>> See Mark 13:22, 1 Timothy 5:15, 2 Timothy 3:13, 1 John 2:26,
>>> Revelation 2:20.
>>>
>>
>> They are all men. Women were not to lead men but be under a covering. How
>> is that racist? They are all going to be killed as well.
>
> Saying "they are all men" adds to what John wrote in Revelation, which
> we are warned not to do. He does not say they are all men, does he? He
> says they are not "defiled" with women. Why take it to mean something
> carnal, of the flesh, as if he was referring to sexual relations? John
> wrote "virgins" as that word has a spiritual meaning. It has to do
> with the church's status as the bride and wife of Christ.
>
To fit your scenario the women if any would have to be Lesbian virgins.
For your information when the Jews counted up a group, they most always
counted only males. Like you said, John is a Jew. The 144K serve here while
the Bride of the Lamb is in heaven for the marriage feast.
> IMO, saying "they are all going to be killed" also adds to what John
> wrote in Revelation, which we are warned not to do.
>
>>
>>> Paul said he wished to present the church at Corinth as a "chaste
>>> virgin" to Christ. This is what the 144,000 are, "chaste" in the sense
>>> they have not been seduced nor do they seduce others by false
>>> doctrine, not that they were unmarried and virgins literally in a
>>> carnal way.
>>>
>>
>> Straw alert, straw alert. Scripturally unfounded, Why makes things up?
>
> Literalism is "straw" fit for the flames! Its effect is to kill the
> message of the prophets! Paul said, "for the letter killeth, but the
> spirit giveth life." [2 Corinthians 3:6] The truth, however, will
> endure flames, and will remain forever. See 1 Corinthians 3:11-13.
>
Paul said the letter killeth, speaking of the Mosaic Law, why distort that?
Being born of the spirit is life, yes.
>>
>>> 2 Corinthians 11:2-3
>>> For I am jealous over you with godly jealousy: for I have espoused you
>>> to one husband, that I may present you as a chaste virgin to Christ.
>>> But I fear, lest by any means, as the serpent beguiled Eve through his
>>> subtilty, so your minds should be corrupted from the simplicity that
>>> is in Christ.
>>>
>>
>> The Church is the Bride of Christ.
>>
>>> Eschew dispensationalism! Escher preterism!
>
> Er.. that should be: Eschew dispensationalism! Eschew preterism!
>
I was wondering. :)
Ike E 1/1/11
news:Hbqdndt8QYbZY7DQ...@sentex.net...
OH, here comes the moron to give us MORE misinformation.
> According to James the church is the "firstfruits."
That's NOT what John was talking about, moron.
The "firstfruits" to the Lamb (the Firstfruit) will be these 144,000
Israelite-Christians who are yet to come who will be doubly-elect, as they
will come from both the literal Israelites of old AND the spiritual
Israelites (i.e. Christians) of the present.
Hence, Israel that "was" and "is" will be joined together to form the Israel
that "will be."
> He was one himself, so it is not referring to ethnic Jews in a future
> age.
James was talking about something COMPLETELY DIFFERENT from what John was
talking about, oh, minister of misinformation.
> James 1:18
> Of his own will begat he us with the word of truth, that we should be a
> kind of firstfruits of his creatures.
Too bad this was an allegory that had NOTHING TO DO with what Jesus, Paul,
and John were talking about.
> Furthermore, they are all virgins; this discredits a literal
> interpretation as it says they were "not defiled with women."
>
> Revelation 14:4
> These are they which were not defiled with women; for they are virgins.
> These are they which follow the Lamb whithersoever he goeth.
It discredits nothing at all, oh, clueless one. Ezekiel said that the
Remnant would be both sons AND daughters, which explains the first level of
John's dualistic statement:
"And they shall not be defiled with women [masculine statement]; for they
shall be virgins [feminine statement]."
> The statement they are "not defiled with women" has to be understood in a
> spiritual sense
SAYS WHO, bullshit artist?!?
It's literal, AND figurative, AND spiritual ALL AT THE SAME TIME.
> or else it would imply they are all males, so supporting racist and
> sexist views.
Go back and read the statement again, idiot. IT'S DUALISTIC (creating a
Triunism of balance between righteousness and compassion with sound
judgment).
> I think the prophecy implies there are no seducers among them, those who
> seduce by false teachings.
> See Mark 13:22, 1 Timothy 5:15, 2 Timothy 3:13, 1 John 2:26, Revelation
> 2:20.
I've can't say as I've heard many people totally POLLUTE scripture with
speculation as you do.
> Paul said he wished to present the church at Corinth as a "chaste virgin"
> to Christ. This is what the 144,000 are, "chaste" in the sense they have
> not been seduced nor do they seduce others by false doctrine, not that
> they were unmarried and virgins literally in a carnal way.
Ah, no, they will be "chaste" literally, figuratively, AND spiritually, ALL
AT THE SAME TIME, just as Jesus was.
MAN, you're a interpretation pollutin' fool.
> 2 Corinthians 11:2-3
> For I am jealous over you with godly jealousy: for I have espoused you to
> one husband, that I may present you as a chaste virgin to Christ.
> But I fear, lest by any means, as the serpent beguiled Eve through his
> subtilty, so your minds should be corrupted from the simplicity that is in
> Christ.
>
> Eschew dispensationalism! Escher preterism!
AND MOST OF ALL, ESCHEW THE IDIOCY OF IDEALISM, 'cause YOUR lies are even
worse than THEIR lies.
>>> THIRD PENTECOST: This one fits the WHOLE context of Joel, as John
>>> describes
>>> the Pentecost that will come to the REMNANT in Revelation 14, but in
>>> BOTH
>>> ASPECTS of the previous two Pentecosts, i.e. "these are they who keep
>>> the
>>> commandments of God AND have the faith of Jesus." [Rev 14:12b]
>>>
>>> When are you two numbskulls going to realize that NEITHER ONE OF YOU
>>> KNOWS
>>> WHAT YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT?
>>>
>>> <chuckle and snip>
>>>
>>> Ike
>>
>> If you actually paid a vanity press to print those books you will wish
>> you
>> had't wasted your money. ;)
Notice how far off the path of truth Doug the Dipstick had attempted to lead
everyone with his ignorant, single-minded false interpretations of
scripture.
Ike E 1/1/11
[snippeth]
> They are, and they are 12K from every tribe, or do you ignore that part?
Did you?
In your last post, you said "Jews."
The modern "Jews" are hardly "Israelite" at all.
And when God talks about the restoration of "Israel" via a "seed," He is NOT
talking about these children of the Pharisees returned to cause a whole heap
of trouble; He's talking about these NEW Israelites, derived from what "was"
and what "is" to start what "will be."
>
>> According to James the church is the "firstfruits." He was one
>> himself, so it is not referring to ethnic Jews in a future age.
>>
>> James 1:18
>> Of his own will begat he us with the word of truth, that we should be
>> a kind of firstfruits of his creatures.
>>
> "A kind of firstfruits", the GT shifts focus back to the Jew.
IT DOES NOT.
In Revelation 14, John says the Remnant preaches to EVERY nation, kindred,
tongue, etc, etc.
JUDAISM IS OVER. Has been since they rejected Christ.
CHRISTIANITY will soon be over, too.
There is ANOTHER Israel coming, and it ain't them, and it ain't us.
This false notion that God is going to go BACKWARD in His plan is a LIE of
Dispensationalism.
>> Furthermore, they are all virgins; this discredits a literal
>> interpretation as it says they were "not defiled with women."
>>
> So you think they have to be defiled with women to be virgins?
The statement is DUALISTIC, with both masculine and feminine elements, just
like every other prophecy John gives about the Remnant which is yet to
come...
-they will keep the commandments of God AND have the testimony of Jesus
Christ.
-they will keep the commandments of God AND have the faith of Jesus.
-they will sing the Song of Moses the Servant of God AND the Song of the
Lamb.
Get it, yet?
Righteous like the Old Testament; compassionate like the New Testament; but
balanced in judgment (just like Jesus Himself).
>> Revelation 14:4
>> These are they which were not defiled with women; for they are
>> virgins. These are they which follow the Lamb whithersoever he goeth.
>>
>> The statement they are "not defiled with women" has to be understood
>> in a spiritual sense or else it would imply they are all males, so
>> supporting racist and sexist views. I think the prophecy implies there
>> are no seducers among them, those who seduce by false teachings.
>> See Mark 13:22, 1 Timothy 5:15, 2 Timothy 3:13, 1 John 2:26,
>> Revelation 2:20.
>>
>
> They are all men.
FALSE!
Eze 14:22 Yet, behold, therein shall be left a remnant that shall be
brought forth, BOTH SONS AND DAUGHTERS: behold, they shall come forth unto
you, and ye shall see their way and their doings: and ye shall be comforted
concerning the evil that I have brought upon Jerusalem, even concerning all
that I have brought upon it.
Ezekiel was talking about the Remnant that would return from the Babylonian
Captivity in his times, but he was REALLY talking about the Remnant yet to
come in the END times.
> Women were not to lead men but be under a covering. How
> is that racist? They are all going to be killed as well.
Old Testament legalistic claptrap.
Ezekiel SAID they would be men AND women, but all "eunuchs" so to speak who
don't ENGAGE in sexuality at all, making them perfect judges for the "kings"
and "priests" of whole "Israel."
>> Paul said he wished to present the church at Corinth as a "chaste
>> virgin" to Christ. This is what the 144,000 are, "chaste" in the sense
>> they have not been seduced nor do they seduce others by false
>> doctrine, not that they were unmarried and virgins literally in a
>> carnal way.
