# You can't believe unless God let's you believe - Welder?



## TripleXBullies

Can you explain this a little bit, please? I was confused and curious when I first saw you mention this. I think it's especially a good topic for this particular forum. The scripture reference may (or may not) help.


----------



## centerpin fan

TripleXBullies said:


> Can you explain this a little bit, please?



I'm not Welder, but I can summarize:


----------



## TripleXBullies

Welder, are you directly referring to predestination and Calvinism?


----------



## ambush80

centerpin fan said:


> I'm not Welder, but I can summarize:



The Vessels of Wrath matter.  They are integral to God's sovereign plan.  This is the only logically consistent position to take given God's omniscience and omnipotence.


----------



## NCHillbilly

God loves you, but he set the default position to "Burn in Hades."


----------



## centerpin fan

ambush80 said:


> The Vessels of Wrath matter.  They are integral to God's sovereign plan.  This is the only logically consistent position to take given God's omniscience and omnipotence.



I disagree.


----------



## stringmusic

NCHillbilly said:


> God loves you, but he set the default position to "Burn in Hades."



The default position is not being in the presence of God if you so choose, He gives you exactly what you want. 

Not being in the presence of God is not going to be peaceful.


----------



## atlashunter

stringmusic said:


> The default position is not being in the presence of God if you so choose, He gives you exactly what you want.
> 
> Not being in the presence of God is not going to be peaceful.



Love me or burn in the fire I made for those who don't love me. It's your choice. ???


----------



## atlashunter

Oh and by the way, those who are roasting I created knowing they would roast.


----------



## red neck richie

atlashunter said:


> Oh and by the way, those who are roasting I created knowing they would roast.



Don't like rules Huh? Or perhaps they are not fair? Or perhaps you don't understand why they exist? I imagine to keep the peace you would have to have rules? Just watch nature its not always nice.


----------



## atlashunter

red neck richie said:


> Don't like rules Huh? Or perhaps they are not fair? Or perhaps you don't understand why they exist? I imagine to keep the peace you would have to have rules? Just watch nature its not always nice.



Yeah that makes sense. If your kids don't want to be in your presence just light them on fire. Gotta have some rules after all.


----------



## red neck richie

atlashunter said:


> Yeah that makes sense. If your kids don't want to be in your presence just light them on fire. Gotta have some rules after all.



No they are not lit on fire but there will be consequences for their actions. Spiritually as well as on earth.


----------



## red neck richie

I'm having this weird feeling of deja vu.


----------



## atlashunter

red neck richie said:


> No they are not lit on fire but there will be consequences for their actions. Spiritually as well as on earth.



You're right. Don't light them on fire. That would be horrible. Just cast them into a fire pit. Much better from a moral point of view.


----------



## welderguy

TripleXBullies said:


> Can you explain this a little bit, please? I was confused and curious when I first saw you mention this. I think it's especially a good topic for this particular forum. The scripture reference may (or may not) help.



Sure. In order to believe, a person must have faith. God is the giver of faith. Peter said " to those who have obtained like precious faith". If you look up the word "obtained" in Strong's, it denotes a "divine allotment". A passive receiving of it. One cannot just simply choose to have faith. Many that think they chose to believe do not realize that God first chose them to be a believer before the world began.(2Tim.1:9)

We know that no man can come to Jesus unless the Father draws him, right?
We also know if we love Him, it's because He first loved us.
We especially know that nothing can separate us from His love.


----------



## red neck richie

atlashunter said:


> You're right. Don't light them on fire. That would be horrible. Just cast them into a fire pit. Much better from a moral point of view.


I don't make the rules I just follow them. Condemn me for following the rules. Even though I don't condemn you for not. Do we have to do this free will argument again.


----------



## atlashunter

red neck richie said:


> I don't make the rules I just follow them. Condemn me for following the rules.



Nobody accused you of making those rules. You just stuck it out there trying to defend it. Any human being with a bit of decency should be glad there isn't a shred of evidence that book is anything more than ancient mythology. If I believed the Jewish victims of the holocaust were cast in an eternal lake of fire for rejecting Christ the last thing I would do is shrug my shoulders and say "dems da rules!".


----------



## bullethead

red neck richie said:


> I don't make the rules I just follow them. Condemn me for following the rules. Even though I don't condemn you for not. Do we have to do this free will argument again.



Priceless.
Don't forget about having the most handsome god too.  
And strongest.


----------



## red neck richie

bullethead said:


> Priceless.
> Don't forget about having the most handsome god too.
> And strongest.



Your so predictable. I couldn't believe it took you that long to respond. I was wondering where you were at.


----------



## red neck richie

atlashunter said:


> Nobody accused you of making those rules. You just stuck it out there trying to defend it. Any human being with a bit of decency should be glad there isn't a shred of evidence that book is anything more than ancient mythology. If I believed the Jewish victims of the holocaust were cast in an eternal lake of fire for rejecting Christ the last thing I would do is shrug my shoulders and say "dems da rules!".



Its not a matter of decency on a human level. and for you to bring up a psychotic human that killed jews in reference tells me we are not on the same page on this discussion.


----------



## red neck richie

I think the big disconnect here is you are talking about a humans being able to explain level and I am talking about a spiritual level.


----------



## ambush80

centerpin fan said:


> I disagree.



Yes, I know. But you've never clearly explained how you square it.


----------



## atlashunter

red neck richie said:


> Its not a matter of decency on a human level. and for you to bring up a psychotic human that killed jews in reference tells me we are not on the same page on this discussion.



Right. It's the human that killed six million Jews that is psychotic but not an all knowing all powerful being that creates tens of billions of people knowing they are destined to be cast into an eternal fire he created. All part of the divine plan right? You should have stopped a few posts back. Stop trying to defend the indefensible.


----------



## red neck richie

atlashunter said:


> Right. It's the human that killed six million Jews that is psychotic but not an all knowing all powerful being that creates tens of billions of people knowing they are destined to be cast into an eternal fire he created. All part of the divine plan right? You should have stopped a few posts back. Stop trying to defend the indefensible.



Just like spiritual jail for people that cant follow the law. Perhaps on earth as it is in heaven. If your intensions are truly for discussion why would you suggest I should have stopped?


----------



## atlashunter

red neck richie said:


> Just like spiritual jail for people that cant follow the law. Perhaps on earth as it is in heaven.


----------



## red neck richie

atlashunter said:


>



You just proved that your intensions weren't for discussion purpose. You showed your hand nice bluff though.


----------



## atlashunter

red neck richie said:


> You just proved that your intensions weren't for discussion purpose. You showed your hand nice bluff though.



This is a different thread. You come in here suggesting the people we are talking about deserve to burn forever be prepared to get looked at sideways. It's one thing to worship an evil monster out of fear. Quite another to sanction it as right or just.


----------



## red neck richie

atlashunter said:


> This is a different thread. You come in here suggesting the people we are talking about deserve to burn forever be prepared to get looked at sideways. It's one thing to worship an evil monster out of fear. Quite another to sanction it as right or just.



You are clueless. now I understand why you don't see things. Its not up to me to say who gets what. I am just discussing how  I see things. If you believe love , forgiveness and redemption isn't right or just you have no clue. Do you understand evil? No fear here dude straight up love.


----------



## atlashunter

red neck richie said:


> You are clueless. now I understand why you don't see things. Its not up to me to say who gets what. I am just discussing how  I see things. If you believe love , forgiveness and redemption isn't right or just you have no clue. Do you understand evil? No fear here dude straight up love.



Nothing loving about tossing holocaust victims into eternal fire as far as I can see. And anyone that has love for a being that would do that is .


----------



## bullethead

atlashunter said:


> Right. It's the human that killed six million Jews that is psychotic but not an all knowing all powerful being that creates tens of billions of people knowing they are destined to be cast into an eternal fire he created. All part of the divine plan right? You should have stopped a few posts back. Stop trying to defend the indefensible.



It is perfectly fine to drown 20 million people don't forget.


----------



## welderguy

bullethead said:


> It is perfectly fine to drown 20 million people don't forget.



Picture it like this.

 All those bodies of men, women , children, and animals floating around rotting and stinking, though horrible as it must have been, made a really nice piece of black velvet to display the diamond of grace, which was the ark.

Beautiful, if you ask me.


----------



## 660griz

welderguy said:


> Picture it like this.
> 
> All those bodies of men, women , children, and animals floating around rotting and stinking, though horrible as it must have been, made a really nice piece of black velvet to display the diamond of grace, which was the ark.
> 
> Beautiful, if you ask me.



Yikes!


----------



## welderguy

660griz said:


> Yikes!



So tell me, are you opposed to all forms of grace or only that which is said to come from God?


----------



## j_seph

welderguy said:


> Sure. In order to believe, a person must have faith. God is the giver of faith. Peter said " to those who have obtained like precious faith". If you look up the word "obtained" in Strong's, it denotes a "divine allotment". A passive receiving of it. One cannot just simply choose to have faith. Many that think they chose to believe do not realize that God first chose them to be a believer before the world began.(2Tim.1:9)
> 
> We know that no man can come to Jesus unless the Father draws him, right?
> We also know if we love Him, it's because He first loved us.
> We especially know that nothing can separate us from His love.


Romans 12:3


----------



## ambush80

welderguy said:


> Picture it like this.
> 
> All those bodies of men, women , children, and animals floating around rotting and stinking, though horrible as it must have been, made a really nice piece of black velvet to display the diamond of grace, which was the ark.
> 
> Beautiful, if you ask me.



That's a horrible and disgusting.  Your belief has filled your head with some sick thoughts.


----------



## WaltL1

660griz said:


> Yikes!


And in the next breath many Christians blame society for slowly but surely distancing themselves from this type of twisted thinking.

"Ok my 3rd grade boys and girls, note the beauty of the waterlogged, bloated, disfigured babies floating around. Let us rejoice together".


----------



## TripleXBullies

welderguy said:


> Sure. In order to believe, a person must have faith. God is the giver of faith. Peter said " to those who have obtained like precious faith". If you look up the word "obtained" in Strong's, it denotes a "divine allotment". A passive receiving of it. One cannot just simply choose to have faith. Many that think they chose to believe do not realize that God first chose them to be a believer before the world began.(2Tim.1:9)
> 
> We know that no man can come to Jesus unless the Father draws him, right?
> We also know if we love Him, it's because He first loved us.
> We especially know that nothing can separate us from His love.



Does this mean that he doesn't love those who he doesn't give faith to?


----------



## Artfuldodger

I would think so if they are the ones floating in bloated bodies past the Ark. 
I'm sure for the ones on the Ark, it was a beautiful picture.

Romans 12:3 confirms this.


----------



## 660griz

welderguy said:


> So tell me, are you opposed to all forms of grace or only that which is said to come from God?



Not sure I grasp what you are asking. 

I am not opposed to simple elegance.
I am not opposed to having someone honor or credit someone by their presence.

I don't believe in:
the free and unmerited favor of God, as manifested in the salvation of sinners and the bestowal of blessings.


----------



## SemperFiDawg

centerpin fan said:


> I'm not Welder, but I can summarize:



Awesome


----------



## ambush80

SemperFiDawg said:


> Awesome



Semperfi,

Who do you think the Vessels Of Wrath are?


----------



## SemperFiDawg

red neck richie said:


> No they are not lit on fire but there will be consequences for their actions. Spiritually as well as on earth.





Difference between maturity and immaturity.  Mature people make mature decisions realizing they are accountable for their actions.   Immature people blame others for the consequences of their own personal decisions.  Nothing new here.  Should not be surprising.


----------



## hobbs27

centerpin fan said:


> I'm not Welder, but I can summarize:



I've got a few of those.


----------



## SemperFiDawg

ambush80 said:


> Semperfi,
> 
> Who do you think the Vessels Of Wrath are?



I think you know my stance.


----------



## TripleXBullies

hobbs27 said:


> I've got a few of those.



Looks just like the memes from the atheist meme thread...... but this one is believer to believer...


----------



## welderguy

j_seph said:


> Romans 12:3



2 Thess.3:2


----------



## SemperFiDawg

stringmusic said:


> The default position is not being in the presence of God if you so choose, He gives you exactly what you want.
> 
> Not being in the presence of God is not going to be peaceful.





red neck richie said:


> You are clueless. now I understand why you don't see things. Its not up to me to say who gets what. I am just discussing how  I see things. If you believe love , forgiveness and redemption isn't right or just you have no clue. Do you understand evil? No fear here dude straight up love.



Brother you can't reason with people who are unreasonable.  They state that morals are relative but then condemn.  They hold there is no God, but judge as omniscient beings not realizing they are cutting off the branch on which they are perched.  Life for them is completely about the here and now, thus for them, this is the best it can ever get.


----------



## ambush80

hobbs27 said:


> I've got a few of those.




"But then spend hours trying to change your mind....."

......As it was written before time.  

That's the problem with made up stuff.  You can't ever confirm or disprove it.


----------



## atlashunter

SemperFiDawg said:


> Brother you can't reason with people who are unreasonable.  They state that morals are relative but then condemn.  They hold there is no God, but judge as omniscient beings not realizing they are cutting off the branch on which they are perched.  Life for them is completely about the here and now, thus for them, this is the best it can ever get.



We are all forming subjective judgments. Some of us consider throwing people into an eternal fire to be evil and some think it good.


----------



## welderguy

TripleXBullies said:


> Does this mean that he doesn't love those who he doesn't give faith to?



Correct. They will perish.


----------



## SemperFiDawg

atlashunter said:


> We are all forming subjective judgments. Some of us consider throwing people into an eternal fire to be evil and some think it good.


.  

While totally disregarding the fact that if morals are relative there is no objective basis for good and evil, hence their subjective judgements , in fact any moral judgement, are self contradictory.

All that aside, I would be willing to bet that most who agree with your above statement have absolutely no problem putting unrehabilitatable criminals  in prison for life so that you are free from their behavior.  That makes your point hypocritical based on special pleading.


----------



## bullethead

welderguy said:


> So tell me, are you opposed to all forms of grace or only that which is said to come from God?



First you need to provide a god, then we can talk about what it can provide.
You are acting like we know your god exists and deny it. We cannot talk about anything that you claim your god does before you can show it exists.
You have been absolutely stopped cold when the claims cease and it is time to back them up.


----------



## welderguy

bullethead said:


> First you need to provide a god, then we can talk about what it can provide.
> You are acting like we know your god exists and deny it. We cannot talk about anything that you claim your god does before you can show it exists.
> You have been absolutely stopped cold when the claims cease and it is time to back them up.



So, when someone shows you some random act of kindness (unmerited favor), do you suddenly get indignant and ridicule them because they did not do it for EVERYONE? Were they bound to do it for everyone?
Or do you graciously thank them and maybe try to return the favor in the future?


----------



## WaltL1

SemperFiDawg said:


> Brother you can't reason with people who are unreasonable.  They state that morals are relative but then condemn.  They hold there is no God, but judge as omniscient beings not realizing they are cutting off the branch on which they are perched.  Life for them is completely about the here and now, thus for them, this is the best it can ever get.


As suggested before, you should look up the definition of words before you use them.
If you did and assuming you understood the definitions,  your post would look very different.


----------



## bullethead

welderguy said:


> So, when someone shows you some random act of kindness (unmerited favor), do you suddenly get indignant and ridicule them because they did not do it for EVERYONE? Were they bound to do it for everyone?
> Or do you graciously thank them and maybe try to return the favor in the future?


I am respecful and polite. I am usually the one going out of my way to do the random act of kindness. I believe in paying it forward.


----------



## atlashunter

SemperFiDawg said:


> .
> 
> While totally disregarding the fact that if morals are relative there is no objective basis for good and evil, hence their subjective judgements , in fact any moral judgement, are self contradictory.
> 
> All that aside, I would be willing to bet that most who agree with your above statement have absolutely no problem putting unrehabilitatable criminals  in prison for life so that you are free from their behavior.  That makes your point hypocritical based on special pleading.



Nope. A prison term is a finite punishment for a finite crime. There is proportionality. Maybe you can explain what those Jewish murder victims did to deserve being roasted for any amount of time let alone an infinite period of time. Meanwhile the Christian Germans who murdered them can see the error of their ways and pray for forgiveness through Jesus just before being led to the gallows and they get everlasting paradise while their victims burn. This is the morality of the Christian religion.


----------



## WaltL1

SemperFiDawg said:


> .
> 
> While totally disregarding the fact that if morals are relative there is no objective basis for good and evil, hence their subjective judgements , in fact any moral judgement, are self contradictory.
> 
> All that aside, I would be willing to bet that most who agree with your above statement have absolutely no problem putting unrehabilitatable criminals  in prison for life so that you are free from their behavior.  That makes your point hypocritical based on special pleading.


Are you suggesting life in prison, where you can get an education, have visitors, get married, have a family, go to the commissary for your favorite snacks, make hooch, socialize, correspond etc etc.....
is comparable to eternal torment?


----------



## TripleXBullies

welderguy said:


> TripleXBullies said:
> 
> 
> 
> Does this mean that he doesn't love those who he doesn't give faith to?
> 
> 
> 
> Correct. They will perish.
Click to expand...


Wow... That's profound.

So would any denom of christians that don't believe in predestination be using faith other than the faith you speak of, thus not saved or loved by God?


----------



## TripleXBullies

welderguy said:


> So, when someone shows you some random act of kindness (unmerited favor), do you suddenly get indignant and ridicule them because they did not do it for EVERYONE? Were they bound to do it for everyone?
> Or do you graciously thank them and maybe try to return the favor in the future?



That started to make sense... but then you realize they are of limited power and ability.


----------



## NCHillbilly

SemperFiDawg said:


> .
> 
> While totally disregarding the fact that if morals are relative there is no objective basis for good and evil, hence their subjective judgements , in fact any moral judgement, are self contradictory.
> 
> All that aside, I would be willing to bet that most who agree with your above statement have absolutely no problem putting unrehabilitatable criminals  in prison for life so that you are free from their behavior.  That makes your point hypocritical based on special pleading.



So, someone maybe with good morals and always treating people right who lives his whole life helping his fellow man, but forgets to beg the Lord to save his soul before he dies is the same as an unrehabilitable criminal? Interesting mindset.

Also, I didn't create unrehabilitable criminals and install the criminal tendencies in them, and then punish them for acting like I designed them to.


----------



## 660griz

SemperFiDawg said:


> .
> 
> All that aside, I would be willing to bet that most who agree with your above statement have absolutely no problem putting unrehabilitatable criminals  in prison for life so that you are free from their behavior.  That makes your point hypocritical based on special pleading.



Not me. The death penalty would be my vote. 
However, I didn't create them. I don't love them. I do not claim to be a kind loving god. Even though I am not a kind, loving person towards hard core criminals. I would not sentence them to an eternity of  torture. 
Especially, if there only 'crime' is not believing or worshipping me.


----------



## welderguy

bullethead said:


> I am respecful and polite. I am usually the one going out of my way to do the random act of kindness. I believe in paying it forward.



Do you do those random acts of kindness to every single person in your power to do it ALL the time with no exceptions?


----------



## welderguy

TripleXBullies said:


> Wow... That's profound.
> 
> So would any denom of christians that don't believe in predestination be using faith other than the faith you speak of, thus not saved or loved by God?



God saves individuals, not denominations. There is only one faith that I am speaking of. It is given to every one of God's people. No exceptions.


----------



## welderguy

ambush80 said:


> Semperfi,
> 
> Who do you think the Vessels Of Wrath are?


----------



## bullethead

welderguy said:


> Do you do those random acts of kindness to every single person in your power to do it ALL the time with no exceptions?



Get to your point welder...


----------



## welderguy

welderguy said:


> Do you do those random acts of kindness to every single person in your power to do it ALL the time with no exceptions?



No you don't. You reserve to yourself the option to pick and choose who you are benevolent toward and who you pass over. But yet you hold the sovereign Creator to a different standard, saying He was wrong in only giving grace to certain ones. 
I know you are going to reply "well, I'm not the one drowning and torching people".
But my reply to that is you are not the one who created everything either.
God would have been perfectly just in torching His whole creation with no exceptions, but He chose to save some.  Why would He do that? That's the wonder of all wonders. Not, why did He choose to destroy.


----------



## atlashunter

welderguy said:


> God would have been perfectly just in torching His whole creation



Why?


----------



## TripleXBullies

welderguy said:


> God saves individuals, not denominations. There is only one faith that I am speaking of. It is given to every one of God's people. No exceptions.



One believes in God and that Jesus saved him from his sins, yet doesn't believe in this sort of predestination. In that case am I using a false faith or is the pred part a minor detail to the faith?


----------



## bullethead

welderguy said:


> No you don't. You reserve to yourself the option to pick and choose who you are benevolent toward and who you pass over. But yet you hold the sovereign Creator to a different standard, saying He was wrong in only giving grace to certain ones.
> I know you are going to reply "well, I'm not the one drowning and torching people".
> But my reply to that is you are not the one who created everything either.
> God would have been perfectly just in torching His whole creation with no exceptions, but He chose to save some.  Why would He do that? That's the wonder of all wonders. Not, why did He choose to destroy.


If you are comparing me to your god then it is the most intelligent thing that you have said in here.

If I was omniscient and omnipotent I wouldnt have to go back and correct my mistakes. Neither would your god.

He is perfectly incapable of existing.
You are giddy over a flood and body count that never happened.


----------



## centerpin fan

welderguy said:


> God would have been perfectly just in torching His whole creation with no exceptions, but He chose to save some.



Why are the people who believe this always certain that they are part of the "some"?


----------



## welderguy

atlashunter said:


> Why?



He's sovereign over His creation. He answers to no one. There is nothing that says He has to love anyone, much less everyone.


----------



## bullethead

welderguy said:


> He's sovereign over His creation. He answers to no one. There is nothing that says He has to love anyone, much less everyone.



And that is your source for morals?


----------



## welderguy

centerpin fan said:


> Why are the people who believe this always certain that they are part of the "some"?



Belief.
It's a powerful thing because it's not of man.


----------



## welderguy

bullethead said:


> And that is your source for morals?



He's working on me. I am a work in progress.


----------



## hobbs27

welderguy said:


> Belief.
> It's a powerful thing because it's not of man.



It's amazing,  isn't it,  that God started making people with belief in parts of the world He never had,  at the very time the Gospel was spreading to those places?


----------



## centerpin fan

welderguy said:


> He's working on me. I am a work in progress.



Maybe you're just an overly optimistic vessel of wrath.


----------



## welderguy

TripleXBullies said:


> One believes in God and that Jesus saved him from his sins, yet doesn't believe in this sort of predestination. In that case am I using a false faith or is the pred part a minor detail to the faith?



People in here always get bent over backwards when I say this, but faith does not rely on mental head knowledge about anything. It is strictly dependant upon spirit-knowledge.


----------



## ambush80

centerpin fan said:


> Maybe you're just an overly optimistic vessel of wrath.



Maybe I'm one of the elect.  Do you think God knows if I'll be saved or not or would He be surprised if I turned tomorrow?


----------



## welderguy

centerpin fan said:


> Maybe you're just an overly optimistic vessel of wrath.



Maybe. 
God knows.
Then I will keep believing until He tells me "depart, I never knew you".


----------



## bullethead

welderguy said:


> Maybe.
> God knows.
> Then I will keep believing until He tells me "depart, I never knew you".



More information supporting that your god is not all knowing.


----------



## centerpin fan

ambush80 said:


> Maybe I'm one of the elect.



You're elect in my book.


----------



## centerpin fan

welderguy said:


> Then I will keep believing until He tells me "depart, I never knew you".



Same here.


----------



## atlashunter

welderguy said:


> He's sovereign over His creation. He answers to no one. There is nothing that says He has to love anyone, much less everyone.



Being a dictator doesn't make one moral. And the suggestion that bringing a life into existence gives one the moral justification to subject that life to the greatest suffering possible for the greatest time possible is questionable to say the least. If that isn't evil then evil has no meaning.


----------



## atlashunter

welderguy said:


> People in here always get bent over backwards when I say this, but faith does not rely on mental head knowledge about anything. It is strictly dependant upon spirit-knowledge.



Fo sho'!


----------



## NCHillbilly

welderguy said:


> He's sovereign over His creation. He answers to no one. There is nothing that says He has to love anyone, much less everyone.



Then your God is not fit to worship, if he doesn't hold himself to the same standards that he holds his flawed creations to at the peril of burning in agony forever in H3ll. 

You have a very disturbing mindset. And many people of faith say that atheists have no morals?


----------



## WaltL1

NCHillbilly said:


> Then your God is not fit to worship, if he doesn't hold himself to the same standards that he holds his flawed creations to at the peril of burning in agony forever in H3ll.
> 
> You have a very disturbing mindset. And many people of faith say that atheists have no morals?


Bingo.
For me, it goes beyond whether the Christian God exists or not.
If he was standing in front of me right now I would certainly believe he exists.
The first question I would ask is "is everything they say about you true"?
If the answer was yes I would recommend that he not cancel my reservation in he11 just yet.


----------



## red neck richie

I don't know why you are all up in arms about the possibility of burning in he11? You don't even believe it exists so what's the big deal why are you worried? Oh its just for the sake of discussion right? You cant tell tone from text but it sure sounds like you guys are angry  about it.


----------



## atlashunter

NCHillbilly said:


> Then your God is not fit to worship, if he doesn't hold himself to the same standards that he holds his flawed creations to at the peril of burning in agony forever in H3ll.
> 
> You have a very disturbing mindset. And many people of faith say that atheists have no morals?



^This


----------



## bullethead

red neck richie said:


> I don't know why you are all up in arms about the possibility of burning in he11? You don't even believe it exists so what's the big deal why are you worried? Oh its just for the sake of discussion right? You cant tell tone from text but it sure sounds like you guys are angry  about it.



Jeepers stop yelling!


----------



## red neck richie

bullethead said:


> jeepers stop yelling!



 GOOD ONE ! :d


----------



## drippin' rock

All I see here is getting different denominations to agree is like trying to herd cats.


----------



## Artfuldodger

hobbs27 said:


> It's amazing,  isn't it,  that God started making people with belief in parts of the world He never had,  at the very time the Gospel was spreading to those places?



Then would you agree that before Paul, salvation wan't offered to the Gentiles? 

God's ability to call individuals from the South Pacific seems far more fair and less evil than those same individuals having to wait on a man to deliver the message.

Especially since "man" with the message didn't make it until decades later. There would be this big gap before man reached everyone with the message. With God calling, it's instantaneous.

So when one really thinks about it, God calling over man delivering is the more fair way. God also has the ability to elect an individual from say a Hindu nation. It would be hard for me  to change the mindset/indoctrination of a grown Hindu. Again with God, it would be instantaneous.


----------



## hobbs27

Artfuldodger said:


> Then would you agree that before Paul, salvation wan't offered to the Gentiles?
> 
> God's ability to call individuals from the South Pacific seems far more fair and less evil than those same individuals having to wait on a man to deliver the message.
> 
> Especially since "man" with the message didn't make it until decades later. There would be this big gap before man reached everyone with the message. With God calling, it's instantaneous.
> 
> So when one really thinks about it, God calling over man delivering is the more fair way. God also has the ability to elect an individual from say a Hindu nation. It would be hard for me  to change the mindset/indoctrination of a grown Hindu. Again with God, it would be instantaneous.



Is it your,  and the Calvinist position that a man could never hear of Jesus,  worship false gods his entire life,  and be one of God's elect? 

I just don't think the Gospel and Calvinism jive too well together.

Remember,  it wasn't even possible to deceive the elect.


----------



## Artfuldodger

hobbs27 said:


> Is it your,  and the Calvinist position that a man could never hear of Jesus,  worship false gods his entire life,  and be one of God's elect?
> 
> I just don't think the Gospel and Calvinism jive too well together.
> 
> Remember,  it wasn't even possible to deceive the elect.



No, my position is that if a man never heard of Jesus, worshiped false gods his entire life, he would not receive eternal life. 
On this we both agree. Where we differ is on what appears to be fair. If there is one dead soul that missed out on eternal life because of me, why is that a more fair way than God electing that one soul to eternal life? 

I don't have the power or resources to reach that one soul that died with never hearing the gospel. God does.

I can't see the logic that man's salvation is dependent upon another man as compared to dependent on God when it comes to reaching the masses.


----------



## Artfuldodger

hobbs27 said:


> Is it your,  and the Calvinist position that a man could never hear of Jesus,  worship false gods his entire life,  and be one of God's elect?
> 
> I just don't think the Gospel and Calvinism jive too well together.
> 
> Remember,  it wasn't even possible to deceive the elect.



I guess a variation of this would be that before Jesus came as man, there was many people that perhaps knew God but didn't know Jesus.
Unless they knew Jesus by knowing God by his creation.

Maybe to know God was to know the future Jesus. So let's consider the natives of Alaska and South America before Jesus died on a cross and Paul preached to the Gentiles.

You think it was fair for them to die and not receive eternal salvation because they never heard?  God had the power to tell them, not man. Man didn't even have the information yet much less the travel means to go to Alaska or South America.

But for some reason or logic, it's way more fair for man to reach the masses than for God to choose out of the masses whom he wants to have mercy on. 

When one first delves into the question of the OP, it does appear that the "spreading the gospel" way is more fair. But when you really think about it, God reaching whom he will is actually way, way, more fair.


----------



## hobbs27

Artfuldodger said:


> I guess a variation of this would be that before Jesus came as man, there was many people that perhaps knew God but didn't know Jesus.
> Unless they knew Jesus by knowing God by his creation.
> 
> Maybe to know God was to know the future Jesus. So let's consider the natives of Alaska and South America before Jesus died on a cross and Paul preached to the Gentiles.
> 
> You think it was fair for them to die and not receive eternal salvation because they never heard?  God had the power to tell them, not man. Man didn't even have the information yet much less the travel means to go to Alaska or South America.
> 
> But for some reason or logic, it's way more fair for man to reach the masses than for God to choose out of the masses whom he wants to have mercy on.
> 
> When one first delves into the question of the OP, it does appear that the "spreading the gospel" way is more fair. But when you really think about it, God reaching whom he will is actually way, way, more fair.



 I haven't seen an answer to what happened to those folks.  I know the dead ones.  were raised to judgment at the consummation of the new covenant, so eternal life was granted only after the Cross.   What happened to them after the New Covenant?  I don't know,  but I know it's a joy to spread the Gospel,  I don't think it's a chore,  but it's something God allows us to do.


----------



## WaltL1

red neck richie said:


> I don't know why you are all up in arms about the possibility of burning in he11? You don't even believe it exists so what's the big deal why are you worried? Oh its just for the sake of discussion right? You cant tell tone from text but it sure sounds like you guys are angry  about it.


Richie, I think you are missing the point of the posts.
If you go back and read them you will see they are NOT about being angry, being worried or being up in arms about the possibility of burning in he11.
Just as you said we don't even believe it exists so why we would we be angry/worried about it?
The posts ARE about why and what does it say about an omni-everything god and why he/she/it would feel the need to even have a he11.

By the way do some research, not just read scripture, about the concept of he11 in Christianity.


----------



## 660griz

welderguy said:


> Maybe.
> God knows.
> Then I will keep believing until He tells me "depart, I never knew you".



If he told me that I  would start believing. Well, told me anything. Yea, I know, I don't listen. My Dad use to say that too.


----------



## 660griz

Artfuldodger said:


> I can't see the logic that man's salvation is dependent upon another man as compared to dependent on God when it comes to reaching the masses.



That is pretty much what I have been saying all along. 
Forget the Bible and preachers, etc. God should make sure all know him. Aint that hard...for a God.


----------



## NCHillbilly

Artfuldodger said:


> I guess a variation of this would be that before Jesus came as man, there was many people that perhaps knew God but didn't know Jesus.
> Unless they knew Jesus by knowing God by his creation.
> 
> Maybe to know God was to know the future Jesus. So let's consider the natives of Alaska and South America before Jesus died on a cross and Paul preached to the Gentiles.
> 
> You think it was fair for them to die and not receive eternal salvation because they never heard?  God had the power to tell them, not man. Man didn't even have the information yet much less the travel means to go to Alaska or South America.
> 
> But for some reason or logic, it's way more fair for man to reach the masses than for God to choose out of the masses whom he wants to have mercy on.
> 
> When one first delves into the question of the OP, it does appear that the "spreading the gospel" way is more fair. But when you really think about it, God reaching whom he will is actually way, way, more fair.



All those natives in America had their own God, who they worshiped with as much or more sincerity as the European Christians who came later. 

The Cherokee chief, Yonaguska/Drowning Bear, was a smart and curious man. He once had someone read the Bible through and through to him. A white preacher asked him what he thought. He said that it seemed like a good book, but he was very surprised that the white men weren't a lot better after having had it and supposedly following it for so long. 

Who are we to say that the Gods worshiped by the native Americans weren't just another manifestation of the same power that the Christians worship?


----------



## 660griz

NCHillbilly said:


> A white preacher asked him what he thought. He said that it seemed like a good book, but he was very surprised that the white men weren't a lot better after having had it and supposedly following it for so long.



White preacher skipped some parts if he was surprised the white men weren't a lot better.


----------



## j_seph

NCHillbilly said:


> A white preacher asked him what he thought. He said that it seemed like a good book, but he was very surprised that the white men weren't a lot better after having had it and supposedly following it for so long.


Hence the problem, many read but few follow the word, especially word word. We all fall short.........................


----------



## ambush80

j_seph said:


> Hence the problem, many read but few follow the word, especially word word. We all fall short.........................




How do you feel about burning witches?


----------



## 660griz

j_seph said:


> Hence the problem, many read but few follow the word, especially word word. We all fall short.........................



Thankfully! 
"Six days work shall be done, but on the seventh day you shall have a Sabbath of solemn rest, holy to the Lord. Whoever does any work on it _shall be put to death_. "


----------



## hobbs27

660griz said:


> Thankfully!
> "Six days work shall be done, but on the seventh day you shall have a Sabbath of solemn rest, holy to the Lord. Whoever does any work on it _shall be put to death_. "



The law was a curse on Israel, thankfully grace has come!


----------



## WaltL1

hobbs27 said:


> The law was a curse on Israel, thankfully grace has come!


I'm curious, if you were to venture a guess, what percentage of the average or typical Christian belief/understanding does NOT coincide with what the Bible actually says?
For example, I'm guessing the average/typical Christian will tell you that you aren't supposed to work on Sunday 'cause the Bible says so.
And again I'm just asking for a guess.  Not going to debate or even really comment. I'm just wondering what your guess would be.


----------



## NCHillbilly

hobbs27 said:


> The law was a curse on Israel, thankfully grace has come!



Does that mean that we can now build unto us graven images, and bear false witness to our neighbors?


----------



## hobbs27

WaltL1 said:


> I'm curious, if you were to venture a guess, what percentage of the average or typical Christian belief/understanding does NOT coincide with what the Bible actually says?
> For example, I'm guessing the average/typical Christian will tell you that you aren't supposed to work on Sunday 'cause the Bible says so.
> And again I'm just asking for a guess.  Not going to debate or even really comment. I'm just wondering what your guess would be.



 In the way your question is worded,  I would have to say without a doubt 0% of beliefs Christians have today are Not in the Bible.  Most everyone has a verse or two to point to,  that supports their lunacy. 

The problem is,  how that verse may be applied.  Using your own example as an example. I agree most Christians would say we are not suppose to work on Sunday,  and they say this because of the fourth commandment. 

Problem there is,  the fourth commandment is specific for the Sabbath, which is on Saturday.  The very Christians that say they must follow the ten commandments and look down upon people working on Sunday  are in violation of the very commandment they claim to keep.  Also the Decalogue was given to the Jew at Mt.Sinai and  came to them in the old covenant,  it was a curse upon them,  not us.


----------



## hobbs27

NCHillbilly said:


> Does that mean that we can now build unto us graven images, and bear false witness to our neighbors?



Christians don't have to have the letter of the law to live righteously. True believing Christians,  that is.


----------



## atlashunter

If a man have a stubborn and rebellious son, which will not obey the voice of his father, or the voice of his mother, and that, when they have chastened him, will not hearken unto them: Then shall his father and his mother lay hold on him, and bring him out unto the elders of his city, and unto the gate of his place; And they shall say unto the elders of his city, This our son is stubborn and rebellious, he will not obey our voice; he is a glutton, and a drunkard. And all the men of his city shall stone him with stones, that he die: so shalt thou put evil away from among you; and all Israel shall hear, and fear. -- Deuteronomy 21:18-21


----------



## atlashunter

hobbs27 said:


> Christians don't have to have the letter of the law to live righteously. True believing Christians,  that is.



Just the other day you said they have to follow his commandments to have eternal life.


----------



## hobbs27

atlashunter said:


> If a man have a stubborn and rebellious son, which will not obey the voice of his father, or the voice of his mother, and that, when they have chastened him, will not hearken unto them: Then shall his father and his mother lay hold on him, and bring him out unto the elders of his city, and unto the gate of his place; And they shall say unto the elders of his city, This our son is stubborn and rebellious, he will not obey our voice; he is a glutton, and a drunkard. And all the men of his city shall stone him with stones, that he die: so shalt thou put evil away from among you; and all Israel shall hear, and fear. -- Deuteronomy 21:18-21



Now you know why Jesus coming to free Israel from the bondage of Law was  Good News!


----------



## atlashunter

hobbs27 said:


> Now you know why Jesus coming to free Israel from the bondage of Law was  Good News!



Bondage created by who?


----------



## hobbs27

atlashunter said:


> Just the other day you said they have to follow his commandments to have eternal life.



Not the Decalogue.. This  1John 4:21

And this commandment have we from him, That he who loveth God love his brother also.


----------



## atlashunter

It begs the question what is the "objective morality" of stoning disobedient children. Was it moral then? Is it moral now?


----------



## atlashunter

hobbs27 said:


> Not the Decalogue.. This  1John 4:21
> 
> And this commandment have we from him, That he who loveth God love his brother also.



How does that square with homosexuality?


----------



## atlashunter

So you have to follow his commandments, just not THOSE commandments.


----------



## Jack Ryan

God created man in his own image and gave him free will to choose.


----------



## hobbs27

atlashunter said:


> So you have to follow his commandments, just not THOSE commandments.



That's a topic all in its own.  I'm pointing to the verse and context of what I was talking about the other day.


----------



## hobbs27

atlashunter said:


> How does that square with homosexuality?



Different kind of love.  ?


----------



## atlashunter

Leviticus

26:14 But if ye will not hearken unto me, and will not do all these commandments;
26:15 And if ye shall despise my statutes, or if your soul abhor my judgments, so that ye will not do all my commandments, but that ye break my covenant:

26:28 Then I will walk contrary unto you also in fury; and I, even I, will chastise you seven times for your sins.
26:29 And ye shall eat the flesh of your sons, and the flesh of your daughters shall ye eat.


Follow my laws which are a curse on you or else I'll make you cannibalize your children.


----------



## WaltL1

hobbs27 said:


> In the way your question is worded,  I would have to say without a doubt 0% of beliefs Christians have today are Not in the Bible.  Most everyone has a verse or two to point to,  that supports their lunacy.
> 
> The problem is,  how that verse may be applied.  Using your own example as an example. I agree most Christians would say we are not suppose to work on Sunday,  and they say this because of the fourth commandment.
> 
> Problem there is,  the fourth commandment is specific for the Sabbath, which is on Saturday.  The very Christians that say they must follow the ten commandments and look down upon people working on Sunday  are in violation of the very commandment they claim to keep.  Also the Decalogue was given to the Jew at Mt.Sinai and  came to them in the old covenant,  it was a curse upon them,  not us.





> In the way your question is worded,


Yeah I was having trouble wording what I wanted to ask. Even as I was reading my question it didn't sound right.


> The problem is,  how that verse may be applied.


This helps though.
So let me reword my question -
If you were to guess, of the 8000 or so verses in the NT what percentage of those do you think get misapplied by the average Christian?
And I may not be asking a question that you can even venture a guess at so feel free to say so.


----------



## atlashunter

hobbs27 said:


> Different kind of love.  ?



I suppose the two aren't mutually exclusive.


