No Show.

Author: Stephen

Posts

Total: 345
#181
FLRW
FLRW's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 6,594
3
4
8
FLRW's avatar
FLRW
3
4
8
-->
@PGA2.0
The entire construct of the Christian religion is based on the Bible.
The entire construct of the atheist or secular humanist worldview is based on random chance happenstance, and human's as the measure of all things, so what?
The universe is vast. Scientists estimate there are 10^80 atoms in the universe. Why did God use atoms in the first place? He is not made of atoms.
#182
Polytheist-Witch
Polytheist-Witch's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 4,188
3
3
6
Polytheist-Witch's avatar
Polytheist-Witch
3
3
6
-->
@FLRW
He is not made of atoms.
Everything is. So yes the gods are too. 
#183
Timid8967
Timid8967's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 459
2
2
2
Timid8967's avatar
Timid8967
2
2
2
-->
@PGA2.0
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. 

Hi again.  I don't hold a view.  I am neutral.  Some unbelievers hold views.  I disagree that neutrality is a myth.  You can believe whatever you want. It does not change my position. Bahnsen and VanTil did not convince me.  There are many people they have not convinced.  Presuppositionalism is flawed.  I don't have a worldview - as such.  Yes I see the world through my own eyes - but that is not a worldview.  Perhaps you might enlighten me what my worldview is? I have no reason to suppress my view since I don't have  a view.  I was responding in this thread to the discussion and found your position more intellectually sound than Stephens. This does not make you correct. It just means that you are not afraid to be challenged. Stephen on the other hand is one of the most dogmatic people I have come across.  He refuses to see that other people see things different to him.   I am happy to participate within a discussion - I will not pretend to be an expert because I am not. I am only attempting to rationally address the various issues. 

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.  
Have you not come across the Idealistic View - as espoused by Beale? This view is the predominant view of many reformed folk around the world.  It is not preterist. It is not dispensiationalism. It is not historicalism.  It is amill - and although it still does not convince me - it is in my view much stronger in logic and symbolism and interpretation than either form of preterism. 



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.
Discussing and knowing a subject does not require me to believe it or to agree with it. I can see some of its strengths but overall it is still weaker in both forms than Idealism.  Why is it that we never see preterists discussing or refuting or even acknowledging idealism?  They like to attack dispensationalism and forms of what they call pessimistic - but they ignore idealism.  And of course if you know someone who has refuted it - that would be good to see. 
Topic's author
#184
Stephen
Stephen's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 8,615
3
2
2
Stephen's avatar
Stephen
3
2
2
-->
@Timid8967
 Stephen on the other hand is one of the most dogmatic people I have come across.  He refuses to see that other people see things different to him

 Well that just has to be your lamest attempt at debunking anything I have said. "Dogmatic" ? It is not me that presents theories as fact or fairy tales  come to that.

I have admitted many times and will again, that I cannot prove my theories or beliefs and never once have I presented them as fact as do ALL theist when it comes to these scriptures. And I am not the one that has been pressing home and "foisting"  and forcing  the point that these scriptures are true and factual onto mankind for over 2000 years either!!.  So get real ffs!

I have simply suggested that there is another side to the Jesus story in particular. That is something the theist " refuses to see".  PGA2.0 sees in the scriptures  that Jesus returned in AD 66 - 70 and present in Jerusalem at its fall.  I too see Jesus in Jerusalem in AD66 -70, but with a slight difference, I believe he survived the cross and hadn't died at all .



He refuses to see that other people see things different to him

It is the theist that won't even consider seeing things may not be as rosy beneath the surface as they are above; that are dogmatic and stubborn, this is not to mention that they are outrageously ignorant of their own book.


Simply look at PGA2.0 above; claiming that Jesus fulfilled all the Old Testament promises and prophesies. This is an out and out lie. for one ; has the temple been rebuilt as promised, NO!     But PGA2.0 will have you believe it has  but in the fkn sky, but cannot prove it? CAN YOU!?  And you have the brass bollocks to call me "dogmatic".  Away with your nonsense.


I think the notion that Jesus returning so soon after he left makes little sense.

 I see, and what is it that causes you say that  it "makes little sense" ?


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

And what "weirdness" would that be?

Is it that Pretersist can't even get their own house in order on what it is that they are supposed to be believing?  Yes that is fkn weird, isn't it? 


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. 

 I have also shown that for every biblical verse PGA2.0 produces in defence of his Preterist claim that "Jesus had already returned in AD 66-70"  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?

 

 But what else is it you that said?  Yes here we are:

 I don't believe the bible. #18  Timid8967

So you don't believe the bible but are accepting all of these biblical verses as proof and evidence that PGA2.0 produces to prove his claim.    Your a fkn fraud.


 And don't think I was stupid enough to fall  for this bullshit of yours:....


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

...Or this old flannel...

Thank you Stephen I appreciate your posts. #12


....because I didn't and I haven't

#185
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 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.  
Have you not come across the Idealistic View - as espoused by Beale? This view is the predominant view of many reformed folk around the world.  It is not preterist. It is not dispensiationalism. It is not historicalism.  It is amill - and although it still does not convince me - it is in my view much stronger in logic and symbolism and interpretation than either form of preterism. 
I'm not familiar with the idealistic view and I have been meaning to read Beale. To my understanding, it deals with Revelation. I can't see that position fitting with Revelation. Do you understand Revelation? What is your take on it? Do you see it as a judgment on Old Covenant Israel? Do you understand the references to 1st-century history in its allegory and figurative language? You see, the language is very specific once you understand it. That brings me to another point, have you read the OT, or for that matter, the entire Bible? How many times, if yes? Do you understand the main themes? I have read some millennial authors, but only one in-depth on the subject of eschatology - that was Kim Riddlebarger, A Case for Amillennialism: Understanding the End Times: Kim Riddlebarger: 9780801064357: Amazon.com: Books. I think that view is flawed. 



#186
Timid8967
Timid8967's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 459
2
2
2
Timid8967's avatar
Timid8967
2
2
2
-->
@PGA2.0
I'm not familiar with the idealistic view and I have been meaning to read Beale. To my understanding, it deals with Revelation. I can't see that position fitting with Revelation. Do you understand Revelation? What is your take on it? Do you see it as a judgment on Old Covenant Israel? Do you understand the references to 1st-century history in its allegory and figurative language? You see, the language is very specific once you understand it. That brings me to another point, have you read the OT, or for that matter, the entire Bible? How many times, if yes? Do you understand the main themes? I have read some millennial authors, but only one in-depth on the subject of eschatology - that was Kim Riddlebarger, A Case for Amillennialism: Understanding the End Times: Kim Riddlebarger: 9780801064357: Amazon.com: Books. I think that view is flawed. 
I have not read Riddlebarger. Never heard of him or her either. 

I suggest that you have a look at Beale and see how he interprets it before you call it flawed.     His is becoming the more popular view in reformed churches.  I wrote to Gentry a while ago and asked him what he thought of it. He indicated he was going to refute it in his then coming book on Revelation.  I never read it. 

As for the bible - yes I have read it. Not suggesting i know it well and I don't pretend to understand it. It is quite confusing and to me contradictory.  


#187
Timid8967
Timid8967's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 459
2
2
2
Timid8967's avatar
Timid8967
2
2
2
-->
@Stephen
 Stephen on the other hand is one of the most dogmatic people I have come across.  He refuses to see that other people see things different to him

 Well that just has to be your lamest attempt at debunking anything I have said. "Dogmatic" ? It is not me that presents theories as fact or fairy tales  come to that.

I have admitted many times and will again, that I cannot prove my theories or beliefs and never once have I presented them as fact as do ALL theist when it comes to these scriptures. And I am not the one that has been pressing home and "foisting"  and forcing  the point that these scriptures are true and factual onto mankind for over 2000 years either!!.  So get real ffs!