>>
>
> Straw alert, straw alert. Scripturally unfounded, Why makes things up?
You're making up as much crap as he is, Peter.
>> 2 Corinthians 11:2-3
>> For I am jealous over you with godly jealousy: for I have espoused you
>> to one husband, that I may present you as a chaste virgin to Christ.
>> But I fear, lest by any means, as the serpent beguiled Eve through his
>> subtilty, so your minds should be corrupted from the simplicity that
>> is in Christ.
>>
>
> The Church is the Bride of Christ.
Which is a METAPHOR for it's role in the Triune picture.
The Israelites = the righteous "father."
The Christians = the compassionate "mother."
And the 144,000 will be the "children" with sound judgment derived from
both.
>> Eschew dispensationalism! Escher preterism!
>>
>
> You should learn about Covenant living and truths.
Bub, you don't know much more "truth" than he does.
>>>> THIRD PENTECOST: This one fits the WHOLE context of Joel, as John
>>>> describes
>>>> the Pentecost that will come to the REMNANT in Revelation 14, but in
>>>> BOTH
>>>> ASPECTS of the previous two Pentecosts, i.e. "these are they who keep
>>>> the
>>>> commandments of God AND have the faith of Jesus." [Rev 14:12b]
>>>>
>>>> When are you two numbskulls going to realize that NEITHER ONE OF YOU
>>>> KNOWS
>>>> WHAT YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT?
>>>>
>>>> <chuckle and snip>
>>>>
>>>> Ike
>>>
>>> If you actually paid a vanity press to print those books you will wish
>>> you
>>> hadn't wasted your money. ;)
Ike
Ike E 1/1/11
news:4d2e4783$1...@dnews.tpgi.com.au...
> "Ike"
>
> Real name: Herman Eugene Eickleberry Jr
>
> 47807 TERRE HAUTE
> Northwest Indiana
LOL
That was my college address back in 91, moron.
<chuckle>
> Email: xhermanei...@gmail.com
>
> Age 49 *[HOW can he study the bible for over forty years as in next quote?
> Obvious he started before the age of 9!]
LOL
Actually, five: I read through a children's Bible the first time (as well as
my first novel, "Gentle Ben") when I was five.
Been reading it ever since.
> Previously lived in
> Valparaiso, IN
> Crown Point, IN
> Terre Haute, IN
> -
> http://www.intelius.com/results.php?ReportType=1&searchform=publicrecords
Gee, you missed a whole stack of information.
Cadiz, OH
San Diego
Little Creek, VA (TWICE!)
Washington, DC
Albany, GA
Bloomington, IN
Richmond, VA
> ~Mr. Eickleberry earned his bachelors degree in general, choral, and
> instrumental music education and computer literacy ... He is a former
> teacher and musician. .... He currently resides with His wife of
> twenty-six
> years, Sarah, in Northwest Indiana.
> He has been studying the Bible--especially it's eschatological
> aspects--for
> over forty years.
> - http://www.amazon.com/H.E.-Eickleberry-Jr/e/B004CXX7XS
Yep.
> Taught Music and Computer. K-12
> - http://dc.doe.in.gov/public/EducatorLookup/SPNDetail.aspx?SPN=sF1aU%2...
Yep.
> BOOK REJECTED BY WIKIPEDIA
>
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> H.E. Eickleberry, Jr.
>
> N Not done. You were shamelessly trying to promote your own self-published
> "book" without even pretending to try to claim that it was in any way
> notable. Not every book is notable enough for an encyclopedia article; and
> even notable books need actual articles about them, not blatant
> promotional
> material. --Orange Mike | Talk 20:11, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
> -
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_undeletion/Archive_24~
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Yep. They said the user pages were for the users, and the users plaster all
sorts of personal interests and careers on their pages, but when I posted
mine, they got all bent out of shape.
All part of the hypocrisy of Wikipedia.
> *[Ike speaking]
> I run my own percussion teaching studio
Yep, and produced some of the best percussionists around.
Had one in the Chicago Symphonia, one in the Northwest Indiana Youth
Symphony, several in all-state concert bands, jazz bands, and percussion
ensembles, and even qualifies an eighth grader to go to the state solo and
ensemble contest (which is normally for high school juniors and seniors).
> ...
> He has spent $1,000 to promote his book. *[ The Character Map: An
> Introduction to the Introductions in Revelation ]...
Spent more than that.
> ....
> "Some folks think I am nuts. *[ Amen!]
Yep. The ones who can't dismiss the rock solid basis of what I say have to
resort to the personal attacks.
> ...
> "I spent quite a bit of money for a marketing package from
> VirtualBookworm,
> most of which was wasted,"
> ...
Yep.
https://groups.google.com/group/alt.christnet/browse_thread/thread/f567aff130eb701d/5e7c468301616953?hl=en&lnk=gst&q=Eickleberry+indiana#5e7c468301616953
>
> He has been studying the Bible since he began to read, but he has no
> formal
> theological training. Due to circumstances beyond his control, he has
> attended just about every kind of church one can think of, and even a few
> one would not. (He is currently a Lutheran, but they are not sure how to
> take him.) ... Why do I get the feeling they keep kicking him out due to
> his novel beliefs?
Yep.
> ... maybe they kept kicked him out due to his unrepentant
> vulgarity...
Never been kicked out of a church in my life.
> maybe they kept kicking him out due to his insulting nature...
Never been kicked out of a church in my life.
> You heard the one about the rock and roll band? You know, six musicians
> and
> a drummer??!! :-) *[Ike being the drummer]
LOL
"Rock and Roll band?"
Try the Commandant's Own US Marine Drum & Bugle Corp, Washington, DC,
serving Marine Barracks, the Department of Defense, Congress, and the White
House (which was why a security clearance was required).
Try numerous youth groups, the Marine Drum & Bugle Corp, Albanay, GA, Drum
Corp International, the Reading Buccaneers, the Colts Drum & Bugle Corp, the
39th Infantry Division Band, The Terre Haute Symphony, the Northcoast Jazz
(Chicago area big band), not to mention honors recitals, clinics, theaters,
etc, etc, etc.
> No formal theological training.
Good thing, too--the only thing that those who go to theological centers
learn is how to regurgitate their sects official line.
> ... In other words you are a "self-appointed scholar" of many words, nasty
> language, and so disagreeable that you cannot seem to get along with
> ANYONE
> AT ALL!
No, I'm a WELL-VERSED academic who was schooled via the Marine Corp
Institute, the Armed Forces School of Music, George Washington University,
Indiana University, Indiana State University, and VanderCook.
Just a drop in the bucket.
> Mr. Eickleberry grew up in northwest Indiana, where he currently
> resides with his wife, Sarah, and daughter; Erin. ...
Yep.
> So lets get this straight.
> You have graduate work in MUSIC.....nothing to do with bible.
LOL
Music has EVERYTHING to do with the Bible.
Music, like the Bible, is three-dimensional.
The performer or conductor has to think in three-dimensions at once. Even
the music is written three-dimensionally, with the horizontal axis
representing time, the vertical axis representing pitch, and with other
elements like temple, style, dynamics, etc, etc, being thrown at the reader
perpendicularly all the time.
That's why music figures so prominently in the Bible.
> You have NO theological training.
I have all the "theological training" in the world, just like Jesus, who got
His theology from experience and insight.
Ah, but the PHARISEES asked "who maketh this man to learn letters," i.e.
Jesus didn't come from THEIR schools, and didn't have THEIR credentials,
therefore they thought they could dismiss Him out of hand.
Thing is, if I had gone to a Seminary (as I wanted to when I was young), I
would be just as clueless as the Pharisees were in Jesus day; for the
Lutheran pastor must hold the Lutheran line, and the Catholic priest must
hold the Catholic line, and the Baptist minister should just shot himself in
the head now and get it over with, etc, etc, etc.
> You're barely a member of a church....
Nonsense. Until I got sick, I played for the Contemporary Music Ensemble and
tympani for the services involving special music.
I don't have much to do with them now because I have more important things
to do, and this doesn't involved them.
> (btw Luther is known for being one of the biggest antisemites this
> side of the century....
Ah, the ignorant one demonstrates his ignorant.
Luther was a DEFENDER of the Jews before pre-senile dementia began to take
over in the last few years of his life. In fact, Luther wrote "On the Jews
and Their Lies" three years before he died.
Too bad no one thought to shut him down before his growing dementia took
over.
> that said, he has the likes of Hitler by his
> side....
Actually, the problem across ALL of Christendom at the time of Hitler was
the Covenantalist doctrines advocated by the Historicists which led them to
dehumanize the Jews, and create an atmosphere of apathy toward them, make
the ground fertile for the Holocaust.
But the same was true back during the Crusades, the Inquisition, and the
Pogroms, not to mention the various personal attacks that the Jews had to
endure.
> while the church of Luther currently have renounced his
> antisemitic teachings, and much of his work has been cut out....
Yep.
> I
> don't believe you can be lutheran and consider yourself free of his
> antisemitism.
Oh, the liberals favorite tactic; because someone in the past was an
"anti-Semite" (when, in fact, all of Europe was anti-Semitic), I'M supposed
to bear the guilt, nevermind that it happened 30 years before I was born.
> Basically, your authority is moot.
That's what your Satanic fathers said about Jesus, too.
> You have a book, lets see how many takers on Amazon you have....
> then we can talk....also, your graduate work is not in the same field
> - that is a sure sign of disaster.
