Townhall.com, Where Your Opinion Counts
Talk Radio:   Bill Bennett   Mike Gallagher   Dennis Prager   Michael Medved   Hugh Hewitt   
BREAKING NEWS  LeftArrow - Townhall.com : Conservative, Political, Republican   RightArrow - Townhall.com : Conservative, Political, Republican  
Columns, funnies & more in your inbox!
Login | What's Hot
  • Check the boxes and send us your email address to receveive your free newsletter
  • Your daily must-read of conservative columns, cartoons and news. Coulter, Sowell, Krauthammer and more.
  • Townhall.com’s weekly inside scoop on what’s happening behind the scenes in the world of politics. When news breaks, we report.
  • Signup to receive the latest daily Townhall cartoons

Comment on: Snow Knight's Castle

Then who chooses life or death?

257 Comments
Thursday, February, 19, 2009 10:59 AM ben-Israel writes:

truly frightening

My father lost his best friend in the Holocaust. I myself have studied this tragedy for many years and I still cannot believe there are so mny who deny such historical fact. When governments truly overstep their bounderies like this where does it end??
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Thursday, February, 19, 2009 12:17 PM caday5 writes:

Whereas

before, Insurance companies with visions of profits dancing in their heads did that.

For Ben,
A good friend of mine lost her aunt in the Holocaust. She wrote an article about what is happening today and related it, in part, to the Holocaust. The link is below:

http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/HL0310/S00067.htm

For the rest, I've related this issue of who chooses life and abortion to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict

http://www.opednews.com/articles/opedne_curt_day_070104_why _being_pro_life_s.htm
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Thursday, February, 19, 2009 2:07 PM ben-Israel writes:

caday5

being pro-life means for all human beings. In current conflict in the middle east there is a culture clash and at the heart of it is the teachings of Islam-that teaches no equality-only subjagation under shria law.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Thursday, February, 19, 2009 3:52 PM The Crawfish writes:

ben-Israel

Don't bother arguing with C5. He'll never admit that the National Socialist Workers Party had any ideological similarities with today's socialists.

Throughout high school and college vacations, I worked in a grocery store in a part of Dallas that (back then) had a sizable Jewish population. About 8 of our regular customers had numerical tattoos on their arms. Never again.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Thursday, February, 19, 2009 4:09 PM caday5 writes:

Ben

First, that all devout Muslims take that view.

Second, not all Palestinians are Muslims

Third, Israel has violate more international laws than Saddamn and has killed far more civilians than Palestinian terrorists.

Fourth, an ideology that says one ethnic group has more privilege to the land than the other, such as most forms of Zionism do, also denies equality.

Fifth, historically speaking, there are times when Muslims offered more rights to non-Muslims than European Christians have.

So overgeneralizing statements are great at inspiring fear and that is all they are good for.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Thursday, February, 19, 2009 5:44 PM Watch Dawg writes:

Big Brother-SK

If the big government gurus-reid,pelosi and obama have their way. I just hope and pray more Americans see exactly what is in this thing-not just the new beruocracy you have mentioned-but the further downward plunge into darkness the Democrats are taking this country. 2010 is shining its beacon of hope-but it is gonna be a HELL of a fight--I am glad you are on the winning side.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Thursday, February, 19, 2009 8:41 PM davecatbone writes:

the survivors

have seen the face of evil. It is not morally relative, and cannot be appeased or negotiated with. Liberal Socialism is evil, and must be defeated before it destroys the freedom so very many Americans no longer appreciate. Good post Snow Knight.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Thursday, February, 19, 2009 10:29 PM caday5 writes:

Dave

prove your point that liberal socialism is evil. Prove that King and Keller were evil since they advocated liberal socialism.

Actually, the epitome of moral relativity is when, out of jingoist patriotism, we condemn others for doing what we do.

BTW, for ben,

I miswrote my first point. Not all devout Muslims take that view
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Friday, February, 20, 2009 11:22 AM Snow Knight writes:

Ben

I knew that you would bring insightful input on this troubling topic. The talk I had with "Joesf" was life changing. The direction of the government with the cration of this new beuocracy is evidence that this tragic past events may- indeed repeat itself-I pray not. God bless, my friend!
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Friday, February, 20, 2009 11:34 AM Snow Knight writes:

C5

You are still repeating your same error practally every time you comment. You go off on another issue-not addressing the point at hand. Ben's point is exactly the same one I showed to you-To the Islamic mind all non-muslums(which includes you) have only two choices--convert or die.All muslums ALL MUSLUMS!! who follow Islamic law believe this. I could not care less what they SAY. My point that I am making in this post is with this new beaucracy that was created in this bill the current administration is plinging in a direction where history may very well repeat itself--with equally disasterous results.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Friday, February, 20, 2009 11:37 AM Snow Knight writes:

Crawfish

Yes, as you can see I have my hands full here, however, challenges like C5 are not without benefits. It draws out much needed info for all to see. It also exposes C5 by his own words.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Friday, February, 20, 2009 11:39 AM Snow Knight writes:

Davecat

Total agreement. Is it not scary to see what is forming right before our eyes? are we the only ones sounding the alarm??
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Friday, February, 20, 2009 11:41 AM Snow Knight writes:

Dawg

did not mean to jump over you! you have answered the question my post asked---George orwell would really beshaking his head if he was arround today!
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Friday, February, 20, 2009 11:44 AM Snow Knight writes:

again C5

Martin luther King and Hellen Keller would not ever support a system that takes away our choices as free Americans. As I told you on several occasions Martin litjher king trusted in God Almighty--not in an almighty government.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Friday, February, 20, 2009 4:41 PM crossbow writes:

SnowKnight

It is indeed very disturbing to see a lot of the same mess that led to Nazi Germany-- start to happen here.Cal Thomas has a great article on this new beaucracy that was created with this bill.If we do not wake up and take our Nation back from these Bozos soon - it may be too late to reverse a lot of the damage.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Friday, February, 20, 2009 4:54 PM Cindy writes:

Blueprint for Global Enslavement

This has been repackaged to be more acceptable.


http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=107032905360056226 1











EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Friday, February, 20, 2009 6:33 PM caday5 writes:

Snow

I already addressed the point. Not all devout Muslims read the Koran in the same you wish people to read the Koran. I wonder why.

So there is not only did I address your point, I raised you one. Remember what Romans 2:1 says about those who judge others. Paul says that those who judge others condemn themselves for doing the same. And so while you are off ranting about Islamic law not promoting equality, you support Zionism which says people of Jewish descent, regardless from of their country of origin, have more claim on the land than indigenous Arabs. And one can misinterpret the Bible into saying that.

Finally, I doubt if before reading my notes that you knew that King and Keller were both socialists and pacifists. There is not shame in that, you probably have not read any of their writings. The problem comes when you claim to know what King and Keller would want or would not want. I think that shows more defensiveness than a knowledge of what they wrote.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Friday, February, 20, 2009 11:30 PM American Sweetheart writes:

snowknight

I have family that died in the Holocaust and some that lived to tell the tale (they had the numbers carved into their arms to prove it).

Good job on articulating this point SK.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Saturday, February, 21, 2009 8:50 AM caday5 writes:

Re the Holocaust.

Certainly never again applies or should apply. But do we believe never again in the narrow sense or in the broader sense.

Never again in the narrow sense means only applies to the Jews. Never again in the broader sense applies to any group. It is our choice to work for never again in the broader or narrow sense.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Saturday, February, 21, 2009 5:10 PM Curt writes:

Advance of totalitarianism

Our founders spoke to this very issue, of how smooth talkers end as tyrants. No free people give up their liberties knowingly, but the carrot with the string attached leads them to do so unwittingly.

Certainly the new President and new Congress are bringing change to Washington. Not a change of direction, but a dramatic acceleration in the the wrong direction.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Sunday, February, 22, 2009 1:16 AM Eric writes:

also sad

if nationalized health care comes about, you could get an abortion faster than a majority of surgeries that could save lives.

Indeed, the Holocaust was an amazing tragedy of immense proportions. I have visited the Holocaust museum and it's almost impossible for someone to exit without a tear in their eye. That was a sad time in history. Good post Snow Knight.

EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Sunday, February, 22, 2009 8:49 AM caday5 writes:

Curt

First, smooth talk does not imply tyranny. It can certainly follow it but it just as well may not.

Second, I would argue that the direction the administration was going in was more tyrannical than what you are projecting on Obama. Right now, the tyranny being experienced is anticipatory tyranny. With Bush, we had more surveillance with less privacy and less gov't accountability with more power made available to them. That is the direction one travels when on the road to tyranny.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Tuesday, February, 24, 2009 9:10 AM Snow Knight writes:

caday5

"mislums must fight the infedels,they must not let the latter escape (Koran 8:59-60) and they must seek out,lay in wait to ambush,seize and slay the latter whever found.(Koran9:5)how should that be read caday?
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Tuesday, February, 24, 2009 9:10 AM Snow Knight writes:

C-bow

right on.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Tuesday, February, 24, 2009 9:11 AM Snow Knight writes:

Cindy

thanks for the link--very good!
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Tuesday, February, 24, 2009 9:13 AM Snow Knight writes:

AmSwt

Yes, and it is so disturbing tio see what is happening now in THIS govvernment!!
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Tuesday, February, 24, 2009 9:14 AM Snow Knight writes:

Curt

Many do that is for sure!!!thanks for stopping by!
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Tuesday, February, 24, 2009 9:16 AM Snow Knight writes:

Eric

I havent been to the museum but I have seen the one online in Israel--It still shocks meto this day.I will be posting more on this in the future!!
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Tuesday, February, 24, 2009 9:29 AM caday5 writes:

Snow

What you quoted is not the only verse in the Koran. For example, there is a verse in the Koran that says that if someone lives at peace with you, do not attack them because "God does not love the aggressor."

Considering the bend here against all who are different, you have to do more than quote 1 verse outside of any context to make your point. Then you have to account for the devout Muslims who have a different interpretation than you.

Finally, why no have Muslims read the book of Joshua and we will see who believes in equality.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Tuesday, February, 24, 2009 10:58 AM Snow Knight writes:

C5

It is good enough for me--and it was in context." kill the infedels so that there is not one of them left" is a qoute from Mohammed that pretty much proves my point.It is not hard for any muslum or anyone to interprete that. What the bottom line here is caday that there is no equality in Islam--face it. Is it so hard to admit that I am right??
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Tuesday, February, 24, 2009 11:28 AM KevInFl writes:

Re : Then who chooses life.....?

You have struck a cord here that needs major discussion! Good job!
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Tuesday, February, 24, 2009 1:04 PM caday5 writes:

Snow

that is the problem, you are too easy. And being too easy, you simply spread a ignorance based fear--what better kind of fear. Why is it that many devout Muslims do not agree with your exegesis of the Koran?
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Tuesday, February, 24, 2009 5:29 PM Snow Knight writes:

No caday5

I'm not "easy" I'm right- and it is truth that I am spreading-if there is any fear it is from the ones who are fearful of the truth. The ones who are spreading fear are the terrorists blowing themselves UP for a FALSE religion and a false prophet--tell my caday--how can a "devout" muslum disagree with a direct quote-in context-from the Koran--as well as a quote from their prophet? As I said before I do not care what they SAY--"their" book proves my point for me-as welll as their bombs and rockets.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Tuesday, February, 24, 2009 5:32 PM Watch Dawg writes:

SK

Hey, I just got here by the time of your last comment you my still be online--I have a question: with this new government beauocracy that was created by this "stimulis" bill will doctors still have automony?
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Tuesday, February, 24, 2009 6:21 PM caday5 writes:

Snow

You as a Western non-Muslim is trying to speak authoritatively regarding how Muslims are required to interpret the Koran. Plus, your interpretation does not explain the peaceful attitudes and practices of the majority of devout Muslims.

When you can't even acknowledge legitimate differences between fundamentalist interpretations of the OT and that is more in your ballpark, your assumed expertise on the Koran becomes even more suspect.

EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Thursday, February, 26, 2009 10:03 AM Jesse "The Mind" Norman writes:

we're ready for another one

Another holocaust is at the door, and they will have people like Caday pointing out biblical verses saying "the Jews weren't supposed to have Israel again", yet the prophecies of the NT talk about the world coming against Israel. Hey Caday, esssplain that away. Why does much of the world come against Israel in the NT, if we misinterpreted the OT as you say we have? It's plainly written that these countries are the bad guys. Dance around that one, Lord of the Dancearoundthefactsdude.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Thursday, February, 26, 2009 10:03 AM Jesse "The Mind" Norman writes:

oh forgot

got a new post up.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Thursday, February, 26, 2009 10:58 AM caday5 writes:

Where does the World

come against Israel in the New Testament?
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Thursday, February, 26, 2009 1:02 PM Jesse "The Mind" Norman writes:

typical Caday response

Let's see. I go ahead and list the verses that I know, and everyone else knows that are there. Quote them word for word and then you'll come back saying something like "wait, they're not trying to get the Jews out of Israel. They are just upset because of the pork industries in those countries are losing money. They're trying to get the Jews to quit eating kosher." Come on, Caday. You know where they are. The world comes and meets at Megiddo to take over Israel. I guess maybe you can say Megiddo is also some valley in Canada, right?
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Thursday, February, 26, 2009 4:11 PM caday5 writes:

Jesse

Typical responses are not necessarily wrong. I did say show us in the NT this reference to Israel.

In addition, who are you quoting word for word? Everyone, some, a few radicals. Take the Ahmadinejad quote for example, a friend of mine who knows the language will tell you that the target is Zionism, not the Jews. Proof of this is that Jews have served in the Iranian Parliament and Iran is not practicing any eliminationist policies against the Jews.

In Proverbs 7, Solomon tells the story of a harlot seducing a young man. What hooks the young man is the harlot's use of flattery. Did it ever occur to you that what hooks so many people on the eschatology of dispensationalism is the flattery of themselves and America?
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Friday, February, 27, 2009 8:38 AM Jesse "The Mind" Norman writes:

oh shut the hell up

You asked me where it says that much of the world comes against Israel, like you don't know. You just can't come up with a good explanation for it. I say it's useless to quote something word for word with you and then you bring up Ahmadinejad, because I guess that's the best you got. Change the subject when you don't have an explanation that suits your beliefs. Sort of like you did two or three times in that other post. You brought up congress that one time and I still have no idea how you veered off the road that far since we weren't discussing anything in the viscinity of congress. Here's a lesson to learn Caday, if you're able to learn anything. Much of the world will rise against the Jews in ISRAEL. Just as it's written in both testaments. Satan will come against the woman that brought forth the man child. Zionism ... the prophecies of both testaments of the kings of the south, east, and north coming against Israel.... who cares what the difference is? That's what is written, right? The world will come against Israel. End of story. It's written, so shall it be done.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Friday, February, 27, 2009 10:45 AM caday5 writes:

Simple question

Where in the NT does it say that the world will come against Israel?
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Friday, February, 27, 2009 11:49 AM Jesse "The Mind" Norman writes:

uhhh

Luke 21:20... Jerusalem compassed with armies-plural

Luke 21:24 Jerusalem shall be trodden down by the gentiles until their times be fulfilled. You can play games and say "ah well that already happened", except that what is written in Luke 21 is about the end of this age.

