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 - Marturion

Pages: [1] 2
1
We've heard Obaumbler tell us ISIS is not islamic. In the following video Kerry admits that we are at war with ISIS but also says ISIS is the enemy of islam. These clueless idiots are filled with a delusional spirit!!

Stuttering Kerry Admits America is at War...With the 'Enemy of Islam'
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gZeW8BXkN8c

2
Pete would you mind if I copy and paste the opening post of this thread to my facebook page? It might stir up a few good conversations or it might get me temporarily suspended, but either way it will get a little exposure.

That was all from the Levitt letter I credited at this link:
http://www.levitt.com/newsletters/1997-12.html#SPECIAL

The second post from Craig Winn is great too! If you haven't read "Tea With Terrorists" it is a must read, written by a stunningly brave guy who actually did have tea with terrorists.

Thanks, I'll have to add that to my list of books to get. I'll probably have to order it online as the nearest real book store is about a 45 minute drive each way.

3
Pete would you mind if I copy and paste the opening post of this thread to my facebook page? It might stir up a few good conversations or it might get me temporarily suspended, but either way it will get a little exposure.

4
Welcome back Mart!
Delegates from 11 nations went to the area and found what had long been apparent: two conflicting groups, Arabs and Jews, whose national aspirations could not be reconciled.
This is a common and sadly tragic error. The two groups that were in conflict then, are the same two groups that are in conflict today.
Israeli Muslims VS Israeli Jews, Israeli Christians, and Israeli non-Muslim Arabs.
Everybody except Muhammad's followers are willing to, and do, live side by side in peace.
"In contrast, a poll of 507 Arab-Israelis conducted by the Israeli Democracy Institute in 2007 found that 75 percent profess support for Israel's status as a Jewish and democratic state which guarantees equal rights for minorities. Israeli Arab support for a constitution in general was 88 percent.[31]"
http://www.zionismchristian.com/palestine_palestinians.htm#israeli_non_muslim_arabs
It appears to me that the author of this particular article made a common mistake of generalizing when using the term Arabs. As you correctly point out not all Arabs are muslims. I believe the point the author was trying to make is that islamic Arabs are the ones claiming to be Palestinians today. Was the article perfect? Did the author dot all the i's and cross all the t's? No not really, but I think she made her point and that is that the muslim's claiming to be palestinians aren't palestinians but instead transplanted Arabs. Despite these discrepancies I found it interseting and thought you might also.

Quote
Let’s Set Things Straight

There is a country in the Far East. The people who live there, (and they have lived in this country for many centuries), poetically called it “The Land Of The Rising Sun”. Then the Western travelers and geographers came to this country and gave it another name. Why? Maybe they were not poets, or maybe they came there on the sunset, or maybe they could not pronounce the original name in the original language… Did the people who lived there change because Western travelers and then politicians and journalists started to call their country by another name? No.

The scripture ignorant, Satan inspired, Godless liberal media advanced, and and continue to advance, 2nd century Roman Emperor Hadrian's Satan inspired name "Palestine", specifically to obscure the identity of the two groups that are actually in conflict. Old Testament or new, the name remains unchanged

    Saying, Arise, and take the young child and his mother, and go into the land of Israel: for they are dead who sought the young child’s life. And he arose, and took the young child and his mother, and came into the land of Israel. (Matt. 2:20-21)
  But when they persecute you in this city, flee ye into another: for verily I say to you, Ye shall not have gone over the cities of Israel, till the Son of man shall have come. (Matt. 10:23)
Remember this article was written by a Jew not a Christian (who is most likely still under the spirit of slumber) so we can't expect her to use New Testament Scripture to support her view . While the author certainly recognized that even  the Romans called the land Palestine she also pointed out that those the Romans were calling Palestinians were Jews not muslim's from Arabic countries. I think the point the author was trying to make by comparing the name change to Japan was that when outsider's change the name of a country those that live in the country will continue to use the old name.

5
Pete a Jewish friend of mine just posted an essay on facebook. The info is not new to you but I still thought you might find it interesting:

FOR THOSE WHO STAND BY AND BACK THE INVENTED PEOPLE CALLED THE PALESTINIANS , HERE'S A LITTLE HISTORY LESSON!

“The history of the Palestinian people goes back as far as”… This is where Arab “historians” disagree. Some say the “Palestinian people” have a proud 4000-year history; others say 10,000 years, 30,000 years, and even –don’t laugh- 200,000 years, which makes the Neanderthals pretty young people compared to the “mysterious Palestinians”. But although Arab historians do not agree on the “insignificant” details like the age of the “Palestinian people”, they do agree that this people is incredibly ancient-far more ancient than Jews, Romans or Greeks.

In the glorious history of the “Palestinian people”, there is only one “small” problem; nobody in history ever found them.

In 721 BCE, Assyria conquered the Kingdom of Israel. This is a historical fact nobody denies. Of course, the “Palestinian people” heroically fought against the aggressors and caused them heavy losses? Well, not exactly. Not a single Assyrian Chronicle, not even a single clay tablet, mentions this noble people. Could it be that hundreds of thousands of “Palestinians” were heroically fighting the Assyrian invaders – and these invaders did not even notice it? At the same time, those same Assyrian Chronicles are full of reports about the battles with the Israelis. So, Assyrians very well found Israelis, but did not notice any “Palestinians”?

No "Palestinians" in the Babylonian Chronicles either. http://www.bible-history.com/
No “Palestinians” in the Babylonian Chronicles either. Photo http://www.bible-history.com/

Well, Assyrians did not notice any “Palestinian people”. Most probably, because the King Sargon II was a Zionist. And what about Babylonians? The same mystery awaits us when we start reading the Babylonian Chronicles about the conquest of the Kingdom of Judah between 597 and 582 BCE. Jews are there at every second page. And “Palestinians”? There is not a word about them. Babylonians did not find them, either.

But of course Persians found “Palestinians” and left to us the detailed description of this wonderful people, of its rich culture, interesting habits, language…? Alas. They did not. The Persian Chronicles are telling us about Jews, about how Cyrus granted them the permission to return to Jerusalem, about how Persian satraps ruled in Judah and Israel… But about the “Palestinians” – not a word.

What makes the “quest to find Palestinians” even more amusing is that Alexander the Great passed all along the coast of Palestine from Tyre to Gaza in 332 – but did not find a single “Palestinian”: only Jews.

Where the heck did the “Palestinians” hide?

Well, ok, Assyrians, Babylonians, Persians, even Alexander the Great: it was so long ago! But what about the scrupulous and methodical Romans? The same story.

Romans explain in great detail how they were besieging Jerusalem, scrupulously informing us about how Jews were desperately defending it. They describe the Jewish revolts and how they quelled them and provide information about how Jews were fighting against them in Masada, about how Romans divided Judah and renamed it Palestine, about how they renamed Jerusalem in Aelia Capitolina…They tell us about a lot of things – but they do not say a single word about some “Palestinians”.

Moreover, although they renamed the land in “Palestine”, they went on calling its inhabitants as they were called for thousands of years: Jews. So, “Palestine” became the official name of the land, but its inhabitants remained Jews.

Just a moment, and where were the “Palestinian people” when Arabs came?

It’s a million dollar question. Modern Arabs say they are “Palestinians”. And what did the Arabs of the 7th century, those who conquered Palestine, say about this?

Do you know any document written in the period of the Arab rule in Palestine that would say a word about some “Palestinians”? I do not. And nobody does, because such a document does not exist.

The situation becomes really amusing! Arabs today are foaming about how their forefathers lived in Palestine since the Time Immemorial, and their forefathers did not have any idea about their glorious and ancient past there.

