Jump to content
Online Baptist Community

Brother D

Members
  • Posts

    53
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Brother D

  1. You are mostly right about those events, which Jesus spoke of, happening in 70 AD. But, in fact desolation did come in 70 AD, and wouldn't you think that something causing that would be an abomination? Your definition of "this" comes up a little short. 1 (used to indicate a person, thing, idea, state, event, time, remark, etc., as present, near, just mentioned or pointed out, supposed to be understood, or by way of emphasis): This is my coat. 2 (used to indicate one of two or more persons, things, etc., referring to the one nearer in place, time, or thought; opposed to that This is Liza and that is Amy. If Jesus meant a generation other than his, one far off, he would have said "that generation". Also, since Jesus doesn't mention any generation in context, the only generation he could be referring to is his generation. You wouldn't say "this house needs cleaning" when you mean another house that you haven't mentioned (even then, you'd be using bad grammar to say "this house" when you mean another). Don't you think it complicates your "that generation" argument when you concede the the Temple Jesus spoke of being destroyed was destroyed in Christ's generation and that Christ's followers were beaten in Jewish synagogues in Christ's generation, and that Jerusalem was surrounded by armies in 70 AD. That Temple can't be destroyed again. It's hard to imagine Christians today being beaten in jewish synagogues (in significant numbers), but at least you can imagine Jerusalem being surrounded again. In fact, desolation was caused in 70 AD. All you're quibbling about is what constitutes an abomination, apparent not the Roman army that caused the desolation, nor Roman general who claimed divinity who stood in the Temple, immediately before its destruction. 1) The 7-year Jewish-Roman wars ended in 73 AD with the fall of Masada. There were some battles early after that when Jews tried to restore Judea. But, it's been a very, very long time that Jews in significant numbers have fallen to swords. And, I don't expect any future wars to be fought with swords. So-called Jews are not children of Israel, but regardless, they're not falling by the edge of the sword. 2) Yes, in 70 AD, those Jews who weren't killed were scattered, just as Jesus predicted, along with the Temple being destroyed. His generation. 3) No Jerusalem is still not being trodden down by the gentiles. People you believe aren't gentiles control Jerusalem. But, Jesus was referring to Roman war on Jerusalem (the topic of the chapter). "Trodden down" is from a word that is only used in the Bible in the context of violence or crushing. Jerusalem hasn't been trodden down much since the first century. 4) The times of the gentiles being fulfilled doesn't mean an end to gentiles, but the fulfillment of the times of the gentiles is when the fullness of the gentiles has come into Israel (the church), and the Old Covenant is no more. This happened with the Temple's destruction. 5) The only thing I take idiomatically is the one paragraph with Jesus coming in the clouds and stars falling, both clouds and stars are used symbolically in the OT. And, the context here implies they're idioms (e.g. what resulted form the stars falling), even if the reader didn't know clouds and stars were established idioms in the OT. I take everything else literally. Dispensationalists only pretend to take the chapter literally.
  2. Yes, I know. I was being sarcastic. You have completely ignored all the boiling hatred and attacks on me spewing from Dave W in his posts. You are a disgrace and your moderation is pathetic. Now, little man, ban me so that your whole life doesn't feel totally impotent, because God knows you can't answer me.
  3. You spammed verses. https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=spamming: A number of other definitions of spamming also apply. You posted several verses with the phrase "my people", and not one of them was useful, because none of them identified who "my people" are. And, the charge of spamming wasn't just because of those three verses, but because of a pattern of behavior of people in doctrinal error spamming verses, whether three or dozens of verses, which don't support the poster's position, especially when said poster does't even attempt to explain how those verses support him. I've read the Bible. I know the people of Israel are often called "my people" But, you don't know what the people of Israel are also often called (explicitly or implicitly) not God's people. The difference is whether the generation calls out to God or has rejected God. It's about their faith -- not their blood, even if they were one blood, which they're not. Any Christian should already know it's about faith. Your spammed verses about Israel in Egypt didn't identity "my people" as those who have rejected God, so you had no case. It appears in Exodus 3 that the Israelite slaves were calling out to God. If you didn't reflexively spam verses, and instead paid attention to what I say and what the Bible says, then you might find something relevant to say. It's sad that the chief argument here against what I've pointed out in the Bible, God explicitly saying Israel is not his people, is an attempt to present a contradiction, like when you quoted verses where Israel is called "my people" (which isn't a contradiction because those verses apply to another generation). You're willing to throw the Bible under the buss, so to speak, to protect your Dispensationalist doctrine. BTW, I'm sorry I missed your warning to Dave W for his attacks upon my person.
