Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.


Messages - BLKsheep

Pages: [1]
1
Pentecostalism and "oneness" "Jesus only movement" / Re: Assemblies of God
« on: December 13, 2016, 09:51:49 PM »
We can dig dirt on any church.  I'm not an AOG fan but, what good does it do to badmouth them?  Do you think you're doing 'God service' by exposing their bad side?  They have heresy, and so does every other church.  Can you name ONE church that has everything right?  Do you believe you have everything right?

2
Predicting the Future with Prophecy / Re: Extra-biblical Early Church Teachings on "Antichrist" - The Didache
« on: February 28, 2016, 05:31:02 PM »
Pete's fabrication...

Quote
I believe the boogieman idea may have been the sort of misunderstanding that was exactly what John was trying to dispel in his historically-later 1 John verses. The following verse is sometimes believed to suggest an individual past or future "The" "Antichrist:

1 John 2:18 Little children, it is the last time: and as ye have heard that antichrist shall come, even now are there many antichrists; whereby we know that it is the last time.

Does the above verse really even make sense, if the first use of the term antichrist were supposed to be an individual person as "The" "Antichrist", when six words later we learn there are many antichrists? Unless of course the verse is saying something like "You have heard people rumor that an individual antichrist is coming, but can't you see that even now there are already many antichrists in the world?"

This is the only verse of the 4 verses that contain the term, that is generally construed to indicate a single individual as such.  Let's develop our understanding through an adjacent hermeneutic, that seems to reveal exactly how to understand this verse perfectly, by looking to the following verse that also uses the term antichrist in a singular fashion:

1 John 4:3 And every spirit that confesseth not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is not of God: and this is that [spirit] of antichrist, whereof ye have heard that it should come; and even now already is it in the world.

You can see the singular "that", "spirit", "it" in this sentence and singular "antichrist", just like the singular "antichrist" in 1 John 2:18. The translators gave us a little extra push in 1 John 4:3 by inserting the word [spirit] a second time, further clarifying that the spirit of antichrist is this singular entity.  As in, "ye have heard that the spirit of antichrist would come, but it's already here!" Now look at how this makes 1 John 2:18 make perfect sense if, when you get to the first use of term antichrist, you simply understand it to be a reference to THE SPIRIT OF antichrist:

John 2:18 Little children, it is the last time: and as ye have heard that {the spirit of} antichrist shall come, even now are there many antichrists; whereby we know that it is the last time.

I'm not rewriting the verse, but only demonstrating how it can easily be understood, to in my opinion make far more sense than contradicting a single entity with "many" in the same breath. Finally look also at how beautifully parallel these two verse snippets are:

"ye have heard that antichrist shall come"
"ye have heard that it should come"

Poof! End time boogieman up in smoke. How can the idea of this dude even survive scripture, unless one throws hermeneutics right out the window and stuffs him into Revelation 13? Let alone it makes the historical succession of 8 kings/beasts be kingdom, kingdom, kingdom, kingdom, kingdom, kingdom, kingdom...... boogieman.


1 John 2:18  Little children, it is the last time: and as ye have heard that antichrist shall come, even now are there many antichrists; whereby we know that it is the last time.

There are some who think 'antichrist' always indicates a plurality of persons, and some who believe anti-Christ always refers to a 'spirit.' That leads them to believe that there's no such thing as one man emerging in the last days.  They tell us that the end-time 'anti-Christ' is a 'spirit' and NOT an individual, but they aren't paying attention to the verse.

The definition of anti-Christ in the epistles of John, represents anything or 'anybody' that is an adversary of the Messiah, "since the time of Christ." 1st and 2nd John shows us what anti-Christ IS and the state of a person who is an adversary of Christ the Messiah. The anti-Christ is the man of sin or the lawless one. He IS one individual since there are several times personal pronouns are used to describe him. We call the 'end-time' man of sin THE anti-Christ in Christian literature because that word does describe him well.

This verse has one word for antichrist that is singular, the other plural, and wasn't translated correctly in the KJV.

Little children, it is the last time: and as ye have heard that (THE) antichrist (singular) shall come, even now are there many antichrists; (plural) whereby we know that it is the last time.

The verse actually reads in the Greek interlinear like this...

Little boys and girls, it is the last hour and according as ye hear that THE "instead-anointed" (antichrist) is coming and now many instead anointeds have become.....
Pete!  You have fabricated 'the spirit of' into the text! No such thing exist in this passage!  And you have the nerve to call it a hermeneutic.

So take a close look at it and you should see that one word for anti-Christ is singular and referred to as THE antichrist, and the other is word for anti-Christ is plural. I shouldn't have to explain any more. Take a look if you don't believe me.

http://www.scripture4all.org/OnlineI...NTpdf/1jo2.pdf

Over a dozen bible translations use the word 'the' in the translation of 1 John 2:18. The ones that omit it do so mistakenly.  What appears to be a contradiction in the interlinear and literal translations really is not. The word 'THE' was omitted and not added which is usually the case with the interlinear. We have to have a balanced view of this and understand that as simple as dropping the word 'THE' usually isn't something that changes the correct interpretation very much. In this case with this argument it does. In every aspect I study this, I never walk away believing this to be ONLY a plurality of persons. One word is singular and implies ONE antichrist man coming in the future, especially when personal pronouns are used to describe him elsewhere.
Other than the future 'anti-Christ,' what is anti-Christ?  The scriptures are simple.  Anyone who denies Christ.

1 John 2:18  Little children, it is the last time: and as ye have heard that antichrist shall come, even now are there many antichrists; whereby we know that it is the last time.

1John 2:22  Who is a liar but he that denieth that Jesus is the Christ? He is antichrist, that denieth the Father and the Son.

