D
Dee Dee Warren
Guest
You forgot about Rapt.... now there's the big secret. You caught me.
POST GAME SHOW - Battle Royale III
- Thread starter Nathon Detroit
- Start date
- Status
Revelation717
New member
Jerry,
It is amazing how the more and more we converse the more and more you prove to me by your own words the Scriptures are truly alive.
Take for example:
Jerry- "And there are two reasons why the Lord´s arrival has been delayed."
Scripture- "M't:24:48: But and if that evil servant shall say in his heart, My lord delayeth his coming;"
Notice this example of saying the Lord's coming is "delayed" is not used with the faithful servant.
Where does Scripture tell us His coming has been "delayed"?
How can God, Ruler and King of the universe, Master of time and space be , um um .....delayed???
The Lord is right on time no matter what time He is there that is when He planned to be there.
And Jesus said 7 times over, "I come quickly"
You think He meant it?
Scoffers, you say. Well yes, that is true many scoffers out there put unbiblical notions into people's heads saying "OOPS the Lord was delayed" IMPOSSIBLE for Him to be delayed.
And Jerry, just like Jack said, what is so wrong with Zech 12 being about heavenly Jerusalem and heavenly Jerusalem being the church of faithful saints in Christ Jesus. You gotta problem with that? Then take it up with God, He said it.
It is amazing how the more and more we converse the more and more you prove to me by your own words the Scriptures are truly alive.
Take for example:
Jerry- "And there are two reasons why the Lord´s arrival has been delayed."
Scripture- "M't:24:48: But and if that evil servant shall say in his heart, My lord delayeth his coming;"
Notice this example of saying the Lord's coming is "delayed" is not used with the faithful servant.
Where does Scripture tell us His coming has been "delayed"?
How can God, Ruler and King of the universe, Master of time and space be , um um .....delayed???
The Lord is right on time no matter what time He is there that is when He planned to be there.
And Jesus said 7 times over, "I come quickly"
You think He meant it?
Scoffers, you say. Well yes, that is true many scoffers out there put unbiblical notions into people's heads saying "OOPS the Lord was delayed" IMPOSSIBLE for Him to be delayed.
And Jerry, just like Jack said, what is so wrong with Zech 12 being about heavenly Jerusalem and heavenly Jerusalem being the church of faithful saints in Christ Jesus. You gotta problem with that? Then take it up with God, He said it.
Last edited:
Watch it there Rev717 you said:
How can God, Ruler and King of the universe, Master of time and space be , um um .....delayed???
This sounds like you believe that God is um Sovereign! That you believe Psalm 139 when it says God knows the words that are going to come out of your mouth before you say them.
Fellow Posse member.
How can God, Ruler and King of the universe, Master of time and space be , um um .....delayed???
This sounds like you believe that God is um Sovereign! That you believe Psalm 139 when it says God knows the words that are going to come out of your mouth before you say them.
Fellow Posse member.
No, no, no, Ev and Pa are the same person. You guys are getting it all wrong!
I have to admit that the "preterist posse" does come in second to the Christadelphian crew," which I have had my fair share (and Dee Dee's share, and Knight's share, and Bob B's share, and...) of run ins with.
As to the battle, I think Dee Dee won in a squeaker. I think she came out much stronger than Jerry and had some very solid posts (especially 2 and 3). She left some open spots that Jerry did not (predictably) capitolize on, since they were not areas he would think of attacking, so she slipped a few by. However, the tide turned against her later in the debate, as Jerry had some solid posts (I think 7-8 or 8-9, somewhere in there).
While I am a futurist, I think that Dee Dee's more solid base provided her with a wider argument, putting Jerry on the defensive for most of the debate. While Jerry pulled close at the end (not counting the mud-slinging either for or against either), I think Dee Dee pulled it out.
I have to admit that the "preterist posse" does come in second to the Christadelphian crew," which I have had my fair share (and Dee Dee's share, and Knight's share, and Bob B's share, and...) of run ins with.
