We're in the end of days

[parousia70]

Again, no intelligent response just lame one-liners. <feeling sorry for you>

He's merely pointing out that a belief in a future anti-lincoln and reconstitution of the civil war after a long gap NO DIFFERENT from the whole future Mr antichrist world ruler dude after a 2000 year gap in the 70 weeks of Daniel theories.

And he gets bonus points for doing it with Humor.

 

[ebedmelech]

Yes, I can. This is still future, the House of Israel; not yet joined with the House of Judah, will repent and be ashamed of their iniquities. Deuteronomy 32:36, Isaiah 1:25, Amos 3:2, Ezekiel 20:34-36, Ezekiel 18:30-32, 1 Corinthians 3:13

And who belongs to the House of Israel? All the righteous Christ believing people. Romans 9:24-26

Hmmm!..How does that square with Israel returning under Cyrus, rebuilding the temple and Israel becoming a nation then? How is it you miss Isaiah 44 Keras? You cherry pick verses to fit your eschatology, while you heavily miss the WHOLE OF SCRIPTURE!

IT'S NOT FUTURE! It already happened under Cyrus and Ahasuerus...or did you tear Esther, Ezra and Nehemiah out of your bible?

I wonder what that means when Jesus doesn't mention ONE WORD of what you say Keras? Judah and Israel were ONE HOUSE when Jesus walked among them. When He sent out the 12 in Matthew 10:
5 These twelve Jesus sent out after instructing them: “Do not go in the way of the Gentiles, and do not enter any city of the Samaritans;
6 but rather go to the lost sheep of the house of Israel.

Is Jesus missing something you didn't Keras? It was Jesus that said to Israel in Matthew 23:37-39:

37 “Jerusalem, Jerusalem, who kills the prophets and stones those who are sent to her! How often I wanted to gather your children together, the way a hen gathers her chicks under her wings, and you were unwilling.
38 Behold, your house is being left to you desolate!
39 For I say to you, from now on you will not see Me until you say, ‘Blessed is He who comes in the name of the Lord!’”

Did Jesus miss something Keras???

I think not! You blind yourself to the facts that in the New Testament Paul labours to tell you...but you won't listen to who Israel really is.

 

[Jipsah]

Again, no intelligent response

I.E., you still can't understand what I'm talking about. Not surprising, really, since you've walled yourself in behind a load of wholly unScriptural notions that you believe in preference to the Scripture itself. Scripture says something will take place over 490 years, you say "No, can't happen. It'll take more than 2000 years." Scripture says something will happen "soon", you say "Where the Bible says "soon". what it really means is "in a couple of millennia or so". You ignore fulfilled prophecy when, as frequently is the case, it doesn't conform to your doctrine, even denying that historical events actually happened. You create an exegetical Frankenstein's monster called "The Antichrist" which that you use to describe several Biblical figures who are altogether unrelated. You even go so far as to discount a very significant part of the New Testament, the Letter to the Hebrews, because it nukes the whole concept of a restoration of Temple Judaism that is central to your appalling "Everything Is About Israel" cosmology. Fact is everything is not about Israel, everything is about our Lord Christ.

The long and the short is that I can see a very, very little that DF may have inadvertently gotten right. The rest of it is pure bunk, and largely blasphemous bunk at that.

BTW, your expression of concern is appreciated. Bless your heart, I'm sure you mean well.

 

[civilwarbuff]

I.E., you still can't understand what I'm talking about. Not surprising, really, since you've walled yourself in behind a load of wholly unScriptural notions that you believe in preference to the Scripture itself. Scripture says something will take place over 490 years, you say "No, can't happen. It'll take more than 2000 years." Scripture says something will happen "soon", you say "Where the Bible says "soon". what it really means is "in a couple of millennia or so". You ignore fulfilled prophecy when, as frequently is the case, it doesn't conform to your doctrine, even denying that historical events actually happened. You create an exegetical Frankenstein's monster called "The Antichrist" which that you use to describe several Biblical figures who are altogether unrelated. You even go so far as to discount a very significant part of the New Testament, the Letter to the Hebrews, because it nukes the whole concept of a restoration of Temple Judaism that is central to your appalling "Everything Is About Israel" cosmology. Fact is everything is not about Israel, everything is about our Lord Christ.

