Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
If you're referring to Zechariah 9:12 and Israel's hope (confidence) that the Messiah will deliver Israel and bring her back from world-wide dispersion, then yes, I've read it. All of the covenants that God made with Israel, the Abrahamic covenant, the Davidic covenant, the New covenant to Israel, will have their ultimate fulfillment in the Millennial kingdom which Jesus will establish when He returns and sits on the throne of David. All the Jews will be brought back to Israel (Matthew 24:31 refers to this), and the Millennial kingdom will have a decidedly Jewish flavor. As stated in Zechariah 14, Israel will dwell in security and the families of the world will go up to Jerusalem to worship the king (the Messiah, Jesus).
It doesn't teach that of Eternal Punishment or Torment, period.
First off, that is a bald-face lie, where you came up with another distortion of show the Kingdom works for good.
Do you really think those who rape children should be given a chance to be living in the loving presence of God?
Or would it be right to give those who have caused deliberate suffering of others to feel they are even welcomed?
'Suffer not the little children to come unto me, because if one of these little ones is offended then a stone's milled'.
His neck would be crashed upon by a millstone from above because they who hurt children are sinister bastards.
Revelation 21:8 - But the fearful, and unbelieving, and the abominable, and murderers, and whoremongers, and sorcerers, and idolaters, and all liars, shall have their part in the lake which burneth with fire and brimstone: which is the second death.
Revelation 20:15 - And whosoever was not found written in the book of life was cast into the lake of fire.
Matthew 25:46 - And these shall go away into everlasting punishment: but the righteous into life eternal.
Mark 9:43-48 - And if thy hand offend thee, cut it off: it is better for thee to enter into life maimed, than having two hands to go into hell, into the fire that never shall be quenched:...
Matthew 13:50 - And shall cast them into the furnace of fire: there shall be wailing and gnashing of teeth.
Revelation 20:14 - And death and hell were cast into the lake of fire. This is the second death.
2 Thessalonians 1:9 - Who shall be punished with everlasting destruction from the presence of the Lord, and from the glory of his power;
Revelation 20:10 - And the devil that deceived them was cast into the lake of fire and brimstone, where the beast and the false prophet [are], and shall be tormented day and night for ever and ever.
Revelation 14:11 - And the smoke of their torment ascendeth up for ever and ever: and they have no rest day nor night, who worship the beast and his image, and whosoever receiveth the mark of his name.
No man can see G-d and live (unto his own ways anymore). Sure sign they've seen G-d is when they've started dying to self. All men seek after their own ways, and not the ways which be of Christ. Peace
Jesus knew how much humans love themselves--that's why His statement, "Love your neighbor as yourself," is so radical. Dying to self is LIVING for others.
First off, that is a bald-face lie, where you came up with another distortion of show the Kingdom works for good.
Do you really think those who rape children should be given a chance to be living in the loving presence of God?
Or would it be right to give those who have caused deliberate suffering of others to feel they are even welcomed?
'Suffer not the little children to come unto me, because if one of these little ones is offended then a stone's milled'.
His neck would be crashed upon by a millstone from above because they who hurt children are sinister bastards.
Revelation 21:8 - But the fearful, and unbelieving, and the abominable, and murderers, and whoremongers, and sorcerers, and idolaters, and all liars, shall have their part in the lake which burneth with fire and brimstone: which is the second death.
Revelation 20:15 - And whosoever was not found written in the book of life was cast into the lake of fire.
Matthew 25:46 - And these shall go away into everlasting punishment: but the righteous into life eternal.
Mark 9:43-48 - And if thy hand offend thee, cut it off: it is better for thee to enter into life maimed, than having two hands to go into hell, into the fire that never shall be quenched:...
Matthew 13:50 - And shall cast them into the furnace of fire: there shall be wailing and gnashing of teeth.
Revelation 20:14 - And death and hell were cast into the lake of fire. This is the second death.
2 Thessalonians 1:9 - Who shall be punished with everlasting destruction from the presence of the Lord, and from the glory of his power;
Revelation 20:10 - And the devil that deceived them was cast into the lake of fire and brimstone, where the beast and the false prophet [are], and shall be tormented day and night for ever and ever.
Revelation 14:11 - And the smoke of their torment ascendeth up for ever and ever: and they have no rest day nor night, who worship the beast and his image, and whosoever receiveth the mark of his name.