----------



## hobbs27

WaltL1 said:


> Yeah I was having trouble wording what I wanted to ask. Even as I was reading my question it didn't sound right.
> 
> This helps though.
> So let me reword my question -
> If you were to guess, of the 8000 or so verses in the NT what percentage of those do you think get misapplied by the average Christian?
> And I may not be asking a question that you can even venture a guess at so feel free to say so.



 Yeah,  I'm not qualified to put a number on that,  but I honestly think I know what you're asking for,  so I'll give you my best. 

Every single denomination in Christianity is in error somewhere or the other.  Not a single one is 100 % correct. I'm even so convinced of this I will say that even I am very wrong on much of the Bible. I know I must be wrong on much of it now,  because I have through study already proven myself wrong on stuff I believed five years ago,  so continued study should correct some of what I believe now given 5 years from now. 

 I do think most true believing Christians have the basics and the gist of it though.  Christianity grew to be the world's largest religion before the Bible was even allowed in the hands of laymembers.


----------



## hobbs27

atlashunter said:


> I suppose the two aren't mutually exclusive.



Rev. 22:14 Blessed are those who do His commandments,that they may have the right to the tree of life, and may enter through the gates into the city. 15 But outside are dogs and sorcerers and sexually immoral and murderers and idolaters, and whoever loves and practices a lie.


----------



## WaltL1

hobbs27 said:


> Yeah,  I'm not qualified to put a number on that,  but I honestly think I know what you're asking for,  so I'll give you my best.
> 
> Every single denomination in Christianity is in error somewhere or the other.  Not a single one is 100 % correct. I'm even so convinced of this I will say that even I am very wrong on much of the Bible. I know I must be wrong on much of it now,  because I have through study already proven myself wrong on stuff I believed five years ago,  so continued study should correct spot of what I believe now give years from now.
> 
> 
> I do think most true believing Christians have the basics and the gist of it though.  Christianity grew to be the world's largest religion before the Bible was even allowed in the hands of laymembers.


That's a fair answer to a not so good question 
Thanks.


----------



## bullethead

Jack Ryan said:


> God created man in his own image and gave him free will to choose.



So god looks like a Neanderthal man? Which version of man? Aborigines man?


----------



## SemperFiDawg

atlashunter said:


> Nope. A prison term is a finite punishment for a finite crime. There is proportionality. Maybe you can explain what those Jewish murder victims did to deserve being roasted for any amount of time let alone an infinite period of time. Meanwhile the Christian Germans who murdered them can see the error of their ways and pray for forgiveness through Jesus just before being led to the gallows and they get everlasting paradise while their victims burn. This is the morality of the Christian religion.





> Nope. A prison term is a finite punishment for a finite crime.



If you hold that life is finite.  Then a life sentence is for all intents and purposes eternal.  For the individual it last as long as he exists.  



> Maybe you can explain what those Jewish murder victims did to deserve being roasted for any amount of time let alone an infinite period of time.



Sure.  As soon as you can justify it was wrong given relative morals.  As it stands your belief not only contradicts your justification for making ANY moral judgments but also cant justify any sense of justice. In other words, your high horse has no legs.


 My beliefs, on the other hand, state that they were absolutely wrong and those who perpetrated them will be judged by an OMNISCIENT judge.  



> Meanwhile the Christian Germans who murdered them



Nice ad hominem attack.  Either you are ignorant to the ideology that led to the genocide or you are being intellectually dishonest.  I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and drop a hint.  Nietzche was the one who most influenced Hitler with the concept of a super-human race.  Hitler toted copies of his writings in his backpack in WWI and gave copies to Mussolini.  



> This is the morality of the Christian religion



No sane person would believe this, but I encourage you to keep espousing it.  It completely exposes atheism for what it is.  It's also why one can't converse with most Atheist: a hatred of Christianity combined with a total disregard for truth.

And IF you want to hold to your ad hominem stance then apply it to
your belief system.  It's pretty safe to say that more innocents were killed in the 20th century alone as a direct result of Atheistic doctrine than were ever killed by the RCC during either the crusades or inquisitions and this is NOT downplaying injustices committed by the RCC which were inarguably in direct opposition to the teachings of Christ.  Maybe start with Stalin and his 50 million.


----------



## atlashunter

Aside from still being required to follow some but not all commandments are there any commandments which are now prohibited from being followed? If so which ones and why? Please include the relevant scriptural basis. I'm curious if this god would say "well thanks to my grace you weren't actually required to stone those disobedient kids, but good on ya for going the extra mile!".


----------



## SemperFiDawg

NCHillbilly said:


> So, someone maybe with good morals and always treating people right who lives his whole life helping his fellow man, but forgets to beg the Lord to save his soul before he dies is the same as an unrehabilitable criminal? Interesting mindset.
> 
> Also, I didn't create unrehabilitable criminals and install the criminal tendencies in them, and then punish them for acting like I designed them to.



You're missing the point.......both times.


----------



## SemperFiDawg

660griz said:


> Not me. The death penalty would be my vote.
> However, I didn't create them. I don't love them. I do not claim to be a kind loving god. Even though I am not a kind, loving person towards hard core criminals. I would not sentence them to an eternity of  torture.
> Especially, if there only 'crime' is not believing or worshipping me.



So who is guilty.  The criminal for committing the crime or the judge who hands down the sentence, because most of you are blaming the judge(which says a lot in itself).


----------



## bullethead

SemperFiDawg said:


> So who is guilty.  The criminal for committing the crime or the judge who hands down the sentence, because most of you are blaming the judge(which says a lot in itself).



You are ignoring all of the other titles other than judge.


----------



## hobbs27

atlashunter said:


> Aside from still being required to follow some but not all commandments are there any commandments which are now prohibited from being followed? If so which ones and why? Please include the relevant scriptural basis. I'm curious if this god would say "well thanks to my grace you weren't actually required to stone those disobedient kids, but good on ya for going the extra mile!".



Stoning required a charge go in front of the priests for conviction and judgment. So,  the entire priesthood is gone now,  even the Rabbinic Jew of today can't practice the Judaism that was practiced in the first century. 

And... 
https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Luke+6:37-42&version=NKJV


----------



## WaltL1

SemperFiDawg said:


> So who is guilty.  The criminal for committing the crime or the judge who hands down the sentence, because most of you are blaming the judge(which says a lot in itself).


In your example the judge did not create the criminal to be a criminal so of course its not his fault. He is just handing out the punishment that applies to the crime committed.

How many examples would you like us to cut & paste here where Christians tell us that God created you/me/whoever to be exactly what you/me/whoever are?
If you don't agree with that, go away, get with your fellow Christians, figure out who is right or wrong and then come back.

That's the difference and what you continually ignore.


> (which says a lot in itself)


----------



## atlashunter

hobbs27 said:


> Stoning required a charge go in front of the priests for conviction and judgment. So,  the entire priesthood is gone now,  even the Rabbinic Jew of today can't practice the Judaism that was practiced in the first century.
> 
> And...
> https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Luke+6:37-42&version=NKJV



This reminds me of the Muslim apologists who say ISIS isn't really following Shariah law when they throw homosexuals off of tall buildings because of some procedural detail they didn't follow. They completey ignore the morality of the act itself.


----------



## hobbs27

atlashunter said:


> This reminds me of the Muslim apologists who say ISIS isn't really following Shariah law when they throw homosexuals off of tall buildings because of some procedural detail they didn't follow. They completey ignore the morality of the act itself.



You've certainly got a wild imagination then.


----------



## atlashunter

SemperFiDawg said:


> If you hold that life is finite.  Then a life sentence is for all intents and purposes eternal.  For the individual it last as long as he exists.



I'll deal with the rest later but this made me chuckle. You're grasping at straws. One hundred percent of a finite quantity is not infinity.


----------



## red neck richie

WaltL1 said:


> Richie, I think you are missing the point of the posts.
> If you go back and read them you will see they are NOT about being angry, being worried or being up in arms about the possibility of burning in he11.
> Just as you said we don't even believe it exists so why we would we be angry/worried about it?
> The posts ARE about why and what does it say about an omni-everything god and why he/she/it would feel the need to even have a he11.
> 
> By the way do some research, not just read scripture, about the concept of he11 in Christianity.



Walt you know there must be law to maintain peace. Some people on this site think the punishment is too harsh. I say if you cant do the time don't do the crime. That being said there are ways to achieve forgiveness through GODS grace. Forgiveness for sin is possible and I promise you every Christian has asked for it.


----------



## atlashunter

red neck richie said:


> Walt you know there must be law to maintain peace.


----------



## bullethead

red neck richie said:


> Walt you know there must be law to maintain peace. Some people on this site think the punishment is too harsh. I say if you cant do the time don't do the crime. That being said there are ways to achieve forgiveness through GODS grace. Forgiveness for sin is possible and I promise you every Christian has asked for it.


Read your own Bible.


----------



## red neck richie

bullethead said:


> Read your own Bible.



You don't believe in forgiveness?  Ever heard of Dismas or Gestas ?


----------



## atlashunter

Lots of appeals to authority in defense of burning people. I guess when you can't appeal to justice or morality what else have you got?


----------



## red neck richie

atlashunter said:


> Lots of appeals to authority in defense of burning people. I guess when you can't appeal to justice or morality what else have you got?



Your justice and morality. Not GODS. If you cant stand the heat stay out of the kitchen.


----------



## atlashunter

red neck richie said:


> Your justice and morality. Not GODS. If you cant stand the heat stay out of the kitchen.



It's neither just nor moral and it's plain that the apologists recognize that. That's why the reliance on authoritarian arguments which are really nothing more than saying might makes right. It's an abandonment of moral reasoning and a retreat to authoritianism. Funny coming from people who somehow formed the moral judgment of gods goodness in the first place. Can't do that and in the next breath say "who are we to judge?" when confronted with the evil of your god.


----------



## red neck richie

atlashunter said:


> It's neither just nor moral and it's plain that the apologists recognize that. That's why the reliance on authoritarian arguments which are really nothing more than saying might makes right. It's an abandonment of moral reasoning and a retreat to authoritianism. Funny coming from people who somehow formed the moral judgment of gods goodness in the first place. Can't do that and in the next breath say "who are we to judge?" when confronted with the evil of your god.



Atlas you seem to have an issue with authority and rule's. Your not alone ask some moderators on this site about me. But I base everything on my own personal life experience's. I don't expect you to understand because you haven't witnessed it. I am a skeptical person by nature but my life experiences have led me to one conclusion.


----------



## bullethead

red neck richie said:


> Atlas you seem to have an issue with authority and rule's. Your not alone ask some moderators on this site about me. But I base everything on my own personal life experience's. I don't expect you to understand because you haven't witnessed it. I am a skeptical person by nature but my life experiences have led me to one conclusion.


There is no authority here. We are talking about a hypothetical god in a hypothetical realm and hypothetical rules.
We have to play along to discuss these hypothetical scenarios. In the process we try to add doses of reality to the ridiculousness.


----------



## WaltL1

red neck richie said:


> Walt you know there must be law to maintain peace. Some people on this site think the punishment is too harsh. I say if you cant do the time don't do the crime. That being said there are ways to achieve forgiveness through GODS grace. Forgiveness for sin is possible and I promise you every Christian has asked for it.





> Walt you know there must be law to maintain peace.


First - We have lots of laws. Prisons are overflowing with people who didn't follow them. Crime still exists. I'll gladly take you to some of my old stomping grounds and I guarandarntee the laws will not provide you with a  peaceful experience.
Second - Those overflowing jails are slap full of people claiming to be Christians.
Third - You are assuming people who don't believe in God are not peaceful.


> Some people on this site think the punishment is too harsh.


No moral, rational person believes eternal torment is justified just because someone doesn't believe in something that cant even be proven to exist.


> I say if you cant do the time don't do the crime


You don't believe in all the gods I don't believe in except one. Maybe we will be cellies.


> That being said there are ways to achieve forgiveness through GODS grace. Forgiveness for sin is possible and I promise you every Christian has asked for it.


If you don't want to do the time, don't do the crime.


----------



## red neck richie

bullethead said:


> There is no authority here. We are talking about a hypothetical god in a hypothetical realm and hypothetical rules.
> We have to play along to discuss these hypothetical scenarios. In the process we try to add doses of reality to the ridiculousness.



But of course you wouldn't see it any other way.


----------



## red neck richie

WaltL1 said:


> First - We have lots of laws. Prisons are overflowing with people who didn't follow them. Crime still exists. I'll gladly take you to some of my old stomping grounds and I guarandarntee the laws will not provide you with a  peaceful experience.
> Second - Those overflowing jails are slap full of people claiming to be Christians.
> Third - You are assuming people who don't believe in God are not peaceful.
> 
> No moral, rational person believes eternal torment is justified just because someone doesn't believe in something that cant even be proven to exist.
> 
> You don't believe in all the gods I don't believe in except one. Maybe we will be cellies.
> 
> If you don't want to do the time, don't do the crime.



Brother Walt I bet some of your old stomping grounds were similar to my old stomping grounds. Ive been in jail myself. Like I said I am a skeptic by nature but God touched me in a way there was no longer a doubt. Not only do I not want any spiritual torment but I am done with the earthly torment as well. Both are self inflected though.


----------



## WaltL1

red neck richie said:


> Brother Walt I bet some of your old stomping grounds were similar to my old stomping grounds. Ive been in jail myself. Like I said I am a skeptic by nature but God touched me in a way there was no longer a doubt. Not only do I not want any spiritual torment but I am done with the earthly torment as well. Both are self inflected though.


I have no doubt you weren't an angel your whole life.


> Like I said I am a skeptic by nature but God touched me in a way there was no longer a doubt.


I'm glad for you. Really I am. If belief in a god is what it took to make your life better, I'm glad that you believe.


> Not only do I not want any spiritual torment but I am done with the earthly torment as well. Both are self inflected though.


See my above comment.

So your life is better.
And my life is better.
Same thing accomplished just in different ways.


----------



## SemperFiDawg

atlashunter said:


> I'll deal with the rest later but this made me chuckle. You're grasping at straws. One hundred percent of a finite quantity is not infinity.



Congrats.  You somehow managed to dodge the question, miss the point and change the topic in one sentence.  You were in the process of explaining why your high horse has no legs.


----------



## SemperFiDawg

atlashunter said:


> Lots of appeals to authority in defense of burning people. I guess when you can't appeal to justice or morality what else have you got?



Not as bad as personally experiencing a sense of both (justice and morality), yet having a belief that can't even presuppose the concepts much less address them.  That would be your "missing legs"in case you still don't grasp it.


----------



## atlashunter

red neck richie said:


> Atlas you seem to have an issue with authority and rule's. Your not alone ask some moderators on this site about me. But I base everything on my own personal life experience's. I don't expect you to understand because you haven't witnessed it. I am a skeptical person by nature but my life experiences have led me to one conclusion.



A parent has authority over their child. That doesn't mean raping or torturing their child is a moral act. You're abandoning any moral argument because you can't produce one and instead resorting to might makes right. That dog won't hunt.


----------



## atlashunter

SemperFiDawg said:


> Sure.  As soon as...



There's no "as soon as". You either can provide a morally justified case for throwing jews into a lake of fire to burn forever, or you can't. The ball is still in your court. Either play ball or go home. We both know you can't which is why you want to dodge answering the question.




SemperFiDawg said:


> My beliefs, on the other hand, state that they were absolutely wrong and those who perpetrated them will be judged by an OMNISCIENT judge.



The request for justification was not for their murder but for the eternal torment that is supposedly waiting for them after the fact. You don't support their murder but you support them being cast in a lake of fire. Explain that one. 




SemperFiDawg said:


> Nice ad hominem attack.



An ad hominem would be an attack on the character of the person I'm talking to. Unless you're a German Christian who worked at a concentration camp the statement has nothing to do with you and if the shoe does fit it's still not an ad hominem. It would just be a statement of fact in that case. 




SemperFiDawg said:


> Either you are ignorant to the ideology that led to the genocide or you are being intellectually dishonest. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and drop a hint. Nietzche was the one who most influenced Hitler with the concept of a super-human race. Hitler toted copies of his writings in his backpack in WWI and gave copies to Mussolini.



Well leaving aside the fact that Hitler was a self professed christian there was actually another christian Nazi I had in mind and that is Rudolf Hoss. He was commander of Auschwitz and also a christian. Here is what he wrote in the days leading up to his death.



> Four days before he was executed, Höss acknowledged the enormity of his crimes in a message to the state prosecutor:
> 
> My conscience compels me to make the following declaration. In the solitude of my prison cell, I have come to the bitter recognition that I have sinned gravely against humanity. As Commandant of Auschwitz, I was responsible for carrying out part of the cruel plans of the 'Third Reich' for human destruction. In so doing I have inflicted terrible wounds on humanity. I caused unspeakable suffering for the Polish people in particular. I am to pay for this with my life. May the Lord God forgive one day what I have done.[27]
> 
> Shortly before his execution, Höss returned to the Catholic Church. On 10 April 1947, he received the sacrament of penance from Fr. WÅ‚adysÅ‚aw Lohn (pl), S.J., provincial of the Polish Province of the Society of Jesus. On the next day the same priest administered to him Holy Communion as Viaticum.[47]
> 
> In a farewell letter to his wife Höss wrote on April 11:
> 
> Based on my present knowledge I can see today clearly, severely and bitterly for me, that the entire ideology about the world in which I believed so firmly and unswervingly was based on completely wrong premises and had to absolutely collapse one day. And so my actions in the service of this ideology were completely wrong, even though I faithfully believed the idea was correct. Now it was very logical that strong doubts grew within me, and whether my turning away from my belief in God was based on completely wrong premises. It was a hard struggle. But I have again found my faith in my God.[27]
> 
> The same day in a farewell letter to his children Höss told his eldest son:
> 
> Keep your good heart. Become a person who lets himself be guided primarily by warmth and humanity. Learn to think and judge for yourself, responsibly. Don't accept everything without criticism and as absolutely true... The biggest mistake of my life was that I believed everything faithfully which came from the top, and I didn't dare to have the least bit of doubt about the truth of that which was presented to me. ... In all your undertakings, don't just let your mind speak, but listen above all to the voice in your heart.[27]



Now from what we are told all sins are washed away through Jesus sacrifice. I'm only aware of one unforgivable sin in the bible and it's not killing a bunch of jews. So under that theology this christian goes to heaven. The millions of jews whose death he oversaw that didn't believe Jesus was the messiah on the other hand get to burn. That's your religion. I didn't make the theology I'm just pointing out the implications.





SemperFiDawg said:


> a hatred of Christianity combined with a total disregard for truth.



Given the above discussion I think any hatred directed at christianity is probably well deserved. That said, I still wouldn't throw someone in a lake of fire for an eternity. Not even a christian or the monstrosity they worship. It's too bad they can't say the same. Now _that is some serious hatred._


----------



## WaltL1

SemperFiDawg said:


> Not as bad as personally experiencing a sense of both (justice and morality), yet having a belief that can't even presuppose the concepts much less address them.  That would be your "missing legs"in case you still don't grasp it.


Pssst...
Its pretty obvious you don't know what "relative morals" means and that's why you are making all these wacky claims.
Its making you and by association Christians, look really silly.


----------



## bullethead

red neck richie said:


> But of course you wouldn't see it any other way.



I absolutely and positively see it exactly how the evidence matches the claims. There is no other way. There is no reason to introduce what I want to be true because it doesn't change the truth. That does not work in any other aspect of life and it should not be expected to work here.


----------



## WaltL1

atlashunter said:


> There's no "as soon as". You either can provide a morally justified case for throwing jews into a lake of fire to burn forever, or you can't. The ball is still in your court. Either play ball or go home. We both know you can't which is why you want to dodge answering the question.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The request for justification was not for their murder but for the eternal torment that is supposedly waiting for them after the fact. You don't support their murder but you support them being cast in a lake of fire. Explain that one.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> An ad hominem would be an attack on the character of the person I'm talking to. Unless you're a German Christian who worked at a concentration camp the statement has nothing to do with you and if the shoe does fit it's still not an ad hominem. It would just be a statement of fact in that case.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well leaving aside the fact that Hitler was a self professed christian there was actually another christian Nazi I had in mind and that is Rudolf Hoss. He was commander of Auschwitz and also a christian. Here is what he wrote in the days leading up to his death.
> 
> 
> 
> Now from what we are told all sins are washed away through Jesus sacrifice. I'm only aware of one unforgivable sin in the bible and it's not killing a bunch of jews. So under that theology this christian goes to heaven. The millions of jews whose death he oversaw that didn't believe Jesus was the messiah on the other hand get to burn. That's your religion. I didn't make the theology I'm just pointing out the implications.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Given the above discussion I think any hatred directed at christianity is probably well deserved. That said, I still wouldn't throw someone in a lake of fire for an eternity. Not even a christian or the monstrosity they worship. It's too bad they can't say the same. Now _that is some serious hatred._





> Keep your good heart. Become a person who lets himself be guided primarily by warmth and humanity. Learn to think and judge for yourself, responsibly. Don't accept everything without criticism and as absolutely true... The biggest mistake of my life was that I believed everything faithfully which came from the top, and I didn't dare to have the least bit of doubt about the truth of that which was presented to me. ... In all your undertakings, don't just let your mind speak, but listen above all to the voice in your heart.


Good advice.
Too bad he couldn't figure that out earlier.


----------



## 660griz

hobbs27 said:


> Now you know why Jesus coming to free Israel from the bondage of Law was  Good News!



Jesus upheld the old testament.
The fact that so many say different is proof of the evolution of Christianity to fit in society. Good but, still.

The Law Stands

““For truly, I say to you, till heaven and earth pass away, not an iota, not a dot, will pass the law until all is accomplished. Whoever then relaxes one of the least of these commandments and teaches men so, shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven; but he who does them and teaches them shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.” — Matthew 5:18-19

““It is easier for Heaven and Earth to pass away than for the smallest part of the letter of the law to become invalid.” (Luke 16:17)

““Do not think that I have come to abolish the law or the prophets. I have come not to abolish but to fulfill. Amen, I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not the smallest part or the smallest part of a letter will pass from the law, until all things have taken place.” (Matthew 5:17)

““Did not Moses give you the law, and yet none of you keepeth the law” (John7:19)


----------



## 660griz

SemperFiDawg said:


> So who is guilty.  The criminal for committing the crime or the judge who hands down the sentence, because most of you are blaming the judge(which says a lot in itself).



No, not blaming the judge. Blaming the punishment.
Judges, (on earth) have max and minimum penalties they can hand out. These are supposed to be so the punishment fits the crime. 

In the case of God, judge and creation of punishment happen to be the same. 
Don't believe in me, eternal fire. 
Hmmm, doesn't seem to fit the crime.

However, it does fit the God who has a tendency to 'over react'.
A few bad eggs, kill everyone on earth.
A little 'debauchery' going on, burn the city and everything in it. And, the list goes on. 
You would think an all powerful God could just selectively 'cull' out the trouble makers with a wink of an eye. 
Nope, all or nothing.


----------



## hobbs27

660griz said:


> Jesus upheld the old testament.
> The fact that so many say different is proof of the evolution of Christianity to fit in society. Good but, still.
> 
> The Law Stands
> 
> ““For truly, I say to you, till heaven and earth pass away, not an iota, not a dot, will pass the law until all is accomplished. Whoever then relaxes one of the least of these commandments and teaches men so, shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven; but he who does them and teaches them shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.” — Matthew 5:18-19
> 
> ““It is easier for Heaven and Earth to pass away than for the smallest part of the letter of the law to become invalid.” (Luke 16:17)
> 
> ““Do not think that I have come to abolish the law or the prophets. I have come not to abolish but to fulfill. Amen, I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not the smallest part or the smallest part of a letter will pass from the law, until all things have taken place.” (Matthew 5:17)
> 
> ““Did not Moses give you the law, and yet none of you keepeth the law” (John7:19)



Heaven and Earth passed away.  

https://www.ecclesia.org/truth/heaven-earth.html


----------



## bullethead

hobbs27 said:


> Heaven and Earth passed away.
> 
> https://www.ecclesia.org/truth/heaven-earth.html



The religion of mataphors within the religion.


----------



## 660griz

hobbs27 said:


> Heaven and Earth passed away.
> 
> https://www.ecclesia.org/truth/heaven-earth.html



Wait. I quote the Bible and you quote, David Curtis?
What book of the Bible did he write?

Like I thought, scrambling to modernize the religion. 
Yall have done a pretty good job too. Now, help Islam out a little would ya?


----------



## hobbs27

bullethead said:


> The religion of mataphors within the religion.



With that logic one would conclude hieroglyphics are simply graffiti.


----------



## hobbs27

660griz said:


> Wait. I quote the Bible and you quote, David Curtis?
> What book of the Bible did he write?
> 
> Like I thought, scrambling to modernize the religion.
> Yall have done a pretty good job too. Now, help Islam out a little would ya?




 There is no helping Islam or Judaism,  they were both created out of the ashes from the destruction of heaven and earth. They deny the new heaven and earth. 



Hear, O heavens, and give ear, O earth: for the LORD hath spoken, I have nourished and brought up children, and they have rebelled against me.


----------



## bullethead

hobbs27 said:


> With that logic one would conclude hieroglyphics are simply graffiti.



Why do you constantly brag about the powers of your god when all you do is make excuses about how he compares to the ordinary? 
Logic would say that your god could write his own book.  Logic would dictate that it would be clear, concise, and incredibly easy to understand.


----------



## atlashunter

hobbs27 said:


> There is no helping Islam or Judaism,  they were both created out of the ashes from the destruction of heaven and earth. They deny the new heaven and earth.
> 
> 
> 
> Hear, O heavens, and give ear, O earth: for the LORD hath spoken, I have nourished and brought up children, and they have rebelled against me.



Must be why he gave Mohammed the final revelation.


----------



## atlashunter

You'd think folks would have noticed if this had already happened.



> Then I saw “a new heaven and a new earth,”[a] for the first heaven and the first earth had passed away, and there was no longer any sea. 2 I saw the Holy City, the new Jerusalem, coming down out of heaven from God, prepared as a bride beautifully dressed for her husband. 3 And I heard a loud voice from the throne saying, “Look! God’s dwelling place is now among the people, and he will dwell with them. They will be his people, and God himself will be with them and be their God. 4 ‘He will wipe every tear from their eyes. There will be no more death’* or mourning or crying or pain, for the old order of things has passed away.”
> 
> 5 He who was seated on the throne said, “I am making everything new!” Then he said, “Write this down, for these words are trustworthy and true.”
> 
> 6 He said to me: “It is done. I am the Alpha and the Omega, the Beginning and the End. To the thirsty I will give water without cost from the spring of the water of life. 7 Those who are victorious will inherit all this, and I will be their God and they will be my children. 8 But the cowardly, the unbelieving, the vile, the murderers, the sexually immoral, those who practice magic arts, the idolaters and all liars—they will be consigned to the fiery lake of burning sulfur. This is the second death.”*


----------



## atlashunter

Can someone please send me a picture of those streets of gold in the new Jerusalem?



> 9 One of the seven angels who had the seven bowls full of the seven last plagues came and said to me, “Come, I will show you the bride, the wife of the Lamb.” 10 And he carried me away in the Spirit to a mountain great and high, and showed me the Holy City, Jerusalem, coming down out of heaven from God. 11 It shone with the glory of God, and its brilliance was like that of a very precious jewel, like a jasper, clear as crystal. 12 It had a great, high wall with twelve gates, and with twelve angels at the gates. On the gates were written the names of the twelve tribes of Israel. 13 There were three gates on the east, three on the north, three on the south and three on the west. 14 The wall of the city had twelve foundations, and on them were the names of the twelve apostles of the Lamb.
> 
> 15 The angel who talked with me had a measuring rod of gold to measure the city, its gates and its walls. 16 The city was laid out like a square, as long as it was wide. He measured the city with the rod and found it to be 12,000 stadia[c] in length, and as wide and high as it is long. 17 The angel measured the wall using human measurement, and it was 144 cubits[d] thick.[e] 18 The wall was made of jasper, and the city of pure gold, as pure as glass. 19 The foundations of the city walls were decorated with every kind of precious stone. The first foundation was jasper, the second sapphire, the third agate, the fourth emerald, 20 the fifth onyx, the sixth ruby, the seventh chrysolite, the eighth beryl, the ninth topaz, the tenth turquoise, the eleventh jacinth, and the twelfth amethyst.[f] 21 The twelve gates were twelve pearls, each gate made of a single pearl. The great street of the city was of gold, as pure as transparent glass.


----------



## hobbs27

bullethead said:


> Why do you constantly brag about the powers of your god when all you do is make excuses about how he compares to the ordinary?
> Logic would say that your god could write his own book.  Logic would dictate that it would be clear, concise, and incredibly easy to understand.



The Almighty could write His own book.  He could write it in the sky in all languages,  He could reach down and slap you in the face and say,  " See,  I told you I'm real" . But that would make Him a liar,  which He is not.  

Hebrews 11:1King James Version (KJV)

11 Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen


Ephesians 2:8King James Version (KJV)

8 For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God:


So,  you demand the Almighty to make an exception for you,  because you will not have faith.


----------



## 660griz

hobbs27 said:


> The Almighty could write His own book.  He could write it in the sky in all languages,  He could reach down and slap you in the face and say,  " See,  I told you I'm real" . But that would make Him a liar,  which He is not.
> 
> Hebrews 11:1King James Version (KJV)
> 
> 11 Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen
> 
> 
> Ephesians 2:8King James Version (KJV)
> 
> 8 For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God:


Well, isn't that convenient. 



> So,  you demand the Almighty to make an exception for you,  because you will not have faith.



Doesn't prayer for the sick and injured do the same?
Make an exception for someone.


----------



## bullethead

hobbs27 said:


> The Almighty could write His own book.  He could write it in the sky in all languages,  He could reach down and slap you in the face and say,  " See,  I told you I'm real" . But that would make Him a liar,  which He is not.
> 
> Hebrews 11:1King James Version (KJV)
> 
> 11 Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen
> 
> 
> Ephesians 2:8King James Version (KJV)
> 
> 8 For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God:
> 
> 
> So,  you demand the Almighty to make an exception for you,  because you will not have faith.


I do not demand anything of the make believe. If it was real and capable it would have done it. Instead we have a book of excuses to cover for a god that does not exist as written by anonymous authors.


----------



## bullethead

660griz said:


> Well, isn't that convenient.
> 
> 
> 
> Doesn't prayer for the sick and injured do the same?
> Make an exception for someone.


Bingo


----------



## atlashunter

hobbs27 said:


> The Almighty could write His own book.  He could write it in the sky in all languages,  He could reach down and slap you in the face and say,  " See,  I told you I'm real" . But that would make Him a liar,  which He is not.
> 
> Hebrews 11:1King James Version (KJV)
> 
> 11 Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen
> 
> 
> Ephesians 2:8King James Version (KJV)
> 
> 8 For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God:
> 
> 
> So,  you demand the Almighty to make an exception for you,  because you will not have faith.



I guess he's a liar after all. 

10 Don’t you believe that I am in the Father, and that the Father is in me? The words I say to you I do not speak on my own authority. Rather, it is the Father, living in me, who is doing his work. 11 Believe me when I say that I am in the Father and the Father is in me; or at least believe on the evidence of the works themselves


----------



## bullethead

atlashunter said:


> I guess he's a liar after all.
> 
> 10 Don’t you believe that I am in the Father, and that the Father is in me? The words I say to you I do not speak on my own authority. Rather, it is the Father, living in me, who is doing his work. 11 Believe me when I say that I am in the Father and the Father is in me; or at least believe on the evidence of the works themselves



It is a book that contains the most circular figure eight talk ever written.


----------



## hobbs27

atlashunter said:


> I guess he's a liar after all.
> 
> 10 Don’t you believe that I am in the Father, and that the Father is in me? The words I say to you I do not speak on my own authority. Rather, it is the Father, living in me, who is doing his work. 11 Believe me when I say that I am in the Father and the Father is in me; or at least believe on the evidence of the works themselves




Some folks want to live in this period. 



14 But Peter, standing up with the eleven, raised his voice and said to them, “Men of Judea and all who dwell in Jerusalem, let this be known to you, and heed my words. 15 For these are not drunk, as you suppose, since it is only the third hour of the day. 16 But this is what was spoken by the prophet Joel:

17 ‘And it shall come to pass in the last days, says God,
That I will pour out of My Spirit on all flesh;
Your sons and your daughters shall prophesy,
Your young men shall see visions,
Your old men shall dream dreams.
18 And on My menservants and on My maidservants
I will pour out My Spirit in those days;
And they shall prophesy.
19 I will show wonders in heaven above
And signs in the earth beneath:
Blood and fire and vapor of smoke.
20 The sun shall be turned into darkness,
And the moon into blood,
Before the coming of the great and awesome day of the Lord.
21 And it shall come to pass
That whoever calls on the name of the Lord
Shall be saved.’*
22 “Men of Israel, hear these words: Jesus of Nazareth, a Man attested by God to you by miracles, wonders, and signs which God did through Him in your midst, as you yourselves also know—


But the churches matured and those things have ceased. 




8 Love never fails. But whether there are prophecies, they will fail; whether there are tongues, they will cease; whether there is knowledge, it will vanish away. 9 For we know in part and we prophesy in part. 10 But when that which is perfect has come, then that which is in part will be done away.

11 When I was a child, I spoke as a child, I understood as a child, I thought as a child; but when I became a man, I put away childish things. 12 For now we see in a mirror, dimly, but then face to face. Now I know in part, but then I shall know just as I also am known*


----------



## atlashunter

If he said believe in the works themselves and you're saying that isn't faith based on the definition you cited then how can they be saved. Either Jesus (according to whoever wrote John) is wrong or you are. And all it would take is a single work to convince all of humanity for the rest of time. He's already shown a willingness to get people to believe with works according to that scripture. Either this guy is incapable, unwilling, or these stories are myths and the guy doesn't exist. I know which of those I find more likely to be the case.


----------



## hobbs27

atlashunter said:


> If he said believe in the works themselves and you're saying that isn't faith based on the definition you cited then how can they be saved. Either Jesus (according to whoever wrote John) is wrong or you are. And all it would take is a single work to convince all of humanity for the rest of time. He's already shown a willingness to get people to believe with works according to that scripture. Either this guy is incapable, unwilling, or these stories are myths and the guy doesn't exist. I know which of those I find more likely to be the case.




 All it would take is a single work... What,  for every Generation in every country,  in every culture? 

 But then faith would not be required.. Right? 

As for doing the works in John, that was for the disciples,  I don't believe for a second the gifts of the spirit lasted past the first century.


----------



## atlashunter

hobbs27 said:


> All it would take is a single work... What,  for every Generation in every country,  in every culture?
> 
> But then faith would not be required.. Right?
> 
> As for doing the works in John, that was for the disciples,  I don't believe for a second the gifts of the spirit lasted past the first century.



Yep, for every generation in every country and culture. I can think of a scenario that would leave no room for doubt. And I'm a mere mortal with limits. A god of the sort advertised I'm sure could do even better.

Faith is not a virtue. Faith is an appeal to credulity and the excuse given to believe that which lacks sufficient evidence to support belief. It leads man to all manner of fallacies. The appeal to faith in the Christian religion demonstrates the weakness of its claims. So does the bribery of heaven and the threat of torture to get people to believe.


----------



## WaltL1

hobbs27 said:


> All it would take is a single work... What,  for every Generation in every country,  in every culture?
> 
> But then faith would not be required.. Right?
> 
> As for doing the works in John, that was for the disciples,  I don't believe for a second the gifts of the spirit lasted past the first century.


Or......
the dudes who wrote the book knew this single work would never happen and so covered that problem with "you gotta have faith".
Its a possibility and supported with evidence.


----------



## TripleXBullies

hobbs27 said:


> As for doing the works in John, that was for the disciples,  I don't believe for a second the gifts of the spirit lasted past the first century.


Just trying to make sure I am reading this right. You believe no person alive has any of the gifts of the spirit any more?


----------



## hobbs27

WaltL1 said:


> Or......
> the dudes who wrote the book knew this single work would never happen and so covered that problem with "you gotta have faith".
> Its a possibility and supported with evidence.



The old testament book was already written,  so the dudes,  such as Peter, Paul, John,  Luke,  etc.  Would have had to create an absolute perfect corresponding end to the old covenant... Then be willing and actually go through with being killed for not denying it. 


Seems very unlikely ..to the point of impossibility,  especially the perfection in scripture,  agreeing perfectly with what was prophesied in the old.


----------



## hobbs27

TripleXBullies said:


> Just trying to make sure I am reading this right. You believe no person alive has any of the gifts of the spirit any more?



Right.


----------



## hobbs27

atlashunter said:


> Yep, for every generation in every country and culture. I can think of a scenario that would leave no room for doubt. And I'm a mere mortal with limits. A god of the sort advertised I'm sure could do even better.
> 
> Faith is not a virtue. Faith is an appeal to credulity and the excuse given to believe that which lacks sufficient evidence to support belief. It leads man to all manner of fallacies. The appeal to faith in the Christian religion demonstrates the weakness of its claims. So does the bribery of heaven and the threat of torture to get people to believe.




 The threat of torture is not biblical.  It has hi jacked Christianity,  and most Christians believe it without any doubt.. I did too,  once.  I was wrong.


----------



## NCHillbilly

SemperFiDawg said:


> You're missing the point.......both times.



I think that appears to be the other way around on this one.



red neck richie said:


> Walt you know there must be law to maintain peace. Some people on this site think the punishment is too harsh. I say if you cant do the time don't do the crime. That being said there are ways to achieve forgiveness through GODS grace. Forgiveness for sin is possible and I promise you every Christian has asked for it.



So, the time (burning in agony and torment for ever and ever and ever,) is just compensation for the crime (never hearing of God or being born into another religion, or not believing in the unbelievable?) Why would a man ask for forgiveness for a sin that he is unaware he committed? 

I know, burn in He11 anyway. 



red neck richie said:


> Your justice and morality. Not GODS. If you cant stand the heat stay out of the kitchen.



_So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.


_


----------



## atlashunter

hobbs27 said:


> The threat of torture is not biblical.  It has hi jacked Christianity,  and most Christians believe it without any doubt.. I did too,  once.  I was wrong.



Is Revelations not part of the Bible?


----------



## welderguy

hobbs27 said:


> The threat of torture is not biblical.  It has hi jacked Christianity,  and most Christians believe it without any doubt.. I did too,  once.  I was wrong.



What are these terrors?

Psalm 73:18-20
18 Surely thou didst set them in slippery places: thou castedst them down into destruction.

19 How are they brought into desolation, as in a moment! they are utterly consumed with terrors.

20 As a dream when one awaketh; so, O Lord, when thou awakest, thou shalt despise their image.


----------



## atlashunter

hobbs27 said:


> The old testament book was already written,  so the dudes,  such as Peter, Paul, John,  Luke,  etc.  Would have had to create an absolute perfect corresponding end to the old covenant... Then be willing and actually go through with being killed for not denying it.
> 
> 
> Seems very unlikely ..to the point of impossibility,  especially the perfection in scripture,  agreeing perfectly with what was prophesied in the old.



Unlikely indeed. That's probably why it didn't happen. Matthew just to cite one example, fabricates a virgin birth based on a mistranslation of Isaiah.


----------



## NCHillbilly

hobbs27 said:


> The threat of torture is not biblical.  It has hi jacked Christianity,  and most Christians believe it without any doubt.. I did too,  once.  I was wrong.



What is this, then? Hint: I didn't quote this from _The Hobbit._.

_"And I saw the dead, small and great, stand before God; and the books were opened: and another book was opened, which is the book of life: and the dead were judged out of those things which were written in the books, according to their works......And whosoever was not found written in the book of life was cast into the lake of fire."_


----------



## atlashunter

TripleXBullies said:


> Just trying to make sure I am reading this right. You believe no person alive has any of the gifts of the spirit any more?



Makes one wonder what to make of all the claims of faith healing. He even attended a church that believes in laying on hands in prayer. That's a lot of phoniness going on in the Christian religion if Hobbs is right.