Well, after all, the Arab rule in Palestine did not last long. Just 300 years after the Arab conquest, Turks –first Mamluks and then Ottomans- threw them out. Under various names – Seljuks, Mamluks, Ottomans- the Turks ruled in Palestine for 600 years. Quite enough time to find such a numerous and glorious ethnic group as the “Palestinian people”. Did the Turks find them? Alas! The Turkish official statistics accurately puts the number of Jews, Arabs, Circassians and Bosnians in Palestine, providing detailed information about the number of Muslims, Christians and Jews – yet they never mention any “Palestinian people”.

Even the Romans who renamed the land "Palestine" found no "Palestinians."
Even the Romans who renamed the land “Palestine” found no “Palestinians.”

Ok. Assyrians, Babylonians, Greeks, Romans, Persians and Arabs did not happen to notice any “Palestinian people”. Turks, in those 600 years they ruled in Palestine, did not find them either. And where was this incredibly ancient and unbelievingly heroic people hiding after 1917? The numerous League of Nations Commissions (later UN Commissions) did not find them; all the League of Nations documents of that period are only about Jews and Arabs, but there is not a word about any “Palestinians” as a separate people. Maybe the politicians of the Western countries talked about “Palestinians” then? No, they did not. Delegates from 11 nations went to the area and found what had long been apparent: two conflicting groups, Arabs and Jews, whose national aspirations could not be reconciled. “Palestinians”? Who are they?

But the politicians of the Arab counties, of course… Alas. The politicians of the Arab countries were very clear on this subject.

“We consider Palestine as part of Arab Syria, as it has never been separated from it at any time. We are connected with it by national, religious, linguistic, natural, economic and geographical bonds.” (First Congress of Muslim-Christian Associations, February 1919)

The representative of the Arab Higher Committee to the United Nations submitted a statement to the General Assembly in May 1947 that said, “Palestine was part of the Province of Syria,” and that, “politically, the Arabs of Palestine were not independent in the sense of forming a separate political entity.”

In 1937, a local Arab leader, Auni Bey Abdul-Hadi, told the Peel Commission, which ultimately suggested the partition of Palestine: “There is no such country as Palestine! ‘Palestine’ is a term the Zionists invented! There is no Palestine in the Bible. Our country was for centuries part of Syria.”

“Palestine and Transjordan are one.” King Abdullah, Arab League meeting in Cairo,12 April 1948

So the Arabs in the 1940s did not notice any “Palestinians”. Moreover, they did not “notice” any “Palestine” either!

Ok. In the 40s, the Arab politicians did not find any “Palestinian people”. It’s no surprise; nobody could find them.

But maybe they “found” this mysterious “Palestinian people” later? They did not.

Syrian President Hafez Assad addressing the Palestinian leader, the Chairman of the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO), President of the Palestinian National Authority (PNA) and “Father of the Palestinian People” Yasser Arafat, explained to him:

“You do not represent Palestine as much as we do. Never forget this one point: There is no such thing as a Palestinian people, there is no Palestinian entity, there is only Syria. You are an integral part of the Syrian people, Palestine is an integral part of Syria. Therefore it is we, the Syrian authorities, who are the true representatives of the Palestinian people.”

Of course, the Palestinian leader, “Father of the Palestinian People” and so on, rejected these insinuations with indignation and… Actually, no, he did not.

"Our nation is the Arabic nation that stretches from the Atlantic Ocean to the Red Sea and beyond it..." -Yasser Arafat. Photo Source: http://www.familysecuritymatters.org/
“Our nation is the Arabic nation that stretches from the Atlantic Ocean to the Red Sea and beyond it…” -Yasser Arafat. Photo Source: http://www.familysecuritymatters.org/

Moreover, Arafat himself made a definitive and unequivocal statement along the same lines as late as 1993, when he declared that, “The question of borders doesn’t interest us… From the Arab standpoint, we mustn’t talk about borders. Palestine is nothing but a drop in an enormous ocean. Our nation is the Arabic nation that stretches from the Atlantic Ocean to the Red Sea and beyond it…The P.L.O. is fighting Israel in the name of Pan-Arabism. What you call “Jordan” is nothing more than Palestine.”

Not long ago, Azmi Bishara (the ex-Knesset member exiled from Israel for passing sensitive information to Hezbollah during the Second Lebanon War) who is anything except Israel’s friend, said the same: there is no Palestinian people. You can see and hear his words for yourselves, here is the link.

“The truth is that Jordan is Palestine and Palestine is Jordan.” – King Hussein of Jordan, in 1981

“Palestine is Jordan and Jordan is Palestine; there is only one land, with one history and one and the same fate,” Prince Hassan of the Jordanian National Assembly was quoted as saying on February 2, 1970.

Abdul Hamid Sharif, Prime Minister of Jordan declared in 1980, “The Palestinians and Jordanians do not belong to different nationalities. They hold the same Jordanian passports, are Arabs and have the same Jordanian culture.”

But the Arabs who lived in Palestine since, as they assure us, the Time Immemorial, of course did not let Syrian and Jordanian dictators deprive them of their proud Palestinian past? You will be surprised, but they let them. And they had very serious reasons for this.

Do you know that until 1950, the name of the Jerusalem Post was THE PALESTINE POST?

That the journal of the Zionist Organization of America was NEW PALESTINE?

That the Bank Leumi’s original name was the ANGLO-PALESTINE BANK?

That the Israel Electric Company’s original name was the PALESTINE ELECTRIC COMPANY?

That there was the PALESTINE FOUNDATION FUND and the PALESTINE PHILHARMONIC?

And all these were JEWISH ORGANIZATIONS, organized and run by JEWS.

In America, the Anthem of the Zionist youngsters sang “PALESTINE, MY PALESTINE”, “PALESTINE SCOUT SONG” and “PALESTINE SPRING SONG”.

Until the late 60s, to call an Arab a “Palestinian” would mean to insult him because until the late 60s, the word “Palestinian” was commonly and unanimously associated in all the world with Jews, and all the world knew: Palestine is just another name for Israel and Judah, like for example Kemet was just another ancient name for Egypt. Arabs who lived in Palestine identified themselves as Arabs and were insulted when someone called them “Palestinians”: we are not Jews, we are Arabs, they used to respond.

Let’s Set Things Straight

There is a country in the Far East. The people who live there, (and they have lived in this country for many centuries), poetically called it “The Land Of The Rising Sun”. Then the Western travelers and geographers came to this country and gave it another name. Why? Maybe they were not poets, or maybe they came there on the sunset, or maybe they could not pronounce the original name in the original language… Did the people who lived there change because Western travelers and then politicians and journalists started to call their country by another name? No. They were those same people and they went on calling their country “The Land Of The Rising Sun”.

And the West calls it Japan.

There is a country in the Middle East. The people who lived there for many centuries called it “Eretz Israel”- The Land of Israel. Then the people from the West came- and gave to it another name. Did the people who lived there change? No. They were those same people and they went on calling their country “The Land of Israel”.

And the West calls it Palestine.

Sidenote fromMarturion I think the 721BC might be off by a year or two.

6
Vengeance is mine...
Do not murder...
Love your enemy...
Do not repay evil with evil...
Turn the other cheek...

Romans: What then? are we better than they? No, in no wise: for we have before proved both Jews and Gentiles, that they are all under sin; As it is written, There is none righteous, no, not one: There is none that understandeth, there is none that seeketh after God. They are all gone out of the way, they are together become unprofitable; there is none that doeth good, no, not one.