As to the battle, I think Dee Dee won in a squeaker. I think she came out much stronger than Jerry and had some very solid posts (especially 2 and 3). She left some open spots that Jerry did not (predictably) capitolize on, since they were not areas he would think of attacking, so she slipped a few by. However, the tide turned against her later in the debate, as Jerry had some solid posts (I think 7-8 or 8-9, somewhere in there).
While I am a futurist, I think that Dee Dee's more solid base provided her with a wider argument, putting Jerry on the defensive for most of the debate. While Jerry pulled close at the end (not counting the mud-slinging either for or against either), I think Dee Dee pulled it out.
Jerry Shugart
Well-known member
JackS,
According to the words of the Apostle Paul,we are to be expecting the Lord to arrive at any moment.Weare told to be expectantly looking toward heaven for His appearing (Phil.3:20,21).
At that time we will receive our glorified body.And to make sure that that we understand Him correctly,Paul added the following words just a few verses later:
"The Lord is at hand"(Phil.4:5).
The word translated "at hand" (eggus) means "concerning things imminent and soon to come to pass"("Thayer´s Greek English Lexicon").
Now most people mis-understand the meaning of the word "imminent".It can mean "likely to occur at any moment",but it can also mean "impending" which has less suggestion of immediateness ("THe American College Dictionary".
So His return has been impending for some time.
Also,I do not know whether or not the Church will ever be faithful in the future,but I do know that what He promised He will fulfill.The unfaithfulness of man may delay His promises,but what He promised He will deliver.
In regard to the prophecies of Zecharia,we can clearly see that the Jerusalem that is spoken of is the earthly Jerusalem:
"And His feet shall stand in that day upon the Mount of Olives,which is before Jerusalem on the east..."(Zech.14:4).
That cannot possibly be in reference to the Church,because there is no Mount of Olives to the east of the Church.
"All the land shall be turned like the Arabah from Geba to Rimmon south of Jerusalem..."(Zech.14:10).
That is not a description of the "heavenly Jerusalem" by any stretch of the imagination.
In His grace,--Jerry
According to the words of the Apostle Paul,we are to be expecting the Lord to arrive at any moment.Weare told to be expectantly looking toward heaven for His appearing (Phil.3:20,21).
At that time we will receive our glorified body.And to make sure that that we understand Him correctly,Paul added the following words just a few verses later:
"The Lord is at hand"(Phil.4:5).
The word translated "at hand" (eggus) means "concerning things imminent and soon to come to pass"("Thayer´s Greek English Lexicon").
Now most people mis-understand the meaning of the word "imminent".It can mean "likely to occur at any moment",but it can also mean "impending" which has less suggestion of immediateness ("THe American College Dictionary".
So His return has been impending for some time.
Also,I do not know whether or not the Church will ever be faithful in the future,but I do know that what He promised He will fulfill.The unfaithfulness of man may delay His promises,but what He promised He will deliver.
In regard to the prophecies of Zecharia,we can clearly see that the Jerusalem that is spoken of is the earthly Jerusalem:
"And His feet shall stand in that day upon the Mount of Olives,which is before Jerusalem on the east..."(Zech.14:4).
That cannot possibly be in reference to the Church,because there is no Mount of Olives to the east of the Church.
"All the land shall be turned like the Arabah from Geba to Rimmon south of Jerusalem..."(Zech.14:10).
That is not a description of the "heavenly Jerusalem" by any stretch of the imagination.
In His grace,--Jerry
Revelation717
New member
Now that took GUTS! Way ta go Jaltus.
You could almost qualify for a posse member!
Revelation717
New member
Jerry, why are you preaching defeatism?
You don't know if the church will ever be faithful in the future?
Sounds as if you think it is not faithful now.
But the good Lord said:
M't:16:18: And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.
Eph:1:1: Paul, an apostle of Jesus Christ by the will of God, to the saints which are at Ephesus, and to the faithful in Christ Jesus:
Re:17:14: These shall make war with the Lamb, and the Lamb shall overcome them: for he is Lord of lords, and King of kings: and they that are with him are called, and chosen, and faithful.
Did Jesus take a whore to be his Bride?