----------



## 660griz

NCHillbilly said:


> What is this, then? Hint: I didn't quote this from _The Hobbit._.
> 
> _"And I saw the dead, small and great, stand before God; and the books were opened: and another book was opened, which is the book of life: and the dead were judged out of those things which were written in the books, according to their works......And whosoever was not found written in the book of life was cast into the lake of fire."_



I think he means that just because it is in the Bible doesn't make it Biblical. 
Can I get an Amen?!


----------



## WaltL1

hobbs27 said:


> The threat of torture is not biblical.  It has hi jacked Christianity,  and most Christians believe it without any doubt.. I did too,  once.  I was wrong.


I have actually read and seen a couple of documentaries that support what you are saying.
But like everything else on the subject of religion it seems to all depend on who you ask.


----------



## hobbs27

NCHillbilly said:


> What is this, then? Hint: I didn't quote this from _The Hobbit._.
> 
> _"And I saw the dead, small and great, stand before God; and the books were opened: and another book was opened, which is the book of life: and the dead were judged out of those things which were written in the books, according to their works......And whosoever was not found written in the book of life was cast into the lake of fire."_



That is the second death.  Those that were risen to life and judged under the old covenant  that were not in the book of life were cast into the lake of fire or second death.  It was a consuming fire for them.


----------



## WaltL1

660griz said:


> I think he means that just because it is in the Bible doesn't make it Biblical.
> Can I get an Amen?!


----------



## hobbs27

660griz said:


> I think he means that just because it is in the Bible doesn't make it Biblical.
> Can I get an Amen?!




You're kind of right. The word he11 is in the Bible,  but it's translated from three different words,  one of them in Hebrew and Greek. 

Sheol/Hades.  An abode for all the dead. 

Gehenna  an actual place,  a cursed ground used as a landfill just outside of Jerusalem 

Tartarus  a place For bound angels till the day of judgment 

Not a single one of those places are a place of eternal torments.


----------



## atlashunter

hobbs27 said:


> That is the second death.  Those that were risen to life and judged under the old covenant  that were not in the book of life were cast into the lake of fire or second death.  It was a consuming fire for them.



Chapter 20 says the second death happens after Satan is locked in an abyss for a thousand years. When exactly did that thousand years happen? And where does it say it was a consuming fire?


----------



## WaltL1

hobbs27 said:


> The old testament book was already written,  so the dudes,  such as Peter, Paul, John,  Luke,  etc.  Would have had to create an absolute perfect corresponding end to the old covenant... Then be willing and actually go through with being killed for not denying it.
> 
> 
> Seems very unlikely ..to the point of impossibility,  especially the perfection in scripture,  agreeing perfectly with what was prophesied in the old.


I think I have to question your research expertise if "this book picks up where the other one left off" is your standard.
And who told you Peter, Paul etc were willing and killed for it? The same folks who gave us the Bible maybe?


----------



## 660griz

Found this on a Christian site. 
Good stuff.

Question: "Why is the idea of eternal Censorednation so repulsive to many people?"

Answer: In the shifting winds of modern cultures, the idea of everlasting torment and Censoredation is difficult for many people to grasp. Why is this? The Bible makes it clear that h3!! is a literal place. Christ spoke more about H311 than He did of heaven. Not only Satan and his minions will be punished there, everyone who rejects Jesus Christ will spend eternity right along with them. A desire to reject or revise the doctrine of H3!! will not mitigate its flames or make the place go away.

“Then he will say to those on his left, ‘Depart from me, you cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels.


----------



## TripleXBullies

hobbs27 said:


> Right.



What scripture leads you to believe that?


----------



## hobbs27

atlashunter said:


> Chapter 20 says the second death happens after Satan is locked in an abyss for a thousand years. When exactly did that thousand years happen? And where does it say it was a consuming fire?



The thousand years happened in a 40 year period.  I know.. I know.. Sounds crazy,  but it did.  From 30-70ad.


http://eschatology.org/EscOrg/index.../877-a-forty-year-millennium-is-that-possible


----------



## hobbs27

TripleXBullies said:


> What scripture leads you to believe that?



There's more to it,  but this covers the basics. 

https://www.gotquestions.org/cessationism.html


----------



## TripleXBullies

atlashunter said:


> Makes one wonder what to make of all the claims of faith healing. He even attended a church that believes in laying on hands in prayer. That's a lot of phoniness going on in the Christian religion if Hobbs is right.



I think you can go to a church and not see perfectly eye to eye with everything. Many Christians here have said it before and I agree. Gifts of the spirit would be a minor detail.


----------



## hobbs27

WaltL1 said:


> I think I have to question your research expertise if "this book picks up where the other one left off" is your standard.
> And who told you Peter, Paul etc were willing and killed for it? The same folks who gave us the Bible maybe?



So  , you believe Peter,  Paul,  Jojn are just all fictional characters?


----------



## WaltL1

hobbs27 said:


> The thousand years happened in a 40 year period.  I know.. I know.. Sounds crazy,  but it did.  From 30-70ad.
> 
> 
> http://eschatology.org/EscOrg/index.../877-a-forty-year-millennium-is-that-possible


So math doesn't lie, have an opinion, believe in gods or interpret scripture.
So when you can make 40 years = 1000 years then you can say 


> but it did


Should we wait?


----------



## WaltL1

hobbs27 said:


> So  , you believe Peter,  Paul,  Jojn are just all fictional characters?


Of course not.
I don't even believe Jesus was a fictional character.

Something Ive noticed -
You obviously have spent a lot of time researching the Bible. You use it to check it against itself to determine the accuracy of this or that interpretation.
You do get that that doesn't make a word of it to be actually true right? Regardless of how perfectly you determine that this fits with that?
How about posting up some "proof" that is found OUTSIDE of the Bible to prove this or that?


----------



## TripleXBullies

hobbs27 said:


> There's more to it,  but this covers the basics.
> 
> https://www.gotquestions.org/cessationism.html



Thanks...

Hmm... Maybe I can make that connection... and it would explain why prayer and hands for healing doesn't work like it once did.... at least..


----------



## 660griz

hobbs27 said:


> There's more to it,  but this covers the basics.
> 
> https://www.gotquestions.org/cessationism.html



Same site I got the eternal torture from.
Just search for eternal "large structure that holds back water"nation.


----------



## NCHillbilly

hobbs27 said:


> That is the second death.  Those that were risen to life and judged under the old covenant  that were not in the book of life were cast into the lake of fire or second death.  It was a consuming fire for them.



So Jesus was a liar, or you know what he meant and he didn't? 


_"And these shall go away into everlasting punishment: but the righteous into life eternal."

"So shall it be at the end of the world: the angels shall come forth, and sever the wicked from among the just,  And shall cast them into the furnace of fire: there shall be wailing and gnashing of teeth. "_-Jesus

And I know you ain't a-fixin' to start telling us that the world has done ended?


----------



## welderguy

welderguy said:


> What are these terrors?
> 
> Psalm 73:18-20
> 18 Surely thou didst set them in slippery places: thou castedst them down into destruction.
> 19 How are they brought into desolation, as in a moment! they are utterly consumed with terrors.
> 20 As a dream when one awaketh; so, O Lord, when thou awakest, thou shalt despise their image.



Hobbs?


----------



## hobbs27

NCHillbilly said:


> So Jesus was a liar, or you know what he meant and he didn't?
> 
> 
> _"And these shall go away into everlasting punishment: but the righteous into life eternal."
> 
> "So shall it be at the end of the world: the angels shall come forth, and sever the wicked from among the just,  And shall cast them into the furnace of fire: there shall be wailing and gnashing of teeth. "_-Jesus
> 
> And I know you ain't a-fixin' to start telling us that the world has done ended?



Yes.. If a death penalty is executed that death is the ultimate everlasting punishment... Not everlasting torment,  but everlasting death. 

Yes,  the world has ended... But in reality the word translated as world is (Aion)  which literally means age,  so when the kjv speaks of the end of the world it's actually saying the end of the age... Or Ephesians 3:20-21 would be contradictory.


----------



## NCHillbilly

hobbs27 said:


> yes.. If a death penalty is executed that death is the ultimate everlasting punishment... Not everlasting torment,  but everlasting death.
> 
> Yes,  the world has ended... But in reality the word translated as world is (aion)  which literally means age,  so when the kjv speaks of the end of the world it's actually saying the end of the age... Or ephesians 3:20-21 would be contradictory.


ok............


----------



## hobbs27

welderguy said:


> Hobbs?



It doesn't mean eternal torments,  I can guarantee that,  I'll look at it closer after work,  to be honest I'm just answering the easy ones that I have studied,  while I work.


----------



## atlashunter

hobbs27 said:


> The thousand years happened in a 40 year period.  I know.. I know.. Sounds crazy,  but it did.  From 30-70ad.
> 
> 
> http://eschatology.org/EscOrg/index.../877-a-forty-year-millennium-is-that-possible



Where is semperfidog? I need his expert opinion as to whether calling 1,000 years 40 years qualifies as intellectual dishonesty.

Ok let's look at that timeline. Prior to Satan being cast into the abyss for 1,000 years which was actually 40 years there is a great battle between Jesus and his Army and the beast and all the kings of the earth. The armies are slaughtered and the beast and his false prophet are captured and thrown alive into a lake of fire. Who is this beast and false prophet? And what battle is this?

If we back up 40 years from 70 AD that takes us to 30 AD. That's problematic because scholars estimate Jesus death to have occurred between 30 and 36 AD. Did the events in Rev 19 and Rev 20 take place before the crucifixion? Rev 22 makes clear this is prophecy. When was Rev written? In 30 AD? Earlier? Rev 20:4 makes references to those who had been beheaded for their testimony for Jesus. When did this beheadings occur? And how is it that the saints were on the one hand being persecuted while also reigning with Christ who nobody took notice had returned immediately around the time of his death and ruled for the next 1,000 er 40 years?


----------



## hobbs27

atlashunter said:


> Where is semperfidog? I need his expert opinion as to whether calling 1,000 years 40 years qualifies as intellectual dishonesty.
> 
> Ok let's look at that timeline. Prior to Satan being cast into the abyss for 1,000 years which was actually 40 years there is a great battle between Jesus and his Army and the beast and all the kings of the earth. The armies are slaughtered and the beast and his false prophet are captured and thrown alive into a lake of fire. Who is this beast and false prophet? And what battle is this?
> 
> If we back up 40 years from 70 AD that takes us to 30 AD. That's problematic because scholars estimate Jesus death to have occurred between 30 and 36 AD. Did the events in Rev 19 and Rev 20 take place before the crucifixion? Rev 22 makes clear this is prophecy. When was Rev written? In 30 AD? Earlier? Rev 20:4 makes references to those who had been beheaded for their testimony for Jesus. When did this beheadings occur? And how is it that the saints were on the one hand being persecuted while also reigning with Christ who nobody took notice had returned immediately around the time of his death and ruled for the next 1,000 er 40 years?



The link, if read,  explains all that.  You're trying to put the end of the reign at the beginning... You've got it all kinds of warped.  Take a few minutes and scan over the info in the link, so as not to embarrass yourself.


----------



## atlashunter

http://forum.gon.com/showpost.php?p=10818264&postcount=853

In this post you suggest Nero was the antichrist. How can that be if he committed suicide in 68 AD when he was supposed to be captured alive and thrown in a lake of fire 38 years earlier and 7 years before he was born? And how do you shoehorn an antichrist into the latter part of the thousand/forty year reign? Those two years prior to satans release in 70 AD are actually 50 years in millennial years right?

Also Rev 20:9 says the nations of the earth surrounded the camp of gods people, the city he loves. But fire came down from heaven and devoured them. Is that what happened to the Romans in 70 AD? Or were the Romans the ones who were victorious?


----------



## NCHillbilly

atlashunter said:


> http://forum.gon.com/showpost.php?p=10818264&postcount=853
> 
> In this post you suggest Nero was the antichrist. How can that be if he committed suicide in 68 AD when he was supposed to be captured alive and thrown in a lake of fire 38 years earlier and 7 years before he was born? And how do you shoehorn an antichrist into the latter part of the thousand/forty year reign? Those two years prior to satans release in 70 AD are actually 50 years in millennial years right?
> 
> Also Rev 20:9 says the nations of the earth surrounded the camp of gods people, the city he loves. But fire came down from heaven and devoured them. Is that what happened to the Romans in 70 AD? Or were the Romans the ones who were victorious?



Just smile and nod.


----------



## atlashunter

NCHillbilly said:


> Just smile and nod.



I love playing the what the Bible really meant to say game.


----------



## hobbs27

atlashunter said:


> I love playing the what the Bible really meant to say game.



Good!  Show me where it says the anti Christ is thrown alive into the lake of fire.


----------



## bullethead

hobbs27 said:


> Good!  Show me where it says the anti Christ is thrown alive into the lake of fire.



Where does it say that the AntiChrist commits suicide?.


----------



## hobbs27

bullethead said:


> Where does it say that the AntiChrist commits suicide?.



I didn't claim it does.  The anti Christ was a sign for the Christians to know the end was near.


----------



## bullethead

hobbs27 said:


> I didn't claim it does.  The anti Christ was a sign for the Christians to know the end was near.



http://alwaysbeready.com/preterism-refuted


----------



## atlashunter

hobbs27 said:


> Good!  Show me where it says the anti Christ is thrown alive into the lake of fire.



Rev 19:20. Now answer my questions instead of punting to a link that doesn't answer them. Let's start with when you think Revelations was written.


----------



## bullethead

http://www.godormen.com/preterism/preterism/


----------



## hobbs27

atlashunter said:


> Rev 19:20. Now answer my questions instead of punting to a link that doesn't answer them. Let's start with when you think Revelations was written.



You're  going have to tell me what version you're looking at,  cause I ain't seeing anti Christ in any of the ones I know of.


----------



## hobbs27

bullethead said:


> http://www.godormen.com/preterism/preterism/



I love those kind of articles,  I'd like to see the author refute it with a preterist present to defend it.


----------



## atlashunter

hobbs27 said:


> You're  going have to tell me what version you're looking at,  cause I ain't seeing anti Christ in any of the ones I know of.



How about the beast?


----------



## hobbs27

welderguy said:


> What are these terrors?
> 
> Psalm 73:18-20
> 18 Surely thou didst set them in slippery places: thou castedst them down into destruction.
> 
> 19 How are they brought into desolation, as in a moment! they are utterly consumed with terrors.
> 
> 20 As a dream when one awaketh; so, O Lord, when thou awakest, thou shalt despise their image.



Welder.. Keep reading,  you will see in verse 27, those far from God would (perish),  not burn in torments for eternity


----------



## hobbs27

atlashunter said:


> How about the beast?



The beast is the Roman army... The false prophet was Judaism... The war was done., and the dead cast into the lake of fire... Gehenna.. IE landfill.  Josephus actually recorded this.  1.1 million rotting corpse cast into Gehenna.


----------



## hobbs27

WaltL1 said:


> Of course not.
> I don't even believe Jesus was a fictional character.
> 
> Something Ive noticed -
> You obviously have spent a lot of time researching the Bible. You use it to check it against itself to determine the accuracy of this or that interpretation.
> You do get that that doesn't make a word of it to be actually true right? Regardless of how perfectly you determine that this fits with that?
> How about posting up some "proof" that is found OUTSIDE of the Bible to prove this or that?




I don't ask that you believe it,  I just want to demonstrate that it supports itself and the only so called contradictions are men's errors,  not the word. 

As for proof from the outside,  I think the Olivet discourse and the Revelation when read and compared to Josephus account of the Temple destruction and sacking of Jerusalem... And then tying all that in to Daniel  is pretty convincing.  So convincing,  that once a non believer studied it,  and understood it,  their only two choices would be to believe,  or convince themselves it was written after the fact.


----------



## bullethead

hobbs27 said:


> I love those kind of articles,  I'd like to see the author refute it with a preterist present to defend it.



Can't defend what is not there.


----------



## hobbs27

bullethead said:


> Can't defend what is not there.



Right... And the author forgot to mention this little gem. 

Luke 21:

The Destruction of Jerusalem
20 “But when you see Jerusalem surrounded by armies, then know that its desolation is near. 21 Then let those who are in Judea flee to the mountains, let those who are in the midst of her depart, and let not those who are in the country enter her. 22 For these are the days of vengeance, that all things which are written may be fulfilled.


----------



## atlashunter

hobbs27 said:


> The beast is the Roman army... The false prophet was Judaism... The war was done., and the dead cast into the lake of fire... Gehenna.. IE landfill.  Josephus actually recorded this.  1.1 million rotting corpse cast into Gehenna.



I can almost see how you could make that argument. Beast of the sea the Romans. Beast of the earth the Jews or Judaism. Not sure that squares too well with the claim the beast of the earth performed great signs including calling down fire from heaven to earth in view of all to see. And I'm not sure what mark the Jews forced everyone to get on their right hand or forehead. Throwing a bunch of dead bodies into a landfill doesn't work. Chapter 19 says they were thrown alive into a fiery lake of burning sulfur. Not dead into a landfill. And it was both beasts captured alive so under your interpretation that would include the Roman army being captured alive and thrown into a lake of fire by Jesus and his warriors. And this is supposed to have happened at the beginning of the thousand/forty year reign not the end. The 1.1 million Jocephus is referring to would have been after that period.

And then there is this:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Beast_(Revelation)



> Preterism is a Christian eschatological view that interprets prophecies of the Bible, especially the Books of Daniel and Revelation, as events which have already happened in the first century AD.
> 
> Preterist academic scholars[17][18][19] generally identify the first beast from the sea with the Roman Empire, particularly with Emperor Nero.


----------



## hobbs27

atlashunter said:


> I can almost see how you could make that argument. Beast of the sea the Romans. Beast of the earth the Jews or Judaism. Not sure that squares too well with the claim the beast of the earth performed great signs including calling down fire from heaven to earth in view of all to see. And I'm not sure what mark the Jews forced everyone to get on their right hand or forehead. Throwing a bunch of dead bodies into a landfill doesn't work. Chapter 19 says they were thrown alive into a fiery lake of burning sulfur. Not dead into a landfill. And it was both beasts captured alive so under your interpretation that would include the Roman army being captured alive and thrown into a lake of fire by Jesus and his warriors. And this is supposed to have happened at the beginning of the thousand/forty year reign not the end. The 1.1 million Jocephus is referring to would have been after that period.
> 
> And then there is this:
> 
> https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Beast_(Revelation)



The beast not being literal animals,  but institutions at war, I'm OK with them being cast into a lake of fire,  dead or alive... After all,  God is a consuming fire. Heb. 12:29

There's a couple of different thoughts on the lake of fire within preterism and I'm not solid on one or the other. 

What I do know is,  when Jesus told folks they were in danger of being cast into he11... It should read Gehenna,  since that is the word translated ..and you cannot translate the proper name of a place.


----------



## bullethead

hobbs27 said:


> The beast not being literal animals,  but institutions at war, I'm OK with them being cast into a lake of fire,  dead or alive... After all,  God is a consuming fire. Heb. 12:29
> 
> There's a couple of different thoughts on the lake of fire within preterism and I'm not solid on one or the other.
> 
> What I do know is,  when Jesus told folks they were in danger of being cast into he11... It should read Gehenna,  since that is the word translated ..and you cannot translate the proper name of a place.


But there were none thrown into a lake of fire and in the next sentence you admit that there are a couple thoughts on the lake of fire in Preterism and yet you continue on ignoring those 2 (at least) issues that just are not true.


----------



## hobbs27

bullethead said:


> But there were none thrown into a lake of fire and in the next sentence you admit that there are a couple thoughts on the lake of fire in Preterism and yet you continue on ignoring those 2 (at least) issues that just are not true.



I'm not following you.. Who or what wasn't thrown into the lake of fire... And what is it I'm ignoring?


----------



## welderguy

hobbs27 said:


> Welder.. Keep reading,  you will see in verse 27, those far from God would (perish),  not burn in torments for eternity



I didn't say anything about burning. I asked about the terrors.


----------



## WaltL1

hobbs27 said:


> I don't ask that you believe it,  I just want to demonstrate that it supports itself and the only so called contradictions are men's errors,  not the word.
> 
> As for proof from the outside,  I think the Olivet discourse and the Revelation when read and compared to Josephus account of the Temple destruction and sacking of Jerusalem... And then tying all that in to Daniel  is pretty convincing.  So convincing,  that once a non believer studied it,  and understood it,  their only two choices would be to believe,  or convince themselves it was written after the fact.


Yeah I left you an opening to slither through. That was my fault.
But you are still using Christianity to fact check Christianity.


> So convincing,  that once a non believer studied it,  and understood it,  their only two choices would be to believe,  or convince themselves it was written after the fact.


Believe what?
And let me guess.
You specified "and understood it" as your safety net.
If they came up with a different choice other than the two you are allowing, it was because "they didn't understand it".
Of course.


----------



## hobbs27

welderguy said:


> I didn't say anything about burning. I asked about the terrors.



Maybe you should tell me,  because what I'm reading,  these very people that experience terrors are utterly destroyed.. And they perish.


----------



## atlashunter

hobbs27 said:


> The beast not being literal animals,  but institutions at war, I'm OK with them being cast into a lake of fire,  dead or alive... After all,  God is a consuming fire. Heb. 12:29
> 
> There's a couple of different thoughts on the lake of fire within preterism and I'm not solid on one or the other.
> 
> What I do know is,  when Jesus told folks they were in danger of being cast into he11... It should read Gehenna,  since that is the word translated ..and you cannot translate the proper name of a place.



An institution is just an abstract concept for a group of men. If fine with calling an institution a beast but institutions can't be captured alive and cast into fire. The living beings that comprise them can. It also says they will burn for ever and ever.

What some other author calls where people go is what they call it. It's not what the author of revelations calls it. The Greek used by the author of revelations translates to lake of fire and brimstone. It says what it says.

But your ignoring the bigger issue which I already pointed out. Even if you change the scripture to say 40 years instead of 1000 years which is a rather blatant alteration to make the scriptures fit a certain theology it still doesn't work. The timelines don't match up. What Roman army and bunch of Jews were captured alive and thrown into a lake of fire by Jesus and his followers in 30 AD? It cites a major battle in which those who weren't thrown into the fire were consumed by birds called from far and wide. That is supposed to have happened before the thousand year reign began. Then you have the thousand year reign during which time those two beasts are burning in a fiery lake. But that wasn't the fate of Judaism or the Romans during that period. The Romans continued to rule over Judea along with their Jewish cohorts and Jesus was nowhere to be found. Who are these beheaded people who were resurrected from the dead and ruled with Jesus during this 40 year time period? John the Baptist? He's the only one beheaded who would fit the time frame and there is no record biblical or otherwise of his being brought back to life in 30 AD let alone ruling over anything. And if the Roman army had been captured in 30 AD how did they wage the Parthian and Germanic wars? How did they conquer Britain in the first century?The holes in your theory are big enough to drive a freight train through.

And you continue to ignore the questions I've posed. When was Revelations written?


----------



## hobbs27

WaltL1 said:


> Yeah I left you an opening to slither through. That was my fault.
> But you are still using Christianity to fact check Christianity.
> 
> Believe what?
> And let me guess.
> You specified "and understood it" as your safety net.
> If they came up with a different choice other than the two you are allowing, it was because "they didn't understand it".
> Of course.




 Sorry if I didn't give you the answer you were seeking. As for the question (believe what?), it's to believe the story of the end of the age as told in Daniel,  the olivet discourses and Revelation... Which I account for John's olivet discourse since his Gospel is the only one missing it...was the very event witnessed and recorded by Josephus in the destruction of the Temple and the sacking of Jerusalem in 70ad.


----------



## WaltL1

hobbs27 said:


> Sorry if I didn't give you the answer you were seeking. As for the question (believe what?), it's to believe the story of the end of the age as told in Daniel,  the olivet discourses and Revelation... Which I account for John's olivet discourse since his Gospel is the only one missing it...was the very event witnessed and recorded by Josephus in the destruction of the Temple and the sacking of Jerusalem in 70ad.


Here let me be specific -


> Originally Posted by hobbs27
> The thousand years happened in a 40 year period. I know.. I know.. Sounds crazy, but it did. From 30-70ad.


You admit it sounds crazy. So surely you researched it to dispel that possible craziness. So since this claim comes out of Christianity, a skilled researcher would have gone OUTSIDE of Christianity/religion/your beliefs to confirm that possibility.
Please cite your sources OUTSIDE of Christianity/religion/your beliefs that corroborate that 1000 years can happen within 40 years.
You must have done that because you confirm it -


> but it did. From 30-70ad.


----------



## atlashunter

One thing I'll say for you hobbs is you go big and you put it out there. That's more than can be said for most theists on these forums.


----------



## NCHillbilly

hobbs27 said:


> Welder.. Keep reading,  you will see in verse 27, those far from God would (perish),  not burn in torments for eternity



_"and he shall be tormented with fire and brimstone in the presence of the holy angels, and in the presence of the Lamb:
And the smoke of their torment ascendeth up for ever and ever: and they have no rest day nor night"_

Sounds like sudden death to me?


----------



## hobbs27

NCHillbilly said:


> _"and he shall be tormented with fire and brimstone in the presence of the holy angels, and in the presence of the Lamb:
> And the smoke of their torment ascendeth up for ever and ever: and they have no rest day nor night"_
> 
> Sounds like sudden death to me?




 look at this.  Isaiah 34 is prophecy of the coming destruction on Edom. It's destruction is backed by historical records,  but more importantly,  notice the use of apocalyptic language... Sound familiar? 

https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Isaiah+34&version=NKJV


----------



## hobbs27

WaltL1 said:


> Here let me be specific -
> 
> You admit it sounds crazy. So surely you researched it to dispel that possible craziness. So since this claim comes out of Christianity, a skilled researcher would have gone OUTSIDE of Christianity/religion/your beliefs to confirm that possibility.
> Please cite your sources OUTSIDE of Christianity/religion/your beliefs that corroborate that 1000 years can happen within 40 years.
> You must have done that because you confirm it -



Yep,  I had to proof this too, I don't know if I can cite you any places that prove this outside of religious sites,  because most sites dealing with Hebrew culture are also dealing with religion. 
 Maybe you can find a place outside of a religious site... What your looking for is the symbolic number in Hebrew culture for 1000. Iteans fullness or completion... So the forty years from 30-33. To 70-73 ad were the time of completion.  When the old covenant was vanishing and the new was coming to be,  all the way to its fullness in the consummation of the new and the last hour of the Old.


----------



## hobbs27

atlashunter said:


> An institution is just an abstract concept for a group of men. If fine with calling an institution a beast but institutions can't be captured alive and cast into fire. The living beings that comprise them can. It also says they will burn for ever and ever.
> 
> What some other author calls where people go is what they call it. It's not what the author of revelations calls it. The Greek used by the author of revelations translates to lake of fire and brimstone. It says what it says.
> 
> But your ignoring the bigger issue which I already pointed out. Even if you change the scripture to say 40 years instead of 1000 years which is a rather blatant alteration to make the scriptures fit a certain theology it still doesn't work. The timelines don't match up. What Roman army and bunch of Jews were captured alive and thrown into a lake of fire by Jesus and his followers in 30 AD? It cites a major battle in which those who weren't thrown into the fire were consumed by birds called from far and wide. That is supposed to have happened before the thousand year reign began. Then you have the thousand year reign during which time those two beasts are burning in a fiery lake. But that wasn't the fate of Judaism or the Romans during that period. The Romans continued to rule over Judea along with their Jewish cohorts and Jesus was nowhere to be found. Who are these beheaded people who were resurrected from the dead and ruled with Jesus during this 40 year time period? John the Baptist? He's the only one beheaded who would fit the time frame and there is no record biblical or otherwise of his being brought back to life in 30 AD let alone ruling over anything. And if the Roman army had been captured in 30 AD how did they wage the Parthian and Germanic wars? How did they conquer Britain in the first century?The holes in your theory are big enough to drive a freight train through.
> 
> And you continue to ignore the questions I've posed. When was Revelations written?




 First the timing.  The events we are speaking of are at the end of the milenium not the beginning.  It begins around 30ad, ends around 70ad, so the timing is perfect. 

Next,  the event of being cast into a fire alive and burn forever.  I'm not going to believe that is about men at all.  I don't believe man have eternal life until it's granted by Christ. So even if men were thrown into a fire.. The fire may burn forever,  but they aren't tortured in it forever,  they're consumed. 

Now,  The war is over,  notice the vultures are called in to eat of the flesh. Then the beast and  the false prophet are cast alive into the lake of fire.  

 I see Judaism as easy to explain since it ceased to be at that point (Mosaic Judaism). 
  I also see where it is difficult to explain the Roman Empire being cast into a lake of fire, since they were victors over the Jew's and they did not cease to be at that moment.  So give me a couple of days to study it,  and I will get back with you,  it may be high time I get settled on the lake of fire... I know it's not a place of eternal torments,  but I'm not 100% on it,  right now.


----------



## WaltL1

hobbs27 said:


> Yep,  I had to proof this too, I don't know if I can cite you any places that prove this outside of religious sites,  because most sites dealing with Hebrew culture are also dealing with religion.
> Maybe you can find a place outside of a religious site... What your looking for is the symbolic number in Hebrew culture for 1000. Iteans fullness or completion... So the forty years from 30-33. To 70-73 ad were the time of completion.  When the old covenant was vanishing and the new was coming to be,  all the way to its fullness in the consummation of the new and the last hour of the Old.


Its not a Hebrew culture question Hobbs.
Its a math question.
Can 1000 years happen in a span of 40 years?
If the answer to that math question is no, there is not a religious/Hebrew culture/old covenant/new covenant/time of completion that changes that.
If the answer to that math question is yes then we certainly can consider the rest of what you said.


----------



## hobbs27

WaltL1 said:


> Its not a Hebrew culture question Hobbs.
> Its a math question.
> Can 1000 years happen in a span of 40 years?
> If the answer to that math question is no, there is not a religious/Hebrew culture/old covenant/new covenant/time of completion that changes that.
> If the answer to that math question is yes then we certainly can consider the rest of what you said.



Walt, if the 1000 is a literal 1000 then it's a question of math and I would agree,  but it's not.  It's a symbol of completion or fullness. 

Psalm 50:10 "For every beast of the forest is Mine, The cattle on a thousand hills

See if it's just math,  then all the cattle in the world that belong to God literally sit on a thousand hills.


----------



## WaltL1

hobbs27 said:


> Walt, if the 1000 is a literal 1000 then it's a question of math and I would agree,  but it's not.  It's a symbol of completion or fullness.
> 
> Psalm 50:10 "For every beast of the forest is Mine, The cattle on a thousand hills
> 
> See if it's just math,  then all the cattle in the world that belong to God literally sit on a thousand hills.


So kind of just like the Bible, this doesn't mean what it says -


> Originally Posted by hobbs27
> The thousand years happened in a 40 year period. I know.. I know.. Sounds crazy, but it did. From 30-70ad


. 
Why am I reminded of - 




Those pigs are slippery little suckers but in the end they get caught.


----------



## hobbs27

WaltL1 said:


> So kind of just like the Bible, this doesn't mean what it says -
> .
> Why am I reminded of -
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Those pigs are slippery little suckers but in the end they get caught.



Walt the Bible says what it means,  Yes,  it isn't written to us,  it's written for us. 

So we have to understand a lot of it is very ancient text.  We look at it through our western eyes and think we can take its translation literal,  that's nuts.  That leads to all kinds of confusion,  false doctrines,  and men manipulating other men.  I don't blame you all for being non believers if all you can base Christianity on is what you have seen at churches,  and heard on TV.  Man has made a mess of it,  but I think it's getting better,  not worse, albeit slowly.


----------



## WaltL1

hobbs27 said:


> Walt the Bible says what it means,  Yes,  it isn't written to us,  it's written for us.
> 
> So we have to understand a lot of it is very ancient text.  We look at it through our western eyes and think we can take its translation literal,  that's nuts.  That leads to all kinds of confusion,  false doctrines,  and men manipulating other men.  I don't blame you all for being non believers if all you can base Christianity on is what you have seen at churches,  and heard on TV.  Man has made a mess of it,  but I think it's getting better,  not worse, albeit slowly.





> Originally Posted by hobbs27
> The thousand years happened in a 40 year period. I know.. I know.. Sounds crazy, but it did. From 30-70ad


See that Originally Posted by hobbs27 ?
It doesn't say Originally Posted by the Bible.

You are taking a math question, saying it can't be a math question because then that would clash with what you believe, so therefore it's not a math question. 
To prove the math question that cant be a math question is not a math question, you then come up with "well the numbers in the math question are only symbolic of something that isn't even a number".

All you are doing is manipulating the Bible to espouse your particular flavor of Christianity just like all the other flavors of Christianity do.
You are just really good at it but no different or more accurate than any of the others.
Good night hobbs.
Go catch the cat and try to put it back in the bag.


----------



## atlashunter

hobbs27 said:


> First the timing.  The events we are speaking of are at the end of the milenium not the beginning.  It begins around 30ad, ends around 70ad, so the timing is perfect.
> 
> Next,  the event of being cast into a fire alive and burn forever.  I'm not going to believe that is about men at all.  I don't believe man have eternal life until it's granted by Christ. So even if men were thrown into a fire.. The fire may burn forever,  but they aren't tortured in it forever,  they're consumed.
> 
> Now,  The war is over,  notice the vultures are called in to eat of the flesh. Then the beast and  the false prophet are cast alive into the lake of fire.
> 
> I see Judaism as easy to explain since it ceased to be at that point (Mosaic Judaism).
> I also see where it is difficult to explain the Roman Empire being cast into a lake of fire, since they were victors over the Jew's and they did not cease to be at that moment.  So give me a couple of days to study it,  and I will get back with you,  it may be high time I get settled on the lake of fire... I know it's not a place of eternal torments,  but I'm not 100% on it,  right now.



The events you are referring to, the 1.1 million dead is roughly 70 AD. Those are not the events I am referring to when I'm talking about the beasts. That is chapter 19 verses 11 to 21. Jesus returns on a white horse with an army and takes on the two beasts and the kings of the earth. The beasts are both captured alive and thrown into a lake of fire where they will burn forever. The rest are slaughtered by Jesus and their bodies devoured by the birds. That is the end of chapter 19.

Now go to chapter 20. An angel catches Satan and locks him in an abyss. Those who were beheaded for Jesus are resurrected to rule with Jesus and THUS BEGINS THE THOUSAND YEAR REIGN. That puts these and the the preceding events in chapter 19 at around roughly 30 AD on your timeline. That doesn't work.

Now I'm going to try this again. When was Revelations written?


----------



## atlashunter

Just to make it clear here is the end of chapter 19.



> 19 Then I saw the beast and the kings of the earth and their armies gathered together to wage war against the rider on the horse and his army. 20 But the beast was captured, and with it the false prophet who had performed the signs on its behalf. With these signs he had deluded those who had received the mark of the beast and worshiped its image. The two of them were thrown alive into the fiery lake of burning sulfur. 21 The rest were killed with the sword coming out of the mouth of the rider on the horse, and all the birds gorged themselves on their flesh.



The beasts go in the lake of fire followed by the slaughter and consumption of the armies of the kings of the earth. Not the other way around like you said.

Then in the next chapter you have the capture of Satan followed by 1,000 years of rule by Jesus and his people. Then the release of Satan and then another battle where he is finally thrown into the lake of fire. See verse 10.



> And the devil, who deceived them, was thrown into the lake of burning sulfur, where the beast and the false prophet had been thrown. They will be tormented day and night for ever and ever.



Where the beast and false prophet HAD BEEN THROWN. When? Back in chapter 19 before the thousand year reign began. THEY will be tormented forever. If you think the beast and false prophet are either a man or a group of men then there you go. It's clear regardless of who they are that they are living beings and they are not consumed by the fire. Their torment is eternal.


----------



## hobbs27

WaltL1 said:


> See that Originally Posted by hobbs27 ?
> It doesn't say Originally Posted by the Bible.
> 
> You are taking a math question, saying it can't be a math question because then that would clash with what you believe, so therefore it's not a math question.
> To prove the math question that cant be a math question is not a math question, you then come up with "well the numbers in the math question are only symbolic of something that isn't even a number".
> 
> All you are doing is manipulating the Bible to espouse your particular flavor of Christianity just like all the other flavors of Christianity do.
> You are just really good at it but no different or more accurate than any of the others.
> Good night hobbs.
> Go catch the cat and try to put it back in the bag.



It's called exegesis.


----------



## hobbs27

atlashunter said:


> Just to make it clear here is the end of chapter 19.
> 
> 
> 
> The beasts go in the lake of fire followed by the slaughter and consumption of the armies of the kings of the earth. Not the other way around like you said.
> 
> Then in the next chapter you have the capture of Satan followed by 1,000 years of rule by Jesus and his people. Then the release of Satan and then another battle where he is finally thrown into the lake of fire. See verse 10.
> 
> 
> 
> Where the beast and false prophet HAD BEEN THROWN. When? Back in chapter 19 before the thousand year reign began. THEY will be tormented forever. If you think the beast and false prophet are either a man or a group of men then there you go. It's clear regardless of who they are that they are living beings and they are not consumed by the fire. Their torment is eternal.




Their demise is eternal.  

I agree the beast and false prophet are dealt with at the wars end,  where we disagree is at what part of the milenium this takes place,  It's at the end,  and Revelation is not a book that goes in chronological order.  Most scholars agree on this regardless of their millennial view.  The visions in this letter comes in waves.

Also there's two theories on the dating of revelation.  The early date and late date.  I of course follow the early date,  because of the overwhelming internal evidence.  Others follow a late date because of one statement that was most likely misquoted by one man that said he heard it from another. 

Early date is usually 65.66 ad,  I've seen some suggest even earlier. 

Late day is 95,96 ad. And I've seen some suggest even later.

https://www.ecclesia.org/truth/revelation.html


----------



## atlashunter

hobbs27 said:


> Their demise is eternal.
> 
> I agree the beast and false prophet are dealt with at the wars end,  where we disagree is at what part of the milenium this takes place,  It's at the end,  and Revelation is not a book that goes in chronological order.  Most scholars agree on this regardless of their millennial view.  The visions in this letter comes in waves.
> 
> Also there's two theories on the dating of revelation.  The early date and late date.  I of course follow the early date,  because of the overwhelming internal evidence.  Others follow a late date because of one statement that was most likely misquoted by one man that said he heard it from another.
> 
> Early date is usually 65.66 ad,  I've seen some suggest even earlier.
> 
> Late day is 95,96 ad. And I've seen some suggest even later.
> 
> https://www.ecclesia.org/truth/revelation.html



"They will be tormented day and night for ever and ever." Yep that sounds eternal to me. And those not in the book of life are also thrown there later in the chapter.

The chronology is very clear. There are two battles. The first one indicates Jesus coming down out of heaven with an army where the two beasts are ruling. He has to deal with them in order to reign and he does. There is no indication in chapter 19 that a thousand years passes between the time he makes his return and the time that battle occurs. And in the battle in chapter 20 it no longer says the nations were deceived by the beasts like it said earlier. It says they were deceived by the devil in the singular. The only mention is makes of the beasts is that the devil is thrown in the fire where the beast had been thrown, past tense.

Now the dating of Revelations is also a problem. I've read the arguments for the later dating and on balance find them more convincing but let's go with your earlier date. That would mean he is writing about events that have already happened because it would place him as living right towards the end of the thousand year reign. Do you think that is the case?


----------



## WaltL1

hobbs27 said:


> It's called exegesis.


Yes it is.


> exegesis
> a critical interpretation or explication, especially of biblical and other religious texts. — exegetic, exegetical, adj.
> See also: Criticism



Note the definition does not include anything about the accuracy of the interpretation.
So not real sure what your point is.
And hobbs I'm not saying you are purposely trying to mislead or lie or anything nefarious.
I'm saying you are manipulating the texts to fit your particular flavor of beliefs or it's your interpretation that defines what particular flavor you fall into. 
I also said ALL the flavors do it. And they do. That's how there got to be all the different flavors.
None of you can prove who is right or wrong so it has become a battle of "no it means this, no it means that".
And you all give your interpretation of that scripture to prove your interpretation of this scripture. 
And round and round we go.