James: If ye fulfil the royal law according to the scripture, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself, ye do well: But if ye have respect to persons, ye commit sin, and are convinced of the law as transgressors. For whosoever shall keep the whole law, and yet offend in one point, he is guilty of all. For he that said, Do not commit adultery, said also, Do not kill. Now if thou commit no adultery, yet if thou kill, thou art become a transgressor of the law. So speak ye, and so do, as they that shall be judged by the law of liberty. For he shall have judgment without mercy, that hath shewed no mercy; and mercy rejoiceth against judgment.

Now, the question is, if one never hears the gospel, how does God extend mercy... if he even does decide to show mercy... because:

Romans: "As it is written, Jacob have I loved, but Esau have I hated. What shall we say then? Is there unrighteousness with God? God forbid. For he saith to Moses, I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I will have compassion. So then it is not of him that willeth, nor of him that runneth, but of God that sheweth mercy. For the scripture saith unto Pharaoh, Even for this same purpose have I raised thee up, that I might shew my power in thee, and that my name might be declared throughout all the earth. Therefore hath he mercy on whom he will have mercy, and whom he will he hardeneth. Thou wilt say then unto me, Why doth he yet find fault? For who hath resisted his will? Nay but, O man, who art thou that repliest against God? Shall the thing formed say to him that formed it, Why hast thou made me thus? Hath not the potter power over the clay, of the same lump to make one vessel unto honour, and another unto dishonour? What if God, willing to shew his wrath, and to make his power known, endured with much longsuffering the vessels of wrath fitted to destruction: And that he might make known the riches of his glory on the vessels of mercy, which he had afore prepared unto glory, Even us, whom he hath called, not of the Jews only, but also of the Gentiles?

So what law is it that is written on the hearts of all? Is it all the laws of the Old Testament or is it maybe just 2?

Mat 22:36-40  Master, which is the great commandment in the law? Jesus said unto him, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind. This is the first and great commandment. And the second is like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets.

In another forum Ellis Skolfield made the following post.
Quote
Back in the late 40s, Watchman Nee was holding a series of tent meetings in Outer Mongolia. At the end of one service, an old Mongolian man walked up to him and gave this testimony . . .

"When I was very young, my mother took me to a Buddhist temple to burn incense and offer sacrifices. I looked at that idol and said to myself, ‘Buddha, you are just a piece of stone and can’t do anything for me good or ill, and besides that you’re ugly, so I’m not going to worship you. Then I walked out into the courtyard, raised my hands towards the sky and said, "Oh God who made all of this, I don’t know who You are or anything about You, but it is You I am going to worship all my life." Then with tears running down his face the man said, "I’ve met God twice in my life, the first time was back in that courtyard, the second time is now, when I know who He is."

So the question is this, when was the Mongolian saved? The first time He met God, but had no doctrine, or the second time when he knew Jesus as his Savior?

Just my humble opinion (I certainly don't claim to know God's judgments) but I would not be a bit surprised if the Mongolian was actually born again the day he decided to worship the one true God.

Rom_11:33  O the depth of the riches both of the wisdom and knowledge of God! how unsearchable are his judgments, and his ways past finding out!

7
Now, the question is, if one never hears the gospel, how does God extend mercy...

Looks like where there's no law there's no transgression:

Rom 4:15 Because the law worketh wrath: for where no law is, there is no transgression.

While some Jews may remain sovereignly blinded to the Gospel to this day, perhaps so they can't sin against it:

Rom 11:28 As concerning the gospel, [they are] enemies for your sakes: but as touching the election, [they are] beloved for the fathers' sakes.
http://www.israelinbibleprophecy.com/spirit_of_slumber.htm#enemies_gospel

Perhaps a very different matter for our Gentile Muslim friends who specifically REJECT the whole subject of the Gospel, and blaspheme the Son of God as articles of their faith, in the false prophet Muhammad alone.
http://falseprophetmuhammad.com

2Pe 2:21 For it had been better for them not to have known the way of righteousness, than, after they have known it, to turn from the holy commandment delivered unto them.22 But it is happened unto them according to the true proverb, The dog is turned to his own vomit again; and the sow that was washed to her wallowing in the mire.
(I may be out of touch until next Thursday)

Excellent post Pete! So few understand how some of our Jewish bretheren (not all, only some were sovereignly blinded) who have been given the spirit of slumber can be born again while being an enemy of the gospel, despite the fact that they have not recognized the first advent of Christ. After all how can they recognize what they have not been allowed to see?

8
1.  Is Alfonzo going to heaven because he has his doctrine right?
 
2.  Are those 47 samurai who did what was right going to hell because they didn’t have any doctrine at all?

Jesus answered and said unto him, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God.  Nicodemus saith unto him, How can a man be born when he is old? can he enter the second time into his mother's womb, and be born? Jesus answered, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God. That which is born of the flesh is flesh; and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit. Marvel not that I said unto thee, Ye must be born again.
Rom 2:12-16  For as many as have sinned without law shall also perish without law: and as many as have sinned in the law shall be judged by the law;  (For not the hearers of the law are just before God, but the doers of the law shall be justified. For when the Gentiles, which have not the law, do by nature the things contained in the law, these, having not the law, are a law unto themselves:  Which shew the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience also bearing witness, and their thoughts the mean while accusing or else excusing one another;) In the day when God shall judge the secrets of men by Jesus Christ according to my gospel.


Could those men have had a circumcision of heart just because they followed the law written on their heart, even though they never heard the gospel? It's certainly not my place to judge, but I certainly wouldn’t rule out the possibility. Only God can see the heart, but I can't help wonder considering the verses above.

9
Actually, I had significant spiritual failure in my life. I was searching for answers and joined the Christian forum on CompuServe back in the early 90's. posters there introduced me to Ellis and the rest is history. I was able to travel to Florida in '94 to meet Ellis and his wife.

20 years later, I never cease to marvel at how at Ellis' urging, I began to study Daniel and Revelation and instead of finding conspiracy and fear, found only the magnificence of Christ. My study of the prophets, both major and minor, has been a wonderful journey learning about God's plan for redemption from the very beginning. The realization that "It is ALL about Christ" has been the foundation of my faith ever since.

Seems like meeting Ellis can be a life changing event for some people regardless of whether one is a believer or not. I read the original Hidden Beast back in the late 80's before I was a Christian.  I doubt if you will find anyone that tried harder then I did to prove him wrong, the harder I tried the more convicted I became. I was fortunate enough to meet Ellis a few months later at a Q&A seesion about the book and the rest is history. Have you read Sunset of the Western Church or Demons in the Church?

10
As I said I am not going to support this through scripture so I am not trying to turn a "ponder" into a doctrine, but I wonder if God might have restored His people to their land in blindness to the Gospel so they could defend it, to preclude what happened to the Christian lands in John's "whole world" from happening to His landing spot and the remnant of Jews and Christians there.

Brother you and I talked about this a few weeks ago and I do believe you might be on to somethiing! It would be interesting to hear the thoughts of others on this subject. Considering that this idea has been nagging at me ever since our coversation, I think it is worth further investigation and will spend some time researching it. To be honest I am not even sure where to start do you have any suggestions that might be helpful? I have also been wondering if maybe Christians might end up seeking refuge in Israel as the beast grows stronger and our freedoms are stripped away in an effort to appease the beast. I can just imagine the reaction of the forum you were referring to if this subject was brought up there. 

11
Islam - General / Re: Warning about PETEWALDO.
« on: June 07, 2013, 08:17:53 PM »
Well then why not enter into an honest one on one debate with him here?  Why not honestly address the isssues he raises instead of obfuscating and hurling false accusations?

