Prophecy! MESSIAH REVEALED! - Is He Coming Soon? - REDUX

YouTube ^ | June 29, 2010 | YouTube

[GiovannaNicoletta]

Well known and admired 108 year old Rabbi reveals the Messiah's name!

[Quix]

LOL.

WAIL, WHINE . . .

I gather you never made it to the taxidermist.

[small voice in the wilderness]

"If ye have heard of the Dispensation of the grace of God which IS GIVEN ME to you-ward: how that BY REVELATION He made known unto ME, the mystery...which in other ages was not made known unto the sons of men as it is now revealed unto His Holy apostles and prophets by the Spirit. That the Gentiles should be fellowheirs, and of the same body and partakers of His promise in Christ BY THE GOSPEL...and to make all men see what is the fellowship of the mystery, which FROM THE BEGINNING OF THE WORLD HATH BEEN HID IN GOD who created all things by Jesus Christ."(Eph.3:2,3,5,6,9).

[small voice in the wilderness]

You know there will be people being saved during the tribulation, don't you/ The Holy Spirit will be here, on earth during the tribulaion. Want scripture?

(Jn.14:16), (Acts 2:16-21), (Rev. 12:17 with 19:10), (Zech.12:10, 13:1).

Multitudes will be saved bythe Holy Sirit during the tribulation, as now (Acts 2:16-21), (Rev. 6:9-11, 7:1-21, 12:5,17, 15:2-4,20:4-6).

[presently no screen name]

Make it your homework to understand the difference.

That's rich coming from someone who can't answer a Yes or No question!!

I'm grounded in TRUTH! And there isn't ONE thing you can do about it but rant and rave!

THANK YOU GOD FOR YOUR TRUTH! THANK YOU HOLY SPIRIT for Your teaching and your gifts of wisdom and discernment!

To God be The Glory.

[The Theophilus]

the Church? This has be it. It will be raptured before Antichrist comes and this is the only one of the hinderers of lawlessness that will be removed from earth

Typical Dispy hermeneutic. Since when has the "bride" of Christ been referred to as a "he"? (the Greek itself is in the neuter gender when its used in v6)

For what its worth, the traditional understanding (that is, for the past two thousand years) is that this is likely a civil government or restraint. Indeed, the primitive Christians believed that this "restraint" was the Roman Empire and by which they prayed for its peace and welfare, as knowing when the Roman Empire were to be disolved and fall into pieces, the empire of the man of sin would be raised upon its ruins.

The normal Dispy rebuttal is based on the bias that "the man of sin" can only be a singular person. This is based on mishandling the Scriptures and ignoring, not only the historical evidence, but the language of the text itself which naturally leads one to understand "man of sin" as being a sucession of men holding the antichrist demeanor. Think of this as the spiritual equivalent of Ground Hog Day, where Satan keeps playing different strategies with different leaders until he achieves the pinnacle of his wickedness as typed in the Days of Noah. Since it doesn't fit the Dispensational template, then the normal hermeneutic is chucked for the much cooler imposition of a Hollywood master bad guy taking the scene.

[small voice in the wilderness]

The Church the Body of Christ is obviously referred to as HE. The One New Man is well HE.

[Stingray]

“Next, if you would have read the verses that I sent you, it would have been pretty obvious that the Roman empire WAS NOT implied.”

OK, let’s look at some of your supposed “other meanings” and read your verses in context:

Acts 17:31

Paul is speaking to Greeks in Athens on the Aeropagus. Let’s see...would Greeks of that day understand oikumene as being composed of countries that didn’t even exist yet, or of the Roman Empire???

Let’s see what one of your transliterations says:

“the portion of the earth inhabited by the Greeks, in distinction from the lands of the barbarians

“the Roman empire, all the subjects of the empire”

Hmmm...what’s more logical to assume, that Paul used the word “oikumene” to mean the world as we know it today, or the world as his audience knew it back then???

