No Show.

Author: Stephen

Posts

Total: 345
#151
PGA2.0
PGA2.0's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 3,179
3
5
8
PGA2.0's avatar
PGA2.0
3
5
8
-->
@Stephen
it is nice to see some people attempting to provide good material to consider.  

I think the notion that Jesus returning so soon after he left makes little sense.  No wonder we see so much weirdness in the Christian movement. 
So soon? Within the span of a generation. What generation do you think Jesus is referring to, and how long does the NT give a generation to be? 

But he didn't did he. And the bible says he didn't. And Peter the lair, and traitor and denier of Jesus, makes up some bullshit excuse for the no show saying  2a day is a thousand years".
I called your BS already. 

What does the word parousia mean? 

Which generation was Jesus referring to with the words "this generation?"

Which age is Jesus referring to when He said "this age?"

Does the word "see" have only one meaning, physical sight? 

What sign did Jesus give the disciples of His coming? 

What were "all these things" that Jesus said would happen? Is it reasonable to believe they happened? 

Did Jesus restore Peter to His grace? 

Is Peter called an apostle and servant of Jesus Christ? 

Is Peter known in Scripture as the apostle to the circumcised, i.e., the Jews? 

Does Peter say anywhere a day IS one thousand years? 

You constantly mislead others on all these points and fail to give an account of my counterpoints. Are you capable of addressing my counters? You seem to believe just because you can state something that it automatically makes is true and correct. 

Reader, watch how Stephen yet again dodges all these questions. Do you think he is capable of answering them????

He does not want to exegete any of the Scriptures he posted, just dogmatically tell you what they say and mean to a 21st-century audience. What did they mean to that audience, the primary audience of Jesus' address?
#152
zedvictor4
zedvictor4's avatar
Debates: 22
Posts: 12,067
3
3
6
zedvictor4's avatar
zedvictor4
3
3
6
-->
@PGA2.0
So who made up that primary audience?.....Anyone who was gullible enough to listen, maybe. 

In terms of manipulation and gullibility , the Church of Scientology provides a good comparison.
#153
PGA2.0
PGA2.0's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 3,179
3
5
8
PGA2.0's avatar
PGA2.0
3
5
8
-->
@Stephen
For those who want more understanding on the forty years, see the link provided for different confirmations from different sources:

#154
Timid8967
Timid8967's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 459
2
2
2
Timid8967's avatar
Timid8967
2
2
2
-->
@PGA2.0
Post 148 takes care of your objections.

it is nice to see some people attempting to provide good material to consider.  

I think the notion that Jesus returning so soon after he left makes little sense.  No wonder we see so much weirdness in the Christian movement. 
Hello PGA2.0     thanks for including me.  No disrespect meant, but I did not raise any objections.  I made a comment.  Also for transparency, I have not read post 148. I started too but it was far too long and seemed to flow on from previous conversations.  It lost my interest very quickly. 

So soon? Within the span of a generation. What generation do you think Jesus is referring to, and how long does the NT give a generation to be? 
Please forgive me.  I guess I have been blinded by the media - as everyone else seems to have been.  Are you saying Jesus has already returned? Are you a partial or full preterist?  Do you follow North or Chiltern? The latter in his later life?  Or are you perhaps a follower of Gentry? 


What happenings do you not believe were fulfilled in the 1st-century before the destruction of the city and temple?
The history books say lots.  Which particularly are you referring too? 


What does it mean when Jesus said He would "come in the Father's glory?" How did the Father manifest Himself in glory in the OT? 
It could I suppose mean lots of things.  Which way do you propose I OUGHT to take it? 


In Matthew 24 and Revelation, do you take every verse as woodenly literal, or do you understand some verses speak of the figurative or metaphorical? 
Do you understand that Revelation is John's version of the Olivet Discourse, taking place at the beginning of the tribulation?
I am a non-theist.  Hence I would the narratives of these passages in the sense that the author would be presenting them. I also suppose it depends upon what you mean by literal.  If you are referring to the character of the language - I would think literal over mysticism is correct. If you are referring to substance - then its genre is important.  



[ The Patmos Vision ] I, John, your brother and fellow participant in the tribulation and kingdom and perseverance in Jesus, was on the island called Patmos because of the word of God and the testimony of Jesus.

The same great tribulation Matthew, Mark, and Luke speak of in their version of the Olivet Discourse, John also speaks about, yet he puts himself in the tribulation that was yet to come for the other three authors. 

Yes,  I cannot comment for want of having enough information.  It seems to me that the second coming or the return of Christ or whatever you want to call it - is as part of our culture - something that has not happened yet. Otherwise - the end of the world would be upon us.  There are elements for sure, of God coming with the clouds in judgment that might line up with the destruction of Jerusalem. But is that what Jesus meant? The angels indicate that he will return in the same way he left. And it does not seem plausible they were only referring to the clouds of judgment. 

Tribulation might be like the millenium. 1000 years. or 7 years. Both are numbers of totality.  Perhaps the millenium and the tribulation are the same period of time between Christ's first coming and his second one?  Or perhaps not? 



#155
PGA2.0
PGA2.0's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 3,179
3
5
8
PGA2.0's avatar
PGA2.0
3
5
8
-->
@zedvictor4
So who made up that primary audience?.....Anyone who was gullible enough to listen, maybe. 
The primary audience was the 1st-century Old Covenant Jews. Throughout the OT, God warns these covenant people of the coming wrath for their apostasy, that their sins would reach a limit and then comes judgment. John the Baptist, the prelude to the Messiah, a type of shadow of OT Elijah, comes preaching soon coming judgment on Israel. 

[ The Preaching of John the Baptist ] Now in those days John the Baptist *came, preaching in the wilderness of Judea, saying, “Repent, for the kingdom of heaven is at hand.” For this is the one referred to by Isaiah the prophet when he said, “The voice of one calling out in the wilderness, ‘Prepare the way of the Lord, Make His paths straight!’” ...

Jesus then comes on the scene proclaiming the kingdom and that it was with them because He is the king of the kingdom and near in time to its establishment. John makes it clear, 

John 1:11 (NASB)
11 He came to His [a]own, and His own people did not [b]accept Him.

In terms of manipulation and gullibility , the Church of Scientology provides a good comparison.
Oh, what is that? What makes you think they are true? What kind of evidence are you going to produce from their cult? Scientology is different from the NT in which the evidence is outstanding. 
#156
PGA2.0
PGA2.0's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 3,179
3
5
8
PGA2.0's avatar
PGA2.0
3
5
8
-->
@Timid8967
Post 148 takes care of your objections.

it is nice to see some people attempting to provide good material to consider.  

I think the notion that Jesus returning so soon after he left makes little sense.  No wonder we see so much weirdness in the Christian movement. 
Hello PGA2.0     thanks for including me. 
Hi there! I am an equal opportunity debunker. Come one, come all. (^8

No disrespect meant, but I did not raise any objections.
But you did by implication. Here it is:

YOU: "I think the notion that Jesus returning so soon after he left makes little sense.  No wonder we see so much weirdness in the Christian movement." 

Your objection was to my claim of a soon coming of the Messiah in the 1st-century as actually happening. You agreed with Stephens's take. 

I made a comment.  Also for transparency, I have not read post 148. I started too but it was far too long and seemed to flow on from previous conversations.  It lost my interest very quickly. 
Then are you interested in this discussion? You agreed with Stephen, but you did not inquire as to my arguments. Seems like a closed book. 

What I think contributes to your one-sidedness is a lack of interest and lack of concentration, perhaps due to our current society's fifteen-minute sound bite segments before interruption on TV.  That seems as much as we can handle before we get bored or lose focus.

So soon? Within the span of a generation. What generation do you think Jesus is referring to, and how long does the NT give a generation to be? 
Please forgive me.  I guess I have been blinded by the media - as everyone else seems to have been.  Are you saying Jesus has already returned?
Yes, I am saying He has returned. I am saying that is what Scripture teaches. I am saying He returned in AD 70. That is what I argue for.  

Are you a partial or full preterist?  Do you follow North or Chiltern? The latter in his later life?  Or are you perhaps a follower of Gentry? 
I lean towards full preterism. No one has convinced me otherwise from Scripture. I like David Chilton, Days of Vengence. Are you familiar with it? I have also read Kenneth Gentry, Before Jerusalem Fell. Have you read that? Another good read was James Stuart Russell, The Parousia. Have you read that or any books on Preterism? I have a small library of about fifty or so books on the subject of eschatology. Is this a subject you are familiar with?

Gentry is a partial-Preterist. I disagree that is the position Scripture leads us.

