Jump to content

DaveW

Independent Fundamental Baptist
  • Content Count

    5,451
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    188

Everything posted by DaveW

  1. No, not at all, I simply point out that you have changed your "point" every time your error has been pointed out and not admitted that you were wrong - you are just moving a bit to try to get out of it. No one is denying the name itself - the discussion was based around the purpose for the renaming, where Roby said it was because Hadrian wanted to give it to the Palestinians, who at the time of Hadrian were no longer in existence, so his statement was totally impossible. Your normal link of the name "Palestine" to the people who now claim that name is irrelevant to the discussion and in any case they are not and never were Palestiniains. The majority are in fact of Jordanian heritage, and not Palestinian at all.
  2. Trying to confuse the issue with all sorts of extraneous information and changing the subject, but your statement about Hadrian was absolutely wrong, no matter what twist you put on it.
  3. So your "proof" that your original statement is correct is that Zechariah mentions Philistines 600 years before Hadrian was around?????? Historians largely agree that there is now no sign of the lineage of the Philistines. There are some theories, but there is no evidence, and Hadrian had nothing to do with the Philistines. So you "ACTUALLY" is simply total and utter rubbish. You were wrong about Hadrian with regard to the Philistines.
  4. This is just wrong for the plain reason that in the time of Hadrian (2nd century) there were NO philistines. The nation had been long gone by this time. The Palestinians CLAIM heritage but there is no evidence as to which people today came from the philistines. Hadrian named the place Palestina in order to break the Israeli link with the land, not to give it to anyone else.
  5. One big difference: you were shown basic respect when you first arrived, but returned none to anyone on this forum and none to the forum rules. You have not earned respect here and indeed you have shown contempt to the board, to many individuals, both members and moderators, and also shown contempt for the Word of God - with the lackadaisical use of it. I give respect where it is dur and I give people the opportunity to show who they are. You have done so, and have certainly not earned any respect from...... well as far as I can see, anyone on this board. I'm done now mods, so I won't continue to pollute Alan's thread with more argument.
  6. We will put up parking signs, and then if necessary we can have them ticketed or towed. It just amazed me that a guy would open a closed gate to park, and then they said I was being unreasonable.
  7. You want me to go back and find all the previous posts where evidence against your lies has been given? Because over the years the evidence has been given by many here and proven you are wrong. And I don't need to buy a copy of any book because I have the Bible which is always true, unlike men who rewrite things to suit themselves - as you constantly prove. I certainly wouldn't buy any book you recommend, because you have proven over the years that you lie about all sorts of things, you have false doctrine, you have little understanding of true doctrine, and make accusations that are unsupportable. And even in your Larkin quote you prove yourself wrong, and they try say that he is wrong on only that point. You yourself present the evidence that denies your position, and reject it in the same breath.
  8. Funny - Israelites today refer to themselves in a general sense as EITHER Jews or Israelies, but they refer to their tribes specifically. I know several Jews and Israelies, and have spent some time among Jews and Israelies and today they do not make the distinction you keep pressing. And that includes those who are NOT of Judah, Benjamin, or Levi but still proudly refer to themselves as Jews. And of course there are many Israelies who are not Jewish, but Arab Muslim, and a number who are Christian of varying breeds. You are just wrong. Why do you disrespect these men of God by using such infantile nicknames for them?
  9. Once again you are showing yourself to be a liar. It has been shown to you that the future fulfillment of Revelation 4 onwards was a known doctrinal position in the first few centuries after Christ and WELL before the Jesuits were invented. You are a constant liar and constantly present false information to support your false theories. And once again I will tell you that historical prescence or absence of doctrines does not make a doctrine true - biblical accuracy makes a doctrine true. It is just plain good manners to at least credit the source you are copying, rather than present it as your own original material.........
  10. John 12 9 Much people of the Jews therefore knew that he was there: and they came not for Jesus' sake only, but that they might see Lazarus also, whom he had raised from the dead. 10 But the chief priests consulted that they might put Lazarus also to death; 11 Because that by reason of him many of the Jews went away, and believed on Jesus. We don't have a record of what Lazarus said when he was raised back to life, but he said enough to people that they knew Jesus brought him back - because many believed on Jesus because of his testimony. He obviously thought it better to talk of Jesus Christ than of Heaven.
  11. As for the Nation of Jordan, it has the mountains of Edom, and the city of Amman which gets its name from the Ammonites, and the signs of the Kingdom of Jordan have written on them "the Hashemite kingdom". That is today.... make of that what you will.