1 John 4:3  And every spirit that confesseth not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is not of God: and this is that spirit of antichrist, whereof ye have heard that it should come; and even now already is it in the world.

2 John 1:7  For many deceivers are entered into the world, who confess not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh. This is a deceiver and an antichrist.

3
General Discussion / Re: Daniel 7
« on: September 20, 2015, 08:05:33 PM »
See you later Pete, your nothing but an arrogant badmouther.  I figured I'd give it another try but your attitude continues to stink.  Have fun replying to yourself.


Psalm 55:12-14   
It is not an enemy who taunts me—
I could bear that.
It is not my foes who so arrogantly insult me—
I could have hidden from them.
Instead, it is you—my equal,
my companion and close friend.
What good fellowship we once enjoyed
as we walked together to the house of God.

4
General Discussion / Re: Daniel 7
« on: September 20, 2015, 07:43:04 PM »
You really know how to get under somebodies skin...

Pete said,


That it doesn't fit with the doctrine that atheists gave you is unimportant.

You are bent on making people look bad by distorting what people say.  I'm in my 60's too and have studied Daniel 7 more than most Christians.  Years BEFORE I found what atheist Kyle Williams believed about Daniel 7, I KNEW that a TRUE prophet of God cannot be a true prophet IF he prophesies about a kingdom rising that had already risen.  So lay off the atheist kick of badmouthing because your just trying to badmouth and belittle me.  Other than CONFIRM one thing that I already believe about false prophets, the atheist have contributed absolutely nothing to my beliefs. But YOU have contributed to their affirmation that Daniel is a false prophet which ultimately debunks the bible.  Congratulations!

Did you know we are commanded to LISTEN?


Wherefore, my beloved brethren, let every man be swift to hear, slow to speak, slow to wrath:

Hear...

to attend to, consider what is or has been said, to understand, perceive the sense of what is said

5
Islam in, and on, Scripture - Mohammed in Prophecy / Re: JIHADIST IN BIBLE PROPHECY
« on: September 20, 2015, 06:25:14 PM »
Pete,

Do you think there are any bible passages where Islam/radical Islam, ISIS/ISIL, jihad and their goals ETC. are prophesied? 

6
Islam in, and on, Scripture - Mohammed in Prophecy / Re: JIHADIST IN BIBLE PROPHECY
« on: September 20, 2015, 06:12:13 PM »
Quote
I might have in a dated thread, or by quoting someone else, but today I don't believe terms like "radical" to describe Muhammad's true followers,

Neither do I and I've read the things you've said before, probably on Behold the Beast or this forum.

I believe that true Muslims are the jihadist.  Peaceful Muslims are the ones that ARE NOT true Muslims because Islam began and never stopped converting by the sword.  A radical isn't a true follower of Muhammad either.  They ride the fence of jihad and all it takes for them to become jihadist is for something to set them off to participate in jihad.

7
General Discussion / Re: Daniel 7
« on: September 20, 2015, 06:00:36 PM »
Quote from: PeteWaldo on September 20, 2015, 04:36:11 PM
You don't need to rewrite the Bible, in order to bend it to accomodate your pre-conceived notions. All those machinations when you might have otherwise considered the part you failed to quote:

Rev 1:19 Write the things which thou hast seen, and the things which are, and the things which shall be hereafter;

I don't know if you noticed, but you are stretching a bit much.
Have you ever had any exposure to the Penticostal Church?
I'm trying to have an amicable discussion here and all you do is complain, and even complain that I failed to quote Revelation 1:19, some 16 chapters prior to the verse in question...Revelation 17!  You're really something!  I take it you don't like the way I study the bible. 

Isn't it YOU who says that "literal passages of the bible ARE NOT open to interpretation?" 

Write the things which thou hast seen, and the things which are, and the things which shall be hereafter;

I realize that you've accepted historical view, but you're the one who is bending it to accommodate YOUR pre-conceived notions of historicism.

In Revelation 1:19 John DID NOT SEE any of Revelation 19's heads or horns emerge or fall other than the, 'one that is.'

I've had exposure to nearly every church there is and I don't accept any ones doctrine.  I don't accept the Pentecostal view of the gifts of the Spirit.  And I don't accept any ones eschatology.

So now you think I'm a Pentecostal huh?  Why are you so bent on labeling people?

8
Islam in, and on, Scripture - Mohammed in Prophecy / Re: JIHADIST IN BIBLE PROPHECY
« on: September 20, 2015, 04:09:07 PM »
Revelation 9 also warns us of suicide bombers (jihadist) and how many jihadist there are when the prophecy comes to pass...

Revelation 9:16-17  And the number of the army of the horsemen were two hundred thousand thousand: and I heard the number of them.  And thus I saw the horses in the vision, and them that sat on them, having breastplates of fire, and of jacinth, and brimstone: and the heads of the horses were as the heads of lions; and out of their mouths issued fire and smoke and brimstone.

"And thus I saw the horses in the vision, and them that sat on them, having breastplates of fire... (suicide vest)

Breastplates were held by straps that went over the shoulders or around the neck.

"...and of jacinth," (dark red)...

From Vines....
Jacinth:
signifies "hyacinthine," perhaps primarily having the color of the hyacinth. Some regard its color as that of the martagon lily, a dusky red. According to Swete, the word in Rev 9:17 is "doubtless meant to describe the blue smoke of a sulphurous flame."

...'and brimstone'....  Sparks and explosion.   This is the only place the word 'brimstone' or Strong's #2306 is used in the NT.  Strong's #2306 comes from 2303 and is said, "(in its original sense of "flashing)."

"...and the heads of the horses were as the heads of lions; (Babylonians) and out of their mouths issued fire and smoke and brimstone."

John even tells us how many jihadist there are in the world when this happens. 