What happenings do you not believe were fulfilled in the 1st-century before the destruction of the city and temple?
The history books say lots.  Which particularly are you referring too? 
I refer to Josephus and the NT writers. 

What does it mean when Jesus said He would "come in the Father's glory?" How did the Father manifest Himself in glory in the OT? 
It could I suppose mean lots of things.  Which way do you propose I OUGHT to take it? 
See Post 33, Post 39, especially Posts 43 and 46 for a brief summary. If one does not understand the OT, how are they going to understand the NT? Jesus said He was coming in the Father's glory. What does that mean? You have to understand how the Father manifests Himself in the OT to understand the reference.

In Matthew 24 and Revelation, do you take every verse as woodenly literal, or do you understand some verses speak of the figurative or metaphorical? 
Do you understand that Revelation is John's version of the Olivet Discourse, taking place at the beginning of the tribulation?
I am a non-theist. 
Then I take it you do not subscribe to a Creator, and definitely not a personal Being?

Hence I would the narratives of these passages in the sense that the author would be presenting them. I also suppose it depends upon what you mean by literal.  If you are referring to the character of the language - I would think literal over mysticism is correct. If you are referring to substance - then its genre is important.  
I'm speaking of the kind of language used. Some parts of the Bible speak in plain literal language, and some passages use figurative and metaphorical language. Like any passage, the language usually determines how it should be taken. I could use the word green in two different senses, one literal, one figurative, and you would understand the difference, so why should the Bible be any different? For instance, I could say,

"The grass is green and time to be cut."

or I could say,

"I am green with envy."

I'm sure you would understand which context is meant to be taken literally and which figuratively. 

[ The Patmos Vision ] I, John, your brother and fellow participant in the tribulation and kingdom and perseverance in Jesus, was on the island called Patmos because of the word of God and the testimony of Jesus.

The same great tribulation Matthew, Mark, and Luke speak of in their version of the Olivet Discourse, John also speaks about, yet he puts himself in the tribulation that was yet to come for the other three authors. 

Yes,  I cannot comment for want of having enough information.  It seems to me that the second coming or the return of Christ or whatever you want to call it - is as part of our culture - something that has not happened yet.
Nope, I do not see how you arrive at that from Scripture. Why do you think the NT and prophecy are about our generation or a future generation? What gives you a reason to believe that from Scripture? Scripture is clear; the Second Coming was near, soon, coming quickly. It is not whatever but, 

Be diligent to present yourself approved to God as a worker who does not need to be ashamed, accurately handling the word of truth.

There is a correct interpretation of Scripture; you have to understand the Author's meaning, not whatever you want to read into it. You have to understand the primary audience of address. We are a secondary audience.  

Otherwise - the end of the world would be upon us.  [a] There are elements for sure, of God coming with the clouds in judgment that might line up with the destruction of Jerusalem. But is that what Jesus meant? [b] The angels indicate that he will return in the same way he left. [c] And it does not seem plausible they were only referring to the clouds of judgment. 
[a] I covered His return in previous posts. To the faithful, His coming would bring reward, but to the unfaithful, it would bring judgment. Simple as that.

[b] How did He leave? I explain that previously too. He went into heaven in glory, and He would return in glory. The glory cloud covered Him from their sight. In other words, the presence of God was with Him, God's glory. The same would be so in His return. God's presence and glory would be with Him. 

[c] See [a]. Reward and punishment depending on belief or unbelief. 

Tribulation might be like the millenium. 1000 years. or 7 years. Both are numbers of totality.  Perhaps the millenium and the tribulation are the same period of time between Christ's first coming and his second one?  Or perhaps not? 
There is good reason to believe the Millenium was within or the period of forty years. At that time, two covenants existed side by side. The one covenant was about to perish. The link I provided earlier touches on this, as quoted below.

Maimonides
“Jewish writings stipulate that forty years after the coming of the Messiah there will be a resurrection of the dead, and all who are lying in dust will rise to new life.” (The 13 Principles and the Resurrection of the Dead)

And here:

Lohse, TDNT
“The idea of the millennium which the divine works out here is to be understood against the backdrop of the Jewish apoc. traditions that he adopts and uses. In the expectation of an intermediate Messianic kingdom which shall precede the end and the coming of the reign of God, Eth. En. 91:12f; 93:1-14; Sib., 3, 652-660; 4 Esr. 7:28f; S. Bar. 29:3; 30:1-5; 40:3, two forms of eschatological hope are combined...” (TDNT, Vol. IX, page 470)

That end came in AD 70. Thus, I see the forty years or within the forty years as the 1000 year reign. A thousand years is sometimes used in Scripture to denote something other than 1000. For instance, 

For every animal of the forest is Mine, The cattle on a thousand hills.

What about the animals on the one thousand and first hill? Does God own those also?


Topic's author
#157
Stephen
Stephen's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 8,615
3
2
2
Stephen's avatar
Stephen
3
2
2
-->
@PGA2.0
it is nice to see some people attempting to provide good material to consider.  

I think the notion that Jesus returning so soon after he left makes little sense.  No wonder we see so much weirdness in the Christian movement. 
So soon? Within the span of a generation. What generation do you think Jesus is referring to, and how long does the NT give a generation to be? 

But he didn't did he. And the bible says he didn't. And Peter the lair, and traitor and denier of Jesus, makes up some bullshit excuse for the no show saying  2a day is a thousand years".

I called your BS already. 

 Regurgitating unreliable and ambiguous verses from the same unreliable and ambiguous source does not make for "calling my BS" or stand as any type of proof that a dead, rotting and stinking corpse of a man came back to life, went up to heaven, came down again and was present at the fall of the city of Jerusalem some 40 years later in AD 66-70.
The bible says he didn't show when he promised to show.  The Jews complained about this no show, they didn't complain because he did show, now did they, you silly little man.

So what excuse did the traitor and liar and three times denier of Jesus use for this no show? 

He said listen you gullible, superstitious bell-ends, I know something you don't know, "  With the Lord a day is like a thousand years, and a thousand years are like a day" .

And tell me, was the "earth laid bare" when  you say Jesus returned AD 66 - 70 ? NO. Did "the heavens disappear"? NO.   Were "all the earths elements been destroyed by fire"?  NO.   But didn't the traitor and liar and three times denier of Jesus also  tell us all these things would also happen when Jesus returned.  Of course he did , here we are:



2 Peter 3:8-10
 But do not forget this one thing, dear friends: With the Lord a day is like a thousand years, and a thousand years are like a day. 9 The Lord is not slow in keeping his promise, as some understand slowness. Instead he is patient with you, not wanting anyone to perish, but everyone to come to repentance.
 But the day of the Lord will come like a thief. The heavens will disappear with a roar; the elements will be destroyed by fire, and the earth and everything done in it will be laid bare


And I keep telling you, there are millions of Christians still waiting this second coming and believe his return is imminent.

#158
Timid8967
Timid8967's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 459
2
2
2
Timid8967's avatar
Timid8967
2
2
2
-->
@PGA2.0
Hi Again,

thanks for clarifying my questions.  Yes, I have read Days of Vengeance. It is a partial preterist view. Similarly I have read Gentry's. I have a copy of Parousia but I have not read it yet.  

I am somewhat familiar with these as  my brother was a big fan of some of the authors.  Chilton has a really good book on economics.  I don't have an opinion one way or the other - as it really makes not a lot of difference to me what the bible teaches.  I like to study people though and understand their arguments.  

I have to say I don't come across to many full preterists though.  Are there many of you and where would you fit in a denomination for instance? Would you also subscribe to FV? 

And try not to have such large posts.  I read the parts I am interested in - but not everything you write.  Remember - currently I am a non-theist and I don't have to subscribe to a particular eschatological position.  

Can you tell me - more about the difference between full and partial preterist? 
#159
zedvictor4
zedvictor4's avatar
Debates: 22
Posts: 12,067
3
3
6
zedvictor4's avatar
zedvictor4
3
3
6
-->
@PGA2.0
In your biased and conditioned opinion.

Whereas, I would observantly suggest, that in terms of manipulation and gullibility, Christian ideology is no more or less cultish than Scientology.



There is undoubtedly some real evidence in the NT....... People places etc......Such is myth.

Though myth also has a tendency to include super-nature, and then leave it to the imagination.



And as I always say:

GOD principle sound....But not a floaty about Caucasian bloke of Arabian descent.


And for sure, Scientology is nonsense....But nonetheless it hooks, manipulates and is able to control the gullible......Ring any bells?

Topic's author
#160
Stephen
Stephen's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 8,615
3
2
2
Stephen's avatar
Stephen
3
2
2
-->
@Timid8967
PGA2.0 can you tell me - more about the difference between full and partial preterist?

