Comment On Current Debate

[Invicta]

Learnt to read, was too good. I had to give you a like for that. I was laughing till they could hear me outside. That is a very common saying among mountain people. Thanks again for a good laugh. 

I'll reply later after church. I need to clean up and eat a bite. 

 

 

Sorry I went a bit too far, but you seem to misquote us and ignore the scripture.

[MountainChristian]

Luke 21:20 ¶  And when ye shall see Jerusalem compassed with armies, then know that the desolation thereof is nigh. 21  Then let them which are in Judaea flee to the mountains; and let them which are in the midst of it depart out; and let not them that are in the countries enter thereinto. 22  For these be the days of vengeance, that all things which are written may be fulfilled. 

In 69AD Christians did flee. In 70AD the city was destroyed. The Temple burnt. 

Daniel 9:27 And he shall confirm the covenant with many for one week: and in the midst of the week he shall cause the sacrifice and the oblation to cease, and for the overspreading of abominations he shall make it desolate, even until the consummation, and that determined shall be poured upon the desolate.     

until the consummation (consummation means end) elements 70AD because the end of time never came.

Do you not see the 70th week being the last 7 years of time?

[MountainChristian]

Daniel 9:27 And he shall confirm the covenant with many for one week

This covenant is limited to one week or 7 years.

Heb 13:20 Now the God of peace, that brought again from the dead our Lord Jesus, that great shepherd of the sheep, through the blood of the everlasting covenant,

Jesus' covenant is everlasting. So the "he" in v27 isn't Jesus. 

[Genevanpreacher]

Daniel 9:27 And he shall confirm the covenant with many for one week

This covenant is limited to one week or 7 years.

Heb 13:20 Now the God of peace, that brought again from the dead our Lord Jesus, that great shepherd of the sheep, through the blood of the everlasting covenant,

Jesus' covenant is everlasting. So the "he" in v27 isn't Jesus. 

Have you ever had a confirmation of anything? Like an Ebay order or dinner reservation or a 'fact' you have been studying about?

Confirming something with someone does not necessitate anything negative in these verses but it does mean what it says. Those that receive this covenant will get a confirmation by fulfillment. Covenanter and Invicta have answered the timing many times on what the 7 years are.

Reread their posts and you have your answer.

However the 'consummation' (you termed 'end'.) you are so worried about, happened when Jerusalem was destroyed and made desolate. Jerusalem was emptied of it's resident people. Jerusalem ended for many generations.

It was never talking about the end of time.

Edited July 2, 2015 by Genevanpreacher

[Invicta]

Have you ever had a confirmation of anything? Like an Ebay order or dinner reservation or a 'fact' you have been studying about?

Confirming something with someone does not necessitate anything negative in these verses but it does mean what it says. Those that receive this covenant will get a confirmation by fulfillment. Covenanter and Invicta have answered the timing many times on what the 7 years are.

Reread their posts and you have your answer.

However the 'consummation' (you termed 'end'.) you are so worried about, happened when Jerusalem was destroyed and made desolate. Jerusalem was emptied of it's resident people. Jerusalem ended for many generationsIt was never talking about the end of time.

The temple area was levelled, and Zion was ploughed like a field.  Before that, those who had previously worn the priestly vestments vestments were thrown naked into the streets and trampled upon.   Every high priest including those who opposed the church in the beginning of acts, Annas and Caiaphas (The same ones who opposed Jesus at the beginning of his ministry and  at the crucifixion. ) until the sacrifice ceased, was killed.

Matt 23:30  And say, If we had been in the days of our fathers, we would not have been partakers with them in the blood of the prophets. 31  Wherefore ye be witnesses unto yourselves, that ye are the children of them which killed the prophets. 32  Fill ye up then the measure of your fathers. 33  Ye serpents, ye generation of vipers, how can ye escape the damnation of hell?

Remember Jesus said that to the Jewish leaders and priests. They did fill up the measure of their fathers.  He then added:

Matt 23:36  Verily I say unto you, All these things shall come upon this generation.

 The daily sacrifice ceased because there were no priests left to offer it.  

