Finding Gog

Rapturealert.com ^ | 09-12-09 | Jack Kelley

[topcat54]

Really into rubber, huh?

[Quix]

ANOTHER VERY VERY VERY

GROSS PERCEPTUAL MISCONSTRUCTION ON REALITY

by the REPLACEMENTARIANS et al . . .

Here’s a bit of a primer on basic reality in such matters . . .

1. There are Dispies . . . of which I’m one.

2. There are REPLACEMENTARIANS, A-MILS, POST-MILS, PRETERISTS . . . which my respondent persists in demonstrating the silly pontifications thereof.

3. THOSE WHO

DEMONSTRATE

COMPULSIVE ADDICTED USE OF

—RUBBER BIBLES
—RUBBER HISTORIES
—RUBBER DICTIONARIES
—RUBBER LOGIC TEXTS

THEY

are the ones INTO “RUBBER.”

I’d have thought that was obvious.

It’s part of the basic understanding of reality that most 4-5 year olds are well aware of.

A is A and B is B.

Johnny is NOT his sister. His sister is NOT Johnny.

Over THERE is NOT over HERE.

REPLACEMENTARIANS et al’s ADDICTED COMPULSIVELY TO RUBBERIZED EVERYTHINGS regarding theology . . .

are

NOT

DISPENSATIONALISTS.

Very basic, elementary, Dear Watson.

[Lee N. Field]

The only thing that makes sense to this psychologist is . . .

REACTIVE ATTACHMENT DISORDER . . . probably a very serious case of it . . .

mostly unresolved and unhealed . . .blah blah blah

In what way is alledging that one's opponents are mentally ill, and/or demon influenced, not "making it personal"?

[Religion Moderator]

Unless a claim is made in reference to another poster, personally, it is not "making it personal."

For instance, on an open RF thread, one may claim that Scientologists are irrational. That would not be "making it personal."

It is however considered tacky to suggest, even indirectly, that another poster is mentally ill - commonly, "did you forget to take your meds?"

Those kinds of posts may be removed at the discretion of any moderator.

[Quix]

As though REPLACEMENTARIANS et al haven't done MUCH WORSE posting in the harshest and most named personal ways for years hereon.

BTW, I don't construe RAD (Reactive Attachment Disorder--something I've owned as having myself) to be a mental illness. I doubt most psychologists do. It's a syndrome very problematic to self-esteem, self-worth and relationships.

A refresher course . . . The end of which is most appropos to these issues.

ENGLISH LESSONS FOR NAYSAYERS RE INSULTS AND DIFFERENT VS SAME:

It appears that a major proportion of the naysayers need some ENGLISH REFRESHER LESSONS:

“personal”

IS NOT REALLY that difficult a concept.

It comes from the word “person.”

A “PERSON” is

DIFFERENT from

1. A GROUP
2. THEY
3. Y’ALL
4. THEM
5. SOME OF THEM
6. CADRE
7. A COLLECTION OF

WHICH IS DIFFERENT FROM [i.e. NOT the SAME as]:

A “PERSON” IS directly associated with

1. YOU
2. HE
3. SHE

I realize that the more chronic naysayers tend to have a dreadfully difficult time distinguishing between

DIFFERENT

VS

SAME

but it does make it a lot easier when some of them try.

AND, I realize that the more chronic naysayers have this THING about

OBSESSIVE, ADDICTIVE EXTRAPOLATING, ASSUMING, INFERRING . . .

however, as I understand things . . .

EXTRAPOLATING, ASSUMING, INFERRING

[accurately or not]

PERSONAL “INSULT” DOES NOT COUNT.

The rules have to do with plainly written PERSONAL insult.

We will return screens to regularly scheduled programming after the following freebie additional refresher lesson:

This English Comprehension lesson has concluded.

DISTINCTIONS REALLY ARE IMPORTANT.

DISTINGUISHING

THE DIFFERENCE

BETWEEN

THE CHURCH AGE

VS THE MILLENNIAL AGE

IS IMPORTANT IN SCRIPTURE. It could rationally be considered important in life.

DISTINGUISHING

THE DIFFERENCE

BETWEEN

AN INDIVIDUAL

VS

A GROUP

IS IMPORTANT.

