Creation, The Flood, And Millions Of Years

[prove-all]

the Bible does NOT say that they had not eaten of the tree of life. What was banned was their future eating of it. It simply says that they would no longer be able to eat of it. Had the eating been a once for all thing they would already have done it. It rather provided continual nourishment.

But the point remains. THIS PROVES THAT ADAM AND EVE WERE CORRUPTIBLE AND PERISHABLE before the Fall

yes before the fall, they would have returned to dust,

satans big lie to eve that they could [not] die.

which should prove they did not eat, or partake of the tree of life at all.

22And the Lord God said, Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil:

and now, lest he put forth his hand, [and take also] of the tree of life, and eat, and live for ever:

-this implys that if they ate from the tree of life, they would have lived forever.

[and take also], which thy did not do.

 

[eternally-gratefull]

the difference between you and me is that you do not read deeply into things. I don't suppose you have ever really considered the context of prophecies that are cited. You simply assume that they are literal fulfilments when they are not.

dude, your being a little arrogant here, And was it not you who was saying this about me, yet you continuously do this?
History and prophesy are my two favorite subjects. I have studied both deeply for over 25 years now. I went from believing one way (the way I was taught growing up) to believing the way I do now BECAUSE OF STUDY.

I did not make scripture fit my belief system (or I would still believe the way I did 25 year ago) I fit my belief system to scripture.

if this is the only argument you have, we ar wasting our time, because all you have is a strawman, and no actual proof.

For example 'out of Egypt have I called my son' (Matt 2.15) was not initially a prophecy of Messiah coming out of Egypt as even a cursory look at Hosea 11. would tell you. It is a much more complicated prophecy than that. I will leave you to work out the connections. But it was certainly not a clear prophecy 'literally fulfilled' .

Actually yes it is, Because Israel started in egypt, and left egypt to go to the promised land, where they were when the son came.

so it was literally fulfilled (and no, not symbolically) because the bloodline can be traced back to egypt and the sons of Israel, who moved there based on Gods omniscient power to move them their through Joseph when there was a great fmain in canaan.

They stayed there for 400 years, and moses led them out.

You claim you study, But you do not seem to be very knowledgeable in how things work.

 

[eternally-gratefull]

the proof is in the text. it is obvious to most thinking people. but you are too busy trying to fit it into your schemes to really think about it.[/B][/COLOR]




LOL that's what we all say.



you mean you have not studied deeply enough to realise it



dream on


What I say is what all good scholars say

all I hear is a bunch of attacks. You do nto even know what I believe, so all you do is talk a bunch of nonsense.

I do not listen to men, men lead others astray, I test ALL SPIRITS to see if they are from God or not.

(I must be honest, I have not even heard you say what you believe yet, again, just spout a bunch of attacks.

 

[valiant]

all I hear is a bunch of attacks. You do nto even know what I believe, so all you do is talk a bunch of nonsense.

I do not listen to men, men lead others astray, I test ALL SPIRITS to see if they are from God or not.

(I must be honest, I have not even heard you say what you believe yet, again, just spout a bunch of attacks.

If I remember I think you began the attacks

 

[valiant]

(I must be honest, I have not even heard you say what you believe yet, again, just spout a bunch of attacks.

L0L you have given me enough 'likes' so you must know.

 

[valiant]

dude, your being a little arrogant here, And was it not you who was saying this about me, yet you continuously do this?

if you have really studied prophecy, and not men's views on prophecy, you would know that prophecy is far too complicated for us to be able to say that it has 'literally been fulfilled'. Prophecy regularly has a local fulfilment, and its Messianic aspect is secondary, even if important..