The long and the short is that I can see a very, very little that DF may have inadvertently gotten right. The rest of it is pure bunk, and largely blasphemous bunk at that.

BTW, your expression of concern is appreciated. Bless your heart, I'm sure you mean well.

Again, the statement stands..."Again, no intelligent response just lame one-liners. <feeling sorry for you>'

 

[civilwarbuff]

Scripture says something will take place over 490 years, you say "No, can't happen. It'll take more than 2000 years."

Where did I say that?

Scripture says something will happen "soon", you say "Where the Bible says "soon". what it really means is "in a couple of millennia or so".

Where did I say that?

You ignore fulfilled prophecy when, as frequently is the case, it doesn't conform to your doctrine, even denying that historical events actually happened.

Please specify.

You create an exegetical Frankenstein's monster called "The Antichrist" which that you use to describe several Biblical figures who are altogether unrelated.

You deny that the AC will/does exist?

You even go so far as to discount a very significant part of the New Testament, the Letter to the Hebrews, because it nukes the whole concept of a restoration of Temple Judaism that is central to your appalling "Everything Is About Israel" cosmology. Fact is everything is not about Israel, everything is about our Lord Christ.

Is that what you hang your hat on that "everything is about Israel". You have much to learn son.
>

 

[BABerean2]

The Church in America has most certainly been attacked in recent years.

The following article by Pastor Church Baldwin details part of the problem and I am afraid to say that we are part of the problem. (myself included)

http://www.newswithviews.com/baldwin/baldwin872.htm

You cannot effectively fight an enemy when you do not understand his methods.

.

 

[Jipsah]

Again, the statement stands..."Again, no intelligent response just lame one-liners. <feeling sorry for you>'

I actually went back and counted, and there was in fact more than one line on the post. Maybe you had to stop after one because your lips gave out.

BTW, just as a friendly gesture, I thought I'd offer some additional weapons to bolster your already formidable rhetorical arsenal. First is the "Your mama!" assertion, noted in history when St. Athanasius used it to such devastating effect in his responses to the heretical doctrines espoused by Arius. Second is the almost equally as potent "Oh yeah, well you suck!" response, by which Martin Luther silenced Johan von Eck at the Diet of Worms. The the has less historical pedigree, but is no less dramatic in its effects; the "That's what Hitler thought, too!" accusation, which is nearly always irrefutable.

I'm sure you'll find them useful.

 

[civilwarbuff]

BTW, just as a friendly gesture, I thought I'd offer some additional weapons to bolster your already formidable rhetorical arsenal. First is the "Your mama!" assertion, noted in history when St. Athanasius used it to such devastating effect in his responses to the heretical doctrines espoused by Arius. Second is the almost equally as potent "Oh yeah, well you suck!" response, by which Martin Luther silenced Johan von Eck at the Diet of Worms. The the has less historical pedigree, but is no less dramatic in its effects; the "That's what Hitler thought, too!" accusation, which is nearly always irrefutable.
googletag.cmd.push(function() { googletag.display('div-gpt-ad-1431698694306-1'); });
I'm sure you'll find them useful.

OK.....you must be drinking too much of the church wine because I have absolutely no idea what your are talking about...other than the one liners....

 

[civilwarbuff]

I actually went back and counted, and there was in fact more than one line on the post. Maybe you had to stop after one because your lips gave out.