 But I   suggest you  do so on another thread. This one is about Jesus failing to show after promising to return before some of those witnessing the promise had passed away..
#161
PGA2.0
PGA2.0's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 3,179
3
5
8
PGA2.0's avatar
PGA2.0
3
5
8
-->
@Timid8967
Hi Again,

thanks for clarifying my questions.  Yes, I have read Days of Vengeance. It is a partial preterist view. Similarly I have read Gentry's. I have a copy of Parousia but I have not read it yet.  
I believe he later turned full Preterist, as I heard did John Bray. 

I am somewhat familiar with these as  my brother was a big fan of some of the authors.  Chilton has a really good book on economics.  I don't have an opinion one way or the other - as it really makes not a lot of difference to me what the bible teaches.  I like to study people though and understand their arguments. 
Then have you read Greg Bahnsen on Corenius Van Til? It is a study of worldviews and what makes them tick. 

I have to say I don't come across to many full preterists though.  Are there many of you and where would you fit in a denomination for instance? Would you also subscribe to FV? 
FV? Quite a lot, but mainly in the States. I'm Canadian. 

I like the work of David Curtis and Don K. Preston. The Preterist Archive is a precious source of information. 

And try not to have such large posts.  I read the parts I am interested in - but not everything you write.  Remember - currently I am a non-theist and I don't have to subscribe to a particular eschatological position.  

Can you tell me - more about the difference between full and partial preterist? 
Condensed version, Full Preterists, believe all biblical prophecy is fulfilled by AD 70. Partial Preterists believe some prophecy is still to be fulfilled, including the final judgment of Revelation.
#162
Timid8967
Timid8967's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 459
2
2
2
Timid8967's avatar
Timid8967
2
2
2
-->
@PGA2.0
I believe he later turned full Preterist, as I heard did John Bray. 
Yes that was my understanding - but did not know about John Bray. 


I am somewhat familiar with these as  my brother was a big fan of some of the authors.  Chilton has a really good book on economics.  I don't have an opinion one way or the other - as it really makes not a lot of difference to me what the bible teaches.  I like to study people though and understand their arguments. 
Then have you read Greg Bahnsen on Corenius Van Til? It is a study of worldviews and what makes them tick. 
Yes. and Rushdooney and Gary North. and DeMar. And a whole lot of others.  My brother made me read them. And Schaeffer.  He thought if I understood them, that I would convert.  I didn't really understand the basis for these books.  Yes there were lots of interesting comments.  But I am still not converted.  I remain as I am.  Still it is helpful to see where they are coming from. I don't take it that they are mean nasty men trying to bring in some levitical law system. 

I think that the partial preterist view makes more sense than the full view.  The full view seems to lose something for instance.  I think it is plausible that Jesus' judgment on Israel can be portrayed as a return.  Coming on the clouds as such- but the NT seems to suggest clearly, even if it is nonsense, that his return would also be physical.  While accepting that first century Jews probably had a good grasp of language of the OT,  it can hardly be denied that they were looking for the physical return of their king. 


I have to say I don't come across to many full preterists though.  Are there many of you and where would you fit in a denomination for instance? Would you also subscribe to FV? 
FV? Quite a lot, but mainly in the States. I'm Canadian. 
FV = Federal Vision.  Douglas Wilson - James Jordan, etc.  I won't hold your Canadianship against you. 


I like the work of David Curtis and Don K. Preston. The Preterist Archive is a precious source of information. 
Yes, i have linked there before.  I think that is where I downloaded a copy of Parousia. 


And try not to have such large posts.  I read the parts I am interested in - but not everything you write.  Remember - currently I am a non-theist and I don't have to subscribe to a particular eschatological position.  

Can you tell me - more about the difference between full and partial preterist? 
Condensed version, Full Preterists, believe all biblical prophecy is fulfilled by AD 70. Partial Preterists believe some prophecy is still to be fulfilled, including the final judgment of Revelation.
Thanks PGA2.0.  I don't actually hold a view - I don't have too since I am not a believer and since it is sort of irrelevant.  Me, I just like intellectual honesty. And I like people attempting to find ways to discuss differences without getting all tetchy.   

Thanks for posting on this  particular thread. It is the correct thread to post it on. I cannot figure out why Stephen would want you to post elsewhere.  It is directly on point.  His topic is eschatological. Your point is eschatological. Surely he does not think he owns the thread and can determine what is eschatological and what is not?  After reading your posts - well parts of them - you make much more sense to me  than Stephen does. At least you attempt to connect the dots. Even if I don't agree with you.  Which I don't. 

#163
Timid8967
Timid8967's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 459
2
2
2
Timid8967's avatar
Timid8967
2
2
2
-->
@Stephen
PGA2.0 can you tell me - more about the difference between full and partial preterist?

 But I   suggest you  do so on another thread. This one is about Jesus failing to show after promising to return before some of those witnessing the promise had passed away..
That is exactly why he should post it here.  PGA2.0 has soundly refuted your premise.  I might not agree with him but his discussion is entirely on point.  I have asked him to differentiate a particular nuance in his discussion. It adds to the ongoing discussion which is entirely eschatological.  It is not highjacking the discussion or moving it elsewhere. You say Jesus failed to return.  PGA2.0 argues Jesus did return.  It hardly matters what the majority of other people believe - he is arguing from the NT and is doing so ably.  

just because you pickup on errors from other persons - even if they are well supported does not make them correct or you right. PGA2.0 has provided a well substantiated and if you had bothered to look, a well supported opinion, by a significant part of Christianity. To dismiss his ideas as not being the majority is a concession on your part that you don't know how to respond properly.  That is a matter for you. Yet it does not give you a right or an entitlement to ask him to leave the thread.  Nor does it oblige him to consent to doing so. 

If it was me I would attempt to tackle him from another angel. Not try to push him away because he is not agreeing with me.  
#164
PGA2.0
PGA2.0's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 3,179
3
5
8
PGA2.0's avatar
PGA2.0
3
5
8
-->
@Timid8967
PGA2.0 can you tell me - more about the difference between full and partial preterist?

 But I   suggest you  do so on another thread. This one is about Jesus failing to show after promising to return before some of those witnessing the promise had passed away..
That is exactly why he should post it here.  PGA2.0 has soundly refuted your premise.  I might not agree with him but his discussion is entirely on point.  I have asked him to differentiate a particular nuance in his discussion. It adds to the ongoing discussion which is entirely eschatological.  It is not highjacking the discussion or moving it elsewhere. You say Jesus failed to return.  PGA2.0 argues Jesus did return.  It hardly matters what the majority of other people believe - he is arguing from the NT and is doing so ably.  

just because you pickup on errors from other persons - even if they are well supported does not make them correct or you right. PGA2.0 has provided a well substantiated and if you had bothered to look, a well supported opinion, by a significant part of Christianity. To dismiss his ideas as not being the majority is a concession on your part that you don't know how to respond properly.  That is a matter for you. Yet it does not give you a right or an entitlement to ask him to leave the thread.  Nor does it oblige him to consent to doing so. 

If it was me I would attempt to tackle him from another angel. Not try to push him away because he is not agreeing with me.  
Thank you for that post!
#165
PGA2.0
PGA2.0's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 3,179
3
5
8
PGA2.0's avatar
PGA2.0
3
5
8
-->
@Stephen
@Timid8967

PGA2.0 can you tell me - more about the difference between full and partial preterist?

 But I   suggest you  do so on another thread. This one is about Jesus failing to show after promising to return before some of those witnessing the promise had passed away..

Timid8967 is correct. Both the Preterist and partial Preterist views are eschatological. It is just the extent to which they go in their eschatology, the former believing all biblical prophecy has been fulfilled, the latter believing some is still future. 
Topic's author
#166
Stephen
Stephen's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 8,615
3
2
2
Stephen's avatar
Stephen
3
2
2
-->
@Timid8967
That is exactly why he should post it here.  PGA2.0 has soundly refuted your premise.

 And that is you opinion. The scriptures themselves tell us very clearly that Jesus failed to return when he promised he would. 


My thread is not a place for discussing his own religious  differences. 



It is not highjacking the discussion or moving it elsewhere.

 That is exactly what you are encouraging him to do. And I suggest you cease

There is nothing stopping him starting his own thread on his own  given choice of belief system . I am asking you and him not to do it on this thread, my thread. 


You say Jesus failed to return. 

 No, the scriptures say Jesus failed to return. Why are you so mixed up and confused about what I say and what I say the bible ACTUALLY says.


PGA2.0 argues Jesus did return.