I have simply suggested that there is another side to the Jesus story in particular. That is something the theist " refuses to see".  PGA2.0 sees in the scriptures  that Jesus returned in AD 66 - 70 and present in Jerusalem at its fall.  I too see Jesus in Jerusalem in AD66 -70, but with a slight difference, I believe he survived the cross and hadn't died at all .



He refuses to see that other people see things different to him

It is the theist that won't even consider seeing things may not be as rosy beneath the surface as they are above; that are dogmatic and stubborn, this is not to mention that they are outrageously ignorant of their own book.


Simply look at PGA2.0 above; claiming that Jesus fulfilled all the Old Testament promises and prophesies. This is an out and out lie. for one ; has the temple been rebuilt as promised, NO!     But PGA2.0 will have you believe it has  but in the fkn sky, but cannot prove it? CAN YOU!?  And you have the brass bollocks to call me "dogmatic".  Away with your nonsense.


I think the notion that Jesus returning so soon after he left makes little sense.

 I see, and what is it that causes you say that  it "makes little sense" ?


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

And what "weirdness" would that be?

Is it that Pretersist can't even get their own house in order on what it is that they are supposed to be believing?  Yes that is fkn weird, isn't it? 


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. 

 I have also shown that for every biblical verse PGA2.0 produces in defence of his Preterist claim that "Jesus had already returned in AD 66-70"  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?

 

 But what else is it you that said?  Yes here we are:

 I don't believe the bible. #18  Timid8967

So you don't believe the bible but are accepting all of these biblical verses as proof and evidence that PGA2.0 produces to prove his claim.    Your a fkn fraud.


 And don't think I was stupid enough to fall  for this bullshit of yours:....


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

...Or this old flannel...

Thank you Stephen I appreciate your posts. #12


....because I didn't and I haven't

Stephen, feel free to leave this thread. It is not as though you are contributing.  I took the view when I initially read your posts that they were interesting and perhaps even insightful - but soon discovered that you were unable to prove your position. I liked your posts because I thought you were a fellow non-theist - only to have you fail to actually hold a constructive discussion. So please feel free to leave the thread and at least let people who have a desire to discuss it - do so.  

PGA0.2 is a believer and i am not.  I am not simply rejecting his ideas because they contradict me. I am trying to understand his position in order to form an assessment about it. This is called suspending my judgment until I have understood it.  You shut him down before you understand it.  I have tried to understand your position - but you are not trying to explain it - just dogmatically asserting things without explaining it. You did not even try and join the dots.  
Topic's author
#188
Stephen
Stephen's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 8,615
3
2
2
Stephen's avatar
Stephen
3
2
2
-->
@Timid8967
Stephen, feel free to leave this thread.

 I won't be doing that anytime soon. 

  You haven't even attempted to answer questions raised by your own comments.  You don't believe the bible but you are trying to "understand PGA2.0's "position!?    He believes the fkn bible, THAT! is his position.  And he also believes the bible says that the Christ has already returned in AD 66-70, THAT! is his position.

But the whole world is witness to the fact that the third temple hasn't be rebuilt as was prophesised in the Old Testament

He has taken this position because according to him, the bible explains to him that Jesus has already returned while another part of his religious faction THE SAME religious faction don't believe that, but believe instead that Jesus returned at the fall of the Roman empire, centuries later;  and he cannot prove that either. THAT! is his position.


 I have asked you questions raised by your own comments numerous times now on MY thread. Would you like those questions again?
here you are:


I think the notion that Jesus returning so soon after he left makes little sense.

   I see, and what is it that causes you say that  it "makes little sense" ?


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

And what "weirdness" would that be?

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? 


 I don't believe the bible. #18  Timid8967

 Why don't you believe it?

 This thread is about the failure of Jesus to return when he promised to return and not the fundamental differences between a split religious faction. So stop being so  ignorant. 


You shut him down before you understand it

I understand his position perfectly. He has made it clear with the reams of  vague BIBLICAL cherry picked verses he keeps regurgitating that he and his particular religious faction have interpreted to fit their narrative. Yet THE BIBLE  ALSO clearly says he is wrong and he hasn't proven a damn thing.

  So no, I won't be leaving my own thread for you to highjack.  Start your own fkn thread if you are genuinely interested in what the split religious faction called Preterism is all about.
#189
FLRW
FLRW's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 6,594
3
4
8
FLRW's avatar
FLRW
3
4
8
I think a research paper titled:  DID JESUS RETURN IN 70 AD?  by Stafford North, Oklahoma Christian Univerity of Science and Arts
supports  Stephen's points. In it North says,

We have studied passages that speak clearly of the second coming and of events
which shall accompany that coming. We have one of three choices in interpreting
these passages: (1) that the events which are said to accompany the second
coming literally took place in 70 A.D. but we have no record of it; (2) that since
these events did not take place in 70 A.D. (or since) that we are to continue to
look for Jesus’ coming when they will take place, or (3) that there is a figurative
meaning hidden in these passages about the end of the Jewish law and the
beginning of the Christian system. We clearly reject option one because had such
spectacular events have taken place, we certainly would have some record of it.
Option three is the view of those believing Jesus returned in 70 A.D., but to hold
this view they must allegorize these passages when there is no justification for
doing so. The context and language describes real events which are to be
expected to occur.

Topic's author
#190
Stephen
Stephen's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 8,615
3
2
2
Stephen's avatar
Stephen
3
2
2
-->
@PGA2.0
@FLRW
@Timid8967

->@FLRW wrote: 

I think a research paper titled:  DID JESUS RETURN IN 70 AD?  by Stafford North, Oklahoma Christian Univerity of Science and Arts
supports  Stephen's points. In it North says,

We have studied passages that speak clearly of the second coming and of events
which shall accompany that coming. We have one of three choices in interpreting
these passages: (1) that the events which are said to accompany the second
coming literally took place in 70 A.D. but we have no record of it; (2) that since
these events did not take place in 70 A.D. (or since) that we are to continue to
look for Jesus’ coming when they will take place, or (3) that there is a figurative
meaning hidden in these passages about the end of the Jewish law and the
beginning of the Christian system. We clearly reject option one because had such
spectacular events have taken place, we certainly would have some record of it.
Option three is the view of those believing Jesus returned in 70 A.D., but to hold
this view they must allegorize these passages when there is no justification for
doing so. The context and language describes real events which are to be
expected to occur.

 Such as:

 " 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.  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".
2 Peter 3:8-10
 Of which none of the above has occurred..... yet. 

#191
PGA2.0
PGA2.0's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 3,179
3
5
8
PGA2.0's avatar
PGA2.0
3
5
8
-->
@Timid8967
I'm not familiar with the idealistic view and I have been meaning to read Beale. To my understanding, it deals with Revelation. I can't see that position fitting with Revelation. Do you understand Revelation? What is your take on it? Do you see it as a judgment on Old Covenant Israel? Do you understand the references to 1st-century history in its allegory and figurative language? You see, the language is very specific once you understand it. That brings me to another point, have you read the OT, or for that matter, the entire Bible? How many times, if yes? Do you understand the main themes? I have read some millennial authors, but only one in-depth on the subject of eschatology - that was Kim Riddlebarger, A Case for Amillennialism: Understanding the End Times: Kim Riddlebarger: 9780801064357: Amazon.com: Books. I think that view is flawed. 
I have not read Riddlebarger. Never heard of him or her either. 

I suggest that you have a look at Beale and see how he interprets it before you call it flawed.     His is becoming the more popular view in reformed churches.  I wrote to Gentry a while ago and asked him what he thought of it. He indicated he was going to refute it in his then coming book on Revelation.  I never read it. 
I could perhaps clear up Revelation somewhat for you. It is John's take on the Olivet Discourse of Matthew 24, Mark 13, and Luke 21. It was written shortly before the fall of Jerusalem in AD 70 and concerns judgment on the nation of Israel, specifically Judah. Don K. Preston believes it is God's writ of divorce against His bride for adultery. Throughout the Revelation, there are time indicators that give clues to when it was written, such as a key one in Revelation 17:10
and they are seven kings; five have fallen, one is, the other has not yet come; and when he comes, he must remain a little while.