12
Good video
Monumental: In Search of America's National Treasure (2012)
http://www.hulu.com/watch/442918

This video should be on everyones must watch list!!!!

13
Zionism, Christian Zionism & anti-Zionism / Re: Peace in Israel
« on: April 05, 2012, 08:33:40 AM »
Awesome video I'll have to watch more of them. Thanks for the link!!!

14
I hope you won't mind another question. There are only Catholic Bibles to which I can immiediately refer so I cannot check this quickly.
Question: Are the Two Letters To Timothy and the Letter To Titus in your Protestant Bible?

(I have lost track of the denomination you follow. I know that you are 'born again' but you are coming from a certain denomination in your thinking, don't you? I assume that all Protestants: Lutherans, Calvinists, Baptists, Episcopaelians et al. have the same Bible Books don't they? And Catholics and Orthodox folk have a few extra books distinguishing them from Protestants. Is this picture correct?)

Protestants: Lutherans, Calvinists, Baptists, Episcopaelians et al. use many different Bible translations but to the best of my knowledge all Bible translations contain the 2 Epistles from Timothy and the 1 from Titus. I would suggest that of the English translations the KJV is without a doubt the most accurate translation.

15
Quote
cient Roman units of measurement of length included a rod or pertica (also decempeda) of 10 pedes, which was equivalent to about 2.96 m"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rod_%28unit%29
I wasn't going to waste time explaining that as I felt it would fall on deaf ears. Here in the US a rod is still used as a measurement (though not the same length as the Romans used) I used to buy field fence for the farm in rolls that were 20 rods long (330 feet) or 80 rods 1320 feet.

Come on bro, ethnographic hermeneutic! (I understand you understand, but included the comment for those that are unfamiliar with the tools scholars use to study and understand scripture.)
After rereading it I guess I should have pointed out that as a side note even though it has no reference to the subject, the term is still being used as a unit of measure. OOPs my mistake, not trying to cause confusion! I do agree it is ethnographic.

16
I went to Ellis Skolfield's site ....
Why did you go there? Why not go to the sites I linked to?

Quote
His answer can NOT be true and here is why.
1And 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. 2But 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.
Do you know why it is a reed like unto a rod Becasue this is being measured for punishment. This is the rod of correction. Then in verse 2But 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. It is given to the gentiles until the time of Jesus return! Israel only took part of the city in 1967 not the whole city and the dome of the rock is still standing proving what I am saying is true.
By the way Marturion did you catch that part about the temple of God. He is measuring a physical place not the spiritual temple you keep referring to. And yes I know the dome of the rock is standing instead of the temple of God. However the Whole site was not destroyed as you two say it was. The walls of the court are still standing and it will ALL be turned to sand. Not to far in the future.
But go ahead guys set me straight.

LOL still grabbing at straws I see.

Hey bro I just noticed this post. Was that an intended pun regarding the reed and "grabbing at straws"?!

LOL didn't think anybody would catch it. Should have known you wouldn't miss it.

Quote
Christ said the temple would be destroyed, He never said the walls outside the temple that were not part of the temple would be destroyed.
For starters nothing in the verse in question supports your view that a reed like unto a rod, is a rod for correction. As anyone reading the verse can see it is a tool used by John for measuring.

None of his exegesis should surprise us anymore. Or maybe he got that from Murray!
It is entertaining to imagine a reed being the instrument of choice used to punish someone!

Just more of him parrotting Murray. If I remember correctly Murray says the same thing.

Quote
cient Roman units of measurement of length included a rod or pertica (also decempeda) of 10 pedes, which was equivalent to about 2.96 m"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rod_%28unit%29
I wasn't going to waste time explaining that as I felt it would fall on deaf ears. Here in the US a rod is still used as a measurement (though not the same length as the Romans used) I used to buy field fence for the farm in rolls that were 20 rods long (330 feet) or 80 rods 1320 feet.

Quote
he follows a doctrine of devils when the truth is so much of a blessing.
http://www.beholdthebeast.com/mathematical_precision_of_prophecy.htm#court_without

Let's keep him in our prayers! Maybe a seed was planted, let's pray it grows.

17
I went to Ellis Skolfield's site ....
Why did you go there? Why not go to the sites I linked to?

Quote
His answer can NOT be true and here is why.
1And 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. 2But 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.
Do you know why it is a reed like unto a rod Becasue this is being measured for punishment. This is the rod of correction. Then in verse 2But 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. It is given to the gentiles until the time of Jesus return! Israel only took part of the city in 1967 not the whole city and the dome of the rock is still standing proving what I am saying is true.
By the way Marturion did you catch that part about the temple of God. He is measuring a physical place not the spiritual temple you keep referring to. And yes I know the dome of the rock is standing instead of the temple of God. However the Whole site was not destroyed as you two say it was. The walls of the court are still standing and it will ALL be turned to sand. Not to far in the future.
But go ahead guys set me straight.

LOL still grabbing at straws I see. Christ said the temple would be destroyed, He never said the walls outside the temple that were not part of the temple would be destroyed.
For starters nothing in the verse in question supports your view that a reed like unto a rod, is a rod for correction. As anyone reading the verse can see it is a tool used by John for measuring. You have to remember this is a vision. God can use whatever he chooses in a vision to get his message across to the prophet who will record the vision. In this case John was told to measure the temple. He was also told to leave out the court for it was given to the Gentiles. So the question is, why is the court left out for the Gentiles.? Obviously this is important or there would have been no need to mention that the court was being left out. So for John to understand exactly where this court is he was shown the temple that he was familiar with (the one destroyed in 70AD) and told to measure the temple so that he would know exactly where the court to be left out is located. Like you said the court was given to the Gentiles until Jesus returns so even though God gave the Jews control of Jerusalem (ending the trodding over) in 1967 the court still belongs to the Gentiles which is why the dome of the rock still stands and most likely will stand until Christ returns. Muslims are not Jews those who are not Jews are Gentiles So as we can see the Gentiles still own the court that was left out. This also fits in with the area left out for the profane place in Eze42:20. But I understand it doesn’t tickle your itching ears because it doesn’t come from your false prophet/teacher promoting  racism.

If you want to keep grabbing at straws in order to defend the teachings of a known false prophet/teacher that is your choice. God gave us all free will, and while it is best to work out our salvation in fear and trembling many will instead listen to those who teach to their itching ears just as you continue to demonstrate!

18
Marturion your still not being specific in what events in prophecy have taken place except 70 AD which is NOT what you say it is. Also
may be I am just stating things wrong for your needs. You tell me who this king is that Daniel is talking about.
Daniel11:36And the king shall do according to his will; and he shall exalt himself, and magnify himself above every god, and shall speak marvellous things against the God of gods, and shall prosper till the indignation be accomplished: for that that is determined shall be done. 37Neither shall he regard the God of his fathers, nor the desire of women, nor regard any god: for he shall magnify himself above all. 38But in his estate shall he honour the God of forces: and a god whom his fathers knew not shall he honour with gold, and silver, and with precious stones, and pleasant things. 39Thus shall he do in the most strong holds with a strange god, whom he shall acknowledge and increase with glory: and he shall cause them to rule over many, and shall divide the land for gain.