DISTINGUISHING

THE DIFFERENCE

BETWEEN

calling even a group idiotic vs a belief, perspective, idea, doctrine idiotic

IS IMPORTANT.

I’m beginning to wonder if it’s something in the holy water that REPLACEMENTARIAN, preterist, amil’s might drink that renders them incapable of making important distinctions.

Of course, the awake, aware and alert need no such lessons and the otherwise will not heed them but . . . just for the record, there they are! LOL.

[topcat54]

[Quix]

THANKS TONS.

Much appreciate the paradoxical

CONFIRMATION, AFFIRMATION

of

UNRUBBERIZED BIBLICAL TRUTH AND

UNRUBBERIZED REALITY.

Thanks Big.

Nice that you are so faithful in such affirming posts.

[Lee N. Field]

"blah blah blah"

Do you seriously think anyone reads that sort of post?

[Quix]

Am in the process of writing a declaration regarding my posting style, persona, priorities, values etc. but realized it would violate the REL FORM NOT PERSONAL rule.

So I’m going to finish it and post it in CHAT or BLOGGERS SECTION. Will post a link here when done.

[Lee N. Field]

No limitation on talking about oneself. “Mind reading” would not be a problem, as one has (normally) access to one’s own mind.

[Quix]

Here’s the link:

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/bloggers/2347476/posts?page=1

[Quix]

Evidently some folks

have missed

or misperceived

a major percentage of the RM’s last 100 posts on such matters.

[boatbums]

Sad to say, as well, that some persist on posting knowing they have been bested by the application of God's Holy Word. Their “thin skin” gets abraded enough that they cry to Mommy to fix things. Get off the thread if you can't play with the grown-ups, already!

Stick to yer guns, Quix!

[Joya]

FRiends, I am posting two reactions to Obama’s comments at the United Nations on 9/22/2009. Things are heating up.

= = =
http://flashtrafficblog.wordpress.com/
Joel Rosenberg

OBAMA ADDRESS TO U.N. WEAK ON IRAN, HARD ON ISRAEL, VIRTUALLY SILENT ON AFGHANISTAN

Joel’s INITIAL REACTION:

President Obama’s first address to the United Nations General Assembly was not just a disappointment, it was dangerous. Weak on Iran. Hard on Israel. Virtually silent on Afghanistan. The President effectively called for Israel’s capital city of Jerusalem to be divided, for Israel itself to be divided, and proposed no enforcement mechanism to stop Iran from getting the Bomb. This will only encourage the Radicals from Gaza City to Tehran.

Examples:

* ON IRAN AND THE NUCLEAR THREAT — I was glad to hear President Obama say: “If the governments of Iran and North Korea choose to ignore international standards; if they put the pursuit of nuclear weapons ahead of regional stability and the security and opportunity of their own people; if they are oblivious to the dangers of escalating nuclear arms races in both East Asia and the Middle East — then they must be held accountable. The world must stand together to demonstrate that international law is not an empty promise, and that treaties will be enforced. We must insist that the future does not belong to fear.”

* Also glad that he said: “We must stop the spread of nuclear weapons….For decades, we averted disaster, even under the shadow of a superpower stand-off. But today, the threat of proliferation is growing in scope and complexity. If we fail to act, we will invite nuclear arms races in every region, and the prospect of wars and acts of terror on a scale that we can hardly imagine….The next 12 months could be pivotal in determining whether this compact will be strengthened or will slowly dissolve.”

* I was glad to hear him say: “We must never allow a single nuclear device to fall into the hands of a violent extremist.”

* But I was disappointed that the President drew no line in the sand with regards to Iran (much less North Korea), put no decisive enforcement mechanism on the table, threatened no consequences. Right now, the President is just talk. But the clock is ticking. Iran’s nuclear enrichment centrifuges are spinning. Iran’s ballistic missile factories are creating longer-range and more accurate delivery vehicles. If Washington and the world does not take decisive action to stop Iran this fall, we may very well leave the Israelis with no alternative but to strike. Is that what the world wants…Israel acting on its own when then is really a global problem?

* ON AFGHANISTAN — I was, frankly, stunned and disappointed that while the President mentioned the word “Afghanistan,” he barely talked about one of the most urgent military issues of our day. Will he accept his own commanders recommendations and put tens of thousands of more American troops into Afghanistan to defeat al Qaeda and the Taliban and secure the peace? Or will he cut and run? How could he not even broach the topic today?