I know what he is arguing.  But he has yet to prove it. So far he has produced nothing to show  that the dead and stinking rotting  corpse of Jesus was raised from  being dead to being alive again, had shared a meal with friends, ascended into heaven, came down again sometime between ascending  up into the heavens and reappearing on a cloud to be present at the fall of Jerusalem in AD 66 - 70. And neither have you. 


he is arguing from the NT and is doing so ably. 

Opinion. I think entirely the opposite.


 PGA2.0 has provided a well substantiated and if you had bothered to look, a well supported opinion, by a significant part of Christianity. 

 More opinion. I have simply quoted what the NT has to say on the matter of Jesus' no show. your boy believes that Peter explained this no show by saying to  the local illiterate and superstitious folk that they had forgotten that "to the lord a day was but a thousand years".  And believes that wraps it all up and explained away the no show.

HERE see for yourself>>  "But do not forget this one thing, dear friends: With the Lord a day is like a thousand years, and a thousand years are like a day" .2 Peter 3:8  
Odd it is that when the promise was made that Jesus forgot to mention this himself.   So how can they forget if they weren't told in the first fkn place?
 And if is the case then 1000 years after the crucifixion would not put us in AD 66-70, would it?  So you can explain that shite for him too if you like.


 Yet it does not give you a right or an entitlement to ask him to leave the thread. 

 I haven't ask him to leave. I have asked many times to start his own thread on the preterism and the belief that a dead man returned to life, went to live with his father in heaven and then came down again to be present at the fall of Jerusalem AD 66_70. so far he has failed to do so.


And talking of failure;

 If you want to argue on his behalf I am sure he would appreciate your assistance as he is doing a terrible and inept job and has shown himself to be failing miserably to prove his case that Jesus has already returned.


If it was me I would attempt to tackle him from another angel.


 Then do so. But it is just that it is not you is it sunshine?  It is me and I am "tackling him" in my own style, which is usually via the unreliable and ambiguous scriptures themselves. 


Not try to push him away because he is not agreeing with me.  

 I haven't pushed him away. I have challenged all of his repeated and regurgitated BS.  I have asked him to start his  own thread concerning his religions believe that the Christ has already returned. I would gladly join him . But he won't you see, because Preterism -  half or full - has been debunk many times (depending on what one chooses to believe). Indeed  Half or Full  Preterism, should explain it all, they can't even agree amongst themselves!!!!!
I am still waiting for his explanation as to why all those other predictions by the traitor and three times denier of Christ;  Peter didn't happen. 


Was the "earth laid bare" when  he says Jesus returned AD 66 - 70 ? NO. Did "the heavens disappear"AD 66 - 70? NO.   Were "all the earths elements been destroyed by fire"AD 66 - 70?  NO.   But didn't the traitor and liar and three times denier of Jesus also  tell us all these things would also happen when Jesus returned.  Of course he did , here we are:



2 Peter 3:8-10
 But do not forget this one thing, dear friends: With the Lord a day is like a thousand years, and a thousand years are like a day. 9 The Lord is not slow in keeping his promise, as some understand slowness. Instead he is patient with you, not wanting anyone to perish, but everyone to come to repentance.
 But the day of the Lord will come like a thief. The heavens will disappear with a roar; the elements will be destroyed by fire, and the earth and everything done in it will be laid bare.

 Did those things also happen when Jesus returned "on a cloud" in AD 66-70?  If they did not a single historian of the time mentioned it. Not a single written eyewitness account of a return or these disasters that were to accompany the promised return of the Christ "coming on  on a cloud".

 So, when you are readyTimid8967, you can start by showing us the evidence that all those things occurred all  at the same time in AD 66_70, seeing that you are keen to speak on behalf of  others.

Off you go.
#167
fauxlaw
fauxlaw's avatar
Debates: 77
Posts: 3,565
4
7
10
fauxlaw's avatar
fauxlaw
4
7
10
#166, the poster's last prior to sanction, and the sanction described the very attitude expressed in #166. A lesson to all. The one universal belief across virtually all major religions and philosophies: "Do unto others..." Must be a meaningful suggestion, with which the CoC agrees.
Hint: posting a topic does not given ownership of the string to anyone, even the originator of the topic; no member is refused to post in any string but by ban from the entire site.
#168
Timid8967
Timid8967's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 459
2
2
2
Timid8967's avatar
Timid8967
2
2
2
-->
@Stephen
That is exactly why he should post it here.  PGA2.0 has soundly refuted your premise.

 And that is you opinion. The scriptures themselves tell us very clearly that Jesus failed to return when he promised he would. 

That is your opinion. Can you point out in the NT where Jesus failed to return? No, you can't.   If Jesus said he would return in his generation, and that generation expired in about 80AD - then PGA2.0 is plausibly correct.  The NT was completed according to conservative theologians before AD 70.  PGA2.0 makes a plausible case that Jesus' "coming" is judgment at AD 70 destruction of Jerusalem. Of course since you are worse than the fundamentalists who cannot distinguish between the genres - then you are the one at a loss.  I fail to see how you can refute this thinking.  

My thread is not a place for discussing his own religious  differences. 
Not suggesting it is. It is discussing - your opinion that Jesus failed to return. PGA2.0 is discussing that - contradicting your arguments, and refuting it with his own apologetic which seems to have more legs than yours. 

It is not highjacking the discussion or moving it elsewhere.

 That is exactly what you are encouraging him to do. And I suggest you cease

There is nothing stopping him starting his own thread on his own  given choice of belief system . I am asking you and him not to do it on this thread, my thread. 
Stephen, I started on your side because I figured we were on the same side.  I am a non-theist - so are you. PGA2.0 is a theist.  Yet i am also on the side of intellectual honesty and of a proper discussion. You keep repeating the same old stuff - and you refuse to engage with PGA2.0 in a meaningful way. You make me embarrassed to me a non-theist.  He is doing exactly what any reasonable person on this thread would do if he disagreed with your presupposition. He is contradicting it and refuting it and providing a plausible alternative. That is how discussions work. BTW Contradicting is not the same as refuting it. Yet his follow up refutation is quite good - better than yours. 

You say Jesus failed to return. 

 No, the scriptures say Jesus failed to return. Why are you so mixed up and confused about what I say and what I say the bible ACTUALLY says.
Opinion again. WHERE does the scriptures say Jesus failed to return?  Your opinion is your opinion. That is fine - just don't mix your opinion up with fact. 

PGA2.0 argues Jesus did return.

I know what he is arguing.  But he has yet to prove it. So far he has produced nothing to show  that the dead and stinking rotting  corpse of Jesus was raised from  being dead to being alive again, had shared a meal with friends, ascended into heaven, came down again sometime between ascending  up into the heavens and reappearing on a cloud to be present at the fall of Jerusalem in AD 66 - 70. And neither have you. 
Do you? You sure do not seem to put it across.  Where does PGA2.0 say Jesus appeared literally on a cloud?  Even I saw where he demonstrated that God's judgment in the OT was linked on many occasions to the clouds.  I find it difficult to believe you missed it - unless you failed to read or comprehend. His view is that the coming of the Lord is God's judgment on the Israel.  He sees Jesus' return and the judgment of God as the same thing.  He does not believe that the NT ever talks about Jesus returning physically.  You continue to misunderstand his point.  This is why you keep missing what he is saying.  For the record and because you are ignorant, it is only a small part of Christianity which are dispensational and believe in the rapture.  The historical pre-mills don't believe it. The amills don't believe it. The post-mils don't believe it.  The catholic church, the episcopalian church, the Orthodox church don't believe it.  America has a lot of dispensationalists - mostly baptists and charismatics. But honestly - the historic position of the church is quite opposed to these views - the catholic church is post mil - as has the reformed churches been mostly. The fact that you seem to be relying on fundamentalist teaching to try and prove a point is delightful- but flawed.  I am not trying to prove anything - except perhaps you don't know what you are talking about. 

he is arguing from the NT and is doing so ably. 

Opinion. I think entirely the opposite.
And that is fine by me.  I have no problem with whatever you want to believe.  Just don't think that what you say is gospel for everyone else. 

 PGA2.0 has provided a well substantiated and if you had bothered to look, a well supported opinion, by a significant part of Christianity. 

 More opinion. I have simply quoted what the NT has to say on the matter of Jesus' no show. your boy believes that Peter explained this no show by saying to  the local illiterate and superstitious folk that they had forgotten that "to the lord a day was but a thousand years".  And believes that wraps it all up and explained away the no show.
No - you have quoted and then interpreted according to your opinion. Quite a different thing altogether.  As I read the same passages I and others interpret them differently. 

PGA2.0 explained that passage quite well. Perhaps you should take another look. It is hardly credible to assume that everytime we read a day we should use it as a codeword for a 1000 years. That is just dumb exegesis. It does not even need refuting.  