In 2006-7 Daniel Pipes said there were 300 million jihadist and 400 million radicals in the world.  I thought that number to be a bit high on the jihadist but close on the radicals.  You also posted an article estimating how many jihadist there are today.  I would say it was a very good estimate.

"And the number of the army of the horsemen were two hundred thousand thousand: and I heard the number of them."

That would be 200 million.

For their power is in their mouth, and in their tails:...
The only two places tails are mentioned are here and on the dragon of Rev. 12. Their mouth symbolizes the teachings jihad and the Imams like Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi promoting terrorism aka Satan's will of destruction.

"for their tails were like unto serpents," Tails and serpents are icons of the dragon and Lucifer.  Lucifer and the dragon make up Islam's morning star and crescent moon!
 
"and had heads, and with them they do hurt." Heads could be symbolic of people or Islamic clerics and leaders who encourage them to commit jihad. Look at the word "hurt" and apply it to a suicide bombing.

I consider Revelation 9 to be the strangest and most demonic of all chapters in the New Testament.  It's all about Islam and the demons who inspire them.



9
General Discussion / Re: Dr. Ben Carson is a Seventh Day Adventist whose father was an SDA minister
« on: September 20, 2015, 03:18:15 PM »
Quote
So a handful of 19th century born cults got it right, and 1800 years of universal Christian core doctrine got it wrong.

Call the trinity doctrine what you like but it doesn't prove a thing.  The doctrine was invented in the fourth century and is still controversial today and for GOOD reasons, it's a concept invented by man.  Jesus' own words DEBUNKS the trinity!  I do believe Jesus is God but see the trinity as a poor way to describe Him or Jesus, and the Holy Spirit.

I believe God is greater than Jesus. Everything that Jesus is, God is, but God is yet more.

John 13:16
Verily, verily, I say unto you, The servant is not greater than his lord; neither he that is sent greater than he that sent him.

John 14:28

Ye have heard how I said unto you, I go away, and come again unto you. If ye loved me, ye would rejoice, because I said, I go unto the Father: for my Father is greater than I.

Why isn't "the Holy Spirit" found in John's description of God's Throne?  The Holy Spirit emanates from God through the seven Spirits of God which I believe are the seven hierarchies of angels and the powers available to them. The Holy Spirits presence usually comes through the presence of angels, Jesus or God Himself. And Jesus is usually with angels anyway. God, the Seven Spirits, Jesus, they all have the same mind but they don't have all the same power and knowledge as that emanates from, and can only be attributed to, God Almighty.

I've found over the years that the simplest most logical explanation is usually the correct one. This is my simple explanation.

I don't see Jesus as being ALL knowing.

Mat 24:36,

"But of that day and hour knoweth no man, no, not the angels of heaven, but my Father only."

I question the trinity as it is taught because of the trinitarian mis-translation of Mat 28:18.

And Jesus came and spake unto them, saying, All power is given unto me in heaven and in earth.

This verse appears to imply that Jesus is all powerful but it does not. When the word all is used WITHOUT the article it means, "every kind or every variety!"  What Jesus is saying is that every kind of power in heaven is available to him. I say those powers come from God through the seven Spirits of God. If someone were to ask me who is the Holy Spirit I would say He is the Seven Spirits of God which emanates from the throne of God.  Trinitarian's tell us that the Holy Spirit is a separate person than Jesus and God.  If that's the case, why doesn't he have a name, and why isn't he found in or around God's Throne?

Revelation 5:6 And I beheld, and, lo, in the midst of the throne and of the four beasts, and in the midst of the elders, stood a Lamb as it had been slain, having seven horns and seven eyes, which are the seven Spirits of God sent forth into all the earth.
Think about it.

The word all is probably the most often misunderstood and mistranslated word in the bible.  I don't think God has always been understood as though He has just ONE power but as One who has many powers. His power and authority is ministered through the seven Spirits of God. To me that's the most logical explanation.

The language and grammar.

Vines says...
All:
radically means "all." Used without the article it means "every," every kind or variety.

http://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/...gs=G3956&t=KJV
-click on Vines entry-

John to the seven churches which are in Asia: Grace be unto you, and peace, from him which is, and which was, and which is to come; and from the seven Spirits which are before his throne;

I've never been able to grasp why or how the Holy Spirit could be ONE separate unnamed person. I have never found the trinity doctrine as being sound. I've never left my Catholic roots and attend all or, "every kind" of churches. But I do believe that Jesus is God in that he is everything that God is. But God is simply, "yet more!"

10
Islam in, and on, Scripture - Mohammed in Prophecy / JIHADIST IN BIBLE PROPHECY
« on: September 20, 2015, 02:48:25 PM »
Habakkuk 1:5  Behold ye among the heathen, and regard, and wonder marvellously: for I will work a work in your days, which ye will not believe, though it be told you.   For, lo, I raise up the Chaldean's, that bitter and hasty nation, which...

...shall march through the breadth of the land, to possess the dwelling places that are not theirs.

...They are terrible and dreadful: their judgment and their dignity shall proceed of themselves.

...Their horses also are swifter than the leopards, and are more fierce than the evening wolves:

and their horsemen shall spread themselves, and their horsemen shall come from far; they shall fly as the eagle that hasteth to eat.

...They shall come all for violence: their faces shall sup up as the east wind, and they shall gather the captivity as the sand.

The East Wind...

"The east wind is always associated with evil destructive wind."  E. Swedenborg (1688-1772) said, "That wind, and especially the east wind, signifies nothing else than the dispersion of falsities and evils....

Terrorism, their form of worship, and goal of world domination ALL IN ONE VERSE!

"They shall come all for violence: their faces shall sup up as the east wind, and they shall gather the captivity as the sand."

