The Book of Revelation: Mystery Or Profitable?

[Arial]

The whole thread is still here for the whole world to read, Arial!


Right back at ya!

Hypocrite!

This was an INTENTIONAL LIE!!!


Right back at ya!

Hypocrite!

It's all right here for us to read, Arial! I quote YOUR OWN WORDS and then respond directly to them.


I am not the only one on TOL, Arial. My posting here does not prevent you or anyone else from having whatever conversation they want have completely independent of a word I've said.


That's not my fault! You're the one that got emotional and shut down.


I read every word of the opening post. As I said a moment ago. It was at what seemed to me to be a foundational assumption that I focused my comments on.


If dispensationalism is true then you thesis is false, is it not? In what world does that make dispensationalism irrelevant to the issue?


I've derailed nothing. I responded directly to your own words, Arial. YOU OWN WORDS!!!

If I had tried to bring up a discussion about flat earth theory or whether or not the Nephalim were real or what sort of stone the ten commandments were written on or what bread of dog is best for police work any one of a trillion other possible topics that have nothing to do with what you said then you'd have a point. But that isn't what happened.

Except that I just made an actual argument in support of what I said, so...


"Revelation has been utterly forgotten..." is not a true statement because you showed up here to tell us all.

Even if it were even partially true it most certainly isn't because of dispensationalism! There are dispensationalists that are all but obsessed with anything and everything concerning end times prophesy. They've built whole ministries and careers around that exact subject! Do you remember a book called "The Late Great Planet Earth" by Hal Lindsey? It was the number one selling book of the entire 1970s! Just about the only thing the authors of that book got right, by the way, was that Israel and the Body of Christ are not the same thing (that's an over statement but the point is that I don't endorse the book). The point being that for at least the last 40+ years, Revelation has been anything but "utterly forgotten" and you have dispensationalists to thank for it.



The reason you use the term is because you think it has a negative connotation to it and thus you are making a rhetorical argument which is refuted by simply stating the proper, biblical, phrase which is "rightly divide". The operative words there being "rightly" AND "divide". Meaning that dispensationalist absolutely do divide the word of God and proudly so but not by spurious or arbitrary means.


I will respond to whatever post I desire to respond to in the manner that I have become accustomed to responding. That way being to directly quote what has been said and then to respond directly to what was said.

Clete

Repetitive, off topic, irrelevant, no doubt self defensive, unread. Will not engage.

 

[Arial]

That's the stupidest accusation that I think anyone has ever leveled at me!

If you want to be isolated? Just decide to become an Mid-Acts Dispensational Open Theist.

If you slung 10,000 cats in all the Christian book stores that exist in your whole city, you'd never once get within ten miles of hitting a book written by such a person. I have to travel 850 miles to get to the nearest congregation of like minded Christians.


If there's a remnant, we're it!


Now this I agree with!

People are sheep! They believe what they've been taught and the closest they can come to defending a syllable of it is to quote their pastor or perhaps an isolated sentence in the gospels.

Those of us here on TOL do not have any such mindset or at least that's the way things used to be here and I can 100% guarantee you that there is not one single person, and I mean not even one single person, who accepts my doctrine mindlessly. It just doesn't happen.


It isn't necessary to know their thoughts to know the idiotic stupidity that you attempt to pass off as dispensationalism is a load of made up nonsense that dispensationalists do not teach.


It isn't tooth and nail! You said something on a debate forum that I disagreed with and so I explained why I believe it is wrong. That's the whole idea of being here!


I am not kicking anyone in the teeth! You are the one that responded with anger, not me. Go back and look! I wasn't insulting you. I wasn't being hostile in any manner other than to clearly and rationally refute the ideas you've expressed. You came at me with hostility and insults!


As I've repeatedly told you already, this is not your personal blog site, Arial. I responded to what you said in your opening post. I responded to a point that seemed to me to be foundational to the whole concept your were putting forth. In effect, I saw what seemed to me a place where you took a wrong turn and centered my comments on that issue.