Josephus lists the succession of Roman emperors, which identifies the one who is as Nero. 

John is told of things that must soon take place. That includes the judgments on Israel the Daniel was told to seal up until the end times or the end of the Old Covenant.

Daniel 12
12 “Now at that time Michael, the great prince who stands guard over the sons of your people, will arise. And there will be a time of distress such as never occurred since there was a nation until that time; and at that time your people, everyone who is found written in the book, will be rescued. 2 And many of those who sleep in the dust of the ground will awake, these to everlasting life, but the others to disgrace and everlasting [a]contempt. 3 And [b]those who have insight will shine like the glow of the [c]expanse of heaven, and those who [d]lead the many to righteousness, like the stars forever and ever. 4 But as for you, Daniel, keep these words secret and seal up the book until the end of time; many will roam about, and knowledge will increase.”
...7 And I heard the man dressed in linen, who was above the waters of the stream, [e]as he raised his right hand and his left toward heaven, and swore by Him who lives forever that it would be for a [f]time, [g]times, and half a [h]time; and as soon as [i]they finish smashing the [j]power of the holy people, all these events will be completed. 8 But as for me, I heard but did not understand; so I said, “My lord, what will be the [k]outcome of these events?” 9 And he said, “Go your way, Daniel, for these words will be kept secret and sealed up until the end time.
...11 And from the time that the regular sacrifice is abolished and the abomination [n]of desolation is set up, there will be 1,290 days. 12 Blessed is the one who is patient and attains to the 1,335 days! 13 But as for you, go your way to the [o]end; then you will rest and [p]rise for your allotted portion at the end of the [q]age.”

Revelation is an opening of the sealed judgments on Israel at the time of the end of the Old Covenant as well as a revelation of Jesus Christ coming in His glory, the glory of the Father. For hundreds of years, they are sealed, waiting for this time.

And I saw a strong angel proclaiming with a loud voice, “Who is worthy to open the scroll and to break its seals?”

And one of the elders *said to me, “Stop weeping; behold, the Lion that is from the tribe of Judah, the Root of David, has overcome so as to be able to open the scroll and its seven seals.

So, although there is much apocalyptic language, that language finds many of its keys of typology from the physical nation of Israel in the OT since it references these OT people. There are more quotes and references to the OT in the Revelation than any other NT writing.  


As for the bible - yes I have read it. Not suggesting i know it well and I don't pretend to understand it. It is quite confusing and to me contradictory. 
There are definitely things hard to understand that require a lot of studies. That is why Peter could say, 

2 Peter 3:16 (NASB)
16 as also in all his letters, speaking in them of these things, in which there are some things that are hard to understand, which the untaught and unstable distort, as they do also the rest of the Scriptures, to their own destruction.

Stephen tries to twist the Scriptures into a pretzel. He has done that on numerous threads and it takes a lot of work to set the record straight.

Topic's author
#192
Stephen
Stephen's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 8,615
3
2
2
Stephen's avatar
Stephen
3
2
2
-->
@PGA2.0
Stephen tries to twist the Scriptures into a pretzel.

 How? Give us a few examples.

  I simply quote the scripture.  I leave it up to the likes of you to do all the interpretations (and "distorting") I simply watch how you handle and bastardise BIBLICAL facts. I have never once presented my theories or opinions as fact, which is something that YOU in particular , can never stop doing.

 Here is an example, explain how I have "pretzlized" these verses>


This is what was supposed to happen>>> the lord promised Jesus' Mother Mary the Virgin that;

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 why did the "angel of the Lord"  not make any mention of this brutal, viscous and torturous ending for her son?

because 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

 So, when you are ready.


it takes a lot of work to set the record straight.

To dream up something and wriggle out of a tight corner, is what that means.



#193
PGA2.0
PGA2.0's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 3,179
3
5
8
PGA2.0's avatar
PGA2.0
3
5
8
-->
@Timid8967
PGA0.2 is a believer and i am not.  I am not simply rejecting his ideas because they contradict me. I am trying to understand his position in order to form an assessment about it. This is called suspending my judgment until I have understood it.  You shut him down before you understand it.  I have tried to understand your position - but you are not trying to explain it - just dogmatically asserting things without explaining it. You did not even try and join the dots.  
Thank you for that! I'm glad someone else recognizes this besides me. I'm surprised more people have not commented on his lack of effort to support his view. Like you say, he just continually asserts biblical verses without any exegesis. He thinks that by repeating, "every eye will see him," he automatically wins his case. Not only that, he repeatedly ignores rebutting my points. When he feels threatened by what I have written, he employs another verse, as if that now makes everything okay.

I also respect that you are willing to hear me out on this subject. 

#194
PGA2.0
PGA2.0's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 3,179
3
5
8
PGA2.0's avatar
PGA2.0
3
5
8
-->
@Stephen
Stephen tries to twist the Scriptures into a pretzel.

 How? Give us a few examples.

  I simply quote the scripture.  I leave it up to the likes of you to do all the interpretations (and "distorting") I simply watch how you handle and bastardise BIBLICAL facts. I have never once presented my theories or opinions as fact, which is something that YOU in particular , can never stop doing.

 Here is an example, explain how I have "pretzlized" these verses>


This is what was supposed to happen>>> the lord promised Jesus' Mother Mary the Virgin that;

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 why did the "angel of the Lord"  not make any mention of this brutal, viscous and torturous ending for her son?

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

 So, when you are ready.
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)

The throne of David was to be a heavenly kingdom, not an earthly one. 

Acts 2:24-37
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?”

The highlighted parts answers everything you claim did not happen. 

I suggest you start reading from the passage provided onwards in the following link:

"However, where was that throne? Peter makes his point: “David is not ascended into the heavens, but he says himself: ‘The Lord said to my Lord, sit at my right hand, Till I make thy enemies Your footstool.’” Acts 2:34-35. The Messiah was to sit on the throne of David in heaven, not on earth."

So their blood shall return on the head of Joab and on the head of his descendants forever; but for David and his descendants, and his house and his throne, may there be peace from the Lord forever.”

Solomon is a typology as the son of David of a greater truth, for Solomon did not accomplish all that was required of him but pointed to Jesus, the Son of God, who sits on the throne of God. 

That is why Scripture can say, 

Then Solomon sat on the throne of his father David, and his kingdom was firmly established.

Even as Solomon established the throne of David and it passed from generation to generation, through Judah's lineage, the Messiah (Yeshua) would come and reestablish the throne of David, yet not in the earthly country of Judah but in the heavenly one to fulfill the promise. 

So their blood shall return on the head of Joab and on the head of his descendants forever; but for David and his descendants, and his house and his throne, may there be peace from the Lord forever.”

But King Solomon will be blessed, and the throne of David will be established before the Lord forever.”

So behold, I intend to build a house for the name of the Lord my God, just as the Lord spoke to David my father, saying, ‘Your son, whom I will put on your throne in your place, he will build the house for My name.’

Solomon was a type of Christ in that he pointed to Jesus as the builder of the house or kingdom.

(Anyone interested can see how I have supported my statements with links to Scripture (for instance, see "house" in the last passage. Also, see the links below)

Because of Israel's unfaithfulness, God brought judgment on the Northern Kingdom (Israel) and reserved judgment for the Southern Kingdom (Judah) for the time of Messiah. God issued a writ of divorce against Israel long before He issued a writ of divorce against Judah. The Messiah first had to come through the lineage of Judah before God did the latter. Judah had to heap up her sins to the maximum before God divorced her too. That is why in Revelation, Jerusalem, the city of God, Israel's administrative and economic capital, was referred to as a harlot and destroyed in AD 70. Then, after the divorce for unfaithfulness, God in Jesus Christ, chose a new bride, the Church, the new Israel of God. The typology or shadow of the OT is revealed in the NT. And what applies to God in the OT applies to Jesus in the NT. (I.e., God takes a bride, Israel and enters into a covenant with her; Jesus takes a bride, the new Israel or the Church and enters into a covenant with her). 

