ECT Help needed. Best Rebuttals to Jews For Judaism

[genuineoriginal]

Pure nonsense. The NIV ADDS words that are NOT there as if they were.

The KJV does that a lot as well.

 

[genuineoriginal]

Regardless of your problems with the KJV, the NIV is the ONLY translation that uses THEM instead of HIM in Psalm 8 and Hebrews 2.

English translations that use THEM instead of HIM are CEB, CJB, ERV, EXB, GNT, MSG, NCV, NET, NIRV, NIV, NIVUK, NLT, NRSV, NRSVA, NRSVACE, NRSVCE, and TPT.

 

[Freedm]

You are DEAF. I ALREADY told you that is does NOT have to be the EXACT SAME PHYSICAL chair that king David sat upon.

Your "talking points" are not proving anything... except that you cannot have an intelligent discussion with another human being.

Well, then forgive me for being confused because if it's not the exact same chair that King David sat on then literally the only thing that could make it "the throne of David" is for King Jesus to sit on it, and if that's the case then he doesn't need a physical chair in order to be King! Don't you see that?

Do I have to spell this out for you? Your insistence that it is a physical chair makes no sense if it is not the exact same chair that King David sat on. If it were the exact same chair, then at least I could follow your logic. It would still be incorrect, but I could follow your logic.

As it is your logic requires the King to make the chair (any chair) that of King David. In other words, Jesus could stop at IKEA on the way in, pick up any chair he likes and make the declaration that this is now "the throne of David", and if the King has the ability and the power to do that to any random chair, then that means he is already king before he even sits down!

If you can't see that, then you're totally missing the spiritual nature of his kingdom and you're making the same mistake the Jews made 2000 years ago when they rejected him because they were waiting for a king with a sword to lead them into battle.

 

[Right Divider]

The KJV does that a lot as well.

Not even close to the type of the NIV ADDING the word "Israel" where the word exists in no Greek manuscripts.

Sometimes words must be added to translate from other languages into English. Those words are italicized in the KJV

 

[Freedm]

Jesus returns to earth to rule the nations with a rod of iron.

Revelation 19:11-15 11 And I saw heaven opened, and behold a white horse; and he that sat upon him was called Faithful and True, and in righteousness he doth judge and make war. 12 His eyes were as a flame of fire, and on his head were many crowns; and he had a name written, that no man knew, but he himself. 13 And he was clothed with a vesture dipped in blood: and his name is called The Word of God. 14 And the armies which were in heaven followed him upon white horses, clothed in fine linen, white and clean. 15 And out of his mouth goeth a sharp sword, that with it he should smite the nations: and he shall rule them with a rod of iron: and he treadeth the winepress of the fierceness and wrath of Almighty God.​

Jesus rules until He puts all enemies under His feet and the last enemy is death.

1 Corinthians 15:25-26 25 For he must reign, till he hath put all enemies under his feet. 26 The last enemy that shall be destroyed is death.​

Death is not destroyed until after the thousand years.

Revelation 20:5,14 5 But the rest of the dead lived not again until the thousand years were finished. This is the first resurrection. 14 And death and hell were cast into the lake of fire. This is the second death.​

So, what part of Jesus rules the nations on earth with a rod of iron for a thousand years are you still confused about?

Oh, I see. You're using the order of the chapters in Revelation as "proof" that one event occurs before the other. That's where you're going wrong.

See, the chapters are not written chronologically like you would read a modern novel. No, the book of Revelation is written in a style called "progressive parallelism". It's a style of writing where the same events are told several times throughout, in varying degrees of detail in order to emphasize and reiterate important events and (ironically) make clear to the reader how these events previously explained in greater detail, fit into the bigger picture.

So, other than the other in which the chapters are listed in the book, do you have any actual scripture that says the wrath of God precedes the thousand years? And for that matter do you have any scripture that says the judging of the dead precedes the thousand years? Or that God's eternal reign begins prior to the thousand years?

 

[Freedm]

He is not yet sitting on the throne of David, but He will sit on that throne during the 1,000 year reign of Christ.

Then you also will have to explain to me what you consider to be "the throne of David" because the fact is a King is a King even without a physical chair to sit on. And if you claim otherwise, then you must believe that the chair itself infers some sort of power or authority to the King who sits on it. Is that what you believe?