Luke tells us that these were the days of vengeance that all may be fulfilled.Luke 21. Isaiah 61:1 ¶  The Spirit of the Lord GOD is upon me; because the LORD hath anointed me to preach good tidings unto the meek; he hath sent me to bind up the brokenhearted, to proclaim liberty to the captives, and the opening of the prison to them that are bound; 2  To proclaim the acceptable year of the LORD, and the day of vengeance of our God;  Remember Jesus began the quote in Luke 4.at the beginning of his ministry, he completed it in Luke 21 at the end of His earthly ministry. The first part was fulfilled at the beginning of his ministry.  The last part was fulfilled during that generation.

[Covenanter]

Surely in any other context you would understand "the covenant" as referring to God's covenant relationship with his people Israel.

Confirming the covenant would be the work of God, not an enemy of Israel. 

See e.g. the prophecy of Zechariah in Luke 1:68-79 

 

[Genevanpreacher]

Okay - so Covenanter the proven liar and false teacher is allowed IN THE DEBATE  to accuse Brother Scott of falsifying God's promises...

That is not in the spirit either Brother. Proven by what theory? Your's?

Having a differing view on Biblical beliefs is not being a liar nor a false teacher. Now if Jesus was being termed an alien from the planet Venus or something, that's a different thing, but prophecy disagreements?

(*chuckle*)

[Pastor Scott Markle]

[Alimantado]

I meant to say something about this but I forgot. Brother Markle, do you happen to have a ballpark figure for the number of days--or months--between you asking Covenantor the question that accompanied this one and you actually getting an answer to it? I'd just like to know when to check back next.

Brother Carl,

I was just thinking earlier this week that it was about time for me to respond unto Brother Day's non-response toward my question.  Now that I have time to do so, the following is that response.

 

Brother Day,

I wish to thank you for answering my question.

However, before I set my focus upon this matter, I wish to maintain my focus upon the question that I have twice asked of you already --

Do Genesis 22:18; 26:4; 28:14 say that a plural number of God's blessings are for all the families and nations of the earth?

Would you please answer this question?

As all can observe, the above was the third time that I had asked the above question of Brother Day.  I asked that question for that third time on June 11, 2015.  It is now July 3, a full 22 days later.  Yet Brother Day has completely neglected to answer my question.  He has engaged with others in this thread and in other threads.  Therefore, I do not believe that the problem is a lack of time on his part.  

My question was originally presented against an assertion that Brother Day had made in the discussion-debate thread, as follows:

[Brother Ian Day]

Scripture makes it very clear that God's blessings are for all the nations of the earth Gen. 22:18, repeated to Isaac Gen. 26:4 & Jacob Gen. 28:14 . . .

In response to that statement, I posed two basic questions; and the second of those questions was as follows:

[Pastor Scott Markle]

Do Genesis 22:18; 26:4; 28:14 say that a plural number of God's blessings are for all the families and nations of the earth?

In fact, I have now presented this question to Brother Day three times, once in the discussion-debate thread and twice in this thread.  (I also presented this question to Brother "Genevanpreacher" in this thread; but he declined to answer the question, deferring to Brother Day since the question was originally posed to him.)  Furthermore, as I have noted above, I have also granted Brother Day a sufficient and significant amount of time to provide an answer.  Yet no answer has been given.

Now, when a question is asked of an individual, that individual has three basic options -- (1) to express his answer to the question, (2) to express his inability to answer the question, or (3) to express his unwillingness to answer the question.  Since my above question is a basic "yes-or-no" question, I am not led to believe that the problem is a lack of ability to answer the question.  Rather, I am led to believe that Brother Day is unwilling to answer my question.  Furthermore, I presently believe that Brother Day is unwilling to answer my question so that he might not have to incriminate himself and acknowledge the error in his original assertion.

(Note:  With this on the record, I am now prepared to proceed with the element of discussion upon which Brother Day desired to set our focus as presented here.)

Edited July 3, 2015 by Pastor Scott Markle

[Covenanter]

I was just thinking earlier this week that it was about time for me to respond unto Brother Day's non-response toward my question.  Now that I have time to do so, the following is that response.

 

 

As all can observe, the above was the third time that I had asked the above question of Brother Day.  I asked that question for that third time on June 11, 2015.  It is now July 3, a full 22 days later.  Yet Brother Day has completely neglected to answer my question.  He has engaged with others in this thread and in other threads.  Therefore, I do not believe that the problem is a lack of time on his part.  