I certainly commend your time and effort and yes more Christians should do it and yes you may be able to dispel some of the common myths but I think you have convinced yourself that you are right because "they don't understand".
And "they" think you don't understand.
According to ALL your beliefs there is only one who could confirm any of it but apparently that one isn't telling.

You said 1000 years happened in a span of 40 years.
That just cant happen so you have to get around that. How do you get around that? 
Figure out a way to show it doesn't mean what it says.


----------



## atlashunter

WaltL1 said:


> Its not a Hebrew culture question Hobbs.
> Its a math question.
> Can 1000 years happen in a span of 40 years?
> If the answer to that math question is no, there is not a religious/Hebrew culture/old covenant/new covenant/time of completion that changes that.
> If the answer to that math question is yes then we certainly can consider the rest of what you said.



What hobbs should do is go find a Jew selling a car for say $20,000 and when he goes to pay for it give him $800 then kindly explain in Hebrew culture 1,000 is equal to 40. See how far that gets him.


----------



## WaltL1

atlashunter said:


> What hobbs should do is go find a Jew selling a car for say $20,000 and when he goes to pay for it give him $800 then kindly explain in Hebrew culture 1,000 is equal to 40. See how far that gets him.


It will get him as far as he can walk because he wont be owning any wheels


----------



## hobbs27

WaltL1 said:


> Yes it is.
> 
> 
> Note the definition does not include anything about the accuracy of the interpretation.
> So not real sure what your point is.
> And hobbs I'm not saying you are purposely trying to mislead or lie or anything nefarious.
> I'm saying you are manipulating the texts to fit your particular flavor of beliefs or it's your interpretation that defines what particular flavor you fall into.
> I also said ALL the flavors do it. And they do. That's how there got to be all the different flavors.
> None of you can prove who is right or wrong so it has become a battle of "no it means this, no it means that".
> And you all give your interpretation of that scripture to prove your interpretation of this scripture.
> And round and round we go.
> 
> I certainly commend your time and effort and yes more Christians should do it and yes you may be able to dispel some of the common myths but I think you have convinced yourself that you are right because "they don't understand".
> And "they" think you don't understand.
> According to ALL your beliefs there is only one who could confirm any of it but apparently that one isn't telling.
> 
> You said 1000 years happened in a span of 40 years.
> That just cant happen so you have to get around that. How do you get around that?
> Figure out a way to show it doesn't mean what it says.



And exegetical work,  allowing scripture to interpret the millennium. 


“WHEN THE 1000 YEARS ARE OVER”
One way of determining whether the forty year period could have been the millennium is to examine what was to happen at the end of the millennium, and to compare that with the language of imminence found in the NT. If the events that Revelation posits at the end of the millennium were  coming soon in the rest of the NT, this constitutes prima facie evidence that the end of the millennium was near.
1.) Satan released– 1 Peter 5:8 – “The Devil walks around seeking whom he may devour.”
2.) War with the saints – 1 Peter 1:4f – The Saints had to suffer a little while (cf. Revelation 12:10).
3.) Destruction of Satan – Romans 16:20 – “The God of peace shall crush Satan under your feet shortly.” Simply stated:
The destruction of Satan would be at the end of the millennium.
But, the destruction of Satan was near when Paul wrote Romans.
Therefore, the end of the millennium was near when Paul wrote Romans.
4.) The resurrection– (i.e. “the rest of the dead,” who came to life after the 1000 years, 20:7-12) – Christ was “ready (hetoimos) to judge the living and the dead” (1 Peter 4:5). 
5.) Opening of the books / judgment – “There are some standing here that shall not taste of death till they see the Son of Man coming in his kingdom” (Matthew 16:27-28).
6.) Heaven and earth fled, the New Creation– God dwells with man – “These things must shortly come to pass” (Revelation 22:6, 10-12).


----------



## hobbs27

atlashunter said:


> What hobbs should do is go find a Jew selling a car for say $20,000 and when he goes to pay for it give him $800 then kindly explain in Hebrew culture 1,000 is equal to 40. See how far that gets him.



I admit that's funny , but the truth is the number 1000 is used over and over in scripture as a symbolic number.  So you want to demand it means a literal number in this case,  without consideration of how it is used in other places.. That's how false doctrines are created,  that's how witches get burned,  and that's how people preach turn or  burn.


----------



## WaltL1

hobbs27 said:


> And exegetical work,  allowing scripture to interpret the millennium.
> 
> 
> “WHEN THE 1000 YEARS ARE OVER”
> One way of determining whether the forty year period could have been the millennium is to examine what was to happen at the end of the millennium, and to compare that with the language of imminence found in the NT. If the events that Revelation posits at the end of the millennium were  coming soon in the rest of the NT, this constitutes prima facie evidence that the end of the millennium was near.
> 1.) Satan released– 1 Peter 5:8 – “The Devil walks around seeking whom he may devour.”
> 2.) War with the saints – 1 Peter 1:4f – The Saints had to suffer a little while (cf. Revelation 12:10).
> 3.) Destruction of Satan – Romans 16:20 – “The God of peace shall crush Satan under your feet shortly.” Simply stated:
> The destruction of Satan would be at the end of the millennium.
> But, the destruction of Satan was near when Paul wrote Romans.
> Therefore, the end of the millennium was near when Paul wrote Romans.
> 4.) The resurrection– (i.e. “the rest of the dead,” who came to life after the 1000 years, 20:7-12) – Christ was “ready (hetoimos) to judge the living and the dead” (1 Peter 4:5).
> 5.) Opening of the books / judgment – “There are some standing here that shall not taste of death till they see the Son of Man coming in his kingdom” (Matthew 16:27-28).
> 6.) Heaven and earth fled, the New Creation– God dwells with man – “These things must shortly come to pass” (Revelation 22:6, 10-12).


hobbs you are just doubling/tripling down on trying to get around the FACT that 1000 years cant happen in 40 years. THATS WHAT YOU SAID.
None of the above changes that. No matter how many times you say it, no matter how many different routes you take, no matter how many different interpretations you give.......
It just doesn't change that.
You don't have to accept that but please, stop trying to get me to ignore the simple fact that 1000 years cant happen in 40 years.


----------



## atlashunter

You'll have to retreat into a lot of metaphors to make all of those fit the events of 70 AD. The Christian saints didn't wage any earthly battles at that time with Jesus leading the way, the Romans were victorious, and there is no record of this massive resurrection taking place. I'd also like to have gods street address now that he is dwelling among us.

And if all of those events did occur and if that indicates the end of the time described as 1,000 years it wouldn't mean a millennium is 40 years. It would just mean the author of Revelations was wrong on that detail. Words mean things and 1,000 does not equal 40. Never has and never will.


----------



## welderguy

hobbs27 said:


> I admit that's funny , but the truth is the number 1000 is used over and over in scripture as a symbolic number.  So you want to demand it means a literal number in this case,  without consideration of how it is used in other places.. That's how false doctrines are created,  that's how witches get burned,  and that's how people preach turn or  burn.



I agree with this.


----------



## bullethead

hobbs27 said:


> I'm not following you.. Who or what wasn't thrown into the lake of fire... And what is it I'm ignoring?



Atlas is handling it


----------



## bullethead

atlashunter said:


> You'll have to retreat into a lot of metaphors to make all of those fit the events of 70 AD. The Christian saints didn't wage any earthly battles at that time with Jesus leading the way, the Romans were victorious, and there is no record of this massive resurrection taking place. I'd also like to have gods street address now that he is dwelling among us.
> 
> And if all of those events did occur and if that indicates the end of the time described as 1,000 years it wouldn't mean a millennium is 40 years. It would just mean the author of Revelations was wrong on that detail. Words mean things and 1,000 does not equal 40. Never has and never will.


His focus on interpreting what he thinks did happen is quite impressive.
His total disregard for what was supposed to happen and did not is the flashing neon sign that points to the flaws in preterism.


----------



## hobbs27

WaltL1 said:


> hobbs you are just doubling/tripling down on trying to get around the FACT that 1000 years cant happen in 40 years. THATS WHAT YOU SAID.
> None of the above changes that. No matter how many times you say it, no matter how many different routes you take, no matter how many different interpretations you give.......
> It just doesn't change that.
> You don't have to accept that but please, stop trying to get me to ignore the simple fact that 1000 years cant happen in 40 years.



This is simple,  it's not just me or the preterist saying that 1000 is a symbolic number and does not literally mean 1000. To prove this anyone can Google. ( 1000 as a symbolic number)  you don't even have to mention Bible or scriptures... See what you get.


----------



## hobbs27

atlashunter said:


> You'll have to retreat into a lot of metaphors to make all of those fit the events of 70 AD. The Christian saints didn't wage any earthly battles at that time with Jesus leading the way, the Romans were victorious, and there is no record of this massive resurrection taking place. I'd also like to have gods street address now that he is dwelling among us.
> 
> And if all of those events did occur and if that indicates the end of the time described as 1,000 years it wouldn't mean a millennium is 40 years. It would just mean the author of Revelations was wrong on that detail. Words mean things and 1,000 does not equal 40. Never has and never will.



Nope, there's no retreat here. Again,  looking to the Bible for answers we see in the past,  God coming on clouds in judgment destroying the wicked amongst the righteous.  He uses men's armies to do this. He used the Babylonians in destruction of Solomons Temple... He used the Roman's in destruction of Herod's temple.  Christ appearing on the clouds in the day of the Lord was the parousia... Also known as the second coming.  Every eye saw Him,  even those that pierced Him.... In other words,  the finally understood He told the truth and He is the Messiah they were to be looking for.


----------



## bullethead

The number 1000
"Evoke a very long time according to the Bible. It is often used also to specify an indefinite quantity."

40 years is not a very long time or an indefinite quantity. It is the oppososite of the two.


----------



## atlashunter

hobbs27 said:


> Nope, there's no retreat here. Again,  looking to the Bible for answers we see in the past,  God coming on clouds in judgment destroying the wicked amongst the righteous.  He uses men's armies to do this. He used the Babylonians in destruction of Solomons Temple... He used the Roman's in destruction of Herod's temple.  Christ appearing on the clouds in the day of the Lord was the parousia... Also known as the second coming.  Every eye saw Him,  even those that pierced Him.... In other words,  the finally understood He told the truth and He is the Messiah they were to be looking for.



Like I said, metaphors and symbolism. Revelations specifically says the rest were killed by the sword protruding from his mouth. I'm fine if you want to say that is symbolic. The entire thing could be just a symbolic story with no real world basis. I believe that's called fiction.


----------



## hobbs27

bullethead said:


> The number 1000
> "Evoke a very long time according to the Bible. It is often used also to specify an indefinite quantity."
> 
> 40 years is not a very long time or an indefinite quantity. It is the oppososite of the two.



40 years can and is a long time.  To use a reference above.  You purchase a car from a Jewish car dealer.  He wants to finance it to you for forty years... You going to tell him,  sure,  that's not a long time at all,  matter of fact,  that's the opposite of a long time?


----------



## hobbs27

atlashunter said:


> Like I said, metaphors and symbolism. Revelations specifically says the rest were killed by the sword protruding from his mouth. I'm fine if you want to say that is symbolic. The entire thing could be just a symbolic story with no real world basis. I believe that's called fiction.



It's called apocalyptic language.  I posted an example of it earlier in Isiah 34, which foretold the destruction of Edom. Read it and compare it to historical records,  then compare Revelation with Josephus account of 66-70 ad... The 42 month,  3 1/2 year siege of Jerusalem.


----------



## bullethead

hobbs27 said:


> 40 years can and is a long time.  To use a reference above.  You purchase a car from a Jewish car dealer.  He wants to finance it to you for forty years... You going to tell him,  sure,  that's not a long time at all,  matter of fact,  that's the opposite of a long time?


I'll be 48 this month.  40 years is not a long time at all. In fact it is a blink.
Its all relative.
Id rather have a 40 year mortgage than a thousand year mortgage.


----------



## bullethead

atlashunter said:


> Like I said, metaphors and symbolism. Revelations specifically says the rest were killed by the sword protruding from his mouth. I'm fine if you want to say that is symbolic. The entire thing could be just a symbolic story with no real world basis. I believe that's called fiction.


Metaphoric Fiction by Apocylptic writers.


----------



## WaltL1

hobbs27 said:


> This is simple,  it's not just me or the preterist saying that 1000 is a symbolic number and does not literally mean 1000. To prove this anyone can Google. ( 1000 as a symbolic number)  you don't even have to mention Bible or scriptures... See what you get.


For about the 5th time now, this is what YOU said -


> Originally Posted by hobbs27
> The thousand years happened in a 40 year period. I know.. I know.. Sounds crazy, but it did. From 30-70ad


Lets break it down -


> The thousand years


YOU specified years. That makes the thousand a number denoting how many years.


> happened in a 40 year period


What happened in 40 years? The 1000 years YOU specified above.


> I know.. I know.. Sounds crazy


No actually it sounds mathematically impossible.


> but it did


You just confirmed that the 1000 years that YOU specified happened in a 40 year period.


> From 30-70ad


You supplied the 40 year period that the 1000 years that YOU specified happened.

You specified a quantity of years. How many years? 1000 of them. When did the 1000 years happen? In the 40 year span of 30-70ad. 
That knocks out any symbolism, covenant blah blah blah.

What you stated is mathematical.
There's no way around that.
But feel free to keep trying to distract me from what YOU said.


----------



## SemperFiDawg

atlashunter said:


> There's no "as soon as". You either can provide a morally justified case for throwing jews into a lake of fire to burn forever, or you can't. The ball is still in your court. Either play ball or go home..





> We are all forming subjective judgments. Some of us consider throwing people into an eternal fire to be evil and some think it good



You made this statement waaay back at #49. You were asked to defend it given your beliefs multiple times in multiple ways, yet only blah, blah, blah.

Again you state



> You either can provide a morally justified case for blah, blah, blah or go home.


,

yet it's patently obvious you can't justify even having a concept of morality. 

Hard having to rationally justify the ramifications of atheism isn't it?


----------



## WaltL1

hobbs27 said:


> 40 years can and is a long time.  To use a reference above.  You purchase a car from a Jewish car dealer.  He wants to finance it to you for forty years... You going to tell him,  sure,  that's not a long time at all,  matter of fact,  that's the opposite of a long time?


So how many years is a "long time"?
Don't you have to specify what a long time is to be able to compare the 40 years to it?
10 seconds is a long time if you have your hand on a hot stove.
10 seconds is NOT a long time if that's how long you can go fishing today......


----------



## WaltL1

SemperFiDawg said:


> You made this statement waaay back at #49. You were asked to defend it given your beliefs multiple times in multiple ways, yet only blah, blah, blah.
> 
> Again you state
> 
> ,
> 
> yet it's patently obvious you can't justify even having a concept of morality.
> 
> Hard having to rationally justify the ramifications of atheism isn't it?


I cant decide whether to pity you or laugh at you.
Here answer your own question -
Where do A/As get their concept of morality from? I know you know it. You've been told numerous, numerous times.


----------



## 660griz

hobbs27 said:


> I admit that's funny , but the truth is the number 1000 is used over and over in scripture as a symbolic number.  So you want to demand it means a literal number in this case,  without consideration of how it is used in other places.. That's how false doctrines are created,  that's how witches get burned,  and that's how people preach turn or  burn.



God, please get a book down here that is not open to interpretation. Isn't it obvious that your followers are having troubles. While it may be a nice hobby trying to interpret the scriptures, it is turning preacher on preacher, causing witches to be burnt, human sacrifice, and folks saying slavery is wrong. 
Come on God, just this once do something...Godly. 
Unless it is your master plan to keep your followers at odds and the rest of the world ignorant to your power...then never mind.


----------



## hobbs27

WaltL1 said:


> For about the 5th time now, this is what YOU said -
> 
> Lets break it down -
> 
> YOU specified years. That makes the thousand a number denoting how many years.
> 
> What happened in 40 years? The 1000 years YOU specified above.
> 
> No actually it sounds mathematically impossible.
> 
> You just confirmed that the 1000 years that YOU specified happened in a 40 year period.
> 
> You supplied the 40 year period that the 1000 years that YOU specified happened.
> 
> You specified a quantity of years. How many years? 1000 of them. When did the 1000 years happen? In the 40 year span of 30-70ad.
> That knocks out any symbolism, covenant blah blah blah.
> 
> What you stated is mathematical.
> There's no way around that.
> But feel free to keep trying to distract me from what YOU said.



The (thousand years)  or if you prefer (the millennium)  is a subject in revelation, so when I referred to the 1000 years I was referring the millennium or that specific subject,  not saying that 1000 literal Years = 40 literal years.


----------



## hobbs27

WaltL1 said:


> So how many years is a "long time"?
> Don't you have to specify what a long time is to be able to compare the 40 years to it?
> 10 seconds is a long time if you have your hand on a hot stove.
> 10 seconds is NOT a long time if that's how long you can go fishing today......



Exactly... and that's why the symbolic number 1000 does not just represent a long time,  it also represents completeness or fullness.  So when all things written were fulfilled,  the 1000 years were over... When was that?  Luke tells us it was at the destruction of the Temple. 

The Destruction of Jerusalem
20 “But when you see Jerusalem surrounded by armies, then know that its desolation is near. 21 Then let those who are in Judea flee to the mountains, let those who are in the midst of her depart, and let not those who are in the country enter her. 22 For these are the days of vengeance, that all things which are written may be fulfilled


----------



## welderguy

hobbs27 said:


> Exactly... and that's why the symbolic number 1000 does not just represent a long time,  it also represents completeness or fullness.  So when all things written were fulfilled,  the 1000 years were over... When was that?  Luke tells us it was at the destruction of the Temple.
> 
> The Destruction of Jerusalem
> 20 “But when you see Jerusalem surrounded by armies, then know that its desolation is near. 21 Then let those who are in Judea flee to the mountains, let those who are in the midst of her depart, and let not those who are in the country enter her. 22 For these are the days of vengeance, that all things which are written may be fulfilled



Not everything is fulfilled.
Not this:

"...for we shall all stand before the judgment seat of Christ.
 For it is written, As I live, saith the Lord, every knee shall bow to me, and every tongue shall confess to God."


----------



## WaltL1

hobbs27 said:


> The (thousand years)  or if you prefer (the millennium)  is a subject in revelation, so when I referred to the 1000 years I was referring the millennium or that specific subject,  not saying that 1000 literal Years = 40 literal years.


I don't prefer anything. You said what you said. I broke it down for you.
Well maybe I misspoke.
What I would prefer is that you acknowledge what you said and how you said it.
If you didn't mean what you said and how you said it, just be honest and say "disregard what I said and how I said it".
Its really simple.


----------



## WaltL1

hobbs27 said:


> Exactly... and that's why the symbolic number 1000 does not just represent a long time,  it also represents completeness or fullness.  So when all things written were fulfilled,  the 1000 years were over... When was that?  Luke tells us it was at the destruction of the Temple.
> 
> The Destruction of Jerusalem
> 20 “But when you see Jerusalem surrounded by armies, then know that its desolation is near. 21 Then let those who are in Judea flee to the mountains, let those who are in the midst of her depart, and let not those who are in the country enter her. 22 For these are the days of vengeance, that all things which are written may be fulfilled


A pile of carp.
You said what you said. I broke down YOUR words.
None of your words had anything do with the above.


----------



## welderguy

welderguy said:


> Not everything is fulfilled.
> Not this:
> 
> "...for we shall all stand before the judgment seat of Christ.
> For it is written, As I live, saith the Lord, every knee shall bow to me, and every tongue shall confess to God."



Let me guess, you're just "answering the easy ones at work and you'll address this after work" ?


----------



## bullethead

So Moses was really 4.8 years old when he died.
I am beginning to understand the biblical writings a little better.


----------



## hobbs27

welderguy said:


> Let me guess, you're just "answering the easy ones at work and you'll address this after work" ?



Well,  you just refuted Luke.  I figure that you as a believer would accept Luke's Gospel as inspired,  and if you aren't going to agree with the inspired word of God,  then Im not going to change your mind.


----------



## welderguy

hobbs27 said:


> Well,  you just refuted Luke.  I figure that you as a believer would accept Luke's Gospel as inspired,  and if you aren't going to agree with the inspired word of God,  then Im not going to change your mind.



Scripture does not contradict, that's why I'm showing that your preterist interpretation of Luke 21:22 will not work.

"21: 22 For these are the days of vengeance, that all things which are written may be fulfilled."

Notice "may be fulfilled", as in sometime in the future. It has to still be future in order to not contradict Rom.14:11. 
We are still in these "days of vengeance" because, as I showed you from Rom.14:11 that every knee has not bowed and every tongue has not confessed that Jesus is Lord.Can you honestly say that every person has done this and it's fulfilled? And what about those who haven't even been born yet.


----------



## hobbs27

welderguy said:


> Scripture does not contradict, that's why I'm showing that your preterist interpretation of Luke 21:22 will not work.
> 
> "21: 22 For these are the days of vengeance, that all things which are written may be fulfilled."
> 
> Notice "may be fulfilled", as in sometime in the future. It has to still be future in order to not contradict Rom.14:11.
> We are still in these "days of vengeance" because, as I showed you from Rom.14:11 that every knee has not bowed and every tongue has not confessed that Jesus is Lord.Can you honestly say that every person has done this and it's fulfilled? And what about those who haven't even been born yet.




Welder... Yes every knee bowed. It had to, luke 21:22 cannot be still today.. Read it,  let it sit in. 

The Destruction of Jerusalem
20 “But when you see Jerusalem surrounded by armies, then know that its desolation is near. 21 Then let those who are in Judea flee to the mountains, let those who are in the midst of her depart, and let not those who are in the country enter her. 22 For these are the days of vengeance, that all things which are written may be fulfilled. 23 But woe to those who are pregnant and to those who are nursing babies in those days! For there will be great distress in the land and wrath upon this people. 24 And they will fall by the edge of the sword, and be led away captive into all nations. And Jerusalem will be trampled by Gentiles until the times of the Gentiles are fulfilled.


----------



## welderguy

hobbs27 said:


> Welder... Yes every knee bowed. It had to, luke 21:22 cannot be still today.. Read it,  let it sit in.
> 
> The Destruction of Jerusalem
> 20 “But when you see Jerusalem surrounded by armies, then know that its desolation is near. 21 Then let those who are in Judea flee to the mountains, let those who are in the midst of her depart, and let not those who are in the country enter her. 22 For these are the days of vengeance, that all things which are written may be fulfilled. 23 But woe to those who are pregnant and to those who are nursing babies in those days! For there will be great distress in the land and wrath upon this people. 24 And they will fall by the edge of the sword, and be led away captive into all nations. And Jerusalem will be trampled by Gentiles until the times of the Gentiles are fulfilled.



Sure the destruction of Jerusalem is fulfilled. That's a no-brainer. But it was only the beginning of sorrows. Verse 22 goes beyond the 70AD account.
When Jesus states "this generation shall not pass until all things are fulfilled", generation here is age, not people. We are in the last age, just as they were.


----------



## hobbs27

welderguy said:


> Sure the destruction of Jerusalem is fulfilled. That's a no-brainer. But it was only the beginning of sorrows. Verse 22 goes beyond the 70AD account.
> When Jesus states "this generation shall not pass until all things are fulfilled", generation here is age, not people. We are in the last age, just as they were.



The armies surrounded Jerusalem in 66 ad,  it was a three and half year ordeal...so the army surrounding was the beginning of the Jewish tribulation. 

Every knee bowed. 

https://steemit.com/antichrist/@tuese/every-knee-shall-bow-every-knee-has-bowed-by-tuese-ahkiong


----------



## hobbs27

Daniel told to seal up his prophecy of the end because the time was far off... John was told not to seal Revelation because the time was near. 



12 And at that time shall Michael stand up, the great prince which standeth for the children of thy people: and there shall be a time of trouble, such as never was since there was a nation even to that same time: and at that time thy people shall be delivered, every one that shall be found written in the book.

2 And many of them that sleep in the dust of the earth shall awake, some to everlasting life, and some to shame and everlasting contempt.

3 And they that be wise shall shine as the brightness of the firmament; and they that turn many to righteousness as the stars for ever and ever.

4 But thou, O Daniel, shut up the words, and seal the book, even to the time of the end: many shall run to and fro, and knowledge shall be increased.

------------------------------------------------------

Revelation 22:
10 And he saith unto me, Seal not the sayings of the prophecy of this book: for the time is at hand.

11 He that is unjust, let him be unjust still: and he which is filthy, let him be filthy still: and he that is righteous, let him be righteous still: and he that is holy, let him be holy still.

12 And, behold, I come quickly; and my reward is with me, to give every man according as his work shall be


----------



## welderguy

hobbs27 said:


> The armies surrounded Jerusalem in 66 ad,  it was a three and half year ordeal...so the army surrounding was the beginning of the Jewish tribulation.
> 
> Every knee bowed.
> 
> https://steemit.com/antichrist/@tuese/every-knee-shall-bow-every-knee-has-bowed-by-tuese-ahkiong



"all who were incensed against him."

Still alot of those around here.


----------



## welderguy

hobbs27 said:


> Daniel told to seal up his prophecy of the end because the time was far off... John was told not to seal Revelation because the time was near.
> 
> 
> 
> 12 And at that time shall Michael stand up, the great prince which standeth for the children of thy people: and there shall be a time of trouble, such as never was since there was a nation even to that same time: and at that time thy people shall be delivered, every one that shall be found written in the book.
> 
> 2 And many of them that sleep in the dust of the earth shall awake, some to everlasting life, and some to shame and everlasting contempt.
> 
> 3 And they that be wise shall shine as the brightness of the firmament; and they that turn many to righteousness as the stars for ever and ever.
> 
> 4 But thou, O Daniel, shut up the words, and seal the book, even to the time of the end: many shall run to and fro, and knowledge shall be increased.
> 
> ------------------------------------------------------
> 
> Revelation 22:
> 10 And he saith unto me, Seal not the sayings of the prophecy of this book: for the time is at hand.
> 
> 11 He that is unjust, let him be unjust still: and he which is filthy, let him be filthy still: and he that is righteous, let him be righteous still: and he that is holy, let him be holy still.
> 
> 12 And, behold, I come quickly; and my reward is with me, to give every man according as his work shall be



Daniel was not in the last age, John was.


----------



## hobbs27

welderguy said:


> Daniel was not in the last age, John was.



Between Daniel and John was 650 years.  This was considered far off... From John to today is 1900+ years.  Is it your stance then that 650 years is far off,  but 1900+ is at hand?


----------



## WaltL1

Aaaand in this corner, carrying the NT and interpreting it this way weee have THE PRETERIST. Aaaaand in that corner, carrying the exact same NT and interpreting it that way, weeee have THE CHOSEN ONE.
Leeeets get reeeeeeady to ruuuuumble !!!
Ding Ding!


----------



## Artfuldodger

welderguy said:


> Scripture does not contradict, that's why I'm showing that your preterist interpretation of Luke 21:22 will not work.
> 
> "21: 22 For these are the days of vengeance, that all things which are written may be fulfilled."
> 
> Notice "may be fulfilled", as in sometime in the future. It has to still be future in order to not contradict Rom.14:11.
> We are still in these "days of vengeance" because, as I showed you from Rom.14:11 that every knee has not bowed and every tongue has not confessed that Jesus is Lord.Can you honestly say that every person has done this and it's fulfilled? And what about those who haven't even been born yet.



Doesn't that go against your view that man is too depraved to bow and confess? Since every person will finally do this, does this mean they were all elected? 
Otherwise how were their eyes opened to see?

Philippians 2:10-11
that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, in heaven and on earth and under the earth, 11and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.

Why share the "way" to salvation to the whole world but only "offer" to some? Especially if it's at the end of the game. It's like rubbing something in their face they could never attain.

Unless it's a means of universal salvation. I would think that if one is going to confess that Jesus is Lord, then they will believe.  They will do as John 3:16 says.


----------



## atlashunter

hobbs27 said:


> The armies surrounded Jerusalem in 66 ad,  it was a three and half year ordeal...so the army surrounding was the beginning of the Jewish tribulation.
> 
> Every knee bowed.
> 
> https://steemit.com/antichrist/@tuese/every-knee-shall-bow-every-knee-has-bowed-by-tuese-ahkiong



The armies that surrounded Jerusalem won. Revelations says they were defeated. By an army of Jesus and his christians that didn't exist at the time.


----------



## Artfuldodger

hobbs27 said:


> The armies surrounded Jerusalem in 66 ad,  it was a three and half year ordeal...so the army surrounding was the beginning of the Jewish tribulation.
> 
> Every knee bowed.
> 
> https://steemit.com/antichrist/@tuese/every-knee-shall-bow-every-knee-has-bowed-by-tuese-ahkiong



Does this mean the whole town converted or were they just "aware" that Jesus was the Lord and believed?

The warnings? Were they to the whole city or just the elect? Did God save whom he wanted to save and destroy the rest? 
If so and it went down exactly the way God wanted it to, why the warnings to begin with? 

Let's say God warns the elect or believers to flee the city. Then he destroys those left. I would assume he saved all he offered salvation to to begin with and destroyed the ones he didn't have mercy on. 

Who could be left to bow and believe but those that believed in the first place?


----------



## hobbs27

Artfuldodger said:


> Does this mean the whole town converted or were they just "aware" that Jesus was the Lord and believed?
> 
> The warnings? Were they to the whole city or just the elect? Did God save whom he wanted to save and destroy the rest?
> If so and it went down exactly the way God wanted it to, why the warnings to begin with?
> 
> Let's say God warns the elect or believers to flee the city. Then he destroys those left. I would assume he saved all he offered salvation to to begin with and destroyed the ones he didn't have mercy on.
> 
> Who could be left to bow and believe but those that believed in the first place?



They knew,  but it was too late.

The elect escaped destruction.


----------



## hobbs27

atlashunter said:


> The armies that surrounded Jerusalem won. Revelations says they were defeated. By an army of Jesus and his christians that didn't exist at the time.



OK...  The Roman's won against the Jew's yes. Christ was doing just as His Father did in the first Temple destruction. The first Temple,  God used the Babylonians to carry out the destruction.. In the last Temple Jesus used the Roman's.... And there were Christians in 66-70 ad.


----------



## bullethead

hobbs27 said:


> Between Daniel and John was 650 years.  This was considered far off... From John to today is 1900+ years.  Is it your stance then that 650 years is far off,  but 1900+ is at hand?



1000=40
650=26
1900=76

Simple bible interpretative math.


----------



## Artfuldodger

hobbs27 said:


> They knew,  but it was too late.
> 
> The elect escaped destruction.



Psalms 66:3-4
Say to God, "How awesome are your deeds! So great is your power that your enemies cringe before you.
4 "All the earth will worship You, And will sing praises to You; They will sing praises to Your name." Selah.

Was this prophesy pertaining to after the destruction?


----------



## welderguy

hobbs27 said:


> They knew,  but it was too late.
> 
> The elect escaped destruction.



Why didn't the Roman soldiers bow their knees and confess? Because I'm pretty sure they just kept on killing.


----------



## Artfuldodger

hobbs27 said:


> They knew,  but it was too late.
> 
> The elect escaped destruction.



Psalm 22:27
All the ends of the earth will remember and turn to the LORD, And all the families of the nations will worship before You.

Psalm 86:9
All nations whom You have made shall come and worship before You, O Lord, And they shall glorify Your name.

Ephesians 1:10
And this is the plan: At the right time he will bring everything together under the authority of Christ--everything in heaven and on earth.

Would it be safe to say that the whole world's depravity has been lifted at this time and now all nations, everyone worship the Lord?

Either now or in the future, it appears we will all have an effectual calling.


----------



## Artfuldodger

welderguy said:


> Why didn't the Roman soldiers bow their knees and confess? Because I'm pretty sure they just kept on killing.



I'd like your input to my post 304. Will the whole world eventually worship God through Jesus? If so, if every knee bows, does this mean all will be elected or that only the elect will be left?


----------



## welderguy

bullethead said:


> 1000=40
> 650=26
> 1900=76
> 
> Simple bible interpretative math.



But then there's this:

2 Peter 3:8
8 But, beloved, be not ignorant of this one thing, that one day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day.


----------



## Artfuldodger

Romans 11:26
and in this way all Israel will be saved. As it is written: "The deliverer will come from Zion; he will turn godlessness away from Jacob.

Hebrews 8:11-12
 11No longer will each one teach his neighbor or his brother, saying, ‘Know the Lord,’ because they will all know Me, from the least of them to the greatest. 12For I will forgive their iniquities, and remember their sins no more.”

Jeremiah 31:34
"They will not teach again, each man his neighbor and each man his brother, saying, 'Know the LORD,' for they will all know Me, from the least of them to the greatest of them," declares the LORD, "for I will forgive their iniquity, and their sin I will remember no more."

Revelation 15:4
Who will not fear you, Lord, and glorify your name? For you alone are holy. All nations will come and worship before you, for your righteous deeds have been revealed."

Was this after the destruction of Jerusalem or will this be a future even when "all" will no longer be totally depraved and will have an "effectual" calling?

What's with all the saving Israel stuffs as well?


----------



## bullethead

welderguy said:


> But then there's this:
> 
> 2 Peter 3:8
> 8 But, beloved, be not ignorant of this one thing, that one day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day.


Oh my goodness.
Yes according to the non-contradicting scripture you are now right. (That was a solid rock-em sock-em uppercut there Welder)
Does literal bible math trump interpretative bible math?
I am out of the game too long to remember.


----------



## welderguy

Artfuldodger said:


> I'd like your input to my post 304. Will the whole world eventually worship God through Jesus? If so, if every knee bows, does this mean all will be elected or that only the elect will be left?



Not exactly following your line of thinking. Election took place before the foundation of the world.


----------



## atlashunter

welderguy said:


> But then there's this:
> 
> 2 Peter 3:8
> 8 But, beloved, be not ignorant of this one thing, that one day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day.



The use of the word "as" indicates it is not meant literally. There is no such indication for the thousand year reign in Revelation 20.


----------



## welderguy

atlashunter said:


> The use of the word "as" indicates it is not meant literally. There is no such indication for the thousand year reign in Revelation 20.



It was said tongue in cheek. No implication intended.


----------



## atlashunter

hobbs27 said:


> OK...  The Roman's won against the Jew's yes. Christ was doing just as His Father did in the first Temple destruction. The first Temple,  God used the Babylonians to carry out the destruction.. In the last Temple Jesus used the Roman's.... And there were Christians in 66-70 ad.



There were christians but there was no christian army. Nor was there any great messiah warrior rolling in from the clouds on a white horse wearing a robe dipped in blood. Revelation doesn't say Jesus used the army surrounding Jerusalem to do his work by handing over the city to them so they could destroy the temple. It says he killed the armies himself. In Revelation he and his army saves Jerusalem from destruction by the armies that surround it. In reality he had been dead for decades and both christians  and jews were under the thumb of the Romans and the Romans conquered Jerusalem.


----------



## Artfuldodger

welderguy said:


> Not exactly following your line of thinking. Election took place before the foundation of the world.



Not the actual election but the effectual calling. Man is blind until God opens his eyes to see. 

Philippians 2:10-11
that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, in heaven and on earth and under the earth, 11and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.

Revelation 15:4
Who will not fear you, Lord, and glorify your name? For you alone are holy. All nations will come and worship before you, for your righteous deeds have been revealed."

Psalms 66:3-4
Say to God, "How awesome are your deeds! So great is your power that your enemies cringe before you.
4 "All the earth will worship You, And will sing praises to You; They will sing praises to Your name." Selah.


Eventually all nations eyes will be opened and they will worship God through Jesus. Since the eyes of all will eventually be opened, how does this line up with their election?


----------



## atlashunter

welderguy said:


> It was said tongue in cheek. No implication intended.



I understand. Just making the point that at least there it is made evident it's not meant literally whereas that isn't the case with the thousand year reign.


----------



## hobbs27

Artfuldodger said:


> Psalms 66:3-4
> Say to God, "How awesome are your deeds! So great is your power that your enemies cringe before you.
> 4 "All the earth will worship You, And will sing praises to You; They will sing praises to Your name." Selah.
> 
> Was this prophesy pertaining to after the destruction?



I think the word translated as world refers to Kingdom.. Erets is land,  or country,  district.  So,  all in His Kingdom worship Him.


----------



## Artfuldodger

atlashunter said:


> There were christians but there was no christian army. Nor was there any great messiah warrior rolling in from the clouds on a white horse wearing a robe dipped in blood. Revelation doesn't say Jesus used the army surrounding Jerusalem to do his work by handing over the city to them so they could destroy the temple. It says he killed the armies himself. In Revelation he and his army saves Jerusalem from destruction by the armies that surround it. In reality he had been dead for decades and both christians  and jews were under the thumb of the Romans and the Romans conquered Jerusalem.



From your prior experience reading the Bible, would you say the gospel accounts were a destruction of Jerusalem in 70AD and that the Revelation account is a future event? I realize not your belief but just they way you read it. 
I can see what you are talking about in Revelations but I thing the gospel accounts were Jerusalem in 70AD.


----------



## welderguy

atlashunter said:


> I understand. Just making the point that at least there it is made evident it's not meant literally whereas that isn't the case with the thousand year reign.



So are you saying you believe the thousand year reign is meant to be a literal thousand years?


----------



## Artfuldodger

welderguy said:


> Sure the destruction of Jerusalem is fulfilled. That's a no-brainer. But it was only the beginning of sorrows. Verse 22 goes beyond the 70AD account.
> When Jesus states "this generation shall not pass until all things are fulfilled", generation here is age, not people. We are in the last age, just as they were.



How does this compute with Jesus saying some of you standing here will not taste death before I return?
Why the warning of an imminent destruction? Jesus is warning his people that it's coming soon. I don't think generation is age, nation, or race. 
This warning is for the destruction of Jerusalem in 70AD.

Now it may be a shadow of a future world destruction but it's definitely a warning to that generation.


----------



## hobbs27

welderguy said:


> Not exactly following your line of thinking. Election took place before the foundation of the world.



Here's a conversation text we were just having on this text the other night.  I hope this helps you. 


They get that idea, because it says that the lamb was slain before the foundation of the world. So, they take salvation all the way back to Gen creation......However, what they do not realize is that the term "WORLD" refers to covenant systems......So, what it is really saying is that Christ was slain before the foundation of the New Covenant system (WORLD) could be laid.....Since, the death of a testator must happen before the inheritance of the New Covenant can come into effect. You might try explaining the biblical meaning of "worlds" and showing their distinctions in the NT. For example: Paul said that, we, who are believers of the gospel are IN the "world without end" Eph 3:21- new covenant. However, those of the old covenant system were IN the world that passes away, the world to which Jesus said "I pray not for the WORLD" but for those whom God had given him from out of that world .


----------



## hobbs27

atlashunter said:


> There were christians but there was no christian army. Nor was there any great messiah warrior rolling in from the clouds on a white horse wearing a robe dipped in blood. Revelation doesn't say Jesus used the army surrounding Jerusalem to do his work by handing over the city to them so they could destroy the temple. It says he killed the armies himself. In Revelation he and his army saves Jerusalem from destruction by the armies that surround it. In reality he had been dead for decades and both christians  and jews were under the thumb of the Romans and the Romans conquered Jerusalem.



Josephus,  a Jew and eyewitness would disagree with you. 

Josephus (A.D. 75) - Jewish Historian
"Besides these [signs], a few days after that feast, on the one- and-twentieth day of the month Artemisius, [Jyar,] a certain prodigious and incredible phenomenon appeared; I suppose the account of it would seem to be a fable, were it not related by those that saw it, and were not the events that followed it of so considerable a nature as to deserve such signals; for, before sun-setting, chariots and troops of soldiers in their armour were seen running about among the clouds, and surrounding of cities. Moreover, at that feast which we call Pentecost, as the priests were going by night into the inner [court of the] temple, as their custom was, to perform their sacred ministrations, they said that, in the first place, they felt a quaking, and heard a great noise, and after that they heard a sound as of a great multitude, saying, "Let us remove hence" (Jewish Wars, VI-V-3).

And Tacitus. 

