Daniel is out of chronological order.

[doulos]

i note you used wiki for your monster 1948 gap theory

I don't have a moinster gap theory, but if you had actually taken the time to gain an understanding of the view you would have known that. You said you spent months studying the view. I wonder how someone can spend months studying something and then still not have a clue what they studied actually says. Nor did I use wiki concerning 1948 I did use it to show that the Jews did regain control of Jerusalem in 1967. Would you prefer I use a different source to show the dates recorded in history?

'll use wiki over Therapon's delusional theology and website.

Your chice, your mistake, enjoy!

what is there to twist? you said there are TWO of everything.

Can you post a link to where that was supposedly said? Or is this just you once again resorting to the decietful tactic of misrepresenting (I.E.LYING) about what others say again? Once again you have proven discussion with you is futile.
As you are led Zone, as you are led!

 

[Therapon]

Ha, by your fiat?

No, by the proper application of the laws of hermaneutice. If you doubt me, do a little reading up on that discipline

 

[Abiding]

No, by the proper application of the laws of hermaneutice. If you doubt me, do a little reading up on that discipline

Who are you kidding you dont use any principles of hermeneutics

You dont use the law of first usage
or the progressive principle
or the comparative principle
You use the pull it our your ear principle.
with snide remarks.

 

[Abiding]

And doulos your post said nothing.
The wild tree bears no fruit.
There is only one olive tree that bears fruit.

 

[Abiding]

It is faulty exegesis to use and Old Testament figure to define a New Testament figure when there is a New Testament definition that fits perfectly

What law of hermeneutics is this? the fits good law?

 

[doulos]

And doulos your post said nothing.
The wild tree bears no fruit.
There is only one olive tree that bears fruit.

Rom 11:17 And if some of the branches be broken off, and thou, being a wild olive tree, wert graffed in among them, and with them partakest of the root and fatness of the olive tree;

Wouldn’t one be required to become a believer before they would be grafted in? Would a nonbeliever be able to “partakest of the root and fatness of the Olive tree”?

No my friend like it or not the Gentiles aren’t grafted into the good olive tree until after they come believers. So while all believers are grafted into one tree they still originate from 2 tress the wild and the good olive trees.

 

[Abiding]

Rom 11:17 And if some of the branches be broken off, and thou, being a wild olive tree, wert graffed in among them, and with them partakest of the root and fatness of the olive tree;

Wouldn’t one be required to become a believer before they would be grafted in? Would a nonbeliever be able to “partakest of the root and fatness of the Olive tree”?

No my friend like it or not the Gentiles aren’t grafted into the good olive tree until after they come believers. So while all believers are grafted into one tree they still originate from 2 tress the wild and the good olive trees.

Well i agree with all of that. But i dont agree that the wild olive tree is a witness. That would just be wrong.
Unless fruitlessness is some kind of witness which it isnt.

 

[loveme1]

While looking for something i came across this:

Zechariah 11

And I took my staff, even Beauty, and cut it asunder, that I might break my covenant which I had made with all the people. 11And it was broken in that day: and so the poor of the flock that waited upon me knew that it was the word of the LORD. 12And I said unto them, If ye think good, give me my price; and if not, forbear. So they weighed for my price thirty pieces of silver. 13And the LORD said unto me, Cast it unto the potter: a goodly price that I was prised at of them. And I took the thirty pieces of silver, and cast them to the potter in the house of the LORD. 14Then I cut asunder mine other staff, even Bands, that I might break the brotherhood between Judah and Israel.15And the LORD said unto me, Take unto thee yet the instruments of a foolish shepherd. 16For, lo, I will raise up a shepherd in the land,which shall not visit those that be cut off, neither shall seek the young one, nor heal that that is broken, nor feed that that standeth still: but he shall eat the flesh of the fat, and tear their claws in pieces.17Woe to the idol shepherd that leaveth the flock! the sword shall be upon his arm, and upon his right eye: his arm shall be clean dried up, and his right eye shall be utterly darkened.

 

[doulos]

Well i agree with all of that. But i dont agree that the wild olive tree is a witness. That would just be wrong.
Unless fruitlessness is some kind of witness which it isnt.