BTW, just as a friendly gesture, I thought I'd offer some additional weapons to bolster your already formidable rhetorical arsenal. First is the "Your mama!" assertion, noted in history when St. Athanasius used it to such devastating effect in his responses to the heretical doctrines espoused by Arius. Second is the almost equally as potent "Oh yeah, well you suck!" response, by which Martin Luther silenced Johan von Eck at the Diet of Worms. The the has less historical pedigree, but is no less dramatic in its effects; the "That's what Hitler thought, too!" accusation, which is nearly always irrefutable.

I'm sure you'll find them useful.

If you want to accuse someone of something it helps if you quote/reply to their post....just saying...

 

[civilwarbuff]

I actually went back and counted, and there was in fact more than one line on the post. Maybe you had to stop after one because your lips gave out.

BTW, just as a friendly gesture, I thought I'd offer some additional weapons to bolster your already formidable rhetorical arsenal. First is the "Your mama!" assertion, noted in history when St. Athanasius used it to such devastating effect in his responses to the heretical doctrines espoused by Arius. Second is the almost equally as potent "Oh yeah, well you suck!" response, by which Martin Luther silenced Johan von Eck at the Diet of Worms. The the has less historical pedigree, but is no less dramatic in its effects; the "That's what Hitler thought, too!" accusation, which is nearly always irrefutable.

I'm sure you'll find them useful.

I took my meds today....did you?

 

[zippy2]

I hope they close this thread.

 

[BABerean2]

The knowledge that the pretrib rapture doctrine is losing ground, can cause strange behavior in some people.

 

[Jipsah]

I have absolutely no idea what your are talking about.

Of that I am certain.

..other than the one liners....

Numerically challenged as well. I see. That's probably why you believe that 70*7>2000. <Laugh>

 

[Jipsah]

Where did I say that?

That the angel said 490 while you say, no, more than 2000? Perhaps you did not, and if not, then I apologize. But just for clarity's sake, do you believe that the 70th week of Daniel's prophecy is past, or that it has yet to happen? If the former, you agree with the prophecy as written. If not, then you do in fact believe that the angel who revealed the prophecy to Daniel got it wrong. Which is it?

Where did I say that?

I'll admit the possibility that I misunderstood you, so please correct me if i did. Do you believe that the many of the events that St.John described in the Revelation took place, as the Revelator said they would, soon after his warning was given to the people to whom the warning was being given, or do you believe that he was simply wrong, and that none of what he foretold was actually to happen for thousands of years?

You deny that the AC will/does exist?

What AC are you taking about? Since no such person is described in Scripture other than in St.John's reference, where "the Antichrist" is one of many. So are you on about the Beast of revelation, St, Paul's "man of sin", one of St. John's antichrists, or someone else altogether? Different folks.

Is that what you hang your hat on that "everything is about Israel".

Hardly. The "everything is about Israel" notion is peculiar to unbelieving Judaism and Dispensational Futurism. I believe that everything is about our Lord Christ, Who is the Author and Finisher of our Faith, the Alpha and Omega, the First and the Last. He is the fulfillment of the Old Covenant, all of it. If you doubt that, read the Epistle to the Hebrews. It's in the New Testament.

 

[civilwarbuff]

That the angel said 490 while you say, no, more than 2000? Perhaps you did not, and if not, then I apologize. But just for clarity's sake, do you believe that the 70th week of Daniel's prophecy is past, or that it has yet to happen? If the former, you agree with the prophecy as written. If not, then you do in fact believe that the angel who revealed the prophecy to Daniel got it wrong. Which is it?

This goes to another poster....not me.

I'll admit the possibility that I misunderstood you, so please correct me if i did. Do you believe that the many of the events that St.John described in the Revelation took place, as the Revelator said they would, soon after his warning was given to the people to whom the warning was being given, or do you believe that he was simply wrong, and that none of what he foretold was actually to happen for thousands of years?

This goes to another poster...not me.

What AC are you taking about? Since no such person is described in Scripture other than in St.John's reference, where "the Antichrist" is one of many. So are you on about the Beast of revelation, St, Paul's "man of sin", one of St. John's antichrists, or someone else altogether? Different folks.

This one is for me.