My question was originally presented against an assertion that Brother Day had made in the discussion-debate thread, as follows:

In response to that statement, I posed two basic questions; and the second of those questions was as follows:

In fact, I have now presented this question to Brother Day three times, once in the discussion-debate thread and twice in this thread.  (I also presented this question to Brother "Genevanpreacher" in this thread; but he declined to answer the question, deferring to Brother Day since the question was originally posed to him.)  Furthermore, as I have noted above, I have also granted Brother Day a sufficient and significant amount of time to provide an answer.  Yet no answer has been given.

Now, when a question is asked of an individual, that individual has three basic options -- (1) to express his answer to the question, (2) to express his inability to answer the question, or (3) to express his unwillingness to answer the question.  Since my above question is a basic "yes-or-no" question, I am not led to believe that the problem is a lack of ability to answer the question.  Rather, I am led to believe that Brother Day is unwilling to answer my question.  Furthermore, I presently believe that Brother Day is unwilling to answer my question so that he might not have to incriminate himself and acknowledge the error in his original assertion.

(Note:  With this on the record, I am now prepared to proceed with the element of discussion upon which Brother Day desired to set our focus as presented here.)

I admire your candour in admitting your question was in the spirit of Luke 20:20  Mark 12:13 Matthew 22:15 

It's a foolish question. When God declared his intention to each Patriarch of blessing all families and nations on earth in his seed, (singular, Christ) will he just deliver one blessing? 

It's in the passive mode - "all the families of the earth be blessed." Are the promised blessings (yes, plural) in Christ to be limited by your understanding of grammar? 

I suggest you read Ephesians 1 for what "be blessed" meant and means. 

I don't think devious questions belong in a Scriptural discussion. 

 

 

[Genevanpreacher]

Yes Ian, focusing on silly questions seems to be characteristic of confusion.

[Alan]

Brethren,

Pastor Markles questions on this thread, and in the Daniel 9:24-27debating thread, are neither devious, silly, nor confusing. Pastor Markle's questions make perfect sense, worthy of consideration and worthy of an answer. Because Pastor Markle has adequately presented the correct doctrinal interpretation of Daniel 9:24-27, and also in the subjects in this thread, he is being maligned and belittled. 

Furthermore, I am very close friends of Pastor Markle's fellow pastors near Melvin, Michigan. And, we have met briefly a couple of times in years past ( in fellowship meetings in Michigan). Based upon my knowledge of his personal testimony among close pastoral friends, and of my knowledge of his personal and ministerial life: Pastor Markle is a very thoughtful, considerate, very knowledgeable in the scriptures and a man of God and should be publicly respected as such.

One of the marks of a false teacher, a Christian walking in the flesh, and a person with an unclean mind, is the willingness to malign a man of God in the ministry and men in position of authority. "Against an elder receive not an accusation, but before two or three witnesses." 1 Timothy 5:19   The accusation that Pastor Markle is devious, silly, or confusing, and the other malicious accusations by brethren in this forum is against the direct will of God. 

Again, may I direct our attention to 2 Peter 2. "But chiefly them that walk after the flesh in the lust of uncleanness, and despise government. Presumptous are they, self-willed, that are not afraid to speak evil of dignities." 2 Peter 2:11

 

 

Edited July 4, 2015 by Alan
spelling

[Covenanter]

Alan, what do you think is the purpose of Bro Scott's question? How does my "yes" answer incriminate me? (Or would a "no" answer incriminate me?)  And was he treating me with proper respect in his last post? 

Did the Scribes treat the Lord Jesus with proper respect when they asked questions intended to incriminate him? 

 

 

[Genevanpreacher]

Brethren,

Pastor Markles questions on this thread, and in the Daniel 9:24-27debating thread, are neither devious, silly, nor confusing. Pastor Markle's questions make perfect sense, worthy of consideration and worthy of an answer. Because Pastor Markle has adequately presented the correct doctrinal interpretation of Daniel 9:24-27, and also in the subjects in this thread, he is being maligned and belittled. 

Furthermore, I am very close friends of Pastor Markle's fellow pastors near Melvin, Michigan. And, we have met briefly a couple of times in years past ( in fellowship meetings in Michigan). Based upon my knowledge of his personal testimony among close pastoral friends, and of my knowledge of his personal and ministerial life: Pastor Markle is a very thoughtful, considerate, very knowledgeable in the scriptures and a man of God and should be publicly respected as such.

One of the marks of a false teacher, a Christian walking in the flesh, and a person with an unclean mind, is the willingness to malign a man of God in the ministry and men in position of authority. "Against an elder receive not an accusation, but before two or three witnesses." 1 Timothy 5:19   The accusation that Pastor Markle is devious, silly, or confusing, and the other malicious accusations by brethren in this forum is against the direct will of God. 