Tacitus (A.D. 115) - Roman historian
"13. Prodigies had occurred, but their expiation by the offering of victims or solemn vows is held to be unlawful by a nation which is the slave of superstition and the enemy of true beliefs. In the sky appeared a vision of armies in conflict, of glittering armour. A sudden lightning flash from the clouds lit up the Temple. The doors of the holy place abruptly opened, a superhuman voice was heard to declare that the gods were leaving it, and in the same instant came the rushing tumult of their departure. Few people placed a sinister interpretation upon this. The majority were convinced that the ancient scriptures of their priests alluded to the present as the very time when the Orient would triumph and from Judaea would go forth men destined to rule the world." (Histories, Book 5, v. 13).


----------



## Artfuldodger

hobbs27 said:


> I think the word translated as world refers to Kingdom.. Erets is land,  or country,  district.  So,  all in His Kingdom worship Him.



Have you ever seen how many verses there are where "all" will believe Jesus is the savior and worship God?
"Every" as well. Every tongue shall confess.

Of course it's all in his Kingdom because it eventually will "all" become his Kingdom. 

Isaiah 2:2
In the last days the mountain of the LORD's temple will be established as the highest of the mountains; it will be exalted above the hills, and all nations will stream to it.

Isaiah 66:23
"And it shall be from new moon to new moon And from sabbath to sabbath, All mankind will come to bow down before Me," says the LORD.

Psalms 86:9
All the nations you have made will come and worship before you, Lord; they will bring glory to your name.

Psalm 22:27
All the ends of the earth will remember and turn to the LORD, And all the families of the nations will worship before You.

Psalm 66:4
"All the earth will worship You, And will sing praises to You; They will sing praises to Your name." Selah.

Revelation 15:4
Who will not fear You, O Lord, and glorify Your name? For You alone are holy. All nations will come and worship before You, for Your righteous acts have been revealed."

It's most definitely God's Kingdom. My question is if "all" are worshiping God then there must eventually be a time when "all" believe.

Maybe it's after God destroys everyone else. Maybe only the elect of "all" nations will bow because they are the only ones left to bow.
Maybe God isn't making non-beleivers believe but destroys them "all" and then the "all" that worship are the elect.


----------



## atlashunter

Artfuldodger said:


> From your prior experience reading the Bible, would you say the gospel accounts were a destruction of Jerusalem in 70AD and that the Revelation account is a future event? I realize not your belief but just they way you read it.
> I can see what you are talking about in Revelations but I thing the gospel accounts were Jerusalem in 70AD.



Yes Revelation is talking about future events. It repeatedly refers to itself as prophecy and repeatedly quotes Jesus saying "I am coming soon".

If I understand your question about the gospels yes they seem to indicate an awareness of the destruction of the temple.


----------



## welderguy

Artfuldodger said:


> How does this compute with Jesus saying some of you standing here will not taste death before I return?
> Why the warning of an imminent destruction? Jesus is warning his people that it's coming soon. I don't think generation is age, nation, or race.
> This warning is for the destruction of Jerusalem in 70AD.
> 
> Now it may be a shadow of a future world destruction but it's definitely a warning to that generation.



"Verily I say unto you, there are some standing here who shall not taste of death till they see the Son of Man coming in His Kingdom.”

His kingdom is within us.(Luke 17:20-21)

Not an end times text.


----------



## hobbs27

atlashunter said:


> Yes Revelation is talking about future events. It repeatedly refers to itself as prophecy and repeatedly quotes Jesus saying "I am coming soon".
> 
> If I understand your question about the gospels yes they seem to indicate an awareness of the destruction of the temple.




How do you explain the first verse?  this being a letter addressed to seven churches in Asia,  what did it mean to them,  that all these things were about to come to pass? 

The Revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave unto him, to shew unto his servants things which must shortly come to pass; and he sent and signified it by his angel unto his servant John:


----------



## atlashunter

hobbs27 said:


> Josephus,  a Jew and eyewitness would disagree with you.
> 
> Josephus (A.D. 75) - Jewish Historian
> "Besides these [signs], a few days after that feast, on the one- and-twentieth day of the month Artemisius, [Jyar,] a certain prodigious and incredible phenomenon appeared; I suppose the account of it would seem to be a fable, were it not related by those that saw it, and were not the events that followed it of so considerable a nature as to deserve such signals; for, before sun-setting, chariots and troops of soldiers in their armour were seen running about among the clouds, and surrounding of cities. Moreover, at that feast which we call Pentecost, as the priests were going by night into the inner [court of the] temple, as their custom was, to perform their sacred ministrations, they said that, in the first place, they felt a quaking, and heard a great noise, and after that they heard a sound as of a great multitude, saying, "Let us remove hence" (Jewish Wars, VI-V-3).
> 
> And Tacitus.
> 
> Tacitus (A.D. 115) - Roman historian
> "13. Prodigies had occurred, but their expiation by the offering of victims or solemn vows is held to be unlawful by a nation which is the slave of superstition and the enemy of true beliefs. In the sky appeared a vision of armies in conflict, of glittering armour. A sudden lightning flash from the clouds lit up the Temple. The doors of the holy place abruptly opened, a superhuman voice was heard to declare that the gods were leaving it, and in the same instant came the rushing tumult of their departure. Few people placed a sinister interpretation upon this. The majority were convinced that the ancient scriptures of their priests alluded to the present as the very time when the Orient would triumph and from Judaea would go forth men destined to rule the world." (Histories, Book 5, v. 13).



Neither of those are first hand accounts and neither make reference to Jesus. I would also suspect given the very close resemblence in sequence and verbiage that Tacitus is simply reciting Josephus.


----------



## atlashunter

hobbs27 said:


> How do you explain the first verse?  this being a letter addressed to seven churches in Asia,  what did it mean to them,  that all these things were about to come to pass?
> 
> The Revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave unto him, to shew unto his servants things which must shortly come to pass; and he sent and signified it by his angel unto his servant John:



Yes I believe the author of Revelation did believe those things would come to pass soon. Not that they already had as you indicate when you suggest that he wrote the book toward the end of the 40 year reign of christ and his peoples on earth.


----------



## Artfuldodger

hobbs27 said:


> Here's a conversation text we were just having on this text the other night.  I hope this helps you.
> 
> 
> They get that idea, because it says that the lamb was slain before the foundation of the world. So, they take salvation all the way back to Gen creation......However, what they do not realize is that the term "WORLD" refers to covenant systems......So, what it is really saying is that Christ was slain before the foundation of the New Covenant system (WORLD) could be laid.....Since, the death of a testator must happen before the inheritance of the New Covenant can come into effect. You might try explaining the biblical meaning of "worlds" and showing their distinctions in the NT. For example: Paul said that, we, who are believers of the gospel are IN the "world without end" Eph 3:21- new covenant. However, those of the old covenant system were IN the world that passes away, the world to which Jesus said "I pray not for the WORLD" but for those whom God had given him from out of that world .



How does that explain the names written in the Book of Life at the foundation of the world? Are you saying that the names were written in the Book of Life at the beginning of the new covenant? If so that really doesn't change much as related to predestination.

Revelation 13:8
And all the people who belong to this world worshiped the beast. They are the ones whose names were not written in the Book of Life before the world was made--the Book that belongs to the Lamb who was slaughtered.

Revelation 17:8
The beast, which you saw, once was, now is not, and yet will come up out of the Abyss and go to its destruction. The inhabitants of the earth whose names have not been written in the book of life from the creation of the world will be astonished when they see the beast, because it once was, now is not, and yet will come.


----------



## Artfuldodger

hobbs27 said:


> Josephus,  a Jew and eyewitness would disagree with you.
> 
> Josephus (A.D. 75) - Jewish Historian
> "Besides these [signs], a few days after that feast, on the one- and-twentieth day of the month Artemisius, [Jyar,] a certain prodigious and incredible phenomenon appeared; I suppose the account of it would seem to be a fable, were it not related by those that saw it, and were not the events that followed it of so considerable a nature as to deserve such signals; for, before sun-setting, chariots and troops of soldiers in their armour were seen running about among the clouds, and surrounding of cities. Moreover, at that feast which we call Pentecost, as the priests were going by night into the inner [court of the] temple, as their custom was, to perform their sacred ministrations, they said that, in the first place, they felt a quaking, and heard a great noise, and after that they heard a sound as of a great multitude, saying, "Let us remove hence" (Jewish Wars, VI-V-3).
> 
> And Tacitus.
> 
> Tacitus (A.D. 115) - Roman historian
> "13. Prodigies had occurred, but their expiation by the offering of victims or solemn vows is held to be unlawful by a nation which is the slave of superstition and the enemy of true beliefs. In the sky appeared a vision of armies in conflict, of glittering armour. A sudden lightning flash from the clouds lit up the Temple. The doors of the holy place abruptly opened, a superhuman voice was heard to declare that the gods were leaving it, and in the same instant came the rushing tumult of their departure. Few people placed a sinister interpretation upon this. The majority were convinced that the ancient scriptures of their priests alluded to the present as the very time when the Orient would triumph and from Judaea would go forth men destined to rule the world." (Histories, Book 5, v. 13).



Interesting, then do you see this spiritual battle in the clouds as the account in Revelation happening at the same time as the physical battle of the Roman army attacking Jerusalem in 70AD? 
Physical Jerusalem being destroyed and at the same time spiritual Israel being created?

The gospel account being fulfilled on the ground and the Revelation account being fulfilled in the heavens.


----------



## hobbs27

atlashunter said:


> Neither of those are first hand accounts and neither make reference to Jesus. I would also suspect given the very close resemblence in sequence and verbiage that Tacitus is simply reciting Josephus.



Josephus parents were inside the walls of Jerusalem.  Josephus was used as a negotiator between the Roman's and the zealots.. Josephus was there the entire time,  he saw it first hand.


----------



## welderguy

atlashunter said:


> Neither of those are first hand accounts and neither make reference to Jesus. I would also suspect given the very close resemblence in sequence and verbiage that Tacitus is simply reciting Josephus.



Not to mention Josephus was being paid by the Roman government, with money, gifts, and favors.


----------



## hobbs27

Artfuldodger said:


> Interesting, then do you see this spiritual battle in the clouds as the account in Revelation happening at the same time as the physical battle of the Roman army attacking Jerusalem in 70AD?
> Physical Jerusalem being destroyed and at the same time spiritual Israel being created?
> 
> The gospel account being fulfilled on the ground and the Revelation account being fulfilled in the heavens.



Yes,  apparently some of the signs were also literally fulfilled.  There's different accounts as to how the Temple actually caught fire and was destroyed.  Titus was wanting to save it and give it to Caesar as a gift.  Some say the fire came from heaven,  others have a different story. I need to brush up on the literal signs again,  I left that behind a few years ago,  and just been concentrating on scripture.


----------



## hobbs27

Artfuldodger said:


> How does that explain the names written in the Book of Life at the foundation of the world? Are you saying that the names were written in the Book of Life at the beginning of the new covenant? If so that really doesn't change much as related to predestination.
> 
> Revelation 13:8
> And all the people who belong to this world worshiped the beast. They are the ones whose names were not written in the Book of Life before the world was made--the Book that belongs to the Lamb who was slaughtered.
> 
> Revelation 17:8
> The beast, which you saw, once was, now is not, and yet will come up out of the Abyss and go to its destruction. The inhabitants of the earth whose names have not been written in the book of life from the creation of the world will be astonished when they see the beast, because it once was, now is not, and yet will come.



I've tried to find more on the book of life.  I've asked folks in here,  I've asked other places,  I've searched books,  but there's very little on the meaning of the book of life that I can find.


----------



## atlashunter

hobbs27 said:


> Josephus parents were inside the walls of Jerusalem.  Josephus was used as a negotiator between the Roman's and the zealots.. Josephus was there the entire time,  he saw it first hand.



That's not what the account says. He doesn't say he saw it first hand. He doesn't say his parents saw it. He says it was related by those that saw it. He also gives testimony of the priests of something that supposedly happened in the inner court of the temple (where only the priests were allowed).

And again, where does he make any mention of Jesus? Are you _really_ going to suggest Josephus saw a dude fitting this description given in Revelation with his own eyes and didn't think it worth mentioning?



> 11 Then I saw heaven opened, and there was a white horse. The one who was sitting on it is called Faithful and True, and he judges and makes war justly. 12 His eyes are like a flaming fire, and there are many coronets on his head. He has a name written there which nobody knows except himself. 13 He is clothed in a robe dipped in blood, and he is called by the name ‘God’s Word’. 14 The armies of heaven follow him on white horses, all wearing shining, pure linen. 15 A sharp two-edged sword is coming out of his mouth, so that with it he can strike down the nations. He will rule them with a rod of iron, and he will tread the winepress of the wine of the anger of the wrath of Almighty God. 16 On his robe, and on his thigh, is written a name: King of kings, and Lord of lords.


----------



## hobbs27

atlashunter said:


> Yes I believe the author of Revelation did believe those things would come to pass soon. Not that they already had as you indicate when you suggest that he wrote the book toward the end of the 40 year reign of christ and his peoples on earth.



 you realize there's no limitation on the reign of Christ.. Right?  It was those that took part in the first resurrection that reigned with Him for 1000 (symbolic#) years. 

Just because they no longer reigned with Him doesn't mean His reign ended.


----------



## Artfuldodger

Mark 14:61:62
But Jesus remained silent and made no reply. Again the high priest questioned Him, “Are You the Christ, the Son of the Blessed One?” 62“I am, said Jesus, “and you will see the Son of Man sitting at the right hand of Power and coming with the clouds of heaven.” 

Was Jesus speaking directly to this priest meaning that he personally would see him returning in the clouds?


----------



## hobbs27

atlashunter said:


> That's not what the account says. He doesn't say he saw it first hand. He doesn't say his parents saw it. He says it was related by those that saw it. He also gives testimony of the priests of something that supposedly happened in the inner court of the temple (where only the priests were allowed).
> 
> And again, where does he make any mention of Jesus? Are you _really_ going to suggest Josephus saw a dude fitting this description given in Revelation with his own eyes and didn't think it worth mentioning?


Gotchya  I first thought you were saying he didn't witness the sacking of the city.  That's what I was responding to.. My bad.


----------



## Artfuldodger

hobbs27 said:


> I've tried to find more on the book of life.  I've asked folks in here,  I've asked other places,  I've searched books,  but there's very little on the meaning of the book of life that I can find.



Regardless, if their names were not written in this book, they were slaughtered.
This would only leave the believers to bow and worship God.


----------



## atlashunter

hobbs27 said:


> you realize there's no limitation on the reign of Christ.. Right?  It was those that took part in the first resurrection that reigned with Him for 1000 (symbolic#) years.
> 
> Just because they no longer reigned with Him doesn't mean His reign ended.



You're missing the point. If Revelation is prophecy as it claims to be and Jesus had not yet made his return to defeat the beast and begin his thousand year reign when Revelation was written then it couldn't have happened before Revelation was written. The point here is when it began, not when it ended.


----------



## Artfuldodger

hobbs27 said:


> Yes,  apparently some of the signs were also literally fulfilled.  There's different accounts as to how the Temple actually caught fire and was destroyed.  Titus was wanting to save it and give it to Caesar as a gift.  Some say the fire came from heaven,  others have a different story. I need to brush up on the literal signs again,  I left that behind a few years ago,  and just been concentrating on scripture.



Still though within your belief, physical Jerusalem was destroyed physically on the ground and a New spiritual Jerusalem was created or something along those lines as seen in the clouds. Maybe the Sanhedrin Priest saw this battle in the clouds. 

It was an event in time. Now believers are a part of this new spiritual Jerusalem. Just as many folks missed the first coming of the Lord, they also missed this second coming because they were looking for a more "physical" second coming.


----------



## atlashunter

Artfuldodger said:


> Still though within your belief, physical Jerusalem was destroyed physically on the ground and a New spiritual Jerusalem was created or something along those lines as seen in the clouds. Maybe the Sanhedrin Priest saw this battle in the clouds.
> 
> It was an event in time. Now believers are a part of this new spiritual Jerusalem. Just as many folks missed the first coming of the Lord, they also missed this second coming because they were looking for a more "physical" second coming.



How exactly does one measure the physical dimensions of a spiritual city?


----------



## Artfuldodger

atlashunter said:


> How exactly does one measure the physical dimensions of a spiritual city?



I'm not sure. I also wonder when "all" will worship God through Jesus when every head shall bow;

Psalms 66:3-4
Say to God, "How awesome are your deeds! So great is your power that your enemies cringe before you.
4 "All the earth will worship You, And will sing praises to You; They will sing praises to Your name." Selah.

Psalm 22:27
All the ends of the earth will remember and turn to the LORD, And all the families of the nations will worship before You.

Psalm 86:9
All nations whom You have made shall come and worship before You, O Lord, And they shall glorify Your name.

Romans 11:26
and in this way all Israel will be saved. As it is written: "The deliverer will come from Zion; he will turn godlessness away from Jacob.

Hebrews 8:11-12
11No longer will each one teach his neighbor or his brother, saying, ‘Know the Lord,’ because they will all know Me, from the least of them to the greatest. 12For I will forgive their iniquities, and remember their sins no more.”

Jeremiah 31:34
"They will not teach again, each man his neighbor and each man his brother, saying, 'Know the LORD,' for they will all know Me, from the least of them to the greatest of them," declares the LORD, "for I will forgive their iniquity, and their sin I will remember no more."

Revelation 15:4
Who will not fear you, Lord, and glorify your name? For you alone are holy. All nations will come and worship before you, for your righteous deeds have been revealed."


----------



## Artfuldodger

Revelation 21

The New Jerusalem
…14The wall of the city had twelve foundations bearing the names of the twelve apostles of the Lamb. 15The angel who spoke with me had a golden measuring rod to measure the city and its gates and its walls. 16The city lies foursquare, with its width the same as its length. And he measured the city with the rod, and all its dimensions were equal—twelve thousand stadia in length and width and height. 17And he measured its wall to be one hundred forty-four cubits, by the human measure the angel was using. 18The wall was made of jasper, and the city itself of pure gold, as pure as glass.

This does make it appear to be literal and physical. 
Especially since it has measurements. Why would a spiritual Jerusalem have measurements? You could explain the gold and jasper as not literal but measurements?
The mystery continues.


----------



## atlashunter

Artfuldodger said:


> Revelation 21
> 
> The New Jerusalem
> …14The wall of the city had twelve foundations bearing the names of the twelve apostles of the Lamb. 15The angel who spoke with me had a golden measuring rod to measure the city and its gates and its walls. 16The city lies foursquare, with its width the same as its length. And he measured the city with the rod, and all its dimensions were equal—twelve thousand stadia in length and width and height. 17And he measured its wall to be one hundred forty-four cubits, by the human measure the angel was using. 18The wall was made of jasper, and the city itself of pure gold, as pure as glass.
> 
> This does make it appear to be literal and physical.
> Especially since it has measurements. Why would a spiritual Jerusalem have measurements? You could explain the gold and jasper as not literal but measurements?
> The mystery continues.



Don't forget this:



> 2 I saw the Holy City, the new Jerusalem, coming down out of heaven from God, prepared as a bride beautifully dressed for her husband. 3 And I heard a loud voice from the throne saying, “Look! God’s dwelling place is now among the people, and he will dwell with them. They will be his people, and God himself will be with them and be their God. 4 ‘He will wipe every tear from their eyes. There will be no more death’* or mourning or crying or pain, for the old order of things has passed away.**”*


----------



## Israel

Once in a lifetime, ( https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TGofoH9RDEA ) a man sees. Something pierces the veil of all his own doings, all his own imaginings about himself, all those things that _something_ argues to him..."these things are you, these things constitute your life". In once he sees, at once he knows. All _the things_ are not real to him. He knows.

This seeing is a gift. Of light. It's as unsought and unimagined as all that can be as he goes about even in those vague imaginings of what is real...to him. The vague imagining, of who he is. It is no more earned than it can be said "it" was sought. It is thrust upon him, he is thrust into it, unbidden. Things are not as they seem, for he is not as _he seems_...to himself.

This touch cannot be explained. It cannot be quantified, qualified or in any way understood by previous tools of measure. It is in every way, out of time, out of life, out of body. But the light is real. Because it pierces. Through and through. In that moment it has done all its work.

The man is translated. The man is transported. Old language fails here. Old reasoning fails here. Old words fail here. They are but cobwebs seeking to hold a thing now, of substance; of substance pierced by light. They must burn away.

That moment is a moment. A moment out of time has been added to all the moments in time, and totally undoes them. But the argument against it remains strong "come back to yourself, come back to _your senses_, come back...come back..."


We are entertained by what to us, appears the insane. We may never lose it. A child must stop and ask "why is that man doing...that?"..."move along dear, he is out of his mind".  He's in a place where the rules...have lost all their meaning.


Who's to say? Is it the historian? "Same as it ever was, same as it ever was..."? Measuring out neat portions of time to a mind so it might not lose its grip in time and on time to hold itself together? "I remain as I was a moment ago, a day ago, a year ago..._whew_, I am still...myself...to myself" I still...recognize...myself.

Ahhh, but the thrust of that light thrusts. The man is out of place to himself and he will try to make sense of that light, or let it makes sense...of him.

There _is a Guide_.


 Everyone who has heard the Father and learned from Him comes to me...


----------



## Artfuldodger

welderguy said:


> "Verily I say unto you, there are some standing here who shall not taste of death till they see the Son of Man coming in His Kingdom.”
> 
> His kingdom is within us.(Luke 17:20-21)
> 
> Not an end times text.



Still the Kingdom;

Luke 17:34-35
34I tell you, on that night two people will be in one bed: One will be taken and the other left. 35Two women will be grinding grain together: One will be taken and the other left.” 

Then what you are saying is the Kingdom is spiritual and is in our midst but the second coming will be physical?

That's pretty much the same thing Hobbs said about 70AD. The second coming was physical and the New Heaven came in the sky as spiritual. A spiritual city with measurements. A spiritual battle in the sky that coincided with the physical battle.

It just looks like one is picking verses out of context as to whether it is a kingdom come or one that is here on earth as it is in Heaven already.

The Coming of the Kingdom
"30It will be just like that on the day the Son of Man is revealed. 31On that day, let no one on the housetop come down to retrieve his possessions. Likewise, let no one in the field return for anything he has left behind."

In this coming spiritual kingdom that was in their midst, why couldn't they return from the roof for possessions? It sounds just like the same warning as the physical coming of the Son of Man. If the spiritual coming of the Kingdom could not be observed, how would they know not to return from the fields as they were warned about for the coming of the Son of Man?

I see both interpretations as being a bit confusing. Especially the Son of Man coming in his Kingdom as being different than the coming of the Son of Man.
The Son of Man coming in his Kingdom will be just like the coming of the Son of Man but yet it's two different events. The first one being spiritual and the second physical. I guess that's one way to justify conflicting text.


----------



## hobbs27

atlashunter said:


> You're missing the point. If Revelation is prophecy as it claims to be and Jesus had not yet made his return to defeat the beast and begin his thousand year reign when Revelation was written then it couldn't have happened before Revelation was written. The point here is when it began, not when it ended.




His reign began before His return. 1Corinthians 15:24 "He must reign until His enemies are put under His feet" that's a present infinitive which shows He was currently reigning, and that reign with His saints would continue until all enemies were put under Him. The time of His rule is the time of the putting down of His enemies. 
If He wasn't ruling before ad70 then He wasn't putting down His enemies before ad70...but that is not what we read in 1Cor 15:24. Colossians 2:14f, Hebrews10:13,etc. All those speak of how Christ had begun to put all enemies under Him.  He was ruling in the midst of His enemies,  awaiting the consummation of His conquering work.


----------



## Artfuldodger

atlashunter said:


> Don't forget this:


 Quote:
2 I saw the Holy City, the new Jerusalem, coming down out of heaven from God, prepared as a bride beautifully dressed for her husband. 3 And I heard a loud voice from the throne saying, “Look! God’s dwelling place is now among the people, and he will dwell with them. They will be his people, and God himself will be with them and be their God. 4 ‘He will wipe every tear from their eyes. There will be no more death’* or mourning or crying or pain, for the old order of things has passed away.” 

Maybe that coincides with this;


Romans 11:26
and in this way all Israel will be saved. As it is written: "The deliverer will come from Zion; he will turn godlessness away from Jacob.

Hebrews 8:11-12
11No longer will each one teach his neighbor or his brother, saying, ‘Know the Lord,’ because they will all know Me, from the least of them to the greatest. 12For I will forgive their iniquities, and remember their sins no more.”

Jeremiah 31:34
"They will not teach again, each man his neighbor and each man his brother, saying, 'Know the LORD,' for they will all know Me, from the least of them to the greatest of them," declares the LORD, "for I will forgive their iniquity, and their sin I will remember no more."

Revelation 15:4
Who will not fear you, Lord, and glorify your name? For you alone are holy. All nations will come and worship before you, for your righteous deeds have been revealed."*


----------



## Artfuldodger

I would think that when God’s dwelling place is among the people, and he dwells with them, that they will all be God's people and he will be the God of "all."

Psalms 66:3-4
Say to God, "How awesome are your deeds! So great is your power that your enemies cringe before you.
4 "All the earth will worship You, And will sing praises to You; They will sing praises to Your name." Selah.

Psalm 22:27
All the ends of the earth will remember and turn to the LORD, And all the families of the nations will worship before You.

Psalm 86:9
All nations whom You have made shall come and worship before You, O Lord, And they shall glorify Your name.

Ephesians 1:10
And this is the plan: At the right time he will bring everything together under the authority of Christ--everything in heaven and on earth.

"I believe, everything means "all" and I don't think that event has come. I don't feel like we are there yet. Sure God is here but not like as in the New Jerusalem coming down form Heaven. He will wipe away every tear and their will be no more death. Everything will come together under the authority of Christ at that event in time.

All that are left, regardless of whom that may be will worship God. All the Nations and their families. All humanity will come to worship God.

Nations will come to your light, and kings to the brightness of your dawn in this New Jerusalem.


----------



## atlashunter

hobbs27 said:


> His reign began before His return. 1Corinthians 15:24 "He must reign until His enemies are put under His feet" that's a present infinitive which shows He was currently reigning, and that reign with His saints would continue until all enemies were put under Him. The time of His rule is the time of the putting down of His enemies.
> If He wasn't ruling before ad70 then He wasn't putting down His enemies before ad70...but that is not what we read in 1Cor 15:24. Colossians 2:14f, Hebrews10:13,etc. All those speak of how Christ had begun to put all enemies under Him.  He was ruling in the midst of His enemies,  awaiting the consummation of His conquering work.



Again, that's not what Revelation says. In Revelation he returns from the clouds, defeats the armies led by the beasts, casts them in a lake of fire and then his reign begins. The author of those other books is not the author of Revelation. These books were written by different authors who had different messages. In Revelation there is no simultaneous reign of the beasts and Jesus. The beasts reign, then they are defeated by Jesus upon his return, then his reign begins. That's the entire point of him returning.

I should make a list of all the hoops you are jumping through to try to make this preterist idea work.


----------



## hobbs27

No more tears. 

Scripture again answers scripture if we can see it through our clouded western eyes. 

The new heaven and earth is the new covenant. Looking into Isaiah we see a description of that transitional time,  the 40 years between the two covenants and the conclusion. 

Therefore I will number you for the sword,
And you shall all bow down to the slaughter;
Because, when I called, you did not answer;
When I spoke, you did not hear,
But did evil before My eyes,
And chose that in which I do not delight.”
13 Therefore thus says the Lord God:

“Behold, My servants shall eat,
But you shall be hungry;
Behold, My servants shall drink,
But you shall be thirsty;
Behold, My servants shall rejoice,
But you shall be ashamed;
14 Behold, My servants shall sing for joy of heart,
But you shall cry for sorrow of heart,
And wail for grief of spirit.
15 You shall leave your name as a curse to My chosen;
For the Lord God will slay you,
And call His servants by another name;
16 So that he who blesses himself in the earth
Shall bless himself in the God of truth;
And he who swears in the earth
Shall swear by the God of truth;
Because the former troubles are forgotten,
And because they are hidden from My eyes.

So,  under the new covenant,  compared to the old, God's people would eat,  drink,  shout joyfully,  and rejoice loudly in comparison to the hunger,  thirst,  shame,  and heavy heart of guilt under the old covenant.  To them,  the former troubles are forgotten.  This comparison continues in vv 17-19:

“For behold, I create new heavens and a new earth;
And the former shall not be remembered or come to mind.
18 But be glad and rejoice forever in what I create;
For behold, I create Jerusalem as a rejoicing,
And her people a joy.
19 I will rejoice in Jerusalem,
And joy in My people;
The voice of weeping shall no longer be heard in her,
Nor the voice of crying.

This no more weeping or crying isn't just any weeping or crying, but that caused by covenental sorrow and judgment under the Old Covenant.  The weeping and crying that won't be prevelant under the New Covenant is the very kind Paul spoke of while under the condemnation of the Old Covenant.  There is no lamentation over ones spiritual condition like Paul experienced under the Old Covenant,  as he stated in Rom. 7:22-24

22 For I delight in the law of God according to the inward man. 23 But I see another law in my members, warring against the law of my mind, and bringing me into captivity to the law of sin which is in my members. 24 O wretched man that I am! Who will deliver me from this body of death?

Or as David said in Ps. 51:3, " My sin is always before me"

Actually the verse does affirm that there are tears in the New Jerusalem.  If I'm in the New Jerusalem and I think about a close relative,  perhaps a spouse or a child who's not there,  there is healing for those tears.  There are occasions of crying and God wipes those tears. If someone dear to us does in the New Jerusalem,  there will be tears,  but not as under the old order,  the Old heavens and earth,  or Old Covenant.  John says,  the first things are passed away.  Paul wasn't still fighting the battle he did when he was under the old covenant.  There's no mourning over his wretched condition,  or tears of the kind Paul had she'd under the Old Covenant. 

When this great heavenly voice says there's no death in new Jerusalem,  he's speaking of spiritual death,  the death of which Jesus spoke when He said in Jn.  11:23-26

 Jesus said to her, “Your brother will rise again.”

24 Martha said to Him, “I know that he will rise again in the resurrection at the last day.”

25 Jesus said to her, “I am the resurrection and the life. He who believes in Me, though he may die, he shall live. 26 And whoever lives and believes in Me shall never die. Do you believe this?”

27 She said to Him, “Yes, Lord, I believe that You are the Christ, the Son of God, who is to come into the world.”

Martha knew,  and spoke of the resurrection on the last day (of Old Covenant Jerusalem),  when spiritual death and Hades were destroyed. 

Source: Revelation Realized by Samuel G Dawson.


----------



## atlashunter

hobbs27 said:


> His reign began before His return. 1Corinthians 15:24 "He must reign until His enemies are put under His feet" that's a present infinitive which shows He was currently reigning, and that reign with His saints would continue until all enemies were put under Him. The time of His rule is the time of the putting down of His enemies.
> If He wasn't ruling before ad70 then He wasn't putting down His enemies before ad70...but that is not what we read in 1Cor 15:24. Colossians 2:14f, Hebrews10:13,etc. All those speak of how Christ had begun to put all enemies under Him.  He was ruling in the midst of His enemies,  awaiting the consummation of His conquering work.



And by the way, what enemies exactly were Christians and their now dead leader who even amongst themselves were looking for his return, reigning over in the period of 30 to 70 AD? Certainly not the Romans. Are we to believe this was some moral victory in the face of the reality that they had zero power? That isn't what Revelation indicates.


----------



## hobbs27

atlashunter said:


> Again, that's not what Revelation says. In Revelation he returns from the clouds, defeats the armies led by the beasts, casts them in a lake of fire and then his reign begins. The author of those other books is not the author of Revelation. These books were written by different authors who had different messages. In Revelation there is no simultaneous reign of the beasts and Jesus. The beasts reign, then they are defeated by Jesus upon his return, then his reign begins. That's the entire point of him returning.
> 
> I should make a list of all the hoops you are jumping through to try to make this preterist idea work.



Sorry,  I never was much on the premillennial teachings with the fake rapture and all that dispensationalist nonsense invented in the 1800"s. I do not believe Christ reign began at His coming and I do not believe  that is a proper interpretation of Revelation 20:4 .


----------



## hobbs27

atlashunter said:


> And by the way, what enemies exactly were Christians and their now dead leader who even amongst themselves were looking for his return, reigning over in the period of 30 to 70 AD? Certainly not the Romans. Are we to believe this was some moral victory in the face of the reality that they had zero power? That isn't what Revelation indicates.



They were reigning over death.  They were separating the sheep from the goats.  Calling out His chosen to join the church,  to have faith in Christ,  because the day of the Lord was imminent.  
The sheep fled to the mountains.  The goats stayed in Jerusalem for the slaughter.


----------



## atlashunter

"Spiritual death"

Another retreat into symbolism. 

You should have continued with Isaiah 65.



> 20 “Never again will there be in it
> an infant who lives but a few days,
> or an old man who does not live out his years;
> the one who dies at a hundred
> will be thought a mere child;
> the one who fails to reach[a] a hundred
> will be considered accursed.
> 21 They will build houses and dwell in them;
> they will plant vineyards and eat their fruit.
> 22 No longer will they build houses and others live in them,
> or plant and others eat.
> For as the days of a tree,
> so will be the days of my people;
> my chosen ones will long enjoy
> the work of their hands.
> 23 They will not labor in vain,
> nor will they bear children doomed to misfortune;
> for they will be a people blessed by the Lord,
> they and their descendants with them.
> 24 Before they call I will answer;
> while they are still speaking I will hear.
> 25 The wolf and the lamb will feed together,
> and the lion will eat straw like the ox,
> and dust will be the serpent’s food.
> They will neither harm nor destroy
> on all my holy mountain,”
> says the Lord.



Average life expectancy in modern day Israel is around 80. And I'm pretty sure they still have infant mortality in Jerusalem. Neither would be the case if verse 20 were true. I'd like to see a believer in these prophecies try to feed straw to some lions. See how that works out.


----------



## atlashunter

hobbs27 said:


> They were reigning over death.  They were separating the sheep from the goats.  Calling out His chosen to join the church,  to have faith in Christ,  because the day of the Lord was imminent.
> The sheep fled to the mountains.  The goats stayed in Jerusalem for the slaughter.



Another retreat into symbolism.  Revelation doesn't say they were only reigning over death. It says they were reigning during a thousand year period in which Satan was locked away and unable to deceive the nations. Were the Romans not deceived in the period of 30 to 70 CE but then became deceived in 70 CE upon satans release? How about the Jews during that period? Were they not deceived? How about the other nations of the world during that time? Were they not deceived? Did they even know about Jesus let alone record this triumphant return that that all would be able to see yet even the early church somehow missed?


----------



## hobbs27

Atlas... I can answer these questions till you have no more.  Above you said you should write a book of the loopholes I was using.  Well,  it's already written,  it's called the Holy Bible.  All I'm doing is pointing out the script that's been hidden in plain sight. 

I'll be back later,  for now I'm going to enjoy my Saturday... Cutting grass,  putting up more tomatoes,  and all those honey do's that are building up.


----------



## WaltL1

I was only 100% convinced the Bible was man inspired and man made before, now I'm 125% convinced.


----------



## atlashunter

WaltL1 said:


> I was only 100% convinced the Bible was man inspired and man made before, now I'm 125% convinced.


----------



## WaltL1

atlashunter said:


>


I would have said I'm 1000% convinced now but apparently that would have meant I was only 40% convinced


----------



## atlashunter

WaltL1 said:


> I would have said I'm 1000% convinced now but apparently that would have meant I was only 40% convinced



Notice the other believers aren't chiming in on this one either. Our resident expert on intellectual dishonesty is noticeably silent.


----------



## hobbs27

WaltL1 said:


> I would have said I'm 1000% convinced now but apparently that would have meant I was only 40% convinced



No,  you're good.  If you say 1000 it literally means 1000, but if you read 1000 in the Bible it never means a literal 1000. This is pretty elementary Bible comprehension 101, even Google knew it.  Lol


----------



## hobbs27

atlashunter said:


> "Spiritual death"
> 
> Another retreat into symbolism.
> 
> You should have continued with Isaiah 65.
> 
> 
> 
> Average life expectancy in modern day Israel is around 80. And I'm pretty sure they still have infant mortality in Jerusalem. Neither would be the case if verse 20 were true. I'd like to see a believer in these prophecies try to feed straw to some lions. See how that works out.



Israel and Jerusalem today are just boundaries made by man.  God has no special interest in them today,  not anymore so than any other man made boundaries. 

If you can't see symbolism in a lion eating straw... No wonder you don't believe the bible.


----------



## WaltL1

hobbs27 said:


> No,  you're good.  If you say 1000 it literally means 1000, but if you read 1000 in the Bible it never means a literal 1000. This is pretty elementary Bible comprehension 101, even Google knew it.  Lol


Say this out loud -


> Originally Posted by hobbs27
> The thousand years happened in a 40 year period. I know.. I know.. Sounds crazy, but it did. From 30-70ad


And I didn't read it in the Bible.


----------



## WaltL1

atlashunter said:


> Notice the other believers aren't chiming in on this one either. Our resident expert on intellectual dishonesty is noticeably silent.


Hopefully he is busy studying a dictionary so when he comes back he has something other than ridiculous claims to make.


----------



## hobbs27

atlashunter said:


> Another retreat into symbolism.  Revelation doesn't say they were only reigning over death.




neither did I,  I simply used that as an example,  there's more.  



> It says they were reigning during a thousand year period in which Satan was locked away and unable to deceive the nations. Were the Romans not deceived in the period of 30 to 70 CE but then became deceived in 70 CE upon satans release? How about the Jews during that period? Were they not deceived? How about the other nations of the world during that time? Were they not deceived? Did they even know about Jesus let alone record this triumphant return that that all would be able to see yet even the early church somehow missed?



The nation's being deceived by Satan was persecution against the Christians.  After Paul's persecution of the church ended until the rise of Nero the Roman govt took little or no  interest in the church.  Following the removal of Pilate from Judea,  Roman governors afforded the church protection of law and would not allow the Jew's to persecute Christians,  the church existed in Palestine with little trouble from authorities.  Robbed of the authority  and power to persecute Christians,  the church grew and multiplied.  Multitudes were added to the Lord. (Acts 5:14-16) A great company of priests were also obedient to the faith. (Acts 6:7) the 144,000 were sealed.  (Rev. 7:3-8) The council and Senate of the Jew's " doubted of them whereunto this might grow". (Acts 5:24) Christ was upon the throne of David,  the seat of Moses,  occupied by the leaders of the Jew's ( Matt.  23:2), was superseded and thrown down.  The miracles of the Apostles bore divine attestation that the church was the Israel of God.  They filled the world with their teaching,  and turned it upside down.(Acts 17:6) Churches sprang up all over the empire.  All were powerless to stop it.  The arrest and trial of Paul only resulted in the furtherance of the gospel.  (Phil. 1:12,13) Satan was bound,  the word of God was not (II Tim. 2:4  4:17). Saints were one in Caesar's household. (Phil. 4:22)

Source: The consummation of the ages by Kurt M Simmons


----------



## hobbs27

WaltL1 said:


> Say this out loud -
> 
> And I didn't read it in the Bible.



You still don't understand I was referencing the millennium?  ( the thousand years)... I didn't say a thousand years.. I was referencing the millennium.


----------



## WaltL1

hobbs27 said:


> You still don't understand I was referencing the millennium?  ( the thousand years)... I didn't say a thousand years.. I was referencing the millennium.


Yeah I get it. I got it a long time ago.
Here's maybe what you don't get -
You claim the Bible is perfect.
You claim all the problems come from people who don't understand it.
I'm showing you that what you say and how you say it matters.
Who do you figure was explaining to the average semi literate or completely illiterate sheep herder that "no this doesn't mean what it says, its imagery, its a translation issue its this, its that, what you just read really means.......... now multiply that by a couple thousand years and millions of people.
You guys who spend years studying it, with technology, education, reference materials, biblical scholars etc etc at your disposal STILL don't agree on what it says.
The average person's fault?
Get real.
THATS where your false doctrine, misunderstandings, tens of thousands of denominations..... come from.