LOL
At least I HAVE post-graduate work.
Now, here's the thing. God can't talk to the "experts," and has never been
able to--they all think they know what they're talking about when they
don't, and God can't get a word in edgewise.
So what does God do?
He goes out and find 12 sheep ranchers, fishermen, and a tax collector who
DON'T have preconceived theological notions, and trains them up to teach
what HE wants taught, DESPITE the "experts" (who are really no experts at
all).
So what does God do when He wants prophecy explained the RIGHT way?
He can't go to the Seminarians, or Bible College teachers, or Divinity
School professors--THEY aren't LISTENING because they already THINK they
know what they're talking about.
So he goes and finds some relatively smart (but common) fellow who is from
several disciplines (military, agricultural, academic, etc.) and says "Let
Me show you some things that no one has noticed."
So what YOU think is "an embarrassment" is MY GREATEST STRENGTH.
<chuckle>
Now, what part of that little diatribe was supposed to embarrass me, as YOU
have embarrassed yourself over-and-over again your whole life?
You think this little discussion of my history in ANY way compares to the
LUNACY you present about yourself?
Doug
In Christ there is no difference between Jew or Greek, after the
flesh, and the believers among the nations are added to the heavenly
Jerusalem and the temple of God and are "made nigh" to the
commonwealth of Israel. [Ephesians 2:12]
>
>> To deny this, is to distort and pervert the gospel. Hmm..
>> Dispensationalism does seem to divide the church into two parts on the
>> basis of race, or nationality, but that is an error.
>>
>
> No error and your premise is wrong.
Dispensationalism is a human theory and is NOT of God! And it is
certainly in error; the theologians at Dallas Theological Seminary
have been busy modifying it for decades. Why would they do that if it
was correct?
>
>> John refers to the church as "Jerusalem," "the temple of God," "the
>> camp of the saints," etc.; he refers to an altar, Mount Zion, etc in a
>> spiritual sense, not literal. "And I looked, and, lo, a Lamb stood on
>> the mount Sion" Is the Lamb literal? No, of course it is not, but it
>> is a symbol for Christ. So, what about mount Sion? Is it literal? No,
>> in this case, it refers to the name applied to the church in Hebrews
>> 12:22. So why say the 144,000 who are with Christ means literally so
>> many ethnic Jews? The number is clealy symbolic, 12 x 12 x 1,000. To
>> not realize the symbolism, IMO, is to be blind!
>>
>
> You are going to have to spell it out to me, I'm not grasping it ATM.
Study Chapter V of William Milligan's commentary:
The Book of Revelation
http://vinyl2.sentex.net/~tcc/dload/MillRev.pdf
No charge!
>
>> The tribes which are named are not tribes that are normally identified
>> with the twelve tribes, as Dan is omitted. The order is unusual too;
>> it is not the order of birth. But the names are arranged in such a
>> way that they make a psalm, when the meanings given to the names in
>> Genesis are put in the order that John uses. It is a psalm that
>> applies to the church. Many psalms begin with an exhortation to praise
>> God, and this does too.
>>
>> I will praise the LORD, (Judah)
>> Surely the LORD hath looked upon my affliction, (Reuben)
>> He has granted me good fortune, (Gad)
>> Happy am I, (Asher)
>> With great wrestlings have I wrestled, (Naphtali)
>> But God will make me forget all my toil, (Manasseh)
>> The LORD hath heard me, (Simeon)
>> He has joined Himself to me, (Levi)
>> He has purchased me, (Issachar)
>> He will dwell with me always, (Zebulun)
>> The LORD shall add more children to me, (Joseph)
>> By the son of His right hand. (Benjamin)
>>
>
> So just where is that found?
The meanings of the names are in Genesis 29 & 30.
>
>> Dan means "judgment," and the omission of his name suggests that those
>> included in the 144,000 will escape the judgment, which supports their
>> identification with the church.
>>
>> The 144,000 have the seal of God in their foreheads, and if Gentile
>> believers were not included among them, they would suffer the first
>> "woe" of chapter 9, the plague of scorpion-locusts, "And it was
>> commanded them that they should not hurt the grass of the earth,
>> neither any green thing, neither any tree; but only those men which
>> have not the seal of God in their foreheads." [Revelation 9:4]
>>
>
> If any are born again at the time. The 144K are sealed first.
The number 144,000 is a symbolic number. It is associated with the
description of New Jerusalem. These are the saints of the present age,
who receive immortality at the coming of Christ. They are the
"firstfruits," and there can be only one group who are firstfruits.
Those not among these "firstfruits" have to endure judgment and/or
what John called "great tribulation." So it is best to be among the
"firstfruits," with all the saints and prophets and apostles.
>
>> Saints of all nations have the name of Jesus in their foreheads, in
>> Revelation 22:4.
>>
>
> But do you know the reason of do you blend this is with something else?
I think the "sealing" is receiving the spirit of Christ.
>
>>>
>>>> According to James the church is the "firstfruits." He was one
>>>> himself, so it is not referring to ethnic Jews in a future age.
>>>>
>>>> James 1:18
>>>> Of his own will begat he us with the word of truth, that we should be
>>>> a kind of firstfruits of his creatures.
>>>>
>>> "A kind of firstfruits", the GT shifts focus back to the Jew.
>>
>> Who is GT? The gospel shows that in Christ, there is no difference
>> between Jew and Greek.
>>
>
> Great Tribulation
You don't think people in Haiti have been suffering great tribulation?
Or the people in Brisbane whose houses are flooded? Or people
suffering from terminal cancer or similar diseases?
>
>> Galatians 3:28
>> There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there
>> is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus.
>>
>> Colossians 3:11
>> Where there is neither Greek nor Jew, circumcision nor uncircumcision,
>> Barbarian, Scythian, bond nor free: but Christ is all, and in all.
>>
>> Paul does not say, "there is neither Jew nor Gentile," perhaps because
>> in prophecy, "Jew" and "Gentile" are symbols, that are used to
>> distinguish the saints from unbelievers.
>>
>
> No, the Jew and the Gentile outside of the Lord are always distinct. God
> never did away with the Law, not the Jew. If you paid attention to the
> position of the Gentile believer in Christ Jesus, they are grafted into the
> Olive tree, Grafted into the "root" they never became the tree, and the
> root was never transferred to the Gentile or the Church.
Paul said all the promises are "yea and amen" in Christ. And so those
in Christ are the ones who inherit the promises. Unbelieving Jews were
branches broken off from their tree, Paul said, and what happens to a
branch broken off from its tree?
>
>
> As I recall adopted sons are treated special with the Hebrews maybe a
> little better than a default son. The natural child never won't lose its
> inheritence to the adopted son.
Paul said,
Philippians 3:3
For we are the circumcision, which worship God in the spirit, and
rejoice in Christ Jesus, and have no confidence in the flesh.
This was said to the Philippians who were Gentiles after the flesh; he
called them "the circumcision" which implies they are the ones who
inherit the promises given to Abraham.
He stated similar things in Galatians 4.
Galatians 4
Now we, brethren, as Isaac was, are the children of promise.
As for the earthly Jerusalem, he associated it with Hagar and her son,
who were cast out.
>
>>>
>>>> Furthermore, they are all virgins; this discredits a literal
>>>> interpretation as it says they were "not defiled with women."
>>>>
>>> So you think they have to be defiled with women to be virgins?
>>
>> "Virgins" in this context represents faithfulness to Christ, and not
>> following after seducing spirits.
>>
>
> No, virgins, as having never known women. Reason being that they are not
> encumbered with the cares of this life, and can carry out Gods work in the
> tribulations to its fullest extent.
There you go, killing a spiritual idea, by making it carnal and
fleshly! And ridiculous besides. John's prophecy was not about virgins
after the flesh, but "virgins" in a spiritual sense; those who are
faithful to Christ, and are not seduced by doctrines of men, such as
hyper-preterism, and partial preterism, and classical
dispensationalism, and revised dispensationalism, and progressive
dispensationalism, and ultra dispensationalism, and mid-Acts
dispensationalism, and lots of other "isms." The Spirit of Christ
leads us out of Babylon.
Zechariah 2:6-7
Ho, ho, come forth, and flee from the land of the north, saith the
LORD: for I have spread you abroad as the four winds of the heaven,
saith the LORD.
Deliver thyself, O Zion, that dwellest with the daughter of Babylon.
>
>>>
>>>> Revelation 14:4
>>>> These are they which were not defiled with women; for they are
>>>> virgins. These are they which follow the Lamb whithersoever he goeth.
>>>>
>>>> The statement they are "not defiled with women" has to be understood
>>>> in a spiritual sense or else it would imply they are all males, so
>>>> supporting racist and sexist views. I think the prophecy implies there
>>>> are no seducers among them, those who seduce by false teachings.
>>>> See Mark 13:22, 1 Timothy 5:15, 2 Timothy 3:13, 1 John 2:26,
>>>> Revelation 2:20.
>>>>
>>>
>>> They are all men. Women were not to lead men but be under a covering. How
>>> is that racist? They are all going to be killed as well.
>>
>> Saying "they are all men" adds to what John wrote in Revelation, which
>> we are warned not to do. He does not say they are all men, does he? He
>> says they are not "defiled" with women. Why take it to mean something
>> carnal, of the flesh, as if he was referring to sexual relations? John
>> wrote "virgins" as that word has a spiritual meaning. It has to do
>> with the church's status as the bride and wife of Christ.
>>
>
> To fit your scenario the women if any would have to be Lesbian virgins.