Hardly. The "everything is about Israel" notion is peculiar to unbelieving Judaism and Dispensational Futurism. I believe that everything is about our Lord Christ, Who is the Author and Finisher of our Faith, the Alpha and Omega, the First and the Last. He is the fulfillment of the Old Covenant, all of it. If you doubt that, read the Epistle to the Hebrews. It's in the New Testament.

This one may be for me.

That's why it is helpful to use the reply button so you don't lose track of who and what you are responding to.

 

[Short Timer]

That the angel said 490 while you say, no, more than 2000? Perhaps you did not, and if not, then I apologize. But just for clarity's sake, do you believe that the 70th week of Daniel's prophecy is past, or that it has yet to happen? If the former, you agree with the prophecy as written. If not, then you do in fact believe that the angel who revealed the prophecy to Daniel got it wrong. Which is it?

Da 9:24 Seventy weeks are determined upon thy people and upon thy holy city,

1. to finish the transgression,
2. and to make an end of sins,
3. and to make reconciliation for iniquity,
4. and to bring in everlasting righteousness,
5. and to seal up the vision and prophecy,
6. and to anoint the most Holy.

Scripture says that at the end of the 70 weeks, all of the above will have been completed between Israel and God,
"HAS IT"???

What AC are you taking about? Since no such person is described in Scripture other than in St.John's reference, where "the Antichrist" is one of many. So are you on about the Beast of revelation, St, Paul's "man of sin", one of St. John's antichrists, or someone else altogether? Different folks.

Ge 3:15 And I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed; it shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel.

Thy seed is the "Son of perdition", her seed is the "Son of God", both seed are "Singular", not plural.

Scripture says the "Son of God" is the "ONLY" begotten son.

so why wouldn't the "Son of Perdition" also be a singular person??

There are many sons of God but they are not "THAT SON OF GOD",
just as there are many "Sons of perdition" or "Antichrists" , but they are not "THAT Antichrist".

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

http://i30.tinypic.com/2dbnq79.jpg

 

[BABerean2]

Da 9:24 Seventy weeks are determined upon thy people and upon thy holy city,

1. to finish the transgression,
2. and to make an end of sins,
3. and to make reconciliation for iniquity,
4. and to bring in everlasting righteousness,
5. and to seal up the vision and prophecy,
6. and to anoint the most Holy.

Scripture says that at the end of the 70 weeks, all of the above will have been completed between Israel and God,
"HAS IT"???[/QUOTE]

.

Jesus confirmed the covenant in His own Blood and said so below.


Mat 26:28 for this is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins.

....................................................................................................................

The 1599 Geneva Bible clearly says Jesus accomplished all of the above in the text below.


Daniel 9:27


And he (a) shall confirm the covenant with many for one week: and in the midst of the week he shall cause the sacrifice and the oblation to (b) cease, (c) and for the overspreading of abominations he shall make [it] desolate, even until the consummation, and that determined shall be poured upon the desolate.


(a) By the preaching of the Gospel he affirmed his promise, first to the Jews, and after to the Gentiles.


(b) Christ accomplished this by his death and resurrection.


(c) Meaning that Jerusalem and the sanctuary would be utterly destroyed because of their rebellion against God, and their idolatry: or as some read, that the plague will be so great, that they will all be astonished at them.

................................................................................

The word Messiah means "anointed one".
................................................................................


Heb 8:6 But as it is, Christ has obtained a ministry that is as much more excellent than the old as the covenant he mediates is better, since it is enacted on better promises.

Heb 8:7 For if that first covenant had been faultless, there would have been no occasion to look for a second.

Heb 8:8 For he finds fault with them when he says: "Behold, the days are coming, declares the Lord, when I will establish a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah,

Heb 8:9 not like the covenant that I made with their fathers on the day when I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt. For they did not continue in my covenant, and so I showed no concern for them, declares the Lord.
They are no longer under the Old Covenant.

Heb 8:13 In speaking of a new covenant, he makes the first one obsolete. And what is becoming obsolete and growing old is ready to vanish away.
The first covenant is obsolete.
How are they going back to it in the future, if it has already been replaced by the New Covenant of Jesus Christ?


What part of Daniel 9:27 has not been accomplished, based on Hebrews chapter 8 ???
.

 

[Short Timer]

Jesus confirmed the covenant in His own Blood and said so below.


Mat 26:28 for this is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins.

....................................................................................................................

The 1599 Geneva Bible clearly says Jesus accomplished all of the above in the text below.

For the church or believers, yes, but not between God/Jesus and Israel.

Israel rejected Jesus, so how has that been accomplished between Israel and Jesus????

What part of Daniel 9:27 has not been accomplished, based on Hebrews chapter 8 ???

Da 9:24 Seventy weeks are determined upon thy people and upon thy holy city,

I believe "thy people" and "Thy Holy City" was Israel, not the Gentiles.

I can show a single prophecy can have a "dual application", one "Spiritual" to cover Jesus first coming,
and one "Literal" to cover his second coming.

Preterist "interpret' the Spiritual fulfilment and say it's already happened,
Most of the church "interpret" the "literal" fulfilment and say it's still in the future.

Very few understand both sides of the prophecy.

Spiritual vs Literal
http://i25.tinypic.com/1znaptj.jpg

 

[BABerean2]

Israel rejected Jesus, so how has that been accomplished between Israel and Jesus????




Da 9:24 Seventy weeks are determined upon thy people and upon thy holy city,
googletag.cmd.push(function() { googletag.display('div-gpt-ad-1431698694306-1'); });
I believe "thy people" and "Thy Holy City" was Israel, not the Gentiles.

All of Israel did not reject Jesus. Almost all of those in the Church during the first few years were Jews.
Therefore, Israel did not reject Jesus, just because all of the Jews did not accept Him as the Messiah.

You continue to confuse Israel of the Flesh with Israel of the Promise.

Based on the Bible, all of the Jews will never accept Jesus as the Messiah.
Does this mean Israel rejected Jesus?

Only a remnant will accept Him.

Even most Dispensational scholars acknowledge this fact.

You are correct about the people being Israel and the Holy City being Jerusalem.
However, the angel Gabriel never mentioned a "gap" in the 490 years.
The 70th week ended when Stephen was stoned.
Then the Gospel was taken to the Gentiles.
.
.

 

[Short Timer]

All of Israel did not reject Jesus. Almost all of those in the Church during the first few years were Jews.
Therefore, Israel did not reject Jesus, just because all of the Jews did not accept Him as the Messiah.

You continue to confuse Israel of the Flesh with Israel of the Promise.

Based on the Bible, all of the Jews will never accept Jesus as the Messiah.
Does this mean Israel rejected Jesus?

Only a remnant will accept Him.

Even most Dispensational scholars acknowledge this fact.

You are correct about the people being Israel and the Holy City being Jerusalem.
However, the angel Gabriel never mentioned a "gap" in the 490 years.
The 70th week ended when Stephen was stoned.
Then the Gospel was taken to the Gentiles.

Ro 11:25 For I would not, brethren, that ye should be ignorant of this mystery, lest ye should be wise in your own conceits; that blindness in part is happened to Israel, until the fulness of the Gentiles be come in.

So what happen after the fulness of the Gentile or Church rapture, end of time???

Not according to scripture, Jesus setup a literal kingdom known as the Mill Reign,

So how long will the Jews be blinded???

Ho 6:2 After two days (1000 year days/5th 6th) will he revive us: in the third day (7th. Mill reign) he will raise us up, and we shall live in his sight.

Jews don't believe in the "Spiritual Kingdom" of the church "Within you", they interpret scripture "literally".

But it could also be correctly interpreted "Spiritually" to cover the death/Resurrection of Jesus.

Believe me, there's a lot more to scripture than what you presently know.