Posted on 02/09/2014 9:26:46 AM PST by Errant
Parenthetical clauses are used throughout scripture to explain how, why, when and where in close proximity to the main subject and verb.
Parentheses in the book of The Revelation explain cause and effect. They tie together the events that happen previously, to the events that transpire subsequently on the prophetic timeline. Unfortunately, parentheses, as a literary devise, come centuries after the actual parenthetical clauses so prevalent in both Hebrew and Greek linguistic constructions. Because of their late arrival into the English language, the parentheticals in the book of The Revelation have never been either deservedly researched or accurately articulated. Now, after more than 40 years in the making, The Chronological Gospels is complete with all of the extensive parenthetical clauses accurately assigned throughout the book of The Revelation.
Now, with its impending fulfillment looming large on the horizon, The Revelation can finally be understood with clarity and lived with integrity. This one feature (the parenthetical clauses in The Revelation) in The Chronological Gospels is worth one thousand times the price of the book itself.
Join Michael Rood for the first of the last four teachings on the very last book of the Bible, “Parenthetically Speaking (Before We Are Saved From the Wrath To Come)”.
Mostly ey? Satan always mixes truth with lies and error.
>>The source you've linked in your post is another backroom blogger by the name of James Lloyd<<
And what did you just say about attacking the messenger? LOL
Are you denying that Rood uses and promotes the Shem Tov.? Do you deny that Rood and his current wife Judith took their vows under Karaite beliefs?
You don't recognize your own wording that I simply cut and pasted into my comment back to you. Ever who said on here that you weren't exactly the smartest rock in the box, knew what they were talking about.
And you said what about attacking the messenger again?
Here's more of his twisting scripture to suit his agenda.....:
Rood was supposedly quoting directly from the Scriptures, but as is his custom, he provided a twist to the Truth.
Michael Rood stated:
"Yochanan, a first century Jewish author wrote ......" I have not written everything that could, or should be written about Yahshua of Nazareth, but these things I have written, so that you might know and believe that Yahshua is the messiah." Yochanan ....(John) 20:30-31
But the actual verses read:
John 20:30....." And many other signs truly did Jesus in the presence of his disciples, which are not written in this book:... But these are written, that ye might believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing ye might have life through his name.
Michael Rood eliminated the most important words which declare who Jesus Christ is, because he rejects the person of Jesus Christ as a pagan god, and he rejects the name of Jesus as a pagan god's name.
"And many other signs truly did Jesus in the presence of his disciples"
"...that ye might believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing ye might have life through his name.
You're seriously talking about "questionable character" and credibility when your early posts in this thread read like an infomercial?
By the way, do you guys believe in the Trinity, or not? I've been wondering if maybe the weirdo stuff does not go deeper at some point. We got the Romanism-works salvation down, and what usually follows is a denial of the Trinity. Perhaps this will be an exception to the rule this time. We'll see.
You are wasting everyone's time and FR electrons when you quote without a link back to the original source. In this case, back to a sample of Michael Rood's original writing (e.g., his website, book, etc.).
Otherwise, it's as reliable as me quoting you as saying, "CynicalBear isn't the smartest rock in the box" or "CynicalBear is the antithesis of Yogi Bear - who IS the smartest bear in the woods!", without me sourcing it.
Know what mean...
What planet have you been on?
Was that question already answered in this thread then? I didn't read all 1000+ posts. I just came in when I got summoned. So, will you tell me, do you confess the Trinity or not?
Better you go do some reading than us having to constantly take our time to catch you up... Otherwise, go get into your little cramped spacecraft and buzz off junior...
Btw, WHO "summoned" YOU?
I went ahead and googled the thread for the word Trinity, and found a reply from you that was wishy-washy. You said something about God being a "mystery." Could you please give a direct answer on this matter? Do you believe that there is only one God, but in three persons, the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit? Is the Holy Spirit a person? This is important, as all religious cults are defined by their denial of the trinity. So, will you please clarify this one way or the other? Honestly?
You honestly expect me to lower my shields and have you attack me with your Klingon disrupter?
Ok, shields down...
I'm sending you the following message: ...You can't clarify what doesn't exist in scripture...
Btw, WHO “summoned” YOU?
Okay, so this is an admission that you do not believe the Trinity, which puts you out of Christianity in the same list as Mormons, Jehovah's Witnesses, Armstrongites, etc. But let's get the exact nature of your beliefs down here, as this is quite important. What exactly, is it, that you disbelieve within the doctrine of the trinity?
Another Doctor Faustus wannabe! Annoying buggers. They always get all excited about how they're going to change the world with my powers, but then they end up just playing pranks and messing around for 24 years until it's time to drag em in.
Why get snotty? Why not just answer his simple question? Are you now afraid to commit to one view or the other?
Another question Greetings_Puny_Humans could have asked is whether you believe in one God? Multiple Gods? One God with multiple personages? Which is it?
Well, All you've proved is that you can never trust a trigger happy pea-brained Klingon to fire their disrupter weapon as soon as you give them the opportunity.
I never said any thing of the sort. I said: ...You can't clarify what doesn't exist in scripture...
So why is you Klingons have such a hard time understanding the difference between "clarify" & "believe"?
Is your universal translator malfunctioning???
I specifically asked you to clarify your position, to which you replied with a "you can't clarify what doesn't exist" statement. So, we can either interpret this as meaning that your position is not in the scripture (whatever it is), or that the Trinity isn't.
Will you please clarify YOUR position by telling us what you actually believe about the nature of God? Is Jesus Christ God? Is there only one God? What are the fine details of your position?
To make it easier for you: What is it in the doctrine of the Trinity that you disagree with? This isn't difficult, and it's very important. Please answer, no more dodges.
Why not?
We've already proven the MESSAGE to be bogus!
Attack the Message!, Attack the Message!, Attack the Message!, Attack the Message!, Attack the Message!, Attack the Message!, Attack the Message!, Attack the Message!, Attack the Message!, Attack the Message!, Attack the Message!, Attack the Message!, Attack the Message!, Attack the Message!, Attack the Message!, Attack the Message!, Attack the Message!, Attack the Message!!, Attack the Message!!!
Easy CB, you’re gonna Pee on yourself.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.