 

[genuineoriginal]

"coming in the clouds" is symbolic language that denotes power and authority. It's not literal.

Maybe it is literal.

Revelation 1:7 7 Behold, he cometh with clouds; and every eye shall see him, and they also which pierced him: and all kindreds of the earth shall wail because of him. Even so, Amen.​

 

[Right Divider]

Well, then forgive me for being confused because if it's not the exact same chair that King David sat on then literally the only thing that could make it "the throne of David" is for King Jesus to sit on it, and if that's the case then he doesn't need a physical chair in order to be King! Don't you see that?

David's throne is:

• The king of Israel
• On the earth
• In the land of Israel
• In Jerusalem
• It's a chair

 

[genuineoriginal]

Oh, I see. You're using the order of the chapters in Revelation as "proof" that one event occurs before the other.

Not quite, I use what is written in the prophecy as proof that there are chronological events that follow each other, with several interludes that are not chronological but are related to the chronological events.

See, the chapters are not written chronologically like you would read a modern novel. No, the book of Revelation is written in a style called "progressive parallelism". It's a style of writing where the same events are told several times throughout, in varying degrees of detail in order to emphasize and reiterate important events and (ironically) make clear to the reader how these events previously explained in greater detail, fit into the bigger picture.

Revelation shows a chronological succession from the seals to the trumpets, with a half hour of silence in heaven between the two.

Revelation 8:1-6 1 And when he had opened the seventh seal, there was silence in heaven about the space of half an hour. 2 And I saw the seven angels which stood before God; and to them were given seven trumpets. 3 And another angel came and stood at the altar, having a golden censer; and there was given unto him much incense, that he should offer it with the prayers of all saints upon the golden altar which was before the throne. 4 And the smoke of the incense, which came with the prayers of the saints, ascended up before God out of the angel's hand. 5 And the angel took the censer, and filled it with fire of the altar, and cast it into the earth: and there were voices, and thunderings, and lightnings, and an earthquake. 6 And the seven angels which had the seven trumpets prepared themselves to sound.​

The interlude in Revelation 14 between the seventh trumpet and the seven bowls has two great harvests.
The first harvest is the harvest of the believers spoken of in 1 Thessalonians 4:16-17 to keep the believers from the wrath of God, the second harvest is the preparation for the seven bowls of wrath to be poured out on the nations.

Revelation 14:14-19 14 And I looked, and behold a white cloud, and upon the cloud one sat like unto the Son of man, having on his head a golden crown, and in his hand a sharp sickle. 15 And another angel came out of the temple, crying with a loud voice to him that sat on the cloud, Thrust in thy sickle, and reap: for the time is come for thee to reap; for the harvest of the earth is ripe. 16 And he that sat on the cloud thrust in his sickle on the earth; and the earth was reaped. 17 And another angel came out of the temple which is in heaven, he also having a sharp sickle. 18 And another angel came out from the altar, which had power over fire; and cried with a loud cry to him that had the sharp sickle, saying, Thrust in thy sharp sickle, and gather the clusters of the vine of the earth; for her grapes are fully ripe. 19 And the angel thrust in his sickle into the earth, and gathered the vine of the earth, and cast it into the great winepress of the wrath of God.​

The seven bowls of wrath are called the seven last plagues, which show that they are not the same as the previous plagues mentioned in the prophecy.

Revelation 15:1 1 And I saw another sign in heaven, great and marvellous, seven angels having the seven last plagues; for in them is filled up the wrath of God.​

 

[Jerry Shugart]

I believe I partially answered that in my previous post. The wording there is mirrored in Revelation 21. Do you agree that Revelation 21 refers to the believers inheriting the new earth? Is the new earth not considered "land"?

If you will actually read Revelation 21 you will see that John was given a vision of the eternal state, the abode of God (Rev.21:5-7). The term "new heaven and new earth" in this instance is a figurative expression and is not to be taken literally.

The land which God gave to Jacob is land that exists on the present earth. And that by itself destroys your strange ideas:

"And they shall dwell in the land that I have given unto Jacob my servant, wherein your fathers have dwell...My tabernacle also shall be with them: yea, I will be their God, and they shall be my people. And the heathen shall know that I the LORD do sanctify Israel, when my sanctuary shall be in the midst of them for evermore" (Ez.37:25-28).​

 

[7djengo7]

Are you referring to my position that the thousand years is not a literal thousand years?

