Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
The Religious Significance of America
#21
Nah, I enjoy seeing you argue. Thing is, Ron's past debates generally went nowhere aside from him getting more stubborn and telling you your argument is wrong because the Bible and other fairy arguments said so while condemning you as an ignorant sinner. Thoughts aside from this are a mystery, and anything intellectual beyond his *faith* is a superstition (re: geology).

I dunno, when he went on a holy roller bible beating rant and called you a dumbass and ignorant sinner worthy of damnation when he clearly lost an argument some months ago.....I mean really?

------

America exports a strange blend of post modern degeneracy without religion, and super zionist fundie stuff. Talk about through the looking glass.
Reply
#22
G4U, do you always read with such total imagination? Nothing you said is even remotely true. I quote Scripture so no one can claim I am just expressing my own opinion, and then you accuse me of being an intolerant Bible-thumper. I guess what is hardest for you to accept is that there is actual truth that describes reality--it is not all relative and unknowable. Just because I am certain does not mean I am not scientific or open-minded. But I do know what I know, for sound and valid reasons.
Reply
#23
Ron,

What you do is take your rare hermeneutic and then when someone disagrees with it, you call us names.

Most theologians for example would see any mention of a land of eagles in the text as Rome because the eagle standards were on every Roman soldier's protective shield. Somehow, you think they are all obtuse because they don't see the USA in those passages.

How about those beheaded Christians in that post above, are you still supportive of the US foreign policy in Arabia? The religiously significant USA? What religion is the USA significant for? Islam, an ancient pagan variant?
Reply
#24
Palladin, you evidently didn't read what I wrote. I have tried to make it clear that the USA started out on a Christian track, that enabled God to use this country more than any other nation in modern times--but eventually Satan will succeed in fully hijacking it, just as he does his best to hijack all the churches (all, without exception), and the beast with "Lamb-like horns" will wind up speaking as the dragon, and commanding all the world to make an image to the first beast (of Rev. 13). I do not advocate any religion of the USA itself. That would be the essence of creature-worship, which is what the Mark of the Beast signifies. My emphasis has always been that we need to worship the Creator, NOT the creature. Even if the creature is the church or church institutions.

Your characterization of the Bible as virtually ending its relevance after 70 A.D. is scholarly unsound and in fact senseless. You directly contradict Jesus and the Apostles, such as Paul, who made the point that Christ is the Promised Seed of Abraham, so those who accept Christ are the true continuation of Israel, because Christ has always been the real point of Judaism. You need to read Romans 11, where for the whole chapter Paul addresses your false belief that the church supplants Israel. He says the church is "grafted" into Israel. Can you understand the difference?

In Matthew 24, Jesus gave warnings that applied to the fall of Jerusalem (in 70 A.D.), and also to the end of the world--see if you can honestly read the last verses of that chapter and not see that Jesus was talking about the end of the world, and events leading up to it--which we certainly have not yet seen in the world, but are heading toward. Why do you want to throw this away? God put it in the Bible because you need it. We all do.

God declared in Isaiah 42:8, 9 (NASB): "I am the Lord, that is My name; I will not give My glory to another, Nor My praise to graven images. Behold, the former things have come to pass, Now I declare new things; Before they spring forth I proclaim them to you." Palladin, do you believe in God?
Reply
#25
Ron,

Yea, I believe in God, Ron, but, thanks for your sincere concerns. If you don't agree with Ron's tiny minority view of interpretation, he accuses you of being an atheist. Goodness.
I don't say the bible ended relevance in 70AD, I say the predictions from the OT were fulfilled in 70 AD at least in inaugurated form.

Jesus said in Luke 21 in a context of judgement passages, "all prophecy has been fulfilled". He added, "these are the days of vengeance". Not in our future Ron, back then on the people who murdered Jesus. "In this generation", not in that one and a future one.



Jesus precluded the"repeat tribulation" theology in Matthew 21-24 and Luke 21.

Matthew 24:21 and Luke 21 preclude a double fulfillment. Just read it for yourself, then ignore it like I know you will because Ellen White is more meaningful than Jesus to you. I was that way, I read it years ago and thought, "Jesus can't mean THAT, that ain't what my preacher preaches".