History and prophesy are my two favorite subjects. I have studied both deeply for over 25 years now. I went from believing one way (the way I was taught growing up) to believing the way I do now BECAUSE OF STUDY.

well I have studied it for 65 years. Born from above by God's direct call, I lived in an area where there was little evangelical teaching, So when I was introduced to a Scofield Reference Bible it was manna from Heaven. But I constantly modified my views and read widely. I even wrote a published book on it. But gradually I recognised how often I had to stretch the Greek, how often I fitted the words into my 'scheme', how I distorted what Daniel 9 ACTUALLY SAID, and how much I was referring to prophecies as being in the end times when they clearly referred to Israel's restoration after the exile, and how often I had to ignore the New Testament applications of prophecy, how I had to ignore Luke 21 as a parallel with Matt 24, and how stultifying my interpretation was (resulting in a hybrid kingdom made up of mortals and immortals, where the Gospel was replaced by a gospel which was not a Gospel and which ended up a complete failure). And I began to recognise that I must let the New Testament interpret the Old. Jesus knew nothing of a Millennium nor of a special 7 year Great Tribulation, nor did Paul or Peter. All saw Christ's coming as bringing about the end and introducing the eternal heavenly kingdom. Nor did they see Daniel 9 as demonstrating anything about the time of Christ's coming.

Why would God introduce to us the Gospel which is so wonderful and so perfect a way of bringing men to God, and then change it for something that fails.? It is ridiculous. And it all arises through misreading Revelation.

I did not make scripture fit my belief system (or I would still believe the way I did 25 year ago) I fit my belief system to scripture.

Then think it through again!

if this is the only argument you have, we ar wasting our time, because all you have is a strawman, and no actual proof.

Jesus Christ's silence and Paul's silence are sufficient proof that all these schemes are false. Do you REALLY think that if there had been a 7 year Tribulation and a Millennium they would have remained totally silent about it and not made it absolutely clear? It is inconceivable.

Actually yes it is, Because Israel started in egypt, and left egypt to go to the promised land, where they were when the son came.

LOL you clearly haven't studied Hosea 11.

so it was literally fulfilled

But it was literally fulfilled as to Israel. It did not refer to the Messiah. Like most of Old Testament prophecies its fulfilment was relatively near. Nor was its fulfilment as simple as you make it. Furthermore its application to Christ was secondary, and only discoverable after the event.

(and no, not symbolically) because the bloodline can be traced back to egypt and the sons of Israel, who moved there based on Gods omniscient power to move them their through Joseph when there was a great fmain in canaan.

They stayed there for 400 years, and moses led them out.

now where does Hosea say that? LOL you have a weird idea of literal fulfilment. You twist the term to make it what you want it to mean. Hosea describes total failure and ends by saying that He will again bring Israel out of Egypt and Assyria because in their hearts they had returned there. He did it t the Restoration. It is NOT a Messianic prophecy. So why does Matthew say it was fulfilled in Christ. I know the answer. Do you?

You claim you study, But you do not seem to be very knowledgeable in how things work.

that is your opinion. Mine is that the Holy Spirit has finally led me into the truth after decades of hard study and theological training at a leading evangelical Bible College.

 

[eternally-gratefull]

if you have really studied prophecy, and not men's views on prophecy, you would know that prophecy is far too complicated for us to be able to say that it has 'literally been fulfilled'. Prophecy regularly has a local fulfilment, and its Messianic aspect is secondary, even if important..

See, this is the view of man, that prophesy has two views. Do you even know what prophesy is? Prophesy is saying something is going to happen in the future, it is given as proof text, to who is the real God (for only God can prophesy and it come literally true exactly as said)

Scripture has many types of writing, prophesy is just one of them. We interpret them in light of what type they are.

ie, we interpret prophesy as a literal event prophesied before it actually happened.

well I have studied it for 65 years. Born from above by God's direct call, I lived in an area where there was little evangelical teaching, So when I was introduced to a Scofield Reference Bible it was manna from Heaven. But I constantly modified my views and read widely. I even wrote a published book on it. But gradually I recognised how often I had to stretch the Greek, how often I fitted the words into my 'scheme', how I distorted what Daniel 9 ACTUALLY SAID, and how much I was referring to prophecies as being in the end times when they clearly referred to Israel's restoration after the exile, and how often I had to ignore the New Testament applications of prophecy, how I had to ignore Luke 21 as a parallel with Matt 24, and how stultifying my interpretation was (resulting in a hybrid kingdom made up of mortals and immortals, where the

Gospel was replaced by a gospel which was not a Gospel and which ended up a complete failure). And I began to recognise that I must let the New Testament interpret the Old. Jesus knew nothing of a Millennium nor of a special 7 year Great Tribulation, nor did Paul or Peter. All saw Christ's coming as bringing about the end and introducing the eternal heavenly kingdom. Nor did they see Daniel 9 as demonstrating anything about the time of Christ's coming.