Topic's author
#195
Stephen
Stephen's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 8,615
3
2
2
Stephen's avatar
Stephen
3
2
2
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)

The throne of David was to be a heavenly kingdom, not an earthly one.

 I see so its back to the mythical and the supernatural and "in the sky" again.  So why didn't the angel simply say so?  Why not simply tell his Mother Mary the Virgin " He shall be great, and shall be called the Son of the Highest and inherit a heavenly throne of his heavenly father, god "  but only after suffering betrayal,  denial and treachery and  after he had been brutally tortured and executed?  



You really are full of it. Non of the above even  indicates a "heavenly throne or kingdom of David in heaven". You are making shite up!. And wouldn't a heavenly throne be a throne of God?

Jesus was god also wasn't he?  Why would he inherit a mere earthly mortal kings throne, a throne from  king that had murdered his best friend so he could sleep with his wife,  when he is believed to be a GOD! in his own right?? <<<<< this is why your version is utter bollocks!?

  The throne of David was a very earthly throne , the bible makes that clear. A earthly throne for an earthly king of the Jews to sit on and reign over the Jews, on earth, from.  On earth as it is in heaven, that is the will of god, if the bible is to be believed at all. Jesus was a king, or at least believed himself to be the rightful heir to the throne of a very earthly kingdom of a united ISRAEL and its throne. YES, that one, the throne of David, the one his mother was promised her son would sit on, and very much on earth.

And you still haven't proven that a rotting and stinking corpse came back to life, shared a meal with old friends, ascended into heaven, came down again on a cloud and was present at the fall of Jerusalem. 

And you forgot to answer me  why did the "angel of the Lord"  not make any mention of this brutal, viscous and torturous ending for her son? So that he could return in AD 66-70?

And was Mary his mother one of those that lived to witness her sons return on a cloud? If fact where does the Mother of god feature in all of this once he returned? What about the absentee father Joseph, did he live to witness the return of his "son'"  in AD 66 -70?

When you spout  these verses that do not prove your claim at all is all they and you do is raise further  questions. 
#196
fauxlaw
fauxlaw's avatar
Debates: 77
Posts: 3,565
4
7
10
fauxlaw's avatar
fauxlaw
4
7
10
@Stephen

Re: Your #5, that those of the first century C.E. coincident with Christ would see his second coming [by virtue of the claimed understanding of Matt 24: 34's statement of "This generation..." meaning the coincident generation of the first century]. I quote from a comment I made in a current debate: [note the reference to verse cherry-picking, your favorite pastime:

"It is argued that Matt 24: 34 is a difficult verse to interpret. Yes, it is when one attempts to do so by cherry-picking the verse on its own. But the set up begins verses earlier, specifically at verse 3, when the entire discussion begins at the Mount of Olives, and many signs are given of the [second] coming of the Lord. We still await some of those signs, such as the sun darkening in concert with the moon turning red. Typically, a red moon is caused by a lunar eclipse, the result of being in Earth's shadow, but that is not the only cause of a red moon. It can also turn red when Earth's atmosphere's air molecules scatter blue light more than usual. If that occurs in conjunction with a darkening sun [it can], then we have the sign foretold. Hasn't happened, yet. Other signs are given, that haven't happened, yet, either. It is THIS [that is, that still future generation] the "difficult" verse speaks of, not the generation of the first century C.E.

"All the effort of defining the Greek term γενεά (genea), was a red herring argument. As usual, cherry picking solves very little and is the primary reason that some say verse 34 is difficult to interpret. Words mean things, yes, but context, such as including the previous 31 verses to capture the whole story, is just as important, if not more so."
#197
Timid8967
Timid8967's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 459
2
2
2
Timid8967's avatar
Timid8967
2
2
2
-->
@FLRW
I think a research paper titled:  DID JESUS RETURN IN 70 AD?  by Stafford North, Oklahoma Christian Univerity of Science and Arts
supports  Stephen's points. In it North says,

We have studied passages that speak clearly of the second coming and of events
which shall accompany that coming. We have one of three choices in interpreting
these passages: (1) that the events which are said to accompany the second
coming literally took place in 70 A.D. but we have no record of it; (2) that since
these events did not take place in 70 A.D. (or since) that we are to continue to
look for Jesus’ coming when they will take place, or (3) that there is a figurative
meaning hidden in these passages about the end of the Jewish law and the
beginning of the Christian system. We clearly reject option one because had such
spectacular events have taken place, we certainly would have some record of it.
Option three is the view of those believing Jesus returned in 70 A.D., but to hold
this view they must allegorize these passages when there is no justification for
doing so. The context and language describes real events which are to be
expected to occur.

Hi FLRW,

rejecting option 1 is sensible.  I think option 2 is plausible. Rejecting option 3 on the logic here is unfortunate as suggesting  it must be understood as allegorical is profoundly a misunderstanding of the position of option 3 -0 which in principle rejects the interpretation methodology of allegorical. Option 3 holds to a literal nature of the words of Scripture and not to allegorical understanding. It does hold to a symbolic understanding - which is categorically not literal in substance.  

In short - it holds to literal by language nature but symbolic by substance. To somehow mix these two parts of language is unfortunately often observed - but those with an understanding of language will know the difference.  

Hence, although, I am currently a non-theist and think believing the bible is "out there" and nonsensical.  I do hold to a high view of language.  Option to is my preferred position given the understanding of language. Nevertheless, for this study to suggest option 3 is allegorical is simply absurd, demonstrating a significant error on its understanding. Option 3 is not allegorical. It is opposed to allegory.  
#198
Timid8967
Timid8967's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 459
2
2
2
Timid8967's avatar
Timid8967
2
2
2
-->
@PGA2.0
Hi PGA2.0 

If you want to me to discuss things with you - you need to make your posts shorter. I simply do not have the patience to read the long ones you post presently. Try 1 point at a time. 

Have you had an opportunity to read Beale yet? Or perhaps Hendrickson? 

I really would like to have your refutation of idealism before we go further. Presently I find idealism more convincing that preterism. 

So if you could do so - it would be helpful.  
#199
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 PGA2.0 

If you want to me to discuss things with you - you need to make your posts shorter. I simply do not have the patience to read the long ones you post presently. Try 1 point at a time. 

Have you had an opportunity to read Beale yet? Or perhaps Hendrickson? 
Nope. I will leave it to you to defend, for now, since you think it is more plausible than Preterism and you are more familiar with it than I am.

I really would like to have your refutation of idealism before we go further. Presently I find idealism more convincing that preterism. 

So if you could do so - it would be helpful.  

Again, I asked you (IYO), does Idealism deal exclusively with the Revelation of John?

I already questioned it in that aspect of the Revelation. In Revelation, figurative and apocalyptic language is used. It relates to a specific people (the Jews) and a specific timeframe. I don't see how you can avoid that and make it fit any other time in history. The quotes and citations of OT Scripture are greater in this writing than any other NT writing. An understanding of the OT and how it relates is beneficial. Once you ignore the primary audience of address, you butcher Scripture to make it say anything. I fear that is what Idealism does. 


Topic's author
#200
Stephen
Stephen's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 8,615
3
2
2
Stephen's avatar
Stephen
3
2
2
-->
@PGA2.0
Like you say, he[Stephen] just continually asserts biblical verses without any exegesis.

 You mean I put up and question BIBLICAL verses but don't interpret them like you do .. if at all?  You have accused me above saying :

 " Stephen tries to twist the Scriptures into a pretzel."

 I asked you how I do that and for a few examples.#192

You didn't produce a single example of me "twisting scripture into pretzels" or anything else. No. What you did instead was post a load of nonsense that was irrelevant to the actual accusation that you leveled against me.#194 .