I say it is the same king spoken of in Rev 9
Rev9:11And they had a king over them, which is the angel of the bottomless pit, whose name in the Hebrew tongue is Abaddon, but in the Greek tongue hath his name Apollyon.
You know what Apollyon and Abaddon mean right? So if this is NOT THE antichrist (that is to say false Jesus. or false Messiah) Then what do you call him and when pray tell did this event happen I would like details on it please.
LOL it is obvious you don’t take the time to read and understand what others write. I have told you that I believe enough prophecy has occurred that the Lord could return at any time. As you know a huge portion of Scripture is prophecy so it would be impossible to explain it all in one post which is why I have provided links showing fulfilled prophecy (see reply 167 in the thread this was split from) that you obviously have ignored. As for as 70AD goes the only thing I say happened in 70AD as for as prophecy is concerned is that the desolate temple building was destroyed just as Christ said it would be. So please show me where I am in error in my view about 70AD? What is it about 70AD that you believe I say that did not happen in 70AD? Show us where I said anything besides a desolate temple being destroyed occurred in 70AD? Or is this just you trying to blow smoke and change the subject because you refuse to answer the questions I have asked. Now quit avoiding the questions I have asked and answer them! We'll move on to a few of your questions after you address the questions I asked you. After all when you registered you did agree to address the issues so before we proceed to your questions answer the questions you were asked rather then ignoring them and moving on!

For your convenience I have copy and pasted some of those unanswered questions here,
Can you show a single verse where after the Crucifixion and resurrection a future man made temple was referred to in Scripture as the temple of God?
Why not use the definition Paul (the one who told us about the man of sin) gave us for the temple of God?

I have taken the time to thoroughly research the views (and origins of those views) held by others including the doctrine taught by Murray. Can you honestly say the same about the views of others? Can you explain the origin of the view you hold and when/where many of those beliefs originated? Did they begin before or after the time of the end began and the book of Daniel was unsealed? When did the time of the end begin?

19
Brothers we can see that Michael2 consistently had trouble with truth, as even in his last effort to excuse away the very negative internet press on his false prophet Arnold Murray with.....

Google is the filth and trash, people like you use to gossip about teachers of Gods word. As I said before you can google King James and read all the smut people put out there and it is lies. Just like what they put out there about Murray.

Yet his suggestion couldn't be more verifiable false. All one has to do is Google - king james version - to find millions of sites that endorse it, promote it, and pour the accolades onto the King James Version, with descriptions like "beloved" and "favorite". This even though the King James Version is in the public domain, so nobody stands to make royalties from it's sale, like Rupert Murdoch's NIV and other pop-versions that spring from Westcott and Hort.

I can sympathize as I remember back when I was a futurist too, and the first time I did a I did a web search of my doctrine, and was introduced to the truth. I thought "Woah, the internet isn't the kind of place to learn more about my doctrine!". The search I did must have produced results that looked something like this.

LOL That depends on whos truth you are talking about! None of which you have! And yes KJ does get accolades from people like ME but there are MANY who speak falsely of it. You boys talk a lot about being indoctrinated for people who have taken the word of a Man verses Scripture. Which YOU have. I study the word for my self which is more than I can say about you. Pete seeing all the documentation you have from Skolfeild it appears that you agree with ONLY what this MAN says. That is cultic if I have ever seen it.

Marturion Do you have any Idea how hard it is to disprove ones lies to the ONE that is lying?
Sure I do. They usually refuse to answer questions like the ones I have asked you about the temple. When I say the temple of God is the body of believers or the corporate body of believers I can actually show Scripture that 100% supports my view (1Cor3:16-17, 2Cor6:16 Eph2:19-21). You on the other hand have to resort to man made arguments to show that you believe a temple that may or may not be built is the temple of God. But as it has been pointed out many times we have a new tempple and a new covenant.
Heb 8:1  Now of the things which we have spoken this is the sum: We have such an high priest, who is set on the right hand of the throne of the Majesty in the heavens;
Heb 8:2  A minister of the sanctuary, and of the true tabernacle, which the Lord pitched, and not man.
Heb 8:13  In that he saith, A new covenant, he hath made the first old. Now that which decayeth and waxeth old is ready to vanish away.
Can you show a single verse where after the Crucifixion and resurrection a man made temple was referred to in Scripture as the temple of God? Why not use the definition Paul (the one who told us about the man of sin) gave us for the temple of God?

Quote
You are SO indoctrinated you can't see the forest for the trees. I don't want you to believe anything I say nor am I hear to prove a point.
That is good because yooour view cannot be proven as it is the doctrine of false prophets/teachers like Arnold Murray.

Quote
My goal for everyone is to read the word of God for their self.
So then why do promote the doctrine of a false prophet/teacher that in many cases directly contradicts the Word of God?

Quote
The point being made about After tribulation. Is That tribulation happens Right before Christ returns. You two make out like all of the things Christ warned about has already happened. Some have, but most, and in-particularly the things that happen just before his return have NOT.
Actually if one uses the tried and true methods that most Christians use to understand the prophecies leading to the first advent we can see that the vast majoority of prophecy has been unfolding since (and in some cases even before) John wrote Revelation. Job8:8 tells us to enquire of those from the former ages. If we exammine their methods of interpretation we will find that most believed in the day for a year principle that most Christians use to understand Daniels first 69 weeks taking us from Artaxerxes decree of 444/445BC to 32/33AD.. They realized that prophecy would not be fully understood until the time of the end and that after Israel became a nation and Jerusalem was no longer trodden over by the Gentiles we would be able to look back through history to see the fulfillment of prophecy.

 
Quote
You talk badly about men like Scofield Darby and the like, because they teach a pre-trib and future antichrist. Yet you are in fact saying the VERY SAME thing about the return of Christ except for the antichrist, and that is the only difference I see between you two and them.
Which only shows that you have not taken the time to read or understand any of the links Peter has provided showing where the vast majority of prophecy has already been fulfileed and the Lords retun could happen any day. As Peter has pointed out the two predominate views on eschatology preterism and futurism are on opposite ends of the scale and by necessity both must rule out the possibilty that Mohammed is the false prophet. Unfortunately both futurist and preterist or wrong the continuos historic method is th eonly one that matches Scripture perfectly and can be verified historically.
Quote
It is ridiculous. If you would think for you self half a second you would see this. You think you are in tribulation now.
Like it or not Scripture proves that tribulation has been going on for over 1900 years. Was John wrong when he told us he was in tribulation?
Rev 1:9  I John, who also am your brother, and companion in tribulation, and in the kingdom and patience of Jesus Christ, was in the isle that is called Patmos, for the word of God, and for the testimony of Jesus Christ.

Quote
Did you read the description of what Jesus and the prophets said it would be like during that time.
Indeed the worst time of tribulation in the world occurred between the time the dome of the rock was built until Israel became a nation or when God gave Israel back to  the Jews in 1967. Look ath how many believers were killed during the reformation alone. And let's not forget the holocaust. i could go on but it would be better if you just took the time to read (with an open mind) the information provided at www.beholdthebeast.com

Quote
LOL Have you seen one make fire come from heaven? What about giving life to the image of the beast? What about world peace? Of course it is fake peace. Have you seen ANY of these things? If so educate me! Show me in the word of God and History when and where these things happened! We could go on for a while as to what it is going to be like during that time but you have already read it. Right? So put these things into Historic reference for me. I am curious how it is you can claim and show all these things have already happened.
Here is a link that shows the time line http://www.beholdthebeast.com/mathematical_precision_of_prophecy.htm
Here is a link that explains the Olivette discourse based on what God's Word says http://www.beholdthebeast.com/matthew_24_olivet_discourse.htm

I have taken the time to thoroughly research the views (and origins of those views) held by others including the doctrine taught by Murray. Can you honestly say the same about the views of others? Can you explain the origin of the view you hold and when/where many of those beliefs originated? Did they begin before or after the time of the end began and the book of Daniel was unsealed? When did the time of the end begin?