Again, may I direct our attention to 2 Peter 2. "But chiefly them that walk after the flesh in the lust of uncleanness, and despise government. Presumptous are they, self-willed, that are not afraid to speak evil of dignities." 2 Peter 2:11

Just so I don't misquote you Alan I quote your whole post.

Question: Is this not a forum? Is this 'church'? I assemble in a different area of the country than most here, am I to treat each 'man of God' as if they were my elders?

C'mon Alan, this is a place to talk and discuss, and sometimes get on each others nerves in our differences of 'scriptural interpretation', of which, it seems, there is no such thing as 'believing all the same'.

Any disrespect shown to a 'man of God' on this forum has been subject to disrespect being shown first or in return. I too am a 'man of God', been preaching now for 25 years, having witnessed to hundreds of lost people in door to door over the years, and have studied the word of God for 28 years as a born again child of the Lord Jesus Christ.

When does the respect start? Why do you and Bro. Scott treat me as a 'ignorant' ol' confused man?

You are 62? You are older than me. I am 50. That makes me 7 years older than Scott.

Why does he get all the respect from you?

I have found that the reason we don't respect each other has nothing at all to do with age, but scriptural beliefs.

So, it's not a personal thing, but based upon how much 'hooey' we think we know.

And, no, I won't show respect for someone who, in my opinion, teaches the scriptures wrong. And I expect the same thing will be shown from you and Bro. Scott.

Edited July 4, 2015 by Genevanpreacher

[Pastor Scott Markle]

I admire your candour in admitting your question was in the spirit of Luke 20:20  Mark 12:13 Matthew 22:15 

Brother Day,

First, by your above rebuke were you seeking to imply that you view yourself as standing in the position of the Lord Jesus Christ and that you view me as standing in the position of the chief priests and scribes and Pharisees.

Second, from the beginning we have been engaged in a debate with one another.  Now, by definition a debate is engaged by two individuals who possess points of disagreement and dispute in their respective positions.  Furthermore, by definition the participants of a debate will engage in a defense of their own respective positions against the other and will engage in seeking to "catch the other in his words" (especially in contradiction to God's Holy Word) in order to reveal the error of the other's position.  Certainly, I am willing to acknowledge that I have engaged in the debate with this very spirit of debate.  I just wonder if you are now willing to acknowledge that you have engaged in the debate with this same spirit of debate?

It's a foolish question. When God declared his intention to each Patriarch of blessing all families and nations on earth in his seed, (singular, Christ) will he just deliver one blessing?

It was not a foolish question at all.  Rather, it was a confrontational question, specifically intended to help reveal the error of your assertion.  As far as your question, I choose not to assume what God will or will not do.  Rather, I choose to examine what God Himself has declared in His Holy Word that He will or will not do.

It's in the passive mode - "all the families of the earth be blessed." 

Yes, indeed, the verb "be blessed" is "in the passive mode," which grammatically indicates that someone or something other than the subject of the sentence is performing the action of the verb.  In this context the Lord God would be the One performing the action of the verb "to bless," and the subject of the sentence, "all the families of the earth," would be those who are being blessed by the Lord God.  However, none of this indicates the number of blessings by which the Lord God shall so bless "all the families of the earth."  Your word "blessings," which you employed in your statement concerning  Genesis 22:18; 26:4; 28:14 in the place of the Biblical verb "be blessed," is grammatically a plural noun, and is not a verb at all.  In fact, the noun "blessing," either in its singular form or in its plural form, is not found in any one of the verses under question (that is --  Genesis 22:18; 26:4; 28:14).  As such, with your assertion you assumed that the Lord God's work of blessing would include a plural number of blessings.  However, the verses that you used to claim that your assertion was Biblically "clear" (that is --  Genesis 22:18; 26:4; 28:14) actually say nothing of the kind.  Certainly, other passages of Scripture may teach this; but you did not use those other passages of Scripture in your original declaration.

Are the promised blessings (yes, plural) in Christ to be limited by your understanding of grammar? 

No, the promised blessings of the Lord God in Christ are not at all to be limited by my understanding of anything.  Rather, they are limited by the Holy Spirit inspired grammar of God's Holy Word through which He Himself has revealed His promises precisely as He intends to fulfill them.  Which also means that the promised blessings of the Lord God in Christ are not at all to be expanded by your assumptions as to what God would or should do.