HERE see for yourself>>  "But do not forget this one thing, dear friends: With the Lord a day is like a thousand years, and a thousand years are like a day" .2 Peter 3:8  
Odd it is that when the promise was made that Jesus forgot to mention this himself.   So how can they forget if they weren't told in the first fkn place?
 And if is the case then 1000 years after the crucifixion would not put us in AD 66-70, would it?  So you can explain that shite for him too if you like.
Even I know that Christians don't think Jesus the man was all knowing.  Why would you try and score a strawman point unless you are struggling? It accords with PGA2.0' position. How can you fail to see that? Unless you simply have no comprehension skills. 

 Yet it does not give you a right or an entitlement to ask him to leave the thread. 

 I haven't ask him to leave. I have asked many times to start his own thread on the preterism and the belief that a dead man returned to life, went to live with his father in heaven and then came down again to be present at the fall of Jerusalem AD 66_70. so far he has failed to do so.
Yes you did. You told him to explain - what was legitimate and relevant and do it on another thread.  It however was relevant. You failed and continue to fail to understand it.  Preterism entirely on point.  

 If you want to argue on his behalf I am sure he would appreciate your assistance as he is doing a miserable job and has shown himself to be failing miserably to prove his case that Jesu has already returned.
I am not arguing on his behalf - I am arguing on that basis of non-theists who are embarrassed by your lack of comprehension and language skills.   I don't care whether he is right or not. I do worry that you - an atheist - choose to ignore it and pretend it is ok to ignore what he says.  And then to ridicule him and never actually address his points. 

If it was me I would attempt to tackle him from another angel.


 Then do so. But it is just that it is not you is it sunshine?  It is me and I am "tackling him" in my own style, which is usually via the unreliable and ambiguous scriptures themselves. 
I will - problem is, if I do so while you are currently on your weekly witchhunt I might be associated with you as a non-theist. I would prefer it after the dust settles and some minor points have had some agreement or resolution. So far you are doing such a pitiful job that you are compelling me to argue against you. 

Not try to push him away because he is not agreeing with me.  

 I haven't pushed him away. I have challenged all of his repeated and regurgitated BS.  I have asked him to start his  own thread concerning his religions believe that the Christ has already returned.
You are not serious are you? You don't even read what you write - no wonder you don't read others. 

I am still waiting for his explanation as to why all those other predictions by the traitor and three times denier of Christ Peter didn't happen. 
Ok. 

Was the "earth laid bare" when  you say Jesus returned AD 66 - 70 ? NO. Did "the heavens disappear"AD 66 - 70? NO.   Were "all the earths elements been destroyed by fire"AD 66 - 70?  NO.   But didn't the traitor and liar and three times denier of Jesus also  tell us all these things would also happen when Jesus returned.  Of course he did , here we are:

No offence meant. But he explained it. Even I understood what he was saying.  He does not take a literalist point of view like you and your friends the fundamentalists. He understands imagery and symbols - as he should if he is going to use OT language.  I really find it difficult that an atheist like yourself is having difficulty with this. We have been fighting against the fundies for decades because of their ridiculous interpretation by literalism. And we here have some one who agrees with us  - and so you resort to dumb literalism. 

I am trying to figure out who is worse - the fundies or you. 



 Did those things also happen when Jesus returned "on a cloud" in AD 66-70?  If they did not a single historian of the time mentioned it. Not a single written eyewitness account of a return or these disasters that were to accompany the promised return of the Christ "coming on  on a cloud".
 So, when you are readyTimid8967, you can start by showing us the evidence that all those things occurred all  at the same time in AD 66_70, seeing that you are keen to speak on behalf of  others.

Off you go.

I am not your student. I have nothing to gain by trying to answer your questions. PGA2.0 has very ably done so - and you have embarrassed us all. 



Topic's author
#169
Stephen
Stephen's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 8,615
3
2
2
Stephen's avatar
Stephen
3
2
2
-->
@fauxlaw
And no one has been refused. I haven't asked him to leave either.


Just keep on topic is all I ask.  The thing here is that the Pretersists cannot even make their own minds up about what they believe themselves.   And I don't need THEIR differences being discussed on my thread.

There is nothing at all stopping him starting  his own thread to discuss the differences between  "full"  and "half" Preterism  <<,how fkn ridiculous. He has not proven his case here maybe he would have more luck with your support for his beliefs on a thread of his own.

I have you on block :
Now you either contribute to the subject matter instead of shit stirring or leave my thread.   Did Jesus return when he promised to?  OR did Jesus show up to the party in Jerusalem in AD 66-70? Or has Jesus' return not happened at all yet, but his return is imminent?
 
Topic's author
#170
Stephen
Stephen's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 8,615
3
2
2
Stephen's avatar
Stephen
3
2
2
-->
@Timid8967
 PGA2.0 has very ably done so - and you have embarrassed us all. 

 More opinion. No substance.

If you feel embarrassed that maybe down to the fact that you are out of your depth concerning the subject matter.


But he explained it

 No he gave an opinion without proof.

 I am not going to argue with you what he has or hasn't done.  If you believe him and his version of events then just come right out and say so instead of sitting on the fence and  trying to stir shit from the sidelines because you have no fkn argument of your own.
You are  beginning to come across like an old wanker braindead member of  DebateArt  who used to speak loud on behalf of others  simply because he lacked a brain of his own to argue his own corner.  



 I am saying he has no proof.. not a single written eyewitness account  of a dead man returning on a cloud accompanied by all these other disasters predicted by Peter  in 66 -70 AD. DO YOU!? 

So unless you can support his BS  you have no argument. 

So when you are ready.  Off you go.
Topic's author
#171
Stephen
Stephen's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 8,615
3
2
2
Stephen's avatar
Stephen
3
2
2
-->
@PGA2.0
 Both the Preterist and partial Preterist views are eschatological. It is just the extent to which they go in their eschatology, the former believing all biblical prophecy has been fulfilled, the latter believing some is still future. 

 Indeed and you cannot make you minds up which one of you is right, can you. ? When the rest of Christianity believes you both to be wrong. 
#172
Timid8967
Timid8967's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 459
2
2
2
Timid8967's avatar
Timid8967
2
2
2
-->
@Stephen
 PGA2.0 has very ably done so - and you have embarrassed us all. 

 More opinion. No substance.

If you feel embarrassed that maybe down to the fact that you are out of your depth concerning the subject matter.


But he explained it

 No he gave an opinion without proof.

 I am not going to argue with you what he has or hasn't done.  If you believe him and his version of events then just come right out and say so instead of sitting on the fence and  trying to stir shit from the sidelines because you have no fkn argument of your own.
You are  beginning to come across like an old wanker braindead member of  DebateArt  who used to speak loud on behalf of others  simply because he lacked a brain of his own to argue his own corner.  



 I am saying he has no proof.. not a single written eyewitness account  of a dead man returning on a cloud accompanied by all these other disasters predicted by Peter  in 66 -70 AD. DO YOU!? 

So unless you can support his BS  you have no argument. 

So when you are ready.  Off you go.

Can you read? Obviously not. Why would anyone produce proof of a dead man returning on a cloud when that is not the meaning of the text nor is what PGA2.0 is saying? Can you even conceive of what you are asking? I don't think so.  PGA2.0 is not claiming Jesus returned physically on the clouds.  Nor does the bible implicitly say it either. You just interpret according to a fundamentalist viewpoint and not an informed one.  

Braindead wanker - I must be in glorious company then.  

He did explain it. I read it. Others have read it. The only one lacking the skills is you.    It is so hard resisting your obvious lack of talent - but I could never resist a good joke.  

I  think this is the first time I have actually argued alongside a theist - against a fellow non-theist.  And I don't even agree with the theist.  But at least he is making an effort. 
Topic's author
#173
Stephen
Stephen's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 8,615
3
2
2
Stephen's avatar
Stephen
3
2
2
-->
@Timid8967
I  think this is the first time I have actually argued alongside a theist - against a fellow non-theist. 

 But you aren't are you. You are simply doing what he has done.  You haven't an argument of your own either. You have also said ;


"  No wonder we see so much weirdness in the Christian movement. "#141

 What "weirdness in the Christian movement "would that be?   And why does it "make no sense"  to you?



Can you read?Obviously not

True colours, me thinks.  Your mask is slipping princess.


non-theist. 

What does the actually mean? Does it mean you are a theist Christian but pretending not to be.   I think your full of shite with NOTHING at all to argue in defence of the theory that Jesus returned to earth after being dead and showing up in Jerusalem in AD66-70 is fact.     If you have let's see it sunshine. Or simply shut that great trap of yours that has blown nothing but bullshite and  hot air for the last ten posts.