The two candlesticks represent two churches. Churches are not buildings but instead are groups of believers. The believers are the witnesses. But which two groups of believers? The olive trees identify those groups the gentile believers originate on the wild olive tree and are grafted in amongst the Jews on the good olive tree. How else can 2 candlesticks + 2 olive trees = 2 witnesses. The candlesticks are the witnesses and the olive trees identify which believers.

 

[Abiding]

The two candlesticks represent two churches. Churches are not buildings but instead are groups of believers. The believers are the witnesses. But which two groups of believers? The olive trees identify those groups the gentile believers originate on the wild olive tree and are grafted in amongst the Jews on the good olive tree. How else can 2 candlesticks + 2 olive trees = 2 witnesses. The candlesticks are the witnesses and the olive trees identify which believers.

Well you can say the two olive trees identify but i cant pull that out of it.
In this text from Revelation both trees produce oil. The wild olive tree produces
no oil. So i cant see that your correct on this one. Id have to rely on the OT there.

 

[Abiding]

Acts 26:22 But God has helped me to this very day; so I stand here and testify to small and great alike. I am saying nothing beyond what the prophets and Moses said would happen--

two witnesses= the law and the prophets.

 

[Therapon]

What law of hermeneutics is this? the fits good law?

Principle of Scriptural Adjacency.

Revelation 11:4 “These (two witnesses) are the two olive trees, and the two candlesticks standing before the God of the earth.”

Rule: For the definition of scriptural figures, first look within the surrounding verses, then the chapter, then the book, then the testament, then the whole Bible. It is faulty exegesis to use Old Testament definitions for “olive trees” and “candlesticks” if there are New Testament definitions that fit these New Testament figures perfectly!

Examples: Romans 11:24-32 and Revelation 1:20

 

[doulos]

Well you can say the two olive trees identify but i cant pull that out of it.
In this text from Revelation both trees produce oil. The wild olive tree produces
no oil. So i cant see that your correct on this one. Id have to rely on the OT there.

Were you born a gentile? Did you come from the wild olive tree? Aren't you a believer? When you became a believer weren't you broken out of the wild olive tree and grafted into the good olive tree? If it produces no fruit how did you become a believer?

 

[doulos]

Acts 26:22 But God has helped me to this very day; so I stand here and testify to small and great alike. I am saying nothing beyond what the prophets and Moses said would happen--

two witnesses= the law and the prophets.

Where does Scripture tell us the law is candlesticks or olive trees? Where does Scripture tell us the prophets are candlesticks or olive trees?

 

[Therapon]

Acts 26:22 But God has helped me to this very day; so I stand here and testify to small and great alike. I am saying nothing beyond what the prophets and Moses said would happen--

two witnesses= the law and the prophets.

<sigh> Not so, Brother! If you want to stand in truth you have to accept the Bible's definitions for its biblical figures. Please don't let your doctrine lead you away from "rightly dividing the word of truth."

 

[justamazed]

I know who the two witnesses are.

 

[Abiding]

Principle of Scriptural Adjacency.

Revelation 11:4 “These (two witnesses) are the two olive trees, and the two candlesticks standing before the God of the earth.”

Rule: For the definition of scriptural figures, first look within the surrounding verses, then the chapter, then the book, then the testament, then the whole Bible. It is faulty exegesis to use Old Testament definitions for “olive trees” and “candlesticks” if there are New Testament definitions that fit these New Testament figures perfectly!

Examples: Romans 11:24-32 and Revelation 1:20

Id agree with that. But still just because it fits doesnt mean its right.

 

[Therapon]

I know who the two witnesses are.

If you used Revelation 1:20 and Romans 11:24-25 to determinr who the two candlesticks and two olive trees are, then yes you do. If you didn't, you might want to think it over.

 

[Abiding]

Im not tied to any theology. I just dont think your right.
Im not wanting to argue about it. just gave my opinion.
I could go into some depth on my opinion....but lets face it
its not wanted in this thread.

 

[Therapon]

Id agree with that. But still just because it fits doesnt mean its right.

OK, then lets determine who the Two Witnesses are by something that doesn't fit. Have mercy Abiding, if I laugh too hard I could have a stroke.