Found out it was Jesus who had it right, my preacher was full of crap. He would agree now as he has finally seen it for what is says, too.

I know you believe in God Ron and I am happy to know it. Just open up your mind outside that narrow box you volunteered for when you assumed Ellen White had everything down accurately because she had a some errors in her theology, that's all. So did Peter, no one is perfect.
Reply
#26
Palladin, you continually show that in order to answer anything that I say, you have to build a straw man, with beliefs I have never held, and do not hold, and have on many occasions specifically refuted. You think you can call my beliefs narrow, personal views, despite the Scriptures I have cited that are explicitly clear on every point I have made. You claim that I cannot think beyond Ellen G. White--when I have never quoted her as proof of anything. In fact I do NOT believe everything she said or wrote was directly inspired. She herself insisted she was "a lesser light to lead men and women back to the greater light" (the Bible). The Bible is above EGW, she is not the final authority on the true interpretation of Scripture. I cannot say that all Seventh-day Adventists are clear on this point, but I am and have been for many years. But you won't remember I said this. You will go on addressing your straw man and pretending it is me.

By the way Palladin, if you do not believe that God can foretell the future, then you do not believe in God. Certainly not a God great enough to be worthy of worship. If you do not believe that God inspired accurate prophecies of the future and had them preserved in the Bible, then you do not believe in God, because this is something that a God worthy of worship would do.
Reply
#27
Ron,

I admit to being pretty incompetent with the English language, but, how on earth you could conclude from anything I've posted that I think God is not omniscient is bizarre.

Of course He is.

This disagreement on Matthew 21-24 is simply my view of that as a record of God's(Christ's) predictions from all over the Torah( which would be around 1500 BC) coming to fruition on the heads of 70 AD Jerusalem( which means God predicted it beforehand, right?) after they murdered Jesus whereas you see that passage( I think??) as that AND a future judgement on Jerusalem sometime out here in our future. Both views see God's omniscience, how you could arrive at your view of me is hard to figure out.

Your view is a tiny minority view Ron. The view that the USA is in any bible passage is only held by your church. Not even the dispensationalists believe that.

That doesn't mean it is wrong, the minority often can be right, but, it is a tiny % of the body of Christ. What do you guys make up of all believers? .02%? Seriously?

Back to Matthew 21-24/ Luke 21/Mark 13. How do you handle the passages where Jesus precluded a double fulfillment? He says this tribulation has never been before nor ever will be again. How do you guys fit that into your theology?
Reply
#28
Ron exhibits all the problems with protestant churches -- they all go off and come up with whatever they want and call it gospel. Also, telling people they do not believe in God because they don't fit your narrative of prophecy is asinine. You are clearly become senile, Ron.

I bet the Catholics don't think like this concerning the USA.
Reply
#29
Of course, G4U, Catholics don't like the interpretation that the second beast of Rev. 13 is the church-state union that will arise in America, because according to that same interpretation, the Papal-dominated church-state union in Europe is the first beast.

Palladin, the Great Tribulation that Jesus predicted in Matt. 24, etc., has not actually come yet. There are many prophecies that various generations have applied to their own time, because it gave them some comfort. But the final fulfillment is for the final generation, whichever generation that will be. For some time, the Apostles themselves believed the second coming of Christ was imminent. But eventually they came to recognize that there would be a delay. As the Apostle Paul put it:

Quote: Let no one in any way deceive you, for it [the day of the Lord's coming] will not come unless the apostasy comes first, and the man of lawlessness is revealed, the son of destruction, who opposes and exalts himself above every so-called god or object of worship, so that he takes his seat in the temple of God, displaying himself as being God. Do you not remember that while I was still with you, I was telling you these things? And you know what restrains him now, so that in his time he may be revealed. For the mystery of lawlessness is already at work; only he who now restrains will do so until he is taken out of the way. And then that lawless one will be revealed whom the Lord will slay with the breath of His mouth and bring to an end by the appearance of His coming; that is, the one whose coming is in accord with the activity of Satan, with all power and signs and false wonders, and with all the deception of wickedness for those who perish, because they did not receive the love of the truth so as to be saved. And for this reason God will send upon them a deluding influence so that they might believe what is false, in order that they all may be judged who did not believe the truth, but took pleasure in wickedness.
--2 Thessalonians 2:3-12; NASB

Note especially the words: "so that he takes his seat in the temple of God, displaying himself as being God." I have made this point before, but consider again this photo of the Pope (note the "Great White Throne," and the Cherubim on either side):

   
Reply
#30
Ron,

Jesus said repeatedly "all this will happen before THIS generation passes" .