Yeah, that’s a tough one. O.o

How ‘bout another: Romans 10:18

But I say, have they not heard? Yes indeed: “Their sound has gone out to all the earth, And their words to the ends of the world.” Romans 10:18 (NKJV)

You do understand that Paul is quoting Psalms 19:4 here, right?

Their line has gone out through all the earth, And their words to the end of the world. In them He has set a tabernacle for the sun, Psalms 19:4 (NKJV)

Paul uses 2 Greek words to translate from the Hebrew of Psalms 19:4: “ge”, for “earth” which translated means, “soil; by extension a region, or the solid part or the whole of the terrene globe (including the occupants in each application)” and “oikoumene”, which translated here means, “ land, i.e. the (terrene part of the) globe; specifically, the Roman empire,”

Paul was using both words - as did David - to convey that the gospel was being spread throughout the whole earth (”ge”) and the Roman Empire (oikoumene).

Again, the Greek word oikoumene remains consistent with the usage that refers to the Roman Empire.

I’ll let you digest that and deal with the rest later.

[Stingray]

“WAIL, WHINE . . .

I gather you never made it to the taxidermist.”

Does this pass the “no personal attacks” test? Just wondering.

[presently no screen name]

there will be people being saved during the tribulation,

YES! And we'll be in heaven rejoicing for every one!

[small voice in the wilderness]

YES WE WILL! Praise God!

[presently no screen name]

Knowing and Reflecting on HIS WORD, HIS PROMISES - brings JOY! What a All Loving Father we have!

Thank You, JESUS!

[mountn man]

Interesting response, lets open the context a little wider,Acts 17:30 & 31 30"Therefore having overlooked the times of ignorance, God is now declaring to men that all people everywhere should repent, because He has fixed a day in which He will judge the world in righteousness through a Man whom He has appointed, having furnished proof to all men by raising Him from the dead."

So from your response, that world means Roman empire, God isn't going to judge the "World", just the Roman empire. I guess that would mean that the people everywhere that should repent should only be in the Roman empire.

Now lets look at Psalm 19:4 which you correctly point out that Paul quoted in Romans 10:18. But better yet, lets look into broader context of Psalm 19, so we can really see what point David was making, and thereby also Paul.

But first, one thing, Davids time was 200 YEARS BEFORE the Roman empire arrived. So obviously David WASN'T talking of the Roman empire.

Now to Psalm 19: 1-6 1The heavens are telling of the glory of God; And their expanse is declaring the work of His hands.
2Day to day pours forth speech, And night to night reveals knowledge.
3There is no speech, nor are there words; Their voice is not heard.
4Their line has gone out through all the earth, And their utterances to the end of the world In them He has placed a tent for the sun,
5Which is as a bridegroom coming out of his chamber; It rejoices as a strong man to run his course.
6Its rising is from one end of the heavens, And its circuit to the other end of them; And there is nothing hidden from its heat.

The Psalmist is talking of the vastness of the glory of Gods handywork. Across the heavens, and through all the earth.

Since Paul is quoting this verse, one would have to assume he was MEANING its context also. Well its quite obvious that the context of the whole world means THE WHOLE WORLD, and since David isn't talking about the Roman empire, because its not in existance yet, one would NATURALLY assume that Paul was talking about THE WHOLE WORLD.

And seeing that Strongs gives definitions including AND OTHER THAN, the Roman empire, we have to look at those possible meanings. And since one of those other meanings is THE WHOLE WORLD, and that appears to be the context of what Paul quoted, the natural assumption would be that is what Paul meant.

[Stingray]

“So from your response, that world means Roman empire, God isn’t going to judge the “World”, just the Roman empire.”

No. It means Paul used the word he knew his audience would understand. He wasn’t talking to us. He was talking to Greeks in Athens almost 2,000 years ago.

“Davids time was 200 YEARS BEFORE the Roman empire arrived. So obviously David WASN’T talking of the Roman empire.”

David wasn’t, but again: Paul used the words the readers in the Roman church would understand.

