BATTLE TALK - Battle Royale III ~ Dee Dee vs. Jerry

[Explosived]

Matthew 24 is a tough place to start. This chapter is probably the 4th most difficult passage in the Bible.

A proper interpretation of (Matt. 24) will have to be arrived at in the light of the preceding 3 verses

Matthew 23
37 O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, thou that killest the prophets, and stonest them which are sent unto thee, how often would I have gathered thy children together, even as a hen gathereth her chickens under her wings, and ye would not!
38 Behold, your house is left unto you desolate.
39 For I say unto you, Ye shall not see me henceforth, till ye shall say, Blessed is he that cometh in the name of the Lord.

Notice! the subject is Jerusalem, the house is left desolate, because the Builder of the House is deserting it (Hos. 3:1-6) and He will not return until the restoration and conversion of Israel.



Hosea 3
1 Then said the LORD unto me, Go yet, love a woman beloved of her friend, yet an adulteress, according to the love of the LORD toward the children of Israel, who look to other gods, and love flagons of wine.
2 So I bought her to me for fifteen pieces of silver, and for an homer of barley, and an half homer of barley:
3 And I said unto her, Thou shalt abide for me many days; thou shalt not play the harlot, and thou shalt not be for another man: so will I also be for thee.
4 For the children of Israel shall abide many days without a king, and without a prince, and without a sacrifice, and without an image, and without an ephod, and without teraphim:
5 Afterward shall the children of Israel return, and seek the LORD their God, and David their king; and shall fear the LORD and his goodness in the latter days.

 

[rapt]

Jerry Shugart:

Dee Dee seems to think that these words of the Lord were only figurative,perhaps she will consider the fact that John actually saw visions of these so-called "figurative" words.

Are we to suppose that the things John saw in vision were literal? John also saw a seven headed, ten crowned beast having names of blasphemy on it's heads, that saddled a woman who made ALL nations drunken with the wine of the wrath of her fornication from that same cup, didn't he?

Which wilderness can we go see this sight and get a picture of it, Jerry? Is the beast and it's harlot rider in Irac? In the Sahara? Why didn't John get specific about WHICH wilderness these strange two would be trapsing around in, so that we could go check out the validity of his vision? :doh:

Such an interpretation of Revelation also leaves one to believe that there's a bottomless pit somewhere, in which the Devil is to (according to futurism, "someday") reside, bound with a "great chain". Now I wonder what metal such a chain might be made of, if a metal at all, and since when has any literal chain been able to hold satan to begin with? If we can't "draw out Leviathan with an hook", how could he then be bound with a chain? If he's a spirit, since when have spirits been bound with LITERAL chains?

I also find it pretty hard to imagine an intended literal interpretation of the things spoken of in Rev 16 (like frogs leaping out of the mouths of the dragon, the beast, and the false prophet), or in Rev 9:1-11 (of locusts having faces like men and hair like women, and stings in their tails like scorpions, that have power to torment men five months). And what about the 70 Weeks prophecy of Daniel 9? Were those "weeks" to be understood as literal weeks? Even futurists know better than that! (so they don't take the bible "literally" everywhere possible, do they?) And when John said he was taken to heaven in Rev. 4, do futurists take that to literally mean John? Don't they rather do violence to the text, and try to arbitrarily "spiritualize" (if such twisting could at all be called that to begin with) that event, and force their unscripural "pretrib rapture" doctrine into it, claiming that John's ascension means the entire church is raptured before a supposed future great tribulation?

The carnal mind of men, not being subject to the interpretation of the Spirit, and being the ENEMY of God, will stretch it's imagination to make a scripture say ANYTHING other than what was intended!

 

[Yxboom]

[COLOR= crimson] rapt :[/COLOR] Such an interpretation of Revelation also leaves one to believe that there's a bottomless pit somewhere,

You obviously haven’t been to the Hollow Earth thread

 

[rapt]

Dee Dee,

I see you did quite a thorough job explaining "generation" to mean not "race" but rather only those Jews of that time. Good work! Matthew 23 does a great job explaining the next chapter, doesn't it?

Context, context, context!

 

[rapt]

Where's the Hollow Earth thread, Yxboom? What's it about?

 

[Revelation717]

It's heating up for a good one!

Reading the posts so far I was actually starting to think Jerry was arguing FOR Dee Dee.

It seems to be in Dee Dee's favor now:
- Jerry has already agreed that most of the prophecy happened in 70 AD
- His "generation" theory went over like a one legged ballerina (good thing it was early in the post, most of us will forget by page 4)

I would like to see how they discern the passages which speak of the Jesus' coming.

 

[Dee Dee Warren]

Dear Rapt:

Are we to suppose that the things John saw in vision were literal?

Hey!!!! Are you trying to steal my thunder!!!

 

[Dee Dee Warren]

Dear Rev717:

I would like to see how they discern the passages which speak of the Jesus' coming.

If this does not get addressed in this debate... track me down afterwards, and I would love to let you know. But here is one hint... and I am sure you know this already, even futurists concede that every place in the Scripture speaking of Christ "coming" does not have to refer to the Second Coming.

 

[Dee Dee Warren]

Dear YxBoom:

Yeah, I didn't think about that too.... hmmm, that must be because I am just too unintelligent. You see, the intelligent people simply just need to post that anyone who disagrees with them is just stupid and does not need to support their position. It is the really dumb people like me that think they actually need to defend their position in addition to calling the opposition names :shocked:

 

[rapt]

You see, the intelligent people simply just need to post that anyone who disagrees with them is just stupid and does not need to support their position. It is the really dumb people like me that think they actually need to defend their position...

Sound familiar, Mike?

We must be in the really DUMB class, huh?

Hey!!!! Are you trying to steal my thunder!!!

Steal? Hey, I'm SUPPORTING you, sista! You shoulda said "I KNEW THAT!" I realize you're saving that bomb for the proper moment!

 

[Jerry Shugart]

Revelation717,

I really cannot understand your logic.

You think that the Lord Jesus was telling these men that they would remain alive to see all the events that He described come to pass.

But how is that possible?

The Lord Jesus admitted that He did not know WHEN these things would happen.

Do you think that He was just making an educated GUESS?

And you must not be paying much attention because you say that you would like to see how they discern the passages that speak of Jesus´coming.

But haven´t you noticed that I have pointed out that at His coming that He would destroy the armies that came against Jerusalem.And are you not aware that that did NOT happen in AD 70?And did you notice that Dee Dee did not even attempt to answer this little hole in her argument?

I also pointed out that the Lord Jesus told Jerusalem that she would not see Him again until she says,"Blessed is He that cometh in the name of the Lord"(Mt.23:39)? Do you think that Jerusalem repented and said those words before the destruction of Jerusalem in AD70?

If you do,you are as misguided as Dee Dee is.It did not happen and it hasn´t happened yet.

Despite all the evidence that the destruction of Jerusalem in AD 70 does not match the words of Scripture which describe His coming,you have the temerity to declare that this debate seems to be in Dee Dee´s favor!

Please explain why you believe that the Lord Jesus would tell these men that they would live to see all these events take place,but at the same time He admitted that even He did not knowwhen these things would take place.

I await your answer.

In HIs grace,--Jerry

 

[Jerry Shugart]

rapt,

You are quite correct that we cannot take all the things written in the Scriptures literally.But we can see that in some instances that some events can ONLY be taken literally.

For example,there can be no doubt that the Lord Jesus was describing the "signs" that would precede His coming.And in this case we can understand that a "sign" is something that the Apostles would expect to SEE.

That is clearly indicated by the warning expressed by the Lord Jesus Himself.He said,"Take heed,WATCH and pray"(Mk.13:33).