> For your information when the Jews counted up a group, they most always
> counted only males. Like you said, John is a Jew. The 144K serve here while
> the Bride of the Lamb is in heaven for the marriage feast.
No, the 144,000 who are sealed are the saints of all ages. The number
is symbolic, and is shows they are related to the New Jerusalem, which
has similar symbolic numbers connected with it; 12,000 furlongs, for
example. This is very similar to the 12,000 who are sealed of each
tribe. The 144 cubits connected with the wall is similar to 144,000.
>
>> IMO, saying "they are all going to be killed" also adds to what John
>> wrote in Revelation, which we are warned not to do.
>>
>>>
>>>> Paul said he wished to present the church at Corinth as a "chaste
>>>> virgin" to Christ. This is what the 144,000 are, "chaste" in the sense
>>>> they have not been seduced nor do they seduce others by false
>>>> doctrine, not that they were unmarried and virgins literally in a
>>>> carnal way.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Straw alert, straw alert. Scripturally unfounded, Why makes things up?
>>
>> Literalism is "straw" fit for the flames! Its effect is to kill the
>> message of the prophets! Paul said, "for the letter killeth, but the
>> spirit giveth life." [2 Corinthians 3:6] The truth, however, will
>> endure flames, and will remain forever. See 1 Corinthians 3:11-13.
>>
>
> Paul said the letter killeth, speaking of the Mosaic Law, why distort that?
> Being born of the spirit is life, yes.
He was also talking of the "letter" of scripture.
2 Corinthians 3:4-6
And such trust have we through Christ to God-ward:
Not that we are sufficient of ourselves to think any thing as of
ourselves; but our sufficiency is of God;
Who also hath made us able ministers of the new testament; not of the
letter, but of the spirit: for the letter killeth, but the spirit
giveth life.
The "letter" of the Old Testament is reinterpreted in the new, and the
apostles applied the promises and prophecies about Israel and
Jerusalem to the church.
>
>>>
>>>> 2 Corinthians 11:2-3
>>>> For I am jealous over you with godly jealousy: for I have espoused you
>>>> to one husband, that I may present you as a chaste virgin to Christ.
>>>> But I fear, lest by any means, as the serpent beguiled Eve through his
>>>> subtilty, so your minds should be corrupted from the simplicity that
>>>> is in Christ.
>>>>
>>>
>>> The Church is the Bride of Christ.
>>>
>>>> Eschew dispensationalism! Escher preterism!
>>
>> Er.. that should be: Eschew dispensationalism! Eschew preterism!
>>
>
> I was wondering. :)
>>>>
>>>
>>> You should learn about Covenant living and truths.
>>>
>>>
--
Doug
Peter B.
That may be, but you are a part of those psuedo-whatevers. Your language
and attitude which comes from your heart speaks volumes. I just got through
reading your post to Mark, the last half of your post I could pretty much
agree with and gave me pause to think you weren't as you appeared. Jumped
over to here and voila! Total inconsistency and it brings to mind that a
double minded man is unstable in all his ways.
A man on an agenda has no more room for knowledge. Perhaps another time
when you are in a different mindset than Dave and I am not speaking of his
belief.
> Ike
>
> P.S. You STILL haven't cited those scriptures that say that the End of the
> Age is seven years BY THEMSELVES.
>
> <chuckle>
Your description, not mine.
THE LORD
> To the Lord
WHICH lord?????
1. Me
2. Jesus
3. Yahweh
4. Buddha
5. Krishna
6. Screaming Lord Sutch
7. Lord Byron
etc etc etc
Ike E 1/1/11
Mark Tindall DipT BA MAITD
14 Tyrell Street
TENAMBIT NSW 2323
Phone: (02) 4933 7179
Email: bm...@iniaccess.net.au
Mark's story, from his own mouth...
http://www.aph.gov.au/house/committee/edt/owk/subs/sub47.pdf
As he demonstrates in this document, Mark is a sociopathic malcontent.
Mark was NEVER "a professional educator," as he proclaims so loudly. He
NEVER acquired a teaching degree nor held an teaching license, and he was
never employable at a PUBLIC school. He was appointed for a short time to be
the "principal" of some bizarro church school (about a step up from home
schooling), from whence he quit, or was subsequently fired.
This is a quote from his unibomber-like complaint to the Australian
government:
"I have been unemployed for the last year and am 46 years old. I have a wife
and three daughters.
"World-wide there are 'More than 300 million are unemployed, thirty million
in the wealthy countries ... many are disaffected and angry." (Pilger,
1998:13) This includes me!
"My previous employment as a Training Manager was terminated as a result of
Dr Kemp's decision to revamp Social Security, employment agencies and
training. Before this job I was a Training Officer at BHP Refractories,
Mayfield, which was closed down as a result of BHP's move from the Hunter
Region. Before that I was a Principal of a small independent school (K-6).
"My current employment prospects are bleak.
"I am not registered as unemployed as I would be forced to apply each
fortnight for 8 jobs that don't suit me, are mostly temporary, menial and
demoralising and are outside my area of speciality which is education and
training. (Despite government prolefeed there are no suitable permanent jobs
in training or education available in the Hunter Region.)"
If Mark was ever an ACTUAL degreed and licensed teacher, he would have no
problem getting a real teaching job somewhere in Australia, which has the
same shortages somewhere as we have in the US; but he isn't, and never was,
and couldn't hold a teaching job for long before his insanity revealed
itself, and HE KNOWS IT.
********
Some examples of Mark's antisocial insanity...
"My friends who are unemployed used to call the Department of Social
Security the 'SS Gestapo'
as a result of their uncaring heavy handed 'Nazi' tactics, including antics
by the 'Pubic Hair
Police' who checked whether people were in a defacto relationship.
"Centrelink is now universally referred to as 'CentreStink'- a title which
reflects the mature
unemployed's growing antagonism with the bureaucratic nightmare of forms,
petty rules and an
veritable army of Major Majors who seem to have stepped out of Joseph Heller's
Catch-22."
********
Mark even submitted his own "poetry" to the Australian government, like
David Koresh demanding to recite his personal "prophecies" to the US
Government before the Waco massacre...
"A copy of my poetry book Original Copy (1997) is provided with this
submission. Of particular
interest are the poems: The Dole Queue; The New Nigger; Keep it To Yourself;
I'd Tell The Boss
and This Generation."
********
Here is Mark complaining that he can't get psychological help (under the
guise of "I have these friends")...
"Psychologists are not available with a Health Care Card and mature aged
unemployed are
unable to afford health insurance. These suffering unemployed people are
real people like you,
the reader - not just a number in statistical survey!"
********
Mark claims to be a "qualified philosopher"...
"On his return from the United States in 1997, ... John Howard, said how
impressed he was with America's 'low unemployment rate' based on 'lower
wages' and minimal unemployment benefits. He said that what Australia needed
was a lower minimum wage and reduced dole payments. (Pilger, 1998:77)
"As a tertiary qualified philosopher, such a suggestion horrifies me."
********
While some of his observations may be peripherally valid, the paranoid
schizophrenic nature of his diatribe indicates that Mark Tindale, full blown
Christian-hating heretical tormentor, is one sick puppy in the head.
Now he has taken to sock puppeteering because no one is interested in
listening to his obsessive-compulsive antichristian diatribes anymore.
Ike E 1/1/11
Nope.
I know the form, the period, the function, and the outcome.
> Your language
> and attitude which comes from your heart speaks volumes.
It's the same attitude Jesus, Paul, and John applied to the heretics of
their days.
> I just got through
> reading your post to Mark, the last half of your post I could pretty much
> agree with and gave me pause to think you weren't as you appeared. Jumped
> over to here and voila! Total inconsistency and it brings to mind that a
> double minded man is unstable in all his ways.
Nope.
My doctrine is completely consistent, and encompasses EVERY aspect of the
Bible and history. You're just not used to dealing with someone who sees
pretty much every angle to the story, including the development of the Great
Apostasy down through the history of the churches, starting with Judas
Iscariot.
And this Dipsysensationalist nonsense of yours is PART of that Great
Apostasy.
> A man on an agenda has no more room for knowledge.
My only agenda is the Truth, no matter what it tears down, and what it
builds up.
> Perhaps another time
> when you are in a different mindset than Dave and I am not speaking of his
> belief.
It's ALL the "mindsets" that are foul, some a little, some a lot, from
Historicism, to Dispensationalism, Preterism, Idealism, and on down to
today.
>> Ike
>>
>> P.S. You STILL haven't cited those scriptures that say that the End of
>> the
>> Age is seven years BY THEMSELVES.
>>
>> <chuckle>
>
> Your description, not mine.
FALSE. GOD'S DESCRIPTION, NOT MINE.
The Word says SEVEN TIMES that the End of the Age is SEVENTY YEARS.
Where did you frauds come up with seven, and then cut the first two parts
(actually, three including the pre-prophecy of the seven churches) off of
the end of the age?
See, what's happening here is what always happens here--I've taken your
false doctrines apart point-for-point, so now you have to get personal.
(And, as Jesus demonstrated, the best way to deal with the personal is
personally.)
Ike
Peter B.
> See, what's happening here is what always happens here--I've taken your
> false doctrines apart point-for-point, so now you have to get personal.
> (And, as Jesus demonstrated, the best way to deal with the personal is
> personally.)
>
> Ike
No, you start right off cursing, calling names and so on. That is a put off
to most anyone, especially when discussing God. I did not get personal,
had no reason to, other than the stuff you pull.