20
speaking of parroting!!!
Yes parrotting, you can spew the doctrine you have learned fromArnold Murray false prophet/teacher as many times as you like it but that does not change the fact it is Scripturally bankrupt.

Quote
Here is a fact for you. YOU in fact deny the word of God. You can't take what fits you or makes your way of thinking work! I have already told you that Temple is physical or spiritual.
LOL there is a huge difference between denying the word of God and the doctrine you espouse. It doesn't matter what you say, what matters is what Scripture says! Not once after Christ declared the Jews temple desolate was it called the temple of God in Sccripture again. Rebuilding it won't change the fact it is already desolate. Do you believe a desolate building is the temple of God? Paul the person who wrote the verse about the man of sin repeatedly tells us the temple of God is the body of the believer or the corporate body. Can you show me one time Paul called a man made temple the temple of God? If not then why shouldn't I believe Scripture when it positively states the temple of God is the body of the believer or corporate body of believers?
 The old temple has been destroyed and Christ raised a new one in 3 days!

Quote
I think you just run out of things to say didn't you?
Not at all I have no problem pointing out that repeating you error over and over agian will not make it true.

Quote
Daniel refers to the "boogieman" LOL as HE. POint Blank. May be you can read that different some how. I see it as Satan.
The He according to the interpretation you espouse is your future antichrist, unfortunately as I have pointed out many times parrotting this Scripturall bankrupt view multiple times does not make ot true. It only shows your willingness to stand by the false prophet you learned it from. But then again maybe you believed Arnold Murray when he said the battle of armageddon would begin in Alaska in 1985 too.
Quote
Also are you saying that Paul's writing is not inspired?? That is dangerous ground. Do you think he is a false prophet as well?? If NO. Then what he said must be correct then RIGHT?

Just because i disagree with the doctrine you espouse that comes from the known faleprophet/teacher Arnold Murray does not mean I question Paul. It only means I question the heresy he taught you that you now espouse.

Quote
HE said the "boogieman" will be destroyed with the brightness of Jesus Coming? Seems pretty simple to me.
No your boogie man is your supposed future antichrist from 1John2:18 you know the one John said this"this is that spirit of antichrist, whereof ye have heard that it should come; and even now already is it in the world. " about. Paul was talking about the man of sin not "the antichrist". If you are going to say thet are the same entity you need to prove it, not just parrot the words of a Scriptural bankrupt false prophet/ teacher who you choose to follow. Why would you follow the teachings of a false prophet who predicted Armageddon in Alaska in 1985?

Quote
Now if you would rather how about Mark 13
Oh so now you want to change the subject and discuss the abomination of desolation an it not a he?
Quote
14But when ye shall see the abomination of desolation, spoken of by Daniel the prophet (Dan 9:27), standing where it ( here along with Dan 9:27 should be HE and Dr. Moffit does translate this HE!)
Dr Moffit only says he in his interpretation because it fits the doctrine he espouses. Kind of like you even though you insisted you only use the KJV, except of course as your words show when it doesn't fit the doctrine you espouse!
Quote
ought not, (let him that readeth understand,) then let them that be in Judaea flee to the mountains: 15And let him that is on the housetop not go down into the house, neither enter therein, to take any thing out of his house: 16And let him that is in the field not turn back again for to take up his garment.
These verses refer to how urgent the situation is.
It most definitely was an urgent warning as those who were in Judea that did not heed His warning certainly found out when they were either murdered, enslaved or made dhimmies.
Quote
What Jesus is saying is when you see this, The abomination from Dan, the end is that close. i.e. Jesus return.
Let's stick with what Scripture actually says. Those who were told to flee were told to flee because Jerusalem was about to be desolated. See Luke 21:24
Quote
17But woe to them that are with child, and to them that give suck in those days!
this reference is lets you know for a fact that the abomination is a HE.
LOL this from the one who claims he only uses the KJV whhich identifies the abomination as an it that stands not a he that sitteth. Looks like you are having trouble using only the kJV as you said you do. It looks more like you use whatever version suits your fancy so long as it supports the doctrine your false prophet/teacher Arnold Murray espouses.
Quote
He is warning you not to play the harlot spiritually with "IT".

LOL no he is telling those who see it to flee the desolation that is about to be brought on Jerusalem. it is yoyr false prophet of a teacher that says not to play the harlot with it spiritually. How can one play a harlot with the dome of the rock?
 
Quote
18And pray ye that your flight be not in the winter. 19For in those days shall be affliction, such as was not from the beginning of the creation which God created unto this time, neither shall be. 20And except that the Lord had shortened those days, no flesh should be saved: but for the elect's sake, whom he hath chosen, he hath shortened the days. 21And then if any man shall say to you, Lo, here is Christ; or, lo, he is there; believe him not: 22For false Christs and false prophets shall rise, and shall shew signs and wonders, to seduce, if it were possible, even the elect. 23But take ye heed: behold, I have foretold you all things.
24But in those days, after that tribulation, the sun shall be darkened, and the moon shall not give her light, 25And the stars of heaven shall fall, and the powers that are in heaven shall be shaken. 26And then shall they see the Son of man coming in the clouds with great power and glory.
do you see that? after that tribulation the tribulation of "IT" then Jesus will return

LOL of course I see that Jesus does not return until after the tribulation, neither Peter or I have ever said, nor do either of us believe He will return before the tribulation. So why do you keep trying to convince He doesn't return until after the trib when we already believe He doesn't return until after the trib?
 
Quote
like Paul said. Jesus will consume HIM (the abomination, the one sitting in the temple claiming to be God) with the brightness of his coming.
Paul said it was the man of sin that would be consumed, he never said it was the abomination of desolation that would be consumed. You only believe that because you have bought into the heretical teachings of one false prophet/teacher named Arnold Murray. You know the guy who claimed in 1980 the antichrist would sit in the millenial temple iin Jreusalem in 1981. And as we can all see that didn't happen neither did the battle of Armageddon start in 1985 in Alaska llike he said it would. So why would anyone believe the rantings of a false prophet/teacher?
 
Quote
There is sound doctrine. You make this harder than it is. One more thing prophecy is NOT of private interpretation. The word of God is pretty plain about it.
And yet you continue to parrot the false and heretical teachings of a known fale prophet/ teacher  which is nothing more then a twisted version of the futurist doctrine with Arnold Murray's own private interpretation added in to promote his racist views! Amazing isn't it?

21
Quote
For starters Jesus referred us to Daniel for understanding on the abomination of desolation not Paul. Yes "it" can refer to a person when the sex is unkown, are you implying you don't know the sex of a man? Also the temple of God is not a man made temple in Jerusalem but the body of a believer or the corporate body. Can you show where Paul said the temple of God is a man made building? Wasn't Paul the one who told us about the man of sin, the same Paul who told us the body of the believer or the corporate body is the temple of God? Why do you ignore what Paul says to stand by the teachings of a false prophet who predicted Armagedon in 1985 and as we can all see that didn't happen. Do you really trust the teachings of a false prophet?
Do you have a Bible?? Did you read Daniel 9:27? HE HE It DOES refer to what ever is being discussed. CONTEXT is King. The temple can be physical OR spiritual we have been over this! No I do not ignore what Paul teaches you do! Murray knows more Bible than you two will ever know! AGAIN, I hate redundancy, Occams Razor. MANY stand in line to try and destroy teachers of God's word. You wouldn't be the first that has failed at this.
The he in Dan9:27 is not the abomination that makes desolate. He is the one that sets it up. Where did Paul, the one who wrote the verse in question tell us the temple of God was? How can a building the Jews build be the temple of God when Christ Himself declared their temple desolate approximately 2000 years ago, you know 40 or so years before it was destroyed? No ones trying to destroy teachers of God's word but we have already proven Arnold Murray to be a false prophet/teacher.