Sounds like you went catholic. That's sad.

If you would like to actually study the word. let me know. I love studying the word. I have studied every view as it concerns to prophesy (being OT prophesy fulfilled in 1st advent, to OT and NT prophesy to be fulfilled in the 2nd advent)

Why would God introduce to us the Gospel which is so wonderful and so perfect a way of bringing men to God, and then change it for something that fails.? It is ridiculous. And it all arises through misreading Revelation.

See you have been listening to men. (you just gave a response I have heard so many times from most amillenial people who think most prophesy was fulfilled around 70 AD)

I want to hear your view. not what you were taught.

Yes, some believe that in a future time, Israel will go back to be saved by the law (yes I was taught this also) but to go to the extreme and make a 180 degree turn just because one aspect is not true is what I would call overreacting.

I was saved the same way Adam, And Noah And Abraham, And David moses and Paul and Peter. The gospel has never changed.

Then think it through again!

Think what? CHange and twist scripture to make things which have not happened yet happen?

No, I can not do that to the word of God, and mock his prophetic utterance and the prophets he spoke through.

Jesus Christ's silence and Paul's silence are sufficient proof that all these schemes are false. Do you REALLY think that if there had been a 7 year Tribulation and a Millennium they would have remained totally silent about it and not made it absolutely clear? It is inconceivable.

or maybe it has not happened yet? and it is yet future?

do you even know what I believe, it does not appear as though you do. your all over the place.

LOL you clearly haven't studied Hosea 11.

lol. So Jesus did not come from Egypt?

But it was literally fulfilled as to Israel. It did not refer to the Messiah. Like most of Old Testament prophecies its fulfilment was relatively near. Nor was its fulfilment as simple as you make it. Furthermore its application to Christ was secondary, and only discoverable after the event.

Thank you. You just explained what is true and valid concerning MOST IF NOT ALL prophesy.

Thats why if we see an event, and it can not be shown that it actually happened, we do not say we should interpret it as an Allegory, or symbol. to make it appear to have been fulfilled.

This is called interpreting according to our belief system, not causing our belief system to conform to the word.

now where does Hosea say that? LOL you have a weird idea of literal fulfilment. You twist the term to make it what you want it to mean. Hosea describes total failure and ends by saying that He will again bring Israel out of Egypt and Assyria because in their hearts they had returned there. He did it t the Restoration. It is NOT a Messianic prophecy. So why does Matthew say it was fulfilled in Christ. I know the answer. Do you?

you do understand ALOT of prophesy is not just in one area do you not?

If you want to study hosea, we can, I have not actually studied that passage in great detail.

Are you going to tell me it is symbolically fulfilled then we will never agree, because that is not how you intepret prophesy, I already proved that by giving the basis on prophesy from Gods own words. If it does not happen as said, it was not words from God. and the person is a false prophet.

that is your opinion. Mine is that the Holy Spirit has finally led me into the truth after decades of hard study and theological training at a leading evangelical Bible College.

Well I think you still have alot of learning to do. You have reverted to roman theology. Maybe that is the root of your background, and your just going back to your roots?

 

[valiant]

See, this is the view of man, that prophesy has two views. Do you even know what prophesy is? Prophesy is saying something is going to happen in the future, it is given as proof text, to who is the real God (for only God can prophesy and it come literally true exactly as said).

Yes I know what prophecy is. Most prophecies have two or more fulfilments, a main fulfilment, usually after the Exile, and secondary fulfilments. Apart from Isaiah 53 (and Micah 5.2 which is not really a prophecy) give me five examples of a clear prophecy in its context which was fulfilled in detail by Jesus Christ and Him alone.