Eph:5:27: That he might present it to himself a glorious church, not having spot, or wrinkle, or any such thing; but that it should be holy and without blemish.
Jerry,
Do you realize in the last two days you have told me, in a matter of words that Jesus is not everlasting righteousness, His bride is unfaithful, Scripture that comfirms with Scripture it's fulfillment has not been fulfilled, God does not defend heavenly Jerusalem.
Now tell me, Is this the faith once delivered to the saints?
Jerry Shugart
Well-known member
Revelation717,
The words of the Lord concerning His coming are conditional:
"Blessed is he that readeth,and they who hear the words of this prophecy,AND KEEP THOSE THINGS WHICH ARE WRITTEN IN IT;for the time is at hand"(Rev.1:3).
The early church saw Jerusalem destroyed in AD 130 and REASONED that God had cast away Israel,despite the many times in Scripture that the Lord said that Hewould not permanently cast away ethnic Israel.This error led to others.They then could see that there remained unfulfilled prophecies concerning Israel,and they incorrectly ASSUMED that these prophecies must refer to the church.And since they saw the Church in the prophecies concerning the end times,they ASSUMED that the Lord did not really mean that He would come quickly.Therefore,"we see that they could not enter in because of unbelief"(Heb.3:19).
They did not keep the things that are written in the Revelation.
Now back to my question.Do you believe that Revelation 1:7 has already been fulfilled?If so,when did "every eye" see Him coming with the clouds?
Also,do you not realize that some prophecies are fulfilled but they can also continue to be fulfilled.When the Lord was on the cross those who pierced the Lord looked on Him.But the same prophecy can still yet be fulfilled.
The same can be said of the Lord´s words that follow:
"And this is the Father´s will Who hath sent Me,that of all that He hath given Me I should lose nothing,but shall raise it up again at the last day"(Jn.6:39).
We see that these words were fulfilled in regard to His apostles:
"That this saying might be fulfilled,which He spoke,Of them whom Thou gavest Me I have lost none"(Jn.18:9).
That refers to the Apostles,but it will also be fulfilled after that time for all the Lord has given Him (Jn.10:28,29).
In His grace,--Jerry
The words of the Lord concerning His coming are conditional:
"Blessed is he that readeth,and they who hear the words of this prophecy,AND KEEP THOSE THINGS WHICH ARE WRITTEN IN IT;for the time is at hand"(Rev.1:3).
The early church saw Jerusalem destroyed in AD 130 and REASONED that God had cast away Israel,despite the many times in Scripture that the Lord said that Hewould not permanently cast away ethnic Israel.This error led to others.They then could see that there remained unfulfilled prophecies concerning Israel,and they incorrectly ASSUMED that these prophecies must refer to the church.And since they saw the Church in the prophecies concerning the end times,they ASSUMED that the Lord did not really mean that He would come quickly.Therefore,"we see that they could not enter in because of unbelief"(Heb.3:19).
They did not keep the things that are written in the Revelation.
Now back to my question.Do you believe that Revelation 1:7 has already been fulfilled?If so,when did "every eye" see Him coming with the clouds?
Also,do you not realize that some prophecies are fulfilled but they can also continue to be fulfilled.When the Lord was on the cross those who pierced the Lord looked on Him.But the same prophecy can still yet be fulfilled.
The same can be said of the Lord´s words that follow:
"And this is the Father´s will Who hath sent Me,that of all that He hath given Me I should lose nothing,but shall raise it up again at the last day"(Jn.6:39).
We see that these words were fulfilled in regard to His apostles:
"That this saying might be fulfilled,which He spoke,Of them whom Thou gavest Me I have lost none"(Jn.18:9).
That refers to the Apostles,but it will also be fulfilled after that time for all the Lord has given Him (Jn.10:28,29).
In His grace,--Jerry
Jerry Shugart
Well-known member
Shut up or put up
Shut up or put up
Revelation717,
It is you who is being unfaithful.The Holy Scriptures state that ethnic Israel will not be permanently cast away.But ALL of your theology concerning the prophecies of the Lord are based on the fact that God has indeed cast away ethnic Israel forever.