The scriptures state clearly " "every eye will see him," .   So did you see him return on a cloud in all high glory in AD 66-70? 

 Can you produce a single historical written eye witness that attests to seeing him return on a cloud in AD 66 -70?

  PGA2.0 tried to tell me that the Jewish  historian Josephus witnessed it all, until l  showed him to be a liar.. but you have not  taken the time to read this thread have you , Princess?  You have said words to the effect that  PGA2.0's posts are too long for you to bother to read them. 

 Can you prove that all of those predictions of Peter happened when Jesus" returned in  in AD 66_70"? 

 I have also shown that for every biblical verse PGA2.0 produces in defence of his Preterist claim that there are just as many, if not more biblical verses, being produced by Christian theist that in their defence shows and proves Jesus has not returned but that  his return is imminent.     Are they wrong? 



 Can you even conceive of what you are asking? 

I have the scriptures that clearly state the Jesus didn't return at the time he promised that he would.  Do you have anything of your own that contradicts this?


Let me see you evidence.  

 Run along now. 



 PS. And if you believe that I actually fell for this bullshit of yours, ....
Thanks Stephen,  it is nice to see some people attempting to provide good material to consider.  #141

.....can think again princess?  I am going for dinner.


#174
PGA2.0
PGA2.0's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 3,179
3
5
8
PGA2.0's avatar
PGA2.0
3
5
8
-->
@Timid8967
[a] I think that the partial preterist view makes more sense than the full view.  The full view seems to lose something for instance. [b] I think it is plausible that Jesus' judgment on Israel can be portrayed as a return.  [c] Coming on the clouds as such- but the NT seems to suggest clearly, even if it is nonsense, that his return would also be physical.  While accepting that first century Jews probably had a good grasp of language of the OT,  it can hardly be denied that they were looking for the physical return of their king. 
[a] Finally, after years on this forum, someone to dialogue with who somewhat understands and has read some arguments from my position. Why do you think a partial Preterist view makes more sense? And how does the full view lose something? 

[b] Stephen offered a key couple of verses, Matthew 16:27-28. Jesus said He would return in the Father's glory. That should bring to mind how the Father manifested His glory in the OT, and you seem to think that my explanation was reasonable. 


Matthew 5:17-18 is also a key when you ask yourself a few questions. Remember, Jesus said not one iota of the OT would pass away until everything written by Moses (the Law/Torah) and the Prophets (basically the rest of OT Scripture) was accomplished. What does that mean? In AD 70, you find that what OT Israel agreed to in Exodus 24:3, 7 can no longer be fulfilled. There is no more sacrificial system for the atonement of their sins, no more priesthood to act as a mediator between them and God, no more temple, no more Holy city, the city of God on earth, no more feast days under the Law, no more genealogical records stored in the temple to trace the lineage of the priesthood. It has all disappeared. The fulfillment of OT prophecy is explained as being fulfilled in every sense of the word. The OT system of worship and OT economy that centred around temple worship is done away with. We now see the greater reality. 

Yes, many Jews were looking for a Messiah who would physically conquer, but what did the NT teach, or the OT for that matter? Jesus, first of all, said His kingdom was not of this world. Second, what is contained in the OT as a physical history is explained in the NT in types and shadows of the new. The OT is a type and shadow of a greater truth, a greater reality, the spiritual, which the unbeliever so often misses. Remember, Jesus said that all the OT spoke of Him. Until you understand this more clearly, you miss a lot of what Paul calls spiritual truths that the unbelieving person will not accept. Part of the unveiling of the Messiah, Jesus Christ/Yeshua, in the NT reveals His nature. What is applied to God alone in the OT is now being applied to Jesus in the NT. That is not to say that Jesus and the Father are the same person, just that they are the one true God. What is true of the Father is also true of the Son and the Spirit. In a sense, what is true of your nature as a human being is true of your sons also. 

So, on many levels, Jesus fits the bill. 
1. He is the appointed Messiah that was promised to these Old Covenant people. Everything promised in the OT is fulfilled in Jesus Christ, and no Old Covenant Savior is possible after AD 70
2. The Old Covenant does not exist after AD 70 because he has made a better covenant with God by shedding His own blood.
3. Between AD 30 and AD 70, there is a transition between two covenants that exist side-by-side for one generation until those promised can enter the new Promised Land. Just like in the Exodus, where Moses leads His people out of the physical land of slavery and bondage, so Jesu (the second Moses) leads His people from spiritual bondage into the land of promise. Hebrews is a juxtaposition of two covenants. 
#175
PGA2.0
PGA2.0's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 3,179
3
5
8
PGA2.0's avatar
PGA2.0
3
5
8
-->
@Timid8967
Thanks PGA2.0.  I don't actually hold a view - I don't have too since I am not a believer and since it is sort of irrelevant.  Me, I just like intellectual honesty. And I like people attempting to find ways to discuss differences without getting all tetchy. 
I'm sure you believe that you hold no view, but I find it hard to be neutral. Unbelievers hold views too. Neutrality is a myth. I do not believe you are neutral on the subject matter. Surely you would know that after reading Bahnsen on Van Til? Perhaps an explanation is that you don't know how much your current worldview influences your state of being. Since you have read more on Preterism and partial Preterism plus all futuristic views of eschatology than anyone I have encountered on these forums, perhaps you are suppressing your view or do not want it to be true.

If my view is true, and I invite you to critique it, it does affect what you believe since our views conflict with each other. That logically means we both cannot be right. I believe speaking with someone who knows something about the subject will showcase the subject more effectively. 

Thanks for posting on this  particular thread. It is the correct thread to post it on. I cannot figure out why Stephen would want you to post elsewhere.  It is directly on point.  His topic is eschatological. Your point is eschatological. Surely he does not think he owns the thread and can determine what is eschatological and what is not?  After reading your posts - well parts of them - you make much more sense to me  than Stephen does. At least you attempt to connect the dots. Even if I don't agree with you.  Which I don't. 
Thank you for your support on this point. I wondered if anyone was critical enough in their thinking to recognize that Preterism concerns itself with Jesus' coming as past and as a reasonable explanation. I don't think there is a more reasonable explanation.  

IMO, I think he does believe he owns the thread and can discern what is and is not eschatological when in fact, he doesn't have a clue. His worldview bias clouds his thinking.

 The part of your last paragraph that intrigues me is that you know enough about Preterism to discuss it, yet you disagree with me. Please reveal why you think partial Preterism is more credible in your opinion. And one more point, do you think Preterism is more credible than all those futuristic views you cited earlier? Dispensationalism is the view that I believe has taken hold in America today and the view that dominates so much of the thinking of secularists and church members today on eschatology.
Topic's author
#176
Stephen
Stephen's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 8,615
3
2
2
Stephen's avatar
Stephen
3
2
2
-->
@PGA2.0
@Timid8967
PGA2.0, wrote: 1. He is the appointed Messiah that was promised to these Old Covenant people. Everything promised in the OT is fulfilled in Jesus Christ, and no Old Covenant Savior is possible after AD 70


 More BS. !!!!

Specifically, the Bible says he will:

Build the Third Temple (Ezekiel 37:26-28).

Gather all Jews back to the Land of Israel (Isaiah 43:5-6).

Usher in an era of world peace, and end all hatred, oppression, suffering and disease. As it says: "Nation shall not lift up sword against nation, neither shall man learn war anymore." (Isaiah 2:4)

Spread universal knowledge of the God of Israel, which will unite humanity as one. As it says: "God will be King over all the world – on that day, God will be One and His Name will be One" (Zechariah 14:9).

 Jesus accomplish NONE of the above. Not a one.

 I don't doubt that your new found friend and the forums " new" member will agree with your shite just for the hell of it but he won't be able to dispute what THE CHRISTIAN BIBLE actually prophesises  about the  messiah to come. 


For you to seven suggest that Jesus "fulfilled all of the Old Testament prophesies and promises" is simply lying.

He didn't even inherit the throne of King David as  " the lord" promised his mother that he would.

This is what was supposed to happen>>>
32He shall be great, and shall be called the Son of the Highest: and the Lord God shall give unto him the throne of his father David”:Luke1:26-38

This is what actually happened instead >>>  "Jesus was taken to a place called Golgotha – which means ‘The place of the skull’ - for his brutal execution by crucifixion. Mark 15: 21–41

So you see. The only thing Jesus inherited was two pieces of wood, three nails and a view overlooking the Kidron Valley.    This is far from a throne of any description isn’t it? Especially the “great throne covered with ivory and overlaid with fine gold.” of King David, as described here > > > 1Kings 10:18



And what happened about returning to " establish his kingdom on earth"? Or are the words; 

"Thy kingdom come, Thy will be done on earth, as it is in heaven",  still escaping you?