Scripture has many types of writing, prophesy is just one of them. We interpret them in light of what type they are.

ie, we interpret prophesy as a literal event prophesied before it actually happened.

see above.

Sounds like you went catholic. That's sad.

LOL you have a weird idea about amillennials. Amillennialism is Scriptural truth, not Roman Catholic dogma. Your views are actually originally based on the teachings of Roman Catholics.

If you would like to actually study the word. let me know. I love studying the word. I have studied every view as it concerns to prophesy (being OT prophesy fulfilled in 1st advent, to OT and NT prophesy to be fulfilled in the 2nd advent)

So have I that is why I am trying to help you now out of the shadows in which you live.

See you have been listening to men. (you just gave a response I have heard so many times from most amillenial people who think most prophesy was fulfilled around 70 AD)

I do not listen to men but to God. Fortunately our English preachers are not obsessed with prophecy. so we are not constantly bombarded with it. I am not a preterist, but much prophecy was fulfilled between 30 and 70 AD. It was a crucial period in God's calendar . The coming of the Messiah and what He did for us and the final rejection of unbelieving Israel.

I want to hear your view. not what you were taught.

I only ever give my view. I have studied many books from all viewpoints, but my conclusions are my own.

Yes, some believe that in a future time, Israel will go back to be saved by the law (yes I was taught this also) but to go to the extreme and make a 180 degree turn just because one aspect is not true is what I would call overreacting.

There is only one Gospel. It came in shadowy form before the coming of Christ and was revealed in its full light at His coming. There is no point now in turning to anything else. All that remains is the gathering in of the elect, the second coming of Jesus Christ, and the everlasting kingdom

I was saved the same way Adam, And Noah And Abraham, And David moses and Paul and Peter. The gospel has never changed.

On that we can agree. But it was only made fully clear once Jesus had died and risen again. What need have we of anything more?

Think what? CHange and twist scripture to make things which have not happened yet happen?

But they have happened. It is just that you have closed your eyes to it.

No, I can not do that to the word of God, and mock his prophetic utterance and the prophets he spoke through.

you mock them when you deny that their prophecies have been fulfilled.

or maybe it has not happened yet? and it is yet future?

some things are still future, but very few OT prophecies are future. And much of Revelation is not future.

do you even know what I believe, it does not appear as though you do. your all over the place.

yes I have a good idea of what you believe. you have this sad belief in the spurious millennium.

lol. So Jesus did not come from Egypt?

Of course He came from Egypt. But it was not in direct literal fulfilment of Hosea's prophecy.

Thats why if we see an event, and it can not be shown that it actually happened, we do not say we should interpret it as an Allegory, or symbol. to make it appear to have been fulfilled.

This is called interpreting according to our belief system, not causing our belief system to conform to the word.

Nor do I. You clearly do not even understand what I teach. The prophets had to teach in terms of their own day so as to be understood. But what we have to decipher is the central truth that they were teaching while discarding the OT trimmings. That is neither allegory, nor symbol.

you do understand ALOT of prophesy is not just in one area do you not?

LOLI suspect I know a lot more about prophecy than you do.

If you want to study hosea, we can, I have not actually studied that passage in great detail.

I have only written a commentary on it LOL and on ALL the prophets.

Are you going to tell me it is symbolically fulfilled then we will never agree, because that is not how you intepret prophesy,

No it is not symbolically fulfilled. It is discerned in the way I described above.

I already proved that by giving the basis on prophesy from Gods own words. If it does not happen as said, it was not words from God. and the person is a false prophet.

True but we have to discern what the prophet was actually trying to say not just read it unthinkingly. Anyone who suggests that sacrifices and offerings are going to be offered in the future has not understood God's word..

Well I think you still have alot of learning to do. You have reverted to roman theology. Maybe that is the root of your background, and your just going back to your roots?