Rev. 16:16 Armageddon, the place being Megiddo is where they will be gathered.

Simple question. Simple answer. Now complicate it for your sake.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Friday, February, 27, 2009 2:27 PM caday5 writes:

Luke 21

could have very easily referred to the sacking of Jerusalem in 70 AD. That would make sense since it appeared that Jesus warned the people about that as he seemed to be warning his present audeience.

In neither case do we see the regathering of the Jews, remember that Jeremiah's prophecy could have very well been fulfilled when the Jews returned from the Babylonian captivity. Luke 21 was most probably fulfilled in 70 AD and we will see what happens with Revelations 16:16.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Friday, February, 27, 2009 3:41 PM Snow Knight writes:

caday5

I sure hate to call someone a willing ignoramus--but you-caday5 are working really hard for the title.The word of God is very spicific regarding the future--ours and Israels. I was going to quote to prove this(since you doupt) but Jesse beat me to it. I cannot believe that you even asked the question of "where does the world come agenst Israel in the new testament" You do not- I repeat- do NOT want to learn truth----you just want to argue.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Friday, February, 27, 2009 3:44 PM Snow Knight writes:

Jesse

In total agreement--Bro. Israel will be the focal point. I am preparing another post on this even as we speak--stay tuned my friend!!
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Friday, February, 27, 2009 3:49 PM Snow Knight writes:

Watch Dawg

did't mean to pass you by!! Sadly, It does seem to be happening that way-read the atricle Cal thomas wrote on this "how about a stimulus for life" He interviews the fomer sergion gen-C.Everett Koop about socialised health care.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Friday, February, 27, 2009 4:16 PM Jesse "The Mind" Norman writes:

Caday

You're a complete jackass. You know Luke 21, Matthew 24, and Mark 13 were about the end times. Anything to keep up appearances in your mind that you still have some shred of a possibility that your contention is right, eh? You're a jackass personified.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Friday, February, 27, 2009 4:20 PM Jesse "The Mind" Norman writes:

Snow

Will definitely do. "We will see what happens in Revelation 16:16". Can you believe this guy? Right now he's on a quest to find somehow, some way that Armageddon doesn't mean Megiddo, even though it's written in Rev. 16:16 that it's pronounced Armageddon in the HEBREW tongue.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Friday, February, 27, 2009 4:36 PM Jesse "The Mind" Norman writes:

gotta say

You have brought me some entertainment Caday. That last post had me laughing off my chair in particular. Just wanted to clarify that I didn't call you a jackass in a mean spirited way. It's just you had me in tears man that this is what your contention is. Thanks for bringing light to a dreary-weathered Friday, my friend. You crack me up. Yeah, we shall see if Armageddon really means Armageddon. Funny stuff, Caday. Funny stuff.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Saturday, February, 28, 2009 8:38 AM caday5 writes:

Jesse

Are you projecting? I am not calling you names. ANd I know that what Jesus said in Luke and Matthew could have very well been about the sacking of Jerusalem in 70 AD. Jesus was talking to the people of his time.Whereas the passage in Revelation says nothing about the regathering of Jews into Israel.

EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Saturday, February, 28, 2009 8:42 AM caday5 writes:

Snow Knight

You have problems with people who see things differently. Instead of recognizing valid points that you can still disagree with, you have to insult them.

The only reason why you see the scriptures the way you do is because the dispensational interpretation is so ingrained in you that you can't see other possibilities. But the scholars whose approach you follow know that there are other valid schools of thought
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Saturday, February, 28, 2009 9:26 AM Jesse "The Mind" Norman writes:

It gives you where

And Satan does come after the woman that beared the man child. I recognize that you haven't gone anywhere near that one yet even though I mentioned it a few times. I'm not projecting at all. It just cracks me up sometimes how people can hold onto their own misperceptions no matter how much writing there is on the wall that contradicts their belief. You definitely fit in that category. I wonder about people like you and what it's going to take before you admit "hey, I just might have been wrong this whole time". The Jews are in Israel now, and we are in the last days right? The Antichrist does stand in the holy place. The abomination of desolation. Tell me, who is to have this land in the last days? Again, please use God's word. Old and New Testament, since they're equally as important. As Jesus said, "I have not come to destroy the law and the prophets". The plagues written of in Revelation are written in more depth in the OT. Dismiss it if you want, but the OT is just as important as the NT. Here's a question for you. When Jesus said on the cross "My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?", why wasn't that a sin?
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Saturday, February, 28, 2009 4:33 PM Snow Knight writes:

caday

I have not problem whatso ever with people that disagree with me. The proplem that I have is puffed up arrogant indaviduals like you who just cannot bring themselves to aknowledge when they are wrong. "we will see what happens with Rev 16:16" ?? in your own words caday-you prove my case very well-and by the way I already know what will happpen--the Lamb wins.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Saturday, February, 28, 2009 4:42 PM Snow Knight writes:

Jesse

You know it. In your last comment you said it all!! what caday here still does not get(I doupt that he ever will) is that God's word stands for itself--what is "ingrained" in me is the firm stand that God is indeed fulfilling his word-bringing his people back home to Zion and ultimatly triumph of Zion! (Rev 14:1)
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Sunday, March, 01, 2009 9:17 AM Jesse "The Mind" Norman writes:

Caday was trying to be slick

It's good you pointed out Zion, Knight. He thought he had me with the word "Israel" in the NT. Israel isn't mentioned in the NT since there wasn't an Israel then so I bet he was licking his chops thinking he had me. I knew Megiddo was mentioned with Armageddon, so I went with that and how Satan would come against the Jewish woman that beared the man child. Zion was used as a replacement for Israel. Either way, it's conclusive that in the OT and NT that the Jews are to have this land in the last days and much of the world will come against them. When you're not willing to admit that you're wrong, then your ability to learn stops. I had my own misperceptions but I was humble enough to admit I was wrong and so I learned a lot more afterward. God appreciates those who humble themselves and will reward them for their patience and diligence. I know He rewarded me with many things. I also know that Caday won't answer that question correctly about what Jesus said on the cross. When I point out the correct answer conclusively, I wonder if he'll admit it.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Sunday, March, 01, 2009 4:08 PM davecatbone writes:

Snow Knight

Cincinnati Tea Party March 15, Fountain Square.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Monday, March, 02, 2009 9:03 AM Snow Knight writes:

your right Jesse

When you humble yourself before the Lord--HE lifts you up!! In regards to our friend caday here-I have locked horns with him before at Conservabears place - he just refuses to admit someone else may be right when it conflicts with his views(see Ben-Israels comments) You are also 100% right about when Satan goes after the man child--The book of Rev. I s just fasinating!! (especially chapter 19!!) We know who wins!!!God Bless you my friend!!!
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Monday, March, 02, 2009 9:07 AM Snow Knight writes:

Davecat

Hey!!Tell me more!!We need another "tea" party to throw all the lib "tea" overboard!!! God Bless you Davecat!! We are the Writers of LIBERTY!!!!(Paul Revere would approve!!)
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Monday, March, 02, 2009 12:33 PM caday5 writes:

Jesse

There is no slickness, you just don't recognize the fact that fundamentalist have different views.

And yes, Israel is mentioned in the NT? Why, there was an Israel in more than one way. There are the collective descendants of Israel which is what Romans 9:6ff refers to. In fact, Romans chapters 9-11 talks about who are the descendants of Israel. Israel can refer to God's peoples that section of Romans talks about. This brings up a second use of Israel which is Jacob. And there is the land of Israel.

BTW, if you look up the word Israel in Young's Analytical concordance, you will find the word Israel mentioned over 70 times--11 times in Romans chapter 9-11.

So while you celebrate each other's humility, please note that your problem is the same; the NT, as it stands for itself, contradicts your interpretation of the OT. The NT is clear, Israel is saved through faith in Christ.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Monday, March, 02, 2009 2:53 PM Jesse "The Mind" Norman writes:

aie aie aie

I know Israel is mentioned in the NT. It's just not mentioned when it comes to the last days and Armageddon. I've got a Strong's. I can look it up anytime I want and find out every single word that was written and how many times it appears. I could care less what fundamentalists have with other opinions. God's word is God's word. For some funny reason you keep saying my interpretation of the OT and NT aren't congruent, but in no way have I done this. There is another age after this one. As is written in the original Greek, there clearly is another age after this one. One must go through Christ to have everlasting life, but there is another age after this to accept him. Have you not considered this? It is you that keeps dismissing the OT while saying "it's only the promise", like it doesn't matter even though Jesus did say he didn't come to destroy the law and the prophets. You and your fundamentalist friends can twist and turn things all you want, but you can't answer my questions with your logic. Who is to have this land of Israel in the last days if it's not the Jews? Something like that would be written since it's quite important. As is written, Jerusalem will become a burdensome stone in the last days. Go ahead and answer my questions for me. Answer this one too. When Jesus said on the cross "My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?", why wasn't it a sin? Give me your best fundamentlist answer. I'll give you a clue. It's not because it was impossible for him to sin, but there is a specific reason why this wasn't a sin. Twist and turn God's word like a wash cycle if you want, but unless you are willing to answer my questions (something better than the "we'll see about Armageddon" one), then there is no reason to procede further.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Monday, March, 02, 2009 3:01 PM Jesse "The Mind" Norman writes:

And

I do know of the difference between the House of Israel and Israel the land. It's still written all over that the Jews will have this land in the latter days since it's referenced to in the same OT prophecies that refer to the last days as is written in Revelation. Armageddon and Meggido are the same thing, are they not? Who is to have this land in the last days? Why is Jerusalem called a burdensome stone in the last days? Satan does come after the woman that beared the man child. You know who the man child is and you know who the woman is, which separates it from Christian and Jew. You don't have an explanation for these things. Complicating such easy things to interpret will get you nowhere. That's why the biggest teachers of God's word are the most lost. Their ego takes them from the path of the righteousness that is the true meaning of the word of God. I am begging you. Answer why Jesus said what he said on the cross wasn't a sin.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Monday, March, 02, 2009 3:15 PM caday5 writes:

Jesse

What Fundamentalists are arguing about is what is God's Word saying. It is possible for God's people to disagree and thus a respectful agreement to disagree is sometimes necessary.

Btw, I am not dismissing the OT. What I am saying is that if you following the hermeneutic of always literally interpreting both testaments, then you get the disagreement. Thus, we must find a way to reconcile to honor both testaments rather than to be forced into the dilemma of having to relegate one of them.

Using the NT to interpret the OT seems to be the best way to reconcile them. Because, in the OT, we have Christ veiled. In the NT, we have Christ revealed. Both testaments revolve around him.

As for your questions, why must we dictate who is to have the land. If the meek inherit the Earth, as Jesus said in the Beatitudes, does that not also include the land of Israel? The question is why is Israel so important to you? Is it more important to you than justice and love? We see no charge or concern with the land of Israel in the NT. What we do see is the command not to consolidate in Israel but to disperse and preach the Gospel in all of the world.

And why charge Jesus with sin for saying what he did? Wasn't undergoing the curse for us, the innocent condemned in the place of the guilty?

Finally, there is no age after this one to accept Christ. This is what it says in Hebrews. In fact, I don't see anyplace in the NT that suggests that. THere is an age after this one but not to accept.

Also, dispensationalists, those who preach the same kind of interpretation that you do are fundamentalists as well. Why the chip on the shoulder?
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Monday, March, 02, 2009 3:26 PM Jesse "The Mind" Norman writes:

I've caught you Caday

being totally intellecutally dishonest. I said what Jesus said on the cross wasn't a sin, plain as day. I'm asking you why it wasn't a sin. There is a reason for it. Don't dance around your inability to answer that question and accuse me of heresy. As a fundamentalist Christian, it's my opinion the answer to this question is quite important because the answer is so enlightening. I don't mind agreeing to disagree, but then you say things that show that you go straight against God's word. Why is Israel so important to me? Okay Caday. For your argument's sake nobody specific is to have the land of Israel. Why does Satan, who will be the power of this world, come after the woman who beared the man child in Megiddo. That is where much of the world goes, right? Why? Why is Jerusalem a burdensome stone in the last days? The meek inherit the Earth AFTER this age, Caday. Not during it. Jesus reigns on Earth with his saints in the next age while Satan is imprisoned in the bottomless pit for a thousand years. That's where the meek inherits the Earth. I'll answer my question below. Argue with it with whatever logic you have, because no traditional teachers teach it.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Monday, March, 02, 2009 3:35 PM Jesse "The Mind" Norman writes:

Psalm 22

This psalm is the most important psalm and maybe the most important thing written in all of the Bible. It's the answer to the question I posed to you. Psalm 22 starts of just what Jesus said on the cross. "My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?" Why did Jesus repeat this verse? Onto verse 16 says "For dogs have compassed me, the assembly of the wicked have inclosed me. They pierced my hands and my feet." That word "pierced" is a perfect example of why the new translations of the Bible suck so bad. In the new translations that I've seen, the word "pierced" was turned into "bound". It loses the entire meaning. Christ did die by having his hand and feet pierced on the cross. The original Hebrew word there is (aw-ree) which does mean pierced. It can mean bound, but the implication of the word here particularly means "like a lion". Does a lion pierce or bind its prey? There was no reason to correct this word. Jesus wasn't talking to God on the cross. He was quoting scripture. He was telling those who have ears that Psalm 22 is him. The Psalms were written by King David around 1000 BC. The Jews knew nothing of crucifixion until the Romans came in 76 BC. This psalm predicted Jesus would die by crucifixion 900 years before they knew of crucifixion. The genius of this prophecy was to make people ask when Jesus repeated it on the cross "why wasn't that a sin?" Psalm 22 is the answer why. He wasn't talking to God. He was talking to us.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Monday, March, 02, 2009 3:52 PM Jesse "The Mind" Norman writes:

There is another age after this one

God spoke through the Holy Spirit and through His elect in the original languages of Hebrew and Greek right? Matthew 24:3 the disciples privily asked Jesus the signs of the end of the world and his return. The word "world" in the original Greek in that particular verse is their for age. The disciples were saying when Jesus returns, that ends this age. If it meant world, then make sense of Revelation 20 for me. If Jesus ended the world, then how can he reign on Earth with his saints for a thousand years while Satan is in the bottomless pit? If there isn't another age, then tell me how this comes to pass? If that happens in this during our time as we know it, then how does Satan come from the bottomless pit to try to deceive the world again? Where is the bottomless pit? The NT was written nearly 2000 years ago. What happened to the millennium if there is no age after this one? Learn the Bible's original languages or get a Strong's concordance. Lots of mistranslations in the KJV. Even more mistakes in the new translations, as I have been stating forever it seems. What is more credible? The original languages, or the translation thereof?
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Monday, March, 02, 2009 6:52 PM caday5 writes:

Jesse

Now you are getting to the premillennium, postmillenium, and amillenium interpretations of the scriptures.