And I've never suggested to anyone that something is true because I say it. Quite the contrary! It isn't practical, or even possible, to establish every single point that is made every time you make it. You have to proceed as though people are able to follow your reasoning to at least some degree. But if that assumption proves false and there is a point I make that you question the veracity of then all that is required is for you to ask me to establish it and then you will find that, unlike most people on this website, I am not only able but quite willing and even eager to do so.


No, Arial, I do not think anyone is an idiot or stupid because they disagree with me. I believe people are stupid because they say demonstrably stupid things. I believe people are liars when they say things that they have no basis to believe are the truth. I believe people are evil when they do or say evil things. Etc.

Some of the longest winded discussions is TOL history have been between me and people who strongly disagree with me. I'm as patient as Moses with people who respond with substance and reason but I do not suffer fools well. People who waste my time with mindless repetition of the same exact points that have already been responded to (which describes much of this post of yours by the way) get under my skin rather quickly and for good reason. Discussion is a two way street and people that waste my time with lunacy or mindlessness don't get treated with kit gloves.


This thread is about a subject that is flawed from its foundations because it fails to rightly divide the word of truth. If you wish to ignore that issue then do so but just as saying something doesn't make it so, ignoring an argument doesn't count as a refutation.

Clete

More self defense, insult, off topic, unread. Will not engage.

 

[glorydaz]

I see the determining factor for you as to what is true or not true, who you will follow, what you will believe, is the numbers. The largest number who believe a things means that is the right thing. Never mind God's deep attachment to remnants, or that more sheep blindly follow the crowd than those who follow Jesus. One of the main reasons all the boxes you present above fall into the same category is because that is pretty much all that is taught, all people hear, and always presented without any other view being presented or examined, as though it were an absolute. A great many of those people would not have even heard the word dispensationalism or covenant theology, they just follow along, believe what they hear, and could care less anyway. It has a lot to do really with all those books in the Christian book store.

Well I am impressed. You know the thoughts and beliefs of every single solitary dispensationalist! But, let's suppose what you say is true------Then why do you feel the need to fight about it tooth and nail? Why is it you have this need to make everything about what you believe, and kick people in the teeth for not believing what you do? Not even give them room to have their own beliefs or speak about them, without you coming in to rip everything they say to shreds, by changing the subject, as thought just because you say something, that makes it so. Or that if you believe something that equals truth automatically, and everyone who doesn't get into that box with you is an idiot, knows nothing, doesn't think, can't read, is stupid.

There you go again. There is a new thread titled something on the lines of : Paul, Peter, James and John and the Two Gospels" This, and all future post on that subject belongs in that thread. This one is titled "Revelation: Mystery or Profitable".

What I'm seeing here is the pot calling the kettle black.

 

[glorydaz]

You assume that what you believe is truth and anything that disagrees with what you believe is not truth. Pretty arrogant.

Oops, pot calling the kettle black again.

 

[glorydaz]

Peter preached the death, burial, and resurrection of the Lord Jesus Christ.

Then Paul wasn't talking about Peter, was he?

 

[glorydaz]

What I have learned from your branch of dispensationalism I learned from the things you and also Glorydaz, have said. And I know what I say touches neither one of you. Nothing in opposition to your beliefs does. It is called refusing to listen because you refuse to entertain the thought that you don't already know everything, that you could be mistaken, that there are different ways of seeing scriptures that have legitimacy and therefore extending grace to your brothers and sisters in Christ, rather than simply throwing rubbish all over them. It is called refusing to learn, thinking you have nothing else to learn. Stagnation in other words.

It's odd how you can't see this is exactly what you are doing, Arial. "It's called refusing to learn..."

Grace?
Why, pray tell, would I want to learn from a Calvinist, when I know they are teaching false doctrine.
Why would I want to learn from a Mormon when I know they preach false doctrine.