Good try LOL but sadly for you in error. I have never approved of Rome, and I do not study their theology, even that which Scofield adopted. I am a retired Baptist minister and a constant student of the word with a wide background in scholarly thinking

 

[eternally-gratefull]

Yes I know what prophecy is. Most prophecies have two or more fulfilments, a main fulfilment, usually after the Exile, and secondary fulfilments. Apart from Isaiah 53 (and Micah 5.2 which is not really a prophecy) give me five examples of a clear prophecy in its context which was fulfilled in detail by Jesus Christ and Him alone.

you should at least make it hard.

Dan 9 :
[SUP]26 [/SUP]“And after the sixty-two weeks
Messiah shall be cut off, but not for Himself;
And the people of the prince who is to come
Shall destroy the city and the sanctuary.

Zechariah 9:9
[ The Coming King ] “Rejoice greatly, O daughter of Zion! Shout, O daughter of Jerusalem! Behold, your King is coming to you; He is just and having salvation, Lowly and riding on a donkey, A colt, the foal of a donkey.

there is one event in two different passages of scripture spoken of by two prophets.

Now are you going to tell me there are two possible interpretations? A spiritual and literal?

PS. in case you did not recognize it, We also have 70 AD and the destruction of jerusalem by titus in daniel literally fulfilled after the messiah was cut off. as prophesied.

see above.

see what? You said there were only two. I have two more, and I can give Many many MORE.

LOL you have a weird idea about amillennials. Amillennialism is Scriptural truth, not Roman Catholic dogma. Your views are actually originally based on the teachings of Roman Catholics.

No, It is roman catholic dogma, and the least scriptural based eschatology based doctrine concerning prophetic events. It is also the ONLY ONE who uses Rome's satanic destruction of the word of God by going from a literal interpretation to an allegorical interpretation.

So have I that is why I am trying to help you now out of the shadows in which you live.

Shadows of what?
1. Callling God a liar
2. Making God a God that can not fulfill his prophesies
3. Making God a god of confusion. when he says one thing, but does another?

You can not hel me my friend, When you need help yourself.

I do not listen to men but to God. Fortunately our English preachers are not obsessed with prophecy. so we are not constantly bombarded with it. I am not a preterist, but much prophecy was fulfilled between 30 and 70 AD. It was a crucial period in God's calendar . The coming of the Messiah and what He did for us and the final rejection of unbelieving Israel.

And you say you studied,

Paul said Israels rejection is not final. And you call yourself a studied person. it is obvious you have not studied daniel 9 or matt 24 in any great detail

I only ever give my view. I have studied many books from all viewpoints, but my conclusions are my own.

Yet they are word for word what I hear from so many of people who believe as you do. It is almost like you have a paper you read off, an instruction manual, where it says, This is how you respond to that argument, this is how you respond t that one.

Again, a catholic response (they have used this form of argument for hundreds of years.

There is only one Gospel. It came in shadowy form before the coming of Christ and was revealed in its full light at His coming. There is no point now in turning to anything else. All that remains is the gathering in of the elect, the second coming of Jesus Christ, and the everlasting kingdom

There is only one gospel.

yet in that one gospel. God has dealt with mankind in many ways. And we are told he will deal with him in other ways.

Many of those ways have yet to be fulfilled.

Your making it a salvation issue, a major mistake, and why your interpretations are off.

On that we can agree. But it was only made fully clear once Jesus had died and risen again. What need have we of anything more?

Maybe because God promised, and claimed there would be much more.

Most prophesy is not messianic or concerning Gods salvation, it is just literal events in the timeline of mans existence on earth.

But they have happened. It is just that you have closed your eyes to it.

No they have not happened.

The only way I can make them happen is to take it symbolically. That is an error. I already proved that by what God said in deuteronomy about prophets.

Yet funny, you never even mention this passage, why is that?

you mock them when you deny that their prophecies have been fulfilled.

No, I would mock him by saying that the great tribulation which would be greater than any that mankind has ever seen, and will ever see in the life of the earth. occured in 70 ad.

especially since both wars in the early to mid 1900's made what occured in 70 AD a walk in the park.

some things are still future, but very few OT prophecies are future. And much of Revelation is not future.