You gave an ambiguous message. You said that we have another age in which to accept Christ. That statement is wide open for interpretation. Do you mean that once we die, we have another chance? The answer is no to that.

If you are referring to the millenium, I suggest that you read what people from the above camps say. We are all fellow Christians who are trying to understand God's Word. For those of us who are not premillennial in our theology, the question we have is how many 2nd comings of Christ do we have. According to those who hold to the premillennial viewpoint, there is one at the rapture where Christ gathers his believers, there is the thousand year reign, and there is the one at the end of the 1,000 year reign after the final battle. The premillenial view, which is your view, does not satisfactorily interpret the scriptures regarding Christ and the end times to us.

Regarding Psalm 22, you are not saying anything new. One does not have to refer to Psalm 22 to discuss the concepts there. Again, Jesus was taking our place on the Cross, the innocent for the guilty--which is what I said--which is why the most important greek preposition is huper (the word we get hyper from) which means in place of in this context. It can also mean above depending on the case of the noun it refers to
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Tuesday, March, 03, 2009 9:30 AM Jesse "The Mind" Norman writes:

I'm not saying anything new?

Then why didn't you know the answer? I know traditional teachers don't teach the corrolation between Psalm 22 and Christ on the cross. You just went ahead and read it after I pointed it out to you and saw that there was no argument to be made for it. As for the next age, there is another age after this one. Again, as it's written in the original Greek. It doesn't say that once Jesus returns that he leaves again. As a matter of fact, Jesus and his saints stay on Earth as Satan tries to deceive the world again. Those who are deceived try to make war with the saints, but God stops them and ends that age. Then the books are opened and judgment is given. Not beforehand. If there isn't an age where people can make a choice, then who are the dead that aren't allowed to live again until the end of the millennium? How can those who've never heard of Christ or didn't have the chance to learn about him get punished by God? Unless you accept there is another age after this one, then you cannot make sense of Revelation 20.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Tuesday, March, 03, 2009 11:15 AM caday5 writes:

Jesse

When you read the NT about Jesus' next coming, it is definitive. It says that like he ascended, he will descend as he came (Acts 1). While I Thessalonians is clear, the coming of Christ is salvation for his saints, both the dead and living, but will be destruction for the rest--not a secret coming where only the saints are rescued but destruction does not come to the rest. Matthew repeats a similar theme. This is the difference between us. While you say there is more stuff that happens like the 1,000 year reign and the battle with Satan, these passages state that their destruction come immediately.

As for those who never heard, they are still sinners and how God holds them accountable will be just because God is just.

BTW, I said the answer without referring to the Psalms passage which I knew about anyway. It is the concept behind his statement, not just the literal citing of the passage that is the issue.

EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Tuesday, March, 03, 2009 1:43 PM Jesse "The Mind" Norman writes:

you're such a liar

You just didn't know the answer. Fess up to it. Traditional teachers say either that Jesus didn't have the ability to sin, which is false, or that when Jesus said that it was his moment of doubt. If it was doubt and he accused God of forsaking him, then that would be a sin. Your words that disguise your inability to answer that question might fool someone out there but it won't fool me. The "concept" behind that statement was to make people ask that question and refer to Psalm 22, which you DIDN'T know about or else you would have answered the question correctly. Where does it say when Jesus returns that punishment is given to everyone without faith? Again, you can't answer what is written in the original Greek with your logic. Where is the bottomless pit? Who are the dead that live again after the thousand years are fulfilled in Revelation 20:5. It clearly states that after the first resurrection, the rest of the dead lived not again until the thousand years are fulfilled. Why is the Greek word for Matthew 24:3 "age" instead of "world"? Most times when "world" is mentioned in the NT, it isn't "age" in the original Greek, so why there? Seriously, which is more credible to you? God's word in their original languages of Hebrew and Greek, or the English translation of those words? Original Greek has Jesus ending this age. The English translation has Jesus ending the world, but yet somehow Rev. 20 still has to come to pass. How do those later chapters of Revelation come to pass? Satan comes out of the bottomless pit to deceive the world, but Rev. 12 says that Satan has come DOWN onto Earth after Michael and his angels kick Satan and his angels out of heaven. Those are two different happenings.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Tuesday, March, 03, 2009 4:55 PM caday5 writes:

Jesse I

This is the problem. When one side wants to throw accusations at someone else because of different beliefs. I was very well aware of that Psalm though its exact number I didn't know. And, again, the concept behind the statement was Jesus standing in our place as the innocent being condemned as the sinner.

But it seems to me that what is important to some is the feeling that they have won or dominated. You can add that to one's humility. And this is why we have the Middle East problem that we have. That some, on each side, want to dominate and thus find reason why they should have that right. That is true with some Arab Muslims and some Israeli Jews--though we should note that those who are attacking each other range from secular to religious on each side.

Romans Chapters 1-3 are most instructive for us all. In Romans Chapter 1, Paul lays out the case that the nonbeliever is lost in sin. In Chapter 2, Paul lays out the same case for the religious who wish to judge nonreligious and others. He culminates this in Chapter 3 when he first says that the only advantage that the Jew has over the Gentile is not his own qualities but what God has entrusted him with--the Word of God. But Paul insists that the Jew is not better than the Gentile because like the Gentile, the Jew is a sinner. Then Paul quotes the Psalms to show just how sinful the religious and nonreligious people are. What is complementary to this is Jesus' parable of the 2 men sinning where the one who looked down on the other was condemned while the one confessing himself to be a helpless sinner was justified.

EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Tuesday, March, 03, 2009 4:55 PM caday5 writes:

Jesse II

So choose which approach you wish to take. Do you wish to continue the discussion as an equal sinner or do you wish to claim some sort of superiority which does not put any of us in a good position with God.

And btw, again the concept I quoted is the concept behind the Psalm you cited. If you wish to jump to conclusions in order to make an accusation, no one can stop you. But think of the position you put yourself in.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Tuesday, March, 03, 2009 6:50 PM Jesse "The Mind" Norman writes:

the concept?

I asked you why that wasn't a sin. There's nothing conceptual about Jesus saying "My God, my God why hast thou forsaken me?" and him dying in place of our sins. Jesus' whole life was conceptually to die innocently for our sins, so what's your point on "conception" with the question I put to you with what he said on the cross? You know what traditional teachers say about Jesus' statement on the cross. They either say it was impossible for him to sin or that it was his moment of doubt. I don't care if you knew what Psalm it was, you just didn't corrolate it with the question I asked you, instead you blatantly twisted my words and accused me of saying that Jesus sinned. You accuse me of being uncivil, but yet you accused me of heresy. It's hard to take the moral high ground when you blatantly turned my words to cover your inability to answer the question. Again to show your inability to answer the question, and inability to put Psalm 22 with his last moments. As for superiority, someone has to be right about God's word. Again, more cover by someone who is anything but civil when discussing opinions. When you can't answer simple questions I pose to you, you have to say I'm being highminded and having a superiority complex. Look in the damn mirror.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Tuesday, March, 03, 2009 8:31 PM caday5 writes:

Concept is what theology

or any subject is about. It isn't about the literal definitions of words because the meaning of any word can depend on the context in which it is used. For example, your favorite word for age is not wrongly translated world depending on the context.

The question Jesus cries out on the cross assumes that he is innocent. For if he was guilty, the answer to the question is obvious. That is God was not forsaking him, God was punishing him. Jesus' question is significant only when one realizes that Jesus was innocent of sin and is God's son and yet consider cursed by God because, as the scripture say, those who hang on a tree are cursed (Galations)

BTW, I haven't accused you of heresy. What I have pointed out is that devout, Bible believing Christians have differences of opinions. I did remind you of what it means to look down on others. God knows if you are. You know too. It is a warning we must all pay attention to.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Wednesday, March, 04, 2009 11:10 AM Eric writes:

caday5 and jesse

interesting discussions you both are having. I may have to consult my father. He is a very brilliant theologian who has studied many forms of Christianity, and has preached for years. He is currently a chaplain at a prison. If you want to I can ask him the translation of the NT and the verses you two have given. Just let me know.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Wednesday, March, 04, 2009 12:51 PM Snow Knight writes:

caday5

yes you have. You have twisted what both jesse and I have written. Jesse was straightforward and you twisted what he said about Jesus words on the cross. You have a very bad habit of this and I am convinced it is becuse you just want to drag arguements on forever--well i have news for you -caday5 - God's word is final--It is all revealed in Revelation---why are you argueing over it???
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Wednesday, March, 04, 2009 12:54 PM Snow Knight writes:

Eric-welcome!!

By all means consult your Dad. I do belive his insights will confirm much truth that was presented!!I look forward to reading it!!
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Wednesday, March, 04, 2009 12:55 PM Snow Knight writes:

Jesse

my new post will be up soon.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Wednesday, March, 04, 2009 3:29 PM caday5 writes:

Snow

You know that is wrong. I haven't twisted anything. But what I have asked time and time again that neither of you have answered is how do you reconcile a literal interpretation of the NT that contradicts your literal interpretation of the OT.

Again, Paul brings up the true descendants of Abraham twice (Romans 9 and Galations). Jesus also brings it up. And there is no mention in the NT about the regather of Israel. The passage in Luke can easily refer to the sacking of Jerusalem in 70 AD and even if it doesn't, it still doesn't talk of the regathering of Israel.

The only NT passage that deals with the salvation of Israel, which in the OT was the promised land, says that Israel must believe in Jesus to be saved (Romans 9).

And the characteristics that Israel must display in order to recapture the promised land in its entirety go against what Jesus tells us to do and be.

All you have done is said one group is entitled to dominate another group. Yet Jesus calls us to be servants.

Finally, Revelation doesn't support your view unless you follow the Dispensational interpretation of it. There are too many problems with that interpretation. You act as if I am challenging what God said, I am not. I disagree with your interpretation of God's Word. Yous guys have sometimes reacted to that disagreement with insults. I respect the dispensational approach but I also disagree with it.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Wednesday, March, 04, 2009 4:46 PM Jesse "The Mind" Norman writes:

your own words betrayed you Caday

You said you knew the answer but then said Jesus was asking a question on the cross. He was not asking a question on the cross. He wasn't talking to God at all. He was quoting scripture which was Psalm 22. I thought you said you understood and knew the answer was a psalm that you couldn't remember the number to. You didn't accuse me of heresy? "And why charge Jesus with sin for saying what he did? Wasn't undergoing the curse for us, the innocent condemned in the place of the guilty?" I pasted your words here to make sure it was quoted in verbatim. You said this after I said "When Jesus said on the cross "My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?", why wasn't it a sin? Give me your best fundamentlist answer. I'll give you a clue. It's not because it was impossible for him to sin, but there is a specific reason why this wasn't a sin." This is undisputable proof you accused me of heresy and are a liar. I really don't need the translations of the words written in the KJV. I have a Strong's Exhaustive Concordance which was published in 1890. There are no mistakes in it with tracing the KJV back to the original words in Hebrew or Greek. It's actually a very famous study guide and if there were errors in it, they would have been exposed. The word "world" in Matthew 24:3 in the original Greek is (ahee-OWN) which is their word for age. Many other times in the NT, the word "world" is cosmos in the Greek, but not in every instance. Sure go ahead and have your father check it out. Many people actually do know about the word "age" in Matthew 24:3.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Thursday, March, 05, 2009 9:40 AM Snow Knight writes:

Wrong! again caday

"and why charge Jesus with sin for saying what he did?" you said these words and now they are coming back to bite you on the butt. They are here for the whole internet to see!! and I NEVER NEVER said that one group is entitled to dominate another group-so now are you putting words in my mouth that I did not say!!! ALSO the book of Revelation supports plainly my position because it it plainly shows who wins--Jesus- the king. of Zion and Israel. That what God says in his word---it is your problem if you disagree with what is plainly taught-dispansationalism or not what is plain is plain!!!!!!
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Thursday, March, 05, 2009 10:40 AM Jesse "The Mind" Norman writes:

he's got a habit

of doing that when his arguments don't hold water. Almost like a politician in a debate they're clearly losing. I made the featured blogger. Pretty cool, eh?
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Thursday, March, 05, 2009 2:27 PM Snow Knight writes:

Your right Jess

What really peved me was he tried to put words in my mouth that I did not say!!!We have both been straightforward with sound Bibical truth and he just wants the run-around. I will be happy to see Erics fathers input. Hey congrats on the featured blogger thing!!!
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Thursday, March, 05, 2009 4:10 PM ben-Israel writes:

Jesse, Knight

I want to thank both of you for your strong stands that you have taken. You have both presented your positions very straightforwardly and they are Biblically true. It takes great courage to stand for the word of God especially when the howling storm is blowing it's wind.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Thursday, March, 05, 2009 4:13 PM Jesse "The Mind" Norman writes:

Snow Knight

There's not much that agitates me more than when someone puts words in my mouth. Thanks for the congrats. I thought they reserved that for just celebrity bloggers like Ann Coulter.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Thursday, March, 05, 2009 4:15 PM ben-Israel writes:

Mr Eric-Shalom

Please do. I would really like to know your fathers thoughts on these issues-especially regarding Israel. Shalom.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Thursday, March, 05, 2009 4:16 PM Jesse "The Mind" Norman writes:

ben-Israel

You're welcome. I don't know if it's courage that makes me stand up for God's true word the way I do. I just have it in me to do so, and again to stand behind the people of Israel. I think more it's a lack of courage or knowledge of God's word that keeps people from standing up like Snow Knight and I have.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Thursday, March, 05, 2009 8:59 PM davecatbone writes:

Snow Knight

the number committed to attending has risen to almost 2000 through word of mouth. This thing is building.....Cincinnati Tea Party March 15 3:00 pm downtown Fountain Square.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Friday, March, 06, 2009 3:44 PM Jesse "The Mind" Norman writes:

new blog up

come by when u can
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Sunday, March, 08, 2009 8:09 AM caday5 writes:

I charged Jesus

with what? What sin did I charge him with? I said he suffered as a sinner in our place though he was innocent.