Saying that the thousand years is not a thousand years is not a position; rather, it's a raving.

If so, does that nullify my point about there being no reference to earth during the thousand years? Or does my point still stand?

By "there being no reference to earth during the thousand years", do you mean that there is no instance of the word, 'earth', in Revelation 20? What (if anything) do you mean by it? (If you do not mean anything by it, then you have no point.)

You said, in a previous post, "we know that the thousand years is now". Did you mean, "we know that the thousand years is now--but it is not here, now, on earth"?

Jesus will actually never be an earthly king as he hands the kingdom over to God the father before we take possession of the new earth, and after the last day (resurrection day).

So, you're saying that Jesus is, NOW, not an earthly king, no?

He said all power and authority was given to him in heaven and on earth. (Matthew 28:18) No one can have all power and authority and not be king. Therefore we know that the thousand years is now.

"No one can have all power and authority and not be king", you say. Apparently, though, you do think that someone can have all power and authority and not be an earthly king, just as you think that someone can have all power and authority and not be POTUS. No?

 

[7djengo7]

Good. So knowing that Jesus currently has all authority and power, you must then also believe that he's currently sitting on the throne of David. Correct?

Why, knowing that Jesus currently has all authority and power, must someone believe that Jesus is currently sitting on the throne of David, any more than they must believe that Jesus is currently sitting in the Oval Office, as POTUS?

Knowing that Jesus is not POTUS, you must then also believe that He currently does not have all authority and power. Correct?

 

[7djengo7]

I find it puzzling and absurd that you would compare the reign of Jesus to that of POTUS. Two completely different kingdoms and two completely different positions of authority. What point are you trying to make here?

So, when you say that "No one can have all power and authority and not be king", by your phrase, "all power and authority", you don't mean all power and authority, but, instead, you mean only some power and authority, to the exclusion of all the remainder of power and authority.

What (if anything) do you mean when you say that I "compare" the reign of Jesus to that of POTUS? In my way of thinking about the word, 'compare', I'd say that you, yourself, just now compared the reign of Jesus to that of POTUS, by calling each a "kingdom" and a "position of authority".

 

[7djengo7]

If I'm wrong, prove it, as I have done with you.

What do you mean by saying that you have proved something to somebody, despite their remaining wholly unconvinced of that which you say you've proved to them?

And, if you think that you've had proved, to yourself, that which you say you have proved to someone who still does not believe that which you say you've proved to them, then why would you say, "If I'm wrong..." Do you think it possible for a person to be wrong in believing that which has been proven to them? If so, then what use is there of having things proved? If falsehoods can be proved, then proving is worse than useless.

 

[Freedm]

Maybe it is literal.

Revelation 1:7 7 Behold, he cometh with clouds; and every eye shall see him, and they also which pierced him: and all kindreds of the earth shall wail because of him. Even so, Amen.​

"Behold he cometh with power and authority and every eye shall see him" can also be literal.

 

[Freedm]

If you will actually read Revelation 21 you will see that John was given a vision of the eternal state, the abode of God (Rev.21:5-7). The term "new heaven and new earth" in this instance is a figurative expression and is not to be taken literally.

The land which God gave to Jacob is land that exists on the present earth. And that by itself destroys your strange ideas:

​

Not if the "new" earth is the same old earth but "renewed". It's just semantics really but the result is the same. God said "see, I am making everything new" Revelation 21:5 and Acts 3:21 says " Heaven must receive him until the time comes for God to restore everything, as he promised long ago through his holy prophets.". You see when God makes everything new again, he's probably just going to renew the existing earth, which means the existing land will still be there on the "new" earth.

Have you not considered this?

 

[Freedm]

Saying that the thousand years is not a thousand years is not a position; rather, it's a raving.

Looks like I'm going to have to be a little bit more precise with my wording for you to understand.

"The thousand years" is a label for the time during which Christ reigns. This period, which we refer to as "the thousand years" is not actually 1000 years in length. That is my position, as if you didn't know.

By "there being no reference to earth during the thousand years", do you mean that there is no instance of the word, 'earth', in Revelation 20? What (if anything) do you mean by it? (If you do not mean anything by it, then you have no point.)