Actually, Most if not all of revelation is future. John is bringing to light the last days spoken by CHrist in matt 24 and parallel passages, and spoken of by daniel, and other prophecies concerning the last days (days before the return of Christ.

yes I have a good idea of what you believe. you have this sad belief in the spurious millennium.

Spurious? why is it spurious?

So God bringing creation back to the way it was supposed to be, cutting off all evil. ruling with a rod of iron, and bringing peace to ALL NATIONS is spurious? (And just began to touch on the great things prophesied)

wow dude, You just lost me

 

[Humiliatus]

Good try LOL but sadly for you in error. I have never approved of Rome, and I do not study their theology, even that which Scofield adopted. I am a retired Baptist minister and a constant student of the word with a wide background in scholarly thinking

Educated and taught in a variety of Christian Colleges and Universities in the USA and UK... your regurgitations are unlike any Baptist theology I have ever run into...

Beware (!) of false prophets, which come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves...
Matthew 7:15


P.S... still don't buy the age thing... your vocabulary is off for someone your age... i.e. LOL?... not to mention that your English, nation of proper English?? Something's really off with you... you are not what you seem...

 

[valiant]

yes before the fall, they would have returned to dust,

satans big lie to eve that they could [not] die.

which should prove they did not eat, or partake of the tree of life at all.

22And the Lord God said, Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil:

and now, lest he put forth his hand, [and take also] of the tree of life, and eat, and live for ever:

-this implys that if they ate from the tree of life, they would have lived forever.

[and take also], which thy did not do.

No. it could equally imply that they would live for ever by continually eating of it. you just assume that it means once for all.

But as you agree that it indicates that even in the Garden they could have perished, my point is proved. There is no point in our arguing whether they had to continually eat of the tree of life, or whether one eating was sufficient. As we can prove it neither way.

 

[valiant]

Educated and taught in a variety of Christian Colleges and Universities in the USA and UK... your regurgitations are unlike any Baptist theology I have ever run into...

then you are clearly of limited experience and move in narrow circles.

P.S... still don't buy the age thing..

LOL I wish you were right

. your vocabulary is off for someone your age... i.e. LOL?.

This site makes me laugh. And it makes clear I am not annoyed. Do all we oldies have to be serious all the time?

.. not to mention that your English, nation of proper English??

well you certainly can't fault my English. Born, bred and educated in England, and an English specialist

Something's really off with you

... you are not what you seem...

I knew you were mad LOL But then you have to be to be a Roman Catholic

 

[valiant]

you should at least make it hard.

Dan 9 : [/B]
[SUP]26 [/SUP]“And after the sixty-two weeks
Messiah shall be cut off, but not for Himself;
And the people of the prince who is to come
Shall destroy the city and the sanctuary.

well we knew Messiah would be cut off from Isaiah 53. But it is interesting that this is never cited in the New Testament. Furthermore there is disagreement among interpreters as to whom the anointed one is. So it is hardly a clear prophecy. Why do you think that Jesus and the Apostles all ignored it?

There is also disagreement as to who the prince who will come is. And as to which destruction of Jerusalem this destruction refers to. And the coming destruction of the city and the sanctuary is so often prophesied in a general way. If it had been as clear as you say there would have been total agreement. So your case fails.

Zechariah 9:9
[ The Coming King ] “Rejoice greatly, O daughter of Zion! Shout, O daughter of Jerusalem! Behold, your King is coming to you; He is just and having salvation, Lowly and riding on a donkey, A colt, the foal of a donkey.

I knew you would bring this one up. But perhaps you should now read on, for this is part of a total prophecy. It could describe any Judean king who was offering victory to his people. Kings always rode on asses in peace time. And the prophecy goes on to speak of him as cutting off the chariot from Ephraim, and the horse and battle bow from Jerusalem. Furthermore in verse 13 he will stir up the sons of Zion against the sons of Greece, and it goes on to speak of a great military triumph. How is this a 'clear literal prophecy' of Jesus Christ?