'Sup up' means to do so as a horde or an assembly.

Islam is the only religion where it's followers "sup their face up to the east" even 5 times a day.


11
General Discussion / Re: Daniel 7
« on: September 20, 2015, 02:13:03 PM »
Revelation 17:10 And there are seven kings: five are fallen, and one is, [and] the other is not yet come; and when he cometh, he must continue a short space.

First...

The word ARE IS NOT in the original text!

The passage actually reads,

There are seven kings:, five fallen.

FIVE ARE FALLEN?
The word ARE is in the original text in this phrase...

There are seven kings

But NOT in this portion...

five (are) fallen

The word ARE is a third person plural present indicative. This passage isn't a reflection of world empires. It is a picture of a complete end-time entity. There are seven kings, five kings ARE fallen. These kings are all present on earth at the same time.

The kingdoms of Egypt, Assyria, Babylon, Medo-Persia, Greece had fallen by John's time.

For John to have a vision that prophesy's about of an end-time beast only to have some of the elements of the beast be historical actually makes him a false prophet. A prophet cannot prophesy about kings (kingdoms not explicitly implied) that have already passed. The words used in the text indicates they are all end-time KINGS!

12
General Discussion / Re: Dr. Ben Carson is a Seventh Day Adventist whose father was an SDA minister
« on: September 20, 2015, 02:02:10 PM »
Quote
As I pointed out to you when you first arrived, it isn't only the people who follow the false prophet Muhammad that reject the Trinity. It is also the people who follow:
People who follow Joseph Smith
People who follow Charles Taze Russell
People who follow Mary Baker Eddy
People who follow Herbert W. Armstrong
People who follow Dr. John Thomas
People who follow Frank Ewart
People who follow Sun Myung Moon
People who follow Charles and Myrtle Fillmore
People who follow L. Ron Hubbard
http://www.islamchristianforum.com/index.php?topic=4256.msg16982#msg16982

Does that suggest anything to you?

Yes.  It suggest that they are right that there's no such thing as a trinity and the others are wrong. 

The only reason you find it necessary to mention Muhammad in this is because of your being bent on demonizing fellow Christians and making those who disagree with you look as bad as you can make them look.

You had the nerve to tell me that I believe what I do because that's what I've been taught when actually you know little to nothing about me and simple PRESUME you know!  You are the one who has accepted, "line, hook, and sinker" the teachings of others.  I say you believe the trinity "because that's what you've been taught!"  Especially the teachings of Ellis Skolfield.  (who actually doesn't live that far from me) Then on the Daniel 7 thread, you said,

Quote
There is a broad agreement among Jewish and Christian scholars that the kingdoms represented by Daniel's lion, bear and leopard, are the successive ancient kingdoms of Babylon, Medo-Persia and Greece, followed by the fourth "terrible" beast, that is understood to be the Roman Empire.

That's NOT true since many 'Christian scholars' reconsidered and have found the dates of Daniel 7 to be contradictory and have changed their minds.  They know, and so do the atheist, that one cannot prophesy about a kingdom 'rising' that has already risen some 50 years before.  The word 'before' in the passage means 'in the presence of' indicating that all four beast in Daniel 7 are future END-TIME entities.  I don't imagine you'll ever change your mind because IF you did, you would have to admit that 'YOU'VE BEEN WRONG' and Christians simply don't admit 'being wrong'.  Do you think that all of what you believe is correct?

I remember reading some of your replies on another forum maybe 5 years ago.  You were very nice to people who accused you of hating Muslims.  What happened?

EROR IS EROR REGARDLESS OF WHO BELIEVES OR DOESN'T BELIEVE IT!

13
General Discussion / Re: Dr. Ben Carson is a Seventh Day Adventist whose father was an SDA minister
« on: September 20, 2015, 12:55:59 PM »
First of all Pete.  YOU are the ONE who said I rejected the deity of Christ!  I never said such a thing.  Do you enjoy misquoting people?  That, along with your presumptuous attitude, (Now thinking I'm a JW) it appears that I WOULD be wasting words!

Quote
Like Muhammad for example:

Why are you so bent on belittling other believers who disagree with you with such disgusting presumptuous remarks? 


14
General Discussion / Re: Dr. Ben Carson is a Seventh Day Adventist whose father was an SDA minister
« on: September 20, 2015, 12:32:48 PM »
Quote from: PeteWaldo on September 20, 2015, 12:13:49 PM
Quote from: BLKsheep on September 20, 2015, 11:59:10 AM
So now your presumptuous behavior leads you to assume that I'm SDA.

That's false. In fact I had concluded you were Jehovah's Witness, the last time you were in here. It was based on your previous rejection of the deity of Christ, which joins you with Muslims and just about every cult:
http://www.islamchristianforum.com/index.php?topic=4256.0

You bolded this quote and I can only associate it with SDA!

"Do you believe that Christians who worship on Sunday carry the mark of the beast?"

What do you expect me to think?

Another thing.  I never rejected the Deity of Jesus Christ.  I said that I didn't believe in the trinity.  Are you aware that there's is a difference between the trinity and the deity of Christ?

15
General Discussion / Re: Dr. Ben Carson is a Seventh Day Adventist whose father was an SDA minister
« on: September 20, 2015, 11:59:10 AM »
So now your presumptuous behavior leads you to assume that I'm SDA.  I have NO religious affiliation whatsoever.  I go to a host of Churches and don't judge those who believe different than I do.  Judgment is reserved for God, not me.  For me to judge another who believes in Jesus Christ puts me in the same category as those in this...

Romans 2:1.
Therefore thou art inexcusable, O man, whoever thou art that judgest: for in that thou judgest another, thou condemnest thyself; for thou that judgest doest the same things.