Now I guess we're back to that comment, what do you suppose Jesus meant by that statement above?

Then let's deal with the statement where Jesus precluded a double fulfillment Matthew 24:21.

Can you just tell me what you people think Jesus meant by the statement above? Then, tell me what you think Jesus meant in Matthew 24:21 and the parallels in Luke 21 and Mark 13. Each records that passage.

Could you deal with these 2 specific questions for me?

Tait,

That is a major problem with some Protestant theology.

Much of the Protestant theology has become what I would call "pop" theology. It is not grounded in or has continuity with the OT Messianic paradigm as Jesus claimed to be out from and the fulfillment of. It makes the narrative a disjointed mishmash.
Reply
#31
I agree, Pat, and it leads to a religious or dogmatic egalitarianism that places everything on the same level -- that to me is highly destructive for the Church and Christianity in general. There comes a point when ritual and tradition die off and a sect merely becomes some cult or other lunacy.
Reply
#32
Palladin, we must remember to take things in context. That means you must take everything Jesus said in the context of verse 3 of Matthew 24: "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?'"

Do you see? Here the disciples were asking a twofold question. When would be the destruction of the Temple (v. 2), and when would be the end of the world? The disciples thought they would be the same. So Jesus answered both questions, and allowed time and the context of future fulfilling prophecy to make it clear which things related only to the conquest of Jerusalem and destruction of the temple in 70 A.D., and which would apply much later, to the end of the world at the Lord's coming, after the apostasy that Paul said must come first in 2 Thess. 2:3, 4 (which I quoted earlier). You have to be pretty determinedly closed-minded to see that much of the prophecy (explicitly v. 14) applies to the events leading up to the end of the world, while some verses (such as 16-20) had clear application to the seige of Jerusalem (and it was because Christians heeded this prophecy that they fled Jerusalem during the brief lifting of the seige that came about because of political concerns of the leader of the Roman armies. And note the words in verse 20: "But pray ye that your flight be not in the winter, neither on the sabbath day:" So it was clear that Jesus expected Christians to still be keeping the Sabbath in 70 A.D., and confirmed that it was important for them to keep the Sabbath.

But the verses that come after that clearly apply to the end of the world. Verses 30, 31 UNMISTAKABLY talks about the Second Coming of Christ: "And then shall appear the sign of the Son of man in heaven: and then shall all the tribes of the earth mourn, and they shall see the Son of man coming in the clouds of heaven with power and great glory. And he shall send his angels with a great sound of a trumpet, and they shall gather together his elect from the four winds, from one end of heaven to the other." So if you include this in the statement in the next chapter, verse 3, that "this generation will not pass away until all these things take place" you are obviously misapplying something. You are not correctly understanding what Jesus meant. It can be confusing, because Jesus was answering a two-part question, and some common sense is required to recognize what applies to one thing (the destruction of the temple in 70 A.D.) and what has a far future fulfillment. There is sufficient evidence present in the text to make this distinction. It is only the superficial reader who is unwilling to make the effort to take things in proper context, who will allow himself to be confused.

Remember again that the Apostle Peter gave this summation of all of Old Testament prophecy: "Of this salvation the prophets have inquired and searched carefully, who prophesied of the grace that would come to you, searching what, or what manner of time, the Spirit of Christ who was in them was indicating when He testified beforehand the sufferings of Christ and the glories that would follow. To them it was revealed that, not to themselves, but to us they were ministering the things which now have been reported to you through those who have preached the gospel to you by the Holy Spirit sent from heaven--things which angels desire to look into." (1 Peter 1:10-12; NKJV)

Please notice that Peter said Old Testament prophecy applies either to the First Advent of Christ (the sufferings of Christ) or to the Second Advent of Christ "the glories that would follow." Any professor who has ever told you anything different, that Old Testament prophecies terminated at 70 A.D., was not a sound Bible scholar, and contradicted what the Apostle Peter plainly said.