You're free to present your theories, but others have the obligation to counter your theories with the scripture. And, contrary to your claims, scripture is being shown you. You simply refuse to entertain the thought that you have a lot to learn.

 

[Arial]

@Idolater
Here is a video on 666 from the futurist/amillennialist POV you might find interesting. It certainly is beautiful.

 

[Arial]

It's odd how you can't see this is exactly what you are doing, Arial. "It's called refusing to learn..."

Grace?
Why, pray tell, would I want to learn from a Calvinist, when I know they are teaching false doctrine.
Why would I want to learn from a Mormon when I know they preach false doctrine.

You're free to present your theories, but others have the obligation to counter your theories with the scripture. And, contrary to your claims, scripture is being shown you. You simply refuse to entertain the thought that you have a lot to learn.

I am done engaging with this type of posting.

 

[Arial]

Oops, pot calling the kettle black again.

Grow up. Then come back and see if you can have a discussion. I am not having anymore of this. Life is too short and too precious, to fill it with this type of dribble that holds not a speck of glory for God in it, shows not a speck of love for Christ or the love of Him.

 

[Arial]

What I'm seeing here is the pot calling the kettle black.

You already said that. What you have failed to do is read any of what I have posted on the futurist/amillennialist view point of Revelation and actually say anything about that. If you can find the courage and scriptural support for whatever you have to say about it, you will need to do so, then we can discuss that. Otherwise stop wasting my time and yours.

 

[Arial]

What Nero did to the Church on the earth is not repeatable.

Not exactly in detail but there have been times where it has been much worse and will be again no doubt. We see the whispers of it growing louder even today in our political and government system, which is what it is all about. The devil seeking worship. But look at the dark ages. Look at the Reformation period. The inquisition. All those periods of martyrs killed for their faith. Even today there are Christians being slaughtered for their beliefs.

 

[glorydaz]

I am done engaging with this type of posting.

Then maybe you should quit making that type of posting.

You claim I do certain things but I have no right to respond.
Cool That's a great way to show your grace.

 

[glorydaz]

Grow up. Then come back and see if you can have a discussion. I am not having anymore of this. Life is too short and too precious, to fill it with this type of dribble that holds not a speck of glory for God in it, shows not a speck of love for Christ or the love of Him.

Oh, so you refuse to have your hypocrisy pointed out to you? I can certainly understand that.

 

[glorydaz]

You already said that. What you have failed to do is read any of what I have posted on the futurist/amillennialist view point of Revelation and actually say anything about that. If you can find the courage and scriptural support for whatever you have to say about it, you will need to do so, then we can discuss that. Otherwise stop wasting my time and yours.

Ah, so the topic has switched again.
I was amillennial at one point in time, but I certainly wouldn't want to waste your time with my trivial comments concerning my findings.

Believe it or not, I was once unaware that Jesus only came for the lost sheep of Israel.
Again, off topic, I'm sure! But, I am wondering what your comment would be on that.
A long-drawn out recitation, perhaps, on the oneness of all men?

Matthew 15:24
But he answered and said, I am not sent but unto the lost sheep of the house of Israel.

 

[glorydaz]

Not exactly in detail but there have been times where it has been much worse and will be again no doubt. We see the whispers of it growing louder even today in our political and government system, which is what it is all about. The devil seeking worship. But look at the dark ages. Look at the Reformation period. The inquisition. All those periods of martyrs killed for their faith. Even today there are Christians being slaughtered for their beliefs.

Revelation shows the final days, and it is like nothing ever before.
I'm thankful that I won't be here to see it.

It says very clearly what God is going to do, and that is like never before.

It seems like a real waste of time to talk about the Reformation period as if there could possibly be any comparison to the end days portrayed in the book of Revelation.

 

[chrysostom]

Not exactly in detail but there have been times where it has been much worse and will be again no doubt.

Yes

 

[Tambora]

Then Paul wasn't talking about Peter, was he?

In my opinion, no, because Peter was not preaching a different gospel than what Paul was preaching.