And that is especially true in regard to WATCHING for His coming.He expressly says that "all of the tribes of the earth...shall SEE the Son of Man coming in the clouds of heaven with power and great glory"(Mt.24:30).

And we know that His words "shall SEE" were NOT meant in a figurative sense,because He said,"WATCH,therefore,for ye know not when the Master of the house cometh..."(Mk.13:35).

By the Lord´s own words we can see that the "signs" were something that would be SEEN.These signs were not just some figurative expressions that could not be seen,as you and Dee Dee seem to think.

And this also holds true for the signs in the sky.The Lord describes events that will take place immediately after the great tribulation,saying that the sun shall be darkened and the moon shall not give its light,and the stars shall fall from heaven.

And we know that He meant that these things would be seen,because He said,"So likewise ye,when ye shall SEE ALL THESE THINGS,know that it is near,even at the doors"(Mt.24:33).

Notice the words,rapt--SEE ALL THESE THINGS.He does not say SEE SOME OF THESE THINGS,but instead SEE ALL OF THESE THINGS.

But by your comments it is clear that you do not believe that anyone was ever to SEE these things that the Lord described,even though He Himself said that ALL the things He described would be seen.

In His grace,--Jerry

 

[Dee Dee Warren]

Dear Jerry:

I am glad to see you here but.............. no offense, but we are not supposed to be debating the issue here or with anyone else but each other on the designated thread for that. I have been in here making small talk and jabbering back and forth but I have NOT made long detailed accusations about you dodging points NOR have I debated the people here about their views. That is highly inappropriate and I would appreciate it if you would desist.

If you can't beat me there, you can't just bop over here and get in extra substantive posts. You should know better than that. If you want to come here and trash talk, beautiful.... but this other stuff has got to stop and I am formally asking you to get back and edit out of your two prior posts here the substantive debating you are engaging in.

 

[rapt]

You're right, Dee Dee; I really didn't expect Jerry to come to this string and try to debate me or anyone else on the same things he's debating you on. Is it appropriate for me to start another string elsewhere to do so at this time, or not? I have a post ready to refute Jerry's claims at this minute.

 

[Dee Dee Warren]

Dear Rapt:

If you don't mind, could you possibly start another thread after this Battle is over?? I think that is the most appropriate and fair to everyone involved. Thank you so much!!! :kiss:

 

[rapt]

Dear Rapt:

If you don't mind, could you possibly start another thread after this Battle is over?? I think that is the most appropriate and fair to everyone involved. Thank you so much!!!

No, I don't mind at all, Dee Dee! I think that's fair. Maybe it's in the rules of the debate anyway. If it's not, maybe it should be. If it is, I'm sorry I wasn't aware of it.

 

[Dee Dee Warren]

Dear Rapt:

Thanx!!! Its not in the "official" rules, but geez, its just common sense and courtesy don't you think??

 

[Jerry Shugart]

Dee Dee,

Is your previous statement---"Wow,someone can win a round by totally ignoring the other person´s point..."--an example of your idea of the meaning of "courtesy"?

I was not aware of any rules which prohibit me from stating my opinion.If there are,I apologize.

Perhaps it would be appropriate if we both refrained from making any comments on this thread.

In His grace,--Jerry

 

[cirisme]

I don't see any rules that state the combatants can't debate on this thread, and I don't see anything wrong with it...

 

[Dee Dee Warren]

Dear Jerry:

Comments like the ones that I made are perfectly appropriate, and I encourage you to make similar comments. They are nothing substantive and are perfectly within the spirit that Knight said these Battles are done in. Unless Knight says otherwise, I will continue to post conversational banter and trash talk here.

Your posts were of an entirely different character and were totally inappropriate. Instead of trying to justify that behavior which violates common sense and completely ignores any sense of fair play, you should just promptly go and edit out those comments. THEN, if you think NO comments of any nature should not be posted here by either of us, I suggest you take it up with Knight.

If I decided to just go and post and debate the issue with you here there would be no purpose to the other Thread or to the Battle Royale at all.