I suggest you read Ephesians 1 for what "be blessed" meant and means. 

Indeed, Ephesians 1 does employ the verb "hath blessed."   Furthermore, Ephesians 1 does indeed mention a plural number of blessings that are are involved in our Lord God's work of blessing unto believers -- "Who hath blessed us with all spiritual blessings in heavenly places in Christ."  However, Ephesians does not make any statements to the effect that these plural number of blessings will be administered unto "all the families of the earth."  So then, are Genesis 22:18; 26:4; 28:14 and Ephesians 1 speaking about the same blessing work of the Lord God, or not?  The answer to that question must be demonstrated through the grammatical and contextual study of each set of passages.  It should not simply be assumed as "clear" to our understanding.  In addition, do either of these set of passages have any direct relationship to the promises that are presented in Daniel 9:24-27 (which is the passages about which our debate is actually to be focused)?    Again, the answer to that question must be demonstrated through the grammatical and contextual study of each set of passages.  It should not simply be assumed as "evident."

I don't think devious questions belong in a Scriptural discussion.

My question carried not a single motivation of deviousness within it at all.  Rather, my question carried fully a motivation of confrontation, with the intention to help reveal the error of your assertion.  So then, is it inherently wrong to ask questions that carry such a motivation of confrontation in order to reveal the error of another (even as you seem to imply with your response above unto Brother Alan)?  Did the Lord God through His holy prophets in the Old Testament employ such confrontational questions with the children of Israel in order to reveal their errors?  Yes, He certainly did.  Did He do wrong in doing so?  I myself would conclude that He did not.  Did the Lord Jesus Christ employ such confrontation questions with His various audiences in order to reveal their errors?  Yes, He certainly did.  Did He do wrong in doing so?  I myself would conclude that He did not.  Did the Holy Spirit inspired authors of the New Testament Scriptures employ such confrontation questions with the respective audiences to whom they were writing under inspiration?  Yes, they certainly did.  Did they do wrong in doing so?  I myself would conclude that they did not.  Therefore, on the ground of these righteous examples, I believe that I also am permitted to ask confrontational questions (especially in the context of a debate over Biblical truth) in order to reveal the Biblical error of another's position.

[MountainChristian]

And there came one that had escaped, and told Abram the Hebrew; for he dwelt in the plain of Mamre the Amorite, brother of Eshcol, and brother of Aner: and these were confederate with Abram.

And Abraham took sheep and oxen, and gave them unto Abimelech; and both of them made a covenant.

Thus they made a covenant at Beersheba: then Abimelech rose up, and Phichol the chief captain of his host, and they returned into the land of the Philistines.

And they said, We saw certainly that the LORD was with thee: and we said, Let there be now an oath betwixt us,even betwixt us and thee, and let us make a covenant with thee;

Now therefore come thou, let us make a covenant, I and thou; and let it be for a witness between me and thee.

Thou shalt make no covenant with them, nor with their gods.

And they went to Joshua unto the camp at Gilgal, and said unto him, and to the men of Israel, We be come from a far country: now therefore make ye a league with us.

And the men of Israel said unto the Hivites, Peradventure ye dwell among us; and how shall we make a league with you?

Wherefore our elders and all the inhabitants of our country spake to us, saying, Take victuals with you for the journey, and go to meet them, and say unto them, We are your servants: therefore now make ye a league with us.

And Joshua made peace with them, and made a league with them, to let them live: and the princes of the congregation sware unto them.

And ye shall make no league with the inhabitants of this land; ye shall throw down their altars: but ye have not obeyed my voice: why have ye done this?

Then Nahash the Ammonite came up, and encamped against Jabeshgilead: and all the men of Jabesh said unto Nahash, Make a covenant with us, and we will serve thee.

Then Jonathan and David made a covenant, because he loved him as his own soul.

And they two made a covenant before the LORD: and David abode in the wood, and Jonathan went to his house.

And Abner sent messengers to David on his behalf, saying, Whose is the land? saying also, Make thy league with me, and, behold, my hand shall be with thee, to bring about all Israel unto thee.

So all the elders of Israel came to the king to Hebron; and king David made a league with them in Hebron before the LORD: and they anointed David king over Israel.

and the list could go on and on. Just because it says covenant doesn't mean its from God.