Now of course you wont allow yourself to accept that which I think, in my opinion, in part is why you are so focused on explaining what this REALLY means and what that REALLY means.
Because you want to lay the blame everywhere else except for what is staring you square in the face.
If it was perfect you wouldn't have that mission. There would be no need for it.


----------



## hobbs27

WaltL1 said:


> Yeah I get it. I got it a long time ago.
> Here's maybe what you don't get -
> You claim the Bible is perfect.
> You claim all the problems come from people who don't understand it.
> I'm showing you that what you say and how you say it matters.
> Who do you figure was explaining to the average semi literate or completely illiterate sheep herder that "no this doesn't mean what it says, its imagery, its a translation issue its this, its that, what you just read really means.......... now multiply that by a couple thousand years and millions of people.
> You guys who spend years studying it, with technology, education, reference materials, biblical scholars etc etc at your disposal STILL don't agree on what it says.
> The average person's fault?
> Get real.
> THATS where your false doctrine, misunderstandings, tens of thousands of denominations..... come from.
> 
> Now of course you wont allow yourself to accept that which I think, in my opinion, in part is why you are so focused on explaining what this REALLY means and what that REALLY means.
> Because you want to lay the blame everywhere else except for what is staring you square in the face.
> If it was perfect you wouldn't have that mission. There would be no need for it.



The Bible as we know it , wasn't handed to Christians to study until the 1600's, and then few probably had access to it.  That is indeed when it began to unravel as doctrine goes.  

I honestly believe with our studies and technologies,  and histories of other men spending countless hours studying and recording findings,  that we are exposing many of those false doctrines. 

The big point is though,  even without a Bible to study,  and then even with many false doctrines,  Christ kingdom still reigns and new members are coming in every day,  since that day of Pentecost.


----------



## WaltL1

hobbs27 said:


> The Bible as we know it , wasn't handed to Christians to study until the 1600's, and then few probably had access to it.  That is indeed when it began to unravel as doctrine goes.
> 
> I honestly believe with our studies and technologies,  and histories of other men spending countless hours studying and recording findings,  that we are exposing many of those false doctrines.
> 
> The big point is though,  even without a Bible to study,  and then even with many false doctrines,  Christ kingdom still reigns and new members are coming in every day,  since that day of Pentecost.


Not yelling here just making sure its noticeable -
YOU DONT EVEN AGREE ON WHAT THE FALSE DOCTRINES ARE.
Are you oblivious to that fact?


> and new members are coming in every day


And old members are walking away every day.
You are talking to a number of them right here on this little tiny forum.

I know, I know, its because we just don't understand.


----------



## atlashunter

hobbs27 said:


> The nation's being deceived by Satan was persecution against the Christians.



What scripture in Revelation did you get that from exactly? The NIV uses the word persecution in Revelation but not in any place relevant to this "deception of nations".

Where is the term deceived used in Revelation? In chapter 13 verse 14.

14 Because of the signs it was given power to perform on behalf of the first beast, it deceived the inhabitants of the earth. It ordered them to set up an image in honor of the beast who was wounded by the sword and yet lived.

What did the deceived do on behalf of the deceiver? They took the mark of the beast, worshiped a false god and marched on Jerusalem.

Rev 19:20 But the beast was captured, and with it the false prophet who had performed the signs on its behalf. With these signs he had deluded those who had received the mark of the beast and worshiped its image. The two of them were thrown alive into the fiery lake of burning sulfur.

Now again why lock satan away for a thousand year reign to keep him from deceiving the nations if they were still being deceived anyway by the beast during that time which is your interpretation when you change the chronology of chapter 19? If that were the case then there would have been no need to let satan out of the abyss to go deceive the nations.


Even if it was accepted that when Revelation says "deceiving the nations" what it _meant to say_ was "persecuted the church" it still wouldn't work because the church was persecuted in the period 30-70 CE. At least that is what church tradition holds.


Your dating of Revelation is also very suspect. The early church fathers held that John wrote it toward the end of Domitian's reign. That would put it around 95 CE which is the more commonly accepted time of authorship.


Then you have the seven bowls of wrath that were supposed to be poured on the earth.

Rev 16

3 The second angel poured out his bowl on the sea, and it turned into blood like that of a dead person, and every living thing in the sea died.

18 Then there came flashes of lightning, rumblings, peals of thunder and a severe earthquake. No earthquake like it has ever occurred since mankind has been on earth, so tremendous was the quake. 19 The great city split into three parts, and the cities of the nations collapsed. God remembered Babylon the Great and gave her the cup filled with the wine of the fury of his wrath. 20 Every island fled away and the mountains could not be found. 21 From the sky huge hailstones, each weighing about a hundred pounds,[a] fell on people. And they cursed God on account of the plague of hail, because the plague was so terrible.


The biggest earthquake ever in all of history that split Jerusalem into three parts and brought down multiple cities in other nations? When in the first century did that happen?

Largest hail stone on record weighed about a pound and a half. Seems like a hailstorm dropping hundred pound blocks of ice would have been noteworthy. Same for the sea turning to blood and every living thing in it dying.


How about a third of mankind dying from three plagues in 9:18?

18 A third of mankind was killed by the three plagues of fire, smoke and sulfur that came out of their mouths.

When did that happen in the first century? Seems like that would have been pretty well documented by people around the world.


So far we have a symbolic:

Thousand year reign
Spiritual Death
New Jerusalem
Christian Army
Warrior messiah returning from the clouds


I'm sure there is more but those are what come to mind.


----------



## atlashunter

WaltL1 said:


> Yeah I get it. I got it a long time ago.
> Here's maybe what you don't get -
> You claim the Bible is perfect.
> You claim all the problems come from people who don't understand it.
> I'm showing you that what you say and how you say it matters.
> Who do you figure was explaining to the average semi literate or completely illiterate sheep herder that "no this doesn't mean what it says, its imagery, its a translation issue its this, its that, what you just read really means.......... now multiply that by a couple thousand years and millions of people.
> You guys who spend years studying it, with technology, education, reference materials, biblical scholars etc etc at your disposal STILL don't agree on what it says.
> The average person's fault?
> Get real.
> THATS where your false doctrine, misunderstandings, tens of thousands of denominations..... come from.
> 
> Now of course you wont allow yourself to accept that which I think, in my opinion, in part is why you are so focused on explaining what this REALLY means and what that REALLY means.
> Because you want to lay the blame everywhere else except for what is staring you square in the face.
> If it was perfect you wouldn't have that mission. There would be no need for it.



The problem is they are trying to take books that were written in different times by different authors with differing viewpoints and trying to mesh them together like a jigsaw puzzle. The problem is the pieces don't fit. They were never intended to fit. It's not as if the author of Revelation had the rest of the canonized bible sitting in front of him and decided to write a final chapter. So to try to make them fit they have to change what the books say. Revelation says the reign lasted 1,000 years. It doesn't say it lasted some period of time like a thousand years or as a thousand years. There is absolutely no indication in Revelation that the author meant anything other than the thousand years he said. That doesn't work for hobbs. He needs it to say 40 years. He can't take out an eraser and change Revelation, although we have evidence that scribes did exactly that with these writings throughout the history of the church. So instead he just says a 1,000 year reign happened in 40 and that's what the author meant to say. He ignores the chronology of Revelation. He ignores that the things it says were to happen did not happen. Or he converts them to symbolism to cover it up. Instead of acknowledging the historical record of 70 AD doesn't fit because there was no Jesus army and the Roman army who by his own definition represents the beast of the sea in Revelation wrecked Jerusalem while the book says Jerusalem was saved from the beast by Jesus he changes the story to Jesus used the beast (aka Roman army) to conquer Jerusalem on his behalf.

This is the game they've been playing for thousands of years. It's like arguing over Star Wars or Lord of the Rings. It's all fiction so just make it up as you go. Hobbs called one interpretation nonsense. He's right. It's all nonsense. He's just replaced the nonsense that is in black and white with nonsense of his own or nonsense that he cut and pasted from one book to another and then pretends that he didn't. Then acts like anyone who doesn't share his story doesn't know how to read and understand the book. What's funny is that criticism not only applies to nonbelievers it applies to the mass of believers over the last 2,000 years who have been and still are waiting for Jesus to come back.


----------



## WaltL1

atlashunter said:


> The problem is they are trying to take books that were written in different times by different authors with differing viewpoints and trying to mesh them together like a jigsaw puzzle. The problem is the pieces don't fit. They were never intended to fit. It's not as if the author of Revelation had the rest of the canonized bible sitting in front of him and decided to write a final chapter. So to try to make them fit they have to change what the books say. Revelation says the reign lasted 1,000 years. It doesn't say it lasted some period of time like a thousand years or as a thousand years. There is absolutely no indication in Revelation that the author meant anything other than the thousand years he said. That doesn't work for hobbs. He needs it to say 40 years. He can't take out an eraser and change Revelation, although we have evidence that scribes did exactly that with these writings throughout the history of the church. So instead he just says a 1,000 year reign happened in 40 and that's what the author meant to say. He ignores the chronology of Revelation. He ignores that the things it says were to happen did not happen. Or he converts them to symbolism to cover it up. Instead of acknowledging the historical record of 70 AD doesn't fit because there was no Jesus army and the Roman army who by his own definition represents the beast of the sea in Revelation wrecked Jerusalem while the book says Jerusalem was saved from the beast by Jesus he changes the story to Jesus used the beast (aka Roman army) to conquer Jerusalem on his behalf.
> 
> This is the game they've been playing for thousands of years. It's like arguing over Star Wars or Lord of the Rings. It's all fiction so just make it up as you go. Hobbs called one interpretation nonsense. He's right. It's all nonsense. He's just replaced the nonsense that is in black and white with nonsense of his own or nonsense that he cut and pasted from one book to another and then pretends that he didn't. Then acts like anyone who doesn't share his story doesn't know how to read and understand the book. What's funny is that criticism not only applies to nonbelievers it applies to the mass of believers over the last 2,000 years who have been and still are waiting for Jesus to come back.


And to be honest, I wouldn't give a hoot if a Christian sat at home on the couch with a bag of chips and their Bible and believed anything they wanted to believe.
But that not good enough.
No sir, everybody else needs to believe exactly what Ive talked myself into.
Everybody else needs to follow the laws that Ive convinced myself exist.
All of YOUR children need to be indoctrinated in what I believe at school.
YOU shouldn't be able to buy a cold beer on hot, steamy Sunday afternoon in July because what I believe says its wrong.
Heck, where I grew up it was AGAINST THE LAW to hunt on a Sunday on public land. Guess why? 
Although I guess I shouldn't complain. Where I grew up women were tortured and burned on the whim of the Church.

I guess I just didn't understand the Bible because even as a Christian I had that nagging feeling in my head that all these things weren't as copacetic as I was being told they were.

And hobbs before you start claiming "that wasn't in the Bible, that's due to false doctrine, that's mans misunderstanding blah blah blah"......
see the above post of why that happens.


----------



## bullethead

hobbs27 said:


> You still don't understand I was referencing the millennium?  ( the thousand years)... I didn't say a thousand years.. I was referencing the millennium.



A millennium is 1000 years.

1000 years equals a millennium, a millenium equals 1000 years.


----------



## atlashunter

bullethead said:


> A millennium is 1000 years.
> 
> 1000 years equals a millennium, a millenium equals 1000 years.



That's not the millennium he was referencing. He was referencing the 40 year millennium. Kind of like referencing a square circle.


----------



## WaltL1

bullethead said:


> A millennium is 1000 years.
> 
> 1000 years equals a millennium, a millenium equals 1000 years.


Here's the part I just don't understand -


> Originally Posted by hobbs27
> You still don't understand I was referencing the millennium? ( the thousand years)... I didn't say a thousand years.. I was referencing the millennium.


Even though I showed at least a half dozen times exactly what was said -


> Originally Posted by hobbs27
> The thousand years happened in a 40 year period. I know.. I know.. Sounds crazy, but it did. From 30-70ad


So I/we are supposed to listen to somebody who cant even acknowledge what they personally said to tell me what the Bible says???

By the way my favorite color is red.
But if you think my favorite color is red, its because you just don't understand. I was referencing blue.


----------



## bullethead

WaltL1 said:


> Here's the part I just don't understand -
> 
> Even though I showed at least a half dozen times exactly what was said -
> 
> So I/we are supposed to listen to somebody who cant even acknowledge what they personally said to tell me what the Bible says???
> 
> By the way my favorite color is red.
> But if you think my favorite color is red, its because you just don't understand. I was referencing blue.



Truth Walt.
It has NOTHING to do with what is actually written.
It has EVERYTHING to do with how an individual takes what is written and fills in the gaps to suit.

"I didnt mean 1000 years, I mean a millennium"
Same
Dang
Thing


----------



## welderguy

bullethead said:


> Truth Walt.
> It has NOTHING to do with what is actually written.
> It has EVERYTHING to do with how an individual takes what is written and fills in the gaps to suit.
> 
> "I didnt mean 1000 years, I mean a millennium"
> Same
> Dang
> Thing





I can't understand why this is so hard for you folks.

The 1000 years(aka millennium) is NOT literal in the Bible.
It does not have a specific time amount attached to it. It is a number of completion.

Christ's reign has no time limit,  thus it's assigned the number of completeness.


----------



## hummerpoo

"a"   = indefinite article
"the  = definite article


----------



## WaltL1

hummerpoo said:


> "a"   = indefinite article
> "the  = definite article


Now we are getting somewhere.
I have to go back through and study this.


----------



## atlashunter

welderguy said:


> I can't understand why this is so hard for you folks.
> 
> The 1000 years(aka millennium) is NOT literal in the Bible.
> It does not have a specific time amount attached to it. It is a number of completion.
> 
> Christ's reign has no time limit,  thus it's assigned the number of completeness.






> 2 He seized the dragon, that ancient serpent, who is the devil, or Satan, and bound him for *a thousand years*. 3 He threw him into the Abyss, and locked and sealed it over him, to keep him from deceiving the nations anymore until *the thousand years* were ended. After that, he must be set free for a short time.
> 
> 4 I saw thrones on which were seated those who had been given authority to judge. And I saw the souls of those who had been beheaded because of their testimony about Jesus and because of the word of God. They[a] had not worshiped the beast or its image and had not received its mark on their foreheads or their hands. They came to life and reigned with Christ *a thousand years*. 5 (The rest of the dead did not come to life until the thousand years were ended.) This is the first resurrection. 6 Blessed and holy are those who share in the first resurrection. The second death has no power over them, but they will be priests of God and of Christ and will reign with him for *a thousand years*.
> 
> 7 When *the thousand years* are over, Satan will be released from his prison



I think the author is saying this period is going to last a thousand years.


----------



## WaltL1

> Originally Posted by hummerpoo
> "a" = indefinite article
> "the = definite article





> Now we are getting somewhere.
> I have to go back through and study this.


hobbs, based on hummerpoo's contribution it appears I may owe you an apology.
I haven't gone through the thread yet but my initial thoughts are that when I apply hummerpoo's contribution, I may be wrong on how I deciphered your post. 
So in advance I apologize and I think I may have been wrong on this particular point.


----------



## Artfuldodger

hobbs27 said:


> No,  you're good.  If you say 1000 it literally means 1000, but if you read 1000 in the Bible it never means a literal 1000. This is pretty elementary Bible comprehension 101, even Google knew it.  Lol



Is it kinda like saying "I haven't seen him in a million years" or I haven't seen him in a coon's age."


----------



## WaltL1

WaltL1 said:


> hobbs, based on hummerpoo's contribution it appears I may owe you an apology.
> I haven't gone through the thread yet but my initial thoughts are that when I apply hummerpoo's contribution, I may be wrong on how I deciphered your post.
> So in advance I apologize and I think I may have been wrong on this particular point.


hobbs,
Yup, although your defenses of your post contains a number of errors, hummerpoo's post made me go back and relook at/rethink it.
I will stand down on this particular point and I apologize to you.
And  a thanks to you hummerpoo.


----------



## Artfuldodger

hobbs27 said:


> Israel and Jerusalem today are just boundaries made by man.  God has no special interest in them today,  not anymore so than any other man made boundaries.



But there was a time right? When Israel was more than the other nations;

Romans 11:26
and in this way all Israel will be saved. As it is written: "The deliverer will come from Zion; he will turn godlessness away from Jacob.

Jeremiah 3:17
At that time they will call Jerusalem The Throne of the LORD, and all nations will gather in Jerusalem to honor the name of the LORD. No longer will they follow the stubbornness of their evil hearts.

Isaiah 45:17
But Israel will be saved by the LORD with an everlasting salvation; you will never be put to shame or disgraced, to ages everlasting.

Jeremiah 33:16
In those days Judah will be saved and Jerusalem will live in safety. This is the name by which it will be called: The LORD Our Righteous Savior.'


----------



## Artfuldodger

I guess this is symbolic;

Isaiah 25:6
On this mountain the LORD Almighty will prepare a feast of rich food for all peoples, a banquet of aged wine-- the best of meats and the finest of wines.7And on this mountain He will swallow up the covering which is over all peoples, Even the veil which is stretched over all nations. 8He will swallow up death for all time, And the Lord GOD will wipe tears away from all faces, And He will remove the reproach of His people from all the earth; For the LORD has spoken.9And it will be said in that day, "Behold, this is our God for whom we have waited that He might save us. This is the LORD for whom we have waited; Let us rejoice and be glad in His salvation."

Another thought that I've always had is how they were always waiting on the return of the Lord for salvation.

Most Christians feel we no longer have to wait even though they believe Christ hasn't returned.

Some scripture reads as a physical salvation from an impending doom and sometimes it reads as spiritual salvation from everlasting death.

How does one decide what scripture is local physical salvation and which is spiritual salvation for the whole world?


----------



## Israel

Time is a malleable thing.


----------



## WaltL1

So hobbs -
In Atlas's post #380, he shows "thousand years" being proceeded by both "a"(indefinite article) and "the" (definite article).
Based on what you said here -


> but if you read 1000 in the Bible it never means a literal 1000. This is pretty elementary Bible comprehension 101, even Google knew it. Lol


None of those actually mean a literal thousand years regardless of the definite or indefinite article preceding it.
So why not?
Is it the usage of "thousand" vs "1000" that makes the difference?
Based on the context of the sentences in which it is used it sure seems like "thousand" and "1000" would be interchangeable.


----------



## atlashunter

WaltL1 said:


> So hobbs -
> In Atlas's post #380, he shows "thousand years" being proceeded by both "a"(indefinite article) and "the" (definite article).
> Based on what you said here -
> 
> None of those actually mean a literal thousand years regardless of the definite or indefinite article preceding it.
> So why not?
> Is it the usage of "thousand" vs "1000" that makes the difference?
> Based on the context of the sentences in which it is used it sure seems like "thousand" and "1000" would be interchangeable.



Also notice in verse 3 he says the devil must be set free "for a short time". So we know the author can specify an indefinite period of time when he wants to.


----------



## bullethead

So then when someone says that Scripture was inspired by God, they did not say inspired by THE  god or inspired by A god they just say inspired by god. It is neither indefinite or definite and means any number of gods were the inspiration for the words and work.


----------



## bullethead

hummerpoo said:


> "a"   = indefinite article
> "the  = definite article



In english those are the rules.  How do those relate to the language scripture was written in prior to english translation?


----------



## WaltL1

atlashunter said:


> Also notice in verse 3 he says the devil must be set free "for a short time". So we know the author can specify an indefinite period of time when he wants to.


And then there is this that Welder posted -


> 2 Peter 3:8
> 8 But, beloved, be not ignorant of this one thing, that one day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day.


Wouldn't that have to be translated to "that one day is with the Lord as the period 30-70ad, and the period of 30-70ad as one day.
And I'm almost afraid to ask what period of time "one day" actually means.
Ive heard it referred to as literally 1 day.
Ive heard it referred to as literally 1000 years.


----------



## atlashunter

WaltL1 said:


> And then there is this that Welder posted -
> 
> Wouldn't that have to be translated to "that one day is with the Lord as the period 30-70ad, and the period of 30-70ad as one day.



I don't take that verse from Peter literally. The use of the word as indicates reference to a quality, in this case the perception of long and short periods of time.

Another example from the Old Testament. God tells Abraham his descendants will be as the stars in the sky i.e. numerous. That's not the language used in this part of Revelations.


----------



## Israel

If one is to be strict in his reasoning...especially from a written thing that in itself does not offer an explanation beyond what is written..._to what is written_, well, a brother on here once said "keep to your niche". Or something similar. I took it to mean then as I do now, be consistent in those things you offer as reason or reasoning. If it be of writings, then stay consistent with what writings offer of support. In other words, don't use the writings in one place as support _by interpretation_ yet deny that interpretation when it might also be found to deny the original proposal.

On here, in these forums both above and below (what is called by some the upstairs), some have offered "of the writings" what is in fact made plain "in the writings" a thing the eclipses the matters of time constraint to a thing_ argued_ as "having to have happened" because well...two thousands of years have passed. 

It is here:
But, beloved, be not ignorant of this one thing, that one day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day.

So, the scriptures themselves testify that time is, if not malleable (as I know it is), at the very least quite open to being established as different...according to perspective. What a man may see as a certain time...is seen by another, quite differently. 

Admittedly the _believer_ would be more interested in how the _Lord_ sees time, than how _man_ perceives it. And obviously anyone claiming a "being won" to this thinking is going to appear a fool to those who deny this _type of thinking_ that to him is anything and everything other than all that is reasonable. 

Nevertheless it is...in the writings. The believer is more than open to be thought...a fool...by other men. He is either set to the knowledge of God, or he will fall to the opinion of man.

This matter has in some ways become tedious, and some ask why "others" do not chime in.

When it is also presented that "in the writings" of this same brother the believer looks forward to a new heavens and new earth for:

Since everything will be dissolved in this way, what kind of people ought you to be? You ought to conduct yourselves in holiness and godliness as you anticipate and hasten the coming of the day of God, when the heavens will be dissolved by fire and the elements will melt in the heat. But in keeping with God’s promise, we are looking forward to a new heaven and a new earth, where righteousness dwells...


This understanding has been presented as _in opposition_ to _another verse_ which _is said_ (by an _arguementor_) as being manifestly untrue. A verse which is presented as refutation.

This verse is found in Ephesians (a letter by a _different_ brother) and is held to maintain there can never be any dissolution of the former. 

Unto him be glory in the church by Christ Jesus throughout all ages, world without end. Amen.

One says "the world cannot end as such, for it says so" To "hold to the one" is to manifestly deny the truth of that which is presented as refutation.

And here, though I hold no despite for the KJV, from which this is quoted, if we go the Greek (as I do so rarely until provoked) there is no mention of the "world without end". Instead it speaks of the age of the ages, which could be better understood as _for all time_ at least to my mind.

But I do not wish to belabor you, or any other with "having to go" to the Greek, or any other language for that matter. But one might begin to discover a seeming inequity of sorts when in one case a man would stand wholly upon "the Greek" to attempt to make his point, yet curiously deny it saliency when "his point" is undercut by it. That is, that in matters of "audience relevance", matters of _the particulars of vernacular_ might be stressed...while in other matters, seemingly ignored.

This does not even touch the matter of "resorting to histories" in support of what claims could be made for the reality of _certain things_ while seeming to abandon them in support of others.


I am persuaded in myself that much purported to have already taken place "in time" has not, and much seemingly removed from time, remains. But I cannot condemn this brother for like him, I must admit to _a seeing in part_ that also leaves me open to innumerable corrections...in time. I have seen the passing of a man I no longer care to be, but in that must accept the passing...of the man that I presently...am. All...open to being changed. All, on the table as it were...or altar, if one can accept it.


I remain struck by Jesus' words, as indeed I must, of finding a way out of the prison I see fashioned by _one_ of _time_, yet given as gift by Another...in which I may find _time to repent_. 
I am caught here, as I cannot help but assume is every other son, till his catching be understood fully as all that is gracious and favorable.

But the hour cometh, and now is, when the true worshippers shall worship the Father in spirit and in truth: for the Father seeketh such to worship him.


But the_ hour is coming_, and _now is_...


To see what is coming...is now...all that there is.

To be taught by the Master to abide...in a moment (given out of time read _eternal_) of the twinkling of an eye, where all and everything is "up for change" leaves a man with no history to trust. There is always and only...this moment. Of being changed.


----------



## WaltL1

bullethead said:


> In english those are the rules.  How do those relate to the language scripture was written in prior to english translation?


It would appear that even though the Bible you are reading is written in English, that we read it in English, that we apply the rules of English because that's what it is written in and what we read it in......
English doesn't apply.

I'm getting the feeling the Bible was never intended for anybody other than the specific people, in the specific region, who spoke the specific language(s) of the original writings.


----------



## bullethead

I believe that when referencing time with numbers, "A" thousand years is a specific number of years.
Example: How many years will Satan be cast into the lake of fire? A thousand.

 "The" thousand years refers to a specific timeframe.
Example: The thousand years that Satan is in the lake of fire will be from 70A.D. to 1070 A.D.


----------



## atlashunter

WaltL1 said:


> It would appear that even though the Bible you are reading is written in English, that we read it in English, that we apply the rules of English because that's what it is written in and what we read it in......
> English doesn't apply.
> 
> I'm getting the feeling the Bible was never intended for anybody other than the specific people, in the specific region, who spoke the specific language(s) of the original writings.



I definitely agree with you on that last part. The Jews largely rejected Jesus because he hadn't fulfilled all of these prophecies about the messiah. His followers knew that and so they made these stories that he would return and do so soon. What better way to sell your messiah than to warn of judgment coming in the near future. By the time Revelation was written it was (likely) in the 90s CE. They had been waiting over 60 years now. Surely the time must be short. Notice the book opens with the author addressing the churches one by one with that very message. Time is short, get your house in order, here is what is coming. Once it's written and widely disseminated what can you do with it except continue to pass it on and say the time is shorter than ever before? Exactly what the church did.


----------



## hummerpoo

bullethead said:


> In english those are the rules.  How do those relate to the language scripture was written in prior to english translation?



I only made my post because I thought I might possibly be able to help clear up a misunderstanding.

Beyond that, I would not care to participate in a conversation in which either;

*The possibility that the biblical millennium is a chronological 1000 years,
or
*The millennium refers to an approximate 40 year period immediately after the crucifixion,

is being considered; as I consider both to be equally absurd positions.

Beyond that, what I know about Biblical Hebrew would not constitute a primer charge for a derringer.


----------



## hobbs27

WaltL1 said:


> It would appear that even though the Bible you are reading is written in English, that we read it in English, that we apply the rules of English because that's what it is written in and what we read it in......
> English doesn't apply.
> 
> I'm getting the feeling the Bible was never intended for anybody other than the specific people, in the specific region, who spoke the specific language(s) of the original writings.




Perfect. The Bible is not written to us,  but is written for us.


----------



## hobbs27

Atlas... 

 I've looked over several explanations and works of different folks on Rev.19 and the casting of the beast in the lake of fire.  This one shows both a literal and figurative fulfillment.  I told you I would get back with you on it,  so here it is. 

http://revelationrevolution.org/revelation-19-a-preterist-commentary/

*Disclaimer *  While I find the testimony of Non Christian Josephus intriguing and interesting.  I realize his words are not inspired.  So I don't hold them to the same truth as scripture,  he is the only eyewitness to record the event that I'm aware of.


----------



## hobbs27

atlashunter said:


> I definitely agree with you on that last part. The Jews largely rejected Jesus because he hadn't fulfilled all of these prophecies about the messiah. His followers knew that and so they made these stories that he would return and do so soon. What better way to sell your messiah than to warn of judgment coming in the near future. By the time Revelation was written it was (likely) in the 90s CE. They had been waiting over 60 years now. Surely the time must be short. Notice the book opens with the author addressing the churches one by one with that very message. Time is short, get your house in order, here is what is coming. Once it's written and widely disseminated what can you do with it except continue to pass it on and say the time is shorter than ever before? Exactly what the church did.



The church was largely made of Jew's.  These Jew's knew and understood that Jesus was Christ. The miraculous signs that came to them at Pentecost convinced many,  and daily the Lord added to the church. 

The coming soon,  was fact.  The signs they were given to look for were there.  John said because of the sign of the anti Christ was present they knew they were in the last hour. 

A lot of Revelation comes to us from Daniel also.  Daniel is told to seal his book for the time is far off,  yet John is told do not seal the words for the time is at hand.  It was.


----------



## WaltL1

hobbs27 said:


> Perfect. The Bible is not written to us,  but is written for us.


If this is perfect -


> Originally Posted by WaltL1
> It would appear that even though the Bible you are reading is written in English, that we read it in English, that we apply the rules of English because that's what it is written in and what we read it in......
> English doesn't apply.
> 
> I'm getting the feeling the Bible was never intended for anybody other than the specific people, in the specific region, who spoke the specific language(s) of the original writings.


We are not the us it was written for. The us it would be written for is them.
And if that's the case, you cant hold us responsible for false doctrine, misunderstandings etc.
But you can blame Christianity for bringing it to us when it was written for them.


----------



## hobbs27

WaltL1 said:


> If this is perfect -
> 
> We are not the us it was written for. The us it would be written for is them.
> And if that's the case, you cant hold us responsible for false doctrine, misunderstandings etc.
> But you can blame Christianity for bringing it to us when it was written for them.



OK,  so I was overly optimistic in your revelation.. You're getting there though.  The majority of scriptures are ancient Hebraic text.   Set deeply into the Hebraic culture.  There's evidence in the Gospels and Epistles that even the Jew's of that time were having a hard time understanding the older texts.  Jesus was constantly correcting them and explaining what scripture said. I think this is because of the influence of the Alexandrian period over the area... It's as if their culture was lost.  

Now couple that with the influx of Gentiles coming into the church and it's not too hard to understand how the church began drifting two hundred years later.


----------



## WaltL1

hobbs27 said:


> OK,  so I was overly optimistic in your revelation.. You're getting there though.  The majority of scriptures are ancient Hebraic text.   Set deeply into the Hebraic culture.  There's evidence in the Gospels and Epistles that even the Jew's of that time were having a hard time understanding the older texts.  Jesus was constantly correcting them and explaining what scripture said. I think this is because of the influence of the Alexandrian period over the area... It's as if their culture was lost.
> 
> Now couple that with the influx of Gentiles coming into the church and it's not too hard to understand how the church began drifting two hundred years later.


Or maybe the Church got a taste of the power, money, goods etc etc that came with bringing it to us and not just them.
Its not too hard to understand that either.
Business is business and the goal of business is profit and power.
I'm guessing the Vatican isn't too worried about getting the power cut off due to lack of funds.


> You're getting there though


Oh I'm not getting there.
Ive been there for years now.


----------



## hobbs27

WaltL1 said:


> Or maybe the Church got a taste of the power, money, goods etc etc that came with bringing it to us and not just them.
> Its not too hard to understand that either.
> Business is business and the goal of business is profit and power.
> I'm guessing the Vatican isn't too worried about getting the power cut off due to lack of funds.



 I agree.  I don't like what's been done in the Lords name,  but I'm hopeful that will change in time.


----------



## WaltL1

hobbs27 said:


> I agree.  I don't like what's been done in the Lords name,  but I'm hopeful that will change in time.


Its changing right now and society is doing the changing for you.
Your welcome.

Christianity is a slippery little feller though. It keeps changing itself to go with the flow of society.
Money and power is a tough thing to let slide out of the offering basket.


----------



## WaltL1

hummerpoo said:


> I only made my post because I thought I might possibly be able to help clear up a misunderstanding.
> 
> Beyond that, I would not care to participate in a conversation in which either;
> 
> *The possibility that the biblical millennium is a chronological 1000 years,
> or
> *The millennium refers to an approximate 40 year period immediately after the crucifixion,
> 
> is being considered; as I consider both to be equally absurd positions.
> 
> Beyond that, what I know about Biblical Hebrew would not constitute a primer charge for a derringer.





> I only made my post because I thought I might possibly be able to help clear up a misunderstanding.


And for me, you did.
Well I wont say you cleared up the misunderstanding but what you posted was exactly what it took for me to look much closer and amend my position.
Thanks again.


----------



## atlashunter

hobbs27 said:


> The church was largely made of Jew's.  These Jew's knew and understood that Jesus was Christ. The miraculous signs that came to them at Pentecost convinced many,  and daily the Lord added to the church.
> 
> The coming soon,  was fact.  The signs they were given to look for were there.  John said because of the sign of the anti Christ was present they knew they were in the last hour.
> 
> A lot of Revelation comes to us from Daniel also.  Daniel is told to seal his book for the time is far off,  yet John is told do not seal the words for the time is at hand.  It was.



Yes the church consisted of Jews but they were always a small minority of the overall Jewish community. They knew all had not been fulfilled by the one they thought was the messiah so his return was a necessity.

Yes they believed the end was near. Just like many Christians today believe we are living in the last days. If you believe that and you believe an antichrist is coming then it's not prophecy to say the antichrist is already here. It's just logic. He has to be here if we are within a generation from the end. You notice John didn't name the antichrist. Christians are still doing the same thing today. The antichrist is already among us because we are in the last days. We don't know who it is but we know he must be in this generation.

John by the way is widely held to be written after 70 CE.


----------



## hummerpoo

WaltL1 said:


> And for me, you did.
> Well I wont say you cleared up the misunderstanding but what you posted was exactly what it took for me to look much closer and amend my position.
> Thanks again.



Your welcome; one can never be sure how his words will be taken — sometimes it's quite a surprise.


----------



## Israel

WaltL1 said:


> If this is perfect -
> 
> We are not the us it was written for. The us it would be written for is them.
> And if that's the case, you cant hold us responsible for false doctrine, misunderstandings etc.
> But you can blame Christianity for bringing it to us when it was written for them.



I am going to venture you have heard enough, seen enough, been exposed to enough, that in some rudiment of understanding you know Jesus (by whom christians are called) is never found telling his disciples to bring men to "faith" in the Bible...(such as it even may have been in that day, of the "jewish" scriptures).

Somehow an equivalence has been made of the faith of Jesus Christ to "I believe the Bible!" (but really...what does that even mean?)  On the face it could seem I am diminishing the scriptures, I am not. There is a faith to be found, but it is never apart from the person of Jesus Christ. Because this distinction seems often, at best, subtle to even what calls itself "christian", I am able to appreciate its even greater subtlety, or even complete obfuscation to one who who _may say_ "I want nothing to do with any of it..."

Some say "it's true because it is in the Bible", another may say "it's in the Bible because it is true". (and I am not unaware of these writings_ passing through the hands of men for approval._) So, in one case we have what Jesus referred to as _the writings_ extant (which have changed little to this day) and what followed after his departure.
But regardless, Jesus says this _of them_ to certain who had (to me) put their hope in the scriptures


‘Ye search the Writings, because ye think in them to have life age-during, and these are they that are testifying concerning me; and ye do not will to come unto me, that ye may have life;' 

So, in that sense Jesus is addressing those who may seek to 'take their stand' on 'faith' in the scriptures...not really understanding the faith of which the scriptures speak.

It is, in all things a very distinct matter. The bumper sticker that proclaims "The Bible says it, I believe it, and that settles it" could end up very far from the faith of Jesus Christ. But, I am not the judge of that, for believing the writings, though not necessarily _prescribed_...is never _proscribed_. Jesus goes so far in one place of saying:

Jesus replied, “Is it not written in _your Law_: ‘I have said you are gods’? If he called them gods to whom the word of God came—and the Scripture cannot be broken—then what about the One whom the Father sanctified and sent into the world? How then can you accuse Me of blasphemy for stating that I am the Son of God?

of Psalm 82:6.

But the point is "_your law_"...what you have accepted as the truth of God. Here I find Jesus defending against the inconsistency apparent...seeking to condemn on one point "of scripture" (blasphemy) while ignoring another. Rightly he speaks "your law"...for it is what that man has taken to himself for his standing, while neglecting what other that might not support "his standing". So it comes back to the thing previously mentioned..."keep to your niche". If you are going to stand here...then stand here...on all of it...or be shown a liar.

This matter of lies vs truth is what Jesus, in the "faith of the son of God" I never find to be less than _all about_. How man of falsity is exposed, so that in repentance, man of truth might be seen. Yet, a man might be false to a thing...even in declaration. "The scriptures are true"...might be stated by a man given to as much deviousness as is allowed...for whatever time.

Being made congruent to the truth found or seen...or even extolled, is quite another matter. That takes something well past even the most "devout" adherence, or clever argumentation for, or from "the Bible".

Taking one's stand on miracles...pfft. Taking one's stand on great prophecies...pffft. On knowledge, on understanding, on grasp...of even those "biblical" principles (of which I could be easily accused...even in this)...is nothing.


How to find a man that loves man, despite knowing all that is "in the heart of man"...is something altogether...different. That man would have to be given to something "other than man" to find love for such a being. To me is is all of perfect sense that such a man would have to have his eyes fixed entirely somewhere else, on something else, on Someone else in whom only love is found. This is the way I am trusting Jesus to show me His Father, who he is not ashamed to call "our Father" thus making us His brethren. If I trust in that same mercy for me, how could I trust it any less...for any I may see...as other? As I said, Jesus hates lies in both form and fashioning. 

And I have felt his stinging rebuke when I have measured duplicitously "two for me...and one for you".

And I thank God for it.

But I have only begun to see through the One who spoke, walked, and exercised in entire consistency..."this will mean all for you, and none for me..." (He who knew no sin became sin for us...) Became...all He is not...for another.

And taught, and is teaching the O! so blessed relief! found in "Of myself, I can do nothing."

No, I don't know how to "do this". Much less "do the Bible". As in "I follow the Bible". No, I follow in a place I can't see at all and need all the help there is...for such.
And likewise, I am totally unable to prove it, or show it.
Thanks be...to God.


----------



## atlashunter

hobbs27 said:


> Atlas...
> 
> I've looked over several explanations and works of different folks on Rev.19 and the casting of the beast in the lake of fire.  This one shows both a literal and figurative fulfillment.  I told you I would get back with you on it,  so here it is.
> 
> http://revelationrevolution.org/revelation-19-a-preterist-commentary/
> 
> *Disclaimer *  While I find the testimony of Non Christian Josephus intriguing and interesting.  I realize his words are not inspired.  So I don't hold them to the same truth as scripture,  he is the only eyewitness to record the event that I'm aware of.



Josephus wasn't an eye witness. He said those things were related to him. No mention of what army this was. No mention that it was a Christian army. No mention of Jesus or anyone resembling the figure described in Revelation which would have been very mentionable had that been seen. For all we know this was an account of the Roman army which was in that proximity coming through some fog on a hillside. The timing is also off. This is 4 years before 70 AD. If it's the Christian army what did they do for the next four years? Seems like they would have been noticed. Did they fight and defeat the army surrounding Jerusalem like Revelation says they did? Or did the surrounding army conquer Jerusalem? Did they Capture the antichrist alive and throw him in a lake of fire? Or did he kill himself two years earlier?

You indicated earlier that maybe the Romans were the army Jesus put to his purpose. Now you seem to be saying the Christian army showed up with Jesus after all. You seem to waffle between these two. Which is it?

Also if Revelation was written in 68 like you said but Jesus and his personal army had shown up in 66 it wouldn't be prophecy it would be history. Why doesn't the author of Revelation indicate these things had already happened? And why is Jesus and his saints coming out of the clouds in 66 when that is well into their thousand year reign? Shouldn't they have already been there on their thrones running the show?


----------



## hobbs27

atlashunter said:


> Josephus wasn't an eye witness. He said those things were related to him. No mention of what army this was. No mention that it was a Christian army. No mention of Jesus or anyone resembling the figure described in Revelation which would have been very mentionable had that been seen. For all we know this was an account of the Roman army which was in that proximity coming through some fog on a hillside. The timing is also off. This is 4 years before 70 AD. If it's the Christian army what did they do for the next four years? Seems like they would have been noticed. Did they fight and defeat the army surrounding Jerusalem like Revelation says they did? Or did the surrounding army conquer Jerusalem? Did they Capture the antichrist alive and throw him in a lake of fire? Or did he kill himself two years earlier?
> 
> You indicated earlier that maybe the Romans were the army Jesus put to his purpose. Now you seem to be saying the Christian army showed up with Jesus after all. You seem to waffle between these two. Which is it?
> 
> Also if Revelation was written in 68 like you said but Jesus and his personal army had shown up in 66 it wouldn't be prophecy it would be history. Why doesn't the author of Revelation indicate these things had already happened? And why is Jesus and his saints coming out of the clouds in 66 when that is well into their thousand year reign? Shouldn't they have already been there on their thrones running the show?