Second, if you believe that the Jews have more right to the land than the Palestinians, then yes, you endorse one group dominating over another. That isn't putting words in your mouth, that is the logical conclusion that is drawn by what you say.

The book of Revelation does not support your position. It does not support the Jews dominating the Palestinians in Israel and Palestine. Rather, we see the sin of mankind being judged in Revelation with no nation being identified as good.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Sunday, March, 08, 2009 3:00 PM Jesse "The Mind" Norman writes:

it took you a few days

to twist something else, eh Caday? You're either a liar, or are a complete moron. I never said you charged Jesus with sin. You did with me though. That's what I pointed out, and did so clear as day. Can't you read? Does this trick work with other people? You put words in their mouth and they are too dumb to realize what you're doing and therefore start defending themselves in pity. Who the heck have you been debating when you think this kind of thing works? Then you backtrack about "Revelation doesn't support your claim about Jews having Israel"... But you can't answer two questions I've asked you - I don't know how many times. Why does Satan come after the woman that beared the man child? And why does the world gathering come to attack at Megiddo? Satan will have control over the most of the nations of this world. He's going to come after the people of Mary, who was a Jew. The gathering of his army will meet at Megiddo, a place in northern Israel. Yes, Revelation does support my belief. And no, you don't have an answer for it. Don't put words in my mouth again.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Monday, March, 09, 2009 8:32 AM caday5 writes:

Jesse

It is easy to accuse anyone of things when not knowing the context. I simply misread your note because of exhaustion from work and other things going on and I don't care what your reaction is.

And I guess we are even because when did I accuse you of heresy?

Other than that, my explanation for why Jesus said what he said is theologically sound. You are just trying to play a game of "gotcha" and thus are hyper about any deviation from your view of what is correct.

As for your questions, consider who the child is for your first question.

For the second question, tell me who Revelation 16 states are the participants. Tell me how many great days of the wrath of God or the great day of the Lord are there (Rev 6:17; 16:14) especially when working with the 6th seal or angel? And which is the final battle, the one in Rev 16 or Rev 19? Both gather the kings of the earth?

There are many writing styles and techniques. Using parallism is more helpful in studying Rev rather than read through it sequentially.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Monday, March, 09, 2009 9:27 AM Snow Knight writes:

old tricks caday?

How long will you play these games? when we see right thru you. Nether me or Jesse accused Jesus of sin nor endorsing one group dominating another--I proved to you a looong time ago that the whole area was'nt even called "palistine" untill the Roman empire.God gave that land to Israel thru the Abrahamic covenant. The Romans called the land "palistine" as a swipe agenst the Jews who were launching rebellions agenst Rome (Palistine taken from the Philistines-ancient enimies of Israel) As far as the land today---Jesus is the mediator of the new covenent(we covered THAT also if you remember) The decendants of Abraham today are in Christ--there will be a NEW heaven and a NEW earth--we get the whole shebang-The King of Kings and Lord of Lords -the King of Zion ----wins--any questions????
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Monday, March, 09, 2009 12:11 PM caday5 writes:

Snow

The accusatory tone used by you and Jesse show problems. First, so the land was called Palestine after the Romans came; that is a superficial issue. What was the issue was that you had people living on the land for almost 2 millennium. And what you and Jesse want is for, what started as a European movement, Jews from other nations to have more rights to the land than the indigenous people. That is domination.

And again, as I have pointed out in the NT, the descendants of Abraham who are to receive the promises are those who, like Abraham, believed God's Promise. That is for us, the Gospel. That is clearly written in the NT. Again, there is no mention of the regathering of Jews in the NT, not even in Revelation. And Paul states that salvation for the Jews, that is the regrafting of the Jews into the vine occurs with believing the Gospel, not the regathering in Israel.

Finally, the traits that we are commanded to have are not the traits that are necessary for dominating the land. In fact the traits needed for the latter cause are what you and Jesse show on this board. That is far from the fruit of the Spirit or what Jesus commands in the beatitudes
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Monday, March, 09, 2009 4:02 PM Jesse "The Mind" Norman writes:

caday

You're not fooling anyone. You won't accept anything that is the truth. If it points the blame in your direction or you are proven to be wrong, you will deny it to your heart's content. You know very well what you did. You didn't misread anything, because that wasn't the only time I made it clear that Jesus didn't sin when he said that. You do have a habit of putting words into other people's mouths. I do not accept your explanation because it's a lie. If I am wrong about something, even though I won't like it, I'll accept that I am wrong about something and make amends. That's one thing that sets you apart from me. You can't debate with your conscience. All you can do is ignore it and allow your mind to explain away any blame.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Monday, March, 09, 2009 4:04 PM Jesse "The Mind" Norman writes:

and again

you didn't answer my questions
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Monday, March, 09, 2009 5:06 PM caday5 writes:

Jesse

Again, your notes are simply an attempt to dominate. You first start with accusations about fooling nobody. Who said I was trying to? You did and on these boards accusations are easy to make because you never have to prove what you say.

Second, I did answer your questions regarding Revelation. You asked about the child and the mother and I replied with asking who do you think the child is. You asked about Megiddo and I referred you to another passage in Revelation as well as pointed you to the practice of parallelism which will come into play when interpreting Revelation.

What you did not show was the regathering of Jews to Israel in the NT. What you did not show was why the location of the battle at Megiddo implies such a regathering. That the child was Jewish and that the battle takes place in Megiddo, in a book filled with symbolism, does not implies the regathering of the Jews. Jesus scolded the Jews of his day when they rejected him while claiming Moses and Abraham as being a part of their heritage. Jesus told them that if that was the case, then they would believe the Gospel. But since they didn't, Jesus said that the Jews who did not believe could not claim Moses and Abraham.

So while Paul, the ultimate Jew, says that while not all Israel are of Israel, he says it with a specific purpose and ultimately uses belief in the Gospel as the criteria for determining who is a true descendant of Israel. This contradicts what some Christians say about Israel such as physical lineage entitling them to the promises made to Abraham.

So returning to Revelation, there is nothing about the regathering of Israel there. But what we do notice is several sections of Revelation employing parallelism to give multiple perspectives on the last days, which officially started with the ascension of Jesus.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Monday, March, 09, 2009 6:05 PM Jesse "The Mind" Norman writes:

1+1=2

Notice you left out Satan coming after the WOMAN that beared the man child. The child was Jesus, and anyone believing upon him is a Christian. It didn't say Satan was coming after the man child. The reason why it's written that Satan comes after the woman that beared him, it separates Jew from Christian. Jesus' descendants spiritually are Christians. Mary's descendants and her race was Jewish. That's what the point was of saying Satan will come after the woman the beared the man child. Since Satan will control most of the world, and the world meets at Megiddo for battle, then it shows he will come after the JEWS in ISRAEL. It's more than implied here. 1+1=2 You either tried to fool me or just don't have what it takes upstairs. To say that I accused Jesus of committing a sin would be heresy. I asked you that question many times, so you didn't misread that one time. I shouldn't have to go back and count how many times I asked why that wasn't a sin. It would be pretty pathetic if you misread my question every single time considering the number of times I asked it.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Tuesday, March, 10, 2009 8:44 AM caday5 writes:

You have not proved your point

You have offered an interpretation but in a way as if that is the only interpretation possible. That does not prove your point especially when there is a high degree of symbolism used.

First, vs 4 says exactly why the dragon stood before the woman, it was to devour the male child. We could not only point to Herod's attempt to kill Jesus here, but also Satan's attempt to cause Jesus to sin.

Jesus is protected by God but what of the woman and who is she? First, she flees to the wilderness where God provides for her. If you remember the wilderness, it was a place of testing, such as for the Jews and Jesus, and escape, such as Israel's escape from the oppression of the Egyptians. That the male child is Jesus is obvious by the description of his rule. The woman could stand for the people of God, but this would be the faithful people of God called the remnant. The remnant was referred to in both the OT and NT with, again, not all Israel are of Israel (Rom 9:6ff).

But also note the war that takes place; it is in heaven, not on earth.

Now the interpretation I offered above is a possible explanation. I see it as having more validity, though certainly not without fault, than you using this passage to divide two peoples of God, the Jews and the Church. This two NT peoples of God is not supported in the NT. We certainly do not see it in any of the other books of the NT. Rather, what we do see is one faith and one baptism applying to one people of God. And we see in the NT that unless one believes in Christ, they are not considered as belonging to the people of God. In the Jews case, those Jews who did not believe in Jesus were, to their own doom, relying on the works of the law. And again, the promises of Abraham flow through Christ, as Paul said in Galations, and thus to not believe would prevent one from receiving the promises to Abraham.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Tuesday, March, 10, 2009 8:20 PM Jesse "The Mind" Norman writes:

just proved my point further

The woman goes into the wilderness that God provided for her. What is the wilderness? The wilderness during the time of Exodus was the trek to Israel. The voice crying in the wilderness was John the Baptist in where? Satan comes after the woman that beared the man child. You correctly (for once) pointed out it was to devour the man child. What do the armies under Satan do when Jesus tries to return? As far as the remnant goes, the remnant is often referred to the remnant of the election of grace who have not lived yet.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Tuesday, March, 10, 2009 9:31 PM caday5 writes:

Even you haven't proved your point

I believed you said:

"It didn't say Satan was coming after the man child. The reason why it's written that Satan comes after the woman that beared him, it separates Jew from Christian. Jesus' descendants spiritually are Christians. Mary's descendants and her race was Jewish"

Note your first sentence and then note Rev 12:4.
There is a contradiction. Because the woman goes into the wilderness doesn't mean she is Israel; Jesus went into the wilderness.

There is no division here between the Jewish followers from the Christian followers. There is nothing to indicate that.

All I said was that the male child, more accurate than man child, was Jesus and the woman was the people of God. Jesus was taken up to heaven with a battle in heaven that followed. The male child was not the Christians as distinguished from the Jews. There is nothing in Revelation to even suggest that. Also, remember that the woman goes to the wilder AFTER Jesus goes to heaven.

Finally, what you don't account for is the NT distinction between the true Israel and those who were the physical descendants of Israel but are not counted as Israel because they are children of the flesh (again, see Romans 9:6ff). What you don't account for is what the NT says about there being one faith and baptism. There are no two people of God. There are those who, like Abraham, believed the promise by believing the Gospel and those who rely on the works of the law.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Wednesday, March, 11, 2009 1:59 AM Jesse "The Mind" Norman writes:

again, aie aie aie

On Earth, Satan comes after the woman that beared the man child. Is Jesus on Earth? Last I checked, he was not. No, I wasn't contradicting myself. Satan comes after Jesus after going after the woman. As Jesus returns from heaven, Satan and his followers will try to stop him, but that is at the very end. When Jesus returns, that ends this age. There is no more war with the woman that beared the man child. Where does Jesus land in his return? Right where Satan will be ready. The land where the woman was that brought forth the man child.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Wednesday, March, 11, 2009 2:08 AM Jesse "The Mind" Norman writes:

one more thing

You said that the woman are the people of God? That doesn't even make sense, but that's the best conclusion you can make in your mind so that it doesn't mean Mary who was a Jew. How can we, as people of God, bear the man child?
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Wednesday, March, 11, 2009 9:27 AM caday5 writes:

That the Child is

Jesus is beyond dispute considering how the child is described. He is described as the ruler of all nations who is snatched up to God's throne.

As for the woman, I understand the disagreement. Only note that what happens to the woman afterwards indicates that it isn't Mary for as the male child is snatched up to heaven, the mother is sent to the wilderness where God nourishes her.

If we look at the mother as being the lineage of God's people, which is continued afterwards through faith, which correlates to the true, rather than merely physical, children of God. When we read both testaments, this distinguishing the children of the promise from the children of the flesh is a constant and central theme. That core of that theme is that the lineage of God's people runs counter to depending on the flesh, such as depending merely on physcial lineage.

Examples of this lineage includes Isaac as opposed to Ishmael and Jacob as opposed to Esau. But it also includes the remnant who did not bow the knee during Elijah's time and David as opposed to Solomon in terms of kingdom. In fact, this children of the promise allowed a non-Jewish mother, Ruth, to be part of the lineage of Jesus.

For Jesus, the lineage depended on who believed in him vs the pharisees who he described as being children of Satan, if memory serves.

Also, if reading serves, Satan stands before the woman, rather than comes after her and then tries to attack Jesus, to devour the child. With the war in heaven having been cited as well, we have to ask if John is reporting about a historical past, present and future or merely a prophetic future. The battle lost in heaven by the dragon is just one indication that it is the former (Luke 10:18, John 12:31).
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Wednesday, March, 11, 2009 4:30 PM Jesse "The Mind" Norman writes:

wow

Thoughtful disagreements from you at last. Makes things so much easier. Problem is with the word "wilderness", which I pointed out has to do with Israel. Also let's not forget the 144,000 Jews who are in Israel preparing the way for the Lord's return. Revelation in the Greek is Apocalypse, which I'm sure you know. Nothing in Revelation is the past. Apocalypse means "to reveal". You don't reveal the past. You reveal the future. Why some things are written in past tense is because John of Patmos was taken into the future, so to him they were the past. That's why when it says "I saw these things...", it's because he did through this vision. After the war in heaven, remember it says woe to the inhabitants of Earth for the Devil has come down unto you having great wrath. That hasn't happened yet.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Wednesday, March, 11, 2009 5:34 PM caday5 writes:

Revelation

doesn't have to mean telling the future. It simply means uncovering and that can refer to a veiled past as much as an unknown future. And when history provides a context for understanding the future, there is nothing in the name that rules out covering the past.

As for the 144,000, the perfection in numbers would indicate a symbolic meaning more than any literal meaning possibly for fullness. We see a seal guaranteeing their protection. And note that the tribe of Dan is left out. And what we have is a tribe of from one of the sons of Joseph. That who is being sealed are the servants of God, noting past NT statements regarding the equality of Jews and Gentiles in the Church could include Gentiles with this number as well.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Wednesday, March, 11, 2009 5:46 PM Jesse "The Mind" Norman writes:

you're kidding me

it's mentioned specifically 12,000 from each tribe so it can't be taken as a "symbolic" meaning. What would the number have to do with anything symbolic, especially considering it says 144,000 then breaks down each tribe to 12,000. Anything to keep yourself from admitting you're wrong. Are you allergic to learning? And no, nothing in Revelation has happened yet. Why the need of a vision to see the past and write about it? The Bible is the history itself, so why need another human see it then write about it. Where is Satan if he has already come down having great wrath? Where is his wrath that lasts for 3 and a half years?
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Wednesday, March, 11, 2009 8:30 PM caday5 writes:

the fact that

it was exactly 12,000 from 12 tribes indicates that it is symbolic. Then also what do we do with the missing tribe of Dan which is replaced by a tribe from the sons of Joseph. the number 12 is represents certain symbols.

As for the literal interpretation, how can we distinguish who will count from each tribe since it has been multiple millennium since the tribes have mixed?

Besides your insults, which do not show the fruit of the Spirit, the purpose of Revelation was not to bless only those who live right before the rapture, tribulation, and the events you see that follow, it blesses all who read and follow its words. Its words must, therefore, apply to all Christians. And that Revelation cannot refer to the Gospel when its purpose is to bless all Christians seems inappropriate.

I think that if you were exposed to 4 schools of eschatology and see the Biblical case made for each one, you could respectfully disagree rather than be accusatory when a point is made that disagrees with your interpretation.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Thursday, March, 12, 2009 1:00 AM Jesse "The Mind" Norman writes:

well in that case

If the Bible is mostly symbolic, as most of these highly educated professors on theology put forth, then what is the point of God writing it? There are certainly some symbolic things, but most of God's word is written directly and to the point to be understood to the point. You can outthink scripture, but words are words.

I'm also not wanting to open up a new discussion with you, but there will be no rapture. The teachers teaching their flock how to fly will have them torn from their clutches when the rapture is supposed to happen and it does not. Then they will be in for a rude awakening. The mystery of God won't be finished until the sounding of the seventh trump. If all of the sudden millions of people are gone before anything happens, won't the mystery be gone? As Christians, we are taught to put on our armor. Not to escape the time, but to go through it and be a beacon to those around us.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Thursday, March, 12, 2009 7:45 AM caday5 writes:

Jesse

Why take an all or nothing approach? Why not let the writing style of the Biblical writers determine how symbolic the contents are.

This approach doesn't deny that the Scriptures are inspired, rather, it recognizes the different way inspired writing can take place. It recognizes that God can speak to us in many ways and yet, His sovereignty still controls the content character by character.

I do agree with your point on any pre or mid tribulation rapture.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Thursday, March, 12, 2009 2:10 PM Snow Knight writes:

caday

How can you say Revelation cannot refer to the Gospel?-it does because all of our hope is in Christ. All scripure is for our instruction and yes a lot of it is sybolic--like God covering us over by his wings- however caday alot is indeed literal. I have said to you that the "Lamb wins" --also the gathering of the 144,000 proves the triumph of Zion-NO question. Both Jesse and I have no problem with this because God's word is right--no arguement.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Thursday, March, 12, 2009 6:35 PM caday5 writes:

Snow

Try the whole quote:

"And that Revelation cannot refer to the Gospel when its purpose is to bless all Christians seems inappropriate."

The above quote was part of a response that challenged Jesse's contention that Revelation could not contain descriptions of the past.

And as for your proof, how? When you have a symbolic number that can't be literally fulfilled since you have a mixture of the tribes and since vs 3 says the "servants of God", the symbolism abounds here and though we may not be precise in interpreting the symbolism, its presence shows that the verse is not proof of you contention. And consider than at least one of the tribes were not the tribes of Israel but of Joseph and that one of the tribes of Israel was excluded, then something is a amiss in your statement.

The question here isn't whether it is God's Word, the question is how to correctly interpret the sections of Revelation about which we are speaking.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Friday, March, 13, 2009 3:30 AM Jesse "The Mind" Norman writes:

I don't

and again you're putting words in my mouth. I said some of the things are symbolic in the Bible, but it's not nearly everything like these so-called experts put forth. They complicate things to justify their education.They twist the words to make it more difficult than it really is, so that way they think the "common man" cannot comprehend it without their help. Most of the Bible is written directly and literally, or else God shouldn't have written it. Not everything needs to be a puzzle.

Doesn't God have the power to keep a certain amount of each tribe within each tribe? Considering how many Jews are in the world, twelve thousand from each tribe isn't many. It could be you're right about the mixture, but maybe it has to do with the lineage of each person's father. That's an important thing to consider since it's important in the Bible. Maybe it has to do with the land divided amongst the twelve tribes. There's no way I can accept that when God numbers an amount of people that it's only symbolic. There has to be a literal component.

It's good you don't believe in any pre or mid-trib rapture. I don't believe in any.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Friday, March, 13, 2009 6:45 AM caday5 writes:

Or,

it could be symbolic. that is why you have 12,000 from each tribe. Not that God couldn't do that but that such a description points to a symbolic use rather than a literal use.

Certain numbers represent ideas. The numbers 6, 7, and 12 after the works of man, creation by God, and both the 12 tribes of Israel and the 12 apostles respectively. And again, not all of the tribes of Israel are included in this 144,000.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Friday, March, 13, 2009 11:45 AM Snow Knight writes:

symbolic or not caday

It proves my position-Zion wins. Jesus will return to this earth to kick the anti-christ's butt-when this will happen is up to him-not us.now you can "interpret" that anyway that you want to caday-but the truth is crystal clear Zion triumphs. Now since you have acknowledged the land was called "palistine" by the Romans then you must also realise that the indigonus people are not the "palistinians"
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Friday, March, 13, 2009 6:11 PM Jesse "The Mind" Norman writes:

I realize that Caday,

in which the 12,000 from each of the tribes spoken of in Revelation seem to be pointing to the land they come from. Remember, Joseph was sold into slavery by his brothers to Egyptians, so he didn't actually have his own land unlike his brothers. I know about symbolic numbers. You're talking to me like I'm seven years old. My contention is that the numbers aren't ONLY symbolic. There has to be a literal component to the numbers. The amount could be symbolic, and the people from those tribes could be real. I don't see the point in numbering an amount of people, but there are no people and that it's just a symbolic reference. Makes no sense.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Friday, March, 13, 2009 6:24 PM caday5 writes:

Snow

How does it prove your point if the 144,000, 12,000 from 12 tribes, is symbolic does it prove your point regarding the regathering of Jews to Israel before the final battle? It doesn't. And in fact, if the 144,000 consists of both gentiles and Jews, then Zion takes on a completely different meaning than you have assigned to it.

Finally, when generation of families have been living on the land for almost 2 millennium, they have as much right to be called indigenous as any people have to be called indigenous. And to think of them as foreigners and European Jews as owning the land shows a serious lack of objectivity. But worse than that, the heartless displacement of these Palestinians gives one serious accountability issues with God because each Palestinian, whether secular, Christian or Muslim, is made in the image of God. And that is who you are attacking when you support their displacement. It is as serious as attacking Israelis with rockets and suicide attacks because each Israeli is made in the image of God.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Saturday, March, 14, 2009 8:48 AM caday5 writes:

Jesse,

Sorry but the last note addressed to Snow was for you first, then Snow.

There is no compelling reason to take that 144,000 literally.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Saturday, March, 14, 2009 8:02 PM Jesse "The Mind" Norman writes:

not going backwards

to everyone but you I have proven conclusively with NT scripture that the Jews are to have Israel in the last days. I'm not going to beat a dead horse. "There's no compelling reason to take the 144,000 literally". Then there isn't any compelling reason to take anything literally. Only 12,000 from that group are Gentiles. 132,000 are Jews. Does the disparity in numbers tell you anything? I take it that it doesn't, especially considering they won't really exist.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Saturday, March, 14, 2009 11:11 PM caday5 writes:

Jesse

You have declared but not proven it. You have yet to handle the true descendants of Abraham--it is to his true descendants that all of the promises are given. You brush aside the symbolic nature in which the 144,000 are described and declare that that is besides the point and you forget that the symbolic number could very well include all servants of God--gentiles and Jews. Your all or nothing reasoning doesn't implore people to read the scriptures to see how they should be interpreted, but only to read everything literally regardless of what the other scriptures say and the writing styles used. In the end, you are merely performing eisegesis (reading into) rather than exegesis (reading out of)

And you haven't handled Paul's argument in Romans 11 that shows Israel's salvation is centered in their belief in Christ, not in any regathering or possession of the land. And Romans 9:6ff shows that not all of the physical descendants of Israel are Israel; it is the children of the promise, not of the flesh, who are the true descendants of Israel. Jesus makes similar distinctions.

You have also failed to justify the traits necessary to obtain and control the land are opposite to the traits that Christ commands us to have. This causes many to hate the Gospel for non-Gospel related issues. Romans 2 talks about how the sin of the religious can cause others to blaspheme. That usually happens when people try to dominate others in the name of God.

To go backwards, you must first have gone forward. You have only declared to have gone forward. You have not proven a thing.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Sunday, March, 15, 2009 7:48 AM Jesse "The Mind" Norman writes:

oh, I've proven it

But I can't make a person hard of seeing put glasses on either. Romans 11 wasn't about Christians in general. Romans 11 was about the election of grace which there will be 7000 of in the final generation. Ooops, there's a symbolic number again. They must not be real. I'm done discussing things with you. You're like a person that can't see very well who decides to put shades on at night. Keep them blinders up good, Caday. Watch the real word come to pass and still deny what you're seeing. Keep trying to make yourself right. The future will prove me right. Later.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Sunday, March, 15, 2009 8:59 AM caday5 writes:

Jesse

You have only proven it in your mind. How is it that because God had kept to himself 7,000 men during Elijah's time implies that the 12,000 from each tribe mentioned in Revelation is not symbolic? There is no implication there. And how is it that the tribes mentioned in Revelation do not include one of the tribes that had a part in the promised land?

What we see in Revelation 7 is a division of two groups, those who were sealed and protected and those who were martyred and those who were martyred; the latter group far outnumbering the former. A parallel of this is written of earlier in Revelation where it wasn't the 12 tribes of 12,000 who were protected but the faithful followers from the Church of Philadelphia who were protected from persecution. The faithful from the other Churches were not given this protection. It is called Scripture interprets Scripture.

So what we see is a parallelism from two different perspectives and the proper interpretation comes from that parallelism, not from speculation. You have offered the speculation that the battle at Migiddo refers to a literal Israel. You had to jump to conclusions to get there.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Monday, March, 16, 2009 8:31 AM Snow Knight writes:

It proves

My point perfectly because Zion wins. As I have said earlier-caday- " The Lamb wins" Revelation chapter 14 clearly mentions Mt Zion--it is both Spiritualy and phisically there. All of the church is in the 144.000 I did not mention any distiction between the Jews and gentiles because in Christ there is nether Jew or gentile-All who are in Christ are one in HIM!!! You got that?? Is this how you approach those in whom you disagree?? you try to put words in their mouth or twist what they write to mean something other than what they ment???
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Monday, March, 16, 2009 8:51 AM Snow Knight writes:

and...

as far as the indidius people question--that to was settled long before the Romans re named the land. if anyone is "displaced" it is the ones the land was given to in the first place.granted, there have been people living there for some time but that does not change what was established bt an everlasting covenant.When Jesus arrived "in the fulness of time"God had sent his Son as the mediator of a new covenant. He started to gaither for his kingdom ( Zion Jerusalem) and is still doing so today. Not only in the middle east but all over this planet. You claim that "modern" Zionism began in Europe-wrong-and here's why: it never ended. Christ's kingdom(Zion Jerusalem) is an everlasting kingdom-of his kingdom there will be NO end---do you want to argue on that???
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Monday, March, 16, 2009 10:11 AM caday5 writes:

Snow

Are you confusing my responses to Jesse for responses to you. If you want to talk about the regathering of the Jews in Israel, that is one subject and the NT, again, makes no reference to it. Whether we are studying Romans 11 that associates Israel's salvation not with regathering but with believing the Gospel or Revelation.

Now if you include the Church and the Jews in the 144,000, you can argue with Jesse because that is what I was doing. But what is the significance of Zion when Jesus tellsthe woman at the well, if memory serves, that the time is coming and is here where the worshipers of God will not be confined to a locale but will worship him in Spirit and in truth. Zion is significant in that it is the dwelling place of God. But with the Gospel, that dwelling place becomes where ever the Gospel is preached.

Likewise, with the Gospel comes the final definition of those who inherit the promises through Abraham, that is those who, like Abraham, believe in the Gospel. That rules out all who do not believe whether Jew or Gentile and then we see the significance of the promised land. Its significance was temporary since those inheriting God's promise to Abraham are now commanded to go throughout the world rather than stay in one location.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Tuesday, March, 17, 2009 9:17 AM Snow Knight writes:

No caday

The only one confusing answers here is you. No, I am not "insulting"you I'm stating what I believe is to be fact. Speaking of fact-as far as Jesse and I are concerned God,s word is final. Now, I do not know Jesses denomination. I am sure there is some disagreement between us there but as far as the authority of Gods word-there is no arguement. I also see quite clearly that you are doing your best to distance yourself from the topic of Zion-why? Is it because you are not that interested-or-is it really that you will not face the fact that God is using the modern state of Israel-here-now-today in his will to gather his people thru Christ.This incuding Mt Zion. The very fact that Mt Zion is mentioned in the vision of Rev 14 proves what God is doing thru the kingdom of his Christ. It is up to us to believe by faith in what God is acomplishing---do you believe?
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Tuesday, March, 17, 2009 9:19 AM Snow Knight writes:

Jesse

question: Do you think the anti-christ is alive now waiting to make his appearence?
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Tuesday, March, 17, 2009 5:48 PM caday5 writes:

Snowa

Whereas in the OT, the center of God's work is in a locale, in the NT, the center of God's work is in the Gospel and this Gospel is to be preached throughout the world.

That is the perspective from which I am coming. In the OT, we saw a locale specific work of God where what happened to Israel would either glorify God or make people question. But one of the changes in the NT is that God's work is no longer centered in or bound by a locale because God is glorified by the preaching of the Gospel that is to occur throughout the world.

This is what Jesus was alluding to when he talked to the woman at the well. And this is what we see in Paul's ventures as recorded in his epistles and the Acts of the Apostles.

Because of the Gospel and the inclusion of the nations, Gentiles, Jerusalem is not the focus of God's work. And that is apparent in God's Word.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Wednesday, March, 18, 2009 9:48 PM Jesse "The Mind" Norman writes:

Snow

I do, and I'm really sure he's from the nation of Spain. I have a good idea who he is, so we shall see. I don't have any denomination being that Jesus was against five of the seven churches of Christ and against the traditional teaching of men.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Wednesday, March, 18, 2009 9:51 PM Jesse "The Mind" Norman writes:

cont.

comp froze up, so I sent that comment before it totally froze.

I just read on my own and use my trusty Strong's Exhaustive Concordance with it. I think the best way to read the Bible is to forget everything anyone's taught you or whatever is known to be common knowledge, and read it like you've never heard of it before. It's God's word. Let Him explain Himself to you. That's the way I look at it.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Thursday, March, 19, 2009 7:14 AM caday5 writes:

Jesse

But God often uses other people to help learn his word. The Church, as defined in the NT, is filled with people who have different gifts--this includes past members who left writings with us and current members. In addition, understanding God's Word as it was written in different languages and in different contexts than our own requires some background reading less we project our own culture into the cultural context back then.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Thursday, March, 19, 2009 9:25 AM Snow Knight writes:

Jesse

God's word- the light to our path--100% right on Bro. There are many good Bible teachers "rightfully dividing the word" however, it is the wannabes filled with pride that become the fly in the soup. I concur about spain--I do believe the old Roman empire will be revived.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Thursday, March, 19, 2009 9:30 AM Snow Knight writes:

A person, caday

Jesus Christ is the center of God's work today.That is the perspective from which I am coming. Thru Christs Kingdom (King of Israel/Zion) God is gathering his people today-not just in the holy land but worldwide. Jesis said in Matt 18:20 "For where two or three are gathered together in My name, I am there in the midst of them" ....do you believe this?
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Thursday, March, 19, 2009 3:53 PM caday5 writes:

Snow

We are in partial agreement except that God's Kingdom is no longer associated at all with Israel. Rather, in both testaments, you will see that God's kingdom is with the remnant of both the Jews and the Gentiles and that God is no longer associated with Israel but with believers in Jesus. THere is no longer any emphasis on Israel.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Friday, March, 20, 2009 12:08 AM Jesse "The Mind" Norman writes:

Caday

That sounds like an excuse not to do the work on your own and trace things back to the original languages. I leave the teaching of God's word to no man. The modern day Christian expert is the furthest thing from an expert in God's word. This Easter, as is the case every Easter, many Christian scholars (especially those in the Catholic Church) will meet and say blasphemous things against our Christ. It's called "The Jesus Seminars". They've come to the conclusions that Christ did not rise from the grave. That Pilate didn't wash his hands of the execution of Jesus. That Jesus was eaten by dogs. All of this with their white collars, decorated garb, and degrees in tow. Makes you wonder why they are representing Christianity. You'll have to excuse me if I bypass their expertise and read on my own.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Friday, March, 20, 2009 12:17 AM Jesse "The Mind" Norman writes:

Snow

You got that right about the wannabes, but they are the rule rather than the exception in today's world. This is the generation when prophets will go throughout the world to teach the real meaning of God's word, while leaving some to the mystery of God. They won't be allowed to say everything they know, but no man or fallen angel will be able to make them stumble.

Good you know about the revival of the Roman Empire. It's either Spain or Portugal since they came in at the same time. Being that the EU moved its headquarters to Madrid, and it's Madrid that stick their noses where it doesn't belong when skirmishes in Israel happen, I believe it is Spain. Watch for the Prince of Spain. Felipe Borbon Carlos. 666. Born months after Israel took back Jerusalem. Ancestor was crowned King of Jerusalem. He has all the royalty of his father, and then some. His mother is the Queen of Greece. He's the one I have my eye on.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Friday, March, 20, 2009 4:32 PM Snow Knight writes:

so caday

God is not associated :at all"with jerusalem?In your thinking God is not associated "at all"with the kedron valley? God is not associated "at all" where two or three are gaithered in Jesus name? Even though the "where" they may be gathering is in preasant day Israel? No matter where they may be- in Jerusalem or New Jersey God is doing the gathering thru Christ. Jesus was exact and precise in what he said: For where two or three are gathered in My name--I am there. So I ask you once again--caday--do you agree with that--yes or no?
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Friday, March, 20, 2009 4:34 PM Snow Knight writes:

Jesse

VERY good comment!!I do a lot of end time research and I will share my notes with you. I see you have really done your homework!!
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Friday, March, 20, 2009 5:30 PM Jesse "The Mind" Norman writes:

here's a link

to one of my religious blogs. I have more, but here's a link to one of them.

http://electionofgrace.blogtownhall.com/2008/08/27/the_diff erence_between_lucifer_and_satan.thtml
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Sunday, March, 22, 2009 8:13 PM caday5 writes:

Jesse

It is only an excuse if you do not read on your own as well--and for some, reading through the original languages is not practical.

But why set it up as exclusive or choice where we must read everything on our own or we must simply depend on the work of others. Why not both read what we can on our own and read what others say? Paul is clear in terms of the gifts given to the Church and to completely ignore what has been said by others in the present or past, is to ignore the gifts that God has given to the Church. And one doesn't have to read the writings of those who deny Christ to read what many in the Church have said. There are plenty of Christian scholars who believe in the fundamentals of the faith who have written worthwhile commentaries to read.

EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Sunday, March, 22, 2009 8:18 PM caday5 writes:

Snow

Why make the jumps that you do? What Jesus has bound himself to is the Gospel wherever it is preached and to those who believe the Gospel wherever they are located.

The issue we have is what takes precedence, the believing the Gospel or the city of Jerusalem or the land of Israel? For example, which is more important, to show the fruit of the Spirit or possessing a particular piece of land even when that includes conquering and domination?
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Sunday, March, 22, 2009 11:49 PM Jesse "The Mind" Norman writes:

hehe

Reading through the original languages isn't practical for some? How's that? Just get a Strong's. It's like $25. It's practical. It's just either laziness or a lack of desire to break down God's word. "But why set it up as exclusive or choice where we must read everything on our own or we must simply depend on the work of others." Nothing wrong with going to church, but as Jesus told John of Patmos to write, he is against five of the seven churches of Christ. The church of Ephesus is the only one Jesus threatens to remove. Being that Jesus is against five of the seven churches of Christ, and is against the traditional teaching of men, I just go ahead and read on my own. If the leader of your flock goes down, you will too. There are some teachers out there who are very good, but those are too far in between today. That's the way it's supposed to be in the last days. Those involved in the Jesus Seminars themselves are fulfilling prophecy. They're just too stupid to realize it.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Monday, March, 23, 2009 1:52 PM caday5 writes:

Jesse

Please, reading in the original languages is far more than a word for word translation. Anyone who has studied Greek and/or Hebrew knows that.

Now let's take what you said about the traditional teachings of men consistently. If you are not going to read what others have said because they are the "traditional teachings of men," then what you have to write becomes part of the traditional teachings of men to others. But this puts you in a dilemma in that if your writings become the traditional teachings of men, you can't trust what you wrote.

In addition, to automatically group anyone's teaching as being in the traditional teaching of men misses what Jesus talked about when he taught about it. What he was referring to were traditions that were handed down and were esteemed but contradicted God's Word. Jesus did not preach against teachings that rightly explained God's Word.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Monday, March, 23, 2009 3:38 PM Snow Knight writes:

Thus, caday

Those who believe in the Gospel who are living in presant day Israel are childern of Abraham-Thus God is gathering his people back home thru Jesus. "two or three are gathered in My name I am there" Jesus is the King of Zion thus his kingdom is there---not just in the holy land but world wide--I want to thank you for helping to prove the truth of Christian Zionism.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Monday, March, 23, 2009 3:39 PM Snow Knight writes:

Jesse

good stuff--I want to read all you wrote on subjects such as these!!
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Monday, March, 23, 2009 6:21 PM caday5 writes:

Snow

Actually, the addition of any condition to belief in the Gospel was the central problem that Paul addressed in his letter to the Galations. He pronounced an anathema to this added condition. All one needs to be a child of Abraham and thus inherit the promises made to him, according to Paul, is simple belief in the Gospel. As Fredrick Dale Bruner stated that any add-on to the Gospel replaces the Gospel as the central focus. You might want to check if "possession" of the land of Israel has replaced the Gospel as the centerpiece of your theology. This contradicts Christian Zionism.

Also, it seems that "possession" of the land to some is more important than showing love, peace, gentleness and the other fruit of the Spirit. What has been demonstrated in Israel's "possession" of the occupied territories is the the works of the flesh which oppose the desires of the Spirit.

So I have not proven your Christian Zionism. Rather I have denounced it over and over again and you seem to have missed the point. If only you could interpret what I say accurately rather than selectively use my words, you would see that. But you are in too much of hurry to show your point.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Tuesday, March, 24, 2009 1:42 AM Jesse "The Mind" Norman writes:

Caday, that was stupid

If I'm writing about my own findings and takes on what is written, again tracing things back to the original languages, how can that be labeled as traditional teaching when what I write about flies in the face of traditional teaching? We live in an era where our teachers are destined to fail us. It's written, is it not? And how would you know about reading in the original languages is more than just tracing things back word for word? You havent done it. Then saying "anyone knows that" like you have done it? That's like Al Gore telling a renowned scientist that he won't debate him because he can't really debate the science on global warming when he's not a scientist. You haven't done it, so how would you know? You didn't know the original word for "world" in Matthew 24:3 was the Greek word for "age", not world. That's actually somewhat common knowledge. I could give example after example of mistranslations and you wouldn't know about it unless I gave you a word to either look up or I tell you what it really said. If I trace every word back to the original languages, am I not getting a more true word of God than the translated KJV? I'm also learning Greek at the moment, so when I get myself a Greek NT I can read it without having to reference things with the Strong's. "Anyone who has studied Greek and/or Hebrew knows that." Give me an example.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Tuesday, March, 24, 2009 1:48 AM Jesse "The Mind" Norman writes:

Snow

You're welcome to read and comment on my religious posts. I could tell you're a very good student of the Bible. I haven't written any new posts there for a while because I feel I'm not allowed to write about certain things. I might write something on subjects such as the Apocrypha, but not sure as of yet. Considering you're an advanced student, maybe it's time you read it. I wouldn't suggest anyone reading it unless they are an advanced student of the Bible. The stories of Ecclesiasticus and Tobit are very telling.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Tuesday, March, 24, 2009 8:35 AM caday5 writes:

Jesse

What you have said is to rely simply on one's own reading of the Scriptures instead of reading for oneself and consulting what others say. You said:

"That sounds like an excuse not to do the work on your own and trace things back to the original languages. I leave the teaching of God's word to no man"

That was in response to a note where I said:

"But God often uses other people to help learn his word. The Church, as defined in the NT, is filled with people who have different gifts--this includes past members who left writings with us and current members. In addition, understanding God's Word as it was written in different languages and in different contexts than our own requires some background reading less we project our own culture into the cultural context back then."

So you can insult all you want. That is the conservative TH way. It simply proves nothing.

BTW, I did study Greek. And there is much more to Greek than producing a word for word translation, any Greek teacher knows that. I, and many students of Greek, know our limitations.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Tuesday, March, 24, 2009 2:29 PM Snow Knight writes:

wrong again caday

Your arrogance in all this is just astounding. I give straightforward Biblical truth and you deny it. You cannot even give a yes or no answer to a direct statement from Jesus himself!!!!and quite frankly I could not care less what your Fredrick Dale Bruner says. The truth of what God is doing today--and YES-in the presant land of Israel is what you are refusing to aknowledge. So go ahead...No matter what anyone (or the Bible) says you are going to just sit on your wall of Jerico in your arrogance as we march around getting ready to blow our trumpets.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Tuesday, March, 24, 2009 2:33 PM Snow Knight writes:

Jesse

Thank you--I'm a continueing student! Only in the Gloryland is where we will truly know everthing!!I am very much aware of the books you mentioned. I do not think townhall will object to one sharing thoughts on historical matters such as this.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Tuesday, March, 24, 2009 4:20 PM caday5 writes:

Snow

isn't assuming that you gave the interpretation of God's Word and believe that those who disagree are arrogant a sign of arrogance?

I referred to Bruner's point not because he said it, I am sure you do not know who he is, but because his point is valid. When we attach other other issues to the Gospel, those other issues often take the place of the Gospel in importance.

And I don't see where shooting innocent civilians, bulldozing their homes and water supplies, stealing their land and all the rest that Israel does as the work of God. It appears, according to Paul's words in Galations 5, that those actions demonstrate the works of the flesh rather than the fruit of the Spirit. If you think I am wrong, then show me how abusing Palestinians manifests the fruit of the Spirit.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Tuesday, March, 24, 2009 5:10 PM Snow Knight writes:

caday

My interpretation of Matt 18:20 is: if two or three are gathered in Jesus name..He is there. What is your interpretation of that?
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Tuesday, March, 24, 2009 5:13 PM Snow Knight writes:

and

So you belive that homicide bomers who blow themselves up taking innocent civilians with them arenot abuse? We have already settled the land question so who is really stealing the land?
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Tuesday, March, 24, 2009 5:30 PM Snow Knight writes:

it seems caday

You are very one sided in regards to your comments.As you point your finger at Israel there are 4 fingers pointing back. It is not Israel who are kidnapping soldiers and stealing UN supplies intended for relief efforts in Gaza.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Tuesday, March, 24, 2009 6:23 PM caday5 writes:

Snow

You are ignoring Israel's crimes? Why should bulldozing people's homes without due process and sometimes with the residents still inside count as much as kidnapping--something Israel does anyway. a day or two prior to Shalit's kidnapping, Israel kidnapped two Palestinians from Gaza. Now are they equal?

In addition, new evidence is mounting that some IDF forces were ordered to shoot to kill relief workers. Internationals have been targeted before by the IDF so this report, though not necessarily true, is very credible.

Also, it wasn't the Palestinians who just killed 400 children in 3 weeks. That was Israel. And if you look at Israeli stats, you will find that each year, Israel's IDF kills far more Palestinian children than Palestinian terrorists do.

Both have committed brutal crimes against each other. But it is the one who occupies and has the 4th strongest military in the world who has the most responsibility. That does not imply that we give the Palestinians a free pass but in assigning guilt, we know who deserves the most guilt--it is Israel.