  4. I addressed the key verse/phrase Dispensationalists use to deny Mark 13 (and related) is a prophesy of the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 AD. Jesus didn't physically come in 70 AD. I pointed out that the Old Testament sometimes uses clouds symbolically for judgement. I pointed out "Jesus coming in the clouds" has the quality of an idiom because the context makes no discussion of the verse as if it's literal. And, the verse itself seems to have a pointless reference to clouds, if taken literally. You countered that the "coming in the clouds" is like manner, in reverse, of Acts 1. I pointed how Acts 1 is very different. In Acts 1, the cloud serves a function. The context treats the ascension as a literal event. And, the concept of judgement is completely absent from the context. I believe all your arguments against my position is pleading. You point to Luke Luke 21:31 and you say it speaks about the establishing of the KINGDOM upon the earth. But, that comment about the kingdom isn't closely connected with Jesus coming in the clouds. Jesus has already moved on and started a parable before speaking of the kingdom of God. Even worse for your argument, Jesus often spoke about the kingdom of God being near or at hand, and he's not talking about a physical kingdom. I addressed your key verse. Now you can address the rest of the chapter. Which Temple is Jesus pointing to, that will be destroyed? Who is Jesus telling will be persecuted and beaten in synagogues? Did Rome not surround Jerusalem and cause desolation in 70 AD? What do you think the definition of "this" is?
  5. Dispensationalism was only popularized in the late 20th-century, mainly by Pentecostal preachers. It's not biblical nor the traditional view of Baptists. How are Jews who reject God his servants? Besides, it's not true that Jews are descendants of Jacob. Jews are a religion, not a race.
  6. Yes, I read the Masoretic text. Besides, I already passed on pursuing the mixed multitude argument, but for another reason. Wrong. Nothing in Deut 10 contradicts God saying to Israel they are not God's people. Nothing there that contradicts Jesus telling descendants of Jacob that they are children of the Devil. Nothing there that contradicts Paul saying not all Israel is Israel. Nothing there that supports Dispensationalism.
  7. R:e Ex 12:38 ALSO and THEM are translator interpolations. Those words are not in the MT. However, on second thought, I withdraw this verse from my case because it's not compelling. 1) Israel 2) Gentiles 3) Israel 4) Gentiles Paul uses Hosea, "As he saith also in Osee, I will call them my people" to support his statement, "But also of the Gentiles". Your attempt to spin Paul's statement fails because the church is Israel, but your argument requires that the church being something else. If the church were something else, you would have just made Paul contradict himself. We don't have to worry about a definition of backslide because the verse you point to in the KJV, to contradict God saying to Israel "you are not my people", says "they called them to the most High". The KJV is a bit confusing here, but every translation and the TR says they call to the most high. They were still calling upon the Lord, and that is why they were God's people. You call my a heretic because I point to God saying to Israel "You are not my people." I don't see anywhere you even attempt to explain that this verse doesn't mean what it clearly means. Instead, you flail around trying to find other verses to contradict it. You failed in Hosea 11:7 because that verse speaks of a people who still call upon the Lord. You fail on Deut 10 because nothing there calls anyone God's people who aren't calling upon the Lord, on the contrary Deut 10 makes . You failed in Romans. You failed to explain why Ishmael and the Arabs are not God's chosen people, though they are the seed of Abraham. Dispensationists don't even show an ability to understand the most simplest things, such as that Ishmael contradicts their doctrine. Instead, in absolute failure of reason, they insist Ishmael doesn't contradict their doctrine because God didn't choose him, the seed of Abraham -- they can't see the forest because of the log in their eye makes them blind.