What I mean is that the only single reference in scripture to "the thousand years", does not say that Jesus will reign on earth during those thousand years, only that he will reign. So you can not claim that scripture says he will reign on earth for a thousand years (or however long one thinks this time period is). Scripture does not say this reign of Christ requires him to be on earth. It simply doesn't. You inferred that all by yourself.

You said, in a previous post, "we know that the thousand years is now". Did you mean, "we know that the thousand years is now--but it is not here, now, on earth"?

I mean, we are currently living during the reign of Christ, that reign which we refer to as "the thousand years". And, no, Christ is not on earth during his reign, but we are.

So, you're saying that Jesus is, NOW, not an earthly king, no?

If I'm understanding your strange grammar correctly, then yes, I am saying that Jesus is not an earthly king. However, I'm also not saying that he will be king on the new earth; more like a prince, as by the time we take possession of the new earth Jesus will have already given the kingdom over to God the father.

"No one can have all power and authority and not be king", you say. Apparently, though, you do think that someone can have all power and authority and not be an earthly king

Not sure what you mean by the phrase "earthly king" in this question of yours, so let me put it into my own words to make sure there's no confusion: Jesus has all power and authority, which makes him King, but he doesn't have to be on earth in order to be that King.

just as you think that someone can have all power and authority and not be POTUS. No?

I really don't know what you're going on about here with POTUS. Such a strange analogy.

 

[Freedm]

So, when you say that "No one can have all power and authority and not be king", by your phrase, "all power and authority", you don't mean all power and authority, but, instead, you mean only some power and authority, to the exclusion of all the remainder of power and authority.

Don't you know that Jesus himself said he now has all power and authority? Why are you questioning me about it? If Jesus says he has all power and authority, then that means he has all power and authority.

What (if anything) do you mean when you say that I "compare" the reign of Jesus to that of POTUS? In my way of thinking about the word, 'compare', I'd say that you, yourself, just now compared the reign of Jesus to that of POTUS, by calling each a "kingdom" and a "position of authority"

You're still not making any sense. If you have a point to make, make it.

 

[Freedm]

What do you mean by saying that you have proved something to somebody, despite their remaining wholly unconvinced of that which you say you've proved to them?

And, if you think that you've had proved, to yourself, that which you say you have proved to someone who still does not believe that which you say you've proved to them, then why would you say, "If I'm wrong..." Do you think it possible for a person to be wrong in believing that which has been proven to them? If so, then what use is there of having things proved? If falsehoods can be proved, then proving is worse than useless.

This post is worse than useless.

 

[Lon]

1 Corinthians 2:14:



Isaiah 53:1 to whom has the arm of the Lord been revealed?
2 For He shall grow up before Him as a tender plant,
And as a root out of dry ground.
He has no form or comeliness;
And when we see Him,
There is no beauty that we should desire Him.
3 He is despised and rejected by men,
A Man of sorrows and acquainted with grief.
And we hid, as it were, our faces from Him;
He was despised, and we did not esteem Him.


4 Surely He has borne our griefs
And carried our sorrows;
Yet we esteemed Him stricken,
Smitten by God, and afflicted.
5 But He was wounded for our transgressions,
He was bruised for our iniquities;
The chastisement for our peace was upon Him,
And by His stripes we are healed.
6 All we like sheep have gone astray;
We have turned, every one, to his own way;
And the Lord has laid on Him the iniquity of us all.


7 He was oppressed and He was afflicted,
Yet He opened not His mouth;
He was led as a lamb to the slaughter,
And as a sheep before its shearers is silent,
So He opened not His mouth.
8 He was taken from prison and from judgment,
And who will declare His generation?
For He was cut off from the land of the living;
For the transgressions of My people He was stricken.
9 And they made His grave with the wicked—
But with the rich at His death,
Because He had done no violence,
Nor was any deceit in His mouth.


10 Yet it pleased the Lord to bruise Him;
He has put Him to grief.
When You make His soul an offering for sin,
He shall see His seed, He shall prolong His days,
And the pleasure of the Lord shall prosper in His hand.
11 He shall see the labor of His soul, and be satisfied.
By His knowledge My righteous Servant shall justify many,
For He shall bear their iniquities.
12 Therefore I will divide Him a portion with the great,
And He shall divide the spoil with the strong,
Because He poured out His soul unto death,
And He was numbered with the transgressors,
And He bore the sin of many,
And made intercession for the transgressors.