#177
PGA2.0
PGA2.0's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 3,179
3
5
8
PGA2.0's avatar
PGA2.0
3
5
8
-->
@Stephen
More BS. !!!!

Specifically, the Bible says he will:

Build the Third Temple (Ezekiel 37:26-28).

Ezekiel 37:26-28 (NASB)
26 And I will make a covenant of peace with them; it will be an everlasting covenant with them. And I will [a]place them and multiply them, and set My sanctuary in their midst forever. 27 My dwelling place also will be among them; and I will be their God, and they will be My people. 28 And the nations will know that I am the Lord who sanctifies Israel, when My sanctuary is in their midst forever.”’”

The covenant of peace with God in the New Covenant. It is in this covenant that God is well pleased. 

Or do you not know that your body is a temple of the Holy Spirit within you, whom you have from God, and that you are not your own? For you have been bought for a price: therefore glorify God in your body.

Ephesians 2:19-21 (NASB)
19 So then you are no longer strangers and foreigners, but you are fellow citizens with the [a]saints, and are of God’s household, 20 having been built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Christ Jesus Himself being the cornerstone, 21 in whom the whole building, being fitted together, is growing into a holy [b]temple in the Lord,

in whom you also are being built together into a dwelling of God in the Spirit.

For every house is built by someone, but the builder of all things is God.

you also, as living stones, are being built up as a spiritual house for a holy priesthood, to offer spiritual sacrifices that are acceptable to God through Jesus Christ.

Concerning this covenant, on the day of Pentecost, Peter could say:

16 but this is what has been spoken through the prophet Joel:
17 ‘And it shall be in the last days,’ God says,
‘That I will pour out My Spirit on all [p]mankind;
And your sons and your daughters will prophesy,
And your young men will see visions,
And your old men will [q]have dreams;
18 And even on My male and female [r]servants
I will pour out My Spirit in those days,
And they will prophesy.
19 And I will [s]display wonders in the sky above
And signs on the earth below,
Blood, fire, and [t]vapor of smoke.
20 The sun will be turned into darkness
And the moon into blood,
Before the great and glorious day of the Lord comes.
21 And it shall be that everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved.’
22 “Men of Israel, listen to these words: Jesus the Nazarene, a Man [u]attested to you by God with [v]miracles and wonders and [w]signs which God performed through Him in your midst, just as you yourselves know— 23 this Man, delivered over by the predetermined plan and foreknowledge of God, you nailed to a cross by the hands of [x]godless men and put Him to death. 24 [y]But God raised Him from the dead, putting an end to the [z]agony of death, since it was impossible for Him to be held [aa]in its power. 25 For David says of Him,
‘I saw the Lord continually before me,
Because He is at my right hand, so that I will not be shaken.
26 Therefore my heart was glad and my tongue was overjoyed;
Moreover my flesh also will live in hope;
27 For You will not abandon my soul to Hades,
Nor will You [ab]allow Your [ac]Holy One to [ad]undergo decay.
28 You have made known to me the ways of life;
You will make me full of gladness with Your presence.’
29 “[ae]Brothers, I may confidently say to you regarding the patriarch David that he both died and was buried, and his tomb is [af]with us to this day. 30 So because he was a prophet and knew that God had sworn to him with an oath to seat one [ag]of his descendants on his throne, 31 he looked ahead and spoke of the resurrection of the [ah]Christ, that He was neither abandoned to Hades, nor did His flesh [ai]suffer decay. 32 It is this Jesus whom God raised up, [aj]a fact to which we are all witnesses. 33 Therefore, [ak]since He has been exalted [al]at the right hand of God, and has received the promise of the Holy Spirit from the Father, He has poured out this which you both see and hear. 34 For it was not David who ascended into [am]heaven, but he himself says:
‘The Lord said to my Lord,
“Sit at My right hand,
35 Until I make Your enemies a footstool for Your feet.”’
36 Therefore let all the house of Israel know for certain that God has made Him both Lord and [an]Christ—this Jesus whom you crucified.”
37 Now when they heard this, they were [ao]pierced to the heart, and said to Peter and the rest of the apostles, “[ap]Brothers, what are we to do?” 38 Peter said to them, “Repent, and each of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins; and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. 39 For the promise is for you and your children and for all who are far away, as many as the Lord our God will call to Himself.” 40 And with many other words he solemnly testified and kept on urging them, saying, “[aq]Be saved from this perverse generation!” 41 So then, those who had received his word were baptized; and that day there were added about three thousand [ar]souls.

These new believers were coming into the household of God. They were entering the spiritual temple, the spiritual land, looking towards the heavenly country, the Zion of God. 

And so much for your theory that Jesus' body suffered decay. These verses thoroughly debunk your view. 
#178
PGA2.0
PGA2.0's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 3,179
3
5
8
PGA2.0's avatar
PGA2.0
3
5
8
-->
@Stephen
Point 2:
Gather all Jews back to the Land of Israel (Isaiah 43:5-6).
This is happening in the 1st-century. The New Israel is the church made up of Jews and Gentiles.  

But it is not as though the word of God has failed. For they are not all Israel who are descended from Israel;

It is through the promise that physical Israel realizes their land, the new promised land.

7 nor are they all children because they are Abraham’s [c]descendants, but: “[d]through Isaac your [e]descendants shall be named.”

It is you who are the sons of the prophets and of the covenant which God ordained with your fathers, saying to Abraham, ‘And in your seed all the families of the earth shall be blessed.’

remember that you were at that time separate from Christ, excluded from the people of Israel, and strangers to the covenants of the promise, having no hope and without God in the world.

For this is the covenant which I will make with the house of Israel After those days, declares the Lord: I will put My laws into their minds, And write them on their hearts. And I will be their God, And they shall be My people.

You see, the promise is based on Jesus Christ. That is the Israel of God, and Jesus is the king of Israel. 

Galatians 3:6-29
6 Just as Abraham believed God, and it was credited to him as righteousness. 7 Therefore, recognize that it is those who are of faith who are sons of Abraham. 8 The Scripture, foreseeing that God [j]would justify the [k]Gentiles by faith, preached the gospel beforehand to Abraham, saying, “All the nations will be blessed in you.” 9 So then, those who are of faith are blessed with [l]Abraham, the believer.
10 For all who are of works of [m]the Law are under a curse; for it is written: “Cursed is everyone who does not abide by all the things written in the book of the Law, to do them.” 11 Now, that no one is justified [n]by [o]the Law before God is evident; for, “[p]the righteous one will live by faith.” 12 [q]However, the Law is not [r]of faith; on the contrary, “The person who performs [s]them will live by [t]them.” 13 Christ redeemed us from the curse of the Law, having become a curse for us—for it is written: “Cursed is everyone who hangs on a [u]tree”— 14 in order that in Christ Jesus the blessing of Abraham would come to the Gentiles, so that we would receive the promise of the Spirit through faith.
Intent of the Law
15 Brothers and sisters, I speak [v]in terms of human relations: even though it is only a man’s [w]covenant, yet when it has been ratified, no one sets it aside or adds [x]conditions to it. 16 Now the promises were spoken to Abraham and to his seed. He does not say, “And to seeds,” as one would in referring to many, but rather as in referring to one, “And to your seed,” that is, Christ. 17 What I am saying is this: the Law, which came 430 years later, does not invalidate a covenant previously ratified by God, so as to nullify the promise. 18 For if the inheritance is [y]based on law, it is no longer [z]based on a promise; but God has granted it to Abraham by means of a promise.
19 Why the Law then? It was added on account of the [aa]violations, having been ordered through angels at the hand of a [ab]mediator, until the Seed would come to whom the promise had been made. 20 Now a mediator is not [ac]for one party only; but God is only one. 21 Is the Law then contrary to the promises of God? [ad]Far from it! For if a law had been given that was able to impart life, then righteousness [ae]would indeed have been [af]based on law. 22 But the Scripture has confined [ag]everyone under sin, so that the promise by faith in Jesus Christ might be given to those who believe.
23 But before faith came, [ah]we were kept in custody under the Law, being confined for the faith that was destined to be revealed. 24 Therefore the Law has become our [ai]guardian to lead us to Christ, so that we may be justified by faith. 25 But now that faith has come, we are no longer under a [aj]guardian. 26 For you are all sons and daughters of God through faith in Christ Jesus. 27 For all of you who were baptized into Christ have clothed yourselves with Christ. 28 There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is [ak]neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus. 29 And if you [al]belong to Christ, then you are Abraham’s [am]descendants, heirs according to promise.