So the only workable solution is to confront both sides realizing that occupying someone else's land has to end before we have a chance at peace.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Wednesday, March, 25, 2009 12:54 AM Jesse "The Mind" Norman writes:

give me an example

Instead of just saying "any Greek teacher knows that", give an example. If you studied Greek, how come you didn't know about the word "world" translated to the original Greek when there's a lot of people who do know that the real word was age. I'm going to call it like I see it. If you say a stupid comment, then I'm going to say it's stupid. That comment you made was stupid. What I write flies in the face of traditional teaching, but if I write my findings then it somehow becomes traditional teaching? That's stupid. I'm not going to sugarcoat it so it doesn't hurt your feelings when afterall you've accused me of heresy. Pardon me if I don't shed any tears of guilt for calling your comment stupid instead of "not very thoughtful". You've accused me of heresy. If there's more to understanding the Greek translation than just translating it, then one's not supposed to translate it at all? Understand how ridiculous that sounds? "You can't understand the Greek by translating it." That is pretty much what you said. You haven't studied the Greek or you wouldn't have failed to answer a simple question when any person who has studied the Greek would have answered correctly without any problem. Do a word search using "matthew 24:3 greek word age world". There's a lot of people who knew it.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Wednesday, March, 25, 2009 1:01 AM Jesse "The Mind" Norman writes:

Snow

I didn't mean that I thought TH would object to my writing. I'm speaking about God not wanting me to say certain things. When I go in that direction where I am going too far, God always gives me a feeling to erase what I have written. Actually it will be in this age that people will have great understanding. Romans 11 said that everyone outside the election of grace has been given the spirit of slumber to this day. Carefully reading that part "to this day", it should give you a thought that it's temporary. What happens at the blowing of the seventh trump? The mystery of God will be finished. That's because the spirit of slumber will be lifted. That will be right at the end so everyone can make a decision without any hindrance. The apocrypha is amazing, which also point to this generation as being the last. I believe it's in Ecclesiasticus that it predicts children who are under a year of age will be able to talk and walk in the last days. The apocrypha comes from the Greek word "apocraphy", which means "hidden things". Just in case you didn't know that. Keep it up, and get a Strong's. You won't put it down.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Wednesday, March, 25, 2009 7:35 AM caday5 writes:

Jesse

There is a reason for the translation of the word in the Matthew passage you cited to the word world. It is because of the concept that is involved. What is this "age" that we are in right now? What is the world? What concepts are being associated with each?

How has the word aion been used before in Greek. It has been used to denote a period of time as well as forever. It has been used to talk about an athlete claiming to make a record (olympic) as well as talking about someone being led to death and has been referred to as a deity.

The word for world has been used, in the Greek, for adornment, magistrates and even heaven.

But take how we use the word in English. We don't always use the word world to refer to this planet. We talk about a person being in or having their own little world or a region with its people or the planet with its people.

Studying many things like theology or languages center on concepts more than literal definitions. And the concepts involved depend on the context in which they are placed. Suppose, for example, someone says "I love this." It could refer to a real affection for something or it could mean just the opposite depending on the context.

Langauges are not as rigid as you think. Heck, we even see context determining the meaning of symbols in computer languages.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Wednesday, March, 25, 2009 9:22 AM Snow Knight writes:

caday

ooooo I touched a nerve with you did't I?? I am not ignoring anything- God is keeping track on everything that is happening.What you are doing is covering for the very ones who would gladly blow YOU up along with anyone else who is a non-muslum.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Wednesday, March, 25, 2009 9:25 AM Snow Knight writes:

Jesse

Yes, and the strongs concordenc is great!! I also read Clarkes commentary--good stuff!!
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Wednesday, March, 25, 2009 9:48 AM Jesse "The Mind" Norman writes:

you're a bad snake oil salesman

You can twist anything into something that allows you to have some reach of being right somewhere out in the horizon all you want, but it doesn't make you smart. It certainly doesn't make it right. It just makes you a liberal in today's world. Find any escape path and speak upon it as if it were fact. That's the motto of today's liberal when someone puts forth fact that they can't explain away. If I was dumb enough to accept your explanation as truth, then I have to be ignorant of the fact that most of the time in the NT, the word "world" in the original Greek is the word "cosmos" which is their word for "world". Some instances it's their word for "age", and sometimes it's also their word for "globe", but most times it does mean "world". Second, I would also have to ignore the fact that the disciples asked Jesus "what are the signs of your coming and the end of the AGE?", specifically denoting the fact that when Jesus returns that ends this age. What age are we living in? The same one that Jesus lived in obviously. Twist and turn anything you want so you feel in your mind you just might be right if you want, just know I know it takes some effort from you to get there. You're not going to fool me. Are you done fooling yourself yet? Obviously not.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Wednesday, March, 25, 2009 9:51 AM Jesse "The Mind" Norman writes:

I would also

have to forget that you were wrong on the translation. Can't forget about that, eh Caday? Esssplain the meaning of "age" all you want. You got it wrong. You'll probably find a way to be right about that too. Wait, that was the whole point of your last comment.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Wednesday, March, 25, 2009 9:52 AM Jesse "The Mind" Norman writes:

Snow

Yep, good stuff. Have a new post up.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Wednesday, March, 25, 2009 10:12 AM Snow Knight writes:

Jess

On my way!!
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Wednesday, March, 25, 2009 3:04 PM caday5 writes:

Jesse

Are you projecting here? Let me ask, how many years have you studied Greek in some school?

I know from studying not just greek but compute languages as well that context determines the concept or definition being applied. If you don't want to believe that, that is fine. Translating Greek takes a lot more than a strong's concordance. And btw, what I shared about the words aion and kosmos are from a legitimate reference book that covers not just kononia greek, but other styles of Greek as well.

You can insult all you want, what you have shown is an unwillingness or inability to engage in the specifics of this argument on languages.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Wednesday, March, 25, 2009 4:42 PM Jesse "The Mind" Norman writes:

speaking of projection

your accusation of me not taking on the subject at matter is your is projecting. Actually I'm learning Greek from my g/f, as well as her family who are Greek. I've known them for many years. They have a Greek written NT and lo and behold what I've seen in their Bible is the same as what's written in the Strong's. Isn't that something? I am part Greek myself. You can look up that there are different types of Greek, but you're not going to fool me into thinking you've studied the NT in the Greek because you got one of the most popular mistranslated words wrong. Something anyone who has studied the Bible in the Greek would know. You can also say "well just because it's written in Greek that it's age, it doesn't actually mean age", but why is it age there and not cosmos? When "world shows up in the NT and it can be construed as a time, then usually it is the word aion. When it's a construed as a place, it's usually their word for world or globe. You've accused me of heresy, and your desire to put words in my mouth that are nowhere what I stated time and time again have wore on my patience with you. I've been quite patient with you, but your tactics simply to make yourself look right in your own eyes have grown tiresome to me.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Wednesday, March, 25, 2009 4:45 PM Jesse "The Mind" Norman writes:

oops

you're the one is projecting... erased too much of a previous comment
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Wednesday, March, 25, 2009 5:28 PM caday5 writes:

Jesse

First, you and Snow always come up with the first accusations. Just check the notes.

Second, anyone studying a language knows that the meaning of many words depends on the context in which they are written. And theology is a study of concepts. The question regarding the translation of passages like Matthew 24:3 is what concept was Jesus referring to and what concept did the translators convey in the translation? Those are basics in translating and interpreting languages and studying theology. THe aion and kosmos is just one example. I don't see much conceptual difference between the two. Some translations have one and some have the other and these translations have been done, though with error by people who know far more Greek than either of us.

So while you on one hand make accusations and then on the other hand play victim, and on one hand assume that you can provide a litmus test to determine those who have "studied" Greek and on the other hand miss one of the basic tenets in both translating and theology, all you have done is assume that you are superior but show that you are merely equal.

Again, the Scripture is plain in many of these instances. And the Scripture is plain with those thinking that they are superior to others. When ever any of us do that, we are in deep trouble. So say what you want, those who have studied languages, translations and theology know that it is about concepts, not literal definitions that are same for each word despite the context.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Thursday, March, 26, 2009 8:16 AM caday5 writes:

BTW

What is the proper translation of Heb 1:2 then?

That aion was used to convey the meaning "world" in non NT writings is evident in many works. I refer you to

A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament And Other Early Christian Literature
By Bauer, Arndt and Gingrich
The University of Chicago Press, 1957
Pg 27
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Thursday, March, 26, 2009 2:33 PM Snow Knight writes:

No caday

We come up with facts. You are the one who justs passes them over to try to get us on another point. Again your arrogance is so thick you cannot see at all. You talk about fruit of the spirit, and yet you look down from your Jerico walls.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Thursday, March, 26, 2009 3:17 PM caday5 writes:

Snow

Yous do not insult? Try the following:

Feb 27 from you
"I sure hate to call someone a willing ignoramus--but you-caday5 are working really hard for the title"

From Jesse
"You're a complete jackass. "

Feb 28 from you
"The proplem that I have is puffed up arrogant indaviduals like you who just cannot bring themselves to aknowledge when they are wrong."

March 1 from Jesse and perhaps my favorite
" Caday was trying to be slick
It's good you pointed out Zion, Knight. He thought he had me with the word "Israel" in the NT. Israel isn't mentioned in the NT since there wasn't an Israel then so I bet he was licking his chops thinking he had me"

--side note: Israel is mentioned in Romans and he had to backtrack

March 3 from Jesse
" you're such a liar
You just didn't know the answer. Fess up to it."


March 8 from Jesse
"You're either a liar, or are a complete moron"

Here is an alternative. You later said that:

"I'm stating what I believe is to be fact."

Why attack me for stating what I believe is fact as well? As long as we both acknowledge that some of what any of us believes is fact could be wrong.



EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Thursday, March, 26, 2009 4:44 PM Snow Knight writes:

caday

I said you were working hard for the title.I also showed you the facts of Matt 18:20 and aked you a simple yes or no answer if you agreed with it-you did not. I rest my case
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Thursday, March, 26, 2009 10:21 PM caday5 writes:

Snow

It was still an insult along with the part about being arrogant. You can rest your case but it was lost.

And your passage from Matthew says what about Zion vs any other place in the world where 2 or more Christians are together. Again, as in the passage where Jesus talks to the woman at the well. God's presence is no longer centered on a location but on a message and those who believe in the message.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Friday, March, 27, 2009 8:35 AM Jesse "The Mind" Norman writes:

Caday

I made myself clear that I misstated. I read my Strong's incorrectly. In the Strong's, there are two different listings for the word "Israel". The one I looked up at that particular time didn't have the word "Israel" mentioned in the NT, even though I knew it was there. If I wasn't on bp pills, I would have caught that before I wrote it. When you pointed it out, I looked at the Strong's again knowing Israel was mentioned in the NT. I knew that. Everyone knows that. It just slipped by me because sometimes my bp medication plays tricks with my mind. So I looked and that was actually the first time I noticed there are two different listings for the word "Israel" in the NT. Go ahead and look it up if you wish. What I tried to explain is that while I knew "Israel" showed up in the NT, it only mentioned Israel in Revelation a couple of times having to do with the last days, which I did point out with the tribes of Israel having 12,000 each of the tribes listed. We were talking about the word "Israel" in the last days. I admit, I made a mistake, but I explained my mistake. You never have. When you are proven wrong about translated words or the meaning of Psalm 22, you either put words in my mouth, accuse me of heresy, or somehow try to explain how you were sort of right while trying to say I was actually wrong for getting it right. I'll call it like how I see it everytime. You know nothing of the fruit of the spirit because you have to be willing to admit wrongs in order to achieve higher wisdom. I may have called you some appropriate names, but I never accused you of heresy. Which is the greater transgression?
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Friday, March, 27, 2009 8:39 AM Jesse "The Mind" Norman writes:

an example

When I pointed out the tribes of Israel mentioned in Revelation, your response was "oh well, they aren't real. Those aren't really people. It was purely symbollic." I'm sorry, but only a jackass would come up with that explanation. I'm sorry you don't like it, but we all know it's the truth.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Friday, March, 27, 2009 10:15 AM caday5 writes:

Jesse

You are misrepresenting what I said about Revelation. What I said was that from the number of each tribe, the number appears to be symbolic rather than literal. I already stated why. In addition, Rev 12:3 suggests that this Israel could consist of those who are not physical descendants of Israel. The point of the 144,000 is that they are spared the martyrdom that the next group suffered. Realize that the next group consists of far more than 144,000 and comes from every group of people--that would include Jews.

So what appears to be the central theme there is that a minority of Christians are spared certain suffering or martyrdom while a majority are not. A similar theme is stated in the 7 letters to the Churches where only the faithful from the Church from Philadelphia are spared the suffering that is coming upon the world.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Friday, March, 27, 2009 10:40 AM Jesse "The Mind" Norman writes:

hmm

so are the people symbollic or is it just the number? If it's just the number, then why number them if it's only meant to be symbollic? Why am I even asking these questions?
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Friday, March, 27, 2009 10:57 AM caday5 writes:

Because

numbers often have a symbolic meaning from history. The numbers 7 and 12, for example, have gained symbolic significance from real events--creation and the 12 tribes and 12 apostles. Where as the number 6 has its own significance with man and thus we have 666 as the mark of the beast.

No reason to doubt that the people are real it is when the numbers are presented with both exactness and uniformity, as the 12,000 from each tribe, the number of people in each group can be symbolic though the people themselves are real.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Friday, March, 27, 2009 11:08 AM Jesse "The Mind" Norman writes:

I know there are symbollic

numbers, but do you understand how sill it would be to list those numbers and only have it be symbollic? "There really aren't 144,000 from those tribes. There are actually only 15." Perhaps the number is symbollic because that's how many of them there are, just like it's written. That's a novel concept, eh? Maybe there aren't really seven trumpets to be blown. Or seven vials to be poured out. Maybe there are 67 and no vials or trumpets at all. Of course that's silly, but that's your logic of numbers being merely symbollic. Were there really twelve disciples Caday?
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Friday, March, 27, 2009 11:39 AM Watch Dawg writes:

Hey cady

Who is really doing the insulting when you refuse to even aknowledge straightforward truth???
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Friday, March, 27, 2009 11:41 AM Watch Dawg writes:

Jesse,Snow

Be ye steadfast and strong--there are many reading this battle you are having with this Joker and believe me the "cloud of witnenesses" is cheering.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Saturday, March, 28, 2009 4:55 PM caday5 writes:

Watch Dawg

Your assuming, without proving, what truth is.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Saturday, March, 28, 2009 4:56 PM caday5 writes:

Jesse

If a number is symbollic and represents a certain theme or message, isn't it enough that that theme or message occurs?
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Sunday, March, 29, 2009 1:26 PM Jesse "The Mind" Norman writes:

answer my question

Were there really twelve disciples or was that just a symbollic number? The names were listed so we know there were twelve, but what if in the OT they prophesied there would be twelve disciples for the Messiah. To answer your question, no it would not.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Sunday, March, 29, 2009 8:32 PM caday5 writes:

The 12 apostles

were 12 literal apostles just like the 12 tribes of Israel were 12 literal tribes. But then again, the writing styles used in reporting these were straightforward historical narratives, not the symbolic writing style that we see in Revelation.