  8. Both Old and New Testaments teach over and over and over that only those with Faith in God count as the seed of Abraham. Does Ishmael ring a bell? When you read the Bible, to you remember Paul saying Christians count as the seed of Abraham. "Backslide" means returning to bad behavior. It doesn't mean rejecting God. A backslid Christian still calls Jesus lord and savior, but has returned to some of his pre-Christian behavior. It's not just my definition. The verse in question (Hos 11:7) tells us the people still acknowledge God, and therefor were God's people by faith. And, whatever, God still said plainly and directly that Israel is not his people, as the Israelis did not acknowledged God. How is the Romans 9 Hosea reference not talking about gentiles? "But also of the Gentiles? As he saith also in Osee, I will call them my people..." God does not call carnal Israel his people in Romans 11:1-2. Paul gives his pedigree, but that doesn't make Paul's race God's people. Out of context, I can see how you might think otherwise, but Paul isn't giving his pedigree to define God's people. Paul gives his pedigree to appeal to racist bigots, similar to those Jesus dealt with in John 8. If Paul meant his race, that would contradict the rest of the Bible. If Paul meant his race, that would contradict what Paul goes on to say in Romans 11: Even so then at this present time also there is a remnant according to the election of grace. Got that? Of Paul's race, just a remnant are God's people, which is a contradiction of your doctrine. There were also many Jews/Isrealites who were not of Paul's race, and the faithful of those were God's people. BTW, also notice that Paul is speaking specifically at his time. After ca 70 AD, there no longer remained that remnant- they would have all died off or accepted Christ. Boasting against the branches? Which branches? The ones cut off? Your doctrine denies that they've been cut off.
  9. Jim, are you trying to be the poster child for people who spam verses without any clue what those verses say? You didn't even bother to type a single word of your own. Those verses don't say God-haters and Antichrists are God's people, all because of what you pretend is their ancestry. Just you and other Dispensationalists say that. Sadly, you quote Ex 3:7 and 3:10, but not the verses in between which tells who "my people" are. From Exodus 3:9, "the cry of the children of Israel is come unto me." Do you get that? They are calling to God! They have faith in God and that is why they are God's people. Also, another fact you Dispesnationalists are in hard denial of is that nothing in the Bible says all those Isrealites in Egypt are descendants of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. Exodus 12:38 describes those people as a "mixed multitude" and Exodus 12:48 explains that converts count as native Israelites.
  10. Your questions are not an explanation of why God told Israel they are not his people. Your questions don't lead to the answer you want. And, I answered each of your questions. The explanation of why God told Israel they are not his people is that they were not his people (and they weren't his people because they didn't have faith in God). How many times are we going to go around with this? I said you, or rather Dispensationalists, say Jews are God's people apart from faith. That is a contradiction of what the Bible teaches, cover to cover. You did point to Hos 11:7, "And my people are bent to backsliding from me: though they called them to the most High, none at all would exalt him." At best, you are arguing that there's a contradiction and using a vague verse to make you case, because God still tells Israel they are not his people. I can't reason with you because you refuse to look at what the Bible says. You just point to it from a distance and pretend your position has no problems. The KJV says, "bent on backsliding". Do you know the definition of "bent"? How about "backsliding"? That verse doesn't say they have in fact backslidden, and it certainly doesn't say they've lost faith in God. So, there's no contradiction. If they had lost faith in God, God would say they're not his people. That verse itself tells us that there are people calling out to God. If hey weren't calling out to God, they would not be God's people. The faithless Jews are not God's people. The faithful Christian, even those tending to backslide, are God's people.
  11. You didn't explain why God said Israel is not his people, if they are his people. You didn't give me tools to read it myself. You gave my questions to avoid giving me an answer. The Bible says be ready to give an answer. The explanation, which is true, but you reject, is that being the natural seed of Abraham doesn't make someone's God's chosen people. Every Christian should know that no one belongs to God apart from faith. And, so, Israel, without faith, is not God's people. And, everyone of faith is God's people and counts as the seed of Abraham. The only difference between spamming verses that don't support you verses vaguely pointing to a chapter is at least you save some some bandwidth in your pretense of having a case.
  12. "Shall so come in like manner as ye have seen him go" doesn't mean reversed? Isn't "come" the reverse of "go"? Besides, that's not the point. I was illustrating what it might look like if "coming in the clouds" were literal. As I have repeatedly pointed out, if taken literally "coming with the clouds" has no connection to the context, compared to Acts 1 were leaving to the cloud is flows with the context. The nature of an idiom is that it doesn't connect, or flow, with the context, if taken literally. Acts 1 also doesn't designate that Christ coming as he left, "he was taken up; and a cloud received him out of their sight", is the "coming in the clouds" at Jerusalem's judgement. The context and language is very different.