The truth is that it is speaking of an earlier king and has a secondary application to Jesus Christ, Who deliberately 'acted it out'.

there is one event in two different passages of scripture spoken of by two prophets.

Now are you going to tell me there are two possible interpretations? A spiritual and literal?

as I have shown you there are a number of possibilities as to the meaning of the prophecies. they are not 'clear' at all.

PS. in case you did not recognize it, We also have 70 AD and the destruction of jerusalem by titus in daniel literally fulfilled after the messiah was cut off. as prophesied.

No I did not notice a mention of 70 AD. Is that in your Bible? As far as I am aware many of your compatriots see this prophecy as referring to a future prince and not to Titus at all. Did you not know that?. In which case it is not a 'clear' prophecy at all. You pays your money and you takes your choice.

see what? You said there were only two. I have two more, and I can give Many many MORE.

well you've failed up to now. But I'm waiting patiently.

No, It is roman catholic dogma, and the least scriptural based eschatology based doctrine concerning prophetic events. It is also the ONLY ONE who uses Rome's satanic destruction of the word of God by going from a literal interpretation to an allegorical interpretation.

you do talk a load of rubbish sometimes LOL What I believe has nothing to do with Roman Catholic dogma and is fully based on Scripture without indulging in wild speculation. Nor is it an 'allegorical interpretation'. It is based on taking the text seriously in its context.

Shadows of what?
1. Callling God a liar
2. Making God a God that can not fulfill his prophesies
3. Making God a god of confusion. when he says one thing, but does another?

You can not hel me my friend, When you need help yourself.

Exactly what the Scribes and Pharisees said to Jesus It is always the way with those who follow man made tradition.

And you say you studied,

yep

Paul said Israels rejection is not final. And you call yourself a studied person. it is obvious you have not studied daniel 9 or matt 24 in any great detail

it is not possible to write a detailed commentary on books without studying them in detail. Paul nowhere said that the rejection of unbelieving Israel was not final. Indeed Romans 9-11 properly interpreted teaches that very thing, it declares that only the election of Israel, Messiah believing Israel, is the true Israel as fortified by believing Gentiles, It is thy who are the 'all Israel' which will be saved.

As to Matt 24 when paralleled with Luke 21, it clearly teaches that God will bring great tribulation on the Jews from 70 AD onwards until the end of time when Jesus Christ comes again.

Yet they are word for word what I hear from so many of people who believe as you do. It is almost like you have a paper you read off, an instruction manual, where it says, This is how you respond to that argument, this is how you respond t that one.

Funny that's exactly how I feel about you. Perhaps we sound similar because it is what the Scripture actually teaches?

Again, a catholic response (they have used this form of argument for hundreds of years.

that's interesting perhaps you will prove that by showing me examples. if you are right there must be many on the internet. as you claim it will be word for word what I teach I will expect that


T

here is only one gospel. yet in that one gospel. God has dealt with mankind in many ways. And we are told he will deal with him in other ways. Many of those ways have yet to be fulfilled. Your making it a salvation issue, a major mistake, and why your interpretations are off.

The whole of Scripture is a salvation issue from beginning to end And it all leads up to Christ Who is its fulfilment.

 

[Humiliatus]

then you are clearly of limited experience and move in narrow circles.
[/B][/SIZE]



LOL I wish you were right

Sorry about that but when it walks like a duck and sounds like a duck it is probably a DUCK.....




well you certainly can't fault my English. Born, bred and educated in England, and an English specialist

I beg to differ on that account....



I knew you were mad LOL But then you have to be to be a Roman Catholic

LOL I wish you were right

Sorry about that but when it walks like a duck and sounds like a duck it is probably a DUCK.....


well you certainly can't fault my English. Born, bred and educated in England, and an English specialist

I beg to differ on that account....

I knew you were mad LOL But then you have to be to be a Roman Catholic

Wrong!...Baptist... go figure??

 

[valiant]

No, I would mock him by saying that the great tribulation which would be greater than any that mankind has ever seen, and will ever see in the life of the earth. occured in 70 ad.

especially since both wars in the early to mid 1900's made what occured in 70 AD a walk in the park.