"For the Lord will not cast off His people,neither will He forsake His inheritance"(Ps.94:14).
And we know who He is referring to as His people--the nation of Israel,who was brought out of Egypt:
"For thou art an Holy people unto the Lord thy God;the Lord thy God hath chosen thee to be a special people unto Himself,above all people who are on the face of the earth...the Lord brought you out with a mighty hand,and redeemed you out of the house of bondage,from the hand of Pharaoh,king of Egypt"(Deut.7:6,8).
But you just cannot believe that,can you?No matter how many times you read it,you will not believe it:
"For Thou hast confirmed to Thyself Thy people,Israel,to be a people unto Thee FOREVER;and Thou,Lord,art become their God"(2Sam.7:24).
And I can see that you have no problem bearing false witness against another man.I never said the things you accuse me of saying.I challenge you to QUOTE my words,or apologize.I am sick and tired of those who cannot answer using Scripture to make false accusations against me.
Now it is time to shut up and apologize or QUOTE my words.
Shut up or put up
Revelation717,
It is you who is being unfaithful.The Holy Scriptures state that ethnic Israel will not be permanently cast away.But ALL of your theology concerning the prophecies of the Lord are based on the fact that God has indeed cast away ethnic Israel forever.
"For the Lord will not cast off His people,neither will He forsake His inheritance"(Ps.94:14).
And we know who He is referring to as His people--the nation of Israel,who was brought out of Egypt:
"For thou art an Holy people unto the Lord thy God;the Lord thy God hath chosen thee to be a special people unto Himself,above all people who are on the face of the earth...the Lord brought you out with a mighty hand,and redeemed you out of the house of bondage,from the hand of Pharaoh,king of Egypt"(Deut.7:6,8).
But you just cannot believe that,can you?No matter how many times you read it,you will not believe it:
"For Thou hast confirmed to Thyself Thy people,Israel,to be a people unto Thee FOREVER;and Thou,Lord,art become their God"(2Sam.7:24).
And I can see that you have no problem bearing false witness against another man.I never said the things you accuse me of saying.I challenge you to QUOTE my words,or apologize.I am sick and tired of those who cannot answer using Scripture to make false accusations against me.
Now it is time to shut up and apologize or QUOTE my words.
Revelation717
New member
I said in a previous post:
Do you realize in the last two days you have told me, in a matter of words that - the things I say he said are in blue and the quotes prove he said them:
Enjoy
Jesus is not everlasting righteousness
His bride is unfaithful
Scripture that comfirms with Scripture it's fulfillment has not been fulfilled
I asked you if the reference in Zech 12: 10 was future or fulfilled to which you replied:
Scripture states:
Joh:19:35: And he that saw it bare record, and his record is true: and he knoweth that he saith true, that ye might believe.
Joh:19:36: For these things were done, that the scripture should be fulfilled, A bone of him shall not be broken.
Joh:19:37: And again another scripture(ZECHARIAH 12:10) saith, They shall look on him whom they pierced.
God does not defend heavenly Jerusalem.
You say heavenly Jerusalem is not exsistant now, so how could God defend it? I can provide the quotes but I think you should be ashamed as it is.
Last edited:
Jerry,
Thanks for your answers.
You said:
According to the words of the Apostle Paul,we are to be expecting the Lord to arrive at any moment. We are told to be expectantly looking toward heaven for His appearing (Phil.3:20,21).
Jerry, Philippians(spelled) was not written to us! Paul was not writing to the church of the year 1,000 or 2,000 or 3,000! He was writing the church at Philippi. We are not told to look towards heaven, they were. If you were sitting in your house church in 65 AD and someone was reading this letter to you, how would you take it? I'd bet you'd think Paul was addressing you, the church in Philippi in 65 AD! Which he was!
While all these NT books are useful for teaching, rebuking and training in righteousness. They were not written to us. God has kept them for our edification, but again they were not written to us!
Anyway thanks again for your answers.
Thanks for your answers.
You said:
According to the words of the Apostle Paul,we are to be expecting the Lord to arrive at any moment. We are told to be expectantly looking toward heaven for His appearing (Phil.3:20,21).