Lake equates to that of a haven or safe harbor, where those who need it will be corrected and changed. However, it has nothing to do with an eternal punishment for a finite life, where many have missed the mark. Personally, I don't think a child-molester should live at all, thus, they would not have to suffer for as you say, forever and ever - that in, and of itself is rather sinister. And doesn't your Bible say, not to return evil for evil.
Since the fundamentalists are dead set on insisting only their view is logical, I'd like to introduce FOUR views that are prevalent among the couple of billion people who claim Christ as God:
Quote:
The issues at the core of the debate between Hanegraaff and LaHaye are not new. Throughout church history, there have been four different views regarding the book of Revelation: idealist, preterist, historicist, and futurist. The idealist view teaches that Revelation describes in symbolic language the battle throughout the ages between God and Satan and good against evil. The preterist view teaches that the events recorded in the book of Revelation were largely fulfilled in AD 70 with the fall of the Jerusalem Temple. The historicist view teaches that the book of Revelation is a symbolic presentation of church history beginning in the first century AD through the end of age. The prophecies of Revelation are fulfilled in various historic events such as the fall of the Roman Empire, the Protestant Reformation, and the French Revolution. The futurist view teaches that Revelation prophesies events that will take place in the future. These events include the rapture of the church, seven years of tribulation, and a millennial rule of Christ upon the earth.
Each view attempts to interpret Revelation according to the laws of hermeneutics, the art and science of interpretation. This is central to the debate about how we should approach and interpret Revelation. The idealist approach believes that apocalyptic literature like Revelation should be interpreted allegorically. The preterist and historicist views are similar in some ways to the allegorical method, but it is more accurate to say preterists and historicists view Revelation as symbolic history. The preterist views Revelation as a symbolic presentation of events that occurred in AD 70, while the historicist school views the events as symbolic of all Western church history. The futurist school believes Revelation should be interpreted literally. In other words, the events of Revelation are to occur at a future time.
Dating when Revelation was written is critical in reaching a conclusion about being an idealist, preterist, historicist, or futurist.
Quote:
With the dating of Revelation, you establish the true historical prospective. If you date it early, you have its fulfillment in God's judgment on Israel. If you date it late, you have every man's idea. So dating plays a very important part in its interpretation.
There are differences of opinion as to when this book was written. These can be summed up as the "late date" and the "early date" theories. First, we'll cover the late date theory. Then we'll examine the facts which support the early date theory.
Those who hold to the "late date," have Revelation written during the time of Domitian Caesar (AD 95-96). This date is determined by the following statement by Irenaeus (AD 130 to AD 202), as quoted by Eusebius, the church historian, in AD 325: "We will not, however, incur the risk of pronouncing positively as to the name of Antichrist; for if it were necessary that his name should be distinctly revealed in this present time, it would have been announced by him who beheld the apocalyptic vision. For that was seen no very long time since, but almost in our day, towards the end of Domitian's reign."
There are things about this statement that need to be noted. First, Irenaeus did not witness this. He referred to Polycarp (who supposedly knew the apostle John). Secondly, the key part — "it is not long since it was seen" — is ambiguous. According to Irenaeus recollection, Polycarp saw "it" sometime in AD 95-96, during the last part Domitian's reign. Thirdly, we do not know if the "it" Polycarp was referring to was John, the visions he saw, the name of anti-christ, or the book itself and we do not know if he meant that the book was written at that time or not. Furthermore, it comes to us through three people separated by three centuries. Simply put, this is hear-say.
This statement, even with all of this uncertainty, is the only evidence used to support the "late date" theory. It has been accepted by generations of people without really questioning it or examining it in light of the book itself. The late date has been passed on to us in the same way it was passed on to Eusebius, "…it [was] handed down by tradition…" Tradition is not the way to interpret Scripture.
Another statement by Irenaeus seems to indicate the earlier date also. In his fifth book, he speaks as follows concerning the Apocalypse of John and the number of the name of the Antichrist: "As these things are so, and this number is found in all the approved and ancient copies." Domitian's reign was almost in his own day, but now he speaks of the Revelation being written in ancient copies. His statement at least gives some doubt as to the "vision" being seen in 95 AD which was almost in his day, and even suggests a time somewhat removed from his own day for him to consider the copies available to him as ancient. ------
---John wrote Revelation to a specific group of churches in Asia (Revelation 1:4). The importance of this statement cannot be overlooked (even though it has been by many scholars). There is only one small window of time in which there were only seven churches in Asia. The early AD 60's. The apostle Paul established nine churches in that area, but only seven were addressed in Revelation. The reason for this is that the cities of Colosse, Hierapolis, and Laodicea, were all destroyed by an earthquake around AD 61. Laodicea was rebuilt soon afterwards, but the other two cities were not. This left only seven churches in Asia during the five years just prior to the beginning of the Roman/Jewish war.