By the way, the interpretation of the prophecies of Daniel and Revelation that I have applied to the soon-coming church-state union in Europe, as a sort of revival of the old "Holy Roman Empire," is not an interpretation Seventh-day Adventists invented. THIS WAS THE UNIVERSAL INTERPRETATION OF ALL PROTESTANTS for several hundred years, from Wycliffe to Luther, to Wesley. It was not until the "modernist" apostasy in Protestantism that some scholars began thinking it was "smart" to depart from this historic teaching, thinking it was more politically correct to lay a theological foundation for rapproachment with Rome (after the thirty years war was over, and Protestants had grown complacent in their victory).
Reply
#33
Ron,

Nope, if you simply take the time to do 2 things this view is illogical.

1) Study ancient near eastern 2cd temple Judaism. There is NO end of the world Jewish theology Peter would have known of to ask Jesus about, Jews did not and do not look at the plan of YHWH like you do.

They only expected the renewal/restoration of Israel and somehow even though they couldn't understand how(because they could not imagine the Christ as He is and neither would we have) that would lead the "nations/Gentiles" to join them in worshiping YHWH.

The ancient Jews got that, they just didn't see how on earth God through the seed of Abraham could accomplish that because they realized how sinful they were. The Pharisee's give us a dislocated view of ancient Jews, they were a recent creation in Jesus' era, most Jews knew all too well how flawed they were.

2) Peter did NOT ask about "the end of the world" if we use a Greek lexicon. He asked when would these things happen Jesus had just warned of and when would the "end of the AGE" happen? The word there is AEON not KOSMOS and aeon means age or era, it does decidedly not mean "world", that word is KOSMOS and ancient Jews did not use that term for what you use it for anyway, there is no way an ancient Jew would have asked what you keep saying.

"The end of the age" Peter is asking about to him is PRE restoration of Israel and bringing in we Gentiles to worship YHWH. He wants to know when this occurs.


Jesus responds with Matthew 24 and repeatedly allows how it will all happen in that generation. Earlier, Jesus explains His 12 will not even have made it through little Israel preaching before this stuff happens(Matthew 10:23) and He says in Matthew 16:27-28 that some hearing His predictions will still be alive when all this happens.

THAT very passage is used by atheists to evangelize against belief in Christ because they assume what you do, that Jesus is discussing His physical return or "the end of the world" as you assume when He was NOT.

He was predicting the end of the old age and what would they observe, the destruction of the old temple and Jerusalem(which was an old, long promised disciplinary move by YHWH beginning in the Torah), the destruction of the era when God's agents were ethnic Israel only and the inauguration of the great Messianic banquet(Isaiah 25) when Jews and Gentiles alike would "come to Mt Zion and worship YHWH".
Reply
#34
Palladin, the end of the age was synonymous with the end of the world. How could anyone imagine anything different? As for what the Jews commonly understood, is God limited by what the Jews commonly understood?

How can you say that "There is NO end of the world Jewish theology Peter would have known of to ask Jesus about"? All Jewish males were taught to read Hebrew, so they could discuss the Scriptures in the synagogue every Sabbath. Peter would have read the prophecies of Daniel, and Zechariah, and Joel, etc. What about the ton of Old Testament prophecies that speak specifically of the end of the world? Either you are not reading the Bible at all, or you are not seeing what is written there.

As I mentioned before, the disciples thought that the end of the age/world would come when Jerusalem was conquered and the temple destroyed. That was why Jesus combined His answers. If He had told them the world would go on for another two thousand years, they would have been overwhelmed and discouraged.

And as for Peter, remember he is the one who said that the prophets of the Old Testament wrote either of the First Coming of Christ (the sufferings of Christ), or the Second Coming (the glories which would follow), in that passage I quoted already, 1 Peter 1:10-12.