Paul wasn’t writing the New Testament. None of the NT writers were. They were writing to the people and churches in their time. It’s arrogant to presume that everything written in the Bible was meant solely for and specifically about 21st century Christians living in America: this nation didn’t even exist when the Bible was being put together!

So when you interpret the Bible, the first thing you have to do is look at the writer’s audience: to whom was the author writing and for what purpose. Substituting the world as we know it for the world as they knew it leads to all kinds of errors, like the one that sees Matthew 24:14 as pertaining to us. It doesn’t. It never has.

Now, while I’m on the subject of busting some myths here, understand this: Christ’s earthly ministry wasn’t intended for 21st century Americans living in America. He said He had come to save the lost sheep of Israel. In fact, He made it clear why He was sent to the Jews on several occasions.

We - as those branches “grafted into Israel” reap the benefits of the promise, but Christ didn’t raise a lament over New York, Paris, or Moscow: He raised it over Jerusalem because He knew that the Jews’ rejection of Him would lead to its destruction and desolation.

Matthew 24 starts in Matthew 23. Read it in context.

[GiovannaNicoletta]

Take a look at this, caww:

False Spirits Invade the Church

We all really have to be on guard in these last days- we are witnessing the "doctrine of demons" infesting all of our churches, just like Jesus said would happen.

It is so critical that we don't drift an inch from Christ. It's gotten to be that dangerous.

[roamer_1]

Let me begin my reply with my strongest argument against Preterism...

Indeed, my finest argument is that Preterism confounds the very purpose of the Prophecy:

Isa 46:9 Remember former things from forever; for I am God, and no other is God, even none like Me,
Isa 46:10 declaring the end from the beginning, and from the past things which were not done, saying, My purpose shall stand, and I will do all My pleasure;

(e-Sword: KJV)

The primary purpose of the Prophecy is to prove that God is God. Any theory which purports to prove that the Prophecy stopped at any point, for any reason suggests that God is willing to remove his proof and standard from the direct observation of that generation, and/or following generations.

It is my position that the Prophecy is a lively thing, steady as a clock, winding down to the end of days. It doesn't stop, nor does it falter. It did not end in 70 AD, nor (much to the disagreement of some of my Dispy friends) did it wait until Israel became established before picking back up where it left off.

We will find it has been in evidence to every generation in their own time; of that I have no doubt at all. And the evidences presented to each generation are there, in history for us to seek out. Not only that, but the evidence of new revelation is being presented to our own generation in real time. These things we can readily see, if only we will open our eyes.

Secondly, and perhaps, more vividly:

Mat 24:2 And Jesus said unto them, See ye not all these things? verily I say unto you, There shall not be left here one stone upon another, that shall not be thrown down.

Not *all* the stones are removed, "one upon another." *Seven* courses remain:

Eze 44:1 Then he brought me back the way of the gate of the outward sanctuary which looketh toward the east; and it was shut. Eze 44:2 Then said the LORD unto me; This gate shall be shut, it shall not be opened, and no man shall enter in by it; because the LORD, the God of Israel, hath entered in by it, therefore it shall be shut. Eze 44:3 It is for the prince; the prince, he shall sit in it to eat bread before the LORD; he shall enter by the way of the porch of that gate, and shall go out by the way of the same.

"This gate was built in the sixteenth century, long after New Testament times. Several years ago, the Herodion remains were accidentally uncovered below this gate, indicating that it was probably built over the one used when Jesus visited the temple.

The Bible predicts that the Messiah will enter the temple through this gate. Years ago, Islamic leaders blocked the entrance and built a cemetery in front of it to prevent the Messiah from entering. If the closed gate would not stop him, the cemetery would, because as a Jew, the Messiah would become ceremonially unclean if he touched anything connected with death; thus, he would not be able to enter the Temple Mount.