Like I said, another time perhaps, but not now. If you think my comments
about you speaking from your heart were what was personal, I was only
restating the obvious.
Abrams1117
wrote:
> On Wed, 12 Jan 2011 14:39:33 -0800 (PST), Abrams1117
>
> >> And that is not me taking liberties with what
> >> you said! I quoted you saying just that idea!
>
> > YOU KNOW THEY DID NOT UNDERSTAND.
>
> Why did you not answer with regard to your quote
> of Acts 2? Hmmm... I wonder why. :)
That was polite. Just ask again. I'm seeing red right now and some
brand new colors after reading another post. It is a good thing we do
not have G-D's power. How he allows some people to continue to exist
is beyond me. And I doubt I could even find what you are referring to.
Ike E 1/1/11
Great. Now that you've completely diverted from the point...
The Word says seven times that the End of the Age is seventy years.
Show me where God said seven.
Ike
THE LORD
NAME
Ike
SEX
Occasionally.
OBJECTIVE
Seeking a party-time position with potential for advancement mainly in a
career on the Information Supper Highway self publishing my crappy books
while pretending to work. I am anxious to use my exiting skills.
PREVIOUS EMPLOYMENT
- Myself; received pay raise for high sales.
- US Marine Life Drum & Bugger Corp
- Career break in 1999 to renovate my horse
QUALIFICATIONS
- Highschool was a incredible experience
- Drumming certificate from a Dr Seuss book
- I possess a moderate educatin but willing to learn more. Have repeated
courses repeatedly.
- Twin sister has theology degree.
- I am about to enrol on a Theology Degree with the Open University. I feel
that this qualification will prove detrimental to me for
future success.
SKILLS
- Strong Work Ethic, Attention to Detail, Team Player, Self Motivated,
Attention to Detail
- Stalking, shipping & receiving
- Cleaning restrooms and seating customers
- Revolved customer problems and inquiries
- Able to say the ABCs backward in under five seconds
- Answer phones, file papers, respond to customer e-mails, take odors
- Demonstrated ability in multi-tasting.
- Maintain files and reports, data processing, cash employees’ paychecks.
ACHIEVEMENTS
- Written tons of useless self-published ebooks
- 28 dog years of experience in theology (four human)
- Nominated for prom queen.
- Won a contest for building toothpick bridges in middle school
- Consistently tanked as top sales producer for new accounts.
- Planned new corporate facility at $3 million over budget.
- Finished eighth in my class of ten.
- Received a plague for Drum Tutor of the Year.
- Have not yet been abducted by aliens
HOBBIES
- Enjoy cooking Chinese and Italians
- Voluntary work for taking care of the elderly and vegetable people
- Playing with my two dogs (They actually belong to my wife but I love the
dogs more than my wife).
LANGUAGES
Speak English and Spinach. Also I have been heard muttering Gibberish in my
sleep.
REFERENCES
Bill, Tom, Eric. But I don’t know their phone numbers.
WHY SHOULD AN EMPLOYER HIRE YOU?
I bring doughnuts on Friday.
EMERGENCY CONTACT NUMBER
911
Ike E 1/1/11
[snip]
> No, the Jew and the Gentile outside of the Lord are always distinct.
That's another lie of Dipsysensationalism.
The process Paul describes in Romans 11 (which is encoded into Revelation)
is the "grafting."
God started with the "natural" olive tree, Israel.
God casts some (actually, half) of the branches out, and grafts in some
(again, half) of the "wild" olive tree (i.e. the Gentile believers).
Hence, God still finishes with ONE "olive tree" at the end of the story.
All of this nonsense about there being different fates for Israelites and
Christians is a satanic lie NECESSARY to propagate the falsehoods of
Dipsysensationalism.
> God
> never did away with the Law, not the Jew. If you paid attention to the
> position of the Gentile believer in Christ Jesus, they are grafted into
> the
> Olive tree, Grafted into the "root" they never became the tree, and the
> root was never transferred to the Gentile or the Church.
So why did you say "the Jew and the Gentile outside of the Lord are always
distinct," and then contradict yourself?
In fact, the "Israel" of the End of the Age will be a whole new "Israel"
altogether, starting with a Remnant that will be both Israelite (not "Jew")
AND Gentile (i.e. "Christian").
(This, too, points to another of the fallacies of Dipsysensationalism.)
> As I recall adopted sons are treated special with the Hebrews maybe a
> little better than a default son. The natural child never won't lose its
> inheritence to the adopted son.
Esau did, which was a symbol of God casting out a "natural" olive branch.
Now, if you're talking along the lines of the sons of Abraham and Sarah
versus the sons of Abraham and Hagar, that's a different issue.
But there will be many branches cast down, and many branches grafted in,
after the resurrection, when God starts processing people in (angel) and out
(demon) of His Kingdom.
>>>> Furthermore, they are all virgins; this discredits a literal
>>>> interpretation as it says they were "not defiled with women."
>>>>
>>> So you think they have to be defiled with women to be virgins?
>>
>> "Virgins" in this context represents faithfulness to Christ, and not
>> following after seducing spirits.
>>
>
> No, virgins, as having never known women. Reason being that they are not
> encumbered with the cares of this life, and can carry out Gods work in the
> tribulations to its fullest extent.
No, John literally means that they'll be undefiled men and virgin women
(making them perfect judges), just as Ezekiel prophesied...
Eze 14:22 Yet, behold, therein shall be left A REMNANT that shall be
brought forth, both sons and daughters: behold, they shall come forth unto
you, and ye shall see their way and their doings: and ye shall be comforted
concerning the evil that I have brought upon Jerusalem, even concerning all
that I have brought upon it.
You have GOT to get the Dispysenstionalist notion out of your head that God
is somehow going "backwards" in His plan to the old Israelites in the
persona of the "Jews."
The modern "Jews" are, by-and-large, not "Israelites" at all--they couldn't
trace their blood back to the original Israelites without a Gentile showing
up in their family trees if you paid them.
They are NOT the "Israelites" of the End of the Age. (Well, actually, I
don't know who among them will repent and who won't, but that's another
matter.) They are "the Jews who say they are Jews, and are not, but do lie"
that John keeps talking about.
>>>> Revelation 14:4
>>>> These are they which were not defiled with women; for they are
>>>> virgins. These are they which follow the Lamb whithersoever he goeth.
>>>>
>>>> The statement they are "not defiled with women" has to be understood
>>>> in a spiritual sense or else it would imply they are all males, so
>>>> supporting racist and sexist views. I think the prophecy implies there
>>>> are no seducers among them, those who seduce by false teachings.
>>>> See Mark 13:22, 1 Timothy 5:15, 2 Timothy 3:13, 1 John 2:26,
>>>> Revelation 2:20.
>>>>
>>>
>>> They are all men. Women were not to lead men but be under a covering.
>>> How
>>> is that racist? They are all going to be killed as well.
>>
>> Saying "they are all men" adds to what John wrote in Revelation, which
>> we are warned not to do. He does not say they are all men, does he? He
>> says they are not "defiled" with women. Why take it to mean something
>> carnal, of the flesh, as if he was referring to sexual relations? John
>> wrote "virgins" as that word has a spiritual meaning. It has to do
>> with the church's status as the bride and wife of Christ.
>>
>
> To fit your scenario the women if any would have to be Lesbian virgins.
Oh, bullshit.
Ezekiel said the Remnant would be comprised of "sons and daughters."
John says they won't be "defiled with women" (good sons); for they are
virgins (good daughters).
Where did all of this nastiness creep into the story?
> For your information when the Jews counted up a group, they most always
> counted only males. Like you said, John is a Jew. The 144K serve here
> while
> the Bride of the Lamb is in heaven for the marriage feast.
NO.
Revelation 10 is the WEDDING that comes before the feast (but you don't know
that yet).
The 144,000 will be what REMAINS of true Israelites and true Christians
after the believers are accused, persecuted, discriminated against, and
executed. (That's where the whole "abomination of desolation" and "mark of
the beast" thing fits into the story-it will be the unholy trinity's tool
for ferriting out the last of the Christians.)
>> IMO, saying "they are all going to be killed" also adds to what John
>> wrote in Revelation, which we are warned not to do.
>>
>>>
>>>> Paul said he wished to present the church at Corinth as a "chaste
>>>> virgin" to Christ. This is what the 144,000 are, "chaste" in the sense
>>>> they have not been seduced nor do they seduce others by false
>>>> doctrine, not that they were unmarried and virgins literally in a
>>>> carnal way.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Straw alert, straw alert. Scripturally unfounded, Why makes things up?
>>
>> Literalism is "straw" fit for the flames! Its effect is to kill the
>> message of the prophets! Paul said, "for the letter killeth, but the
>> spirit giveth life." [2 Corinthians 3:6] The truth, however, will
>> endure flames, and will remain forever. See 1 Corinthians 3:11-13.
>>
>
> Paul said the letter killeth, speaking of the Mosaic Law, why distort
> that?
> Being born of the spirit is life, yes.
Yes, but Paul did NOT say the law was done away with. Neither did Jesus.
Neither did John. (But the spurious author of Hebrews did, didn't he?)
>>>> 2 Corinthians 11:2-3
>>>> For I am jealous over you with godly jealousy: for I have espoused you
>>>> to one husband, that I may present you as a chaste virgin to Christ.
>>>> But I fear, lest by any means, as the serpent beguiled Eve through his
>>>> subtilty, so your minds should be corrupted from the simplicity that
>>>> is in Christ.