  12. Actually, while some claim heritage from the Philistines there is no proof of such. The Palestinians are of mixed Arab heritage. The name Palestinian was a Roman invention to try to suggest the land was linked to the Philistines, and thereby break the Hebrew link to the land. It didn't work, but they are still trying it.
  13. I have to vent for a bit...... Some of you may know that we have the honour of having a mosque right next to our church building. Well in the more than ten years I have been here we have had an ongoing battle with their people using our carpark on Fridays (their normal day of getting together and bowing to false gods.) I have tried everything I can think of to stop them, from asking nicely, leaving notes on the cars, leaving tracts on the cars, waiting and talking to individuals...…. I have emailed and spoken to their leadership who constantly say that they do what they can, but nothing seems to change. They suggested that I close our gate on Fridays. So I have finally taken to closing our gate and today I go to get a coffee in our kitchen that looks out onto our carpark and lo and behold, the gate is open and a car is parked in our car park. I immediately go out to close the gate again and the guy is returning at that moment, so I ask if he opened the gate. He says yes he did. I ask him why he thought that was OK, and from there ensues an argument where he says it is a mistake and I say you don't open a gate and park illegally by mistake. Then three other guys come over and gang up on me, and try to "calm things down" - now I was a little heated but I was under control. Then they proceeded to accuse me of being disrespectful because I refuse to accept that opening a gate and parking illegally fits the definition of "a mistake". Also, the guy said he used to be able to park here in the past...….. I have been here for more than ten years and never had an individual muslim seek permission to park in our carpark..... One of the guys said "I can't say what I want to say to you because it is Friday and I am not allowed"...... I would not be surprised to find that we have damage to our building in the next few days. OK, I think I am done now......
  14. Which church exactly? Do you mean the churches that are not mentioned throughout the Book of Revelation after chapter 3? Until chapter 22 when He mentioned who he is writing to. Yet another reason why you are wrong......
  15. And yet over the years people have constantly "mistaken" what you teach as preterism....... And you still continue to rewrite history to suit your own beliefs. We have been over this time and time again - the view that most of us hold here is NOT a Jesuit invention as it is found in writings back to the 2nd and 3rd century, before Jesuits and before your false 1800's date, and proof has been previously presented. You know this and yet you still LIE about it being a recent invention. Yes, I said LIE - Because you knowingly present as fact that which has been disproven in discussions with you, with incontrovertible historical proof. And in any case (as has also already been pointed out to you on many occasions) the history of a doctrine or belief is of no consequence sequence - it is whether or not it is biblical that counts. And as has been clearly pointed out to you many times in the past and also in this thread, if your view were correct then many of the things mentioned in the Bible would have been seen in history, and they simply have not. And they would not have been missed. You do the equivalent of making the flood a local flood by your poor attempts to reconcile your view with historical evidence. Your view and history do not match. Your view and the Bible do not match. You are wrong.
  16. If something looks like a duck, quacks like a duck, swims like a duck, and waddles like a duck, guess what...... it is probably a duck. Over the years you have been independently identified by many different people as a preterist by the opinions that you state in regard to eschatalogicsl matters. Can you explain that? Are all these different people "ignorant"? If you think everyone else is driving the wrong way down the highway, maybe it isn't everyone else who is ignorant.......
  17. Were also taught to make up "history" to suit yourself, because you have a proven track record of it on this site, as has been pointed out to you many times previously. Many doctrines you say originated in the 1800's are clearly seen presented in documents back to the second and third century, including your version of Preterism. Answer this will you: If you position is so far removed from preterism, how is it that you are so often and regularly identified by your teaching as a preterist? And by so many different people over the years? Call it what you will, but it is regularly identified as preterism.
  18. Invicta is NOT Baptist at all, and has shown no real knowledge even of genuine Baptist history, let alone genuine Baptist doctrine. And he constantly accuses people here of being brethren, usually based around this discussion, even though he has been shown clearly from the Bible that his position is not biblical, and historically that his position is not Baptist. He reinterprets terms so that he can be offended when people call him a preterist, but people constantly "mistake" what he says for preterism...... maybe because what he says is so closely aligned to preterism that it is almost impossible to tell the difference. And he changes history to suit his arguments, which I and others have shown here before.