  13. I did read your first post, you didn't explain why God told Israel they aren't his people, if they are his people. You said, "The kingdom was divided at the time; in which, God said they weren't his people..." You didn't offer any explanation for why God would say Israel are not his people, if they are his people. I already know the circumstances of God's statement that Israel is not his people. I know it was a divided kingdom. I also know that "not my people" means "not my people." I answered your questions, but you are not answering my questions. You keep typing words, but you're not saying anything. What about the Revelation reference about Jews as the Synagogue of Satan do you think I should check. You should have said, "Those weren't Jews, they just claimed they were Jews" in which case I would point out that I put "Jews" in quotes in the first place. I'd remind you that's the only use of the word "Jews" in Revelation. And, then I'd make my case that anyone who calls themselves a Jew but is not a Christian is not a true Jew. LOL, indeed, you mockingly say you didn't know you believed something I said you believed then you immediately assert what I just said you believed. But, this isn't about you, it's about Dispensational doctrine. The simple logic that you refuse to process is Ishmael/Arabs are not God's chosen people, therefor being Abraham's seed doesn't make someone God's chosen people. How does the reason Ishmael wasn't chosen make any difference to the simple logic I've shown you?
  14. DaveW, you're a hateful troll and I will no longer be replying to you.
  15. If Acts 1 were reversed, it would be something like this: "Men of Galilee were looking up and they saw Jesus come into sight from out of a cloud. When Jesus had come down, the men asked Jesus if he were going to now restore the kingdom to Israel. Jesus stayed in Jerusalem and presented himself alive and spent 40 days speaking about the kingdom of God." Jesus sending his angels, nor the other verses you posted, have nothing to do with a physical presence or an appearance in clouds. If "coming in the clouds" isn't an idiom, then there are no idioms in the Bible. You are referring to: Rev 1:7 Behold, he cometh with clouds; and every eye shall see him, and they also which pierced him: and all kindreds of the earth shall wail because of him. Even so, Amen. 1) The context doesn't show it to be literal. All you have is "see" which can refer to seeing the judgment. Compare to my illustration at the top of this post regarding Acts 1, what the context might look like if it were literal. 2) The context shows this to mean judgement. Aside from the verse itself speaking of wailing, this verse is part of the introduction to Revelation which is a book about judgment. Likewise, Jesus' use of "coming in the clouds" is in the context of judgment of Jerusalem. Taken literally, it doesn't fit, at all, the context. It's a completely random statement, if taken literally. 3) It says those who pierced Jesus would see him. If you take that literally, it has to be the first century, because those people aren't around now.
  16. Sorry to conflate you with others. There are others who deny clouds are ever used as an idiom for judgment. As for "seeing", that is a difference in detail between NT and OT cloud references, but I think a difference of style, not nature. I have discussed the nature of idioms, such as an idiom has no obvious connection to the context, if taken literally. But, if taken non-literally, it explains the context. By this criteria, Jesus coming in the clouds appears to be an idiom. Seeing Jesus coming on the clouds doesn't change that. The use of the word "see" could mean people will literally see Jesus. But, it could also mean people will see what the idiom respresents. I believe in a physical return of Christ, but that doesn't mean any "coming" is that physical return of Christ. I don't believe clouds have anything to do with the physical return of Christ (beyond, maybe, Jesus appearing from a cloud). It's Jesus' nature to come in power and great glory, even if just in judgement. The judgement isn't the violence of the tribulation itself, but the result of the tribulation and what is symbolized by the sun, moon, and stars being darkened, the removal of the powers represented by those lights. The Greek word translated "after" (after the tribulation) is usually translated "with". This is not one event (tribulation) followed by a distinctly different event (coming in the clouds). I don't think your analysis is bad, as far as it goes. But, the issue is making the whole chapter of Mark 13 (and related verses) work. Jesus says that Temple then standing will be destroyed. When asked when, he tells his followers that they will first be persecuted. He tells them when they see a certain something, to run for the mountains. And, he says happen before his generation passes. Those things did happen how and when Jesus said, but if you take literally "coming in the clouds" than you have to pervert the meaning of the rest of what Jesus said. E.g., "This generation" means his generation. The grammar and context does not support the claim Jesus meant a future generation.