>>>>
>>>
>>> The Church is the Bride of Christ.
>>>
>>>> Eschew dispensationalism! Escher preterism!
>>
>> Er.. that should be: Eschew dispensationalism! Eschew preterism!
>>
>
> I was wondering. :)
Er, it should be "eschow" BOTH of them--AND Historicism, AND Idealist, AND
Reconstructionism, AND Sapiential Eschatology, etc, etc.
Prophecy is TRIUNE; the only way you'll get to the gist of the story is
triunism.
Ike
@tampabay.rr.com Pastor Dave
<John...@peoplepc.com> spake thusly:
> Pastor Dave wrote:
>
>> Abrams1117 spake thusly:
>>
>>>> And that is not me taking liberties
>>>> with what you said! I quoted you
>>>> saying just that idea!
>>
>>> YOU KNOW THEY DID NOT UNDERSTAND.
>>
>> Why did you not answer with regard
>> to your quote of Acts 2?
>
> Just ask again.
Fine. :)
>> That's why they didn't take the statements
>> of Joel as being physically literal when Peter
>> applied them to THEIR time! They were not
Nowhere near what you claim.
>Acts 2:
>
> Dreams and visions = literal
>
> 17 “‘In the last days, G-D says, I will pour out
> my Spirit on all people. Your sons and daughters
> will prophesy, your young men will see visions,
> your old men will dream dreams.
> 18 Even on my servants, both men and women,
> I will pour out my Spirit in those days, and they
> will prophesy.
>
> Wonders in heaven = literal
>
> 19 I will show wonders in the heavens above
> and signs on the earth below, blood and fire
> and billows of smoke.
> 20 The sun will be turned to darkness and
> the moon to blood before the coming of the
> great and glorious day of the Lord.
> 21 And everyone who calls on the name
> of the Lord will be saved.’
>
> Don't preterists say these are literal?
No, they do not. And they are not literal.
Verses 19-20:
The wonders in the heavens above have
nothing to do with Jesus flying through
the sky on a cloud and nothing to do with
the Sun literally turning dark, nor with
the Moon literally turning to blood.
In fact, you Futurists do not claim that the
Moon will be actual "blood", but will simply
be "red" and yet, Futurists scream about
how we're supposed to take this literally?
The truth is, that Futurists "spiritualize away"
words and passages and then claim that
what's wrong with Preterism, is that Preterists
"spiritualize away" words and passages! (:
The fact is, that IF YOU KNEW ANYTHING
ABOUT THE PEOPLE AND THE TIMES AND
THE RELIGION AND THE OLD TESTAMENT,
then you would know that both the Sun and
the Moon were symbolic of something else!
The Sun represents God's Light onto the world
and the Moon represents the nation of Israel,
which, just as the Moon reflects the light of the
Sun onto the Earth, so also was Israel supposed
to reflect the Light of God to the other nations.
And again, if you knew the OT Scriptures, then
you would also know that this is stated in the
Bible as their job.
This is about the desolation of Jerusalem and
Judea and when the Sun went dark, it was
symbolic of God turning away from the nation
of Israel and when the Moon turned to blood,
it was symbolic of the bloodshed that came to
the Jews, as a result of God turning His back
on them. How else do you think they were
desolated, if God hadn't turned His back on
them, contrary to your Futurist claims?
And this was all prophesied in the Bible.
Joel also states the blood and smoke, which is
what happened when Jerusalem was set ablaze.
And what you fail to do, is to pay attention to what
else Peter said. How he prefaced these statements.
Peter said two things about Joel's prophecy when
he quoted it and said them very clearly and you
skip right by it, because it doesn't work for your
Futurist doctrine!
1) "In the last days..."
2) "This is that which was spoken by the prophet Joel..."
Peter placed the fulfillment of Joel's prophecy right there,
into their generation. And that also prevents people like
you from trying to stretch it out to our time, yet you do it
anyway, don't you.
Peter said that _they_ were in the last days, then,
just as the writer of Hebrews did and just as Jesus
and the rest of the writers of the NT did and just
as the prophets of the OT prophesied about their
days being "the last days" and that's why Paul
had said that the OT prophets had written about
_their_ time, for _their_ admonition:
"And all these things happened to those as examples
and it was written for our warning, on whom the
ends of the ages have come." - 1 Corinthians 10:11
Futurists really need to stop reading the texts, thinking
that "we", "our" and "us" "really mean";
"The clock stopped right after they said stuff like that,
until our time, today and so, they're really talking to
us and it's really all about our time!"
>> That's why they didn't take the statements of Joel
>> as being physically literal when Peter applied them
>> to THEIR time!
>
> What was the timing?
>
> Their time? Based upon what?
Stop playing word games and stop copping out!
It doesn't make you look smart! It just makes
you look dishonest! (:
Now you're trying to imply that they were being literal
about the fantastical things said, but hey, when the
REALLY SIMPLE time statements they said get in your
way and prevent you from making it all about future
events, then you just make up a story about it and
pretend that it doesn't (here comes the favorite word
for the Futurist) "really" mean what it says, after
claiming that the rest does "really" mean what it says,
right? Yea, hey, what the heck, huh?!
I have gone over this earlier in this message
and it is Futurists who look at the Sun going
dark and the Moon turning to blood as being
literal, not Preterists and that's why they twist
the Scriptures up beyond recognition and do
so without shame, to try to make their doctrine
sound like it works! But it doesn't! And the
fact is, that Futurists aren't even consistent,
considering that they claim it's literal, yet they
don't believe that it will actually be "blood"!
>> So you make things up and think no one will
>> mind? Thanks for revealing your approach!
>
> I make up saying all the time. I have been
> posting them for years, I'm certain that you
> have ignored scores of them, already. But,
> since you know what I meant you are
> condemning yourself before G-D in a vain
> attempt to look good to man?
Once again you admit that you make things up.
>>>> It is about the approach that one makes
>>>> to any ancient text! It is flat out stupid
>>>> to claim that one can understand the Bible,
>>>> without taking into account the times and
>>>> peoples involved and it is this lack of
>>>> understanding that leads to so many false
>>>> doctrines and interpretations, whether you
>>>> want to admit it or not!
>>>
>>> But, you have to start from somewhere
>>
>> Yes you do, but not from "anywhere". :)
>>
>> You do not have to start from the approach of
>> ignorance and then trying to defend approaching
>> it with ignorance.
>>
>> Once again, you wish to pretend that you're making
>> a logical, intelligent statement in response, but what
>> we both know you are doing, is writing nonsense. (:
>>
>> It is *nonsense* to claim that a valid starting point
>> is one of ignorance and why would you even try to
>> argue such a ridiculous thing?
>
> I have posted the very same Scriptures to you
> about times, this month, in response to this
> very same point. It is amazing that everyone
> asks and reads the answer repeatedly, over
> and over and over and then they simply pretend
> that this never happened.
Once again, you're not making sense and you're
avoiding the point, as is usual for you. Your
response has nothing to do with the fact that you
are trying to defend the idea of starting from the
point of ignorance of the Scriptures, times and
peoples involved in the Scriptures!
Not only that, but you keep waffling! One minute
you're saying that it's just fine to approach the
Scriptures from a state of ignorance and claim
to be able to teach people and then you will say
the opposite and then go back to your first claim!
> How many fulfilled prophecies are literal?
> That is the only way to begin.
You are stating that your approach is to assume
your doctrine and then go through the Bible,
trying to find anything you can to try to back
that same doctrine up.
An honest person who is interested in the truth,
WHATEVER IT MAY BE, opens their Bible with
no assumptions and their doctrine does not come
from anywhere other than what the Bible says
and not from a preassumed position!
--
Pastor Dave
"Faith is not an intellectual belief.
Faith is a belief with legs on it."
- Adrian Rogers
Ike E 1/1/11
In his latest attempts to try and tear me down, Mark Tindall has resorted to
making up stuff about me; but I don't have to make anything up about
him--it's all in his own words.
********
Ike E 1/1/11
> In Christ there is no difference between Jew or Greek, after the flesh,
> and the believers among the nations are added to the heavenly Jerusalem
> and the temple of God and are "made nigh" to the commonwealth of Israel.
> [Ephesians 2:12]
Notice how the Satanic fraud SLIPPED a statement in that is NOT IN ANY TEXT!
Ro 10:12 For there is no difference between the Jew and the Greek: for the
same Lord over all is rich unto all that call upon him.
It does NOT say "after the flesh!"
What Paul DID say was...
Ro 1:16 For I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ: for it is the power
of God unto salvation to every one that believeth; TO THE JEW FIRST, and
ALSO to the Greek.
Ro 2:9 Tribulation and anguish, upon every soul of man that doeth evil, OF
THE JEW FIRST, and ALSO of the Gentile;
Ro 2:10 But glory, honour, and peace, to every man that worketh good, TO
THE JEW FIRST, and ALSO to the Gentile:
See, there's one idea of Paul's that TOTALLY DEMOLISHES Doug's satanic
Idealism: Paul said the Gentile believers will be GUESTS in the HOUSE OF
ISRAEL, and NOT THE OTHER WAY AROUND!
Rom 11:13-22
For I speak to you Gentiles, inasmuch as I am the apostle of the
Gentiles, I magnify mine office, if by any means I may provoke to emulation
them which are my flesh, and might save some of them: For if the casting
away of them be the reconciling of the world, what shall the receiving of
them be, but life from the dead?