Jerry, Philippians(spelled) was not written to us! Paul was not writing to the church of the year 1,000 or 2,000 or 3,000! He was writing the church at Philippi. We are not told to look towards heaven, they were. If you were sitting in your house church in 65 AD and someone was reading this letter to you, how would you take it? I'd bet you'd think Paul was addressing you, the church in Philippi in 65 AD! Which he was!
While all these NT books are useful for teaching, rebuking and training in righteousness. They were not written to us. God has kept them for our edification, but again they were not written to us!
Anyway thanks again for your answers.
Jerry Shugart
Well-known member
JackS,
If the epistle to thePhillipians is not for us,which epistles are?
Were not ALL of Paul´s epistles written to the local congregations?
So if we are to believe you,none of the epistles are for us.They are only for those to whom they were directly addressed.Where are we to get our doctrine?
Next,are you saying,as Dee Dee says,that the Lord came in the first century?
Well,if that is true,why did not the first entury Christians receive their glorified bodies as Paul told them they would.
First,Paul told them:
"For our citizenship is in heaven,from which also we look for the Savior,Who shall change our lowly body,that it may be fashioned like His glorious body"(Phil.3:20,21).
So Paul is telling these Christians that when the Lord appeared that they would receive new,glorified bodies.And then just a few verses later,he tells that that His arrival is imminent:
"The Lord is at hand"(Phil.4:5).
So if the Lord´s appearance was imminent,and when He was to appear the Christian´s were to receive glorified bodies,why didn´t they receive their new bodies when the Lord appared as Dee Dee says He did?
Dee Dee says that the Lord Jesus came in the first century,and Paul said that when He came that the Christians would receive their glorified bodies.But they never recived those bodies.
There is only one conclusion.The Lord Jesus did not come in the first century.
In His grace,--Jerry
If the epistle to thePhillipians is not for us,which epistles are?
Were not ALL of Paul´s epistles written to the local congregations?
So if we are to believe you,none of the epistles are for us.They are only for those to whom they were directly addressed.Where are we to get our doctrine?
Next,are you saying,as Dee Dee says,that the Lord came in the first century?
Well,if that is true,why did not the first entury Christians receive their glorified bodies as Paul told them they would.
First,Paul told them:
"For our citizenship is in heaven,from which also we look for the Savior,Who shall change our lowly body,that it may be fashioned like His glorious body"(Phil.3:20,21).
So Paul is telling these Christians that when the Lord appeared that they would receive new,glorified bodies.And then just a few verses later,he tells that that His arrival is imminent:
"The Lord is at hand"(Phil.4:5).
So if the Lord´s appearance was imminent,and when He was to appear the Christian´s were to receive glorified bodies,why didn´t they receive their new bodies when the Lord appared as Dee Dee says He did?
Dee Dee says that the Lord Jesus came in the first century,and Paul said that when He came that the Christians would receive their glorified bodies.But they never recived those bodies.
There is only one conclusion.The Lord Jesus did not come in the first century.
In His grace,--Jerry
D
Dee Dee Warren
Guest
Dear Jerry:
You are misrepresenting my position once again.. or more accurately selectively "quoting" my position. Though you are certainly free to disagree I made it clear, and proved from Scripture, that there is a distinction between Christ's coming in judgment upon the apostate Jews in the first century and His coming in victory at the end of time. For you not to mention that I hold to that distinction is misleading. That is a habit with you on this issue. You repeat yourself endlessly and never fully interact with the opposing view. In other words, while theological disagreements usually start on "level one" defense sophistication on both sides, you continue to just deal with "level one" issues and never ever move on to deal with the more advanced arguments of your opponents. You make huge assumptions and then use your assumptions to prove your assumptions in one large circular morass. I will be glad to wrangle with you further in the Back Alley. I am taking a break right now from substantive posting.