  17. Your post is a desperate ploy to gain sympathy from your peers because you've been severely losing the debate. I already defined "dispensationalism" earlier in this thread (parallel dispensations), and distinguished it from traditional Baptist dispensationalism of serial dispensations. The things I'm addressing are beliefs held by people who identify as dispensationalists and hold the doctrine of parallel dispensations (a theology popularized by Pentecostals in recent decades). So, my definition is fair, in spite of your objection. Any competent person will define terms, if such an act is called for. It's not at all a hidden definition, as you falsely claim. It's very telling that you declare that what I'm talking about is not dispensationalism, yet you don't identify what I am talking about, if not dispenstionalism. I'll gladly use whatever label you like, because the term itself isn't relevant. How about "door knobs"? It's not the details that matter, not the label. I oppose your Door Knobism. In fact, it is your definition that fails. You believe and defend parallel dispensations while defining dispensationalism as "God has divided time" into serial dispensations. What's up with that? I have been open and honest about my own theology, contrary to your false witness. I've already clearly said, several times, that I believe the church is Israel, a trivial thing to defend with the Bible. And, that the only people belonging to God in the old Testament was by faith. I'll gladly answer any question about my beliefs. I have nothing to hide. And, I have no need to act desperate.
  18. You do not take each passage in the Bible as it is presented. Show me how you take this plainly: The Revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave unto him, to shew unto his servants things which must shortly come to pass... for the time is at hand. You are wrong in your accusation that I take something non-literary for no other reason that it fits my ideology. Completely independent of anyone's ideology, an idiom is usually pretty obvious in that it says something that has no obvious relationship to the context, if taken literally. But, if taken non-literally, it explains the context. Let's, apply this rule to Jesus coming in the clouds. What does the context say Jesus will do when he arrives. What function to the clouds serve? How does the context discuss the travel-by-clouds statement? See, no obvious relationship to the context. If taken non-literally, Jesus coming in the clouds tells that Jesus is executing judgement, because "clouds" is a symbol of judgment. And, judgement is what the context of Mark 13 (and parallel passages) and Revelation describe. See, as an idiom, Jesus coming in the clouds explains the context. It's true that my use of the word "absurd" is vague, and maybe subjective, but I have given a number of details that alert the reader to the presence of an idiom. And, absurdity is valid sign. Some things are indisputably absurd (to everyone not in deep denial and stubbornness) because they make no sense if taken literally. Jesus said the stars would fall. Stars cannot fall, any more than you can go North of the North pole. And, in spite of the claim of those in deep denial, meteors are not stars. Besides, the Bible in places explicitly uses clouds and stars as symbols. Oh, and "stars falling" have no obvious relationship to the context, if taken literally. But, if taken as an idiom, they explain the context.
  19. 1) You haven't explained why God told carnal Israel they aren't his people, if they are his people. 2) Judah, "Jews", isn't God's people because Jesus said they were children of the Devil (not God) in John 8. 3) In the OT, God said Judah is worse than Israel, and if Israel is not God's people for faithlessness, then Judah cannot be either. 4) Revelation refers to Jews as the Synagogue of Satan and Jerusalem as Sodom and Egypt. 5) You haven't explained why you reject Arabs, who are Abraham's children, as God's chosen people. In other words, you also believe it was worthless to Ishmael to be Abraham's son, regarding being God's people. 6) Each point above is sufficient alone to soundly refute the central Dispensationalist doctrine that Jews are God's chosen people. FAITH is the prerequisite, faith alone. Everyone of faith is counted as a child of Abraham. I'm am certain you are grossly misinterpreting any verse that says Jews will again be God's people. Here's a hint, if it's an OT verse, it's probably about the restoration of Judah before Christ, or about the establishment of the NT church by Christ.