* ON STANDING WITH ISRAEL – I was glad to hear the President say his goal is, in part, is “a Jewish state of Israel, with true security for all Israelis.” It’s important that the President affirms the essential Jewish character of the State of Israel. Palestinian leader Abbas, after all, won’t say he supports a “Jewish state” living next to a Palestinian one, which is telling indeed.

* But I was disappointed to hear Obama say: “America does not accept the legitimacy of continued Israeli settlements” and disappointed to hear him say he supports “a viable, independent Palestinian state with contiguous territory that ends the occupation that began in 1967.”

* First, in its full historic context, the President is telling the Israelis they have to divide their eternal capital of Jerusalem (which was a divided city before ‘67) and divide the actual territory of Israel by allowing the Palestinians to have “contiguous territory” — that is a land bridge between the West Bank and Gaza. This from a President who wouldn’t speak out on behalf of the pro-democracy Reformers in Iran this summer because he didn’t want to “meddle” in the internal affairs of another country? Mr. President, what you are proposing in morally wrong and strategically dangerous. Jerusalem should never be divided again. What’s more, the sovereign territory of Israel should never be divided at all. Certainly not because an American President insists on such things. And by insisting on them, the President is actually emboldening the Radical hardliners who will now argue that until the President forces Israel to make such sweeping concessions the jihadists should force such concessions.

* Second, why are the so-called “settlements” in Jerusalem and the West Bank illegitimate? In 1947, the U.N. Partition Plan offered half the holy land to the Jews, and half to the Arabs. The Jews said yes and created Israel. The Arabs said no and launched 62 years of war and terrorism. The Israelis have repeatedly offered the Palestinians “land for peace” deals, but the Palestinian leadership keeps saying “no.” So Israelis are building homes, schools, medical clinics and other communities on disputed territory that the Palestinians refuse to accept in return for real peace. Why is that wrong? Come with me to Israel. I’ll take you to the West Bank. These Jewish communities are being built on land where Palestinian Arabs aren’t even living. It’s vacant land. Again I ask, why is it illegitimate for Israelis to build on land that has repeatedly been offered to the Palestinians, but the Palestinians refuse to take? Moreover, the so-called West Bank was known in ancient times as “Judea and Samaria.” This is the biblical heartland of Israel. I support autonomy for the Palestinian people living in their own towns and villages. But I also support the right of Israeli Jews to build on the territory the Lord gave them as their “eternal possession.”

REACTIONS:

>> Netanyahu ‘very satisfied’ with Obama’s UNGA speech

>> Lieberman to Haaretz: Israel pleased by Obama mention of ‘Jewish state’

>> John Bolton to National Review: ‘A Post-American Speech By Our First Post-American President’

HEADLINES TO TRACK:

* Schedule of today’s speakers at the U.N. General Assembly
* Canada set to boycott Iran’s UN speech
* Prime Minister’s Office: Netanyahu’s speech at UN General Assembly [on Thursday] will be ‘dramatic’
* In U.S., Netanyahu refuses to rule out military strike on Iran
* Iran regime ‘weaker than people think’: Netanyahu
* Obama: final status talks must ‘begin soon’
* Egypt: Probe Israeli nuke capabilities
* WSJ: Obama and the Politics of Concession: Iran and Russia put Obama to the test last week, and he blinked twice
* Washington Post: Wavering on Afghanistan? President Obama seems to have forgotten his own arguments for a counterinsurgency campaign

= = =
http://www.prayersforthepeople.com/
Daniel Eggers

Obama to the U.N.
And So It Begins

“All of us know this will not be easy, but we are here today because it is the right thing to do. I look forward to speaking with my colleagues. I’m committed to pressing ahead in the weeks and months and years to come, because it is absolutely critical that we get this issue resolved. It’s not just critical for the Israelis and the Palestinians; it’s critical for the world. It is in the interests of the United States. And we are going to work as hard as necessary to accomplish our goals.”

-Barack H. Obama 9.22.2009

Daniel Eggers’ commentary:
Simply put, the starting of these negotiations moves this nation over the threshold and through the door of coming judgments. These judgments will not have come without warnings. YAHWEH has so mercifully warned this administration, nation, and people of the dangers in moving forward with the division of Israel’s covenant land. Who has heard?

The flexibility, common sense, and compromise this Obama administration so arrogantly endorses is a fatal error and one not overlooked by the eyes of YAHWEH. Woe to Barack Obama who promotes the compromise of YAHWEH’S covenant with Abraham. Obama’s flexibility on the division of Israel, instead of firmly standing upon the righteous instruction of YAHWEH’S words, will result in his political fall. YAHWEH is not mocked and HIS words are forever true.

The United States of America moves to the edge of the abyss. Her permanent status will be devastation and complete destruction. The LORD of HOSTS has numbered her days and with success HE will lay her ruin.

Obama has committed this nation to destruction and devastation. He has failed to heed the warnings of the MOST HIGH.

wed, september 23, 2009

[Quix]

THANKS for your kind words.

Personally, I find your analysis quite apt.

God’s best to you and yours.

[Quix]

EXCELLENT DOCS. EXCELLENT ANALYSIS, imho.

Thanks thanks.

[Blogger]

Question is, will God judge the whole country when the arrogant one does not truly speak for the whole country and in fact many are very angry over his comments? The answer to that is sadly, because the majority voted him in, I believe we will all suffer. Unless the Lord returns soon, we may see ourselves as Jeremiah - voices crying in the wilderness, suffering through many of the same judgment as those who love evil; however, we know if we are Christians, we will not face God’s ultimate wrath. How much time is left before the trumpet sounds? May it be this very day.

[boatbums]

Maranatha!!! Come Lord Jesus. Pray for the peace of Jerusalem!

[roamer_1]

[roamer_1:] It can be readily assumed that the fig, and the olive are both symbolic in prophecy for Israel.

Assumed? On what basis? Solid biblical interpretations, esp. of things like prophecy, are not built on assumptions.

First, a quick look at where the two are mentioned in the Word:

"Fig"

Gen 3:7, Deu 8:8, Jdg 9:10, Jdg 9:11, 1Ki 4:25, 2Ki 18:31, Psa 105:33, Pro 27:18, Son 2:13, Isa 34:4, Isa 36:16, Jer 5:17, Jer 8:13, Hos 2:12, Hos 9:10, Joe 1:7, Joe 1:12, Joe 2:22, Amo 4:9, Mic 4:4, Nah 3:12, Hab 3:17, Hag 2:19, Zec 3:10, Mat 21:19, Mat 21:20, Mat 21:21, Mat 24:32, Mar 11:13, Mar 11:20, Mar 11:21, Mar 13:28, Luk 13:6, Luk 13:7, Luk 21:29, Joh 1:48, Joh 1:50, Jas 3:12, Rev 6:13

"Olive"

Gen 8:11, Exo 27:20, Exo 30:24, Lev 24:2, Deu 6:11, Deu 8:8, Deu 24:20, Deu 28:40, Jdg 9:8, Jdg 9:9, 1Ki 6:23, 1Ki 6:31, 1Ki 6:32, 1Ki 6:33, 2Ki 18:32, 1Ch 27:28, Neh 8:15, Job 15:33, Psa 52:8, Psa 128:3, Isa 17:6, Isa 24:13, Jer 11:16, Hos 14:6, Amo 4:9, Hab 3:17, Hag 2:19, Zec 4:3, Zec 4:11, Zec 4:12, Rom 11:17, Rom 11:24, Jas 3:12, Rev 11:4

with the exception of allowing for the near triplication which occurs in the Gospels in the case of the fig, it is fairly easy to see a great propensity for both words to be found in abundance in prophetic books.

For the sake of space, I will only address the "fig" argument now, as I don't really know if you are challenging the olive or not, and it is a much easier argument to make - which I will be happy to do later, if requested.

As to the fig, however, I would somewhat agree that it is a more difficult association, and may not stand for Israel proper... I would cede that much ground... But it is intricately tied to Israel... Perhaps dealing with it's spiritual message or priesthood.

Look at Jer 24, Hos 9:10 - These point very clearly to the Fig Tree parallel in prophecy. But my main argument, strangely enough, comes from the barren fig tree:

Starting at about Mat 21:18, Jesus goes out to seek fruit from a fig, finds it barren, and curses the tree forever. Thereafter, he goes to the Temple and forcefully removes the moneychangers. Then, on the way back to Bethany, His disciples are aghast that the tree He cursed is shriveled up. There must be a reason for this progression, and for this odd miracle. There is deeper wisdom here.

And what do we do with the parable at Luke 13:6, which seems so random and out of context? What is it's message?

I believe these both point to Judah missing her appointment with destiny - one she was ordained to miss, so that the whole world would be saved, but missing it none the less. In striking down the hapless fig, Jesus was symbolically removing the authority of the priesthood that he was soon to replace, and predicting the destiny of the state of Israel in the time of the Gentiles, soon to come.

Here is a web article I found that I am fairly in agreement with, which explains the ramifications thereof in greater detail: Focus on Jerusalem.com: "Israel And The Fig Tree" by Darrell G. Young

Not at all - What I am saying is that Luke may be referring to "all the trees" in the same way that God is referring to "all my mountains"... He is giving an extra clue, perhaps, compared to the other Gospels.

The non sequitur was that simply referring to the phrase “all my mountains” does explain how the phrase, "Look at the fig tree, and all the trees. When they are already budding, you see and know for yourselves that summer is now near” allegedly refers to future Israel. Specifically, what does it mean for “all the trees” to be “budding” at the end times? You have not told us that.

What I am suggesting is this: If God says He has "All His mountains (nations belonging to Him)" then perhaps there is coming a time (according to the time the prophecy was written) when there will be "A fig tree (State of Israel, House of Judah) and all the trees (Nations founded for/in God... pssst! Ephraim or House of Israel, Christendom)"

Or, the "Fig tree" (Israel) and "all the other trees" (all the other described events)... If you prefer something a bit milder...

Luke 21:29 is about the futurist end times, isn’t it?

It doesn't seem to be, according to Luk 21:7, which basically asks when the Temple will be destroyed... But if it is compared to Matthew:

Mat 24:3 And as he sat upon the mount of Olives, the disciples came unto him privately, saying, Tell us, when shall these things be? and what shall be the sign of thy coming, and of the end of the world? (KJV)

Now, one can simply omit the things that are the same in Matthew and Luke, supposing the things that are equal are only pursuant to the days of the Temple's destruction, and not having to do with the end of the world... Or one can suppose that the prophecy has a dual connotation - But we both know that two thousand years have gone by since then, so one way or the other, Matthew's "sign of thy coming, and of the end of the world" has certainly not happened yet.

When compared to the rest of Prophecy, however, the supposition that the "Olivet Discourse" prophecy is dualistic becomes much more probable; as many things slated for the Battle of Armageddon simply have not happened yet, (nor has the Battle of Magog, if it is a different war) and the fall of Jerusalem in 70 AD merely mimics these events to some degree, dreadful as it was.

Why is it that we are not to take the statement as a simple parable that Christ was using to explain to His disciples that, just as you can tell the seasons by inspecting the condition of trees, that you can tell the time of the coming of the kingdom of God? That is certainly the way it reads. “Then He spoke to them a parable … .” Yet some folks wish to force it to mean something that the text does not require.

You are welcome to read it any way you'd like to. I prefer to compare the passage to other prophecy, and draw conclusions from that. The OT prophets place Judah in Jerusalem at the time of the Battle of Magog, as well as the Battle of Armageddon, so the Olivet discourse seems to apply to these times... in the context of an end times scenario.

Too many people are quick to suggest that the Old Covenant is done away with, and that it's prophecy is somehow superseded. That is not true. The Prophecy is not done until the 7th trumpet sounds.

Besides, it is not clear that the phrase “all my mountains” is referring at all to nations. Why don’t we just take them as mountains?

What am I to make of this then?

Isa 41:15 Behold, I will make thee a new sharp threshing instrument having teeth: thou shalt thresh the mountains, and beat them small, and shalt make the hills as chaff. (KJV)

Is God talking about turning the "worm Jacob and the men of Israel" into a great mining community? If so, it is completely out of context with the rest of the passage... :D

Sorry if that last bit was a bit snide... It was meant to be humor.

[Just mythoughts]

When Christ said to ‘learn the Parable of the fig tree’ one must look into the horticulture of the fig tree. There are more than just one kind of fig tree and the process by which the good to eat figs are pollinated.