For if the firstfruit be holy, the lump is also holy: and if the root be
holy, so are the branches. And if some of the branches be broken off, and
thou, being a wild olive tree, wert graffed in among them, and with them
partakest of the root and fatness of the olive tree, boast not against the
branches. But if thou boast, thou bearest not the root, but the root thee.
Thou wilt say then, The branches were broken off, that I might be
graffed in.
Well, because of unbelief they were broken off, and thou standest by
faith. Be not highminded, but fear: For if God spared not the natural
branches, take heed lest he also spare not thee.
Behold therefore the goodness and severity of God: on them which fell,
severity; but toward thee, goodness, if thou continue in his goodness:
otherwise thou also shalt be cut off.
This is the problem with Covenantalism in general, Dave's Preterist lies,
and Doug's Idealist lies (and it is even a problem in Historicism): AT NO
TIME DID JESUS, PAUL, OR JOHN SAY THAT THE CHURCH REPLACED ISRAEL--it is
GRAFTED INTO IT, like a husband and wife coming together as one flesh (with
the Remnant yet to come being their children).
[snip]
> The number 144,000 is a symbolic number.
SAYS WHO? YOU? YOU'RE TOTALLY POLLUTING THE FORM AND FUNCTION OF PROPHECY
WITH YOUR LIES!
You're gonna' have to do better than that.
CITE WHERE GOD SAYS IT'S A "SYMBOLIC NUMBER," AND NOT A REFERENCE TO THE
LITERAL REMNANT YET TO COME PROPHESIED OF THROUGHOUT THE ENTIRE BIBLE!
[snip]
> You don't think people in Haiti have been suffering great tribulation? Or
> the people in Brisbane whose houses are flooded? Or people suffering from
> terminal cancer or similar diseases?
NOT FOR THE FAITH, they didn't.
Jesus, Paul, and John were talking about accusations, persecutions,
discriminations, and executions FOR THE FAITH.
Nice try, Satan.
[snip]
> There you go, killing a spiritual idea, by making it carnal and fleshly!
> And ridiculous besides. John's prophecy was not about virgins after the
> flesh, but "virgins" in a spiritual sense;
IT IS NOT; IT'S ABOUT THE "SONS AND DAUGHTERS" OF ISRAEL THAT EZEKIEL, et
al, PROPHESIED WOULD BE COMING!
You are one low-life lying fraud.
[snip]
> No, the 144,000 who are sealed are the saints of all ages.
THEY ARE NOT! They'll be the REMNANT that is left after the rest of
Christianity has been purged from the earth.
And they'll be the ONLY ones standing between the world and its fate.
When God removes them, all hell will break loose--LITERALLY.
One again, you're caught in ANOTHER satanic lie.
[snip]
> The "letter" of the Old Testament is reinterpreted in the new, and the
> apostles applied the promises and prophecies about Israel and Jerusalem to
> the church.
But at NO TIME did ANY of them EVER say that 1) the Church REPLACED ISRAEL,
2) God DID AWAY with the law, and 3) that there WASN'T ANOTHER STEP IN THE
PROGRAM COMING.
Those are YOUR lies, not their teachings.
JESUS taught of the "elect whom He shall choose" which was yet to come.
Paul REPEATEDLY spoke of the Remnant.
John EXTENSIVELY described the dualistic Remnant yet to come.
They're prophesied of ALL THROUGH the Old Testament, via Isaiah, Ezekiel,
David, Jeremiah, etc, etc, etc.
You, sir, are a lying snake in the grass.
[snip the rest of Satan's attempts to lead the sheep astray with his
rationalizations and lies]
Ike
duke
<xhermanei...@gmail.com> wrote:
>"Abrams1117" <John...@peoplepc.com> wrote in message
>news:0caebc1e-0f18-4e63...@fm22g2000vbb.googlegroups.com...
>> On Jan 11, 7:47 pm, Pastor Dave <newsgroup-mail @ tampabay.rr.com>
>> wrote:
>>> On Mon, 10 Jan 2011 09:51:12 -0800 (PST), Abrams1117
>>> <John1...@peoplepc.com> spake thusly:
>>
>>>> Pastor Dave wrote:
>>
>>>>> Abrams1117 spake thusly:
>>
>>>>>> You also need to allow Scripture is interpret itself.
>>
>>>>> And yet, you don't.
>>
>>>> Who does? Who can? Who tries?
>>
>>> The Apostles did!
>
>> Did the Apostles understand Scripture or Jesus Christ?
>
>> My goodness, how long a list would that be?????
>
>> Where are you going? Why can't we follow? Will you now establish the
>> Kingdom? Will John live forever? What the Apostles did not
>> understand?: This would be a very, very long list.
>
>
>>> That's why they didn't take
>>> the statements of Joel as being physically literal
>>> when Peter applied them to THEIR time! They
>>> were no meant to be taken that way! Do yourself
>>> a favor and go read what Peter quoted!
>
>> What did Peter say? What does Scripture say?
>
>LOL
>
>The blind continues to try and lead the blind.
>
>I cover this one in my new book.
>
>FIRST PENTECOST: God takes the spirit that rested on Moses and places it on
>the seventy elders.
>
>SECOND PENTECOST: God takes the Spirit that rested on Jesus and places it on
>the Disciples.
>
>THIRD PENTECOST: This one fits the WHOLE context of Joel, as John describes
>the Pentecost that will come to the REMNANT in Revelation 14, but in BOTH
>ASPECTS of the previous two Pentecosts, i.e. "these are they who keep the
>commandments of God AND have the faith of Jesus." [Rev 14:12b]
>
>When are you two numbskulls going to realize that NEITHER ONE OF YOU KNOWS
>WHAT YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT?
This klutz doesn't know that Pentecost Sunday is the birthday of the Christian
Church.
The dukester, American-American
*****
"The Mass is the most perfect form of Prayer."
Pope Paul VI
*****
Ike E 1/1/11
news:1421j6hj3n5ol89j0...@4ax.com...
Thanks for demonstrating that you're still a moron: PENTECOST was a JEWISH
HOLIDAY THOUSANDS OF YEARS before Jesus even showed up.
http://www.jewfaq.org/holidayc.htm
Ike
duke
Yes, but for Christians, it is the birthday of the new Christian Church. Thanks
for demonstrating that you have no idea what the bible says other than as a text
book.
Ike E 1/1/11
> On Fri, 14 Jan 2011 16:05:45 -0600, "Ike E 1/1/11"
> <xhermanei...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>> This klutz doesn't know that Pentecost Sunday is the birthday of the
>>> Christian
>>> Church.
>
>>Thanks for demonstrating that you're still a moron: PENTECOST was a JEWISH
>>HOLIDAY THOUSANDS OF YEARS before Jesus even showed up.
>
> Yes, but for Christians, it is the birthday of the new Christian Church.
Which is the SECOND of THREE PENTECOSTS, moron
> Thanks
> for demonstrating that you have no idea what the bible says other than as
> a text
> book.
You're such an idiot.
Like everything else prophetic, Pentecost "was," Pentecost "is," and
Pentecost "will be" AGAIN.
duke
<xhermanei...@gmail.com> wrote:
>"duke" <duckg...@cox.net> wrote in message
>news:p6c3j6d6s3km7junq...@4ax.com...
>> On Fri, 14 Jan 2011 16:05:45 -0600, "Ike E 1/1/11"
>> <xhermanei...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>> This klutz doesn't know that Pentecost Sunday is the birthday of the
>>>> Christian
>>>> Church.
>>
>>>Thanks for demonstrating that you're still a moron: PENTECOST was a JEWISH
>>>HOLIDAY THOUSANDS OF YEARS before Jesus even showed up.
>>
>> Yes, but for Christians, it is the birthday of the new Christian Church.
>Which is the SECOND of THREE PENTECOSTS, moron
Haahaahaa. Pentecost Sunday is the birthday of the Christian Chruch.
>> Thanks for demonstrating that you have no idea what the bible says other than as
>> a text book.
>You're such an idiot.
>Like everything else prophetic, Pentecost "was," Pentecost "is," and
>Pentecost "will be" AGAIN.
We Christians say God always was, is and always will be.
>
>Ike
pyotr filipivich
alt.christnet.christianlife the following:
>On Sat, 15 Jan 2011 13:21:04 -0600, "Ike E 1/1/11"
><xhermanei...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>"duke" <duckg...@cox.net> wrote in message
>>news:p6c3j6d6s3km7junq...@4ax.com...
>>> On Fri, 14 Jan 2011 16:05:45 -0600, "Ike E 1/1/11"
>>> <xhermanei...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>> This klutz doesn't know that Pentecost Sunday is the birthday of the
>>>>> Christian
>>>>> Church.
>>>
>>>>Thanks for demonstrating that you're still a moron: PENTECOST was a JEWISH
>>>>HOLIDAY THOUSANDS OF YEARS before Jesus even showed up.
>>>
>>> Yes, but for Christians, it is the birthday of the new Christian Church.
>>Which is the SECOND of THREE PENTECOSTS, moron
>
>Haahaahaa. Pentecost Sunday is the birthday of the Christian Chruch.
I wonder if the OP understands that "pentecost" is Greek for "the
fifty Days" which was the festival ordained of God to be held fifty
days after Passover?
>
>>> Thanks for demonstrating that you have no idea what the bible says other than as
>>> a text book.
>
>>You're such an idiot.
>
>>Like everything else prophetic, Pentecost "was," Pentecost "is," and
>>Pentecost "will be" AGAIN.
>
>We Christians say God always was, is and always will be.
"As it was in the begriming, is now and ever shall be, world
without end."