  20. 90% of your post is verse quotes (and part of what's remaining is an insult or threat). It's bizarre that people in the wrong think spamming verses somehow proves themselves right. If it's so clear, how come you failed to offer even one bit of explanation for why the New Jerusalem is not the church. How come you failed to offer even one bit of explanation for why my explanation is wrong for why it's the church? How come you failed to offer even one bit of explanation for what you think the New Jerusalem is? The vast majority of Christians reading that would think "which church" is the most ridiculous question. What do you think the options are? I don't know what you're trying to say. I don't know what you're trying to say. The truth is on my side.
  21. There are several IFB churches around, so I don't have a problem of what to do if one wasn't near. The Southern Baptists (SBC) are the largest Protestant denomination in America. And, many of these churches are practically indistinguishable form IFB churches. But, sadly, that's changing. While the KJV has been very common in SBC churches, the SBC has recently sponsored a new translation (Christian Standard Bible) which completely breaks with the KJV tradition, and is otherwise abominable. The SBC just elected a new president, one that is soft on social issues and says he wants more women in church leadership.
  22. How is this creation coming about by God speaking in six days absurd? If God spoke the universe into being, so be it. The Lord riding a swift cloud into Egypt isn't absurd, if taken literally, because it would require a divine act, but for many other reasons. It's absurd because riding a cloud is meaningless, because it's just vapor. It's absurd because there's no reason for the Lord to ride a cloud. It's absurd because what difference does it make if the cloud is slow or fast? It's absurd because the Bible doesn't treat is as a literal statement. It's absurd to insist it must be literal when the Bible repeatedly uses "clouds" as an idiom for judgment. It's absurd because "the Lord riding a swift cloud" works so much better as symbolic language: God is quickly bringing judgment upon Egypt. While you might think I reject clear language, you should consider that people of your doctrinal view spend most of their time explaining why the Bible doesn't mean what it clearly says. In Mark 13, I interpret one paragraph as symbolic, which includes Jesus coming on the clouds (and idiom for judgment), and the stars falling to an Earth (a symbol of powers being removed). But, you reject the clear meaning of the rest of the chapter: "Master, see what manner of stones and what buildings are here! And Jesus answering said unto him, Seest thou these great buildings? there shall not be left one stone upon another, that shall not be thrown down... Tell us when?... This generation..." Why do you reject what the Bible clearly says? Also, why do you reject that history clearly shows, that the Temple was destroyed in 70AD, within that generation?
  23. Oh, I got your point. You assume Egypt censored everyone who saw the Lord riding a swift cloud. But, no one, Egypt or Israelite, has any record of anyone seeing the Lord riding a swift crowd. Egypt didn't censor Israelite records. Your position is that Egyptian history doesn't have record of the Exodus, so it means nothing that they don't have a record of the Lord riding a swift cloud. I replied that we don't need Egyptian records because the Exodus is recorded in great detail in Israelite records. Your Dispensationalist eschatology depends on you stubbornly insisting a reference to clouds can't be an idiom for judgement. Hmmm, maybe Jesus literally came riding clouds in 70 AD, and the Romans censored it. Mark 13 And as he went out of the temple, one of his disciples saith unto him, Master, see what manner of stones and what buildings are here! 2 And Jesus answering said unto him, Seest thou these great buildings? there shall not be left one stone upon another, that shall not be thrown down. When do you think the Temple Jesus pointed to will be built? In the Great Tribulation?
  24. The New Testament calls Abraham our father, the father of Christians. The patriarchs of the 12 tribes are the patriarchs of the Christian faith. The New Jerusalem that has their names is the church, we know because it's identified as the bride of Christ and Paul calls it our mother. "Jews" are never mentioned in Revelation, accept for Jesus to call them the synagogue of Satan. The earthly Jerusalem is never mentioned, except when its called Sodom and Egypt. You might accuse me of willful ignorance, but who is it ignoring the fact that "Jews" and Jerusalem have no place in Revelation except to be condemned
  25. The Bible leave no question that the Exodus was an historical event. Ancient Hebrew documents support the Exodus. And, in fact, there was an Israelite people that had have some kind of history. The Bible doesn't establish that the Lord riding a cloud to Egypt was an actual historical event. Ancient Hebrew documents do not support that anyone actually saw God riding a cloud to Egypt. And, in fact, as a figure of speech, God coming to judge Egypt, the biblical reference works very well.
×
×
  • Create New...