You are misrepresenting my position once again.. or more accurately selectively "quoting" my position. Though you are certainly free to disagree I made it clear, and proved from Scripture, that there is a distinction between Christ's coming in judgment upon the apostate Jews in the first century and His coming in victory at the end of time. For you not to mention that I hold to that distinction is misleading. That is a habit with you on this issue. You repeat yourself endlessly and never fully interact with the opposing view. In other words, while theological disagreements usually start on "level one" defense sophistication on both sides, you continue to just deal with "level one" issues and never ever move on to deal with the more advanced arguments of your opponents. You make huge assumptions and then use your assumptions to prove your assumptions in one large circular morass. I will be glad to wrangle with you further in the Back Alley. I am taking a break right now from substantive posting.
Jerry,
Putting words in my mouth are we?
I did not say as you claim I said:
I said:
While all these NT books are useful for teaching, rebuking and training in righteousness. They were not written to us.
So yes they were written for us, they were not written to us! So when the book of Herbrews says "in these last days". That was written to them, back then, is that so hard to understand. Is this not clear?
How can you misquote someone when the reply is the very next entry?
Putting words in my mouth are we?
I did not say as you claim I said:
I said:
While all these NT books are useful for teaching, rebuking and training in righteousness. They were not written to us.
So yes they were written for us, they were not written to us! So when the book of Herbrews says "in these last days". That was written to them, back then, is that so hard to understand. Is this not clear?
How can you misquote someone when the reply is the very next entry?
Jerry Shugart
Well-known member
Revelation717,
This is what you said I said:
"Jesus is not everlasting righteousness."
That is a big fat lie and you know it.
I never said that!Instead,I said that everlasting righteousness has not come unto Jerusalem.
And the Bride is not the church,so I never said that the Bride is unfaithful.The church is His Body,not the Bride.Can´t you tell the difference between the Body of Christ and the Bride?
And you say that the following verse has been fulfilled:
"Behold,He cometh with clouds,and EVERY EYE SHALL SEE HIM,and they also who pierced Him;and all kindreds of the earth shall wail because of Him"(Rev.1:7).
When did every eye see Him coming in clouds?
I have asked you that question twice before,but you keep evading it.When did all the kindreds of the earth wail because of Him.
If this verse has already been fulfilled,then you should be able to tell me when it happened.
You know no shame.You false accuse another man of saying things that he never said.And then when you are caught,you refuse to repent and apologize.
Again,I never said that "Jesus is not everlasting righteousness".
That is a lie and you know it.You should be ashamed but instead you seem proud of the fact that you falsely accuse another man of making statements that he never said.
This is what you said I said:
"Jesus is not everlasting righteousness."
That is a big fat lie and you know it.
I never said that!Instead,I said that everlasting righteousness has not come unto Jerusalem.
And the Bride is not the church,so I never said that the Bride is unfaithful.The church is His Body,not the Bride.Can´t you tell the difference between the Body of Christ and the Bride?
And you say that the following verse has been fulfilled:
"Behold,He cometh with clouds,and EVERY EYE SHALL SEE HIM,and they also who pierced Him;and all kindreds of the earth shall wail because of Him"(Rev.1:7).
When did every eye see Him coming in clouds?
I have asked you that question twice before,but you keep evading it.When did all the kindreds of the earth wail because of Him.
If this verse has already been fulfilled,then you should be able to tell me when it happened.
You know no shame.You false accuse another man of saying things that he never said.And then when you are caught,you refuse to repent and apologize.
Again,I never said that "Jesus is not everlasting righteousness".
That is a lie and you know it.You should be ashamed but instead you seem proud of the fact that you falsely accuse another man of making statements that he never said.
D
Dee Dee Warren
Guest
The Greek language had terms to express concepts such as "could be close" "might be near" "any day now but not exactly sure when," and there were not used. They used terms that were not equivocal. Soon. Near. Shortly. At hand. This generation. What is so confusing about this? Why can't we take those didactic timing words literally?? Imminence is made up out of whole cloth.
People today constantly say "Jesus is coming back soon," and they expect to be understood as saying exactly what they just said. They believe it is near in time.... not COULD be near in time. Why can't we give the Bible the same courtesy?? Was God such a bad communicator?? No, we are bad listeners.