22
Michael2

1Jn 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.
1Jn 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.
1Jn 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.
2Jn 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.

Maybe you could show us which one of the only 4 verses that use the term antichrist or antichrists tell us about your boogeyman antichrist that is still in our future?

Why do you disagree with what/where Paul told us the temple of God is?
Who are the elect that are enemies of the gospel?
What is the difference  between the spirit of slumber and the spirit of antichrist?

Well if I can only pick of the four then it is OBVIOUS!
1Jn 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.

that antichrist shall COME. even now are there many!! See John knew the scripture teaches that there is a coming antichrist that is THE antichrist. But what he is saying in this verse is that there are NOW many that deny the Christ. John defines this for us in 1 John 2:22 so there is no guessing as to what his definition is. I pointed this out in another post to Pete that since there where no Muslim when this was written WHO do you think he is talking about. Which by the way Pete you didn't answer. I think you don't like the hard Questions. Anyway.. If we go into other scripture like Mat 24 and Mark 13 Luke 21 2 Thes 2 and then we can go into the minor and major prophets. This is what the word of God teaches us and I really don't see with all the explanation of scripture I have given you don't see it.

So you don't believe what John told us when he said "this is that spirit of antichrist, whereof ye have heard that it should come; and even now already is it in the world"?  If the one we heard should come isn't the one we heard shall come maybe you could show us where it was they heard about this one?

1Jn 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.
1Jn 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.

The reason you can only pick from these 4 is simple they are the only 4 verses that speak of antichrist. 

I also asked you about the temple of God, Where did Paul tell us it was? Why do you ignore what he told us and believe some man made building can be the temple of God?
Heb 8:1 - 2  Now of the things which we have spoken this is the sum: We have such an high priest, who is set on the right hand of the throne of the Majesty in the heavens; A minister of the sanctuary, and of the true tabernacle, which the Lord pitched, and not man.

No I agree with John 100%. You don't understand what John was saying!
If Jihn was not referring to the antichrist from 1John2:18 when he said "this is that spirit of antichrist, whereof ye have heard that it should come; and even now already is it in the world. " in 1John4:3 Then where is it we heard this one shall come? Book chapter and verse please?

This is getting redundant! Dan 9:27 Mat 24:15 2 Thes 2:3
Watch REAL close

1Now we beseech you, brethren, by the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, and by our gathering together unto him, 2That ye be not soon shaken in mind, or be troubled, neither by spirit, nor by word, nor by letter as from us, as that the day of Christ is at hand. 3Let no man deceive you by any means: for that day shall not come, except there come a falling away first, and that man of sin be revealed, the son of perdition; 4Who opposeth and exalteth himself above all that is called God, or that is worshipped; so that he as God sitteth in the temple of God, shewing himself that he is God. 5Remember ye not, that, when I was yet with you, I told you these things? 6And now ye know what withholdeth that he might be revealed in his time. 7For the mystery of iniquity doth already work: only he who now letteth will let, until he be taken out of the way. 8And then shall that Wicked be revealed, whom the Lord shall consume with the spirit of his mouth, and shall destroy with the brightness of his coming:

If you can't understand the son of Perdition IS SATAN then you are already deceived. If you can't see that Jesus HIMSELF will destroy this one you are deceived. Understand? Guys this stuff is pretty simple if you will listen to the word of God. Quit listening to men and trust the Lord. He has foretold us all things. Just like God told Noah exactly what would happen in his day here Paul is telling us and Jesus told us in the Olivet Discourse!

You are jumping into futurist doctrine rather than addressing his point. Piling another of Darby's futurist false presumptions onto an earlier misunderstanding doesn't make it right. Maybe this will help:

"ye have heard that antichrist shall come"
"this is that [spirit] of antichrist, ye have heard that it should come"

All of those verses talk about "that spirit of antichrist"

I absolutely DID address his point. But because it don't fit your way of thinking you reject it.
Ellis Skolfeild was asked about the son of perdition once! His answer? I don't know! Fact.
Also I have asked Both of you. WHO was John referring to as Anti Christ in that day? Go ahead and say it. I know you know the answer. LOL That don't really fit your way of thinking either does it?

As I have already pointed out parrotting the same old doctrinally based argument does not prove your point. Where does Scripture say the man of sin is your boogieman aka the antichrist? Where does Paul tell us the temple of God is? Why do you ignore what Paul tells us yet believe a known false prophet?

23
Michael2

1Jn 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.
1Jn 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.
1Jn 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.
2Jn 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.

Maybe you could show us which one of the only 4 verses that use the term antichrist or antichrists tell us about your boogeyman antichrist that is still in our future?

Why do you disagree with what/where Paul told us the temple of God is?
Who are the elect that are enemies of the gospel?
What is the difference  between the spirit of slumber and the spirit of antichrist?

Well if I can only pick of the four then it is OBVIOUS!
1Jn 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.

that antichrist shall COME. even now are there many!! See John knew the scripture teaches that there is a coming antichrist that is THE antichrist. But what he is saying in this verse is that there are NOW many that deny the Christ. John defines this for us in 1 John 2:22 so there is no guessing as to what his definition is. I pointed this out in another post to Pete that since there where no Muslim when this was written WHO do you think he is talking about. Which by the way Pete you didn't answer. I think you don't like the hard Questions. Anyway.. If we go into other scripture like Mat 24 and Mark 13 Luke 21 2 Thes 2 and then we can go into the minor and major prophets. This is what the word of God teaches us and I really don't see with all the explanation of scripture I have given you don't see it.

So you don't believe what John told us when he said "this is that spirit of antichrist, whereof ye have heard that it should come; and even now already is it in the world"?  If the one we heard should come isn't the one we heard shall come maybe you could show us where it was they heard about this one?

1Jn 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.
1Jn 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.

The reason you can only pick from these 4 is simple they are the only 4 verses that speak of antichrist. 

I also asked you about the temple of God, Where did Paul tell us it was? Why do you ignore what he told us and believe some man made building can be the temple of God?
Heb 8:1 - 2  Now of the things which we have spoken this is the sum: We have such an high priest, who is set on the right hand of the throne of the Majesty in the heavens; A minister of the sanctuary, and of the true tabernacle, which the Lord pitched, and not man.

No I agree with John 100%. You don't understand what John was saying!
If Jihn was not referring to the antichrist from 1John2:18 when he said "this is that spirit of antichrist, whereof ye have heard that it should come; and even now already is it in the world. " in 1John4:3 Then where is it we heard this one shall come? Book chapter and verse please?