Since Peter had already agreed at their meeting in Jerusalem that circumcision was not needed for salvation, then Peter could not be preaching works of the law for salvation because one must keep the whole law (which included circumcision) or be guilty of the whole law.

At the Jerusalem meeting Peter says:

Acts 15:5-11 ESV​

(5) But some believers who belonged to the party of the Pharisees rose up and said, “It is necessary to circumcise them and to order them to keep the law of Moses.”​

(6) The apostles and the elders were gathered together to consider this matter.​

Some believers to the part of the Pharisees thought circumcision (and keeping the whole law) was still necessary.
So it was debated among them along with Peter and Paul.

continued:​

​

​

(7) And after there had been much debate, Peter stood up and said to them, “Brothers, you know that in the early days God made a choice among you, that by my mouth the Gentiles should hear the word of the gospel and believe.​

(8) And God, who knows the heart, bore witness to them, by giving them the Holy Spirit just as he did to us,​

(9) and he made no distinction between us and them, having cleansed their hearts by faith.​

(10) Now, therefore, why are you putting God to the test by placing a yoke on the neck of the disciples that neither our fathers nor we have been able to bear?​

(11) But we believe that we will be saved through the grace of the Lord Jesus, just as they will.”​

One would have to admit that at least from that time forward Peter did not teach works of the law were necessary for salvation.

 

[Idolater]

Not exactly in detail but there have been times where it has been much worse and will be again no doubt.

No. It's impossible. Because the Apostles aren't here anymore. It can't be worse than losing Peter and Paul within a year of each other, if that's what actually happened. They had to die sometime of course, but to go by execution, within a year of each other, was as close to a fatal blow that the Devil could have delivered to that first generation, original Body of Christ.

We see the whispers of it growing louder even today in our political and government system, which is what it is all about. The devil seeking worship. But look at the dark ages. Look at the Reformation period. The inquisition. All those periods of martyrs killed for their faith. Even today there are Christians being slaughtered for their beliefs.

Yes but none of them are Apostles. The Church doesn't depend upon anyone like how she depended upon the Apostles during her infancy. They were administering the Great Commission. Establishing the Church on earth for all time.

It just can't happen again. If I had to try to imagine a parallel atrocity that could be perpetrated against the Church today, it would have to somehow involve destroying all copies of the Bible, or every single Christian, or some combination of both.

It was a singular event, that year in or around 65 or 66 or whenever it was when Peter and Paul were executed.

====
The only reason I'm pressing here is because your theory depends upon 666 specifically not referring to only Nero, and instead to a kind of 'office' that might have been 'held' once by Nero, but that will be 'held' in the future by at least one more individual human being. If 666 only means Nero, then that conflicts with your view.

 

[Right Divider]

I do read scripture carefully.
And you can underline "unto you" all you want, but it does not negate the fact that one person could hear both Peter and Paul preach.

And I will continue to emphasize what Paul emphasizes. There is clearly a reason why Paul repeatedly emphasizes the target audience.

In TWO verses Paul mentioned the target audience FOUR times!

I mean, come on, it's not like Paul would ask everyone in the crowd to raise their hands if they were a Jew and then say "Sorry, I can't preach to you because you are the circumcision".
Likewise, it's not as if Peter would do the same and ask those in crowd to raise their hands if they were Gentile and say "Sorry, I can't preach to you because you are not the circumcision".

Here's the scenario ......

One hears Peter preaching the gospel he preaches in the town square.
Should he trust that the gospel Peter is preaching is truth?

Now Paul comes to town and the same one hears him preach the gospel he preaches in the town square.
Should he now declare Peter accursed for the gospel he preaches?

So you think that you've found a loophole against what Paul repeatedly emphasizes? No, you have not.

 

[Right Divider]

The 'him' in "let him be accursed" would be Peter in the scenario I presented.

Paul even says that PAUL should be accursed if he does that.

Gal 1:8 (AKJV/PCE)
(1:8) But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed.