Total Posts:499|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Matthew 24 Again

PGA
Posts: 4,036
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/9/2014 1:47:13 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
The purpose of this thread is to show that Skepticalone's claims are groundless and that he speaks in ignorance of what the Bible teaches. Some of the points I will bring up are the very ones he used against me in our debate since he had the last say and bought charges against me that I think are unwarranted. Here are some of these claims and charges:

"Time of the Gentiles cannot be 42 months when related to 70AD"

Sure it can. It is the time span God used, 3 1/2 years, to bring about His wrath on an apostate Old Covenant people, just as the OT curses promised, and this by a Gentile people, Daniel's forth beast - Rome.

"Nero"s reign was not 42 months."

This is a false charge. I never said Nero's reign was only 42 months, ever. What I claimed was that Nero, himself, persecuted Christians for 42 months, from just after the fire in Rome in AD 64 until his suicide in AD 68, a time span of 42 months.

"Nero did not establish a covenant with Israel."

Again, this is misleading. I never said he did. I said that Daniel 9:27 does not apply to Nero but God.

"An explanation/historical account how the Abomination of Desolation occurred in the temple."

It covered more than the temple. The desolation also included the city of Jerusalem and land of Judea. Both those in the city and in the country were told to flee.

Luke 21:20-24New American Standard Bible (NASB)

20 "But when you see Jerusalem surrounded by armies, then recognize that her desolation is near. 21 Then those who are in Judea must flee to the mountains, and those who are in the midst of the city must leave, and those who are in the country must not enter the city; 22 because these are days of vengeance, so that all things which are written will be fulfilled. 23 Woe to those who are pregnant and to those who are nursing babies in those days; for there will be great distress upon the land and wrath to this people; 24 and they will fall by the edge of the sword, and will be led captive into all the nations; and Jerusalem will be trampled under foot by the Gentiles until the times of the Gentiles are fulfilled.


Any time God brought covenant sanctions on His people it covered more than just the city and temple. The desolation covered the whole land in bringing wrath to a people that had practiced every kind of abomination against Him in their worship of false gods.

In Luke the desolation covers more than just the temple. It covers the whole region of Judea including Jerusalem. In the NT we see both the country, city and temple being desecrated, just like we do in history.

"The Syriac version of Revelation rebuttal."

Your argument is one from silence. Because the omission of Revelation from the earliest copies we have in possession does not mean that Nero and the Revelation was added only in the 6th century. Early church fathers refer to this version as containing the Revelation.

""St. Ephraem Cyrus seems to have used an early Syriac translation of the New Testament which contained the Apocalypse. The Apocalypse is not contained in the Peschito, " the "simple" Syriac version of the New Testament, "of the most remote Christian antiquity" (Westcott, l.c., p. 204). [Neither, apparently, was it contained in the Philoxenian version (a.d. 485-518), nor in the recension of this latter by Thomas of Harkel (a.d. 616)...The inference, accordingly, is plain that Ephraem did not consider this omission any reason for not regarding the Book as inspired Scripture: and we are also to bear in mind, that, as has been already shown, the earliest teachers of the Church of Syria in the second century "Justin M. and Theophilus of Antioch" acknowledged the Divine character of the Apocalypse.


So some versions we have in our possession left Revelation out because the canon had not yet been recognized as containing Revelation. Yet it is referred to by these early Christian fathers.

http://www.preteristarchive.com...

"Earth as "land" inconsistency."

Explained in the debate. Refer to OT prophecy, in which Jesus and the apostles are addressing (the promises of God concerning blessings and curses, of which you Skepticalone appear not to understand). Also, I explained that the term "earth" is a term that can be used interchangeably for the word "land."

"Could life have been wiped out in 70 AD (with a sword)?"

That is what the Olivet Discourse says, by the sword, but you are trying to obscure Scripture by ignoring the context of which life is spoken of. It was the lives of these apostate people and their whole land or earth that would have been totally wiped out unless God put an end to the battle by having the city and temple destroyed.

"The Holocaust was worse than the "Great Tribulation" (70 AD)?"

Again, this was explained. It is an OT people that God brings destruction on. Their nation of Old Covenant people never existed again. The Jews of today do not worship as an Old Covenant people. They don't have a temple in which to meet the requirements of the Law of Moses, nor a priesthood. Even if they were to construct a priesthood after rebuilding a temple, which neither testament makes mention of, the priesthood would have to comply to the Levitical priesthood and therefore could not be done because the genealogies were destroyed when the temple was destroyed. Besides this, most of Israel today are secular.

"Conclusion
I have shown how the Second Coming literally could not have happened in 70 AD."

You did no such thing. As you can see, none of these charges have any grounding and I will prove this further by addressing your points in the debate, one by one, and showing in the process how I answered each of your concerns yet you ignored mine.

" Pro has not provided any historical evidence to support his case."

I did, although this was done through the footnote source since I was cramped for space as usual.

" Using a common interpretation of Revelation and the Olivet Discourse, I have illustrated the presence of sin in our world excludes the possibility of the return of Jesus. Pro utilizes a vague inconsistent interpretation of the Olivet discourse, and of Revelation itself."

I'm not using the common interpretation. Just because an interpretation is common does not mean it is the correct one. I have constantly brought the charge against you that you ignore audience relevance in Scripture. You take an address that is specific to His disciples and their time frame and you turn it into a generic time frame by ripping it from the text in using that interpretation. All the while you do this you claim that part of the text refers to Jerusalem's destruction in AD 70 and part does not. I asked you after the debate to identify where the address changes from addressing this generation to addressing a future generation. I don't blame you for not answering a simple question because you can't. As soon as you do I will tear your argument to shreds.

"Time of the Gentiles cannot be 42 months when related to 70AD"

Sure it can. And you confuse Nero's persecution of Christians that lasted 42 months with the time of the Gentiles treading on Jerusalem for 42 months.

I also want to address Skepticalone's allegations that I did not answer his questions in the debate when in fact I did, that I did not provide historical proof when in fact I did, that sin in this world does not show Jesus did not return and fulfill Scripture when in fact it does because Jesus went to prepare a place for them so that they would be where He is (John 14:1-3), that my approach to the Olivet Discourse is not vague or inconsistent but follows Scripture yet his is and finally that the approach Skepticalone used, while the popular one is wrong.
PGA
Posts: 4,036
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/9/2014 1:55:09 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
I will also respond to Skepticalone's last two posts on "Theologists attacking atheists here when I get a moment.

http://www.debate.org...
Skepticalone
Posts: 6,095
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/9/2014 5:43:06 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
"Time of the Gentiles cannot be 42 months when related to 70AD"

"PGA claims the siege of Jerusalem took 42 months, but the siege of Jerusalem took 7 months (March 70 " September 70), If PGA is referring to the time frame from the first revolt (August/September 66 AD) until the destruction of the temple (September 70) then we have a time frame of 48-49 months [5]. Even if I were to concede PGA"s definition of the Time of the Gentiles (which I do not), he does not have the 42 month period he believes is predicted."

http://www.josephus.org...
http://www.josephus.org...

"Nero"s reign was not 42 months."

I never said Nero's reign was only 42 months, ever.

Ok, I allowed for many possible interpretations of 42 months for you. They all failed, and you provided no rebuttal of these time frames.

What I claimed was that Nero, himself, persecuted Christians for 42 months, from just after the fire in Rome in AD 64 until his suicide in AD 68, a time span of 42 months.

"If this 42 month period was to refer to the period from the Great Fire of Rome/persecution of Christians (Summer of 64) to Nero's suicide (June "68), then this period would be too long (around 48 months)."

I"m not sure how you believe the persecution of Christians from the summer of 64 until Nero"s suicide in June of 68 equals 42 months. That must be some very creative math.

"Nero did not establish a covenant with Israel."

Again, this is misleading. I never said he did.

I never said you did, goofball. That is the common expectation for the Antichrist. I expected you to explain how Nero made a figurative pact (or some other vague explanation), or explain how the common interpretation was in error --you did neither.

I said that Daniel 9:27 does not apply to Nero but God.

Control F in our debate and search for Daniel 9. You never referenced Danile 9:27 in our debate. You are mistaken.

Plus, I just looked at Daniel. You say the pronoun "he" refers to god? Ok, I looked for translations of the Bible where pronouns are capitalized when referring to god, and guess what, your wrong!

Daniel 9:27 21st Century King James Version

27 And he 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 cease.

Here is a verse from Matthew to show you what pronouns look like when they reference god in this translation.

Matthew 24 21st Century King James Version
3 And as He sat upon the Mount of Olives, the disciples came unto Him privately, saying, "Tell us, when shall these things be? And what shall be the sign of Thy coming and of the end of the world?"

Obviously, this interpretation supports my understanding, Peter.

"An explanation/historical account how the Abomination of Desolation (AoD)occurred in the temple."

It covered more than the temple. The desolation also included the city of Jerusalem and land of Judea. Both those in the city and in the country were told to flee.

Matthew 24
15 "Therefore when you see the abomination of desolation which was spoken of through Daniel the prophet, standing in the holy place (let the reader understand), 16 then those who are in Judea must flee to the mountains.

From the debate -"The sign to flee is when the AoD is standing in the temple. Therefore, the destruction of the temple could not be the Abomination. I believe it makes sense to view the AoD as a man or idol, but no matter your interpretation, it will need to stand in the temple to fulfill scripture."

You completely ignored the verse I supplied, and chose a verse in reference to the same prophecy which does not include a reference to the AoD (Luke 21:20-24) to dispute my AoD argument! The Holy Place would not be Judea or Jerusalem, but the temple itself, sir.

"The Syriac version of Revelation rebuttal."

Your argument is one from silence. Because the omission of Revelation from the earliest copies we have in possession does not mean that Nero and the Revelation was added only in the 6th century. Early church fathers refer to this version as containing the Revelation.

"St. Ephraem Cyrus seems to have used an early Syriac translation of the New Testament which contained the Apocalypse. The Apocalypse is not contained in the Peschito, " the "simple" Syriac version of the New Testament, "of the most remote Christian antiquity" (Westcott, l.c., p. 204). [Neither, apparently, was it contained in the Philoxenian version (a.d. 485-518), nor in the recension of this latter by Thomas of Harkel (a.d. 616)...The inference, accordingly, is plain that Ephraem did not consider this omission any reason for not regarding the Book as inspired Scripture: and we are also to bear in mind, that, as has been already shown, the earliest teachers of the Church of Syria in the second century ". and Theophilus of Antioch" acknowledged the Divine character of the Apocalypse.

So some versions we have in our possession left Revelation out because the canon had not yet been recognized as containing Revelation. Yet it is referred to by these early Christian fathers.

Ok, your quote is from Henry Wace in the 19 century about St Ephraem Cyrus (in the 4th century) who has a copy of the Syriac with the Apocolypse. Big Whoop! It was still centuries after the statement of Ireneaues , who was a disciple of Polycarp (a disciple of John himself!). Do we know who wrote the (non-inspired) statement about Revelation in this Bible? Do we know where they got their information? You rebuttal is still weak.

"Earth as "land" inconsistency."

Explained in the debate. Refer to OT prophecy, in which Jesus and the apostles are addressing (the promises of God concerning blessings and curses, of which you Skepticalone appear not to understand). Also, I explained that the term "earth" is a term that can be used interchangeably for the word "land."

Earth:
I. arable land
II. the ground, the earth as a standing place
III. the main land as opposed to the sea or water
IV. the earth as a whole
a. the earth as opposed to the heavens
b. the inhabited earth, the abode of men and animals
V. a country, land enclosed within fixed boundaries, a tract of land, territory, region

https://www.blueletterbible.org...

You use these definitions as you see fit, but you ignore the context. For instance, if the author had meant the Roman Empire, then he may have written something like "The lands of Rome.

Matthew 2
20 "Get up, take the Child and His mother, and go into the land of Israel; for those who sought the Child"s life are dead."

In the New American Standard Bible, the translators understood this same word to be translated as "land". This is in the book of Matthew, so it is written by the same author, and this is how he conveyed Israel. "Earth" should not be understood automatically as a specific country or territory, but as the Earth in Matthew 24, and that is how the translators of the NASB translated it. Here again, your interpretation is at odds with scholars.

continued...
This thread is like eavesdropping on a conversation in a mental asylum. - Bulproof

You can call your invisible friends whatever you like. - Desmac

What the hell kind of coked up sideshow has this thread turned into. - Casten
Skepticalone
Posts: 6,095
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/9/2014 7:25:01 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
"The Holocaust was worse than the "Great Tribulation" (70 AD)?"

Again, this was explained. It is an OT people that God brings destruction on. Their nation of Old Covenant people never existed again. The Jews of today do not worship as an Old Covenant people. They don't have a temple in which to meet the requirements of the Law of Moses, nor a priesthood.

Priesthood and possibility of a temple:
http://www.catholic.com...

"Conclusion
I have shown how the Second Coming literally could not have happened in 70 AD."

You did no such thing. As you can see, none of these charges have any grounding and I will prove this further by addressing your points in the debate, one by one, and showing in the process how I answered each of your concerns yet you ignored mine.

There was nothing for me to ignore. This part of your argument WAS unsupported.

" Pro has not provided any historical evidence to support his case."

I did, although this was done through the footnote source since I was cramped for space as usual.

Well, I still haven't seen your sources on this. I gave you the opportunity to put the corrected sources in the comments section, but after multiple posts of sources I still don't have them, and I have no idea how you feel you have supported a literal fulfillment in 70 AD with faulty links.

" Using a common interpretation of Revelation and the Olivet Discourse, I have illustrated the presence of sin in our world excludes the possibility of the return of Jesus. Pro utilizes a vague inconsistent interpretation of the Olivet discourse, and of Revelation itself."

I'm not using the common interpretation.

No doubt about that!

Just because an interpretation is common does not mean it is the correct one.

Yes, and just because you claim you have the correct interpretation does not make it so either.

I have constantly brought the charge against you that you ignore audience relevance in Scripture. You take an address that is specific to His disciples and their time frame and you turn it into a generic time frame by ripping it from the text in using that interpretation. All the while you do this you claim that part of the text refers to Jerusalem's destruction in AD 70 and part does not. I asked you after the debate to identify where the address changes from addressing this generation to addressing a future generation. I don't blame you for not answering a simple question because you can't. As soon as you do I will tear your argument to shreds.

Yes, Yes, Yes. We have gone over this time and again. Basically, you want to argue with a futurist, which I am not. Also, I would point out, if the prophecies in the Olivet Discourse came true as you suggest (and could be backed historically), then the futurists position would not be common! So, you can rant and rave about the faulty interpretation all you like, but it is not my personal interpretation, and at least the futurists admit the prophecy did not occur in the 1st century as predicted. Both of you have made up different stories to explain this problem: You utilize the vagueness of the prophecies, and futurist change the time frame . My view is that both of you are wrong. As far as "tearing my argument to shreds", this is nothing more than machismo on your part.

"Time of the Gentiles cannot be 42 months when related to 70AD"

Sure it can. And you confuse Nero's persecution of Christians that lasted 42 months with the time of the Gentiles treading on Jerusalem for 42 months.

You are using creative math again. I refuted your 42 months of the gentiles considering multiple possibilities for your interpretation (since you're not really very clear on how you come up with 42 months.)

I also want to address Skepticalone's allegations that I did not answer his questions in the debate when in fact I did, that I did not provide historical proof when in fact I did, that sin in this world does not show Jesus did not return and fulfill Scripture when in fact it does because Jesus went to prepare a place for them so that they would be where He is (John 14:1-3), that my approach to the Olivet Discourse is not vague or inconsistent but follows Scripture yet his is and finally that the approach Skepticalone used, while the popular one is wrong.
This thread is like eavesdropping on a conversation in a mental asylum. - Bulproof

You can call your invisible friends whatever you like. - Desmac

What the hell kind of coked up sideshow has this thread turned into. - Casten
bornofgod
Posts: 11,322
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/9/2014 9:13:20 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/9/2014 1:47:13 PM, PGA wrote:
The purpose of this thread is to show that Skepticalone's claims are groundless and that he speaks in ignorance of what the Bible teaches. Some of the points I will bring up are the very ones he used against me in our debate since he had the last say and bought charges against me that I think are unwarranted. Here are some of these claims and charges:

"Time of the Gentiles cannot be 42 months when related to 70AD"

Sure it can. It is the time span God used, 3 1/2 years, to bring about His wrath on an apostate Old Covenant people, just as the OT curses promised, and this by a Gentile people, Daniel's forth beast - Rome.

"Nero"s reign was not 42 months."

This is a false charge. I never said Nero's reign was only 42 months, ever. What I claimed was that Nero, himself, persecuted Christians for 42 months, from just after the fire in Rome in AD 64 until his suicide in AD 68, a time span of 42 months.

"Nero did not establish a covenant with Israel."

Again, this is misleading. I never said he did. I said that Daniel 9:27 does not apply to Nero but God.

"An explanation/historical account how the Abomination of Desolation occurred in the temple."

It covered more than the temple. The desolation also included the city of Jerusalem and land of Judea. Both those in the city and in the country were told to flee.

Luke 21:20-24New American Standard Bible (NASB)

20 "But when you see Jerusalem surrounded by armies, then recognize that her desolation is near. 21 Then those who are in Judea must flee to the mountains, and those who are in the midst of the city must leave, and those who are in the country must not enter the city; 22 because these are days of vengeance, so that all things which are written will be fulfilled. 23 Woe to those who are pregnant and to those who are nursing babies in those days; for there will be great distress upon the land and wrath to this people; 24 and they will fall by the edge of the sword, and will be led captive into all the nations; and Jerusalem will be trampled under foot by the Gentiles until the times of the Gentiles are fulfilled.


Any time God brought covenant sanctions on His people it covered more than just the city and temple. The desolation covered the whole land in bringing wrath to a people that had practiced every kind of abomination against Him in their worship of false gods.

In Luke the desolation covers more than just the temple. It covers the whole region of Judea including Jerusalem. In the NT we see both the country, city and temple being desecrated, just like we do in history.

"The Syriac version of Revelation rebuttal."

Your argument is one from silence. Because the omission of Revelation from the earliest copies we have in possession does not mean that Nero and the Revelation was added only in the 6th century. Early church fathers refer to this version as containing the Revelation.



Sure it can. And you confuse Nero's persecution of Christians that lasted 42 months with the time of the Gentiles treading on Jerusalem for 42 months.

I also want to address Skepticalone's allegations that I did not answer his questions in the debate when in fact I did, that I did not provide historical proof when in fact I did, that sin in this world does not show Jesus did not return and fulfill Scripture when in fact it does because Jesus went to prepare a place for them so that they would be where He is (John 14:1-3), that my approach to the Olivet Discourse is not vague or inconsistent but follows Scripture yet his is and finally that th

Peter, God doesn't use all numbers as literal numbers. That's why Christians are deceived when they try interpret the prophecies without possessing the knowledge of God like us saints do. If you read my written testimonies and listen to my spoken Word, you will learn exactly what those numbers mean. For example; The 1,000 year reign of Christ is now 2,000 years long but it will end in January when my body is killed. The 70 weeks prophecy in Daniel is the same thing as the 1,000 year reign of Christ.

42 months ( 1260 days ) is a literal number that us saints preach the gospel until we are killed by religious people who are antichrist. An antichrist is one who rejects the spoken Christ ( Word of God ).
FaustianJustice
Posts: 6,207
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/9/2014 11:57:47 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/9/2014 9:13:20 PM, bornofgod wrote:
At 11/9/2014 1:47:13 PM, PGA wrote:
The purpose of this thread is to show that Skepticalone's claims are groundless and that he speaks in ignorance of what the Bible teaches. Some of the points I will bring up are the very ones he used against me in our debate since he had the last say and bought charges against me that I think are unwarranted. Here are some of these claims and charges:

"Time of the Gentiles cannot be 42 months when related to 70AD"

Sure it can. It is the time span God used, 3 1/2 years, to bring about His wrath on an apostate Old Covenant people, just as the OT curses promised, and this by a Gentile people, Daniel's forth beast - Rome.

"Nero"s reign was not 42 months."

This is a false charge. I never said Nero's reign was only 42 months, ever. What I claimed was that Nero, himself, persecuted Christians for 42 months, from just after the fire in Rome in AD 64 until his suicide in AD 68, a time span of 42 months.

"Nero did not establish a covenant with Israel."

Again, this is misleading. I never said he did. I said that Daniel 9:27 does not apply to Nero but God.

"An explanation/historical account how the Abomination of Desolation occurred in the temple."

It covered more than the temple. The desolation also included the city of Jerusalem and land of Judea. Both those in the city and in the country were told to flee.

Luke 21:20-24New American Standard Bible (NASB)

20 "But when you see Jerusalem surrounded by armies, then recognize that her desolation is near. 21 Then those who are in Judea must flee to the mountains, and those who are in the midst of the city must leave, and those who are in the country must not enter the city; 22 because these are days of vengeance, so that all things which are written will be fulfilled. 23 Woe to those who are pregnant and to those who are nursing babies in those days; for there will be great distress upon the land and wrath to this people; 24 and they will fall by the edge of the sword, and will be led captive into all the nations; and Jerusalem will be trampled under foot by the Gentiles until the times of the Gentiles are fulfilled.


Any time God brought covenant sanctions on His people it covered more than just the city and temple. The desolation covered the whole land in bringing wrath to a people that had practiced every kind of abomination against Him in their worship of false gods.

In Luke the desolation covers more than just the temple. It covers the whole region of Judea including Jerusalem. In the NT we see both the country, city and temple being desecrated, just like we do in history.

"The Syriac version of Revelation rebuttal."

Your argument is one from silence. Because the omission of Revelation from the earliest copies we have in possession does not mean that Nero and the Revelation was added only in the 6th century. Early church fathers refer to this version as containing the Revelation.



Sure it can. And you confuse Nero's persecution of Christians that lasted 42 months with the time of the Gentiles treading on Jerusalem for 42 months.

I also want to address Skepticalone's allegations that I did not answer his questions in the debate when in fact I did, that I did not provide historical proof when in fact I did, that sin in this world does not show Jesus did not return and fulfill Scripture when in fact it does because Jesus went to prepare a place for them so that they would be where He is (John 14:1-3), that my approach to the Olivet Discourse is not vague or inconsistent but follows Scripture yet his is and finally that th

Peter, God doesn't use all numbers as literal numbers. That's why Christians are deceived when they try interpret the prophecies without possessing the knowledge of God like us saints do. If you read my written testimonies and listen to my spoken Word, you will learn exactly what those numbers mean. For example; The 1,000 year reign of Christ is now 2,000 years long but it will end in January when my body is killed. The 70 weeks prophecy in Daniel is the same thing as the 1,000 year reign of Christ.

42 months ( 1260 days ) is a literal number that us saints preach the gospel until we are killed by religious people who are antichrist. An antichrist is one who rejects the spoken Christ ( Word of God ).

o.o -.- o.o -.- O.O o.O?

Then how can you expect anyone to read or interpret the Bible for accuracy, without coming to you... which is the exact thing the Bible doesn't want to occur?

You are claiming special knowledge, all others will never know the truth, only you posses the truth. You don't see an inherent problem with that?
Here we have an advocate for Islamic arranged marriages demonstrating that children can consent to sex.
http://www.debate.org...
bornofgod
Posts: 11,322
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/10/2014 8:28:32 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/9/2014 11:57:47 PM, FaustianJustice wrote:
At 11/9/2014 9:13:20 PM, bornofgod wrote:
At 11/9/2014 1:47:13 PM, PGA wrote:
The purpose of this thread is to show that Skepticalone's claims are groundless and that he speaks in ignorance of what the Bible teaches. Some of the points I will bring up are the very ones he used against me in our debate since he had the last say and bought charges against me that I think are unwarranted. Here are some of these claims and charges:

"Time of the Gentiles cannot be 42 months when related to 70AD"

Sure it can. It is the time span God used, 3 1/2 years, to bring about His wrath on an apostate Old Covenant people, just as the OT curses promised, and this by a Gentile people, Daniel's forth beast - Rome.

"Nero"s reign was not 42 months."

This is a false charge. I never said Nero's reign was only 42 months, ever. What I claimed was that Nero, himself, persecuted Christians for 42 months, from just after the fire in Rome in AD 64 until his suicide in AD 68, a time span of 42 months.

"Nero did not establish a covenant with Israel."

Again, this is misleading. I never said he did. I said that Daniel 9:27 does not apply to Nero but God.

"An explanation/historical account how the Abomination of Desolation occurred in the temple."

It covered more than the temple. The desolation also included the city of Jerusalem and land of Judea. Both those in the city and in the country were told to flee.

Luke 21:20-24New American Standard Bible (NASB)

20 "But when you see Jerusalem surrounded by armies, then recognize that her desolation is near. 21 Then those who are in Judea must flee to the mountains, and those who are in the midst of the city must leave, and those who are in the country must not enter the city; 22 because these are days of vengeance, so that all things which are written will be fulfilled. 23 Woe to those who are pregnant and to those who are nursing babies in those days; for there will be great distress upon the land and wrath to this people; 24 and they will fall by the edge of the sword, and will be led captive into all the nations; and Jerusalem will be trampled under foot by the Gentiles until the times of the Gentiles are fulfilled.


Any time God brought covenant sanctions on His people it covered more than just the city and temple. The desolation covered the whole land in bringing wrath to a people that had practiced every kind of abomination against Him in their worship of false gods.

In Luke the desolation covers more than just the temple. It covers the whole region of Judea including Jerusalem. In the NT we see both the country, city and temple being desecrated, just like we do in history.

"The Syriac version of Revelation rebuttal."

Your argument is one from silence. Because the omission of Revelation from the earliest copies we have in possession does not mean that Nero and the Revelation was added only in the 6th century. Early church fathers refer to this version as containing the Revelation.



Sure it can. And you confuse Nero's persecution of Christians that lasted 42 months with the time of the Gentiles treading on Jerusalem for 42 months.

I also want to address Skepticalone's allegations that I did not answer his questions in the debate when in fact I did, that I did not provide historical proof when in fact I did, that sin in this world does not show Jesus did not return and fulfill Scripture when in fact it does because Jesus went to prepare a place for them so that they would be where He is (John 14:1-3), that my approach to the Olivet Discourse is not vague or inconsistent but follows Scripture yet his is and finally that th

Peter, God doesn't use all numbers as literal numbers. That's why Christians are deceived when they try interpret the prophecies without possessing the knowledge of God like us saints do. If you read my written testimonies and listen to my spoken Word, you will learn exactly what those numbers mean. For example; The 1,000 year reign of Christ is now 2,000 years long but it will end in January when my body is killed. The 70 weeks prophecy in Daniel is the same thing as the 1,000 year reign of Christ.

42 months ( 1260 days ) is a literal number that us saints preach the gospel until we are killed by religious people who are antichrist. An antichrist is one who rejects the spoken Christ ( Word of God ).

o.o -.- o.o -.- O.O o.O?

Then how can you expect anyone to read or interpret the Bible for accuracy, without coming to you... which is the exact thing the Bible doesn't want to occur?

You are claiming special knowledge, all others will never know the truth, only you posses the truth. You don't see an inherent problem with that?

Don't you see an inherent problem with thousands of different interpretations by Christians who have no idea who God is?

We saints are God's vessels to testify to His knowledge, which is our created existence. If you reject our gospel ( voice of the Lord ) you will remain cursed by the illusions of this world that you believe as being real.

The Bible CANNOT speak.
FaustianJustice
Posts: 6,207
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/10/2014 8:32:13 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/10/2014 8:28:32 AM, bornofgod wrote:
At 11/9/2014 11:57:47 PM, FaustianJustice wrote:
At 11/9/2014 9:13:20 PM, bornofgod wrote:
At 11/9/2014 1:47:13 PM, PGA wrote:
The purpose of this thread is to show that Skepticalone's claims are groundless and that he speaks in ignorance of what the Bible teaches. Some of the points I will bring up are the very ones he used against me in our debate since he had the last say and bought charges against me that I think are unwarranted. Here are some of these claims and charges:

"Time of the Gentiles cannot be 42 months when related to 70AD"

Sure it can. It is the time span God used, 3 1/2 years, to bring about His wrath on an apostate Old Covenant people, just as the OT curses promised, and this by a Gentile people, Daniel's forth beast - Rome.

"Nero"s reign was not 42 months."

This is a false charge. I never said Nero's reign was only 42 months, ever. What I claimed was that Nero, himself, persecuted Christians for 42 months, from just after the fire in Rome in AD 64 until his suicide in AD 68, a time span of 42 months.

"Nero did not establish a covenant with Israel."

Again, this is misleading. I never said he did. I said that Daniel 9:27 does not apply to Nero but God.

"An explanation/historical account how the Abomination of Desolation occurred in the temple."

It covered more than the temple. The desolation also included the city of Jerusalem and land of Judea. Both those in the city and in the country were told to flee.

Luke 21:20-24New American Standard Bible (NASB)

20 "But when you see Jerusalem surrounded by armies, then recognize that her desolation is near. 21 Then those who are in Judea must flee to the mountains, and those who are in the midst of the city must leave, and those who are in the country must not enter the city; 22 because these are days of vengeance, so that all things which are written will be fulfilled. 23 Woe to those who are pregnant and to those who are nursing babies in those days; for there will be great distress upon the land and wrath to this people; 24 and they will fall by the edge of the sword, and will be led captive into all the nations; and Jerusalem will be trampled under foot by the Gentiles until the times of the Gentiles are fulfilled.


Any time God brought covenant sanctions on His people it covered more than just the city and temple. The desolation covered the whole land in bringing wrath to a people that had practiced every kind of abomination against Him in their worship of false gods.

In Luke the desolation covers more than just the temple. It covers the whole region of Judea including Jerusalem. In the NT we see both the country, city and temple being desecrated, just like we do in history.

"The Syriac version of Revelation rebuttal."

Your argument is one from silence. Because the omission of Revelation from the earliest copies we have in possession does not mean that Nero and the Revelation was added only in the 6th century. Early church fathers refer to this version as containing the Revelation.



Sure it can. And you confuse Nero's persecution of Christians that lasted 42 months with the time of the Gentiles treading on Jerusalem for 42 months.

I also want to address Skepticalone's allegations that I did not answer his questions in the debate when in fact I did, that I did not provide historical proof when in fact I did, that sin in this world does not show Jesus did not return and fulfill Scripture when in fact it does because Jesus went to prepare a place for them so that they would be where He is (John 14:1-3), that my approach to the Olivet Discourse is not vague or inconsistent but follows Scripture yet his is and finally that th

Peter, God doesn't use all numbers as literal numbers. That's why Christians are deceived when they try interpret the prophecies without possessing the knowledge of God like us saints do. If you read my written testimonies and listen to my spoken Word, you will learn exactly what those numbers mean. For example; The 1,000 year reign of Christ is now 2,000 years long but it will end in January when my body is killed. The 70 weeks prophecy in Daniel is the same thing as the 1,000 year reign of Christ.

42 months ( 1260 days ) is a literal number that us saints preach the gospel until we are killed by religious people who are antichrist. An antichrist is one who rejects the spoken Christ ( Word of God ).

o.o -.- o.o -.- O.O o.O?

Then how can you expect anyone to read or interpret the Bible for accuracy, without coming to you... which is the exact thing the Bible doesn't want to occur?

You are claiming special knowledge, all others will never know the truth, only you posses the truth. You don't see an inherent problem with that?

Don't you see an inherent problem with thousands of different interpretations by Christians who have no idea who God is?

We saints are God's vessels to testify to His knowledge, which is our created existence. If you reject our gospel ( voice of the Lord ) you will remain cursed by the illusions of this world that you believe as being real.

The Bible CANNOT speak.

It shouldn't have to. Jesus specifically said that no one approaches the father except through him, you are in short are not him. Your gospel is not required.

At the best, you are a false prophet, a huckster. At the worst, you are in need of medication and therapy.
Here we have an advocate for Islamic arranged marriages demonstrating that children can consent to sex.
http://www.debate.org...
bornofgod
Posts: 11,322
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/10/2014 8:40:49 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/10/2014 8:32:13 AM, FaustianJustice wrote:
At 11/10/2014 8:28:32 AM, bornofgod wrote:
At 11/9/2014 11:57:47 PM, FaustianJustice wrote:
At 11/9/2014 9:13:20 PM, bornofgod wrote:
At 11/9/2014 1:47:13 PM, PGA wrote:
The purpose of this thread is to show that Skepticalone's claims are groundless and that he speaks in ignorance of what the Bible teaches. Some of the points I will bring up are the very ones he used against me in our debate since he had the last say and bought charges against me that I think are unwarranted. Here are some of these claims and charges:

"Time of the Gentiles cannot be 42 months when related to 70AD"

Sure it can. It is the time span God used, 3 1/2 years, to bring about His wrath on an apostate Old Covenant people, just as the OT curses promised, and this by a Gentile people, Daniel's forth beast - Rome.

"Nero"s reign was not 42 months."

This is a false charge. I never said Nero's reign was only 42 months, ever. What I claimed was that Nero, himself, persecuted Christians for 42 months, from just after the fire in Rome in AD 64 until his suicide in AD 68, a time span of 42 months.

"Nero did not establish a covenant with Israel."

Again, this is misleading. I never said he did. I said that Daniel 9:27 does not apply to Nero but God.

"An explanation/historical account how the Abomination of Desolation occurred in the temple."

It covered more than the temple. The desolation also included the city of Jerusalem and land of Judea. Both those in the city and in the country were told to flee.

Luke 21:20-24New American Standard Bible (NASB)

20 "But when you see Jerusalem surrounded by armies, then recognize that her desolation is near. 21 Then those who are in Judea must flee to the mountains, and those who are in the midst of the city must leave, and those who are in the country must not enter the city; 22 because these are days of vengeance, so that all things which are written will be fulfilled. 23 Woe to those who are pregnant and to those who are nursing babies in those days; for there will be great distress upon the land and wrath to this people; 24 and they will fall by the edge of the sword, and will be led captive into all the nations; and Jerusalem will be trampled under foot by the Gentiles until the times of the Gentiles are fulfilled.


Any time God brought covenant sanctions on His people it covered more than just the city and temple. The desolation covered the whole land in bringing wrath to a people that had practiced every kind of abomination against Him in their worship of false gods.

In Luke the desolation covers more than just the temple. It covers the whole region of Judea including Jerusalem. In the NT we see both the country, city and temple being desecrated, just like we do in history.

"The Syriac version of Revelation rebuttal."

Your argument is one from silence. Because the omission of Revelation from the earliest copies we have in possession does not mean that Nero and the Revelation was added only in the 6th century. Early church fathers refer to this version as containing the Revelation.



Sure it can. And you confuse Nero's persecution of Christians that lasted 42 months with the time of the Gentiles treading on Jerusalem for 42 months.

I also want to address Skepticalone's allegations that I did not answer his questions in the debate when in fact I did, that I did not provide historical proof when in fact I did, that sin in this world does not show Jesus did not return and fulfill Scripture when in fact it does because Jesus went to prepare a place for them so that they would be where He is (John 14:1-3), that my approach to the Olivet Discourse is not vague or inconsistent but follows Scripture yet his is and finally that th

Peter, God doesn't use all numbers as literal numbers. That's why Christians are deceived when they try interpret the prophecies without possessing the knowledge of God like us saints do. If you read my written testimonies and listen to my spoken Word, you will learn exactly what those numbers mean. For example; The 1,000 year reign of Christ is now 2,000 years long but it will end in January when my body is killed. The 70 weeks prophecy in Daniel is the same thing as the 1,000 year reign of Christ.

42 months ( 1260 days ) is a literal number that us saints preach the gospel until we are killed by religious people who are antichrist. An antichrist is one who rejects the spoken Christ ( Word of God ).

o.o -.- o.o -.- O.O o.O?

Then how can you expect anyone to read or interpret the Bible for accuracy, without coming to you... which is the exact thing the Bible doesn't want to occur?

You are claiming special knowledge, all others will never know the truth, only you posses the truth. You don't see an inherent problem with that?

Don't you see an inherent problem with thousands of different interpretations by Christians who have no idea who God is?

We saints are God's vessels to testify to His knowledge, which is our created existence. If you reject our gospel ( voice of the Lord ) you will remain cursed by the illusions of this world that you believe as being real.

The Bible CANNOT speak.


It shouldn't have to. Jesus specifically said that no one approaches the father except through him, you are in short are not him. Your gospel is not required.

At the best, you are a false prophet, a huckster. At the worst, you are in need of medication and therapy.

If you keep reading the new testament that was produced by antichrists ( religious men who didn't know God ) and approved by the Vatican ( governing body that set up laws contrary to the Law of God that us saints speak ), you will be totally deceived by it.

Only us saints are qualified to read the scriptures for our Creator so He can interpret them. Since we are created as His voice, we're also His eyes and ears in the flesh.

Not one Christian has ever been used by God to testify to the invisible Word of God in writing and speaking. Christianity was started by antichrists who stole the writings and spoken words of the saints and mixed them with their religious beliefs and traditions such as the Jewish tradition of water baptism.
FaustianJustice
Posts: 6,207
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/10/2014 8:42:16 AM
Posted: 2 years ago

Peter, God doesn't use all numbers as literal numbers. That's why Christians are deceived when they try interpret the prophecies without possessing the knowledge of God like us saints do. If you read my written testimonies and listen to my spoken Word, you will learn exactly what those numbers mean. For example; The 1,000 year reign of Christ is now 2,000 years long but it will end in January when my body is killed. The 70 weeks prophecy in Daniel is the same thing as the 1,000 year reign of Christ.

42 months ( 1260 days ) is a literal number that us saints preach the gospel until we are killed by religious people who are antichrist. An antichrist is one who rejects the spoken Christ ( Word of God ).

o.o -.- o.o -.- O.O o.O?

Then how can you expect anyone to read or interpret the Bible for accuracy, without coming to you... which is the exact thing the Bible doesn't want to occur?

You are claiming special knowledge, all others will never know the truth, only you posses the truth. You don't see an inherent problem with that?

Don't you see an inherent problem with thousands of different interpretations by Christians who have no idea who God is?

We saints are God's vessels to testify to His knowledge, which is our created existence. If you reject our gospel ( voice of the Lord ) you will remain cursed by the illusions of this world that you believe as being real.

The Bible CANNOT speak.


It shouldn't have to. Jesus specifically said that no one approaches the father except through him, you are in short are not him. Your gospel is not required.

At the best, you are a false prophet, a huckster. At the worst, you are in need of medication and therapy.

If you keep reading the new testament that was produced by antichrists ( religious men who didn't know God ) and approved by the Vatican ( governing body that set up laws contrary to the Law of God that us saints speak ), you will be totally deceived by it.

Only us saints are qualified to read the scriptures for our Creator so He can interpret them. Since we are created as His voice, we're also His eyes and ears in the flesh.

Not one Christian has ever been used by God to testify to the invisible Word of God in writing and speaking. Christianity was started by antichrists who stole the writings and spoken words of the saints and mixed them with their religious beliefs and traditions such as the Jewish tradition of water baptism.

Therapy and meds it is, then.
Here we have an advocate for Islamic arranged marriages demonstrating that children can consent to sex.
http://www.debate.org...
bornofgod
Posts: 11,322
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/10/2014 8:44:42 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/10/2014 8:42:16 AM, FaustianJustice wrote:

Peter, God doesn't use all numbers as literal numbers. That's why Christians are deceived when they try interpret the prophecies without possessing the knowledge of God like us saints do. If you read my written testimonies and listen to my spoken Word, you will learn exactly what those numbers mean. For example; The 1,000 year reign of Christ is now 2,000 years long but it will end in January when my body is killed. The 70 weeks prophecy in Daniel is the same thing as the 1,000 year reign of Christ.

42 months ( 1260 days ) is a literal number that us saints preach the gospel until we are killed by religious people who are antichrist. An antichrist is one who rejects the spoken Christ ( Word of God ).

o.o -.- o.o -.- O.O o.O?

Then how can you expect anyone to read or interpret the Bible for accuracy, without coming to you... which is the exact thing the Bible doesn't want to occur?

You are claiming special knowledge, all others will never know the truth, only you posses the truth. You don't see an inherent problem with that?

Don't you see an inherent problem with thousands of different interpretations by Christians who have no idea who God is?

We saints are God's vessels to testify to His knowledge, which is our created existence. If you reject our gospel ( voice of the Lord ) you will remain cursed by the illusions of this world that you believe as being real.

The Bible CANNOT speak.


It shouldn't have to. Jesus specifically said that no one approaches the father except through him, you are in short are not him. Your gospel is not required.

At the best, you are a false prophet, a huckster. At the worst, you are in need of medication and therapy.

If you keep reading the new testament that was produced by antichrists ( religious men who didn't know God ) and approved by the Vatican ( governing body that set up laws contrary to the Law of God that us saints speak ), you will be totally deceived by it.

Only us saints are qualified to read the scriptures for our Creator so He can interpret them. Since we are created as His voice, we're also His eyes and ears in the flesh.

Not one Christian has ever been used by God to testify to the invisible Word of God in writing and speaking. Christianity was started by antichrists who stole the writings and spoken words of the saints and mixed them with their religious beliefs and traditions such as the Jewish tradition of water baptism.

Therapy and meds it is, then.

Maybe that's what you need to understand the Truth. So far, you have been totally deceived of the Truth by reading the new testament that was approved by a bunch of men ( Vatican heathens ) who had no idea who God was.
FaustianJustice
Posts: 6,207
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/10/2014 8:46:27 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/10/2014 8:44:42 AM, bornofgod wrote:
At 11/10/2014 8:42:16 AM, FaustianJustice wrote:

Peter, God doesn't use all numbers as literal numbers. That's why Christians are deceived when they try interpret the prophecies without possessing the knowledge of God like us saints do. If you read my written testimonies and listen to my spoken Word, you will learn exactly what those numbers mean. For example; The 1,000 year reign of Christ is now 2,000 years long but it will end in January when my body is killed. The 70 weeks prophecy in Daniel is the same thing as the 1,000 year reign of Christ.

42 months ( 1260 days ) is a literal number that us saints preach the gospel until we are killed by religious people who are antichrist. An antichrist is one who rejects the spoken Christ ( Word of God ).

o.o -.- o.o -.- O.O o.O?

Then how can you expect anyone to read or interpret the Bible for accuracy, without coming to you... which is the exact thing the Bible doesn't want to occur?

You are claiming special knowledge, all others will never know the truth, only you posses the truth. You don't see an inherent problem with that?

Don't you see an inherent problem with thousands of different interpretations by Christians who have no idea who God is?

We saints are God's vessels to testify to His knowledge, which is our created existence. If you reject our gospel ( voice of the Lord ) you will remain cursed by the illusions of this world that you believe as being real.

The Bible CANNOT speak.


It shouldn't have to. Jesus specifically said that no one approaches the father except through him, you are in short are not him. Your gospel is not required.

At the best, you are a false prophet, a huckster. At the worst, you are in need of medication and therapy.

If you keep reading the new testament that was produced by antichrists ( religious men who didn't know God ) and approved by the Vatican ( governing body that set up laws contrary to the Law of God that us saints speak ), you will be totally deceived by it.

Only us saints are qualified to read the scriptures for our Creator so He can interpret them. Since we are created as His voice, we're also His eyes and ears in the flesh.

Not one Christian has ever been used by God to testify to the invisible Word of God in writing and speaking. Christianity was started by antichrists who stole the writings and spoken words of the saints and mixed them with their religious beliefs and traditions such as the Jewish tradition of water baptism.

Therapy and meds it is, then.

Maybe that's what you need to understand the Truth. So far, you have been totally deceived of the Truth by reading the new testament that was approved by a bunch of men ( Vatican heathens ) who had no idea who God was.

I find you and the Bible as you describe it to be on equal footing, so no worries there.
Here we have an advocate for Islamic arranged marriages demonstrating that children can consent to sex.
http://www.debate.org...
bornofgod
Posts: 11,322
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/10/2014 8:48:43 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/10/2014 8:46:27 AM, FaustianJustice wrote:
At 11/10/2014 8:44:42 AM, bornofgod wrote:
At 11/10/2014 8:42:16 AM, FaustianJustice wrote:

Peter, God doesn't use all numbers as literal numbers. That's why Christians are deceived when they try interpret the prophecies without possessing the knowledge of God like us saints do. If you read my written testimonies and listen to my spoken Word, you will learn exactly what those numbers mean. For example; The 1,000 year reign of Christ is now 2,000 years long but it will end in January when my body is killed. The 70 weeks prophecy in Daniel is the same thing as the 1,000 year reign of Christ.

42 months ( 1260 days ) is a literal number that us saints preach the gospel until we are killed by religious people who are antichrist. An antichrist is one who rejects the spoken Christ ( Word of God ).

o.o -.- o.o -.- O.O o.O?

Then how can you expect anyone to read or interpret the Bible for accuracy, without coming to you... which is the exact thing the Bible doesn't want to occur?

You are claiming special knowledge, all others will never know the truth, only you posses the truth. You don't see an inherent problem with that?

Don't you see an inherent problem with thousands of different interpretations by Christians who have no idea who God is?

We saints are God's vessels to testify to His knowledge, which is our created existence. If you reject our gospel ( voice of the Lord ) you will remain cursed by the illusions of this world that you believe as being real.

The Bible CANNOT speak.


It shouldn't have to. Jesus specifically said that no one approaches the father except through him, you are in short are not him. Your gospel is not required.

At the best, you are a false prophet, a huckster. At the worst, you are in need of medication and therapy.

If you keep reading the new testament that was produced by antichrists ( religious men who didn't know God ) and approved by the Vatican ( governing body that set up laws contrary to the Law of God that us saints speak ), you will be totally deceived by it.

Only us saints are qualified to read the scriptures for our Creator so He can interpret them. Since we are created as His voice, we're also His eyes and ears in the flesh.

Not one Christian has ever been used by God to testify to the invisible Word of God in writing and speaking. Christianity was started by antichrists who stole the writings and spoken words of the saints and mixed them with their religious beliefs and traditions such as the Jewish tradition of water baptism.

Therapy and meds it is, then.

Maybe that's what you need to understand the Truth. So far, you have been totally deceived of the Truth by reading the new testament that was approved by a bunch of men ( Vatican heathens ) who had no idea who God was.


I find you and the Bible as you describe it to be on equal footing, so no worries there.

What else do you fear in this world?
FaustianJustice
Posts: 6,207
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/10/2014 8:53:30 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/10/2014 8:48:43 AM, bornofgod wrote:
At 11/10/2014 8:46:27 AM, FaustianJustice wrote:
At 11/10/2014 8:44:42 AM, bornofgod wrote:
At 11/10/2014 8:42:16 AM, FaustianJustice wrote:

Peter, God doesn't use all numbers as literal numbers. That's why Christians are deceived when they try interpret the prophecies without possessing the knowledge of God like us saints do. If you read my written testimonies and listen to my spoken Word, you will learn exactly what those numbers mean. For example; The 1,000 year reign of Christ is now 2,000 years long but it will end in January when my body is killed. The 70 weeks prophecy in Daniel is the same thing as the 1,000 year reign of Christ.

42 months ( 1260 days ) is a literal number that us saints preach the gospel until we are killed by religious people who are antichrist. An antichrist is one who rejects the spoken Christ ( Word of God ).

o.o -.- o.o -.- O.O o.O?

Then how can you expect anyone to read or interpret the Bible for accuracy, without coming to you... which is the exact thing the Bible doesn't want to occur?

You are claiming special knowledge, all others will never know the truth, only you posses the truth. You don't see an inherent problem with that?

Don't you see an inherent problem with thousands of different interpretations by Christians who have no idea who God is?

We saints are God's vessels to testify to His knowledge, which is our created existence. If you reject our gospel ( voice of the Lord ) you will remain cursed by the illusions of this world that you believe as being real.

The Bible CANNOT speak.


It shouldn't have to. Jesus specifically said that no one approaches the father except through him, you are in short are not him. Your gospel is not required.

At the best, you are a false prophet, a huckster. At the worst, you are in need of medication and therapy.

If you keep reading the new testament that was produced by antichrists ( religious men who didn't know God ) and approved by the Vatican ( governing body that set up laws contrary to the Law of God that us saints speak ), you will be totally deceived by it.

Only us saints are qualified to read the scriptures for our Creator so He can interpret them. Since we are created as His voice, we're also His eyes and ears in the flesh.

Not one Christian has ever been used by God to testify to the invisible Word of God in writing and speaking. Christianity was started by antichrists who stole the writings and spoken words of the saints and mixed them with their religious beliefs and traditions such as the Jewish tradition of water baptism.

Therapy and meds it is, then.

Maybe that's what you need to understand the Truth. So far, you have been totally deceived of the Truth by reading the new testament that was approved by a bunch of men ( Vatican heathens ) who had no idea who God was.


I find you and the Bible as you describe it to be on equal footing, so no worries there.

What else do you fear in this world?

Spiders, big ones. If the pizza my friends order has pineapple on it. No beer being in the fridge. The rest of life, the big stuff, either don't have control over it, so have no reason to 'fear' it, or do have control over it, so I can fix it.

How many other voices have you heard calling you a saint? Next time God gives you a ring, put in a good word for me. And if you don't feel like doing that, at least tell the big man "He is still doing that thing...". Inside joke, don't worry, God will get it.
Here we have an advocate for Islamic arranged marriages demonstrating that children can consent to sex.
http://www.debate.org...
bornofgod
Posts: 11,322
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/10/2014 8:56:51 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/10/2014 8:53:30 AM, FaustianJustice wrote:
At 11/10/2014 8:48:43 AM, bornofgod wrote:
At 11/10/2014 8:46:27 AM, FaustianJustice wrote:
At 11/10/2014 8:44:42 AM, bornofgod wrote:
At 11/10/2014 8:42:16 AM, FaustianJustice wrote:

Peter, God doesn't use all numbers as literal numbers. That's why Christians are deceived when they try interpret the prophecies without possessing the knowledge of God like us saints do. If you read my written testimonies and listen to my spoken Word, you will learn exactly what those numbers mean. For example; The 1,000 year reign of Christ is now 2,000 years long but it will end in January when my body is killed. The 70 weeks prophecy in Daniel is the same thing as the 1,000 year reign of Christ.

42 months ( 1260 days ) is a literal number that us saints preach the gospel until we are killed by religious people who are antichrist. An antichrist is one who rejects the spoken Christ ( Word of God ).

o.o -.- o.o -.- O.O o.O?

Then how can you expect anyone to read or interpret the Bible for accuracy, without coming to you... which is the exact thing the Bible doesn't want to occur?

You are claiming special knowledge, all others will never know the truth, only you posses the truth. You don't see an inherent problem with that?

Don't you see an inherent problem with thousands of different interpretations by Christians who have no idea who God is?

We saints are God's vessels to testify to His knowledge, which is our created existence. If you reject our gospel ( voice of the Lord ) you will remain cursed by the illusions of this world that you believe as being real.

The Bible CANNOT speak.


It shouldn't have to. Jesus specifically said that no one approaches the father except through him, you are in short are not him. Your gospel is not required.

At the best, you are a false prophet, a huckster. At the worst, you are in need of medication and therapy.

If you keep reading the new testament that was produced by antichrists ( religious men who didn't know God ) and approved by the Vatican ( governing body that set up laws contrary to the Law of God that us saints speak ), you will be totally deceived by it.

Only us saints are qualified to read the scriptures for our Creator so He can interpret them. Since we are created as His voice, we're also His eyes and ears in the flesh.

Not one Christian has ever been used by God to testify to the invisible Word of God in writing and speaking. Christianity was started by antichrists who stole the writings and spoken words of the saints and mixed them with their religious beliefs and traditions such as the Jewish tradition of water baptism.

Therapy and meds it is, then.

Maybe that's what you need to understand the Truth. So far, you have been totally deceived of the Truth by reading the new testament that was approved by a bunch of men ( Vatican heathens ) who had no idea who God was.


I find you and the Bible as you describe it to be on equal footing, so no worries there.

What else do you fear in this world?

Spiders, big ones. If the pizza my friends order has pineapple on it. No beer being in the fridge. The rest of life, the big stuff, either don't have control over it, so have no reason to 'fear' it, or do have control over it, so I can fix it.

How many other voices have you heard calling you a saint? Next time God gives you a ring, put in a good word for me. And if you don't feel like doing that, at least tell the big man "He is still doing that thing...". Inside joke, don't worry, God will get it.

The lack of control is the most frightening part of this world but don't worry, our invisible Creator has planned to kill all the flesh in this world to end their delusion. Then His created people will awaken in new bodies and give us new illusions to experience. But in Paradise, we'll understand that everything we see is only an illusion that isn't real. We will learn the only one who is real is our Creator.
FaustianJustice
Posts: 6,207
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/10/2014 9:00:28 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/10/2014 8:56:51 AM, bornofgod wrote:
At 11/10/2014 8:53:30 AM, FaustianJustice wrote:
At 11/10/2014 8:48:43 AM, bornofgod wrote:
At 11/10/2014 8:46:27 AM, FaustianJustice wrote:
At 11/10/2014 8:44:42 AM, bornofgod wrote:
At 11/10/2014 8:42:16 AM, FaustianJustice wrote:

Peter, God doesn't use all numbers as literal numbers. That's why Christians are deceived when they try interpret the prophecies without possessing the knowledge of God like us saints do. If you read my written testimonies and listen to my spoken Word, you will learn exactly what those numbers mean. For example; The 1,000 year reign of Christ is now 2,000 years long but it will end in January when my body is killed. The 70 weeks prophecy in Daniel is the same thing as the 1,000 year reign of Christ.

42 months ( 1260 days ) is a literal number that us saints preach the gospel until we are killed by religious people who are antichrist. An antichrist is one who rejects the spoken Christ ( Word of God ).

o.o -.- o.o -.- O.O o.O?

Then how can you expect anyone to read or interpret the Bible for accuracy, without coming to you... which is the exact thing the Bible doesn't want to occur?

You are claiming special knowledge, all others will never know the truth, only you posses the truth. You don't see an inherent problem with that?

Don't you see an inherent problem with thousands of different interpretations by Christians who have no idea who God is?

We saints are God's vessels to testify to His knowledge, which is our created existence. If you reject our gospel ( voice of the Lord ) you will remain cursed by the illusions of this world that you believe as being real.

The Bible CANNOT speak.


It shouldn't have to. Jesus specifically said that no one approaches the father except through him, you are in short are not him. Your gospel is not required.

At the best, you are a false prophet, a huckster. At the worst, you are in need of medication and therapy.

If you keep reading the new testament that was produced by antichrists ( religious men who didn't know God ) and approved by the Vatican ( governing body that set up laws contrary to the Law of God that us saints speak ), you will be totally deceived by it.

Only us saints are qualified to read the scriptures for our Creator so He can interpret them. Since we are created as His voice, we're also His eyes and ears in the flesh.

Not one Christian has ever been used by God to testify to the invisible Word of God in writing and speaking. Christianity was started by antichrists who stole the writings and spoken words of the saints and mixed them with their religious beliefs and traditions such as the Jewish tradition of water baptism.

Therapy and meds it is, then.

Maybe that's what you need to understand the Truth. So far, you have been totally deceived of the Truth by reading the new testament that was approved by a bunch of men ( Vatican heathens ) who had no idea who God was.


I find you and the Bible as you describe it to be on equal footing, so no worries there.

What else do you fear in this world?

Spiders, big ones. If the pizza my friends order has pineapple on it. No beer being in the fridge. The rest of life, the big stuff, either don't have control over it, so have no reason to 'fear' it, or do have control over it, so I can fix it.

How many other voices have you heard calling you a saint? Next time God gives you a ring, put in a good word for me. And if you don't feel like doing that, at least tell the big man "He is still doing that thing...". Inside joke, don't worry, God will get it.

The lack of control is the most frightening part of this world but don't worry, our invisible Creator has planned to kill all the flesh in this world to end their delusion. Then His created people will awaken in new bodies and give us new illusions to experience. But in Paradise, we'll understand that everything we see is only an illusion that isn't real. We will learn the only one who is real is our Creator.

You know what you should do? Write all this down, some that in maybe like 2000 years, some folks can read it, and, like me, give it the credence it so richly deserves, and dupe the rest of the world.
Here we have an advocate for Islamic arranged marriages demonstrating that children can consent to sex.
http://www.debate.org...
bornofgod
Posts: 11,322
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/10/2014 9:08:48 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/10/2014 9:00:28 AM, FaustianJustice wrote:
At 11/10/2014 8:56:51 AM, bornofgod wrote:
At 11/10/2014 8:53:30 AM, FaustianJustice wrote:
At 11/10/2014 8:48:43 AM, bornofgod wrote:
At 11/10/2014 8:46:27 AM, FaustianJustice wrote:
At 11/10/2014 8:44:42 AM, bornofgod wrote:
At 11/10/2014 8:42:16 AM, FaustianJustice wrote:

Peter, God doesn't use all numbers as literal numbers. That's why Christians are deceived when they try interpret the prophecies without possessing the knowledge of God like us saints do. If you read my written testimonies and listen to my spoken Word, you will learn exactly what those numbers mean. For example; The 1,000 year reign of Christ is now 2,000 years long but it will end in January when my body is killed. The 70 weeks prophecy in Daniel is the same thing as the 1,000 year reign of Christ.

42 months ( 1260 days ) is a literal number that us saints preach the gospel until we are killed by religious people who are antichrist. An antichrist is one who rejects the spoken Christ ( Word of God ).

o.o -.- o.o -.- O.O o.O?

Then how can you expect anyone to read or interpret the Bible for accuracy, without coming to you... which is the exact thing the Bible doesn't want to occur?

You are claiming special knowledge, all others will never know the truth, only you posses the truth. You don't see an inherent problem with that?

Don't you see an inherent problem with thousands of different interpretations by Christians who have no idea who God is?

We saints are God's vessels to testify to His knowledge, which is our created existence. If you reject our gospel ( voice of the Lord ) you will remain cursed by the illusions of this world that you believe as being real.

The Bible CANNOT speak.


It shouldn't have to. Jesus specifically said that no one approaches the father except through him, you are in short are not him. Your gospel is not required.

At the best, you are a false prophet, a huckster. At the worst, you are in need of medication and therapy.

If you keep reading the new testament that was produced by antichrists ( religious men who didn't know God ) and approved by the Vatican ( governing body that set up laws contrary to the Law of God that us saints speak ), you will be totally deceived by it.

Only us saints are qualified to read the scriptures for our Creator so He can interpret them. Since we are created as His voice, we're also His eyes and ears in the flesh.

Not one Christian has ever been used by God to testify to the invisible Word of God in writing and speaking. Christianity was started by antichrists who stole the writings and spoken words of the saints and mixed them with their religious beliefs and traditions such as the Jewish tradition of water baptism.

Therapy and meds it is, then.

Maybe that's what you need to understand the Truth. So far, you have been totally deceived of the Truth by reading the new testament that was approved by a bunch of men ( Vatican heathens ) who had no idea who God was.


I find you and the Bible as you describe it to be on equal footing, so no worries there.

What else do you fear in this world?

Spiders, big ones. If the pizza my friends order has pineapple on it. No beer being in the fridge. The rest of life, the big stuff, either don't have control over it, so have no reason to 'fear' it, or do have control over it, so I can fix it.

How many other voices have you heard calling you a saint? Next time God gives you a ring, put in a good word for me. And if you don't feel like doing that, at least tell the big man "He is still doing that thing...". Inside joke, don't worry, God will get it.

The lack of control is the most frightening part of this world but don't worry, our invisible Creator has planned to kill all the flesh in this world to end their delusion. Then His created people will awaken in new bodies and give us new illusions to experience. But in Paradise, we'll understand that everything we see is only an illusion that isn't real. We will learn the only one who is real is our Creator.

You know what you should do? Write all this down, some that in maybe like 2000 years, some folks can read it, and, like me, give it the credence it so richly deserves, and dupe the rest of the world.

It's much easier for religious people to believe in 2,000 year old writings than it is to believe the voice of the Lord that's speaking directly to them through the gospel of God's chosen saints.
FaustianJustice
Posts: 6,207
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/10/2014 9:16:06 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/10/2014 9:08:48 AM, bornofgod wrote:
At 11/10/2014 9:00:28 AM, FaustianJustice wrote:
At 11/10/2014 8:56:51 AM, bornofgod wrote:
At 11/10/2014 8:53:30 AM, FaustianJustice wrote:
At 11/10/2014 8:48:43 AM, bornofgod wrote:
At 11/10/2014 8:46:27 AM, FaustianJustice wrote:
At 11/10/2014 8:44:42 AM, bornofgod wrote:
At 11/10/2014 8:42:16 AM, FaustianJustice wrote:

Peter, God doesn't use all numbers as literal numbers. That's why Christians are deceived when they try interpret the prophecies without possessing the knowledge of God like us saints do. If you read my written testimonies and listen to my spoken Word, you will learn exactly what those numbers mean. For example; The 1,000 year reign of Christ is now 2,000 years long but it will end in January when my body is killed. The 70 weeks prophecy in Daniel is the same thing as the 1,000 year reign of Christ.

42 months ( 1260 days ) is a literal number that us saints preach the gospel until we are killed by religious people who are antichrist. An antichrist is one who rejects the spoken Christ ( Word of God ).

o.o -.- o.o -.- O.O o.O?

Then how can you expect anyone to read or interpret the Bible for accuracy, without coming to you... which is the exact thing the Bible doesn't want to occur?

You are claiming special knowledge, all others will never know the truth, only you posses the truth. You don't see an inherent problem with that?

Don't you see an inherent problem with thousands of different interpretations by Christians who have no idea who God is?

We saints are God's vessels to testify to His knowledge, which is our created existence. If you reject our gospel ( voice of the Lord ) you will remain cursed by the illusions of this world that you believe as being real.

The Bible CANNOT speak.


It shouldn't have to. Jesus specifically said that no one approaches the father except through him, you are in short are not him. Your gospel is not required.

At the best, you are a false prophet, a huckster. At the worst, you are in need of medication and therapy.

If you keep reading the new testament that was produced by antichrists ( religious men who didn't know God ) and approved by the Vatican ( governing body that set up laws contrary to the Law of God that us saints speak ), you will be totally deceived by it.

Only us saints are qualified to read the scriptures for our Creator so He can interpret them. Since we are created as His voice, we're also His eyes and ears in the flesh.

Not one Christian has ever been used by God to testify to the invisible Word of God in writing and speaking. Christianity was started by antichrists who stole the writings and spoken words of the saints and mixed them with their religious beliefs and traditions such as the Jewish tradition of water baptism.

Therapy and meds it is, then.

Maybe that's what you need to understand the Truth. So far, you have been totally deceived of the Truth by reading the new testament that was approved by a bunch of men ( Vatican heathens ) who had no idea who God was.


I find you and the Bible as you describe it to be on equal footing, so no worries there.

What else do you fear in this world?

Spiders, big ones. If the pizza my friends order has pineapple on it. No beer being in the fridge. The rest of life, the big stuff, either don't have control over it, so have no reason to 'fear' it, or do have control over it, so I can fix it.

How many other voices have you heard calling you a saint? Next time God gives you a ring, put in a good word for me. And if you don't feel like doing that, at least tell the big man "He is still doing that thing...". Inside joke, don't worry, God will get it.

The lack of control is the most frightening part of this world but don't worry, our invisible Creator has planned to kill all the flesh in this world to end their delusion. Then His created people will awaken in new bodies and give us new illusions to experience. But in Paradise, we'll understand that everything we see is only an illusion that isn't real. We will learn the only one who is real is our Creator.

You know what you should do? Write all this down, some that in maybe like 2000 years, some folks can read it, and, like me, give it the credence it so richly deserves, and dupe the rest of the world.

It's much easier for religious people to believe in 2,000 year old writings than it is to believe the voice of the Lord that's speaking directly to them through the gospel of God's chosen saints.

If its 'through' some one, its not directly, is it? If said person also claims that the Bible is not the word of God, but only his (and maybe a few select others) voice and should be followed, its... well, how to say this.

Idiocy. A cult. Irrational. A scam. A huge warning flag. A reason to keep 911 on speed dial.

Like I said, I give you and the Bible the same credence.
Here we have an advocate for Islamic arranged marriages demonstrating that children can consent to sex.
http://www.debate.org...
Skepticalone
Posts: 6,095
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/10/2014 9:21:46 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
http://www.debate.org...

The debate the conversation stems from is linked above.. If you're reading about it anyway, you might as well vote on it!!
This thread is like eavesdropping on a conversation in a mental asylum. - Bulproof

You can call your invisible friends whatever you like. - Desmac

What the hell kind of coked up sideshow has this thread turned into. - Casten
bornofgod
Posts: 11,322
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/10/2014 9:50:07 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/10/2014 9:16:06 AM, FaustianJustice wrote:
At 11/10/2014 9:08:48 AM, bornofgod wrote:
At 11/10/2014 9:00:28 AM, FaustianJustice wrote:
At 11/10/2014 8:56:51 AM, bornofgod wrote:
At 11/10/2014 8:53:30 AM, FaustianJustice wrote:
At 11/10/2014 8:48:43 AM, bornofgod wrote:
At 11/10/2014 8:46:27 AM, FaustianJustice wrote:
At 11/10/2014 8:44:42 AM, bornofgod wrote:
At 11/10/2014 8:42:16 AM, FaustianJustice wrote:

Peter, God doesn't use all numbers as literal numbers. That's why Christians are deceived when they try interpret the prophecies without possessing the knowledge of God like us saints do. If you read my written testimonies and listen to my spoken Word, you will learn exactly what those numbers mean. For example; The 1,000 year reign of Christ is now 2,000 years long but it will end in January when my body is killed. The 70 weeks prophecy in Daniel is the same thing as the 1,000 year reign of Christ.

42 months ( 1260 days ) is a literal number that us saints preach the gospel until we are killed by religious people who are antichrist. An antichrist is one who rejects the spoken Christ ( Word of God ).

o.o -.- o.o -.- O.O o.O?

Then how can you expect anyone to read or interpret the Bible for accuracy, without coming to you... which is the exact thing the Bible doesn't want to occur?

You are claiming special knowledge, all others will never know the truth, only you posses the truth. You don't see an inherent problem with that?

Don't you see an inherent problem with thousands of different interpretations by Christians who have no idea who God is?

We saints are God's vessels to testify to His knowledge, which is our created existence. If you reject our gospel ( voice of the Lord ) you will remain cursed by the illusions of this world that you believe as being real.

The Bible CANNOT speak.


It shouldn't have to. Jesus specifically said that no one approaches the father except through him, you are in short are not him. Your gospel is not required.

At the best, you are a false prophet, a huckster. At the worst, you are in need of medication and therapy.

If you keep reading the new testament that was produced by antichrists ( religious men who didn't know God ) and approved by the Vatican ( governing body that set up laws contrary to the Law of God that us saints speak ), you will be totally deceived by it.

Only us saints are qualified to read the scriptures for our Creator so He can interpret them. Since we are created as His voice, we're also His eyes and ears in the flesh.

Not one Christian has ever been used by God to testify to the invisible Word of God in writing and speaking. Christianity was started by antichrists who stole the writings and spoken words of the saints and mixed them with their religious beliefs and traditions such as the Jewish tradition of water baptism.

Therapy and meds it is, then.

Maybe that's what you need to understand the Truth. So far, you have been totally deceived of the Truth by reading the new testament that was approved by a bunch of men ( Vatican heathens ) who had no idea who God was.


I find you and the Bible as you describe it to be on equal footing, so no worries there.

What else do you fear in this world?

Spiders, big ones. If the pizza my friends order has pineapple on it. No beer being in the fridge. The rest of life, the big stuff, either don't have control over it, so have no reason to 'fear' it, or do have control over it, so I can fix it.

How many other voices have you heard calling you a saint? Next time God gives you a ring, put in a good word for me. And if you don't feel like doing that, at least tell the big man "He is still doing that thing...". Inside joke, don't worry, God will get it.

The lack of control is the most frightening part of this world but don't worry, our invisible Creator has planned to kill all the flesh in this world to end their delusion. Then His created people will awaken in new bodies and give us new illusions to experience. But in Paradise, we'll understand that everything we see is only an illusion that isn't real. We will learn the only one who is real is our Creator.

You know what you should do? Write all this down, some that in maybe like 2000 years, some folks can read it, and, like me, give it the credence it so richly deserves, and dupe the rest of the world.

It's much easier for religious people to believe in 2,000 year old writings than it is to believe the voice of the Lord that's speaking directly to them through the gospel of God's chosen saints.

If its 'through' some one, its not directly, is it? If said person also claims that the Bible is not the word of God, but only his (and maybe a few select others) voice and should be followed, its... well, how to say this.

Idiocy. A cult. Irrational. A scam. A huge warning flag. A reason to keep 911 on speed dial.

Like I said, I give you and the Bible the same credence.

I give you the knowledge of God but you're rejecting it.
PGA
Posts: 4,036
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/10/2014 8:33:50 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/7/2014, Skepticalone wrote:
At 11/7/2014, PGA wrote:

There is no objective evidence for the Christian god, Peter.

Sure there is. It requires a correct interpretation in understanding that evidence just like in any other evidence.

You acknowledge your evidence is subjective by qualifying it must be a correct interpretation. Objective evidence does not need interpretation. Ambiguous predictions are not evidence for god, buddy.

Don't be ridiculous Skepticalone. Evidence, whether subjective or objective, needs to be correctly interpreted to be understood. A piece of data from the past does not necessarily come stamped, "This fragment of a jawbone was from a dinosaur that lived 2.1007 million years ago."

I'm not being ridiculous. In your example, we would take measurements using radiometric dating. We don't have to guess the jawbone is 2.1007 million years old. These means of measurement can be validated by other scientists, and their results will closely match (within the margins of error for any given method). That is objective evidence, Peter. Since interpretation suggests different answers are possible, it is not appropriate to propose the dating of a jawbone needs interpretation. It needs interpretation the same way you need to interpret a tape measure when measuring a room - not at all.

It is only a poor analogy but in order to understand anything you have to understand it as it is, not by personal likes and dislikes or because popular opinion says it is so.

In the analogy you assume the present is the key to the past, that the rate of decay and all the other variables that are used and viewed in the present conform to what happened in the past.

Certain assumptions have to be made that comply with the evidence we do have available to determine its age and what it came from. The same is true of the Bible.

No, interpretation of the Bible is completely subjective, and not dependent on some special objective authority.

What you imply is that written language cannot be understood because there is no correct interpretation of words in sentences. If your boss said that he was going away for a while and while he was gone you, Skepticalone, were going experience trouble, you don't turn that into him speaking to someone else, yet this is exactly what you and so many others do with the text of the Olivet Discourse. He continues, "You'll know the signs of my return is short because of the opposition that it creates in the workplace, the backbiting and opposition to you because of me, but I'll put an end to this upon my return." You don't project his return 2000 years into the future, yet this is what you do with the Discourse. You ignore the language of address and the time elements completely.

If such an authority existed (and/or was concerned with a consistent understanding of the Bible), then theologians should agree on understanding. That is not the case.

The same could be said for all scientists on origins then, yet there have been many different interpretations as to the cause of the universe, the Big Bang being the current one. Some even say there was no cause. It just suddenly was. Not too long ago the Steady State Theory was popular. Thomas Kuhn, The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, discusses the changing nature of scientific paradigms.

With God as an objective being we can know truth. The problem is getting the Author's meaning from the text, not reading into it. The Author supplies the meaning.
FaustianJustice
Posts: 6,207
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/10/2014 10:31:31 PM
Posted: 2 years ago

Peter, God doesn't use all numbers as literal numbers. That's why Christians are deceived when they try interpret the prophecies without possessing the knowledge of God like us saints do. If you read my written testimonies and listen to my spoken Word, you will learn exactly what those numbers mean. For example; The 1,000 year reign of Christ is now 2,000 years long but it will end in January when my body is killed. The 70 weeks prophecy in Daniel is the same thing as the 1,000 year reign of Christ.

42 months ( 1260 days ) is a literal number that us saints preach the gospel until we are killed by religious people who are antichrist. An antichrist is one who rejects the spoken Christ ( Word of God ).

o.o -.- o.o -.- O.O o.O?

Then how can you expect anyone to read or interpret the Bible for accuracy, without coming to you... which is the exact thing the Bible doesn't want to occur?

You are claiming special knowledge, all others will never know the truth, only you posses the truth. You don't see an inherent problem with that?

Don't you see an inherent problem with thousands of different interpretations by Christians who have no idea who God is?

We saints are God's vessels to testify to His knowledge, which is our created existence. If you reject our gospel ( voice of the Lord ) you will remain cursed by the illusions of this world that you believe as being real.

The Bible CANNOT speak.


It shouldn't have to. Jesus specifically said that no one approaches the father except through him, you are in short are not him. Your gospel is not required.

At the best, you are a false prophet, a huckster. At the worst, you are in need of medication and therapy.

If you keep reading the new testament that was produced by antichrists ( religious men who didn't know God ) and approved by the Vatican ( governing body that set up laws contrary to the Law of God that us saints speak ), you will be totally deceived by it.

Only us saints are qualified to read the scriptures for our Creator so He can interpret them. Since we are created as His voice, we're also His eyes and ears in the flesh.

Not one Christian has ever been used by God to testify to the invisible Word of God in writing and speaking. Christianity was started by antichrists who stole the writings and spoken words of the saints and mixed them with their religious beliefs and traditions such as the Jewish tradition of water baptism.

Therapy and meds it is, then.

Maybe that's what you need to understand the Truth. So far, you have been totally deceived of the Truth by reading the new testament that was approved by a bunch of men ( Vatican heathens ) who had no idea who God was.


I find you and the Bible as you describe it to be on equal footing, so no worries there.

What else do you fear in this world?

Spiders, big ones. If the pizza my friends order has pineapple on it. No beer being in the fridge. The rest of life, the big stuff, either don't have control over it, so have no reason to 'fear' it, or do have control over it, so I can fix it.

How many other voices have you heard calling you a saint? Next time God gives you a ring, put in a good word for me. And if you don't feel like doing that, at least tell the big man "He is still doing that thing...". Inside joke, don't worry, God will get it.

The lack of control is the most frightening part of this world but don't worry, our invisible Creator has planned to kill all the flesh in this world to end their delusion. Then His created people will awaken in new bodies and give us new illusions to experience. But in Paradise, we'll understand that everything we see is only an illusion that isn't real. We will learn the only one who is real is our Creator.

You know what you should do? Write all this down, some that in maybe like 2000 years, some folks can read it, and, like me, give it the credence it so richly deserves, and dupe the rest of the world.

It's much easier for religious people to believe in 2,000 year old writings than it is to believe the voice of the Lord that's speaking directly to them through the gospel of God's chosen saints.

If its 'through' some one, its not directly, is it? If said person also claims that the Bible is not the word of God, but only his (and maybe a few select others) voice and should be followed, its... well, how to say this.

Idiocy. A cult. Irrational. A scam. A huge warning flag. A reason to keep 911 on speed dial.

Like I said, I give you and the Bible the same credence.

I give you the knowledge of God but you're rejecting it.

Because you have the same credence of the Bible, if not worse.
Here we have an advocate for Islamic arranged marriages demonstrating that children can consent to sex.
http://www.debate.org...
bornofgod
Posts: 11,322
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/10/2014 10:36:31 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/10/2014 10:31:31 PM, FaustianJustice wrote:

Peter, God doesn't use all numbers as literal numbers. That's why Christians are deceived when they try interpret the prophecies without possessing the knowledge of God like us saints do. If you read my written testimonies and listen to my spoken Word, you will learn exactly what those numbers mean. For example; The 1,000 year reign of Christ is now 2,000 years long but it will end in January when my body is killed. The 70 weeks prophecy in Daniel is the same thing as the 1,000 year reign of Christ.

42 months ( 1260 days ) is a literal number that us saints preach the gospel until we are killed by religious people who are antichrist. An antichrist is one who rejects the spoken Christ ( Word of God ).

o.o -.- o.o -.- O.O o.O?

Then how can you expect anyone to read or interpret the Bible for accuracy, without coming to you... which is the exact thing the Bible doesn't want to occur?

You are claiming special knowledge, all others will never know the truth, only you posses the truth. You don't see an inherent problem with that?

Don't you see an inherent problem with thousands of different interpretations by Christians who have no idea who God is?

We saints are God's vessels to testify to His knowledge, which is our created existence. If you reject our gospel ( voice of the Lord ) you will remain cursed by the illusions of this world that you believe as being real.

The Bible CANNOT speak.


It shouldn't have to. Jesus specifically said that no one approaches the father except through him, you are in short are not him. Your gospel is not required.

At the best, you are a false prophet, a huckster. At the worst, you are in need of medication and therapy.

If you keep reading the new testament that was produced by antichrists ( religious men who didn't know God ) and approved by the Vatican ( governing body that set up laws contrary to the Law of God that us saints speak ), you will be totally deceived by it.

Only us saints are qualified to read the scriptures for our Creator so He can interpret them. Since we are created as His voice, we're also His eyes and ears in the flesh.

Not one Christian has ever been used by God to testify to the invisible Word of God in writing and speaking. Christianity was started by antichrists who stole the writings and spoken words of the saints and mixed them with their religious beliefs and traditions such as the Jewish tradition of water baptism.

Therapy and meds it is, then.

Maybe that's what you need to understand the Truth. So far, you have been totally deceived of the Truth by reading the new testament that was approved by a bunch of men ( Vatican heathens ) who had no idea who God was.


I find you and the Bible as you describe it to be on equal footing, so no worries there.

What else do you fear in this world?

Spiders, big ones. If the pizza my friends order has pineapple on it. No beer being in the fridge. The rest of life, the big stuff, either don't have control over it, so have no reason to 'fear' it, or do have control over it, so I can fix it.

How many other voices have you heard calling you a saint? Next time God gives you a ring, put in a good word for me. And if you don't feel like doing that, at least tell the big man "He is still doing that thing...". Inside joke, don't worry, God will get it.

The lack of control is the most frightening part of this world but don't worry, our invisible Creator has planned to kill all the flesh in this world to end their delusion. Then His created people will awaken in new bodies and give us new illusions to experience. But in Paradise, we'll understand that everything we see is only an illusion that isn't real. We will learn the only one who is real is our Creator.

You know what you should do? Write all this down, some that in maybe like 2000 years, some folks can read it, and, like me, give it the credence it so richly deserves, and dupe the rest of the world.

It's much easier for religious people to believe in 2,000 year old writings than it is to believe the voice of the Lord that's speaking directly to them through the gospel of God's chosen saints.

If its 'through' some one, its not directly, is it? If said person also claims that the Bible is not the word of God, but only his (and maybe a few select others) voice and should be followed, its... well, how to say this.

Idiocy. A cult. Irrational. A scam. A huge warning flag. A reason to keep 911 on speed dial.

Like I said, I give you and the Bible the same credence.

I give you the knowledge of God but you're rejecting it.

Because you have the same credence of the Bible, if not worse.

That means you will never know the Truth before you die in this world.
PGA
Posts: 4,036
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/10/2014 10:59:25 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/8/2014 11:01:22 AM, PGA wrote:
At 11/8/2014 10:36:32 AM, Skepticalone wrote:
I don't believe any of it came true as predicted, Peter. I felt it was easier to concede that point and attack greater weaknesses in your assertions related to the second coming of Jesus.
Well then why do you concede that part of the text refers to the fall of Jerusalem in AD 70 and another part does not? And where do you divide the text in the Olivet Discourse from referring to the disciples to referring to someone else? What verse?
I'm fairly certain you already know the futurist interpretation. I don't divide any of it. I believe it was a failed prophecy.

Regardless of what you believe, it is what the text says that we are arguing over and since you claim the text separates Matthew 24:3 into the fall of Jerusalem and a way, way distant future I want to know where you believe this division takes place??? This is the position you have taken for the debate so I am asking you where this division takes place. Stick your neck out and tell me where. Let's see how such a position can be justified by you. It appears to be all smoke screens. You seem clueless in how to support your case in this instance.

And since you admit that part of it addresses Jerusalem in AD 70 then it must have been written before this event took place.

If you could have shown the return of Jesus happened in 70 AD (Revelation was fulfilled), then that would have been a crushing point to my argument.

Use some logic man.

I demonstrated this to you yet you ignore it.

Come on, Peter. Go re-read the debate. I addressed this point twice:

If Jesus were referring to 70 AD for the entire discourse, then we should see clear fulfillment of all the prophecies mentioned in Revelation 6 and Matthew 24 (war, death, famines, pestilence, earthquakes, etc.) during the Roman siege of Jerusalem. We do not. Accordingly, there are two options we must consider:

WE do see clear fulfillment but you barely touched my arguments on this, just swept it under the proverbial rug. I am going to address this again in my next post.

1. Jesus was wrong, or

2. My opponent"s interpretation of "this generation" is flawed.

Not at all. This generation means this generation, not that far distant generation. Your lack of argument on this point is pathetic. You are the one with a faulty interpretation of what "this generation" means. It means THIS GENERATION. You try to separate it from its context because you don't like the implications of what Jesus is saying.

You did not establish the prophecies literally happened - pick the option you like. Also, if you're planning on reverting to a figurative interpretation, then why did you even bother to address this argument from a literal perspective in the debate?

I did establish it. Jerusalem, as prophesied, was destroyed in AD 70. That is a fact. That is what was prophesied. "All these things" that were prophesied can be shown to have happened and the NT is full of the fulfillment of some of "theses things."

I established that Jesus was coming in the same way the Father came in the OT. I established that the end of the age referred to the Old Covenant Age, that Jesus said He would be with them until the end of the age in Matthew 28. You ignored this point to my recollection.

Matthew 16:27-28 said that some of those He was addressing would not die before they saw Him coming in His Father's glory with the angels. I pointed out to you that before He came the gospel would be preached in all the world and that the NT writers said it was preached in all the world, to every creature under heaven. Again you ignored the text by simply saying that it had not been preached in all the world as you understood the term.

An omnipotent god is supposed to be the one who inspired this verse, but you limit him/her/it by restricting the understanding to human knowledge. I mentioned that in the debate, also.

Quit trying to squirm out of what the verse says, Skepticalone, like you always do. Does it say that some who are standing here will not taste death before they saw His coming in His kingdom? It does.
Does it say that He would come in the Father's glory with the angels? It does. How did the Father come in the OT, how was He revealed? He was revealed in His judgment by cloud imagery in which a nation was used to bring this judgment to pass.

God intended His word to interpret itself, not someone to dream up a thousand different meanings for what He said. And what does the verse have to do with His omnipotence? What are you getting at?

Yet you ignored the relevant audience and how they would understand the term. The relevant audience was the one Jesus came to, an OT people. I took you back to the OT to show you that God was bringing judgment on this people for breaking the covenant. You ignored this because you ignored the relevant audience. I gave you various verses to prove this is who Jesus was referring to.

Again, I didn't ignore this. I pointed out the parables in Matthew 25 illustrated unbelieving Jews and Gentiles will face judgment when the second coming occurs.

You did.

I pointed out that the parables were spoken to this OT people in fulfillment of all that was written:

Psalm 78:2
I will open my mouth in a parable; I will utter dark sayings of old,


Ezekiel 17:2
"Son of man, propound a riddle and speak a parable to the house of Israel,


Matthew 13:35
This was to fulfill what was spoken through the prophet: "I will open My mouth in parables; I will utter things hidden since the foundation of the world."


What is more the same can be said for every NT book. Jesus is referencing Daniel 9:24-27 concerning the Abomination of Desolation and that is an OT curse. It was in fulfillment of an OT prophecy and promise. It was only when the people forsook God that He brought a nation against them in judgment. The fall of Jerusalem by the Babylonians is a case in point and in the last days (last days of the Old Covenant era) He did the same thing, this time by the Romans as His judgment tool.

Except the views I represented in the debate were those of other Christians, not atheists. For the most part, you're not attacking my representation of Christianity, you criticizing other believers, and that is off topic.

Regardless of who believes it the topic was that of Matthew 24, its address of a 1st century people and its fulfillment to this people, this generation. That is what we are arguing over, not what the popular opinion is but what the Scriptures says, what it reveals.

S-C-R-I-P-T-U-R-E - Matthew 24!

Peter
FaustianJustice
Posts: 6,207
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/10/2014 11:07:49 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/10/2014 10:36:31 PM, bornofgod wrote:
At 11/10/2014 10:31:31 PM, FaustianJustice wrote:

Peter, God doesn't use all numbers as literal numbers. That's why Christians are deceived when they try interpret the prophecies without possessing the knowledge of God like us saints do. If you read my written testimonies and listen to my spoken Word, you will learn exactly what those numbers mean. For example; The 1,000 year reign of Christ is now 2,000 years long but it will end in January when my body is killed. The 70 weeks prophecy in Daniel is the same thing as the 1,000 year reign of Christ.

42 months ( 1260 days ) is a literal number that us saints preach the gospel until we are killed by religious people who are antichrist. An antichrist is one who rejects the spoken Christ ( Word of God ).

o.o -.- o.o -.- O.O o.O?

Then how can you expect anyone to read or interpret the Bible for accuracy, without coming to you... which is the exact thing the Bible doesn't want to occur?

You are claiming special knowledge, all others will never know the truth, only you posses the truth. You don't see an inherent problem with that?

Don't you see an inherent problem with thousands of different interpretations by Christians who have no idea who God is?

We saints are God's vessels to testify to His knowledge, which is our created existence. If you reject our gospel ( voice of the Lord ) you will remain cursed by the illusions of this world that you believe as being real.

The Bible CANNOT speak.


It shouldn't have to. Jesus specifically said that no one approaches the father except through him, you are in short are not him. Your gospel is not required.

At the best, you are a false prophet, a huckster. At the worst, you are in need of medication and therapy.

If you keep reading the new testament that was produced by antichrists ( religious men who didn't know God ) and approved by the Vatican ( governing body that set up laws contrary to the Law of God that us saints speak ), you will be totally deceived by it.

Only us saints are qualified to read the scriptures for our Creator so He can interpret them. Since we are created as His voice, we're also His eyes and ears in the flesh.

Not one Christian has ever been used by God to testify to the invisible Word of God in writing and speaking. Christianity was started by antichrists who stole the writings and spoken words of the saints and mixed them with their religious beliefs and traditions such as the Jewish tradition of water baptism.

Therapy and meds it is, then.

Maybe that's what you need to understand the Truth. So far, you have been totally deceived of the Truth by reading the new testament that was approved by a bunch of men ( Vatican heathens ) who had no idea who God was.


I find you and the Bible as you describe it to be on equal footing, so no worries there.

What else do you fear in this world?

Spiders, big ones. If the pizza my friends order has pineapple on it. No beer being in the fridge. The rest of life, the big stuff, either don't have control over it, so have no reason to 'fear' it, or do have control over it, so I can fix it.

How many other voices have you heard calling you a saint? Next time God gives you a ring, put in a good word for me. And if you don't feel like doing that, at least tell the big man "He is still doing that thing...". Inside joke, don't worry, God will get it.

The lack of control is the most frightening part of this world but don't worry, our invisible Creator has planned to kill all the flesh in this world to end their delusion. Then His created people will awaken in new bodies and give us new illusions to experience. But in Paradise, we'll understand that everything we see is only an illusion that isn't real. We will learn the only one who is real is our Creator.

You know what you should do? Write all this down, some that in maybe like 2000 years, some folks can read it, and, like me, give it the credence it so richly deserves, and dupe the rest of the world.

It's much easier for religious people to believe in 2,000 year old writings than it is to believe the voice of the Lord that's speaking directly to them through the gospel of God's chosen saints.

If its 'through' some one, its not directly, is it? If said person also claims that the Bible is not the word of God, but only his (and maybe a few select others) voice and should be followed, its... well, how to say this.

Idiocy. A cult. Irrational. A scam. A huge warning flag. A reason to keep 911 on speed dial.

Like I said, I give you and the Bible the same credence.

I give you the knowledge of God but you're rejecting it.

Because you have the same credence of the Bible, if not worse.

That means you will never know the Truth before you die in this world.

I think I'll get by just fine with that.
Here we have an advocate for Islamic arranged marriages demonstrating that children can consent to sex.
http://www.debate.org...
Skepticalone
Posts: 6,095
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/11/2014 12:20:58 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/10/2014 8:33:50 PM, PGA wrote:
At 11/7/2014, Skepticalone wrote:
At 11/7/2014, PGA wrote:

There is no objective evidence for the Christian god, Peter.

Sure there is. It requires a correct interpretation in understanding that evidence just like in any other evidence.

You acknowledge your evidence is subjective by qualifying it must be a correct interpretation. Objective evidence does not need interpretation. Ambiguous predictions are not evidence for god, buddy.

Don't be ridiculous Skepticalone. Evidence, whether subjective or objective, needs to be correctly interpreted to be understood. A piece of data from the past does not necessarily come stamped, "This fragment of a jawbone was from a dinosaur that lived 2.1007 million years ago."

I'm not being ridiculous. In your example, we would take measurements using radiometric dating. We don't have to guess the jawbone is 2.1007 million years old. These means of measurement can be validated by other scientists, and their results will closely match (within the margins of error for any given method). That is objective evidence, Peter. Since interpretation suggests different answers are possible, it is not appropriate to propose the dating of a jawbone needs interpretation. It needs interpretation the same way you need to interpret a tape measure when measuring a room - not at all.

It is only a poor analogy but in order to understand anything you have to understand it as it is, not by personal likes and dislikes or because popular opinion says it is so.

I agree with you 100%. Popular opinion would be completely subjective. My analogy is not "popular" as the theory of evolution is not accepted by a majority here in America. Your refutation misses the mark. I do not accept the theory of evolution out of popular opinion.

In the analogy you assume the present is the key to the past, that the rate of decay and all the other variables that are used and viewed in the present conform to what happened in the past.

I have evidence to suggest materialism and the present is the key to the past. You have nothing to suggest the rate of decay or other variables have changed so drastically that we cannot compensate and that it would be invalid to use them to measure our reality.

Certain assumptions have to be made that comply with the evidence we do have available to determine its age and what it came from. The same is true of the Bible.

No, interpretation of the Bible is completely subjective, and not dependent on some special objective authority.

What you imply is that written language cannot be understood because there is no correct interpretation of words in sentences.

Oh no, that is not what I suggest at all, I submit the interpretation is completely dependent on the personal interpretations of the reader.That is subjective. Every reader does not understand the words in the exact same way.

If your boss said that he was going away for a while and while he was gone you, Skepticalone, were going experience trouble, you don't turn that into him speaking to someone else, yet this is exactly what you and so many others do with the text of the Olivet Discourse. He continues, "You'll know the signs of my return is short because of the opposition that it creates in the workplace, the backbiting and opposition to you because of me, but I'll put an end to this upon my return." You don't project his return 2000 years into the future, yet this is what you do with the Discourse. You ignore the language of address and the time elements completely.

First off, if my boss said anything of the sort, I would think he was nucking futs. Secondly, your example is a personal message that has no necessity to be passed on to others. Finally, the message of Jesus needed to be passed on to Gentiles, and could not be considered a message exclusively for the disciples.

If such an authority existed (and/or was concerned with a consistent understanding of the Bible), then theologians should agree on understanding. That is not the case.

The same could be said for all scientists on origins then, yet there have been many different interpretations as to the cause of the universe, the Big Bang being the current one. Some even say there was no cause. It just suddenly was. Not too long ago the Steady State Theory was popular. Thomas Kuhn, The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, discusses the changing nature of scientific paradigms.

No, the same could not be said for scientists. Granted there is not 100% agreement, but there is actually a consensus the Big Bang is the accepted theory currently. What is the consensus of Biblical scholars on the interpretation of the entire Bible?! More to the point, how many different interpretations are there for the Bible overall, considering all the different "understandings" of different passages? I bet you couldn't get 2 scholars who completely agree on the entire Bible. Period.

With God as an objective being we can know truth. The problem is getting the Author's meaning from the text, not reading into it. The Author supplies the meaning.

That is a big problem as illustrated by the dissonant opinions on the Bible.
This thread is like eavesdropping on a conversation in a mental asylum. - Bulproof

You can call your invisible friends whatever you like. - Desmac

What the hell kind of coked up sideshow has this thread turned into. - Casten
Skepticalone
Posts: 6,095
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/11/2014 1:03:17 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
Regardless of what you believe, it is what the text says that we are arguing over and since you claim the text separates Matthew 24:3 into the fall of Jerusalem and a way, way distant future I want to know where you believe this division takes place??? This is the position you have taken for the debate so I am asking you where this division takes place. Stick your neck out and tell me where. Let's see how such a position can be justified by you. It appears to be all smoke screens. You seem clueless in how to support your case in this instance.

I don't believe there is a division. I played devil's advocate for the most part since your resolution was directed at a futurist's position. Do you really expect me to continue playing devil's advocate outside of the debate?

If you could have shown the return of Jesus happened in 70 AD (Revelation was fulfilled), then that would have been a crushing point to my argument.

Use some logic man.

That is logic, Peter. If you could have shown the prophecies were completely fulfilled in 70 AD, then you would have destroyed my position. It is not possible to show the prophecies were literally and completely fulfilled in 70 AD, and that is the strength of the futurist's position.

WE do see clear fulfillment but you barely touched my arguments on this, just swept it under the proverbial rug. I am going to address this again in my next post.

No, you didn't. I have no idea what your links attest to since they pointed to no articles. Therefore, neither does the voter. That is a failure on your part. You made it easy for me.


Not at all. This generation means this generation, not that far distant generation. Your lack of argument on this point is pathetic. You are the one with a faulty interpretation of what "this generation" means. It means THIS GENERATION. You try to separate it from its context because you don't like the implications of what Jesus is saying.

Again, if you cannot show the prophecies literally happened (which you did not), then to insist they did makes a liar out of Jesus. You must support your assertion that the prophecy was fulfilled before you can absolutely claim Jesus meant any specific generation.


You did not establish the prophecies literally happened - pick the option you like. Also, if you're planning on reverting to a figurative interpretation, then why did you even bother to address this argument from a literal perspective in the debate?

I did establish it. Jerusalem, as prophesied, was destroyed in AD 70.

That is a fact. That is what was prophesied. "All these things" that were prophesied can be shown to have happened and the NT is full of the fulfillment of some of "theses things."

It must be all or none. If it is not all, the prophecy fails.

I established that Jesus was coming in the same way the Father came in the OT. I established that the end of the age referred to the Old Covenant Age, that Jesus said He would be with them until the end of the age in Matthew 28. You ignored this point to my recollection.

No, you provided a weak response to Acts 1:11. Jesus is to return in the same way in which he ascended: visibly.

An omnipotent god is supposed to be the one who inspired this verse, but you limit him/her/it by restricting the understanding to human knowledge. I mentioned that in the debate, also.

Quit trying to squirm out of what the verse says, Skepticalone, like you always do. Does it say that some who are standing here will not taste death before they saw His coming in His kingdom? It does.
Does it say that He would come in the Father's glory with the angels? It does. How did the Father come in the OT, how was He revealed? He was revealed in His judgment by cloud imagery in which a nation was used to bring this judgment to pass.

Acts 1:11

God intended His word to interpret itself, not someone to dream up a thousand different meanings for what He said. And what does the verse have to do with His omnipotence? What are you getting at?

An *omniscient* (not omnipotent) god knows the world consist of more than the Roman empire.

Again, I didn't ignore this. I pointed out the parables in Matthew 25 illustrated unbelieving Jews and Gentiles will face judgment when the second coming occurs.

You did.

Ok, when are the Gentiles going to be judged? Only at death? When are the Jews going to be judged? At death and 70 AD? What do you think the parables of Matthew 25 are suggesting?

What is more the same can be said for every NT book. Jesus is referencing Daniel 9:24-27 concerning the Abomination of Desolation and that is an OT curse. It was in fulfillment of an OT prophecy and promise. It was only when the people forsook God that He brought a nation against them in judgment. The fall of Jerusalem by the Babylonians is a case in point and in the last days (last days of the Old Covenant era) He did the same thing, this time by the Romans as His judgment tool.

Except the views I represented in the debate were those of other Christians, not atheists. For the most part, you're not attacking my representation of Christianity, you criticizing other believers, and that is off topic.

Regardless of who believes it the topic was that of Matthew 24, its address of a 1st century people and its fulfillment to this people, this generation. That is what we are arguing over, not what the popular opinion is but what the Scriptures says, what it reveals.

I addressed this in my response to one of your OPs. You want to argue with a futurist, which I am not.

S-C-R-I-P-T-U-R-E - Matthew 24!

Besides, the Bible does not speak, it must be interpreted. Preterist and/or futurist dogma is not scripture. Scripture is scripture, and interpretations (dogma) are subjective.

Peter
This thread is like eavesdropping on a conversation in a mental asylum. - Bulproof

You can call your invisible friends whatever you like. - Desmac

What the hell kind of coked up sideshow has this thread turned into. - Casten
annanicole
Posts: 19,785
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/11/2014 1:50:53 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/11/2014 1:03:17 AM, Skepticalone wrote:
Regardless of what you believe, it is what the text says that we are arguing over and since you claim the text separates Matthew 24:3 into the fall of Jerusalem and a way, way distant future I want to know where you believe this division takes place??? This is the position you have taken for the debate so I am asking you where this division takes place. Stick your neck out and tell me where. Let's see how such a position can be justified by you. It appears to be all smoke screens. You seem clueless in how to support your case in this instance.

I don't believe there is a division. I played devil's advocate for the most part since your resolution was directed at a futurist's position. Do you really expect me to continue playing devil's advocate outside of the debate?

If you could have shown the return of Jesus happened in 70 AD (Revelation was fulfilled), then that would have been a crushing point to my argument.

Use some logic man.

That is logic, Peter. If you could have shown the prophecies were completely fulfilled in 70 AD, then you would have destroyed my position. It is not possible to show the prophecies were literally and completely fulfilled in 70 AD, and that is the strength of the futurist's position.

WE do see clear fulfillment but you barely touched my arguments on this, just swept it under the proverbial rug. I am going to address this again in my next post.

No, you didn't. I have no idea what your links attest to since they pointed to no articles. Therefore, neither does the voter. That is a failure on your part. You made it easy for me.


Not at all. This generation means this generation, not that far distant generation. Your lack of argument on this point is pathetic. You are the one with a faulty interpretation of what "this generation" means. It means THIS GENERATION. You try to separate it from its context because you don't like the implications of what Jesus is saying.

Again, if you cannot show the prophecies literally happened (which you did not), then to insist they did makes a liar out of Jesus. You must support your assertion that the prophecy was fulfilled before you can absolutely claim Jesus meant any specific generation.


You did not establish the prophecies literally happened - pick the option you like. Also, if you're planning on reverting to a figurative interpretation, then why did you even bother to address this argument from a literal perspective in the debate?

I did establish it. Jerusalem, as prophesied, was destroyed in AD 70.

That is a fact. That is what was prophesied. "All these things" that were prophesied can be shown to have happened and the NT is full of the fulfillment of some of "theses things."

It must be all or none. If it is not all, the prophecy fails.

I established that Jesus was coming in the same way the Father came in the OT. I established that the end of the age referred to the Old Covenant Age, that Jesus said He would be with them until the end of the age in Matthew 28. You ignored this point to my recollection.

No, you provided a weak response to Acts 1:11. Jesus is to return in the same way in which he ascended: visibly.

An omnipotent god is supposed to be the one who inspired this verse, but you limit him/her/it by restricting the understanding to human knowledge. I mentioned that in the debate, also.