I gave you two verses from the bible and simply asked you to SHOW ME how I have twisted them. But you are too stupid to even realise that I hadn't even made a comment on either or interpreted anything excepting the fact that one verse says what was SUPPOSED to happen: Luke1:26-38 and another verse showing what  eventually DID happen instead :  Mark 15: 21–41


Tell me how does this>>>>>#194 <<<< nonsense of yours prove I have twisted anything into any shape? 








#201
PGA2.0
PGA2.0's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 3,179
3
5
8
PGA2.0's avatar
PGA2.0
3
5
8
-->
@FLRW
I think a research paper titled:  DID JESUS RETURN IN 70 AD?  by Stafford North, Oklahoma Christian Univerity of Science and Arts
supports  Stephen's points. In it North says,

We have studied passages that speak clearly of the second coming and of events
which shall accompany that coming. We have one of three choices in interpreting
these passages: (1) that the events which are said to accompany the second
coming literally took place in 70 A.D. but we have no record of it;
We most certainly do. We have the destruction of the temple and city, as prophesied. We no longer have a priesthood mediating between these OT people and God, no more animal sacrifices to make atonement for their sins, no more feast days, no more genealogical records to trace the priesthood, no more OT economy, no more temple worship. It has all been removed as prophesied.

[ Seventy Weeks and the Messiah ] “Seventy weeks have been decreed for your people and your holy city, to finish the wrongdoing, to make an end of sin, to make atonement for guilt, to bring in everlasting righteousness, to seal up vision and prophecy, and to anoint the Most Holy Place.

This verse speaks of a time period to make right Israel's sins through judgment and bring in everlasting righteousness. Daniel is told that the end time for His people would be when everything written has taken place. 

[ The Time of the End ] “Now at that time Michael, the great prince who stands guard over the sons of your people, will arise. And there will be a time of distress such as never occurred since there was a nation until that time; and at that time your people, everyone who is found written in the book, will be rescued.

Notice, Daniel is told, 

" that it would be for a [f]time, [g]times, and half a [h]time; and as soon as [i]they finish smashing the [j]power of the holy people, all these events will be completed."

Daniel is told,

"13 But as for you, go your way to the [o]end; then you will rest and [p]rise for your allotted portion at the end of the [q]age.”

End of what age? Do you know? Remember Daniel 12:1 speaks of Daniel's people. Who are Daniel's people? They are a people supposedly in covenant relationship with God. They are people who agreed to follow God and His decrees and commandments.

Exodus 24:3 (NASB)
3 Then Moses came and reported to the people all the words of the Lord and all the [a]ordinances; and all the people answered with one voice and said, “All the words which the Lord has spoken we will do!”

7 Then he took the Book of the Covenant and read it [a]as the people listened; and they said, “All that the Lord has spoken we will do, and we will be obedient!”

Remember also that God gave Israel a choice of following His decrees and commandments and being blessed or being disobedient in which He would take away His hand of protection on them. 

Now remember the warnings issued by the herald of the New Covenant,

3 Now in those days John the Baptist *[a]came, [b]preaching in the wilderness of Judea, saying, 2 “Repent, for the kingdom of heaven [c]is at hand.” 3 For this is the one referred to [d]by Isaiah the prophet when he said,
“The voice of one [e]calling [f]out in the wilderness,
‘Prepare the way of the Lord,
Make His paths straight!’”

 At that time Jerusalem was going out to him, and all Judea and all the region around the Jordan; 6 and they were being baptized by him in the Jordan River, as they confessed their sins.
7 But when he saw many of the Pharisees and Sadducees coming for [h]baptism, he said to them, “You [i]offspring of vipers, who warned you to flee from the wrath to come? 8 Therefore produce fruit consistent with repentance; 9 and do not assume that you can say to yourselves, ‘We have Abraham as our father’; for I tell you that God is able, from these stones, to raise up children for Abraham. 10 And the axe is already laid at the root of the trees; therefore, every tree that does not bear good fruit is being cut down and thrown into the fire.
11 “As for me, I baptize you [j]with water for repentance, but He who is coming after me is mightier than I, and I am not fit to remove His sandals; He will baptize you [k]with the Holy Spirit and fire. 12 His winnowing fork is in His hand, and He will thoroughly clear His threshing floor; and He will gather His wheat into the barn, but He will burn up the chaff with unquenchable fire.”

So, what does Jesus come preaching? He forewarns them of the same things that Daniel did, a time of distress and great tribulation (Daniel 12:1) such as THEY have never witnessed before.

Matthew 24
Perilous Times
15 “Therefore when you see the abomination of desolation which was spoken of through Daniel the prophet, standing in the holy place—[k]let the [l]reader understand— 16 then those who are in Judea must flee to the mountains.... 21 For then there will be a great tribulation, such as has not occurred since the beginning of the world until now, nor ever will again. 22 And if those days had not been cut short, no [q]life would have been saved; but for the sake of the [r]elect those days will be cut short.
 
Notice the difference between Daniel's wording in Daniel 12 and this passage. Jesus said NOW, Daniel said "until THAT TIME. Which time? 

Daniel said, the end of the age, what age? 

Jesus said to the disciples,

3 And as He was sitting on the Mount of Olives, the disciples came to Him privately, saying, “Tell us, when will these things happen, and what will be the sign of Your coming, and of the [b]end of the age?”

These are the last days, the days of wrath, that the OT speaks of.

Luke 21:20-24 (NASB)
20 “But when you see Jerusalem surrounded by armies, then [a]recognize that her desolation is near. 21 Then those who are in Judea must flee to the mountains, and those who are inside [b]the city must leave, and those who are in the country must not enter [c]the city; 22 because these are days of punishment, so that all things which have been written will be fulfilled. 23 Woe to those women who are pregnant, and to those who are nursing babies in those days; for there will be great distress upon the [d]land, and wrath to this people; 24 and they will fall by the edge of the sword, and will be led captive into all the nations; and Jerusalem will be trampled underfoot by the Gentiles until the times of the Gentiles are fulfilled.

Those days are the same the Matthew 24:15 speak of. Jesus says, "these are days of punishment, so that all things which have been written will be fulfilled."

Jesus said all things which are written? What does that mean? He is referring to the OT. 

Jesus places the tribulation or distress upon the land of Israel and against THIS people. Which people is Jesus speaking about??? Which people did He come to? He says THEY will fall by the sword. How can that passage apply today? Are we going back to the days of swords?

So, how you can say option one is not feasible is to turn a blind eye to what Scripture says. 

(2) that since these events did not take place in 70 A.D. (or since) that we are to continue to
look for Jesus’ coming when they will take place, or
Or maybe you do not understand the nature of His coming?

(3) that there is a figurative meaning hidden in these passages about the end of the Jewish law and the
beginning of the Christian system.
Any figurative meaning has its explanation in Scripture since God can communicate effectively. 

We clearly reject option one because had such spectacular events have taken place, we certainly would have some record of it.
You do have a record. You have a confirmation bias.

Option three is the view of those believing Jesus returned in 70 A.D., but to hold
this view they must allegorize these passages when there is no justification for
doing so. The context and language describes real events which are to be
expected to occur.
No, option one and three are. We understand that to interpret Scripture, you must understand whether it is figurative or historical narrative and any figurative language will find an explanation in Scripture. There is an apocalyptic language being used in Matthew 24 as well as literal historical narrative. Jesus is addressing a 1st-century people using at times figurative language they would understand. 
#202
PGA2.0
PGA2.0's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 3,179
3
5
8
PGA2.0's avatar
PGA2.0
3
5
8
-->
@Stephen
Like you say, he[Stephen] just continually asserts biblical verses without any exegesis.

 You mean I put up and question BIBLICAL verses but don't interpret them like you do .. if at all?  You have accused me above saying :

 " Stephen tries to twist the Scriptures into a pretzel."

 I asked you how I do that and for a few examples.#192


I do give examples.