Galatians 4:22-
22 For it is written that Abraham had two sons, one by the slave woman and one by the free woman. 23 But the son by the slave woman [s]was born according to the flesh, and the son by the free woman through the promise. 24 [t]This is speaking allegorically, for these women are two covenants: one coming from Mount Sinai giving birth to children [u]who are to be slaves; [v]she is Hagar. 25 Now this Hagar is Mount Sinai in Arabia and corresponds to the present Jerusalem, for she is enslaved with her children. 26 But the Jerusalem above is free; [w]she is our mother. 27 For it is written:
“Rejoice, infertile one, you who do not give birth;
Break forth and shout, you who are not in labor;
For the children of the desolate one are more numerous
Than those of the one who has a husband.”
28 And you, brothers and sisters, like Isaac, are children of promise. 29 But as at that time the son who was born according to the flesh persecuted the one who was born according to the Spirit, so it is even now. 30 But what does the Scripture say?
“Drive out the slave woman and her son,
For the son of the slave woman shall not be an heir with the son of the free woman.”
31 So then, brothers and sisters, we are not children of a slave woman, but of the free woman.

You see, Stephen, the one covenant by works, the OT could never fulfill the requirements of God. As soon as Israel sinned again they needed another sacrifice for sins. That is why God, in the OT, speaks of another covenant, a better one that comes to fruition during the NT times. You will notice above that physical Israel, the physical land, the physical Moses, the physical temple, the physical animal sacrifices all convey a greater truth, the freedom and peace with God found in Jesus Christ. The Mount Sinai below the author, Paul, corresponds Hagar and the Old Covenant with physical Jerusalem. The spiritual Mt Zion is heavenly, corresponding to the heavenly Jerusalem and heavenly land found in Christ. One is in bondage because she is always trying by her own works of righteousness to fulfill the Law. It only works until their next sin. Then another sacrifice is needed to atone for their sins. Works do not cut it. Paul is saying we are justified by faith in Jesus Christ. He has fulfilled the whole Law of Moses on behalf of the believer by becoming a sufficient sacrifice for sins, one offering for all time.   
#179
PGA2.0
PGA2.0's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 3,179
3
5
8
PGA2.0's avatar
PGA2.0
3
5
8
-->
@Stephen
Hebrews 9:23-28 (NASB)
23 Therefore it was necessary for the copies of the things in the heavens to be cleansed with these things, but the heavenly things themselves with better sacrifices than these. 24 For Christ did not enter a holy place made by hands, a mere copy of the true one, but into heaven itself, now to appear in the presence of God for us; 25 nor was it that He would offer Himself often, as the high priest enters the Holy Place year by year with blood that is not his own. 26 Otherwise, He would have needed to suffer often since the foundation of the world; but now once at the consummation of the ages He has been revealed to put away sin [a]by the sacrifice of Himself. 27 And just as it is destined for people to die once, and after this comes judgment, 28 so Christ also, having been offered once to bear the sins of many, will appear a second time for salvation without reference to sin, to those who eagerly await Him.

[ Contrast of Sinai and Zion ] For you have not come to a mountain that can be touched and to a blazing fire, and to darkness and gloom and whirlwind,

But you have come to Mount Zion and to the city of the living God, the heavenly Jerusalem, and to myriads of angels,

Stephen, you see a contrast between the physical and spiritual that takes place throughout the NT. What is contained in the OT is explained in the New Testament. 

For this is contained in Scripture: “Behold, I am laying in Zion a choice stone, a precious cornerstone, And the one who believes in Him will not be put to shame.”

The true believers of Israel in the OT understood they were not looking for a physical country. Hebrews 11 explains this further.

3 By faith we understand that the [d]world has been created by the word of God so that what is seen has not been made out of things that are visible. 

9 By faith he lived as a stranger in the land of promise, as in a foreign land, living in tents with Isaac and Jacob, fellow heirs of the same promise; 10 for he was looking for the city which has foundations, whose architect and builder is God.

13 All these died in faith, without receiving the promises, but having seen and welcomed them from a distance, and having confessed that they were strangers and exiles on the earth. 14 For those who say such things make it clear that they are seeking a country of their own. 15 And indeed if they had been [k]thinking of that country which they left, they would have had opportunity to return. 16 But as it is, they desire a better country, that is, a heavenly one. Therefore God is not [l]ashamed to be called their God; for He has prepared a city for them.

17 By faith Abraham, when he was tested, offered up Isaac, and the one who had received the promises was offering up his [m]only son; 18 it was he to whom it was said, “Through Isaac your [n]descendants shall be named.” 19 [o]He considered that God is able to raise people even from the dead, from which he also received him back [p]as a [q]type.

24 By faith Moses, when he had grown up, refused to be called the son of Pharaoh’s daughter, 25 choosing rather to endure ill-treatment with the people of God than to enjoy the temporary pleasures of sin, 26 considering the [r]reproach of Christ greater riches than the treasures of Egypt; for he was looking to the reward.

The reproach of Christ? When did Moses receive the reproach of Christ? I believe it was at the burning bush when he encountered the great I Am. 


39 And all these, having gained approval through their faith, did not receive [aa]what was promised, 40 because God had [ab]provided something better for us, so that apart from us they would not be made perfect.

Hebrews 12
22 But you have come to Mount Zion and to the city of the living God, the heavenly Jerusalem, and to myriads of [h]angels, 23 to the general assembly and church of the firstborn who are enrolled in heaven, and to God, the Judge of all, and to the spirits of the righteous made perfect, 24 and to Jesus, the mediator of a new covenant, and to the sprinkled blood, which speaks better than the blood of Abel.
The Unshaken Kingdom
25 See to it that you do not refuse Him who is speaking. For if those did not escape when they refused him who warned them on earth, [i]much less will we escape who turn away from Him who warns us from heaven. 26 And His voice shook the earth then, but now He has promised, saying, “Yet once more I will shake not only the earth, but also the heaven.” 27 This expression, “Yet once more,” denotes the removing of those things which can be shaken, as of created things, so that those things which cannot be shaken may remain. 28 Therefore, since we receive a kingdom which cannot be shaken, let’s [j]show gratitude, by which we may offer to God an acceptable service with reverence and awe; 29 for our God is a consuming fire.

Again, you see the contrast between the heavenly and earthly. Everything they knew, Israel's heaven and earth, revolved around temple worship and temple sacrifice, were about to be removed in AD 70 and establish a better covenant. God was going to remove the OT atonement of sacrifice for sins from the nation of Israel because He had already replaced it in Christ Jesus with better worship and better sacrifice. What was old and fading was about to disappear. The Old Covenant economy was about to be judged along with these OT people. 

Hebrews 8:13(NASB)
13 [a]When He said, “A new covenant,” He has made the first obsolete. But whatever is becoming obsolete and growing old is [b]about to disappear.


#180
PGA2.0
PGA2.0's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 3,179
3
5
8
PGA2.0's avatar
PGA2.0
3
5
8
-->
@Stephen
Usher in an era of world peace, and end all hatred, oppression, suffering and disease. As it says: "Nation shall not lift up sword against nation, neither shall man learn war anymore." (Isaiah 2:4)

Spread universal knowledge of the God of Israel, which will unite humanity as one. As it says: "God will be King over all the world – on that day, God will be One and His Name will be One" (Zechariah 14:9).

 Jesus accomplish NONE of the above. Not a one.

 I don't doubt that your new found friend and the forums " new" member will agree with your shite just for the hell of it but he won't be able to dispute what THE CHRISTIAN BIBLE actually prophesises  about the  messiah to come. 


For you to seven suggest that Jesus "fulfilled all of the Old Testament prophesies and promises" is simply lying.

He didn't even inherit the throne of King David as  " the lord" promised his mother that he would.

This is what was supposed to happen>>>
32He shall be great, and shall be called the Son of the Highest: and the Lord God shall give unto him the throne of his father David”:Luke1:26-38

This is what actually happened instead >>>  "Jesus was taken to a place called Golgotha – which means ‘The place of the skull’ - for his brutal execution by crucifixion. Mark 15: 21–41

So you see. The only thing Jesus inherited was two pieces of wood, three nails and a view overlooking the Kidron Valley.    This is far from a throne of any description isn’t it? Especially the “great throne covered with ivory and overlaid with fine gold.” of King David, as described here > > > 1Kings 10:18



And what happened about returning to " establish his kingdom on earth"? Or are the words; 

"Thy kingdom come, Thy will be done on earth, as it is in heaven",  still escaping you?
To be continued when I get more time. A busy weekend coming up (three grandkids spending the weekend here) and I need to prepare.