These things are really very simple. Why do you have to try to make them sound complicated? Your confusion is not justified. You can only be confused if you resist the truth--not my truth, but the truth as it is plainly taught in Scripture, studied with sound scholarship. That means comparing all like passages, and allowing the plainer passages to explain the more obscure, perhaps idiomatic passages--and making sure that your interpretation of any passage is in harmony with all the rest of what the Bible teaches. The people may change, but there is only One God, and He never changes. "For I am the Lord, I do not change" (Malachi 3:6). "But know this first of all, that no prophecy of Scripture is a matter of one's own interpretation, for no prophecy was ever made by an act of human will, but men moved by the Holy Spirit spoke from God." (2 Peter 1:20, 21; NASB) This is why, as Peter also said, the prophets themselves were "searching what, or what manner of time, the Spirit of Christ who was in them was indicating" (1 Peter 1:11; NKJV).
Reply
#35
Ron,

Well then, let's get back to Matthew 24:21 where Jesus precludes the double fulfillment you preach.
Reply
#36
He does not in that statement preclude a double fulfillment. You are riding a one-verse hobbyhorse, and are refusing to accept any other interpretation than your superficial interpretation. When do you believe the "Great Tribulation" came? Jesus said it would be the worst tribulation in all of history. Can you not grasp that the final test that will come to all the world will be that Great Tribulation? As stated by Jesus in Revelation 3:10 (NKJV): "the hour of trial which shall come upon the whole world, to test those who dwell on the earth." Note this is not just trying circumstances that come to the land of Judah, or the ancient Roman Empire, or even to Europe and the Asian Pacific (as in the World Wars), but the "whole world." Consider the events portrayed in Revelation 13, when "no one may buy or sell except one who has the mark or the name of the beast, or the number of his name." (v. 17; NKJV) That means no one on all the earth. And what about the prophecy Jesus gave in Revelation 9:18 that one third of mankind would be killed during the final attack by the demon-led forces of the wicked? It was Jesus Christ Himself who gave these prophecies to John (see Rev. 1:1). Do you maintain that Jesus contradicted Himself? More likely it is you who misunderstand what He meant in Matt. 24:21. You are simply misapplying it, and not allowing Him to explain His own meaning.
Reply
#37
https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?se...ersion=KJV

Then explain to the reader here what that statement does mean and for the non bible reader, it is the end of a 3 chapter long Divine chewing out/judgement on 30 AD Jerusalem Jesus went out of His way to pronounce and the evangelists to record.

Let me have your interpretation of what He meant by that statement which concludes the biggest Divine judgement statement in the bible.

BTW, I am sticking with the synoptics on this discussion, the Revelation is historically difficult due to the genre, the synoptics are pretty straightforward.
Reply
#38
So you wish to discard any portion of the Bible that is inconvenient for you. Re-read my last post. I did tell you want Matthew 24:21 means, citing Scrptures that clearly are relevant. The persecution and scattering of the Christians in 70 A.D. in no way came close to the "Great Tribulation" inwhich all the world will be tested or tried, inwhich no one will be allowed to buy or sell unless they have the Mark of the Beast, and inwhich one-third of mankind will be killed. What is the problem here for you, Palladin? What isn't clear?
Reply
#39
SO, like America is part of the great tribulation or something?
Reply
#40
All the world, G4U. The reason why God will allow it, is because this is how the whole human race will be finally judged. In a sense, we judge ourselves, by the choice we make between worshiping the Creator, or exalting the authority of the creature as supreme. It is a contest between righteousness by faith in God, and faith in human righteousness, enforced by the intimidation of all the means government can muster. It is when every person on earth has made his or her final decision between faith in God and faith in human righteousness, that human probation closes, and Jesus throws down His censer and ends His mediatorial work as our High Priest, and declares the words recorded in Revelation 22:11 (NKJV): "He who is unjust, let him be unjust still; he who is filthy, let him be filthy still; he who is righteous, let him be righteous still; he who is holy, let him be holy still." Jesus can then change into His Kingly robes, and return to earth to gather together His faithful people from all ages.
Reply


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)