You,
1) take verses out of context,
2) Collapse context, 
3) Ignore what this means to the 1st-century audience of address, the primary audience,
4) You do not exegete passages of Scripture. You present them. You think just by quoting a verse; then it is plain to all. Remember that you are 20 centuries removed from that original audience. What did it mean to them? How would they understand Jesus coming in the Father's glory?  



#203
PGA2.0
PGA2.0's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 3,179
3
5
8
PGA2.0's avatar
PGA2.0
3
5
8
-->
@Stephen
I gave you two verses from the bible and simply asked you to SHOW ME how I have twisted them. [a] But you are too stupid to even realise that I hadn't even made a comment on either or interpreted anything excepting the fact that one verse says what was SUPPOSED to happen:  [b] Luke1:26-38 and another verse showing what  eventually DID happen instead :  Mark 15: 21–41


Tell me how does this>>>>>#194 <<<< nonsense of yours prove I have twisted anything into any shape? 
[a] Ad homs do little to address a subject under discussion. 

[b] "32 He will be great and will be called the Son of the Most High; and the Lord God will give Him the throne of His father David; 33 and He will reign over the house of Jacob forever, and His kingdom will have no end.”"

The throne of David was used to govern Israel. Jesus is governing Israel, the new Israel of God, the Church where both Jews and Gentiles are included as prophesied in the OT. 

Jesus said everything in the OT points to Him. 

 27 Then beginning [l]with Moses and [m]with all the Prophets, He explained to them the things written about Himself in all the Scriptures.

You do not seem to understand this.



Topic's author
#204
Stephen
Stephen's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 8,615
3
2
2
Stephen's avatar
Stephen
3
2
2
Like you say, he[Stephen] just continually asserts biblical verses without any exegesis.

 You mean I put up and question BIBLICAL verses but don't interpret them like you do .. if at all?  You have accused me above saying :

 " Stephen tries to twist the Scriptures into a pretzel."

 I asked you how I do that and for a few examples.#192


I do give examples.


No surprises but you haven't quite understood what I have asked you.

I didn't say that YOU don't give examples. I have asked you to back up your accusations against me and give ME EXAMPLES of how I,   according to you, " twist the Scriptures into a pretzel."?   And you haven't done that because you couldn't do that.    Is all you have done again is come back with further accusations saying :


You,
1) take verses out of context,
2) Collapse context, 
3) Ignore what this means to the 1st-century audience of address, the primary audience,
4) You do not exegete passages of Scripture. You present them. You think just by quoting a verse; then it is plain to all. Remember that you are 20 centuries removed from that original audience. What did it mean to them? How would they understand Jesus coming in the Father's glory?

Lets see some examples of me doing what you are accusing me of. You can't can you?


Meanwhile lets look at this shite that you posted above.

You,
1) take verses out of context,
How? Give  us an example.


You,
2) Collapse context,
How? Give me an example.

You,
3) Ignore what this means to the 1st-century audience of address, the primary audience,

Now that is an interesting accusation.   I think you mean that I DON'T accept YOUR interpretation of what certain things meant to a  1st century audience.  You see, I am of the impression that  people like you have a seriously bad habit of INTERPRETING the scriptures to fit your own narrative.  Such as in this case of the failed return of Jesus.
YOU interpret scripture to make it say that Jesus has already returned.  But clearly there are others, just as devout as you that INTERPRET the SAME SCRIPTURES to say that the second coming is imminent in my time. And I gave you examples.

You do not exegete passages of Scripture.
Why should I?  I take it as it comes for the best part.  BUT YOU! force it to fit your belief system and your narrative. 


You present them.

Yes, I do. I present verses and question them , indeed almost all of my threads are questions, they are not interpretations of scripture. I have said, I leave interpretation to the liars, and the pastors and the priests. And you struggle with my responses when I question what YOU come back with. You just don't like it.

I don't accept your shite that a dead man came back to life and was present in Jerusalem in AD 66-70 and you haven't offered a single piece of evidence to show that he did.  So just let me remind you of something. An empty tomb proves nothing but that a tomb was empty. 


You think just by quoting a verse; then it is plain to all.

No. I quote a verses and then ask or hope the likes of you to or will explain it, AND YOU NEVER CAN, and certainly not without invoking the supernatural. As in your idea on this thread that Jesus has already returned from the dead and appeared in Jerusalem in AD 66- 70. 


Remember that you are 20 centuries removed from that original audience.

 How could I forget. You should take your own advice and remember that yourself.


What did it mean to them? How would they understand Jesus coming in the Father's glory?

 Are you saying they didn't know? Well that wouldn't surprise me one bit considering that EVEN;

 "The disciples did not understand any of this. Its meaning was hidden from them, and they did not know what he was talking about" .Luke 18:34 
BUT YOU DO !!!  2000 YEARS LATER!!!!!  don't make me laugh. 

 You know no more than those illiterate superstitious peasants and hangers on did at the time Jesus walk with them.  That is why Peter was able to palm them off with his bullshite.

I keep asking you why was it that Peter had to "remind" anyone about one day being a thousands years? You haven't answered that. I asked you why they didn't know themselves that a day was a thousand years,? And you haven't answered that either. Did Jesus ever tell them that a day was a thousand years in the eyes of the lord? 

 So when you are ready , I would like your examples of me committing all those offences that you keep accusing me of. And you can tackle those few questions  above too.  


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)

The throne of David was to be a heavenly kingdom, not an earthly one.

 I see so its back to the mythical and the supernatural and "in the sky" again.  So why didn't the angel simply say so?  Why not simply tell his Mother Mary the Virgin " He shall be great, and shall be called the Son of the Highest and inherit a heavenly throne of his heavenly father, god "  but only after suffering betrayal,  denial and treachery and  after he had been brutally tortured and executed?  



You really are full of it. Non of the above even  indicates a "heavenly throne or kingdom of David in heaven". You are making shite up!. And wouldn't a heavenly throne be a throne of God?

Jesus was god also wasn't he?  Why would he inherit a mere earthly mortal kings throne, a throne from  king that had murdered his best friend so he could sleep with his wife,  when he is believed to be a GOD! in his own right?? <<<<< this is why your version is utter bollocks!?

  The throne of David was a very earthly throne , the bible makes that clear. A earthly throne for an earthly king of the Jews to sit on and reign over the Jews, on earth, from.  On earth as it is in heaven, that is the will of god, if the bible is to be believed at all. Jesus was a king, or at least believed himself to be the rightful heir to the throne of a very earthly kingdom of a united ISRAEL and its throne. YES, that one, the throne of David, the one his mother was promised her son would sit on, and very much on earth.

And you still haven't proven that a rotting and stinking corpse came back to life, shared a meal with old friends, ascended into heaven, came down again on a cloud and was present at the fall of Jerusalem. 

And you forgot to answer me  why did the "angel of the Lord"  not make any mention of this brutal, viscous and torturous ending for her son? So that he could return in AD 66-70?

And was Mary his mother one of those that lived to witness her sons return on a cloud? If fact where does the Mother of god feature in all of this once he returned? What about the absentee father Joseph, did he live to witness the return of his "son'"  in AD 66 -70?

When you spout  these verses that do not prove your claim at all is all they and you do is raise further  questions. 




#205
Timid8967
Timid8967's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 459
2
2
2
Timid8967's avatar
Timid8967
2
2
2
-->
@PGA2.0
Yes, Idealism does deal with the Revelation of John. This is why I have asked you to read both Beale and Hendrickson. They are both commentaries on that book.  Yet it does not deal exclusively and only with that book. It is relevant in relation to the rest of the bible.  