People today constantly say "Jesus is coming back soon," and they expect to be understood as saying exactly what they just said. They believe it is near in time.... not COULD be near in time. Why can't we give the Bible the same courtesy?? Was God such a bad communicator?? No, we are bad listeners.
D
Dee Dee Warren
Guest
Really?? Is that like changing the speaker of a Psalm and using it to claim a sister in Christ hates God becuase she has a different eschatology (that is universally accepted as orthodox) than you??
Jerry Shugart
Well-known member
Dee Dee,
My words in reference to you were a response to your interpretation of the prophecy of Zechariah,who writes that the Lord Jesus Christ will fight against the nations that will come against Jerusalem and He will "desroy all the nations that come against Jerusalem"(Zech.12:9).
You say that this verse refers to the destruction of Jerusalem in AD70.You say that the Lord did not prevail,but instead He lost when He fought against Jerusalem!
That is saying OUTRAGEOUS things about my Lord and Savior!That is TWISTING Scriptures until they are saying the COMPLETE OPPOSITE thing that they say.
Zechariah says that when the Lord fights in that day He will prevail as He did "when He fought in the day of battle"--and in that day He was a VICTOR!
You say just the opposite.You say that He lost!
Do you have no shame?Is there not any Scripture that you will not pervert in order to defend the doctrines of man?
All you prove is that you will not believe the word of God when it conficts with the silly teaching which you have learned from man.And you prove over and over that you will not believe the word of God when it conflicts with your silly theories.
For instance,you say that the following verse has already happened:
"Behold,He cometh with clouds,and EVERY EYE SHALL SEE HIM,and they also who pierced Him;and all kindreds of the earth shall wail because of Him"(Rev.1:7).
When did EVERY EYE see Him come in clouds,Mrs.Dee Dee?
You will not hesitate to twist these plain words that were inspired by the Holy Spirit in order to defend your silly ideas.You only prove that you will not believe the word of God when it is in confict with the teaching that was invented by man.
I believe that you are sincere in your beliefs,but that does not mean that you are correct.The Pharisees were also sincere at the time of the Lord,but they did not believe the word of God,just as you do not believe it.
They followed the doctrines of men,and so do you.
Anyone who would say that the prophecy showing the Lord fighting against the nations that come against Jerusalem is the same event as the destruction of Jerusalem in AD70 only proves that they have no respect for Scripture.You have plenty of faith in the doctrines of men,but none for the Word of God.
And since you are here,will you explain why the first century Christians did not receive their new,glorified bodies when the Lord came in the first century?
Paul told them to be looking to the heavens for His appearing,and he also said that the time was at hand.Well,you say that He did come in the first century.
In that case,the first century Christians should have received their new,glorified bodies.
"For our citizenship is in heaven,from which also we look for the Savior,the Lord Jesus Christ,Who shall change our lowly body,that it may be fahioned like His glorious body...The Lord is at hand"(Phil.3:20,21;4:5).
If the Lord did come in the first century,as you say,then according to Paul they should have recived their glorious bodies.John also said the same thing:
"...but we know that when He shall appear we shall be like Him"(1Jn.3:2).
You say that the Lord came in ther first century.If that is true,why didn´t the first century Christians receive their glorified bodies as Paul and John said they would?
Tell us,Dee Dee,so we can all see how you will not hesitate to twist the words of Scripture in order to make them fit your little silly ideas.And do not run from these things I have brought up like you ran from the parable of the "wheat and tares".
Tell us when EVERY EYE saw Him come in clouds,and tell us why the first century Christians did not receive their glorified bodies.
My words in reference to you were a response to your interpretation of the prophecy of Zechariah,who writes that the Lord Jesus Christ will fight against the nations that will come against Jerusalem and He will "desroy all the nations that come against Jerusalem"(Zech.12:9).
You say that this verse refers to the destruction of Jerusalem in AD70.You say that the Lord did not prevail,but instead He lost when He fought against Jerusalem!
That is saying OUTRAGEOUS things about my Lord and Savior!That is TWISTING Scriptures until they are saying the COMPLETE OPPOSITE thing that they say.
Zechariah says that when the Lord fights in that day He will prevail as He did "when He fought in the day of battle"--and in that day He was a VICTOR!