Src: http://www.followtherabbi.com/Brix?pageID=1578

Now, on to your argument, beginning with Stormcrow: "The First Installment - Some Background":

The Gospel of Mark is believed to be the earliest of the gospels and presents Christ as the “suffering servant” (pp. 7)

The Gospel of Matthew is traditionally believed to be the earliest, with Papias, Origen, and Eusebius all confirming an Hebrew/Amaraic version pre-existing the Greek. While I am no real fan of the historicity of documents proferred by the Roman church, there seems to be no reason for disputing this record.

"Modern scholarship" leaves much to be desired.

Remember, Matthew’s audience is primarily Jews, so he’s writing to people who understand the Old Testament prophecies.

[...]

Luke, on the other hand, is writing to Greeks and Gentiles: people who would not necessarily know Jewish history and certainly not the Jewish prophets. Therefore – and this is critically important – Luke actually interprets Matthew for us! (pp. 21-22)

I find this assertion to be less powerful than it seems. While true to a point, it is highly doubtful that the people had no knowledge of the stories involved, or the meanings attached therein. Remember that everywhere the Apostles went, they were speaking out of synagogues. The message went first to the local Hebrews.

It is very hard to live within a community without assimilating the basics of a culture - and those gentiles living around those synagogues most certainly would have a working knowledge. Especially before books were readily available - Stories, ANY stories, were told and re-told. And each of those synagogues held a Hebrew Bible...

And this leads, of course to an erroneous conclusion:

[...] Thus begins the Olivet Discourse. The first question His disciples ask is “when will the Temple be destroyed?” They then ask, “what sign will there be when these things are about to take place?” (pp. 29)

Conflating the gospels in comparison is a sloppy start. Compare them, sure... conflate them, no. Each has it's own contribution. Since we are speaking about Matt 24, perhaps it is best to use Matt 24:

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?

Next, lets address Stormcrow: "The Second Installment: The Olivet Discourse…"

Remember: Christ is answering specific questions about the destruction of the Temple IN THEIR GENERATION and the signs that precede it: He is not talking about either our generation or some generation yet to exist in our future. (pp. 3)

According to whom?

Certainly, as Christ warned, there were many deceivers in the land during that generation. (pp. 6)

There are ALWAYS decievers. Show me the "[...] many will come in My name, saying, ‘I am the Christ,’ and will deceive many" before AD 70... Especially in comparison to after70AD.

This passage has been misquoted so often to mean the “end” in our future, that it is often mistakenly asserted as proof that Christ was talking about our time! However, that’s not what the Greek word for “world” meant in His time or to His disciples!

[...] (oikoumene)

In other words, what we consider to be the entire world now only really referred to nations in and around the Roman Empire during the first century. This is the perspective from which Jesus would have been speaking to them. (pp. 8-12)

Oh stop! Then, we must suppose that the references below all refer to the Roman Empire too? how absurd. This is the worst kind of modern sophistry - That which causes the unaware to believe that the world at the time was restricted to what we have our attention upon. The Phoenicians were sailing to Britain, the Benelux region, and around Africa many centuries before the time of Christ. The Silk Road was centuries old. And in His time, there is no way that people weren't aware of Parthia and Carthage (Phoenicians), and the Celto-Anglo-Saxon hordes, which were still far beyond the reach of Rome. The Chinese were sailing into ports in the gulf of Arabia, for Pete's sake. Mining and goods were coming from the midst of Africa. It is simply ludicrous to restrict the "inhabited earth" to Rome alone.

oikoumene
¯
Total KJV Occurrences: 15

world, 14
Mat_24:14, Luk_2:1, Luk_4:5, Act_11:28, Act_17:6, Act_17:31, Act_19:27, Act_24:5, Rom_10:18, Heb_1:6, Heb_2:5, Rev_3:10, Rev_12:9, Rev_16:14

earth, 1
Luk_21:26

(e-Sword: KJV Concordance)

The following is a list of those apostles and disciples martyred for Christ before the destruction of Jerusalem and its temple. [...] Most of the remaining apostles were martyred shortly after the fall of Jerusalem with the exception of John, who was exiled to Patmos where he wrote his epistles and the Book of Revelation. During this time, however, the gospel had been preached from Britain to Ethipoia and from Spain to India. (pp. 21-22)

But what the author fails to mention is where those Apostles WENT, which thoroughly destroys his impression of the "inhabited world" being the Roman Empire. For the most part, those Apostles went BEYOND Rome, passing through it. Scythia, Parthia, England, Ireland, Ethiopia, Russia (as far as Kiev and the Deipner), and the list goes on. Bartholomew died on the shores of the Caspian Sea.

More than any other thing, this attests to a rather myopic scope on the author's part. Unlike some would have it, Rome is *not* the center of the world.

And let's mention with emphasis that at least a quarter (3) of the Apostles lived beyond the fall of Jerusalem - and that a good portion (about half) of the dates of their various deaths went unrecorded. The author mentions this in passing, but it is a substantial piece of errata. Many of them may have died beyond AD 70.

And when was it exactly that the Apostles specifically were "hated by all nations?"

All of these things Christ said would happen came to pass before the Temple was destroyed in that generation. (pp 23)

A few wars within an empire that used war for income, a single example of famine, an eathquake or two, an inferred pestilence... This doesn't rise to the authoritative "many" the prophecy presents.

It is getting late (early, actually)... I will reply to your 3rd installment another time.

[caww]

Exactly! ...evidencing that the LEADERSHIP of churches are teaching this extreme behavior and calling it a holy spirit experience...it is NOT the holy spirit but no doubt a spirit none the less and the leadership are false teachers under the influnce of demons....can you imagine walking and then jerking as this video depicts and believing your under the influence of God! Walk a street in India and see the derranged minds and losts souls...

People want these physical experiences, they want the “feelings”....and these are as “addictive” as a drug...which is why the Gurus/Hinduism lead it’s followers to the next level...keeps the cash flow going and the follower believes he’s advancing when in actuality he’s simply having another experience.

The same occurs in these churches who practice these bizarre and out of control experiences....they attend to have “experiences”..no longer Christ centered...the “experinces” trump Christ.

[Religion Moderator]

The rule concerning "personal attacks" applies to every forum on Free Republic. It takes more than verbal badgering or hurt feelings for something to be a "personal attack." Personal attacks are removed by the moderators when they see them. Posts in the Smoky Backroom push the envelope on "personal attacks."

Like pornography, the moderators know a "personal attack" when they see it.

The guideline concerning "making it personal" applies only to the Religion Forum. Attributing motives and other forms of mind reading are "making it personal." However, for something to be "making it personal" it must be addressed to another poster, personally.

For instance, if I said "Baptists believe" that would not be making it personal. But if I said "You believe" that would be making it personal.

If I said "Evidently, you are ignorant" that would not be making it personal because it would be expressing my mind, not reading yours. But if I said "You are ignorant" that would be making it personal.

And if I said "Do you think" that would not be making it personal because I am asking, not mind reading. But if I said "You think" that would be making it personal.

However, making the thread "about" individual Freepers is also a form of "making it personal." It causes the discussion to move away from the issues into ad hominines and flame wars ignite. It disturbs the forum for everyone else.

The following remark by Quix is not a personal attack. And it is not mind reading. It is however making the thread "about" another Freeper and is therefore "making it personal."

You are welcome to suck rocks or chase ducks, if you wish.

Both of you are oldtimers on Free Republic so I'm confident you have run across the kind of poster whose only debate skill is to "kill the messenger." Such posters are not welcome in theological debate because people tend to be very sensitive about their beliefs. Moderators lose patience with trouble-makers, especially on the Religion Forum. For that reason, I will not tolerate a non-believer coming onto a Religion Forum thread just to stir things up by ad hominines against one side or the other.

Discuss the issues all you want, but do not make it personal.

[Quix]

AYE AYE.

SORRY.

[Quix]

GROSSLY WRONG ASSERTIONS YET AGAIN.

[Quix]

Personally, I beleive that you will easily scoff down whatever they feed you because you love it because its fresh, hip and doesn’t require any biblical training.

---

Impressive . . . NOT!