#206
PGA2.0
PGA2.0's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 3,179
3
5
8
PGA2.0's avatar
PGA2.0
3
5
8
-->
@Stephen
I gave you two verses from the bible and simply asked you to SHOW ME how I have twisted them. But you are too stupid to even realise that I hadn't even made a comment on either or interpreted anything excepting the fact that one verse says what was SUPPOSED to happen: Luke1:26-38 and another verse showing what  eventually DID happen instead :  Mark 15: 21–41
Regarding those two verses, with the second, Jesus had to be the Lamb without a spot to set up the New Covenant before He sat on His glorious throne. In the crucifixion, He was offering a new sacrifice to God, not an animal substitute that represented the sinner, but Himself. Just as Adam sinned and brought condemnation into the world, so Jesus was going to fulfill what Adam was not able to do (live a righteous life before God) and what the Old Covenant was not able to do. His perfect sacrifice was offered to make substitutionary atonement for His people (all those who will come to faith in Him). 

Priests were mediators between the covenant people and God. But the system of worship in the OT was flawed because the people were continually offering sacrifices of atonement for sin. They realize God is pure and holy and to come before His presence requires purity.

Hebrews 7
11 So if perfection was through the Levitical priesthood (for on the basis of it the people received the Law), what further need was there for another priest to arise according to the order of Melchizedek, and not be designated according to the order of Aaron? 12 For when the priesthood is changed, of necessity there takes place a change of law also. 13 For the one about whom these things are said belongs to another tribe, from which no one has officiated at the altar. 14 For it is evident that our Lord [g]was descended from Judah, a tribe with reference to which Moses said nothing concerning priests. 15 And this is clearer still, if another priest arises according to the likeness of Melchizedek, 16 who has become a priest not on the basis of a law of [h]physical requirement, but according to the power of an indestructible life. 17 For it is attested of Him,
“You are a priest forever
According to the order of Melchizedek.”
18 For, on the one hand, there is the nullification of a former commandment because of its weakness and uselessness 19 (for the Law made nothing perfect); on the other hand, there is the introduction of a better hope, through which we come near to God. 20 And to the extent that it was not without an oath 21 (for they indeed became priests without an oath, but He with an oath through the One who said to Him,
“The Lord has sworn
And will not change His mind,
‘You are a priest forever’”);
22 by the same extent Jesus also has become the [i]guarantee of a better covenant.
23 [j]The former priests, on the one hand, existed in greater numbers because they were prevented by death from continuing; 24 [k]Jesus, on the other hand, because He continues forever, holds His priesthood permanently. 25 Therefore He is also able to save [l]forever those who come to God through Him, since He always lives to make intercession for them.
26 For it was fitting for us to have such a high priest, holy, innocent, undefiled, separated from sinners, and exalted above the heavens; 27 who has no daily need, like those high priests, to offer up sacrifices, first for His own sins and then for the sins of the people, because He did this once for all time when He offered up Himself. 28 For the Law appoints men as high priests who are weak, but the word of the oath, which came after the Law, appoints a Son, who has been made perfect forever.

Hebrews 8
8 Now the main point in what has been said is this: we have such a high priest, who has taken His seat at the right hand of the throne of the Majesty in the heavens, 2 a minister [a]in the sanctuary and [b]in the true [c]tabernacle, which the Lord set up, not man. 3 For every high priest is appointed to offer both gifts and sacrifices; so it is necessary that this high priest also have something to offer. 4 Now if He were on earth, He would not be a priest at all, since there are [d]those who offer the gifts according to the Law; 5 who serve a copy and shadow of the heavenly things, just as Moses [e]was warned by God when he was about to erect the [f]tabernacle; for, “See,” He says, “that you make all things by the pattern which was shown to you on the mountain.” 6 But now He has obtained a more excellent ministry, to the extent that He is also the mediator of a better covenant, which has been enacted on better promises.
A New Covenant
7 For if that first covenant had been free of fault, no [g]circumstances would have been sought for a second. 8 For in finding fault with [h]the people, He says,
“Behold, days are coming, says the Lord,
[i]When I will bring about a new covenant
With the house of Israel and the house of Judah,
9 Not like the covenant which I made with their fathers
On the day I took them by the hand
To bring them out of the land of Egypt;
For they did not continue in My covenant,
And I did not care about them, says the Lord.
10 For this is the covenant which I will make with the house of Israel
After those days, declares the Lord:
[j]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.
11 And they will not teach, each one his fellow citizen,
And each one his brother, saying, ‘Know the Lord,’
For they will all know Me,
From [k]the least to the greatest of them.
12 For I will be merciful toward their wrongdoings,
And their sins I will no longer remember.”
13 [l]When He said, “A new covenant,” He has made the first obsolete. But whatever is becoming obsolete and growing old is [m]about to disappear.

God is making a new covenant with Israel, the Israel of God, the church. It is not like the first covenant with all its weaknesses. 

As promised by God, the Son would sit at the Father's right side until His enemies were made a footstool. Old Covenant Israel had become an enemy with her apostasy and foreign gods, then the rejection of the Son. 




#207
PGA2.0
PGA2.0's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 3,179
3
5
8
PGA2.0's avatar
PGA2.0
3
5
8
-->
@Stephen

Tell me how does this>>>>>#194 <<<< nonsense of yours prove I have twisted anything into any shape

It is not nonsense. Over and over in the NT, we are told of the symbolism, the typology, the shadow of the Old Covenant and how it pointed to something far greater, the Lord Jesus Christ and the transition between covenants. 

Nevertheless death reigned from Adam until Moses, even over those who had not sinned in the likeness of the violation committed by Adam, who is a type of Him who was to come.

He considered that God is able to raise people even from the dead, from which he also received him back as a type.

Hebrews 8:5who serve a copy and shadow of the heavenly things, just as Moses was warned by God when he was about to erect the tabernacle; for, “See,” He says, “that you make all things by the pattern which was shown to you on the mountain.”

One Sacrifice of Christ Is Sufficient ] For the Law, since it has only a shadow of the good things to come and not the form of those things itself, can never, by the same sacrifices which they offer continually every year, make those who approach perfect.

it is sown a natural body, it is raised a spiritual body. If there is a natural body, there is also a spiritual body.

However, the spiritual is not first, but the natural; then the spiritual.

and all drank the same spiritual drink, for they were drinking from a spiritual rock which followed them; and the rock was Christ.

2 Corinthians 3:4-18 (NASB)
4 Such is the confidence we have toward God through Christ. 5 Not that we are adequate in ourselves so as to consider anything as having come from ourselves, but our adequacy is from God, 6 who also made us adequate as servants of a new covenant, not of the letter but of the Spirit; for the letter kills, but the Spirit gives life.
7 But if the ministry of death, engraved in letters on stones, came [a]with glory so that the sons of Israel could not look intently at the face of Moses because of the glory of his face, fading as it was, 8 how will the ministry of the Spirit fail to be even more with glory? 9 For if the ministry of condemnation has glory, much more does the ministry of righteousness excel in glory. 10 For indeed what had glory in this case has no glory, because of the glory that surpasses it. 11 For if that which fades away was [b]with glory, much more that which remains is in glory.
12 Therefore, having such a hope, we use great boldness in our speech, 13 and we are not like Moses, who used to put a veil over his face so that the sons of Israel would not stare at the end of what was fading away. 14 But their minds were hardened; for until this very day at the reading of the old covenant the same veil [c]remains unlifted, because it is removed in Christ. 15 But to this day whenever Moses is read, a veil lies over their hearts; 16 but whenever someone turns to the Lord, the veil is taken away. 17 Now the Lord is the Spirit, and where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is freedom. 18 But we all, with unveiled faces, looking as in a mirror at the glory of the Lord, are being transformed into the same image from glory to glory, just as from the Lord, the Spirit.

Galatians 4:21-31
21 Tell me, you who want to be under law, do you not listen to the Law? 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.

What is hidden in the OT in its physical history is a spiritual truth that the unbeliever so often misses because they don't want to see it. 

But a natural person does not accept the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him; and he cannot understand them, because they are spiritually discerned.

What do those verses convey? There is more to the physical history of Israel than meets the eye. The physical history teaches us something more important. 