Romans 14:12-13  So then every one of us shall give account of himself to God.  Let us not therefore judge one another any more: but judge this rather, that no man put a stumblingblock or an occasion to fall in his brother's way.

It's not our job as a Christians to point out the sins of people. It's our job to point them to Christ. Telling people they're heretics does nothing for the cause of Christ. It just alienates them from the body of Christ and alienates those who 'don't know any better' from accepting Christ. To a point it's OK for Christians to judge one anothers 'behavior'.  But it's never OK for Christians to judge those outside of the Church. 

As far as heresies go, there are damnable and undamnable heresies.

In 1 Cor 5 we are told that we can judge one another's 'behavior'.  But did you know that false teachers 'within the church' who taught 'undamnable' heresies were given a second chance?  Did you know that if those teachers who taught 'undamnable' heresies who didn't repent of their teachings, were NOT excommunicated from the congregation?  People were told to 'avoid' them.

In Philippians 1:14-18 Paul doesn't curse those that preach Christ with evil motives and not in truth, but actually rejoices in that Christ is being preached anyway!

Philippians 1:15-19  Some indeed preach Christ even of envy and strife; and some also of good will:  The one preach Christ of contention, not sincerely, supposing to add affliction to my bonds:  But the other of love, knowing that I am set for the defence of the gospel.  What then? notwithstanding, every way, whether in pretence, or in truth, Christ is preached; and I therein do rejoice, yea, and will rejoice.  For I know that this shall turn to my salvation through your prayer, and the supply of the Spirit of Jesus Christ,

Paul on one hand in Galatians curses false teachers, yet on the other appears to rejoice in that Christ is being preached anyway.  That means that on one hand your "undamnable heretic doctrine doesn't condemn you," you are still saved by our righteousness in Christ.

What appears to be a contradiction in Paul's teachings really is not.  It's just that there are damnable and undamnable heresies.   

Matthew 7:1  Judge not, that ye be not judged.
2  For with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged: and with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again.
3  And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother's eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye?
4  Or how wilt thou say to thy brother, Let me pull out the mote out of thine eye; and, behold, a beam is in thine own eye?
5  Thou hypocrite, first cast out the beam out of thine own eye; and then shalt thou see clearly to cast out the mote out of thy brother's eye.

It does NO GOOD for Christians to demonize one another.  It gives the world the sense that we Christians are hypocrites.

16
General Discussion / Re: Dr. Ben Carson is a Seventh Day Adventist whose father was an SDA minister
« on: September 20, 2015, 10:58:18 AM »
You're demonization of JW's, SDA's, Mormons, and Catholics, AND your arrogant judgmental attitude toward people like myself who disagrees with you, is the reason why your forum isn't growing, and why so many people avoid Christianity like the plague, and why Islam is growing much faster than Christianity.

17
Jehovah's Witness / Re: Re: The "Trinity"
« on: August 23, 2015, 10:13:25 PM »
Quote
Rest assured that I will not be posting here again.


I am done with this website.  Now you can go back to posting to yourself, like you have been doing for the last couple of years since the last person decided to up and leave.  With websites like this a dime a dozen across the internet, who, in his or her right mind, do you think will put up with your behavior?

NeutralZone

NeutralZone has been inactive since posting the above post.  He made it to 9 replies here.  I will do the same.  This makes 9 for me and will be my last post as well.

First of all, I too do not accept the trinity doctrine.  Never did and never will.   Jesus himself said God is greater and admitted that God knew things that Jesus himself does not know.  Actually, the trinity doctrine is one of the easiest doctrines to debunk in Christianity.

Pete says that literal passages are not open to interpretation.  That's about as stupid a comment I've ever heard.  Here's a literal passage Pete quoted in support of the trinity, but doesn't understand it's meaning...

Mathew 28:18  And Jesus came and spake unto them, saying, All power is given unto me in heaven and in earth.

Trinitarians like Pete and all the others misinterpret this LITERAL PASSAGE.  Actually, it's the word ALL that most people misinterpret.

When the word ALL is used without the article it means, "every kind or every variety."  So the passage is not saying that Jesus has all the power God has.  What it is saying is that Jesus has access to the many powers that emanate from (the throne of) God.  These powers likely come from the "SEVEN SPIRITS OF GOD."

What is the Holy Spirits name anyway?

Pete,

I'm really surprised at your presumptuous attitude.  You've labelled me as a follower of Darby (dispensationalist) which is absolutely false.  You said that's what I believe because that's what I've been taught.  Wrong again.  I've been taught NOTHING by others.  My eschatology is my own!  I'm a self taught prophecy student.  I actually don't accept ANY (actually...very little) of the futurist view.  My beliefs are my own.

I have to agree with neutral zone.  It doesn't matter if he's a JW or not, and it doesn't matter what bible he's using.  They do all pretty much say the same thing!  The issue at hand is "the trinity!"  And just for the record, I do believe Jesus IS God.  But believe that God is greater just like JESUS SAID!

I agree with neutralZone on this comment too...

Quote
I do not answer to personal questions that are irrelevant to the topic of a thread. Clearly, you are under the misguided impression that simply because you own this website, you have the right to harass posters who come here. The only thing you seem to have succeeded in doing is running off good debaters.


I too am leaving and this is my last post. 




________________

18
General Discussion / Re: the "covenant" of Daniel 9 27
« on: August 23, 2015, 05:08:30 PM »
You know what Pete.  I'm done.  You've already misquoted me several times, and now you're off on the blasphemy kick.  This is going to be a complete waste of MY time...and yours.

See you later!  BYE

You may as well cancel my membership.  I can deal with debate.  But not people telling me I'm calling God a liar, or you telling me I'm blasphemous.