See, you haven't a clue what I teach. You don't read what those you argue with say. You make a caricature of what they say.

Matthew combined with Luke described the great tribulation as commencing in the siege of Jerusalem, which was awful enough, and continuing in the scattering of the Jews to face the tribulation described in Deut 28., which included their sufferings under the inquisition, the holocaust, and all the other miseries that have come on the Jews over 2000 years. There has never been anything like it before or since. It is the time of Jacob's trouble.

Actually, Most if not all of revelation is future. John is bringing to light the last days spoken by CHrist in matt 24 and parallel passages, and spoken of by daniel, and other prophecies concerning the last days (days before the return of Christ.

what a load of nonsense. Matt 24, taken alongside Luke 21, was mainly about events leading up to the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 AD, although having in mind what would follow and is the pattern on which the six seals are based. Revelation includes that and takes things on further. Large parts of it deal with history from John's day onwards, and indeed some of it before. It is divided up into a number of visions each of which leads up to the second coming.

 

[Tintin]

yes before the fall, they would have returned to dust,

satans big lie to eve that they could [not] die.

which should prove they did not eat, or partake of the tree of life at all.

22And the Lord God said, Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil:

and now, lest he put forth his hand, [and take also] of the tree of life, and eat, and live for ever:

-this implys that if they ate from the tree of life, they would have lived forever.

[and take also], which thy did not do.

No, there was no sin and death before the Fall, so mankind wouldn't have died then. God allowed Adam (and later Eve) to eat of any tree, but the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil. That means they could eat of the Tree of Life.

 

[valiant]

LOL I wish you were right

Sorry about that but when it walks like a duck and sounds like a duck it is probably a DUCK.....

Is that why you are quackers? LOL

Valiant -- well you certainly can't fault my English. Born, bred and educated in England, and an English specialist

I beg to differ on that account....

LOL you are an American. You wouldn't know what good English is.

I knew you were mad LOL But then you have to be to be a Roman Catholic

Wrong!...Baptist... go figure??

Funny kind of Baptist. But you have many funny kinds of Baptist in the US LOL So I suppose it is feasible.

By the way you need to get your posting technique sorted out. Then people will know who said what.

 

[valiant]

No, there was no sin and death before the Fall, so mankind wouldn't have died then. God allowed Adam (and later Eve) to eat of any tree, but the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil. That means they could eat of the Tree of Life.

true. but the need to eat of it showed that they were basically mortal and perishable. Without the tree of life they would die.

 

[eternally-gratefull]

true. but the need to eat of it showed that they were basically mortal and perishable. Without the tree of life they would die.

so your saying Jesus had to eat after he rose from the dead?

God gave food for a pleasure, it did not come as a NEED until after the fall.

 

[eternally-gratefull]

See, you haven't a clue what I teach. You don't read what those you argue with say. You make a caricature of what they say.

Matthew combined with Luke described the great tribulation as commencing in the siege of Jerusalem, which was awful enough, and continuing in the scattering of the Jews to face the tribulation described in Deut 28., which included their sufferings under the inquisition, the holocaust, and all the other miseries that have come on the Jews over 2000 years. There has never been anything like it before or since. It is the time of Jacob's trouble.

And there still has been nothing like it even today.

And you still have context is error. For Jesus said plainly. If he did not return to earth and cut this time short. no flesh (life on earth) would survive)

So has it happened yet?

what a load of nonsense. Matt 24, taken alongside Luke 21, was mainly about events leading up to the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 AD, although having in mind what would follow and is the pattern on which the six seals are based. Revelation includes that and takes things on further. Large parts of it deal with history from John's day onwards, and indeed some of it before. It is divided up into a number of visions each of which leads up to the second coming.

This is faulty reasoning, and a faulty logic.

The disciples asked three things. Jesus answered them all. The time of the destruction of the temple was just ONE of the questions.

The other questions were when the last days would be

and when the time of his coming would be.