There are so many things you as an unbeliever are unaware and ignorant of.

I could get into the typology with Solomon and the OT and Christ and the NT more by Scripture is plain. You only see and take note of what you want to. Acts 2 says Jesus is ascended to David's throne. That is an inconvenient truth for you. 

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,


#208
PGA2.0
PGA2.0's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 3,179
3
5
8
PGA2.0's avatar
PGA2.0
3
5
8
-->
@Timid8967
Yes, Idealism does deal with the Revelation of John. This is why I have asked you to read both Beale and Hendrickson. They are both commentaries on that book.  Yet it does not deal exclusively and only with that book. It is relevant in relation to the rest of the bible.  
Unless you know of an online version it would be a while before I can do that. That is why I am interested in how you think Beales take is better than a Preterist's take. Please explain how so I can argue the case with you. You must have some idea of why Idealism is better than Preterism. Go ahead and explain it to me. 
#209
Timid8967
Timid8967's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 459
2
2
2
Timid8967's avatar
Timid8967
2
2
2
-->
@Stephen
Where was he?

Jesus said said to his followers that some of them would live to witness his return to earth:“Truly I say to you, there are some of those who are standing here who will not taste death until they see the Son of Man coming in His kingdom”. Matthew16: 27-28.
Hi Stephen,  I have read that verse and re-read that verse and yet I still don't see where it states that Jesus is returning physically.  

It says: 

  • Jesus speaks to some who were standing with him.
  • Jesus says some of them are standing with him won't taste death until they see x happen.
  • x = the Son of Man coming in his kingdom. 
From this you concluded "Jesus said said to his followers that some of them would live to witness his return to earth". 

Yet the verses don't say anything about the earth. Or have I missed something? Nor does it say anything about Jesus returning, does it?  Or have I missed that as well. 

It is clear Jesus is talking about x which is the Son of Man coming in his kingdom.  How does someone "come" in a kingdom? I am sure you can explain that without "interpretation". So we will wait for that verse which will reveal it to us. But what we can say is that falsely interpreted "coming in his kingdom" as Jesus returning physically to earth".  

Jesus then goes further telling them which “signs” to look out for but this time including the whole “generation” and ending again with:
“Truly I tell you, this generation will certainly not pass away until all these things have happened “Matthew24:25-34.
Mark13:26-30 says the same as does Luke21:27-32.
Mark 13:1-2 and v.4 state the disciples are asking Jesus about when the temple will be destroyed.  They are not asking about Jesus' physical return. If they are, can you show me where in that passage? 

Mark 13:26-32 says: 
  • at that time men will see the Son of Man coming in the clouds with great power and glory. 
  • He will send angels and gather elect from the 4 winds, from the ends of the earth to the ends of heaven
  • When you see these things, know it near, right at the door,'
  • this generation will not pass away until all these things have happened. 
  • Heaven and earth will pass away but not my words.
  • No one knows day or hour, not the angels, not the son - only the father
Now is Jesus talking about the temple being destroyed or about his physical return to earth?  

He is certainly talking about something in the generation of those who were living at that time. 
Matthew 13:1-2 says it about the temple being destroyed.  

Now it is true that at that time some will see "the Son of Man" coming in the clouds. But what does that mean? Is that the same as coming in the kingdom? If so, what do clouds and kingdom have to do with each other and coming? And is that term Son of Man specifically being used as a reference to Jesus in his alleged role as the Son of Man such as we read in Daniel 7 or it is  just referring to himself? What I can't see however is any reference to Jesus saying he is returning to earth. Again earth only gets mentioned in relation to angels and the end of the heavens and the earth.   Saying the Son of Man is coming in the clouds with great glory and power is not the same  as physically coming. 

Luke 21: 5-7 say almost the same thing. Again it is talking about the temple being destroyed. 
v. 27-32 repeat everything we read in Mark.   

where does it say Jesus is returning physically? it does not say it anywhere here. It talks about the Son of Man coming in a cloud with power and great glory. 

Matthew 24:30  puts it the same but adds an interesting sentence "at that time the sign of the Son of Man will appear in Heaven". I would like to know what you think that means. 

but I note one thing. In none of these verses does it ever talk about Jesus returning to earth physically. It says the Son of Man comes in the clouds or in the kingdom.  What do they mean?  

So it is clearly Jesus himself states that he will be seen again in that generation of that time and that it was to happen some time during the generation of those to whom he was speaking. It cannot be made more clear to his audience that this event would not be in the distant future, he told them that some of them who were there listening to him would still be alive to see it.

Not really.  We are told that men will see "The Son of Man" coming in the clouds.  That is not the same as Jesus will be seen again in that generation.  Coming in the clouds is Hebrew language for judgment.   It really means that the Son of Man will bring judgment to Israel.  How? By destroying the temple. It really is quite simple. Did the temple get destroyed within this generation? Absolutely.  Keep it simple. Occam's Razor.   

Even at his trial he told the priests and the council :“you will see the Son of Man sitting at the right hand of power, and coming on the clouds of heaven.“” Matthew26: 63, 64.     And the no show hadn’t gone nu-noticed by the people either:

2Peter 3:4 “Where is this ‘coming’ he promised? Ever since our ancestors died, everything goes on as it has since the beginning of creation.”
Yet even allowing for all those Jews alive at the time of the promise and living another hundred + years, Jesus simply failed to show and keep his promise.
So even here Jesus is saying that the Son of Man - simultaneously is sitting at the right hand of power and coming on the clouds of heaven.  Sitting and coming at the same time. How does this occur? Judgment as king over Israel. 

Peter was still waiting for Jerusalem to be destroyed. It had not been destroyed at the time of his writing - but we know historically it occurred in AD 67.  


Does a single one of those he made the promise to mention his return "coming on a cloud"? It will be interesting to hear what Christians have to say about this abysmal damp squib of a failure to keep a promise, his promise.
I don't see anywhere where "return" and coming on a cloud are mentioned together.   I do recall that the apostles and even Paul reference cloud and judgments though. Perhaps the reasons why none of his disciples put return and cloud together is because they don't actually go together.  


#210
Timid8967
Timid8967's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 459
2
2
2
Timid8967's avatar
Timid8967
2
2
2
-->
@BrotherDThomas
thang5, the runaway from biblical axioms about Jesus' true MO, and is on record as stating that Jesus is not the Father which is priceless Bible stupidity, and has now committed the dreadful Unpardonable Sin 3 times,


Within your post #3, and as if you don't have enough embarrassment upon you in not being able to address my posts of the true MO of Jesus, but to only RUN AWAY from them, you proffer passages that totally contradict Stephens passages in his initial post relative to the no-show status of Jesus on His alleged 2nd coming!  Therefore, you once again are proving that the Bible contradicts itself!  

How is one to surmise in which scenario is correct, yours or Stephens, because both contradicting concepts cannot be true at the same time, get it Bible fool?  
Hi BrotherDThomas,

I am puzzling over why you find it so difficult that Ethang5 states that Jesus is not the Father.  Even I as a non-theist understand that Christians, if Ethang5 is one, hold to the idea of Trinity. The Trinity according to definitions Trinity - Wikipedia

The Christian doctrine of the Trinity (Latin: Trinitas, lit. 'triad', from Latin: trinus "threefold")[1] holds that God is one God, but three coeternal and consubstantial persons:[2][3] the Father, the Son (Jesus Christ), and the Holy Spirit. The three persons are distinct, yet are one "substance, essence or nature" (homoousios).[4] In this context, a "nature" is what one is, whereas a "person" is who one is.[5]
Hence - the three are distinct. The father cannot be the son. and the son cannot be the Holy Spirit.  Yet all three are are one substance. 

If you were to say that Jesus and the Father and the Spirit are together the Trinity that makes sense.  Or that The Trinity is Father, Son and Holy Spirit, that makes sense. But i have never heard anyone say Jesus is the Father.   

Still it is no skin of my nose.