19
General Discussion / Re: the "covenant" of Daniel 9 27
« on: August 23, 2015, 04:59:32 PM »


What does it really say?

Lets see.  After the passage in question, Mathew 17 and Mark 9 say after 6 days they went up to the mountain.  Luke says 8 days after.  Who is 'literally' right?

Matthew 16:28  Verily I say unto you, There be some standing here, which shall not taste of death, till they see the Son of man coming in his kingdom.

Matthew 17:1  And after six days Jesus taketh Peter, James, and John his brother, and bringeth them up into an high mountain apart,

Mark 9:1=2  And he said unto them, Verily I say unto you, That there be some of them that stand here, which shall not taste of death, till they have seen the kingdom of God come with power. And after six days Jesus taketh with him Peter, and James, and John, and leadeth them up into an high mountain apart by themselves: and he was transfigured before them.

Luke 9:27-28  But I tell you of a truth, there be some standing here, which shall not taste of death, till they see the kingdom of God.  And it came to pass about an eight days after these sayings, he took Peter and John and James, and went up into a mountain to pray.

At least Luke says ABOUT 8 days.

There are a host of events that are reported on differently by the gospel writers.  Mark says, "till they have seen the kingdom of God come with power."  Luke says, " till they see the kingdom of God."  Mathew says, " till they see the Son of man coming in his kingdom."

Which do you take literally?  After each passage, the transfiguration is mentioned.

I will never be convinced that Christ returned around 70 AD.  The evidence just isn't there. And no man living at the time these words were recorded can be alive today to see Christ return.  So again.  It's illogical for me to accept EITHER of those beliefs.  It's more logical to view this as the transfiguration or the ascension.

20
General Discussion / Re: the "covenant" of Daniel 9 27
« on: August 23, 2015, 03:51:18 PM »
Quote
Perhaps you could share the verses you believe make that prophecy false (unless you can suggest another option), bearing in mind that sound exegesis begins with the literal language of literal passages that is open to interpretation, before turning to the figurative language of prophetic dreams and visions.

I'm not saying that the prophecy is false.  Only peoples understanding and interpretation of it.  The passage can't be explained by one who believes that Christ literally returned in 70AD because there's no record of Him returning!  And to look at this from a futurist view, people who witnessed Christ words about "not tasting death" would be 2,000 years old today.  It just doesn't work for me.  I lean toward the idea that the passage implies the transfiguration or the ascension.  What passages does it contradict?

ALL of Mathew 24, Luke 21, and Mark 13 contradict Mathew 16:28!! 

Quote
Futurists believe a temple will be rebuilt in which Jesus would rule on earth for 1,000 years. But didn't Jesus already build that temple through His crucifixion, death and resurrection?

I believe that a Millennial Temple will also be built.  I'm not sure on just how much CHRIST will rule during that time.  I disagree that a temple needs to be rebuilt before the Lords return.  The Dome area complex is sufficient to authenticate the man of sin and fulfill prophecy.

The word 'temple' is used figuratively as the body and abode of the Holy Spirit.  It's also used as a literal temple.  Context usually determines which is implied.


21
General Discussion / Re: the "covenant" of Daniel 9 27
« on: August 23, 2015, 02:46:20 PM »
Quote
As you look around the world today, and consider the last 1400 years of imperialistic conquest and subjugation of the false prophet Muhammad's Islamic kingdom "beast", did it ever strike you as peculiar that futurism necessarily precludes you from even considering, that Muhammad could be THE false prophet of the book of Revelation?

For the longest time I thought Muhammad WAS the false prophet.  He most certainly is a false prophet and originator of the false religion of Islam, i.e. Babylon the Great," but I've reconsidered and THINK he may not be the end-time false prophet who I think is someone who will 'rise' and exist in the last days. 

I also thought bin Laden could be the false prophet too since he called for holy war in 1998.  I still believe bin Laden is the rider of the white horse of the first seal which represents, 'holy war.'  However, Muhammad STILL could be the false prophet....but I tend to think it's a man living at the time the events of Revelation take place.  Baghdaddi would be a good candidate.

Quote
As a futurist, what do you make of this prophecy of Jesus:

Matthew 16:28 Verily I say unto you, There be some standing here, which shall not taste of death, till they see the Son of man coming in his kingdom.

Mark 9:1  And he said unto them, Verily I say unto you, That there be some of them that stand here, which shall not taste of death, till they have seen the kingdom of God come with power.

That passage is what fuels preterism and historicism.  But then again, to accept it as such, in my view, contradicts a host of other verses.

I have a different view of Mathew 16:28 and I know what most futurist and preterist believe about it as well.  First, in every instance, the passage is followed by the transfiguration. 

Doug Bachelder said,

If you go to Mark chapter 9 it's the same story.  I like Mark's version a little better because it gets right to the point.  In Mark 9 verse 1, Jesus said, 'Assuredly I say to you, there are some standing here who will not taste of death till they see the Kingdom of God present with power.'  Now the way that's translated from the Greek I understand, He's saying you are going to see a presentation of the Kingdom coming....

Now follow this:  Jesus was glorified.  Moses was there, who represents those who died and are resurrected.  Elijah was there, representing those who are translated without seeing death.  God the Father comes in a cloud and says, 'This is my Beloved Son.'  What they had was a miniature microcosm, a picture of the Second Coming.  Jesus said I'm going to give you a snapshot, before you die, of my Kingdom coming.  And that's what happened on that mountain right after He made that statement.

http://www.amazingfacts.org/media-library/media/e/1073/t/explain-matthew-1628-about-some-not-dying-until-they-see-the-kingdom
_________________________________________________________

To accept this verse as the preterist do actually contradicts Mathew 24.  The Lord cannot return to his kingdom until he establishes it. 