You say just the opposite.You say that He lost!
Do you have no shame?Is there not any Scripture that you will not pervert in order to defend the doctrines of man?
All you prove is that you will not believe the word of God when it conficts with the silly teaching which you have learned from man.And you prove over and over that you will not believe the word of God when it conflicts with your silly theories.
For instance,you say that the following verse has already happened:
"Behold,He cometh with clouds,and EVERY EYE SHALL SEE HIM,and they also who pierced Him;and all kindreds of the earth shall wail because of Him"(Rev.1:7).
When did EVERY EYE see Him come in clouds,Mrs.Dee Dee?
You will not hesitate to twist these plain words that were inspired by the Holy Spirit in order to defend your silly ideas.You only prove that you will not believe the word of God when it is in confict with the teaching that was invented by man.
I believe that you are sincere in your beliefs,but that does not mean that you are correct.The Pharisees were also sincere at the time of the Lord,but they did not believe the word of God,just as you do not believe it.
They followed the doctrines of men,and so do you.
Anyone who would say that the prophecy showing the Lord fighting against the nations that come against Jerusalem is the same event as the destruction of Jerusalem in AD70 only proves that they have no respect for Scripture.You have plenty of faith in the doctrines of men,but none for the Word of God.
And since you are here,will you explain why the first century Christians did not receive their new,glorified bodies when the Lord came in the first century?
Paul told them to be looking to the heavens for His appearing,and he also said that the time was at hand.Well,you say that He did come in the first century.
In that case,the first century Christians should have received their new,glorified bodies.
"For our citizenship is in heaven,from which also we look for the Savior,the Lord Jesus Christ,Who shall change our lowly body,that it may be fahioned like His glorious body...The Lord is at hand"(Phil.3:20,21;4:5).
If the Lord did come in the first century,as you say,then according to Paul they should have recived their glorious bodies.John also said the same thing:
"...but we know that when He shall appear we shall be like Him"(1Jn.3:2).
You say that the Lord came in ther first century.If that is true,why didn´t the first century Christians receive their glorified bodies as Paul and John said they would?
Tell us,Dee Dee,so we can all see how you will not hesitate to twist the words of Scripture in order to make them fit your little silly ideas.And do not run from these things I have brought up like you ran from the parable of the "wheat and tares".
Tell us when EVERY EYE saw Him come in clouds,and tell us why the first century Christians did not receive their glorified bodies.
D
Dee Dee Warren
Guest
Jerry I answered all of those issues in the Battle. I am sorry that you cannot comprehend or see that. And I already said that I am taking a break from substantive posting... what part of that comment is difficult for you to understand? But once I am done, I will see you in the Back Alley. You are again misrepresenting what I said in the Battle. Is it your position or your ego that is so weak that you have to continually misrepresent what I say?? When I dealt with your points, I did not misstate what they are because I have no fear of dealing with them honestly. I do not need to change them to make myself look better. Almost everything you just said, I already gave an answer to which you do not interact with but continually restate your orginal point (as I said before, you never move beyond level one interactions).
I see you continue to defend your twisting of the Psalm 56 to say that I hate God. It doesn't matter what particular point I made that you were refering to, are you standing by your slander that I hate God?? Also, that Psalm both started and ended your post in round 6, it was not limited to one point that I made.
Are you calling me an unbeliever Jerry?? That is what you are insinuating here. Believers don't hate God.
Why must you continually misrepresent what I said? That is not what I said and you most certainly know that. Why can't you debate honestly rather than setting up continual straw men?
I see you continue to defend your twisting of the Psalm 56 to say that I hate God. It doesn't matter what particular point I made that you were refering to, are you standing by your slander that I hate God?? Also, that Psalm both started and ended your post in round 6, it was not limited to one point that I made.
Are you calling me an unbeliever Jerry?? That is what you are insinuating here. Believers don't hate God.
Why must you continually misrepresent what I said? That is not what I said and you most certainly know that. Why can't you debate honestly rather than setting up continual straw men?
Well I am afraid its nothing to brag about.
- Status