On the timing.  The armies of Rome came to Jerusalem in 66ad. They finally took the city in 70 ad.  That was a three and half year tribulation of the Jew's.  There was a three and half year tribulation of the Christians just prior to this. 

I don't think I've given a definite date for the writing of Revelation.  Some date it to 68, some earlier.  Some date it to 95, some later. Ed Stevens has done some good work on dating the book,  so has Ken Gentry. 

All I know for sure,  and I am convinced of,  is it was pre70 ad. If it's written post 70ad, it's a fraud.


----------



## WaltL1

hummerpoo said:


> Your welcome; one can never be sure how his words will be taken — sometimes it's quite a surprise.


I don't want to drag you into a conversation that you would rather leave as is, but if interested....
I'm curious at what were you surprised at?

Were you expecting an immediate dismissal/argument just because I/we know you are a believer?


----------



## atlashunter

hobbs27 said:


> On the timing.  The armies of Rome came to Jerusalem in 66ad. They finally took the city in 70 ad.  That was a three and half year tribulation of the Jew's.  There was a three and half year tribulation of the Christians just prior to this.
> 
> I don't think I've given a definite date for the writing of Revelation.  Some date it to 68, some earlier.  Some date it to 95, some later. Ed Stevens has done some good work on dating the book,  so has Ken Gentry.
> 
> All I know for sure,  and I am convinced of,  is it was pre70 ad. If it's written post 70ad, it's a fraud.



You're right, you didn't say 68 AD.


----------



## hummerpoo

WaltL1 said:


> I don't want to drag you into a conversation that you would rather leave as is, but if interested....
> I'm curious at what were you surprised at?
> 
> Were you expecting an immediate dismissal/argument just because I/we know you are a believer?



No, nothing like that; my intent was much more general, not at all referring specifically to this thread or even the forum; like when you make a joking statement and someone takes it seriously, but sometimes with relatively dire consequences.


----------



## atlashunter

I picked up the 68 date from this article.

https://www.christiancourier.com/articles/1552-when-was-the-book-of-revelation-written


----------



## hobbs27

atlashunter said:


> I picked up the 68 date from this article.
> 
> https://www.christiancourier.com/articles/1552-when-was-the-book-of-revelation-written




I think this is a correction and good rebuke of the author in that article. 

https://americanvision.org/6181/dating-the-book-of-revelation-clarifying-tommy-ices-clarifications/


----------



## atlashunter

hobbs27 said:


> I think this is a correction and good rebuke of the author in that article.
> 
> https://americanvision.org/6181/dating-the-book-of-revelation-clarifying-tommy-ices-clarifications/



Yeah not so much. All that amounts to is saying not all scholars agree with the later dating. It didn't actually address any of the evidence supporting the later date.


----------



## hobbs27

atlashunter said:


> Yeah not so much. All that amounts to is saying not all scholars agree with the later dating. It didn't actually address any of the evidence supporting the later date.



I've already linked to that here:https://www.ecclesia.org/truth/revelation.html

And there's much more.  All the late daters  have is one comment by someone remembering what someone else told them.. That's all,  hear say. 

So they resort to "Most scholars " or this guy said this and then this guy and this guy,  but what they fail to explain is all those guys were saying it was late date from the same hear say evidence of one man.


----------



## WaltL1

> Originally Posted by hobbs27
> I think this is a correction and good rebuke of the author in that article.
> 
> https://americanvision.org/6181/dati...larifications/





atlashunter said:


> Yeah not so much. All that amounts to is saying not all scholars agree with the later dating. It didn't actually address any of the evidence supporting the later date.


Yikes!


> The Southern Poverty Law Center has described American Vision as an extremist group and an organization advocating "a complete theocracy governed by Old Testament law." It describes DeMar as "an outspoken anti-gay activist who regularly hosts and speaks at Christian-right events."[13]



Disclaimer -
Not claiming the SPLC view is factual, just throwing it out there.


----------



## WaltL1

hobbs,
when you get a minute please address post #387.


----------



## Israel

And that is where "playing" with history and even the most _diligently_ studied commentaries can lead. If you play with history then you must be willing to play with what is commonly called church history. One could take the stance..."no one told the truth after 70AD." That's fine if one wants to take it, let them defend it. 

But it would seem curious...if "accepting the acceptable" witnesses and references would utterly disqualify none but those few who are called the eminent ones of the second century church...who would have either been born shortly after 70AD, or in such proximity that a thing like the Lord's coming in triumph could conceivably have escaped their notice...or as tradition has it, the notice of the very apostles at whose feet they are reputed to have been discipled.

I do not study these men except by compulsion, as when they are used as witnesses in one matter, but in others that oppose another stance, are left to be curiously silent.
If one wants to present historians as as supplements of truth, then all testimony of those in proximity should be heard till such as giving the testimony are found either craven or lying. Or ignorant.


It would seem strange that those quoted as "church fathers" to a man look forward to the Lord's return, not back at it.


----------



## hobbs27

WaltL1 said:


> So hobbs -
> In Atlas's post #380, he shows "thousand years" being proceeded by both "a"(indefinite article) and "the" (definite article).
> Based on what you said here -
> 
> None of those actually mean a literal thousand years regardless of the definite or indefinite article preceding it.
> So why not?
> Is it the usage of "thousand" vs "1000" that makes the difference?
> Based on the context of the sentences in which it is used it sure seems like "thousand" and "1000" would be interchangeable.



For every beast of the forest is mine, and the cattle on a thousand hills.

I think it's is more to do with the Hebraic use of the number.  They always use it as symbolic.  Do you think they meant God only owned cattle on a thousand hills?

When I referred to ( the thousand year reign)  I in no way meant that it was ( a thousand year reign)  Many people have different doctrines upon their idea of that thousand year reign... Pre Millennial...post millennial ...amillennial, and amongst the pre millennials they are divided again by pre tribulation , mid tribulation,  and post tribulation...  So ( The thousand year reign) is a subject of many theories,  and I think only the premillennials actually consider it a literal 1000 years.


----------



## hobbs27

WaltL1 said:


> Yikes!
> 
> 
> Disclaimer -
> Not claiming the SPLC view is factual, just throwing it out there.


I'm sure American Vision which is located here in GA,  wears that title by the SPLC as a badge of honor. 

BTW,  while I agree with a lot of Ken Gentry work,  he's only a partial preterist,  a retired Presbyterian preacher that also holds to some Calvinist beliefs I reject.  A brother in Christ though in which I have much respect.


----------



## atlashunter

hobbs27 said:


> I've already linked to that here:https://www.ecclesia.org/truth/revelation.html
> 
> And there's much more.  All the late daters  have is one comment by someone remembering what someone else told them.. That's all,  hear say.
> 
> So they resort to "Most scholars " or this guy said this and then this guy and this guy,  but what they fail to explain is all those guys were saying it was late date from the same hear say evidence of one man.



No there is the internal evidence as well. I'll grant you the hearsay but that should hardly be off putting for a Christian. Especially from a source you already used in this discussion.


----------



## hobbs27

The Seven Churches in Asia
Another point is that John wrote Revelation to a specific group of churches in Asia (Revelation 1:4). The importance of this statement cannot be overlooked (even though it has been by many scholars). There is only one small window of time in which there were only seven churches in Asia. The early AD 60's. The apostle Paul established nine churches in that area, but only seven were addressed in Revelation. The reason for this is that the cities of Colosse, Hierapolis, and Laodicea, were all destroyed by an earthquake around AD 61. Laodicea was rebuilt soon afterwards, but the other two cities were not. This left only seven churches in Asia during the five years just prior to the beginning of the Roman/Jewish war.

------------------------------------------------------

Then consider this fact. The church at Laodicea is represented as existing under conditions of great wealth. She was rich and had need of nothing (3:17). In A.D. 60, though, Laodicea had been almost entirely destroyed by an earthquake. Surely it would have required more than eight or nine years for that city to have risen again to the state of affluence described in Revelation.


Who to believe?


----------



## WaltL1

hobbs27 said:


> For every beast of the forest is mine, and the cattle on a thousand hills.
> 
> I think it's is more to do with the Hebraic use of the number.  They always use it as symbolic.  Do you think they meant God only owned cattle on a thousand hills?
> 
> When I referred to ( the thousand year reign)  I in no way meant that it was ( a thousand year reign)  Many people have different doctrines upon their idea of that thousand year reign... Pre Millennial...post millennial ...amillennial, and amongst the pre millennials they are divided again by pre tribulation , mid tribulation,  and post tribulation...  So ( The thousand year reign) is a subject of many theories,  and I think only the premillennials actually consider it a literal 1000 years.


Actually I was specifically referring to the examples Atlas posted in #380


> Do you think they meant God only owned cattle on a thousand hills?


I'm trying to keep what I think out of it. 
Unfortunately, as we sit here today, that's pretty much all there is. In practice, it seems that whatever the reader is comfortable with thinking it says, is what it says.


> They always use it as symbolic.


That might be true. However when something is translated, into English for example, it seems odd that the translation doesn't take into account the use of the language it is being translated into.
I get a picture of the translator, who obviously would have a working knowledge of the language he/she is translating it into, sitting there and chuckling and saying "these folks who read this aren't going to have a clue what I'm actually talking about here but oh well, atranslating we will go".


----------



## atlashunter

I could buy that verse about a thousand hills didn't mean exactly 1,000 hills. But I doubt very seriously they meant 40 too.


----------



## hobbs27

WaltL1 said:


> Actually I was specifically referring to the examples Atlas posted in #380
> 
> I'm trying to keep what I think out of it.
> Unfortunately, as we sit here today, that's pretty much all there is. In practice, it seems that whatever the reader is comfortable with thinking it says, is what it says.
> 
> That might be true. However when something is translated, into English for example, it seems odd that the translation doesn't take into account the use of the language it is being translated into.
> I get a picture of the translator, who obviously would have a working knowledge of the language he/she is translating it into, sitting there and chuckling and saying "these folks who read this aren't going to have a clue what I'm actually talking about here but oh well, atranslating we will go".



The translator had no choice but to translate.  The problem comes in with cultural differences as Art pointed out in his response. 

If I say I haven't seen someone in a coons age, you would automatically know what I was saying,  but two languages later and two thousand years of cultural changes... Do we really expect folks to understand? 

What if in a letter I said , Grandpa was really sick before he bought the farm?  You would also understand grandpa died after being sick.. Or grandpa kicked the bucket?  

If someone uncovered my writing they would be forced to translate what I said,  but it would take a study into our current culture and compare our uses of literary to ever understand the true meaning of what we were saying.


----------



## hobbs27

atlashunter said:


> I could buy that verse about a thousand hills didn't mean exactly 1,000 hills. But I doubt very seriously they meant 40 too.



yeah.  1000 doesn't =40. But the events that were to be fulfilled in the millennium were fulfilled in 40years.

That forty year period also has some symbolic meaning.  It took Moses 40 years to lead the children of Israel out of the bondage of Egypt into the land of freedom. 

It took Jesus 40 years to lead the chosen ones out of the bondage of Law in the old kingdom and into the new kingdom of Liberty and grace.


----------



## bullethead

atlashunter said:


> I could buy that verse about a thousand hills didn't mean exactly 1,000 hills. But I doubt very seriously they meant 40 too.



Right, in the case of the cattle, a thousand hills was the lowball amount.


----------



## bullethead

hobbs27 said:


> The translator had no choice but to translate.  The problem comes in with cultural differences as Art pointed out in his response.
> 
> If I say I haven't seen someone in a coons age, you would automatically know what I was saying,  but two languages later and two thousand years of cultural changes... Do we really expect folks to understand?
> 
> What if in a letter I said , Grandpa was really sick before he bought the farm?  You would also understand grandpa died after being sick.. Or grandpa kicked the bucket?
> 
> If someone uncovered my writing they would be forced to translate what I said,  but it would take a study into our current culture and compare our uses of literary to ever understand the true meaning of what we were saying.


You, me, Walt, atlas...yeah we may say things now that are taken differently in the future.
We are human just like the authors of the bible.

Wouldn't,  Shouldn't a god know differently and account for it?


----------



## atlashunter

https://www.biblegateway.com

Do a search for thousand and 1,000. See if you can convince yourself that none of those verses meant a literal quantity of 1,000. There is no rule that 1,000 is only used symbolically in the Bible. Hobbs just made that up because he needs it to be true to make scripture say what he wants it to say.


----------



## hobbs27

bullethead said:


> You, me, Walt, atlas...yeah we may say things now that are taken differently in the future.
> We are human just like the authors of the bible.
> 
> Wouldn't,  Shouldn't a god know differently and account for it?



God added to His church without a Bible for a long time. He's still able to do it.  I'm thankful for the Bible,  but it's not necessary to become a Christian.  His word can and is carried on through the testimony of others.


----------



## hobbs27

atlashunter said:


> https://www.biblegateway.com
> 
> Do a search for thousand and 1,000. See if you can convince yourself that none of those verses meant a literal quantity of 1,000. There is no rule that 1,000 is only used symbolically in the Bible. Hobbs just made that up because he needs it to be true to make scripture say what he wants it to say.



I didn't make it up. 

In scripture, the term “thousand,” when in reference to time, is always used symbolically. It represents any predetermined time that God chooses

http://www.scripturerevealed.com/bible-studies/the-meaning-of-numbers-the-number-1000/


----------



## bullethead

hobbs27 said:


> God added to His church without a Bible for a long time. He's still able to do it.  I'm thankful for the Bible,  but it's not necessary to become a Christian.  His word can and is carried on through the testimony of others.


The evidence does not match your claims.
We wouldn't have this confusion if a god was involved at all.


----------



## WaltL1

hobbs27 said:


> The translator had no choice but to translate.  The problem comes in with cultural differences as Art pointed out in his response.
> 
> If I say I haven't seen someone in a coons age, you would automatically know what I was saying,  but two languages later and two thousand years of cultural changes... Do we really expect folks to understand?
> 
> What if in a letter I said , Grandpa was really sick before he bought the farm?  You would also understand grandpa died after being sick.. Or grandpa kicked the bucket?
> 
> If someone uncovered my writing they would be forced to translate what I said,  but it would take a study into our current culture and compare our uses of literary to ever understand the true meaning of what we were saying.





> Do we really expect folks to understand?


If its the word of an Omni-everything god, then yup I sure do. Every possible misunderstanding would have been known and accounted for.
If its the word of men, I would be flabbergasted if they understood it despite all the challenges presented to them. And they don't understand.


> What if in a letter I said , Grandpa was really sick before he bought the farm?  You would also understand grandpa died after being sick.. Or grandpa kicked the bucket?


Yes I would understand because it was meant for me and you used phrases that I understood. And you used them precisely because it was meant for me.


> If someone uncovered my writing they would be forced to translate


You aren't an Omni-everything god who could take into account every possibility of who uncovered your writing.

Christianity backed themselves into a corner by presenting the Bible as the word of God given the attributes they/you give to your god.
That's where the indoctrination comes in so its not questioned.


----------



## atlashunter

hobbs27 said:


> I didn't make it up.
> 
> In scripture, the term “thousand,” when in reference to time, is always used symbolically. It represents any predetermined time that God chooses
> 
> http://www.scripturerevealed.com/bible-studies/the-meaning-of-numbers-the-number-1000/



Ah now isn't in all cases but when referencing time. Still a made up rule that Revelation shows doesn't hold up. The number forty is used in the Bible too. If the intent was to say 40 there's no reason the author couldn't have.


----------



## atlashunter

Saying a millennium lasted 40 years is special pleading. And even if it said 40 it still wouldn't work because the events described didn't happen.


----------



## hobbs27

atlashunter said:


> Ah now isn't in all cases but when referencing time. Still a made up rule that Revelation shows doesn't hold up. The number forty is used in the Bible too. If the intent was to say 40 there's no reason the author couldn't have.



40 doesn't represent a fulness of time like 1000 does.


----------



## WaltL1

hobbs27 said:


> God added to His church without a Bible for a long time. He's still able to do it.  I'm thankful for the Bible,  but it's not necessary to become a Christian.  His word can and is carried on through the testimony of others.





> but it's not necessary to become a Christian.


Only if you are willing to believe in a god that you don't have a clue about.
Ive sat in enough church services to know exactly where what you are being told is coming from. 
Every hotel/motel doesn't come with a preacher/priest in the drawer under the phone.


----------



## hobbs27

atlashunter said:


> Saying a millennium lasted 40 years is special pleading. And even if it said 40 it still wouldn't work because the events described didn't happen.



Sure they did,  John said in the first verse of his letter to the seven churches that it was things that must soon come to pass,  then a few verses later he says those that pierced him would see his return... That places it all in that generation.


----------



## hobbs27

bullethead said:


> The evidence does not match your claims.
> We wouldn't have this confusion if a god was involved at all.



I'm not so sure I agree with most Christians on just how involved God is. 

For one,  I don't agree with prosperity preachers that say the more you give the more you get... This would be a god for only the wealthy. 

I also don't believe God gives men spiritual gifts to heal other men,  that was for a time,  but is way past. 

I believe He is a God that can be called upon,  but I'm not so sure I believe in all the omnis either.  I'm a free willer in a sense,  but Im also an if saved always saved believer. I believe  God's dealing with man was fulfilled in the old covenant and through that the New Covenant has been established.  The spirit and the bride calls out,  some choose to come in and take of the Salvation already prepared for whosoever will , some don't.


----------



## atlashunter

hobbs27 said:


> Sure they did,  John said in the first verse of his letter to the seven churches that it was things that must soon come to pass,  then a few verses later he says those that pierced him would see his return... That places it all in that generation.



Just because he expected these things to happen soon that doesn't mean they did. I've already pointed out how none of it matches up. The plagues, the one third of mankind dying, the earthquake the split Jerusalem in three and destroyed other cities, the physical return of Jesus that didn't happen, the Christian army that didn't exist, the reign of Jesus and his saints that didn't happen, the first and second resurrection that didn't happen, the army surrounding Jerusalem that wasn't defeated, the new Jerusalem with streets of gold and walls of jasper that doesn't exist, and so on.

Yes he said these things would happen soon. They didn't.


----------



## hobbs27

atlashunter said:


> Just because he expected these things to happen soon that doesn't mean they did. I've already pointed out how none of it matches up. The plagues, the one third of mankind dying, the earthquake the split Jerusalem in three and destroyed other cities, the physical return of Jesus that didn't happen, the Christian army that didn't exist, the reign of Jesus and his saints that didn't happen, the first and second resurrection that didn't happen, the army surrounding Jerusalem that wasn't defeated, the new Jerusalem with streets of gold and walls of jasper that doesn't exist, and so on.
> 
> Yes he said these things would happen soon. They didn't.


They did.


----------



## bullethead

hobbs27 said:


> I'm not so sure I agree with most Christians on just how involved God is.
> 
> For one,  I don't agree with prosperity preachers that say the more you give the more you get... This would be a god for only the wealthy.
> 
> I also don't believe God gives men spiritual gifts to heal other men,  that was for a time,  but is way past.
> 
> I believe He is a God that can be called upon,  but I'm not so sure I believe in all the omnis either.  I'm a free willer in a sense,  but Im also an if saved always saved believer. I believe  God's dealing with man was fulfilled in the old covenant and through that the New Covenant has been established.  The spirit and the bride calls out,  some choose to come in and take of the Salvation already prepared for whosoever will , some don't.


You would have to think/believe like that to fit your interpretations of scripture. That is why there are so many denominations and individual beliefs within all of those. No one view can make sense.


----------



## atlashunter

hobbs27 said:


> They did.



Evidence?


----------



## WaltL1

hobbs27 said:


> I'm not so sure I agree with most Christians on just how involved God is.
> 
> For one,  I don't agree with prosperity preachers that say the more you give the more you get... This would be a god for only the wealthy.
> 
> I also don't believe God gives men spiritual gifts to heal other men,  that was for a time,  but is way past.
> 
> I believe He is a God that can be called upon,  but I'm not so sure I believe in all the omnis either.  I'm a free willer in a sense,  but Im also an if saved always saved believer. I believe  God's dealing with man was fulfilled in the old covenant and through that the New Covenant has been established.  The spirit and the bride calls out,  some choose to come in and take of the Salvation already prepared for whosoever will , some don't.


I don't know hobbs, seems to me you and the folks that you accuse of coming up with false doctrine wear real similar shoe sizes.
And its probably a good thing you are down here where you are safe. Upstairs you might have gotten burned at the stake for some of your thoughts


----------



## atlashunter

I suspect the prophecy that Christians say Jesus fulfilled happened in the same way. The bulk of believers don't notice. Then some minority group comes along after the fact and using symbolism and altered interpretations figures out a way to shoehorn the prophecy into some event and with that a new evolutionary branch of the religion begins.


----------



## hobbs27

atlashunter said:


> Evidence?



 None that would suit you.


----------



## hobbs27

WaltL1 said:


> I don't know hobbs, seems to me you and the folks that you accuse of coming up with false doctrine wear real similar shoe sizes.
> And its probably a good thing you are down here where you are safe. Upstairs you might have gotten burned at the stake for some of your thoughts



Oh,  no.  They just adore me upstairs.  I need to get back up there soon, I'm sure theyre missing me.  This one guy in particular likes to join in my conversation and say something really mean to me,  just to let me know he loves me.. You know,  kind of like construction workers pick at one another. Besides,  I'm a scripture guy,  and it's complicated discussing scripture with folks that don't believe it... Well it's not so complicated as it is that I'm not learning.


----------



## atlashunter

hobbs27 said:


> None that would suit you.



That's what I thought.


----------



## atlashunter

hobbs27 said:


> 40 doesn't represent a fulness of time like 1000 does.



How about any of those other significant 40 year time frames you referenced? Can you point to a single one that was prophesied as being one thousand years?


----------



## SemperFiDawg

welderguy said:


> I can't understand why this is so hard for you folks.
> 
> The 1000 years(aka millennium) is NOT literal in the Bible.
> It does not have a specific time amount attached to it. It is a number of completion.
> 
> Christ's reign has no time limit,  thus it's assigned the number of completeness.



Just want to interject that not all Christians believe as Hobbs and Welder do.  We who don't, simply believe what is written and make some of the same arguments Walt and Atlas have.  i.e.  1000 means 1000, not 70.


----------



## SemperFiDawg

hobbs27 said:


> If it's written post 70ad, it's a fraud.



WOW!!!   I mean WOW!!!!   Now THAT is hubris.

Why?  Because as Atlas said it's widely accepted that it was written in the 90s.   Even the early Church Fathers said so, but the mighty Hobbs can't be wrong.  In fact if it comes to choosing between Hobbs being wrong or every Scholar being right, you can bet if they're right it's because Revelations is a forgery.

I'll say one thing for you Hobbs, when it comes to choosing who's right, you or the Bible, you're in the right place down here.

Here's a good, contemporary overview of when Revelations was written
https://www.christiancourier.com/articles/1552-when-was-the-book-of-revelation-written


----------



## hobbs27

SemperFiDawg said:


> WOW!!!   I mean WOW!!!!   Now THAT is hubris.
> 
> Why?  Because as Atlas said it's widely accepted that it was written in the 90s.   Even the early Church Fathers said so, but the mighty Hobbs can't be wrong.  In fact if it comes to choosing between Hobbs being wrong or every Scholar being right, you can bet if they're right it's because Revelations is a forgery.
> 
> I'll say one thing for you Hobbs, when it comes to choosing who's right, you or the Bible, you're in the right place down here.
> 
> Here's a good, contemporary overview of when Revelations was written
> https://www.christiancourier.com/articles/1552-when-was-the-book-of-revelation-written



Hey buddy, glad to see your doing OK.


----------



## atlashunter

hobbs27 said:


> Hey buddy, glad to see your doing OK.


----------



## WaltL1

hobbs27 said:


> Oh,  no.  They just adore me upstairs.  I need to get back up there soon, I'm sure theyre missing me.  This one guy in particular likes to join in my conversation and say something really mean to me,  just to let me know he loves me.. You know,  kind of like construction workers pick at one another. Besides,  I'm a scripture guy,  and it's complicated discussing scripture with folks that don't believe it... Well it's not so complicated as it is that I'm not learning.


Let me guess......


----------



## atlashunter

From this:



hobbs27 said:


> I can provide many more than this if need be.
> 
> 
> 175: Irenaeus – Against Heresies “the temple constructed of stones was indeed then rebuilt (for as yet that law was observed which had been made upon tables of stone), yet no new covenant was given, but they used the Mosaic law until the coming of the Lord; but from the Lord’s advent, the new covenant which brings back peace, and the law which gives life, has gone forth over the whole earth, as the prophets said: “For out of Zion shall go forth the law, and the word of the Lord from Jerusalem ; and He shall rebuke many people; and they shall break down their swords into ploughshares, and their spears into pruninghooks, and they shall no longer learn to fight.”







hobbs27 said:


> Josephus,  a Jew and eyewitness would disagree with you.
> 
> Josephus (A.D. 75) - Jewish Historian
> "Besides these [signs], a few days after that feast, on the one- and-twentieth day of the month Artemisius, [Jyar,] a certain prodigious and incredible phenomenon appeared; I suppose the account of it would seem to be a fable, _were it not related by those that saw it_, and were not the events that followed it of so considerable a nature as to deserve such signals; for, before sun-setting, chariots and troops of soldiers in their armour were seen running about among the clouds, and surrounding of cities. Moreover, at that feast which we call Pentecost, as the priests were going by night into the inner [court of the] temple, as their custom was, to perform their sacred ministrations, they said that, in the first place, they felt a quaking, and heard a great noise, and after that they heard a sound as of a great multitude, saying, "Let us remove hence" (Jewish Wars, VI-V-3).
> 
> And Tacitus.
> 
> Tacitus (A.D. 115) - Roman historian
> "13. Prodigies had occurred, but their expiation by the offering of victims or solemn vows is held to be unlawful by a nation which is the slave of superstition and the enemy of true beliefs. In the sky appeared a vision of armies in conflict, of glittering armour. A sudden lightning flash from the clouds lit up the Temple. The doors of the holy place abruptly opened, a superhuman voice was heard to declare that the gods were leaving it, and in the same instant came the rushing tumult of their departure. Few people placed a sinister interpretation upon this. The majority were convinced that the ancient scriptures of their priests alluded to the present as the very time when the Orient would triumph and from Judaea would go forth men destined to rule the world." (Histories, Book 5, v. 13).





To this:



> “We will not, however, incur the risk of pronouncing positively as to the name of Antichrist; for if it were necessary that his name should be distinctly revealed in this present time, it would have been announced by him who beheld the apocalyptic vision.
> 
> For [it or he] was seen not very long time since, but almost in our day, towards the end of Domitian’s reign.”
> 
> – Saint Irenaeus, Adversus haereses 5, 30, 3
> 
> Clement of Alexandria (A.D. 155-215) says that John returned from the isle of Patmos “after the tyrant was dead” (Who Is the Rich Man? 42), and Eusebius, known as the “Father of Church History,” identifies the “tyrant” as Domitian (Ecclesiastical History III.23).
> 
> 
> Victorinus (late third century), author of the earliest commentary on the book of Revelation, wrote:
> 
> When John said these things, he was in the island of Patmos, condemned to the mines by Caesar Domitian. There he saw the Apocalypse; and when at length grown old, he thought that he should receive his release by suffering; but Domitian being killed, he was liberated (Commentary on Revelation 10:11).
> 
> Jerome (A.D. 340-420) said,
> 
> In the fourteenth then after Nero, Domitian having raised up a second persecution, he [John] was banished to the island of Patmos, and wrote the Apocalypse (Lives of Illustrious Men 9).






hobbs27 said:


> All the late daters  have is one comment by someone remembering what someone else told them.. That's all,  hear say.
> 
> So they resort to "Most scholars " or this guy said this and then this guy and this guy,  but what they fail to explain is all those guys were saying it was late date from the same hear say evidence of one man.


----------



## welderguy

hobbs27 said:


> Sure they did,  John said in the first verse of his letter to the seven churches that it was things that must soon come to pass,  then a few verses later he says those that pierced him would see his return... That places it all in that generation.



No, it does not place it all in that generation (of people), but of the age.
Those that pierced Him will see Him in the future, because of a bodily resurrection.


----------



## hobbs27

For anyone concerned why Revelation is fraud if written in 95ad concerning our future.  Here's just one reason,  the time statements.

90. “…to show to His bond-servants, the things which must shortly take place.” (Rev. 1:1) 

91. “The time is near.” (Rev. 1:3) 

92. “Nevertheless what you have, hold fast until I come.” (Rev. 2:25) 

93. “I also will keep you from the hour of testing which is about to come upon the whole world.” (Rev. 3:10) 

94. “I am coming quickly.” (Rev. 3:11) 

95. “And she gave birth to a son, a male child, who is about to rule all the nations with a rod of iron.” (Rev. 12:5) 

96. "And in her [the Great City Babylon] was found the blood of prophets and of saints and of all who have been slain on the earth." (Rev. 18:24; Compare Matt. 23:35-36; Lk. 11:50-51) 

97. “…to show to His bond-servants the things which must shortly take place.” (Rev. 22:6) 

98. "Behold, I am coming quickly. " (Rev. 22:7) 

99. "Do not seal up the words of the prophecy of this book, for the time is near." (Rev. 22:10; Compare Dan. 8:26) 

100. "Behold, I am coming quickly.” (Rev. 22:12) 

101. "Yes, I am coming quickly." (Rev. 22:20)


----------



## Israel

This is also from Irenaeus, who in no way appears to have been "looking back"...but forward:




> “Those nations however, who did not of themselves raise up their eyes unto heaven, nor returned thanks to their Maker, nor wished to behold the light of truth, but who were like blind mice concealed in the depths of ignorance, the word justly reckons “as waste water from a sink, and as the turning-weight of a balance — in fact, as nothing;”(1) so far useful and serviceable to the just, as stubble conduces towards the growth of the wheat, and its straw, by means of combustion, serves for working gold. And therefore, when in the end the Church shall be suddenly caught up from this, it is said, “There shall be tribulation such as has not been since the beginning, neither shall be.”(2) For this is the last contest of the righteous, in which, when they overcome they are crowned with incorruption.”



There are others where he expresses these things are yet to come. It is odd to me that these so called church fathers, (and if they be so makes little impact upon my faith) would be used by you as support in a matter in which they all contradict your central tenet. And also in support of the "late dating" of a book they have accepted as inspired...but which by you is said "would be a fraud" if found to be written after 70AD. 

Do you not see you have chosen a sharp stick to lean upon for support...?

I fear you have given yourself over to_ a thing _called "preterism" that to you has become all your identity and investment...?


It is no more than those who offer a denomination as their identity believing it somehow suffices to the faith of the Son of God.

I am not your adversary, you have said things that make my heart glad, not the least of which has been "sharing the gospel is not a chore". 
I can only entreat you as brother.


----------



## hobbs27

Atlas... For [it or he] was seen very long time since. 

What it or he?  The vision... The book... John?


----------



## atlashunter

hobbs27 said:


> Atlas... For [it or he] was seen very long time since.
> 
> What it or he?  The vision... The book... John?



You tell me.


----------



## WaltL1

Israel said:


> This is also from Irenaeus, who in no way appears to have been "looking back"...but forward:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There are others where he expresses these things are yet to come. It is odd to me that these so called church fathers, (and if they be so makes little impact upon my faith) would be used by you as support in a matter in which they all contradict your central tenet. And also in support of the "late dating" of a book they have accepted as inspired...but which by you is said "would be a fraud" if found to be written after 70AD.
> 
> Do you not see you have chosen a sharp stick to lean upon for support...?
> 
> I fear you have given yourself over to_ a thing _called "preterism" that to you has become all your identity and investment...?
> 
> 
> It is no more than those who offer a denomination as their identity believing it somehow suffices to the faith of the Son of God.
> 
> I am not your adversary, you have said things that make my heart glad, not the least of which has been "sharing the gospel is not a chore".
> I can only entreat you as brother.





> I fear you have given yourself over to_ a thing _called "preterism" that to you has become all your identity and investment...?


Yes.
And the "you" can apply to most Christians regardless of the flavor they choose.
It seems that's what Christianity has turned into.
"What denomination are you"? "Oh I am ______"
And if the above blank isn't filled in correctly in the view of the one who is asking, there seems to be an immediate judgement - "Oh he is a ____" "That's false doctrine" etc.

Even here, typically within a few minutes of discussion, we don't even really need to ask what box they fit into.
It becomes readily apparent.
It seems the box is what determines the direction of how one views themselves, how one views others, how one understands scripture, how one understands God etc etc.
It seems to me its the box that has become that which is worshipped and not the god.
Sometimes I cant help but wonder, if there actually is a god, if he/she is sitting up there doing one of these -


----------



## hobbs27

atlashunter said:


> You tell me.



That's the point. We don't really know,  so this evidence late daters have is up for interpretation.


----------



## hobbs27

WaltL1 said:


> Yes.
> And the "you" can apply to most Christians regardless of the flavor they choose.
> It seems that's what Christianity has turned into.
> "What denomination are you"? "Oh I am ______"
> And if the above blank isn't filled in correctly in the view of the one who is asking, there seems to be an immediate judgement - "Oh he is a ____" "That's false doctrine" etc.
> 
> Even here, typically within a few minutes of discussion, we don't even really need to ask what box they fit into.
> It becomes readily apparent.
> It seems the box is what determines the direction of how one views themselves, how one views others, how one understands scripture, how one understands God etc etc.
> It seems to me its the box that has become that which is worshipped and not the god.
> Sometimes I cant help but wonder, if there actually is a god, if he/she is sitting up there doing one of these -



 This was going on in the early church,  even in Paul's time. It's just man's nature . It's another reason I call into question the validity of early church fathers after the apostolic age.  

Tertullian blasted heretics in his writings.  Well,  to the heretics Tertullian was probably a heretic.  Then in the fourth century we have the forming of the Roman Catholic Church.. This church ruled with the cross and sword of the empire.  They actively went after folks of different beliefs,  so how many doctrines did they successfully erase from history?  There's not a single protestant in here that can with straight face say the Roman Catholics and early church fathers of that faith had it all right. 
So we're truly left with scripture alone to find truth.  That's where I place my faith.


----------



## WaltL1

hobbs27 said:


> That's the point. We don't really know,  so this evidence late daters have is up for interpretation.


BINGO! JACKPOT! YATZEE!

You just quoted the entire basis of the A/A argument.
Is there a god?
We don't really know.
You (Christians) say there absolutely, without a doubt is.
We say your evidence is up for interpretation.
So you (Christians) proceed to attempt to prove your interpretation based on other interpretations.
We see the flaw in that and try to keep our interpretations based on facts, preponderance of evidence etc.


----------



## WaltL1

hobbs27 said:


> This was going on in the early church,  even in Paul's time. It's just man's nature . It's another reason I call into question the validity of early church fathers after the apostolic age.
> 
> Tertullian blasted heretics in his writings.  Well,  to the heretics Tertullian was probably a heretic.  Then in the fourth century we have the forming of the Roman Catholic Church.. This church ruled with the cross and sword of the empire.  They actively went after folks of different beliefs,  so how many doctrines did they successfully erase from history?  There's not a single protestant in here that can with straight face say the Roman Catholics and early church fathers of that faith had it all right.
> So we're truly left with scripture alone to find truth.  That's where I place my faith.


No argument there.
Just one adjustment for accuracy -


> So we're truly left with scripture alone to find MY truth.


----------



## hummerpoo

WaltL1 said:


> Yes.
> And the "you" can apply to most Christians regardless of the flavor they choose.
> It seems that's what Christianity has turned into.
> "What denomination are you"? "Oh I am ______"
> And if the above blank isn't filled in correctly in the view of the one who is asking, there seems to be an immediate judgement - "Oh he is a ____" "That's false doctrine" etc.
> 
> Even here, typically within a few minutes of discussion, we don't even really need to ask what box they fit into.
> It becomes readily apparent.
> It seems the box is what determines the direction of how one views themselves, how one views others, how one understands scripture, how one understands God etc etc.
> It seems to me its [often] the box that has become that which is worshipped and not the god.
> Sometimes I cant help but wonder, if there actually is a god, if he/she is sitting up there doing one of these -



I have no doubt that, if God were a man, as he is so often viewed, he would indeed be 

I would suggest that those who frequent this forum, all four subs, "most" often forget that your word "most" is required if the statement is to be worthy of consideration.

[often], is a suggested companion for your  most .

I have lately begun to observe that those who are most eager to choose a box for filing a person, or an idea, or a doctrine are usually those posessing the least insight with which to do the sorting.


----------



## atlashunter

hobbs27 said:


> That's the point. We don't really know,  so this evidence late daters have is up for interpretation.



Seems everything that doesn't fit your preconceived notions is up for interpretation. Of course that ignores the understanding that later church fathers had. I guess just like John we are to believe you understand what Irenaeus was really saying better than the early church. Of course that brings up problems of its own. If John lived through the events of 70 for another 20+ years why did he not recognize and communicate to the church that all he saw had been fulfilled? Yet another mental backflip one must do to accept the preterist position.

And two can play this game of convenient reinterpretation. That verse in your sig line? He's not saying this generation I'm speaking to. He's saying this generation who experiences these future events. He even says right after that even he doesn't know when these things will happen. See how easy that is?


----------



## 660griz

hobbs27 said:


> perfect. The bible is not written to us,  but is written for us.



fubu


----------



## hobbs27

atlashunter said:


> Seems everything that doesn't fit your preconceived notions is up for interpretation. Of course that ignores the understanding that later church fathers had. I guess just like John we are to believe you understand what Irenaeus was really saying better than the early church. Of course that brings up problems of its own. If John lived through the events of 70 for another 20+ years why did he not recognize and communicate to the church that all he saw had been fulfilled? Yet another mental backflip one must do to accept the preterist position.
> 
> And two can play this game of convenient reinterpretation. That verse in your sig line? He's not saying this generation I'm speaking to. He's saying this generation who experiences these future events. He even says right after that even he doesn't know when these things will happen. See how easy that is?



I know the argument.  It would have been easily settled had Jesus said,  That generation,  but He didn't. He told them,  this generation. 

He made it even clearer here. 


Matt 16:28 "Truly I say to you, there are some of those who are standing here who will not taste death until they see the Son of Man coming in His kingdom."

Now,  the argument for the above verse cannot be He was speaking about a future generation, so the futurist will say this is about the transfiguration only days later. 

Amazing,  there must have been one of the worst plagues the world has ever known going on then if only some would still be living days later.


----------



## WaltL1

hummerpoo said:


> I have no doubt that, if God were a man, as he is so often viewed, he would indeed be
> 
> I would suggest that those who frequent this forum, all four subs, "most" often forget that your word "most" is required if the statement is to be worthy of consideration.
> 
> [often], is a suggested companion for your  most .
> 
> 
> 
> I have no doubt that, if God were a man, as he is so often viewed, he would indeed be
> 
> 
> 
> I have lately begun to observe that those who are most eager to choose a box for filing a person, or an idea, or a doctrine are usually those posessing the least insight with which to do the sorting.
Click to expand...




> I have no doubt that, if God were a man, as he is so often viewed, he would indeed be


What do you figure immediately proceeded God turning on the big water faucet?
This   or this   
The answer to that question is in your Bible.
Ive invested heavily in the floatation device industry just in case.


> I have lately begun to observe that those who are most eager to choose a box for filing a person, or an idea, or a doctrine are usually those posessing the least insight with which to do the sorting.


Yet you yourself have chosen a box.
You even commented above about that dude that you reference as being only "partial preterist".
That's a comment about him and his box.