So in my view, there are too many contradictions to accept this in a historical or preterist context.  The word 'coming' also means 'to go.'

I'm not sure but I tend to believe the Lord IS referring to either the transfiguration (likely) or the ascencion. (another possibility)

This passage doesn't imply as most preterist do that the Lord returned in 70 AD.

An old woman once told me that, "prophecy was written to fool us."
I say she's right!  But more so that we fool ourselves.

22
General Discussion / Re: Daniel 7
« on: August 23, 2015, 01:24:39 PM »
Quote
If after that, you still don't understand go here http://www.beholdthebeast.com/daniels_four_beasts.htm

This is a portion of that link...

Quote
There is a broad agreement among Jewish and Christian scholars that the kingdoms represented by Daniel's lion, bear and leopard, are the successive ancient kingdoms of Babylon, Medo-Persia and Greece, followed by the fourth "terrible" beast, that is understood to be the Roman Empire.

I can't agree that there is "broad agreement" among Christian scholars that "the kingdoms represented by Daniel's lion, bear and leopard, are the successive ancient kingdoms of Babylon, Medo-Persia and Greece, followed by the fourth "dreadful and terrible" beast, that is understood to be the Roman Empire."

Many people who USED to believe the above statement have changed their mind on this.  First of all, ROME is non-existent in all of bible prophecy.

"I came near unto one of them that stood by, and asked him the truth of all this. So he told me, and made me know the interpretation of the things.  These great beasts, which are four, are four kings, which shall arise out of the earth."

Babylon had already risen some 50 years before Daniel 7 was written!  If Daniel is referring to ancient Babylon, then I agree with atheist Kyle Williams.  Daniel is a false prophet!

Quote
This conclusion is reached within the traditional continuous-historic context of prophecy.  This is simply the view that bible prophecy is fulfilled steadily, as the era about which it is written gradually unfolds.  This is the context in which virtually all Christians and Jews understand Old Testament prophecy.

I don't believe that prophecy "gradually unfolds."  The latter part of Daniel 7 seems to debunk the, "traditional continuous-historic context of prophecy."

...before whom there were three of the first horns plucked up by the roots:

...I beheld till the thrones were cast down, and the Ancient of days did sit,

... I came near unto one of them that stood by, and asked him the truth of all this. So he told me, and made me know the interpretation of the things.  "These great beasts, which are four, are four kings, which shall arise out of the earth." But the saints of the most High shall take the kingdom, and possess the kingdom for ever, even for ever and ever.

You will never convince me that these four beast/kingdoms are ancient empires.  These kings/kingdoms are likely end-time kings and/or countries that have been formed into an Islamic caliphate of sorts. I don't know who or what these beast represent. I just don't accept them as historical, just like I don't accept the heads or horns of Revelation 13 and 17 as historical.  They are complete end-time entities.

23
General Discussion / Re: Daniel 7
« on: August 23, 2015, 12:26:04 PM »
Quote
Daniel 2:36-38 "This is the dream; and we will tell the interpretation thereof before the king. Thou, O king, art a king of kings: for the God of heaven hath given thee a kingdom, power, and strength, and glory. And wheresoever the children of men dwell, the beasts of the field and the fowls of the heaven hath he given into thine hand, and hath made thee ruler over them all. Thou art this head of gold."

By your own standard of what constitutes a 'false prophet', wouldn't Daniel's vision in chapter 2 be a false prophecy since the kingdom (head of gold) already existed... in fact would you not be implying that God is a liar?

Here we go with the "God is a liar" response!  I've heard it dozens of times on forums and reason enough for me to just get away from this forum just like all the others I've left.  It's an unnecessary reply!  This is my first post/reply on the forum and I'm ready to say, "see you later."   I don't deal well with those insinuations!

Nebuchadnezzar said,

But if ye shew the dream, and the interpretation thereof, ye shall receive of me gifts and rewards and great honour: therefore shew me the dream, and the interpretation thereof.

Nebuchadnezzar asked for someone to disclose the dream itself as well as the interpretation of the dream.  Daniel isn't prophesying about the rise of Babylon or Nebuchadnezzar.  He's disclosing the vision/dream/SECRET to Nebuchadnezzar.

The king answered and said to Daniel, whose name was Belteshazzar, Art thou able to make known unto me the dream which I have seen, and the interpretation thereof?

Daniel answered in the presence of the king, and said, The secret which the king hath demanded cannot the wise men, the astrologers, the magicians, the soothsayers, shew unto the king;

As for thee, O king, thy thoughts came into thy mind upon thy bed, what should come to pass hereafter: and he that revealeth secrets maketh known to thee what shall come to pass.

HEREAFTER!  Hereafter WHO or WHAT?  AFTER NEBUCHADNEZZAR'S BABYLON!

The vision, the dream, the secret,... and what is to come....COMES AFTER Nebuchadnezzar.  Daniel isn't prophesying about the rise of Babylon, only what comes AFTER!

I hate to say it brother but it's comments like yours who give people like me an unfavorable opinion of forum Christians.  I'm not calling God a liar!  Let's get that straight right now and STOP with those kinds of insinuations!

Quote
Reread chapter 7, and remember the characteristics of the first three beasts (who are preserved for a time and a season).  Then, turn quickly to Revelation 13:2.

I've read it dozens of times.  Probably a hundred times!

"As concerning the rest of the beasts, they had their dominion taken away: yet their lives were prolonged for a season and time."

ALL four beast are present on earth at the same time.  They are KINGS who've lost their kingdoms.  This verse in no way implies they are kings or kingdoms that existed thousands of years ago and progressed up to today.  The word BEFORE in verses 7 and 8 means "in the presence of," indicating they are all present on earth at the same time.