This is getting redundant! Dan 9:27 Mat 24:15 2 Thes 2:3
Watch REAL close

1Now we beseech you, brethren, by the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, and by our gathering together unto him, 2That ye be not soon shaken in mind, or be troubled, neither by spirit, nor by word, nor by letter as from us, as that the day of Christ is at hand. 3Let no man deceive you by any means: for that day shall not come, except there come a falling away first, and that man of sin be revealed, the son of perdition; 4Who opposeth and exalteth himself above all that is called God, or that is worshipped; so that he as God sitteth in the temple of God, shewing himself that he is God. 5Remember ye not, that, when I was yet with you, I told you these things? 6And now ye know what withholdeth that he might be revealed in his time. 7For the mystery of iniquity doth already work: only he who now letteth will let, until he be taken out of the way. 8And then shall that Wicked be revealed, whom the Lord shall consume with the spirit of his mouth, and shall destroy with the brightness of his coming:

If you can't understand the son of Perdition IS SATAN then you are already deceived. If you can't see that Jesus HIMSELF will destroy this one you are deceived. Understand? Guys this stuff is pretty simple if you will listen to the word of God. Quit listening to men and trust the Lord. He has foretold us all things. Just like God told Noah exactly what would happen in his day here Paul is telling us and Jesus told us in the Olivet Discourse!
parrotting your same doctrinal argument over and over again won't make it any more correct now then the first time you used it. As has already been demonstrated the abomination of desolation is an it (an it is an inanimate object) that is set up or standing while an antichrist (per Scripture) is an idividual or spirit that denies Christ/God and there are many that have been in the world since John wrote the only 4 verses that use the term. Now if you want to say the man of sin is your end time boogieman aka "the Antichrist" well then friend you made the claim the burden of proof is on you. Just quoting verses does not prove your intepretation is correct. Show me a Scripturally sound study using sound hermeneutic principles not a doctrinally based argument that is Scripturally bankrupt.

4Who opposeth and exalteth himself above all that is called God, or that is worshipped; so that he as God sitteth in the temple of God, shewing himself that he is God.
You think this is an IT?
Also your wrong. I did not make the claim, Paul made this one and he is correct. If we are not to quote scripture to prove a point in the word of God then what exactly are we to quote? I really wouldn't think this would need anymore explaining. This is OBVIOUS!
The Abomination of Desolation. Do you know what those words mean? We have went over this as well. and the word "IT" from Greek can be he him she her or it. Put into context with the rest of scripture will only leave you with ONE answer. And one more time according to Paul. Jesus will destroy the one setting in the temple claiming to be God when he RETURNS. Now you tell me if this is NOT the antichrist. Who is it?

For starters Jesus referred us to Daniel for understanding on the abomination of desolation not Paul. Yes "it" can refer to a person when the sex is unkown, are you implying you don't know the sex of a man? Also the temple of God is not a man made temple in Jerusalem but the body of a believer or the corporate body. Can you show where Paul said the temple of God is a man made building? Wasn't Paul the one who told us about the man of sin, the same Paul who told us the body of the believer or the corporate body is the temple of God? Why do you ignore what Paul says to stand by the teachings of a false prophet who predicted Armagedon in 1985 and as we can all see that didn't happen. Do you really trust the teachings of a false prophet?

24
Did you happen to notice that David fought a GIANT? There are MANY other things that can not be explained like this. Many Christians Scholars debate on just how much was flooded. For example the word World as in the whole world verses Erets (spl?) meaning the land, that is a big difference. 1st Chron 2:55 tells us about Cains sons. There are others. AGAIN I don't know why you insist on attacking a Real teacher of God's word.  Look,  I am not going to argue the point if you don't understand this then that is your problem. You already know the English DID lose some in the translation. I suppose it is only when it supports your view when it is ok to apply this.

1Ch 2:55  And the families of the scribes which dwelt at Jabez; the Tirathites, the Shimeathites, and Suchathites. These are the Kenites that came of Hemath, the father of the house of Rechab.

Nothing in this verse says anything about Cain's sons. In fact not one of the twelve verses that use the term Kenite or Kenites says  that Kenites or the descendents of Cain or Satan. What we do know that a Kenite is one that comes from a land called Kenite. Like a person from California being called a Califorian etc... Isn't it funny how Arnold Murray builds doctrines on mans definition's instead of what Scripture actually states?

25
Michael2

1Jn 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.
1Jn 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.
1Jn 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.
2Jn 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.

Maybe you could show us which one of the only 4 verses that use the term antichrist or antichrists tell us about your boogeyman antichrist that is still in our future?

Why do you disagree with what/where Paul told us the temple of God is?
Who are the elect that are enemies of the gospel?
What is the difference  between the spirit of slumber and the spirit of antichrist?

Well if I can only pick of the four then it is OBVIOUS!
1Jn 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.

that antichrist shall COME. even now are there many!! See John knew the scripture teaches that there is a coming antichrist that is THE antichrist. But what he is saying in this verse is that there are NOW many that deny the Christ. John defines this for us in 1 John 2:22 so there is no guessing as to what his definition is. I pointed this out in another post to Pete that since there where no Muslim when this was written WHO do you think he is talking about. Which by the way Pete you didn't answer. I think you don't like the hard Questions. Anyway.. If we go into other scripture like Mat 24 and Mark 13 Luke 21 2 Thes 2 and then we can go into the minor and major prophets. This is what the word of God teaches us and I really don't see with all the explanation of scripture I have given you don't see it.

So you don't believe what John told us when he said "this is that spirit of antichrist, whereof ye have heard that it should come; and even now already is it in the world"?  If the one we heard should come isn't the one we heard shall come maybe you could show us where it was they heard about this one?

1Jn 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.
1Jn 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.

The reason you can only pick from these 4 is simple they are the only 4 verses that speak of antichrist. 

I also asked you about the temple of God, Where did Paul tell us it was? Why do you ignore what he told us and believe some man made building can be the temple of God?
Heb 8:1 - 2  Now of the things which we have spoken this is the sum: We have such an high priest, who is set on the right hand of the throne of the Majesty in the heavens; A minister of the sanctuary, and of the true tabernacle, which the Lord pitched, and not man.

No I agree with John 100%. You don't understand what John was saying!
If Jihn was not referring to the antichrist from 1John2:18 when he said "this is that spirit of antichrist, whereof ye have heard that it should come; and even now already is it in the world. " in 1John4:3 Then where is it we heard this one shall come? Book chapter and verse please?

This is getting redundant! Dan 9:27 Mat 24:15 2 Thes 2:3
Watch REAL close

1Now we beseech you, brethren, by the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, and by our gathering together unto him, 2That ye be not soon shaken in mind, or be troubled, neither by spirit, nor by word, nor by letter as from us, as that the day of Christ is at hand. 3Let no man deceive you by any means: for that day shall not come, except there come a falling away first, and that man of sin be revealed, the son of perdition; 4Who opposeth and exalteth himself above all that is called God, or that is worshipped; so that he as God sitteth in the temple of God, shewing himself that he is God. 5Remember ye not, that, when I was yet with you, I told you these things? 6And now ye know what withholdeth that he might be revealed in his time. 7For the mystery of iniquity doth already work: only he who now letteth will let, until he be taken out of the way. 8And then shall that Wicked be revealed, whom the Lord shall consume with the spirit of his mouth, and shall destroy with the brightness of his coming:

If you can't understand the son of Perdition IS SATAN then you are already deceived. If you can't see that Jesus HIMSELF will destroy this one you are deceived. Understand? Guys this stuff is pretty simple if you will listen to the word of God. Quit listening to men and trust the Lord. He has foretold us all things. Just like God told Noah exactly what would happen in his day here Paul is telling us and Jesus told us in the Olivet Discourse!
parrotting your same doctrinal argument over and over again won't make it any more correct now then the first time you used it. As has already been demonstrated the abomination of desolation is an it (an it is an inanimate object) that is set up or standing while an antichrist (per Scripture) is an idividual or spirit that denies Christ/God and there are many that have been in the world since John wrote the only 4 verses that use the term. Now if you want to say the man of sin is your end time boogieman aka "the Antichrist" well then friend you made the claim the burden of proof is on you. Just quoting verses does not prove your intepretation is correct. Show me a Scripturally sound study using sound hermeneutic principles not a doctrinally based argument that is Scripturally bankrupt.

Pages: [1] 2