--
pyotr filipivich
Monotheism, someone has said, offers two simple axioms:
1) There is a God.
2) It's not you.
Ike E 1/1/11
news:26v6j6dkug5den79g...@4ax.com...
> duke <duckg...@cox.net> on Sun, 16 Jan 2011 09:05:04 -0600 typed in
> alt.christnet.christianlife the following:
>>On Sat, 15 Jan 2011 13:21:04 -0600, "Ike E 1/1/11"
>><xhermanei...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>"duke" <duckg...@cox.net> wrote in message
>>>news:p6c3j6d6s3km7junq...@4ax.com...
>>>> On Fri, 14 Jan 2011 16:05:45 -0600, "Ike E 1/1/11"
>>>> <xhermanei...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>> This klutz doesn't know that Pentecost Sunday is the birthday of the
>>>>>> Christian
>>>>>> Church.
>>>>
>>>>>Thanks for demonstrating that you're still a moron: PENTECOST was a
>>>>>JEWISH
>>>>>HOLIDAY THOUSANDS OF YEARS before Jesus even showed up.
>>>>
>>>> Yes, but for Christians, it is the birthday of the new Christian
>>>> Church.
>>>Which is the SECOND of THREE PENTECOSTS, moron
>>
>>Haahaahaa. Pentecost Sunday is the birthday of the Christian Chruch.
>
> fifty Days" which was the festival ordained of God to be held fifty
> days after Passover?
Correct.
The FIRST Pentecost was when God took the spirit that rested on Moses and
placed it on the 70 elders, which foreshadowed the SECOND Pentecost which
came to the Disciples (which was why they were gathered there in the first
place), but both of these Pentecosts foreshadow the THIRD Pentecost yet to
come which John describes in Revelation.
And it's that THIRD Pentecost that John describes that fully conforms to the
events Joel described in his prophecy, NOT the second one. And it was
certainly not the first one since Joel prophesied of his AFTER that one had
already occurred. In fact, in a twist of irony, it was the FIRST Pentecost
that enabled Joel to prophecy of Pentecost AT ALL.
<chuckle>
Ike
THE LORD
<chuckle>
Ignorant Ike aka Herman Eugene Eickleberry Jr is a drum tutor. What would he
know about theology?
http://acc-growing-dumberer.blogspot.com/2011/01/please-help-drum-tutor-ike-get-job.html
duke
wrote:
>duke <duckg...@cox.net> on Sun, 16 Jan 2011 09:05:04 -0600 typed in
>alt.christnet.christianlife the following:
>>On Sat, 15 Jan 2011 13:21:04 -0600, "Ike E 1/1/11"
>><xhermanei...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>"duke" <duckg...@cox.net> wrote in message
>>>news:p6c3j6d6s3km7junq...@4ax.com...
>>>> On Fri, 14 Jan 2011 16:05:45 -0600, "Ike E 1/1/11"
>>>> <xhermanei...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>> This klutz doesn't know that Pentecost Sunday is the birthday of the
>>>>>> Christian
>>>>>> Church.
>>>>
>>>>>Thanks for demonstrating that you're still a moron: PENTECOST was a JEWISH
>>>>>HOLIDAY THOUSANDS OF YEARS before Jesus even showed up.
>>>>
>>>> Yes, but for Christians, it is the birthday of the new Christian Church.
>>>Which is the SECOND of THREE PENTECOSTS, moron
>>
>>Haahaahaa. Pentecost Sunday is the birthday of the Christian Chruch.
>
> I wonder if the OP understands that "pentecost" is Greek for "the
>fifty Days" which was the festival ordained of God to be held fifty
>days after Passover?
What does "OP" mean?
And yes, "Pente" means 5, or 50. Jesus ascended to the Father on the 40th day.
And 10 days later on Pentecost Sunday, the Holy Spirit descended on man that had
only received JOhn's baptism. Hence Pentecost Sunday is the first day that the
new Chruch was no longer following Jesus but now the Holy Spirit for the first
time.
>>>> Thanks for demonstrating that you have no idea what the bible says other than as
>>>> a text book.
>>>You're such an idiot.
>>>Like everything else prophetic, Pentecost "was," Pentecost "is," and
>>>Pentecost "will be" AGAIN.
>>We Christians say God always was, is and always will be.
> "As it was in the begriming, is now and ever shall be, world
>without end."
Yes. Ike's looking for a magical mystery tour of some type, 3 times.
duke
<xhermanei...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>The FIRST Pentecost was when God took the spirit that rested on Moses and
>placed it on the 70 elders, which foreshadowed the SECOND Pentecost which
>came to the Disciples (which was why they were gathered there in the first
>place), but both of these Pentecosts foreshadow the THIRD Pentecost yet to
>come which John describes in Revelation.
Irrelevant.
>And it's that THIRD Pentecost that John describes that fully conforms to the
>events Joel described in his prophecy
Irrelevant.
> NOT the second one
Assuming you're referencing the descent of the holy Spirit on Pentecost Sunday,
it's the birthday of the Christian Church.
Ike E 1/1/11
> On Mon, 17 Jan 2011 11:59:42 -0600, "Ike E 1/1/11"
> <xhermanei...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>The FIRST Pentecost was when God took the spirit that rested on Moses and
>>placed it on the 70 elders, which foreshadowed the SECOND Pentecost which
>>came to the Disciples (which was why they were gathered there in the first
>>place), but both of these Pentecosts foreshadow the THIRD Pentecost yet to
>>come which John describes in Revelation.
>
> Irrelevant.
...said the fool.
>>And it's that THIRD Pentecost that John describes that fully conforms to
>>the
>>events Joel described in his prophecy
>
>
> Irrelevant.
...said the fool.
>> NOT the second one
>
> Assuming you're referencing the descent of the holy Spirit on Pentecost
> Sunday,
> it's the birthday of the Christian Church.
And the first time it was the birth of the Old Testament, and third time it
will be the birth of something derived from the first two, but altogether
new.
You can arrogantly continue to ignore the facts, making yourself continue to
look foolish, or you can acknowledge the truth for a change.
I'm betting not.
THE LORD
<whatever>
When you want to stop your Crusade, Inquisition and Witch Hunt against me
then I will take down the blog page about you:
http://fundamentalistfunhouse.blogspot.com/2011/01/ionterlude-my-stalker-troll-herman.html
duke
<xhermanei...@gmail.com> wrote:
>"duke" <duckg...@cox.net> wrote in message
>news:dc6cj6hd59poahthq...@4ax.com...
>> On Mon, 17 Jan 2011 11:59:42 -0600, "Ike E 1/1/11"
>> <xhermanei...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>The FIRST Pentecost was when God took the spirit that rested on Moses and
>>>placed it on the 70 elders, which foreshadowed the SECOND Pentecost which
>>>came to the Disciples (which was why they were gathered there in the first
>>>place), but both of these Pentecosts foreshadow the THIRD Pentecost yet to
>>>come which John describes in Revelation.
>> Irrelevant.
>...said the fool.
The Pentecost Sunday so important to the Christian is the one in 33AD.
>>>And it's that THIRD Pentecost that John describes that fully conforms to
>>>the
>>>events Joel described in his prophecy
>> Irrelevant.
>...said the fool.
>>> NOT the second one
>> Assuming you're referencing the descent of the holy Spirit on Pentecost
>> Sunday,
>> it's the birthday of the Christian Church.
>And the first time it was the birth of the Old Testament, and third time it
>will be the birth of something derived from the first two, but altogether
>new.
Sorry, the current concept goes all the way to the Wedding Feast of the Lamb.
There will be no new things.
>You can arrogantly continue to ignore the facts, making yourself continue to
>look foolish, or you can acknowledge the truth for a change.
>I'm betting not.
Happy Birthday, Ike. The next celebration of the birthday of the Christian
Church is Sunday, June 12, 2011. Pentecost Sunday, which marks the end of the
Easter season in the Christian calendar, celebrates the descent of the Holy
Spirit on the Apostles.
duke
Interesting. I thought sure he was a weaseley little dude.
pyotr filipivich
alt.christnet.christianlife the following:
>On Sun, 16 Jan 2011 15:21:46 -0800, pyotr filipivich <ph...@mindspring.com>
>wrote:
>
>>duke <duckg...@cox.net> on Sun, 16 Jan 2011 09:05:04 -0600 typed in
>>alt.christnet.christianlife the following:
>>>On Sat, 15 Jan 2011 13:21:04 -0600, "Ike E 1/1/11"
>>><xhermanei...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>"duke" <duckg...@cox.net> wrote in message
>>>>news:p6c3j6d6s3km7junq...@4ax.com...
>>>>> On Fri, 14 Jan 2011 16:05:45 -0600, "Ike E 1/1/11"
>>>>> <xhermanei...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>> This klutz doesn't know that Pentecost Sunday is the birthday of the
>>>>>>> Christian
>>>>>>> Church.
>>>>>
>>>>>>Thanks for demonstrating that you're still a moron: PENTECOST was a JEWISH
>>>>>>HOLIDAY THOUSANDS OF YEARS before Jesus even showed up.
>>>>>
>>>>> Yes, but for Christians, it is the birthday of the new Christian Church.
>>>>Which is the SECOND of THREE PENTECOSTS, moron
>>>
>>>Haahaahaa. Pentecost Sunday is the birthday of the Christian Chruch.
>>
>> I wonder if the OP understands that "pentecost" is Greek for "the
>>fifty Days" which was the festival ordained of God to be held fifty
>>days after Passover?
>
>What does "OP" mean?