Quote
If after that, you still don't understand go here http://www.beholdthebeast.com/daniels_four_beasts.htm

I've already read it and disagree.

Quote
Heed the words of 2 Peter 1:20.

2 Peter 1:20  Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation.

You should heed the words of 2 Peter 1:20 as well!

Quote
Don't listen to Atheists, they are fools arguing to justify their hatred for God.  The reason they don't understand is because they have been handed over to be consumed in darkness.

I do listen to the atheist.  Most atheist know that a TRUE prophet of God CANNOT prophesy about something already in existence.  Christians should know this but...CHRISTIANS DON'T CARE!  They would rather remain loyal to what they already believe than admit mistakes.  Any sensible Christian NOT IN DENIAL should know that prophesying about something already in existence deems that person A FALSE PROPHET! 

"God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient; Being filled with all unrighteousness, fornication, wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; full of envy, murder, debate, deceit, malignity; whisperers, Backbiters, haters of God, despiteful, proud, boasters, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents, Without understanding..."

Quote
You need to spend some time going through some stuff (if you haven't already) offered on this site.

I have no idea why you would post that passage especially after you insinuated that I was calling God a liar.  Get a Christian life!

I've probably read more on this site than you have.  I've been coming here for several years!  Probably 8+ years.  You're probably one the the guys I encountered on another forum pushing the progressive fulfillment thing.   


24
General Discussion / Re: the "covenant" of Daniel 9 27
« on: August 18, 2015, 10:03:49 PM »
I'm a full futurist and agree with you on Daniel 9.  I've never fully accepted the gap theory.  But when I did, I thought the covenant tingrin is asking about could be the Psalm 83 or Ezekiel 38 alliance.  One thing for sure is that this IS NOT a peace treaty.  A 'covenant' is an alliance or confederation.  Those things are made with friends.  Peace treaties are made with enemies.

25
General Discussion / Daniel 7
« on: August 18, 2015, 09:41:55 PM »
Before I start, I want to thank you for all the research you've done on Islam.  I haven't posted your link on my site yet but will soon.  I just don't have time to keep up with things these days.

Probably the biggest difference between you and I are that I'm a complete futurist much more than a normal one.  Even OT prophecies that many believe are fulfilled, I believe are not.  Daniel 7 is a good example of that and don't accept the traditional view of Daniel 2 or 7.

These are the main problems I have with some of these views.

Daniel chapter 7 was written about 35 years after Daniel's vision of the great statue in chapter 2, and in the first year of Belshazzar who was the last king of Babylon. Babylon was on it's way out when Daniel 7 was written.  Chapter 7 depicts four end-time beast.  Most interpreters seem to think chapter 7 depicts the same empires as those in Daniel 2.  They think Daniel 2 depicts four past empires which I agree.  I just disagree as to who they are.  They say the iron and clay and the fourth beast of Daniel 7 are future beast, which I agree, but disagree it's Rome.

Here's my problem with lion being ancient Babylon.

Some atheist have actually caught onto this blunder and used it to debunk the bible by calling Daniel a false prophet which he would certainly be, since he prophesied about something already in existence.

In Daniel 2, I say the sequence of empires goes as follows.

Babylon = Head of Gold
Mede's = Arms of silver
Persian' s = Thighs of brass
Greeks = Legs of iron.

Medo-Persian was not inferior to Babylon, and the word 'mixed' which describes the iron and clay is the word, 'arab' which denotes Arabia or an Arabian.

Toes mingled with iron and clay = future and final Arab/Islamic kingdom from the area of the old Grecian Empire. (Mid-East)  (Babylon)

I say chapter 7 isn't a historical repeat of chapter 2. Why would God find it necessary to repeat any vision by the same author? Why repeat the same sequence of kingdoms of Daniel 2 in chapter 7?  Were there shortcomings in Daniel 2 that required repetition?  Interpreters say that the Lion of Daniel 7 is Babylon.

How can the lion be Babylon when the date of the vision occurred in the first year of Belshazzar who was the last king of Babylon? The Babylonian Empire had already risen decades before and was on it's way out when Daniel 7 was written!  Why would Daniel prophesy about a kingdom that was already in existence for about 50 years and soon to end? Some atheist have actually caught onto this blunder and used it to debunk the bible by calling Daniel a false prophet which he would certainly be, since he prophesied about something already in existence.

A PROPHET CANNOT PROPHESY ABOUT SOMETHING ALREADY IN EXISTENCE WITHOUT TRULY BEING A FALSE PROPHET!

Most interpreters think that the vision of wings being plucked off and the heart of a man given to it refers to Nebuchadnezzar going mad and being restored 7 years later. That's unlikely since that happened about 20 years before Daniel had the vision! AGAIN!  Daniel cannot prophesy about something that already occurred! The lion could certainly be today's Iraq.  The wings being plucked off could represent the U.S. military leaving Iraq.  Some people think maybe it's England.  But it can't be ancient Babylon. The four beast of Daniel 7 are all end time empires.

I also believe there are two ten nation, MAYBE EVEN 3, 10 horned end-time kingdoms/beast.

Another example is the first seal and those who say Christ is the rider.  I say that's impossible for several logical reasons.

I also see Islam as Babylon the Great and mother of jihadist and the two horned beast represents the Shia and Sunni sects of Islam.

Most people focus their attention on Rev. 13, 17, and Daniel 7.  I think the most neglected prophecies are in Isaiah and Habakkuk.  Especially the Leviathan prophecy which I now believe is ISIL.

I also have a completely different view of the four horsemen.  I say 'holy war' is the first seal, and the second seal is the fall of Saddam and Iraq.  The third seal is next and I say that's ISIS.  The fourth seal may have something to do with Assad or ISIS too.

Pages: [1]