  19. No. To be clear, this site is about Independent Baptists, not just about "Baptists". Some "Baptists" do consider themselves part of the protestant movement, but in general IB churches are INDEPENDENT from all denominations, and are not a close and solid group, but a bunch of independent churches that have similar doctrines because we try to follow the Bible. As to the actual term "protestant" - that is technically referring to those people who were protesting against the Catholic church, and this happened during what is known as the "reformation" where these people were tyring to "reform" the Catholic church "back to the truth". Problem is that the Catholic church was never a true church following the Bible anyway, so to "reform" them is to take them from an unbiblical position to an older unbiblical position. There has however always been a group of people who have tried to follow the Bible alone, and it is this group that IB tentatively trace our heritage back to - not protestant, not Catholic, but Biblical.
  20. Pro 15:1 (1) A soft answer turneth away wrath: but grievous words stir up anger. Mat 5:44 (44) But I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you; Sorry to use Bible on you, but it works. Don't let them get you angry - answer them as softly as possible. Humour can help, if you can do funny, but not in a snarky way. And pray for them - I find it is hard to be too angry with someone if you are praying for them.
  21. I know a family of two kids and both of the kids are in trouble with the law, both having been arrested and charged with serious crimes, one has spent time I prison, one is currently waiting in custody to see what his fate will be. I know another family with twelve kids, and as far as I know not one of them has been in any trouble with the law, and the older ones are forging decent lives for themselves. And by the way, only the husband worked and they homeschooled all their kids, and they don't have heaps but they get by. You wanna know what the difference is? The first family is unsaved - mum only just got saved a few weeks ago, praise the Lord. The second family are a God fearing Christian family who bring up their children in the nurture and admonishion of the Lord. You wanna make a distinction about families, there it is. A family who loves, follows, and serves the Lord NO MATTER HOW MANY KIDS is a family who will likely keep out of trouble. Know how I know? Pro 22:6 Train up a child in the way he should go: and when he is old, he will not depart from it. Show me a verse that backs up your OPINION.
  22. Agreeing with Jerry, in the first instance it is an unreasonable and unbiblical request, but in any case we need to look at the verse. Mat 16:27 For the Son of man shall come in the glory of his Father with his angels; and then he shall reward every man according to his works. Would you show us where this verse mentions salvation AT ALL? It mentions a reward for works, but it doesn't mention salvation. And if you think it is talking about salvation, then show it WITHOUT providing other verses. You see how unreasonable that is? If you will allow other verses to be used we can easily show the exact judgement of works. You might consider 1 Cor 3: 11-15 and Rev 20:11-15.
  23. OK then, since it is apparently so difficult to understand.... You posted this: I asked: You replied: Now please note: NOWHERE IN THE BIBLE PASSAGE YOU QUOTED DO YOU SEE EITHER RUSSIA OR THE MUSLIMS MENTIONED. I then replied: Note that I said I thought it was probably reasonable speculation, but YOU STATED IT AS OUTRIGHT FACT ON SEVERAL OCCASIONS. In STATING IT AS OUTRIGHT FACT you are going beyond the Bible. As unlikely as it appears to us today, you have to agree that it is possible (Incredibly unlikely, but possible) that in some way the Muslim religion ceases to exist before the time of the passage to which you refer. And as unlikely as it appears to us today, it is possible that Russia could cease to exist before the time spoken of in the passage you refer to. THEREFORE because of the fact that you STATE THESE THIGNS IN THE TERMS OF A CATEGORICAL FACT you are going beyond the Bible. It is really not all that difficult to understand. State the exact same premise in the terms of likely speculation, or even in terms of probable fulfillment, and I have no problem - I actually agree that in light of what we know today, your premise is the most likely - BUT IS IT NOT BIBLICAL FACT. And for reference I mentioned that people at one time thought that Napoleon was the anti-Christ. It seemed to make sense to them at the time, but THEIR SPECULATION WAS WRONG A good number of people also thought that Hitler was the anti-Christ. It made sense to them at the time, but THEIR SPECULATION WAS WRONG. And by the way, there is no indication of Muslims in the Bible - it is various brands of Arab peoples that can be referred to Biblically, but not muslims in general. The fact that the overwhelming majority of Arab nations are also Muslim is true, but biblically irrelevant. You can point to various brands of Arab peoples and SPECULATE about a muslim link, but biblically the only true link that can be made is to their Arab heritage, not their religion per se. In STATING SUCH THINGS AS OUTRIGHT FACT you are going beyond the Bible, and that leads to dangerous places.

Article Categories

About Us

Since 2001, Online Baptist has been an Independent Baptist website, and we exclusively use the King James Version of the Bible. We pride ourselves on a community that uplifts the Lord.

Contact Us

You can contact us using the following link. Contact Us or for questions regarding this website please contact @pastormatt or email James Foley at jfoley@sisqtel.net

Android App

Online Baptist has a custom App for all android users. You can download it from the Google Play store or click the following icon.

×
×
  • Create New...