Quit trying to squirm out of what the verse says, Skepticalone, like you always do. Does it say that some who are standing here will not taste death before they saw His coming in His kingdom? It does.
Does it say that He would come in the Father's glory with the angels? It does. How did the Father come in the OT, how was He revealed? He was revealed in His judgment by cloud imagery in which a nation was used to bring this judgment to pass.

Acts 1:11

God intended His word to interpret itself, not someone to dream up a thousand different meanings for what He said. And what does the verse have to do with His omnipotence? What are you getting at?

An *omniscient* (not omnipotent) god knows the world consist of more than the Roman empire.

Again, I didn't ignore this. I pointed out the parables in Matthew 25 illustrated unbelieving Jews and Gentiles will face judgment when the second coming occurs.

You did.

Ok, when are the Gentiles going to be judged? Only at death? When are the Jews going to be judged? At death and 70 AD? What do you think the parables of Matthew 25 are suggesting?

What is more the same can be said for every NT book. Jesus is referencing Daniel 9:24-27 concerning the Abomination of Desolation and that is an OT curse. It was in fulfillment of an OT prophecy and promise. It was only when the people forsook God that He brought a nation against them in judgment. The fall of Jerusalem by the Babylonians is a case in point and in the last days (last days of the Old Covenant era) He did the same thing, this time by the Romans as His judgment tool.

Except the views I represented in the debate were those of other Christians, not atheists. For the most part, you're not attacking my representation of Christianity, you criticizing other believers, and that is off topic.

Regardless of who believes it the topic was that of Matthew 24, its address of a 1st century people and its fulfillment to this people, this generation. That is what we are arguing over, not what the popular opinion is but what the Scriptures says, what it reveals.

I addressed this in my response to one of your OPs. You want to argue with a futurist, which I am not.

S-C-R-I-P-T-U-R-E - Matthew 24!

Besides, the Bible does not speak, it must be interpreted. Preterist and/or futurist dogma is not scripture. Scripture is scripture, and interpretations (dogma) are subjective.

Peter

The division is at verse 35, or I should rather call it a "transition."

"Heaven and earth shall pass away, but my words shall not pass away."

I believe that Jesus initially used the phraseology "heaven and earth shall pass" both for emphasis and as a transition into the next statement:

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

Such a statement would hardly apply to the destruction of the city, since Jesus just gave a dozen signs that would lead right up to the destruction. If nothing else, Jesus knew from the OT prophesies when it would occur. Thus "that day and hour" refer right back to "heaven and earth shall pass away", i. e. the end of time.

The few succeeding verses most likely hearken back to the fall of the city, but then Jesus moves on to the time that "heaven and earth pass away."
Madcornishbiker: "No, I don't need a dictionary, I know how scripture uses words and that is all I need to now."
PGA
Posts: 4,036
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/11/2014 2:35:11 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/11/2014 12:20:58 AM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 11/10/2014 8:33:50 PM, PGA wrote:
At 11/7/2014, Skepticalone wrote:
At 11/7/2014, PGA wrote:

There is no objective evidence for the Christian god, Peter.

Sure there is. It requires a correct interpretation in understanding that evidence just like in any other evidence.

You acknowledge your evidence is subjective by qualifying it must be a correct interpretation. Objective evidence does not need interpretation. Ambiguous predictions are not evidence for god, buddy.

Don't be ridiculous Skepticalone. Evidence, whether subjective or objective, needs to be correctly interpreted to be understood. A piece of data from the past does not necessarily come stamped, "This fragment of a jawbone was from a dinosaur that lived 2.1007 million years ago."

I'm not being ridiculous. In your example, we would take measurements using radiometric dating. We don't have to guess the jawbone is 2.1007 million years old. These means of measurement can be validated by other scientists, and their results will closely match (within the margins of error for any given method). That is objective evidence, Peter. Since interpretation suggests different answers are possible, it is not appropriate to propose the dating of a jawbone needs interpretation. It needs interpretation the same way you need to interpret a tape measure when measuring a room - not at all.

It is only a poor analogy but in order to understand anything you have to understand it as it is, not by personal likes and dislikes or because popular opinion says it is so.

I agree with you 100%. Popular opinion would be completely subjective. My analogy is not "popular" as the theory of evolution is not accepted by a majority here in America. Your refutation misses the mark. I do not accept the theory of evolution out of popular opinion.

My analogy is concerned with properly addressing Matthew 24, not with evolution. I don't care about your belief in evolution for the purpose of this debate. I'm concerned with whether a proper interpretation can be made of Matthew 24 by reading from the Scriptures concerning the disciples questions in Matthew 24:3.

In the analogy you assume the present is the key to the past, that the rate of decay and all the other variables that are used and viewed in the present conform to what happened in the past.

I have evidence to suggest materialism and the present is the key to the past. You have nothing to suggest the rate of decay or other variables have changed so drastically that we cannot compensate and that it would be invalid to use them to measure our reality.

Sure you do, but it comes from a certain way of interpreting that evidence that you or nobody else was around to witness. You can only look at it from the present and try and piece it together accurately.

Certain assumptions have to be made that comply with the evidence we do have available to determine its age and what it came from. The same is true of the Bible.

No, interpretation of the Bible is completely subjective, and not dependent on some special objective authority.

What you imply is that written language cannot be understood because there is no correct interpretation of words in sentences.

Oh no, that is not what I suggest at all, I submit the interpretation is completely dependent on the personal interpretations of the reader.That is subjective. Every reader does not understand the words in the exact same way.

No, correct interpretation is dependent on the words of the text. You, in the context of Matthew 24 is speaking to Jesus' disciples, specifically the four as brought out further in reading the synoptic passage in Mark. That is what the text says. You are the one turning it into a generic rendering by reading something into the text that it does not say. Therefore you are not properly interpreting the text.

If your boss said that he was going away for a while and while he was gone you, Skepticalone, were going experience trouble, you don't turn that into him speaking to someone else, yet this is exactly what you and so many others do with the text of the Olivet Discourse. He continues, "You'll know the signs of my return is short because of the opposition that it creates in the workplace, the backbiting and opposition to you because of me, but I'll put an end to this upon my return." You don't project his return 2000 years into the future, yet this is what you do with the Discourse. You ignore the language of address and the time elements completely.

First off, if my boss said anything of the sort, I would think he was nucking futs. Secondly, your example is a personal message that has no necessity to be passed on to others. Finally, the message of Jesus needed to be passed on to Gentiles, and could not be considered a message exclusively for the disciples.

I never denied that God had purposed the Gentiles to be part of the kingdom, just that the passage in context throughout deals strictly with this first century Jewish generation and everything was to be fulfilled in this people and generation.

Luke 21:22
22 because these are days of vengeance, so that all things which are written will be fulfilled. 23 Woe to those who are pregnant and to those who are nursing babies in those days; for there will be great distress upon the land and wrath to this people; 24 and they will fall by the edge of the sword, and will be led captive into all the nations; and Jerusalem will be trampled under foot by the Gentiles until the times of the Gentiles are fulfilled.

What about all things that are written do you not understand?
What about this people do you not understand?
What about falling by the sword, not guns or some other means, do you not understand?

You don't understand it because you wrestle it from its context and provide your own personal meaning. You ignore totally what is said.

If such an authority existed (and/or was concerned with a consistent understanding of the Bible), then theologians should agree on understanding. That is not the case.

The same could be said for all scientists on origins then, yet there have been many different interpretations as to the cause of the universe, the Big Bang being the current one. Some even say there was no cause. It just suddenly was. Not too long ago the Steady State Theory was popular. Thomas Kuhn, The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, discusses the changing nature of scientific paradigms.

No, the same could not be said for scientists. Granted there is not 100% agreement, but there is actually a consensus the Big Bang is the accepted theory currently. What is the consensus of Biblical scholars on the interpretation of the entire Bible?! More to the point, how many different interpretations are there for the Bible overall, considering all the different "understandings" of different passages? I bet you couldn't get 2 scholars who completely agree on the entire Bible. Period.

Neither could you get two scientists who completely agree on the current acceptable theory as the way things actually happened. And the point of the debate was to determine whether the passage was addressing an OT people about things that must shortly come to pass and I have not seen you demonstrate it was not. Where does the division happen in Matthew 24?

With God as an objective being we can know truth. The problem is getting the Author's meaning from the text, not reading into it. The Author supplies the meaning.

That is a big problem as illustrated by the dissonant opinions on the Bible.

It's a problem because you deny the text its meaning.

Peter
PGA
Posts: 4,036
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/11/2014 2:59:41 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/11/2014 1:03:17 AM, Skepticalone wrote:
Regardless of what you believe, it is what the text says that we are arguing over and since you claim the text separates Matthew 24:3 into the fall of Jerusalem and a way, way distant future I want to know where you believe this division takes place??? This is the position you have taken for the debate so I am asking you where this division takes place. Stick your neck out and tell me where. Let's see how such a position can be justified by you. It appears to be all smoke screens. You seem clueless in how to support your case in this instance.

I don't believe there is a division. I played devil's advocate for the most part since your resolution was directed at a futurist's position. Do you really expect me to continue playing devil's advocate outside of the debate?

What I expected from you in the debate was to prove that Matthew 24 did not address a 1st century people about a fulfillment in AD 70. You did not do that. You admitted in the debate that part of the passage addressed the time of Jerusalem's desolation, but you also said that some of it concerned another people in another generation. Where does it say this? For the purpose of the debate separate the passages that speak of some other people in another generation. You could not do that.

If you could have shown the return of Jesus happened in 70 AD (Revelation was fulfilled), then that would have been a crushing point to my argument.

Use some logic man.

That is logic, Peter. If you could have shown the prophecies were completely fulfilled in 70 AD, then you would have destroyed my position. It is not possible to show the prophecies were literally and completely fulfilled in 70 AD, and that is the strength of the futurist's position.

I did. I provided the same Olivet Discourse as presented through Luke's writing and he said that all that was written would be fulfilled when Jerusalem was surrounded.
you did not exegete this passage and prove it referred to another time. The passage is clear that all that is written will be fulfilled.

I also quoted Mark 13:3-4 in which you ignored which said that "these things" of verse 3 included also included the signs in verse 4
3 As He was sitting on the Mount of Olives opposite the temple, Peter and James and John and Andrew were questioning Him privately, 4 "Tell us, when will these things be, and what will be the sign when all these things are going to be fulfilled?" 5 And Jesus began to say to them, "See to it that no one misleads you.

WE do see clear fulfillment but you barely touched my arguments on this, just swept it under the proverbial rug. I am going to address this again in my next post.

No, you didn't. I have no idea what your links attest to since they pointed to no articles. Therefore, neither does the voter. That is a failure on your part. You made it easy for me.

I provided the links in the commentary section since they did not take when I changed my format.

Not at all. This generation means this generation, not that far distant generation. Your lack of argument on this point is pathetic. You are the one with a faulty interpretation of what "this generation" means. It means THIS GENERATION. You try to separate it from its context because you don't like the implications of what Jesus is saying.

Again, if you cannot show the prophecies literally happened (which you did not), then to insist they did makes a liar out of Jesus. You must support your assertion that the prophecy was fulfilled before you can absolutely claim Jesus meant any specific generation.

Yes I can and did in my links. Space would not permit me to list them in detail so I provided links. Check out the commentary section and see for yourself.

You did not establish the prophecies literally happened - pick the option you like. Also, if you're planning on reverting to a figurative interpretation, then why did you even bother to address this argument from a literal perspective in the debate?

I did establish it. Jerusalem, as prophesied, was destroyed in AD 70.

That is a fact. That is what was prophesied. "All these things" that were prophesied can be shown to have happened and the NT is full of the fulfillment of some of "theses things."

It must be all or none. If it is not all, the prophecy fails.

Show me it was not. Again, I refer you to Luke 21:20-24 for starters. The words plainly state when.

I established that Jesus was coming in the same way the Father came in the OT. I established that the end of the age referred to the Old Covenant Age, that Jesus said He would be with them until the end of the age in Matthew 28. You ignored this point to my recollection.

No, you provided a weak response to Acts 1:11. Jesus is to return in the same way in which he ascended: visibly.

Where does it say visibly

An omnipotent god is supposed to be the one who inspired this verse, but you limit him/her/it by restricting the understanding to human knowledge. I mentioned that in the debate, also.

Quit trying to squirm out of what the verse says, Skepticalone, like you always do. Does it say that some who are standing here will not taste death before they saw His coming in His kingdom? It does.
Does it say that He would come in the Father's glory with the angels? It does. How did the Father come in the OT, how was He revealed? He was revealed in His judgment by cloud imagery in which a nation was used to bring this judgment to pass.

Acts 1:11

What about it

God intended His word to interpret itself, not someone to dream up a thousand different meanings for what He said. And what does the verse have to do with His omnipotence? What are you getting at?

An *omniscient* (not omnipotent) god knows the world consist of more than the Roman empire.

It was the world of Daniel 2:44, the fourth beast.

Again, I didn't ignore this. I pointed out the parables in Matthew 25 illustrated unbelieving Jews and Gentiles will face judgment when the second coming occurs.

You did.

Ok, when are the Gentiles going to be judged? Only at death? When are the Jews going to be judged? At death and 70 AD? What do you think the parables of Matthew 25 are suggesting?

A soon judgment of Israel and the gospel going out into the entire world they knew.

What is more the same can be said for every NT book. Jesus is referencing Daniel 9:24-27 concerning the Abomination of Desolation and that is an OT curse. It was in fulfillment of an OT prophecy and promise. It was only when the people forsook God that He brought a nation against them in judgment. The fall of Jerusalem by the Babylonians is a case in point and in the last days (last days of the Old Covenant era) He did the same thing, this time by the Romans as His judgment tool.

Except the views I represented in the debate were those of other Christians, not atheists. For the most part, you're not attacking my representation of Christianity, you criticizing other believers, and that is off topic.

Regardless of who believes it the topic was that of Matthew 24, its address of a 1st century people and its fulfillment to this people, this generation. That is what we are arguing over, not what the popular opinion is but what the Scriptures says, what it reveals.

I addressed this in my response to one of your OPs. You want to argue with a futurist, which I am not.

S-C-R-I-P-T-U-R-E - Matthew 24!

Besides, the Bible does not speak, it must be interpreted. Preterist and/or futurist dogma is not scripture. Scripture is scripture, and interpretations (dogma) are subjective.

The words speak to mankind but addressed a 1st century people.

Peter