----------



## hobbs27

WaltL1 said:


> BINGO! JACKPOT! YATZEE!
> 
> You just quoted the entire basis of the A/A argument.
> Is there a god?
> We don't really know.
> You (Christians) say there absolutely, without a doubt is.
> We say your evidence is up for interpretation.
> So you (Christians) proceed to attempt to prove your interpretation based on other interpretations.
> We see the flaw in that and try to keep our interpretations based on facts, preponderance of evidence etc.



Scripture is where I look to know my Lord better.  It's not where I got to know Him though.


----------



## 660griz

hobbs27 said:


> God used the Babylonians to carry out the destruction..



Why would an almighty god need an army?


----------



## atlashunter

hobbs27 said:


> I know the argument.  It would have been easily settled had Jesus said,  That generation,  but He didn't. He told them,  this generation.
> 
> He made it even clearer here.
> 
> 
> Matt 16:28 "Truly I say to you, there are some of those who are standing here who will not taste death until they see the Son of Man coming in His kingdom."
> 
> Now,  the argument for the above verse cannot be He was speaking about a future generation, so the futurist will say this is about the transfiguration only days later.
> 
> Amazing,  there must have been one of the worst plagues the world has ever known going on then if only some would still be living days later.



Sort of like it would easily be settled if John had said "as a thousand years" but he didn't. Oh and he's talking about spiritual death there. Easy to play this game.

Still waiting for those earlier references to a thousand years that turned out to be 40.


----------



## WaltL1

660griz said:


> fubu


I'm afraid to ask what this means 
But I'm having fun coming up with ideas. Unfortunately they would be censored out if I posted them.


----------



## hummerpoo

WaltL1 said:


> What do you figure immediately proceeded God turning on the big water faucet?
> This   or this
> The answer to that question is in your Bible.


That answer doesn't immediately come to mind; could you identify it for me.



> Yet you yourself have chosen a box.
> You even commented above about that dude that you reference as being only "partial preterist".
> That's a comment about him and his box.


I don't recall the statement I made to which you refer.


----------



## bullethead

660griz said:


> Why would an almighty god need an army?



Goes against the freewill argument doesn't it.

When religious people are kicking butt or getting their butts kicked it is always the results of a god.
Others determine gods involvement after the fact in order to explain the unexplainable.


----------



## atlashunter

660griz said:


> Why would an almighty god need an army?



And why would he set loose a deceiver?


----------



## WaltL1

hobbs27 said:


> Scripture is where I look to know my Lord better.  It's not where I got to know Him though.


Of course.
But if you re going to make scripture secondary or less important then maybe stop quoting it for 99% of your responses?
If you got to know Him somewhere else maybe post up some selfies with him or something?


----------



## WaltL1

atlashunter said:


> And why would he set loose a deceiver?


Cant have good without evil.
The story wouldn't work otherwise.


----------



## welderguy

hobbs27 said:


> I know the argument.  It would have been easily settled had Jesus said,  That generation,  but He didn't. He told them,  this generation.
> 
> He made it even clearer here.
> 
> 
> Matt 16:28 "Truly I say to you, there are some of those who are standing here who will not taste death until they see the Son of Man coming in His kingdom."
> 
> Now,  the argument for the above verse cannot be He was speaking about a future generation, so the futurist will say this is about the transfiguration only days later.
> 
> Amazing,  there must have been one of the worst plagues the world has ever known going on then if only some would still be living days later.



Not the transfiguration. That's absurd. 

They would see His kingdom within them, after being born again. The exact thing that was described to Nicodemus.
"Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God."


----------



## 660griz

WaltL1 said:


> I'm afraid to ask what this means
> But I'm having fun coming up with ideas. Unfortunately they would be censored out if I posted them.



For Us By Us.

There was a clothing company a few years back named this. 
I think it was started by African Americans.


----------



## atlashunter

WaltL1 said:


> Cant have good without evil.
> The story wouldn't work otherwise.



Sure you can. Just keep it segregated like it will be when all the bad guys are in the fire and the good guys are in heaven. No evil there right?

That also begs the question, can satan and his beasts deceive nations after they are thrown in the lake of fire?

Doesn't sound like it based on Revelation 21. Does this sound like modern day Jerusalem?



> 22 I did not see a temple in the city, because the Lord God Almighty and the Lamb are its temple. 23 The city does not need the sun or the moon to shine on it, for the glory of God gives it light, and the Lamb is its lamp. 24 The nations will walk by its light, and the kings of the earth will bring their splendor into it. 25 On no day will its gates ever be shut, for there will be no night there. 26 The glory and honor of the nations will be brought into it. 27 Nothing impure will ever enter it, nor will anyone who does what is shameful or deceitful, but only those whose names are written in the Lamb’s book of life.


----------



## atlashunter

This sounds familiar.

http://www.biblestudying.net/rev-date.html



> Irenaeus states clearly "*For that was seen no very long time since, but almost in our day, towards the end of Domitian's reign.*" The key question, therefore, is what Irenaeus' was referring to by the phrase "that was seen." What was seen towards the end of Domitian's reign (which would be sometime near 96 AD or so)? Was he referring to "him who beheld the apocalyptic vision" (John) or was it "the apocalyptic vision" itself?
> 
> Traditionally, this short phrase has been taken to indicate "the apocalyptic vision" itself. This seems particularly logical because Irenaeus is referring to something, which was "seen." His use of "seen" reflects the apocalyptic vision that he had just previously said was "beheld" by John. This interpretation seems to provide the most intuitive and simple understanding of the syntax, and this is exactly the way in which Irenaeus' words have been traditionally been interpreted.
> 
> Preterists attempt to get around this interpretation by asserting that it was John, not John's vision, that was seen towards the end of Domitian's reign. In doing so they allow for a more confusing grammatical structure of this passage in which "that" refers not to the immediately preceding noun "vision," (which would be the most natural reading of the text), but instead they insist "that" refers to the next closest preceding noun, "John."
> 
> This is a solid example of circular reasoning. One wonders how Preterists would read this statement if the phrase Domition's reign were replaced with Nero's reign. The point of this exercise is to demonstrate a very simple truth. One wonders what it is that the Preterists find so compelling to cause them to disagree with scholars traditional dating?
> 
> On this point we cannot ignore the fact that the entire Preterist doctrine hangs in the balance on this one simple question. With that in mind, there is little doubt that what Preterists find so compelling to cause them to disagree with the traditional date is the fact that their theory cannot survive so long as the traditional date stands.


----------



## WaltL1

hummerpoo said:


> That answer doesn't immediately come to mind; could you identify it for me.
> 
> 
> I don't recall the statement I made to which you refer.





> BTW, while I agree with a lot of Ken Gentry work, he's only a partial preterist, a retired Presbyterian preacher that also holds to some Calvinist beliefs I reject. A brother in Christ though in which I have much respect.


So his box is preterist.
Your use of "only" is a description of his box ie its not full.
I'm going to say this again and its not meant as an insult and having discussed/debated here for a number of years now, Ive found its almost a universal Christian quality -
You are invested heavily in your box.
They are invested heavily in their box.
You defend your box by saying and showing that they do this.
They defend their box by saying and showing you do that.
And you both are guilty of doing the exact same thing you are accusing the other of.
But of course you are both so heavily invested in your boxes neither one of you seems to have the ability to look inward. Only outward.


----------



## WaltL1

atlashunter said:


> Sure you can. Just keep it segregated like it will be when all the bad guys are in the fire and the good guys are in heaven. No evil there right?
> 
> That also begs the question, can satan and his beasts deceive nations after they are thrown in the lake of fire?
> 
> Doesn't sound like it based on Revelation 21. Does this sound like modern day Jerusalem?





> Just keep it segregated like it will be when all the bad guys are in the fire and the good guys are in heaven. No evil there right?


Be a good guy (believe in God) because you see what happens to the bad guys (who dont believe in God).
Good vs evil
God vs Satan
Gotta have both for the story to work.

**** Maybe threat is a better word than story.


----------



## WaltL1

660griz said:


> For Us By Us.
> 
> There was a clothing company a few years back named this.
> I think it was started by African Americans.


That not nearly as fun as what I was coming up with


----------



## 660griz

WaltL1 said:


> **** Maybe threat is a better word than story.



Without that, you would have a (mostly) empty church.


----------



## atlashunter

660griz said:


> Without that, you would have a (mostly) empty church.



Without the promise of immortality you'd definitely have an empty church.


----------



## hummerpoo

WaltL1 said:


> So his box is preterist.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Originally Posted by hummerpoo
> That answer doesn't immediately come to mind; could you identify it for me.
> 
> 
> I don't recall the statement I made to which you refer.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BTW, while I agree with a lot of Ken Gentry work, he's only a partial preterist, a retired Presbyterian preacher that also holds to some Calvinist beliefs I reject. A brother in Christ though in which I have much respect.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Your use of "only" is a description of his box ie its not full.
> I'm going to say this again and its not meant as an insult and having discussed/debated here for a number of years now, Ive found its almost a universal Christian quality -
> You are invested heavily in your box.
> They are invested heavily in their box.
> You defend your box by saying and showing that they do this.
> They defend their box by saying and showing you do that.
> And you both are guilty of doing the exact same thing you are accusing the other of.
> But of course you are both so heavily invested in your boxes neither one of you seems to have the ability to look inward. Only outward.
Click to expand...




hobbs27 said:


> I'm sure American Vision which is located here in GA,  wears that title by the SPLC as a badge of honor.
> 
> BTW,  while I agree with a lot of Ken Gentry work,  he's only a partial preterist,  a retired Presbyterian preacher that also holds to some Calvinist beliefs I reject.  A brother in Christ though in which I have much respect.



Thank you for ... whatever this was.


----------



## WaltL1

hummerpoo said:


> Thank you for ... whatever this was.



Ahhhhh!
Sorry hummerpoo this was meant for hobbs!
We get moving along so fast that I see the "h" (hobbs/hummerpoo) and automatically think hobbs.
You gotta quit sneaking in like this 

My fault!!


----------



## hummerpoo

WaltL1 said:


> Ahhhhh!
> Sorry hummerpoo this was meant for hobbs!
> We get moving along so fast that I see the "h" (hobbs/hummerpoo) and automatically think hobbs.
> You gotta quit sneaking in like this
> 
> My fault!!



I know, "We all look alike", right.


----------



## centerpin fan

atlashunter said:


> ... you understand what Irenaeus was really saying better than the early church.



That is an excellent summary of much of modern Christendom.  My only edit would be to substitute "the Apostles" for Irenaeus.


----------



## hobbs27

welderguy said:


> Not the transfiguration. That's absurd.
> 
> They would see His kingdom within them, after being born again. The exact thing that was described to Nicodemus.
> "Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God."



I agree the transfiguration as seeing Christ coming in His kingdom is absurd. 

Can you make your argument work considering that Jesus told a non believer he also would see Him coming? 

Mark 14:62 And Jesus said, I am: and ye shall see the Son of man sitting on the right hand of power, and coming in the clouds of heaven.


----------



## hobbs27

centerpin fan said:


> That is an excellent summary of much of modern Christendom.  My only edit would be to substitute "the Apostles" for Irenaeus.



You think Irenaeus was inspired as the Apostles?


----------



## centerpin fan

hobbs27 said:


> You think Irenaeus was inspired as the Apostles?



Nope


----------



## welderguy

hobbs27 said:


> I agree the transfiguration as seeing Christ coming in His kingdom is absurd.
> 
> Can you make your argument work considering that Jesus told a non believer he also would see Him coming?
> 
> Mark 14:62 And Jesus said, I am: and ye shall see the Son of man sitting on the right hand of power, and coming in the clouds of heaven.



Yes, one is a spiritual seeing of the kingdom(by those born again); and the other is a physical seeing at the resurrection of our physical bodies.(by everyone (even those who pierced Him)).


----------



## atlashunter

Guess you better move the gospels up to a pre 70 date too or else they are frauds for the same reason.


----------



## hobbs27

atlashunter said:


> Guess you better move the gospels up to a pre 70 date too or else they are frauds for the same reason.



Didn't know anyone claimed a post 70ad writing of the gospels.


----------



## WaltL1

hummerpoo said:


> I know, "We all look alike", right.


Maybe.
But most of you sound very different


----------



## WaltL1

hobbs27 said:


> I agree the transfiguration as seeing Christ coming in His kingdom is absurd.
> 
> Can you make your argument work considering that Jesus told a non believer he also would see Him coming?
> 
> Mark 14:62 And Jesus said, I am: and ye shall see the Son of man sitting on the right hand of power, and coming in the clouds of heaven.





> Jesus told a non believer he also would see Him coming?


We will definitely recognize him, there are pictures of him everywhere.  
Doesn't look like what I expected though considering where he's from.


----------



## atlashunter

hobbs27 said:


> Didn't know anyone claimed a post 70ad writing of the gospels.



The only one considered possibly pre 70 is Mark. The rest are typically dated after 70 because they reference the destruction of the temple with John being considered the latest gospel dating to somewhere in the late first century.


----------



## hobbs27

atlashunter said:


> The only one considered possibly pre 70 is Mark. The rest are typically dated after 70 because they reference the destruction of the temple with John being considered the latest gospel dating to somewhere in the late first century.




They reference it as in future not past. 

http://www.ristosantala.com/rsla/Nt/NT07.html

And there's a reason John's gospel doesn't contain the Olivet discourse.  Revelation is his olivet discourse.


----------



## SemperFiDawg

hobbs27 said:


> Hey buddy, glad to see your doing OK.



You too.  Worried for you Brother.  Proclaiming infallible Biblical understanding didn't work out so well for Jones or Koresh to name a few.


----------



## SemperFiDawg

atlashunter said:


> Seems everything that doesn't fit your preconceived notions is up for interpretation. Of course that ignores the understanding that later church fathers had. I guess just like John we are to believe you understand what Irenaeus was really saying better than the early church. Of course that brings up problems of its own. If John lived through the events of 70 for another 20+ years why did he not recognize and communicate to the church that all he saw had been fulfilled? Yet another mental backflip one must do to accept the preterist position.
> 
> And two can play this game of convenient reinterpretation. That verse in your sig line? He's not saying this generation I'm speaking to. He's saying this generation who experiences these future events. He even says right after that even he doesn't know when these things will happen. See how easy that is?



Oh stop.  You're clearly piling on now.


----------



## atlashunter

hobbs27 said:


> They reference it as in future not past.
> 
> http://www.ristosantala.com/rsla/Nt/NT07.html
> 
> And there's a reason John's gospel doesn't contain the Olivet discourse.  Revelation is his olivet discourse.



Just relaying where mainstream scholars date the texts. If you know an event has happened it's easy to tell the story after the fact that it was predicted.


----------



## atlashunter

SemperFiDawg said:


> Oh stop.  You're clearly piling on now.



No accusations of intellectual dishonesty in this thread? You were so keen on it before.


----------



## hobbs27

atlashunter said:


> Just relaying where mainstream scholars date the texts. If you know an event has happened it's easy to tell the story after the fact that it was predicted.



God doesn't need easy.


----------



## hobbs27

SemperFiDawg said:


> You too.  Worried for you Brother.  Proclaiming infallible Biblical understanding didn't work out so well for Jones or Koresh to name a few.



Don't worry for me,  both those guys were in your camp.  All my wackos are mathematicians and nerds.


----------



## WaltL1

SemperFiDawg said:


> Oh stop.  You're clearly piling on now.


Ok that one made me chuckle


----------



## SemperFiDawg

atlashunter said:


> No accusations of intellectual dishonesty in this thread? You were so keen on it before.



Oh.  I still am.


----------



## hobbs27

1 Timothy 6:13-14New American Standard Bible (NASB)

13 I charge you in the presence of God, who gives life to all things, and of Christ Jesus, who testified the good confession before Pontius Pilate, 14 that you keep the commandment without stain or reproach until the appearing of our Lord Jesus Christ

Good thing he didn't have to wait long.


----------



## welderguy

hobbs27 said:


> 1 Timothy 6:13-14New American Standard Bible (NASB)
> 
> 13 I charge you in the presence of God, who gives life to all things, and of Christ Jesus, who testified the good confession before Pontius Pilate, 14 that you keep the commandment without stain or reproach until the appearing of our Lord Jesus Christ
> 
> Good thing he didn't have to wait long.



Just until he died.
"..absent from the body and present with the Lord"


----------



## hobbs27

welderguy said:


> Just until he died.
> "..absent from the body and present with the Lord"



Nah,  just till the Lord came back to consummate the New Covenant that we may have salvation.


----------



## hobbs27

John 21:22 Jesus replied, "If I want him to remain alive until I return, what is that to you? As for you, follow me."

And John did live to His parousia. Amazing.


----------



## atlashunter




----------



## welderguy

hobbs27 said:


> John 21:22 Jesus replied, "If I want him to remain alive until I return, what is that to you? As for you, follow me."
> 
> And John did live to His parousia. Amazing.



John 21:23
“Then went this saying abroad among the brethren, that that disciple should not die: yet Jesus said not unto him,He shall not die; but, If I will that he tarry till I come, what is that to thee?”


----------



## hobbs27

welderguy said:


> John 21:23
> “Then went this saying abroad among the brethren, that that disciple should not die: yet Jesus said not unto him,He shall not die; but, If I will that he tarry till I come, what is that to thee?”



Right,  John survived the parousia,  but died years later.


----------



## WaltL1

Just a little friendly reminder -
The forum for "Christian vs Christian Dancing with the Scriptures" is meant to take place upstairs.
We stay out of there so that ya'll can have at it without interference from us.
So while we absolutely want  both of your and any and all Christian/Apologetic participation, lets not lose focus of where we are at.
In other words, ya'll are supposed to be ganging up on us in here not duking it out with each other.

Certainly scripture is welcome to be debated in here, lets just not turn it into the "safe zone" for you guys with the minority Christian opinions/beliefs to debate.
If you are smart about it, you can all still get in your various interpretations and support for them AND keep the integrity of the A/A/A forum.

Besides, you don't want to hurt our feels by leaving us out do you?


----------



## welderguy

hobbs27 said:


> Right,  John survived the parousia,  but died years later.



I think you're missing it, just as they did.

Tarry- to remain in the same place.

You and I will also tarry until Jesus comes, even though we may die, because....

Philippians 1:6
6 Being confident of this very thing, that he which hath begun a good work in you will perform it until the day of Jesus Christ:


----------



## hobbs27

welderguy said:


> I think you're missing it, just as they did.
> 
> Tarry- to remain in the same place.
> 
> You and I will also tarry until Jesus comes, even though we may die, because....
> 
> Philippians 1:6
> 6 Being confident of this very thing, that he which hath begun a good work in you will perform it until the day of Jesus Christ:




 I get the idea they thought John was going to physically live forever,  since Jesus had just told Peter of his demise.  He didn't say he would live forever,  but would live to see Jesus return. 
 And since there is no rapture,  and no end,  the joining together was actually a consummation of the new age.


----------



## atlashunter

Biggest overhyped non event in history if Revelation was fulfilled and even the early church didn't notice only to spend the next 2,000 years waiting for something to happen that already had. Sounds more like grasping at a way to avoid the obvious. That whoever you think Jesus was he's long since dead and never coming back.


----------



## gordon 2

WaltL1 said:


> Just a little friendly reminder -
> The forum for "Christian vs Christian Dancing with the Scriptures" is meant to take place upstairs.
> We stay out of there so that ya'll can have at it without interference from us.
> So while we absolutely want  both of your and any and all Christian/Apologetic participation, lets not lose focus of where we are at.
> In other words, ya'll are supposed to be ganging up on us in here not duking it out with each other.
> 
> Certainly scripture is welcome to be debated in here, lets just not turn it into the "safe zone" for you guys with the minority Christian opinions/beliefs to debate.
> If you are smart about it, you can all still get in your various interpretations and support for them AND keep the integrity of the A/A/A forum.
> 
> Besides, you don't want to hurt our feels by leaving us out do you?



I went to an ox haul yesterday at an agricultural fair. I noticed that some oxen were restless... they turned gee when the teamster would have them haw.  The oxen turning gee instead of haw as the teamster wished the teamster's trick was to rush to their heads and go along in the direction as if the beasts were oblivious that they defeated the teamster's intellect as for most of the time they did follow him.

 I don't think it is possible to ruin the spice in a vessel of wrath soup and hopefully the p's and q's will settle from your effort... give it a day or two. Wrath soup is a slow cooker.


----------



## SemperFiDawg

WaltL1 said:


> Just a little friendly reminder -
> The forum for "Christian vs Christian Dancing with the Scriptures" is meant to take place upstairs.
> We stay out of there so that ya'll can have at it without interference from us.
> So while we absolutely want  both of your and any and all Christian/Apologetic participation, lets not lose focus of where we are at.
> In other words, ya'll are supposed to be ganging up on us in here not duking it out with each other.
> 
> Certainly scripture is welcome to be debated in here, lets just not turn it into the "safe zone" for you guys with the minority Christian opinions/beliefs to debate.
> If you are smart about it, you can all still get in your various interpretations and support for them AND keep the integrity of the A/A/A forum.
> 
> Besides, you don't want to hurt our feels by leaving us out do you?



1)You are correct
2)But it is interesting getting your guys outside perspective on some of the debates that rage above
and 3)Hobbs has utterly exhausted the audience up stairs turning every thread into a 70ad debate so he had no where else to go but down here.


----------



## atlashunter

To an even moderately sophisticated and well-read person it should come as no surprise that any religion at all has its hidden as well as its obvious beauties and is capable of profound and impressive interpretations. What is deeply objectionable about most of these interpretations is that they allow the believer to say Yes while evading any No.
Walter Kaufmann


----------



## ambush80

WaltL1 said:


> Just a little friendly reminder -
> The forum for "Christian vs Christian Dancing with the Scriptures" is meant to take place upstairs.
> We stay out of there so that ya'll can have at it without interference from us.
> So while we absolutely want  both of your and any and all Christian/Apologetic participation, lets not lose focus of where we are at.
> In other words, ya'll are supposed to be ganging up on us in here not duking it out with each other.
> 
> Certainly scripture is welcome to be debated in here, lets just not turn it into the "safe zone" for you guys with the minority Christian opinions/beliefs to debate.
> If you are smart about it, you can all still get in your various interpretations and support for them AND keep the integrity of the A/A/A forum.
> 
> Besides, you don't want to hurt our feels by leaving us out do you?



I kind of like that they find a place where they can speak freely without anybody getting upset and banned.  I think it reflects well on us.  I wish they would come down here and do more Predestination vs Freewill debates.    

I like how these debates between Christians show how knowledgeable some of our "Bible Scholars" are.


----------



## hobbs27

atlashunter said:


> Biggest overhyped non event in history if Revelation was fulfilled and even the early church didn't notice only to spend the next 2,000 years waiting for something to happen that already had. Sounds more like grasping at a way to avoid the obvious. That whoever you think Jesus was he's long since dead and never coming back.



There's about a hundred years missing in church history.  Theologians refer to as the haitus.  Who knows how the church responded or their opinion on the matter right after and for the next hundred years?  No one.


----------



## SemperFiDawg

hobbs27 said:


> There's about a hundred years missing in church history.  Theologians refer to as the haitus.  Who knows how the church responded or their opinion on the matter right after and for the next hundred years?  No one.



Oh!  I got it!  The Rapture must have occurred in 70 ad.  Accounts for Atlas's point of it being a non event because nobody noticed and Hobb's hiatus.  All the believers were raptured.  That must be it.


----------



## atlashunter

SemperFiDawg said:


> Oh!  I got it!  The Rapture mush have occurred in 70 ad.  Accounts for Atlas's point of it being a non event because nobody noticed and Hobb's hiatus.  All the believers were raptured.  That must be it.



The epistles and gospels survived but no record of the church saying all was fulfilled. 

There is no mental hurdle too high for hobbs to stick to his belief.


----------



## atlashunter

atlashunter said:


> to an even moderately sophisticated and well-read person it should come as no surprise that any religion at all has its hidden as well as its obvious beauties and is capable of profound and impressive interpretations. what is deeply objectionable about most of these interpretations is that they allow the believer to say yes while evading any no.
> walter kaufmann



qfe


----------



## SemperFiDawg

atlashunter said:


> The epistles and gospels survived but no record of the church saying all was fulfilled.



They were all gone.  No one was left to keep a record.


----------



## WaltL1

ambush80 said:


> I kind of like that they find a place where they can speak freely without anybody getting upset and banned.  I think it reflects well on us.  I wish they would come down here and do more Predestination vs Freewill debates.
> 
> I like how these debates between Christians show how knowledgeable some of our "Bible Scholars" are.





> I kind of like that they find a place where they can speak freely without anybody getting upset and banned.


Oh I definitely agree with that.


> I wish they would come down here and do more Predestination vs Freewill debates.


And sure. Would be interesting.
And as a disclaimer, I certainly realize I'm no Mod or anybody important like that. I don't actually expect anybody to listen to me. 
I think my point is all of the above can happen without this becoming page after page of Christian1 - "it says this", Christian2 - "no it says that".  
Just my opinion but you know what they say opinions are like.

Hey maybe we need a new forum -
Spiritual Forum II: Island of the Misfit Toys Edition


----------



## atlashunter

SemperFiDawg said:


> They were all gone.  No one was left to keep a record.



Nah he already said that whole rapture thing was a bunch of bunk.


----------



## hobbs27

atlashunter said:


> The epistles and gospels survived but no record of the church saying all was fulfilled.
> 
> There is no mental hurdle too high for hobbs to stick to his belief.



Here's my question for you,  and all believers too.  If we are waiting for the end,  just like the recipients of this letter in the first century,  why are so many folks evangelizing?  

Revelation makes it clear the time of the end was so immenant that it is no longer important to evangelize,  the end was that close. 

The Non Believers should be pointing this out to the pesky evangelizers,  and the believers should be getting their eschatology straightened out.

Revelation 22:10 And he said to me, “Do not seal the words of the prophecy of this book, for the time is at hand. 11 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.”


----------



## WaltL1

hobbs27 said:


> Here's my question for you,  and all believers too.  If we are waiting for the end,  just like the recipients of this letter in the first century,  why are so many folks evangelizing?
> 
> Revelation makes it clear the time of the end was so immenant that it is no longer important to evangelize,  the end was that close.
> 
> The Non Believers should be pointing this out to the pesky evangelizers,  and the believers should be getting their eschatology straightened out.
> 
> Revelation 22:10 And he said to me, “Do not seal the words of the prophecy of this book, for the time is at hand. 11 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.”


We have gone that route on a number of occasions on a number of different points. 
The stumbling block is this -


> believers should be getting their eschatology straightened out.


In fact we have recommended on a number of occasions that you guys get together, come to an agreement and then come back.
Now that might be a miracle that cant be denied.


----------



## hobbs27

WaltL1 said:


> We have gone that route on a number of occasions on a number of different points.
> The stumbling block is this -
> 
> In fact we have recommended on a number of occasions that you guys get together, come to an agreement and then come back.
> Now that might be a miracle that cant be denied.


Lol..I believe some of us will argue doctrine with God upon entering heaven.


----------



## atlashunter

hobbs27 said:


> Here's my question for you,  and all believers too.  If we are waiting for the end,  just like the recipients of this letter in the first century,  why are so many folks evangelizing?
> 
> Revelation makes it clear the time of the end was so immenant that it is no longer important to evangelize,  the end was that close.
> 
> The Non Believers should be pointing this out to the pesky evangelizers,  and the believers should be getting their eschatology straightened out.
> 
> Revelation 22:10 And he said to me, “Do not seal the words of the prophecy of this book, for the time is at hand. 11 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.”



You're asking that question in the wrong forum. The church obviously didn't take that scripture the way you are suggesting, perhaps for selfish reasons.

Revelation was wrong. So were the gospels. The things they said were going to happen didn't. We've already been over the details of why that is so no need to rehash it at this point. Yes they believed the end was near. Two millennia later life goes on and the church is still waiting.


----------



## WaltL1

hobbs27 said:


> Lol..I believe some of us will argue doctrine with God upon entering heaven.


That's a good one. I gotta remember that


----------



## hobbs27

atlashunter said:


> You're asking that question in the wrong forum. The church obviously didn't take that scripture the way you are suggesting, perhaps for selfish reasons.
> 
> Revelation was wrong. So were the gospels. The things they said were going to happen didn't. We've already been over the details of why that is so no need to rehash it at this point. Yes they believed the end was near. Two millennia later life goes on and the church is still waiting.



 If the end did not come then yes Revelation is wrong. There's no other way to put it.  I believe the end that came though was the end of the Old covenant and no where in scripture does it say the new covenant has an end.  So futurist tell us that the New Covenant which is said to be everlasting and an age without end... Has an end.  That's not the message in scripture.


----------



## atlashunter

hobbs27 said:


> If the end did not come then yes Revelation is wrong. There's no other way to put it.  I believe the end that came though was the end of the Old covenant and no where in scripture does it say the new covenant has an end.  So futurist tell us that the New Covenant which is said to be everlasting and an age without end... Has an end.  That's not the message in scripture.



You retreated into symbolism on many counts out of necessity because the predictions don't match up with real world events. They don't even come close. And that's fine if you want to buy into some convoluted explanation for the obvious fact that the authors of these books were wrong. Life went on as it always had and those who predicted the destruction of death in the near future are now long since dead. Just as one would expect in a world absent of supernatural intervention.


----------



## hobbs27

I interpret scripture by which means it is intended.  When it's apocalyptic,  it requires what you call " retreating into symbolism ".

Examples cannot be denied,  and the language is very dramatic and overly exaggerated. As we see in Isaiah 34. A text we all agree was fulfilled thousands of years ago.  I'm not going waste space posting the chapter here,  but read it,  it's the same apocalyptic style language we read in revelation.


----------



## atlashunter

hobbs27 said:


> I interpret scripture by which means it is intended.  When it's apocalyptic,  it requires what you call " retreating into symbolism ".
> 
> Examples cannot be denied,  and the language is very dramatic and overly exaggerated. As we see in Isaiah 34. A text we all agree was fulfilled thousands of years ago.  I'm not going waste space posting the chapter here,  but read it,  it's the same apocalyptic style language we read in revelation.



Anyone who reads this discussion will see the hoops you've had to jump through to get to where you are. Even most Christians won't engage in the mental contortions you have and that's saying something.


----------



## hobbs27

atlashunter said:


> Anyone who reads this discussion will see the hoops you've had to jump through to get to where you are. Even most Christians won't engage in the mental contortions you have and that's saying something.



Really??  Most Christians will say Revelation is written for our future, now that's jumping through hoops.  I'm just allowing scripture to dictate what it says,  and what it's meant to say. 

If interpreting apocalyptic language in the way it's used as an example for us in the old Testament is jumping through hoops....then what do you call it when someone forces a strict literal interpretation of apocalyptic language? 

Revelation 22:10 And he said to me, “Do not seal the words of the prophecy of this book, for the time is at hand. 11 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.”

Did John not tell the first century Christians to stop evangelizing because the time of the end was so near?  Who's jumping through hoops?


----------



## centerpin fan

hobbs27 said:


> I'm just allowing scripture to dictate what it says,  and what it's meant to say.



You realize every dispensationalist in the solar system would say the exact same thing, right?


----------



## hobbs27

centerpin fan said:


> You realize every dispensationalist in the solar system would say the exact same thing, right?



Yes,  until I bring up time statements.


----------



## atlashunter

hobbs27 said:


> Did John not tell the first century Christians to stop evangelizing because the time of the end was so near?  Who's jumping through hoops?



That's your interpretation. Others have a different interpretation. And yes you've been jumping through hoops. Many many hoops. I've seen some mental gymnastics from Christians but what I've seen in this discussion is gold medal olympian class material.


----------



## centerpin fan

hobbs27 said:


> Yes,  until I bring up time statements.



Your Jedi mind tricks will have no effect on them.

They would tell you that your failure to "rightly divide the word of truth" has deceived you.


----------



## welderguy

hobbs27 said:


> Really??  Most Christians will say Revelation is written for our future, now that's jumping through hoops.  I'm just allowing scripture to dictate what it says,  and what it's meant to say.
> 
> If interpreting apocalyptic language in the way it's used as an example for us in the old Testament is jumping through hoops....then what do you call it when someone forces a strict literal interpretation of apocalyptic language?
> 
> Revelation 22:10 And he said to me, “Do not seal the words of the prophecy of this book, for the time is at hand. 11 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.”
> 
> Did John not tell the first century Christians to stop evangelizing because the time of the end was so near?  Who's jumping through hoops?



Rev.22:10 is a predestination/election text. Whatever you are, is what you've always been, and what you'll always be.

Evangelism is done by man. But man cannot make another man just or clean or righteous or holy. Therefore, it is not an evangelism text.


----------



## hobbs27

welderguy said:


> Rev.22:10 is a predestination/election text. Whatever you are, is what you've always been, and what you'll always be.
> 
> Evangelism is done by man. But man cannot make another man just or clean or righteous or holy. Therefore, it is not an evangelism text.



Cool.. You're not jumping through hoops.


----------



## hobbs27

centerpin fan said:


> Your Jedi mind tricks will have no effect on them.
> 
> They would tell you that your failure to "rightly divide the word of truth" has deceived you.



I remember that guy.


----------



## welderguy

hobbs27 said:


> Cool.. You're not jumping through hoops.



Can't teach this old dog new tricks like that.


----------



## oldfella1962

stringmusic said:


> The default position is not being in the presence of God if you so choose, He gives you exactly what you want.
> 
> Not being in the presence of God is not going to be peaceful.



why couldn't it be? Some people enjoy life just fine with all it's uncertainty and ups & downs. If life is so brutal (especially in old testament times) why did people live to be 700+ years old? So why would the afterlife have to be any worse (or better) than life on this planet? In other words many people are not in the presence of god right this minute - shouldn't their supposed unpeacefulness be enough torment?


----------



## welderguy

oldfella1962 said:


> why couldn't it be? Some people enjoy life just fine with all it's uncertainty and ups & downs. If life is so brutal (especially in old testament times) why did people live to be 700+ years old? So why would the afterlife have to be any worse (or better) than life on this planet? In other words many people are not in the presence of god right this minute - shouldn't their supposed unpeacefulness be enough torment?



Seems to me that an unbeliever would not even concern himself with such matters. After all, he doesn't even believe any of it to be true, right?
Why even take the effort to ask about it or argue against it?

Is it a kinda "just in case" thing? curiosity thing? love of debate thing?


----------



## 660griz

welderguy said:


> Seems to me that an unbeliever would not even concern himself with such matters. After all, he doesn't even believe any of it to be true, right?
> Why even take the effort to ask about it or argue against it?
> 
> Is it a kinda "just in case" thing? curiosity thing? love of debate thing?



Kinda what this forum is for. Why else would any of us be here? Ask, debate, etc.


----------



## welderguy

660griz said:


> Kinda what this forum is for. Why else would any of us be here? Ask, debate, etc.



That didn't really answer the questions, but Oh well.


----------



## WaltL1

welderguy said:


> Seems to me that an unbeliever would not even concern himself with such matters. After all, he doesn't even believe any of it to be true, right?
> Why even take the effort to ask about it or argue against it?
> 
> Is it a kinda "just in case" thing? curiosity thing? love of debate thing?





> Seems to me that an unbeliever would not even concern himself with such matters. After all, he doesn't even believe any of it to be true, right?
> Why even take the effort to ask about it or argue against it?


Do you believe in Islam?
Does it/can it/will it affect your life even though you don't believe in it?


> Is it a kinda "just in case" thing? curiosity thing? love of debate thing?


Its a knowledge thing.
An example -
Islam is the fastest growing religion in the US. 
In general terms its Christianity's direct competition.
You can be ignorant of it until you get handed a Quran or .....


----------



## welderguy

WaltL1 said:


> Do you believe in Islam?
> Does it/can it/will it affect your life even though you don't believe in it?
> 
> Its a knowledge thing.
> An example -
> Islam is the fastest growing religion in the US.
> In general terms its Christianity's direct competition.
> You can be ignorant of it until you get handed a Quran or .....



So, learning everything you can about Christians/Christianity is advantageous to you for the purpose of being able to manipulate its affects on your life?(more good affects, less bad affects)
Is that what it's all about for unbelievers?

I can't say I have that mindset towards any other religions.


----------



## WaltL1

welderguy said:


> So, learning everything you can about Christians/Christianity is advantageous to you for the purpose of being able to manipulate its affects on your life?(more good affects, less bad affects)
> Is that what it's all about for unbelievers?
> 
> I can't say I have that mindset towards any other religions.





> So, learning everything you can about Christians/Christianity is advantageous to you for the purpose of being able to manipulate its affects on your life?


Learning everything you can about anything can be advantageous at some point.
But to specifically answer your question, yes that would be one advantage. If Christianity (or any other religion, group etc) seeks to impose its beliefs in ways that affect my life, then it would be advantageous to me to understand where they are coming up with these "rules" and why. Then I can make an informed decision as to whether I am for or against.


> I can't say I have that mindset towards any other religions.


Because you are satisfied with what you "know".


----------



## welderguy

WaltL1 said:


> Learning everything you can about anything can be advantageous at some point.
> But to specifically answer your question, yes that would be one advantage. If Christianity (or any other religion, group etc) seeks to impose its beliefs in ways that affect my life, then it would be advantageous to me to understand where they are coming up with these "rules" and why. Then I can make an informed decision as to whether I am for or against.
> 
> Because you are satisfied with what you "know".



I have found that it's society that imposes itself on me, more than me on society. In general, I try to live a quiet and peaceful life with regard to my beliefs, but there are times when silence is not an option.


----------



## WaltL1

welderguy said:


> I have found that it's society that imposes itself on me, more than me on society. In general, I try to live a quiet and peaceful life with regard to my beliefs, but there are times when silence is not an option.


That might be true for you.
But you also belong to the Christian club.
The Christian club has a long history of imposing its rules on others.
If you are a Christian that's just a fact of your history.
Cant whine now that the worm is turning.


----------



## welderguy

WaltL1 said:


> That might be true for you.
> But you also belong to the Christian club.
> The Christian club has a long history of imposing its rules on others.
> If you are a Christian that's just a fact of your history.
> Cant whine now that the worm is turning.



In your honest estimation, do you think society has done more imposing on Christianity, or Christianity on society.
Notice we're speaking of imposing, not influencing.(one's active, one's passive)


----------



## atlashunter

welderguy said:


> Seems to me that an unbeliever would not even concern himself with such matters. After all, he doesn't even believe any of it to be true, right?
> Why even take the effort to ask about it or argue against it?
> 
> Is it a kinda "just in case" thing? curiosity thing? love of debate thing?



We learned on 9/11 that superstition should not go unchallenged. Beliefs do matter because they inform actions with real world consequences.


----------



## welderguy

atlashunter said:


> We learned on 9/11 that superstition should not go unchallenged. Beliefs do matter because they inform actions with real world consequences.



But that's why you deal with the action, not the belief. Our society says everyone has a right to believe what they choose, but they do not have the right to certain acts.


----------



## WaltL1

welderguy said:


> In your honest estimation, do you think society has done more imposing on Christianity, or Christianity on society.
> Notice we're speaking of imposing, not influencing.(one's active, one's passive)


This question is more complicated than it seems.
The parts of society who were Christian wouldn't feel imposed upon.
The parts of society who weren't, probably would.

Strictly from a "who ruled the roost, influenced the law, was taught in schools" etc, it wasn't the Muslims, or Atheists or Agnostics, or Native Americans or........ 

On the flip side,
If these days Christianity willingly changes itself because of society changing, then society isn't imposing, Christianity is willingly changing.

You could even say this "new fangled" Christianity is imposing on "old school" Christianity.


----------



## welderguy

WaltL1 said:


> This question is more complicated than it seems.
> The parts of society who were Christian wouldn't feel imposed upon.
> The parts of society who weren't, probably would.
> 
> Strictly from a "who ruled the roost, influenced the law, was taught in schools" etc, it wasn't the Muslims, or Atheists or Agnostics, or Native Americans or........
> 
> On the flip side,
> If these days Christianity willingly changes itself because of society changing, then society isn't imposing, Christianity is willingly changing.
> 
> You could even say this "new fangled" Christianity is imposing on "old school" Christianity.



I agree.
And , you really nailed it with your last statement. This thread demonstrates that quite well, I think.


----------