Of particular importance is the message to the church of Philadelphia (Revelation 3:7-13). In verse's 10 and 11, Christ told John to inform them that an "hour of temptation" was "about to come upon all the world," i.e., the Roman Empire. Christ then told them that He was coming quickly and that they should hold fast.The reason this is important (besides the fact that this was directed to an actual church in the first century) is that the first persecution of Christians took place under Nero Caesar in AD 64. Therefore, Revelation must have been written before that time.
Dating the Book of Revelation
And, Mike, here is your Scriptural "proof" that Revelation was written prior to the destruction of the Temple:
Quote:
One of the most compelling proofs that Revelation was written before Jerusalem was destroyed is the fact that the Jewish temple was still standing!
Revelation 11:1-2, "And there was given me a reed like unto a rod: and the angel stood, saying, Rise, and measure the temple of God, and the altar, and them that worship therein. But the court which is without the temple leave out, and measure it not; for it is given unto the Gentiles: and the holy city shall they tread under foot forty and two months."
How do we know that this was the temple of the first century and not some future one? First, there is not one verse in the entire Bible that speaks of a "rebuilt" Jewish Temple. Not one. That alone should be proof enough.
However, this passage is very similar to Luke 21:20-24. Notice that Jesus told the disciples that they would see this event. They had asked Him about their temple (verse 5), and Jesus told them it would be destroyed before their generation passed away (verse 32). Notice again what Jesus said in verse 24, "Jerusalem shall be trodden down of the Gentiles." This is the same thing Christ told John in Revelation 11:2. Therefore, since the disciples' generation has long since passed away, Revelation must have been written before the nations trampled Jerusalem under foot in AD 70.
Same source
My point is not to make anyone believe any particular thing --primarily because it has no existentialist meaning of living in the now. But it is very important that impressionable people not be persuaded that any one group "has got it all down pat." That's just hubris on the part of anyone.
I believe Revelation was written prior to the fall of Jerusalem. The measurement of the Temple mentioned in Revelation (which could not have happened had it fallen), and Jesus' own warning that someone of them who stood with Him would see the destruction of the Temple before their generation passed away.
Is that dead certain--no. But it is based on the evidence available--both the internal biblical evidence as well as the weak futurist statements. However, by the time all of it got to Augustine in the fourth century, the Catholic Church had decided that was the way it was going to be---and evangelicals today are following those Catholic decisions.
Neither one of you who is still one have written one single which is even worth looking at other than to be another example of how simple-minded your booths are.
Right along with your most beholden 'accomplices' to have to act as the best one to speak of those truths found in scriptures to you believe in only yourself, false altar.
The host nations of white people as all those other lands that must continue to combat poverty, sickness and despair, as the most regular things they trust to altars.
That if people pray enough that eventually the truth will be found out as to who has a real economic reason they would not want most of the people to have way more.
Jesus did say that the present system he had to put up with still resides on the same Earth he came to his own footstool called man to retrieve from evil loves wars.
All the economy is a false set of preambles as in those who have the most must maintain that same standard of living they still have plus try to siphon off everyone less.
Jesus said they have the poor always as before just because that is the way to maintain political as well as economic control that 'religion' is used to create slaves.
All of your comments, like the one you are filling in for, come from Biblical ignorance.
If that is so Jesus wouldn't have prefaced His words with "But I say unto you---," and then go on to say LOVE YOUR ENEMY---otherwise you are no different from the heathen who love their families and hate their enemies.
"But I say to You" does not eliminate or change the eye for an eye laws. As I said it only give a bettger response.
Quote:
I've never heard anyone so twist Scripture to mean Jesus said nothing at all radical. What a waste of His time to come and dwell among men.
You thinking it is twisted does not mean it is. IMO you are taking away from Scripture and we are not allowed to do that.
Quote:
Actually its called obedience--but that was not the option for a eunuch in Deut 23:1. He apparently did not have that option for the centuries intervening until Isaiah.
It is not called obedience. Since sin requires confession and repentance. He always had that option as Isa 56:3 cleary says,
Quote:
Wooden was just as inspired as whoever recorded Jesus' statement.
How do yoou know He was?
Quote:
If you new anything about Wooden's life you would know he was a humble man of God--not that God doesn't use heathens like myself to speak His word as well! Seek wisdom where it may be found.
If Wooden was the most humble person on earth, that is irrelevant, even if what he said was true. You have no evidence God insiried him to say it.
Quote:
As for the rest of your statements that weren't so well formatted against my original post--
If what comes out defiles then unless it is understood spiritually then nothing that goes in defiles and someone could smoke, drink--or more commonly among Christians--eat themselves into an early grave.
You are missing the point. Nothing we put into us, defiles us. None of the things you mention are forbidden. Only man's heart condition defile him. This is teaching a spiritual truth, not a literal one.
Quote:
And, I guess your right--I don't understand what you pick and choose---particularly after twisting the "But I say unto you's" back into the cold hard stone of the LAW.
I don't pick and choose. That is a liberal theology way. I did not pick and choose the eye for an eye commandments, I showed you they were never mandatory and are still in effect.
Quote:
Fundamentalism with regard to the Bible is a relatively new phenomenon in Christianity arising in the late nineteenth century among people who had little faith in God.
I think your date is wrong, but it is not worth quibbling over. However it was not adopted by those who had little faith in God. It was developed to fight against the rising tide of liberalism in churches. Iit was basically getting back to the root of the reformation---sola acriptura.
Quote:
I'm not upset by archaeology finds or new Scriptural texts that have been found in recent years which have proven stories like the woman caught in adultery are a late add-on to the gospel of John. My faith is strong enough to accept it and INTERPRET the new found material in light of the Jesus of the rest of the gospel. That story sounds like Jesus whether it came from a separate source John didn't have or if the writer of John created it to show the compassion of Christ. The Bible is a witness about faith, not a owner's guide of do's and don'ts.
Actually it is both.
Quote:
When one equates the Bible with Jesus--it is idolatry. If you don't believe the Bible is equal to Jesus, then it can't be perfect as is God in heaven.
More liberal nonsense. No conservative Christian thinks the Bible is Jesus. The Bible is God's inspired message to man for his spiritual well being.
Quote:
I'm sorry you are misled by OSAS. I was once as well. Then God pointed out these verses--
Matt. 24:12-13
Young's Literal Translation has even more poignant wording--
I have no idea what OSAS is. You are not qualified to say I have been misled. The NASB is also literqal and iit it more accurate thatn Young's
Quote:
But this thread is not about OSAS, and Mike555 and I have been round and round regarding it. Some believe it, that's okay. For me, I never want to be so cocksure about my faith that I forget that I'm in the here and now for God's purpose--not my reward
So what's your point.
Quote:
And I agree everyone's spirituality needs to grow. My quote of John Wooden, "It's what you learn after you know it all," is a favorite because my spiritual growth--still in infancy and always will be--has grown much from my days of fundamentalism. Defending Scripture is not necessary for my faith in God--but apparently it is for yours.
Wooden's quote is very good and true and I am glad it helps you. Many Christians, including me, have gotten along quite will without ever reading it.
Quote:
Try reading Professor Peter Enns' book, The Bible Tells Me So, Why Defending Scripture Has Made Us Unable to Read It.
Enns is an ultra liberal theologian who has been suspended from his teaching position because of his writings.
Quote:
I feel pretty sure you won't, because those with less than the deepest faith are unable to have their viewpoints challenged.
If I was afraid to have my faith challenged, I certainly would not get involved in a form where it would be. I join forums because I know my faith will be challenged, and I have a chance to defend it.
You need to try reading some books by R.C. Sproul or J.I. Packer, but I am sure you will not.
28 Truly I tell you, there are some standing here who will not taste death before they see the Son of Man coming in his kingdom.”
RESPONSE: Then the Bible contains errors, doesn't it?
Inspired by God but contains error? How is that possible?
It isn't possible. One can be coming and going at the same time. Many were still alive when Jesus ascended into heaven, coming into His kingdom. To the peple on earth he was going; to God He was coming,
They were not required to do something against their sincere belief, they were required to stop serving the public if they continued to do so and to pay a penalty for what they did.
How's that for turning your logic back on you?
Mine was not logic. Mine was explaining to you they refused on sincere Biblical beliefs and you still don't get it.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Seek wisdom where it may be found.