The issue here is that there isn't a one size fits all interpretation of the Bible since several writing styles are used. What is needed here is to let Scripture interpret Scripture. And what we do not see in either the epistles or the book of Revelation is the regather of Israel with regards to taking possession of the land. Salvation alone is found in faith in Christ and we are commanded to show love and gentleness rather than salvation being found by taking possession of the land and dominating others in the process.

In addition, you have never answered how taking possession of the Holy Land, as you favor Israel doing, goes counter to the kind of characteristics that Jesus commands his followers to have than what is needed to dominate the land.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Monday, March, 30, 2009 8:29 AM Watch Dawg writes:

cady

So God's word is not proven truth in your thinking?
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Monday, March, 30, 2009 9:43 AM Snow Knight writes:

Caday

There you go again on this "domination" kick. The only ones in the Holy land who acually are on a mission to dominate are those who imposing Islam and may I add they concider YOU a "infidel"
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Monday, March, 30, 2009 10:33 AM caday5 writes:

Watch Dawg

You state a conclusion, in the form of a question, without showing why you reached that conclusion
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Monday, March, 30, 2009 10:35 AM caday5 writes:

Snow

The only ones who are dominating in the Holy Land are those who occupy and confiscate.

BTW, what you consider me is inconsequential
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Monday, March, 30, 2009 10:41 AM Jesse "The Mind" Norman writes:

hmm

How about when God commanded the Jews not to give their lot to anyone because God has given them their lot? Sound familiar?
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Monday, March, 30, 2009 10:44 AM Jesse "The Mind" Norman writes:

and again Caday

You're either an idiot or a liar. Snow didn't say what HE considered you. He said THEY (Muslims) consider you to be an infidel. Either learn to read, quit putting words in other people's mouths, or shut the hell up.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Monday, March, 30, 2009 1:50 PM caday5 writes:

Jesse

Of the question comes in, when did God command them not to give their lot to others and why. That is called context. The reasons for not eating certain foods were important in Peter's dream in the Book of Acts otherwise Peter would not have been able to preach the Gospel to the Gentiles that he did preach to.

Likewise, and this has to do with the promise that was to be passed down from Abraham, circumcision was to be something to be done forever according to the promises made to Abraham. And yet, according to the Paul's letter to Galations, those who got circumcised to receive those promises were cut off from Christ and were considered accursed.

So the significance of the land within the OT would help explain if it has any significance now in the NT. And that significance was that the land was to provide a sabbath for the Jews from persecution and to have a place to live where God would be glorified. That significance becomes irrelevant in the NT.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Monday, March, 30, 2009 1:55 PM caday5 writes:

Jesse

You and Snow have already said in earlier posts what you think of me so my statement is just as valid.

BTW, my encounters with Muslims leads me to have a far different opinion of them than your writings would lead me to have. I find that devout Muslims here only desire one thing: respect. Treat them and regard them as the equals they are and you find them to be people who very open minded and they are so because of their religious beliefs. I know from having Arabic and Muslims sites publish some of my articles where I criticize people like Arafat or practices like Palestinian terrorism as well as address other points that they practice an openness that you have assumed not to be when writing about them. I also know from my conversations with them and those who are my friends.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Monday, March, 30, 2009 2:18 PM Jesse "The Mind" Norman writes:

again

You are basically saying that once the NT came in, the OT doesn't matter. You won't admit it, but this is the second time you have dismissed the OT. You do know it was the same God who authored the OT, don't you? Jesus did say he did not come to destroy the law and the prophets, but to fulfill meaning everything written in the OT still stands. God told the Jews that He gave the Gentiles their lot. You read what I wrote wrong, which is understandable. I wasn't clear enough. For that I apologize. I wasn't referencing (and neither was God) to God having given the Jews their lot, but it was the Gentiles He had given their lot to He and I were referencing to. His point to the Jews was that He provided the Gentiles their lot, and they have enough. If you look at the land the Arabs have, you will see they have more than their fair share. Maybe God did that to make a point about the current debate in the Israeli/Palestinian situation. So much land for the Arabs, so little for the Jews. As for who is written to have the land of Israel in the last days, we've been over that time and time again. Megiddo, 144,000 Jews in Israel, Satan coming after the woman that beared the man child. Those points are moot to you and I realize that. These things can come to pass and become part of history in your lifetime and you would still not admit you were wrong.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Monday, March, 30, 2009 2:23 PM Jesse "The Mind" Norman writes:

again and again

You either misunderstood or misrepresented what Snow said. Instead of admitting to it you say that somehow you were still right about it. You are an idiot, no question.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Monday, March, 30, 2009 2:49 PM caday5 writes:

Jesse I

If you want to overstate things, then you could say that. But considering that the OT provides a context for the NT, I wouldn't.

All I am saying is that the significance of a practice or belief or tradition plays a significant role in determining how that practice, belief or tradition is carried out in NT times. I gave two examples of diet and circumcision to support my case. If you wish to go beyond what I said, no one is stopping you. In addition, in the NT, worship is not limited to a specific location but is determined by spirit and truth. And in Christ there is no Jew or Gentile because both are saved by the same Gospel and Lord.

As for your previous points. We have covered that. The 144,000 do not include all of the 12 tribes of Israel. They are the servants of God which means they can include anyone and the real contrast is that they have received God's protective seal on their heads as opposed to the multitudes from every nation and tribe who were martyred which includes Jews.

There is simply no NT statement that says that the Jews are to regather. At best, you have said that certain passages imply that but you have not proven your case. In the meantime, the Scriptures give a completely different picture than you do. The Jews, like the Gentiles, are saved by believing the Gospel. And while no Christians, Jews and Gentiles, are commanded to regather in Israel, they are commanded to go to the ends of the earth preaching the Gospel.

EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Monday, March, 30, 2009 2:50 PM caday5 writes:

Jesse II

Finally the woman being persecuted by the dragon implies what? The point of the genealogies is to show the line of people who followed God which does not include the majority, let alone all, of the Jews. This goes back to Romans 9:6 that says not all Israel are of Israel. So is the woman representing Israel or the people of God or something else? To say that the woman can only represent Jews or Jewish Christians while the child Gentile Christians is speculative. This is what you said:

"The reason why it's written that Satan comes after the woman that beared him, it separates Jew from Christian. Jesus' descendants spiritually are Christians. Mary's descendants and her race was Jewish. That's what the point was of saying Satan will come after the woman the beared the man child."

There is nothing in Revelation that says that was the point of saying Satan will come after the woman. Especially since apostles like Paul worked so hard to unite under one banner Gentile and Jewish Christians.

And what does the reference to Meggido imply? Nothing I know of and nothing you can say beyond speculation.

Yes we have covered that material before but you have hardly proved anything.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Monday, March, 30, 2009 6:25 PM Jesse "The Mind" Norman writes:

please

"And what does the reference to Meggido imply? Nothing I know of and nothing you can say beyond speculation." I think that says everything Caday.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Monday, March, 30, 2009 9:37 PM caday5 writes:

Jesse

Do you know what the word implies means? What you might mean is what does the reference to Meggido indicate which allows for the possibility of something. Implies means that there can be no other conclusion. And coming to a conclusion simply because at that time, you find no other plausible conclusion does not show that the reference to Meggido implies what you think.

At this point, I do not know what the reference to Meggido could indicate. That does not prove anything either way. But I think it is a stretch to assume that this reference implies that the Jews are regathered in Israel. It is a stretch because there are too many missing links.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Tuesday, March, 31, 2009 10:49 AM Jesse "The Mind" Norman writes:

who the hell are you kidding

You've shown time and time again you cannot read, at best (more like you just love to put words in people's mouths, but for sake of argument we'll say you cannot read), and you're accusing me of not knowing a simple word? So if a place is named in the Bible, such as Megiddo, that's only implying what? Is it only symbollic as you like to say and maybe the world that's under Satan's control from to meet at Toronto and Megiddo means absolutely nothing but a symbollic meaning? Or is the implication that the reason the world meets at Megiddo is because of the Jews being there from most of our points of view? If it's the latter, then why do they come to meet there. The Jews do have the land of Israel and we are in the last days. Don't you think God has everything planned out as far as who will be where considering we are in the last days? If God didn't want the Jews back in Israel, they wouldn't be there in the last days now would they Caday? I'd love to hear your incoherent babbling response to that.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Tuesday, March, 31, 2009 11:41 AM caday5 writes:

Jesse

Like anyone else, I will occasionally misread stuff just like you misread the word aion to mean the word "age" when it has been used to mean the word "world" as it does in Hebrews 1:2.

So when I ask what does the use of the word imply mean because you seem to want the word Meggido to imply something regardless of whether you use the word, I am referring to its mathematical definition.

Again, in a book that is rich in symbolism and poor in narrative, the meaning of the word Meggido is not straightforward. The writing style used in Revelation is unlike the straightforward writing styles used in the epistles or the historical narratives used in much of the OT. To speak authoritatively on what Meggido means is to say that its use implies something. But I don't there is enough evidence to say that.

So when you ask the following questions:

"Who is to have this land in the last days? Why is Jerusalem called a burdensome stone in the last days? Satan does come after the woman that beared the man child"

you have concluded that everything is revolving around Israel and the regathering of the Jews. That is a possible explanation but I don't think it is well supported by the rest of the Bible.

Since you love to ask questions, let's see you answer one. When did the latter days start?
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Tuesday, March, 31, 2009 11:45 AM Snow Knight writes:

"me" caday?

I really suggest that you acually read what others have acually wrote before you reply -you will save yourself a lot of embarassment. "I" do not concider you an infedel--the ones who are really tresspassing on Israels land -forcing conversions to Islam in Gaza , and stealing or "confiscating" UN supplies are calling you an infedel. I called you arrogant.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Tuesday, March, 31, 2009 12:11 PM caday5 writes:

And you called me other stuff too.

I misread sometimes because I am in a hurry but why be embarrassed for a simple fault that many of us have.

BTW, my point is this, I have no problem with Muslims. While you think they want to kill all infidels, that has not been my experience when I have been with them. My experience is that the great majority of them simply want to be respected as equals--and that includes the most devout ones. There are some on the edge who are violent. But how different is that from any other religious group? In the past, we had the KKK. In the present, we have Christian dominionists, if that is the correct word, who want to return to a strict and literal application of the Torah--that would include stoning disobedient children. And you have some extremist Israeli settlers who want to kill or ethnically cleanse all non-Jews from Israel.

So while you think it is big deal to be an infidel in the Holy Land, what you fail to see is the experience of non-Muslim activists who are well treated and respected despite the different religious views they have from those living there who are Muslims.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Tuesday, March, 31, 2009 12:15 PM Snow Knight writes:

U R right Jess

Jews are back in the land of Israel and we are definatly in the last days. The anti-christ will make an agreement with the Jews and a third temple will be built. There will be peace after this but then he will break his agreement-walk into the temple and commit the "abomination of desolation" proclaiming he himself to be god and all to worship him. It is gonna get really hairy. I am so glad to know who wins in the end-the glorified Lamb! (Rev 19)
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Tuesday, March, 31, 2009 12:25 PM Snow Knight writes:

caday

You may not have no problem with muslums caday-but they have a magor problem with YOU. aslo with me Jess and any other indavidual who is not a muslum. Anyone who is not a muslum is an infedel in their mind and they have ony two choices--convert to islam(and their version of Islam it depends on who is there shea or sunni)or die. You mentioned several groups but I remind you that God himself knows who is truly a new creation in Christ or who is a conterfit. In the modern state of Israel there are all of these. It is for us to believe what the one true God is doing thru his Son in Israel and in other places in the earth.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Tuesday, March, 31, 2009 12:41 PM Jesse "The Mind" Norman writes:

again you are an idiot caday

I just pointed out to you on the other blog that no Greek uses the word "aion" to mean world. None. I asked. And again you somehow tried to explain that you were right in not knowing what the real translated word was and that I was wrong. That's idiotic to the Nth degree. I asked you, do you ever use the word "age" by implication meaning the word "world"? Neither do the Greeks. I also asked you why most times the word "world" in the Bible is the Greek word "cosmos", but not in every instance. It's only by the implication and misunderstanding of men that translated the word to mean "world". Ask some Greek people you know and ask if they or any Greeks they know use the word "aion" to mean "world". They don't. They never did. It was a mistranslation. EVERY time the word "aion" appears, it means age or else the word would have been "cosmos" or "oi-KOU-men-ay". And I don't believe you misread anything. The only times you "misread" is when your argument is in trouble and don't have a legitmate answer anyone would buy, including you. Maybe this helps you buy time in order to come up with a good escape route by making us have to explain what we really said. You can't fool me.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Tuesday, March, 31, 2009 12:47 PM Jesse "The Mind" Norman writes:

I don't know

exactly when the last days started. I just know from the prophecies written in the Old and New Testaments, not to mention also the Apocrypha that we are in the last days. God has His own time table which no man knows, but we are allowed to know when it is at the door. We are at the door. Satisfied?
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Tuesday, March, 31, 2009 12:49 PM caday5 writes:

Snow

Perhaps you are reading too quickly. What I have said is that what you claim about Muslims has not been matched by my experience.

You take one or a couple of verses and then claim that if Muslims are faithful to the Koran, they must kill those of us who are not Muslims. There are many devout Muslims who look at the verses you cite within the context of where it was written and the whole Koran and thus interpret these verses differently.

In addition, if you compare the human rights of those who lived through the Crusades and Muslim counter attacks, you will find that the Muslims granted those who were different far more rights than the Crusaders.

Now I am not going to overgeneralize and say that comparison always held in all instances of European vs Muslim rule, I am simply saying that you seem too eager to conclude certain things about Muslims that does not match my reading of the Koran or my experiences with Muslims. So you can insist, as an outsider, all you want about Muslims wanting to kill all "infidels," it simply is not true. And I would suggest talking to Muslims about those passages and see why they don't interpret your select passages the way you do.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Tuesday, March, 31, 2009 8:47 PM caday5 writes:

Jesse

We were in the last days starting with Pentacost. That is the problem. THe scriptures clearly identified those days as the latter days.

Also the Jews being in the promised land now implies nothing. When they use violence and hatred and oppression, their presence there is not a source of comfort or confirmation of the Bible. That is letting current events interpret the Bible. What we need are those who will let the Bible interpret current events.

And, btw, Hebrews 1:2 uses the word aion but the context provided by the first couple verses of Hebrews 1:2 clearly indicates that we are talking about the creation of the world. There is no creation of the age or ages described in the Bible. In addition, as noted by the lexicon written by Bauer, Arndt and Grinch, using the word aion to refer to world is in extra biblical christian literature. So you can say it as loudly as you want, the evidence is not in your favor. Apparently the only one fooling you is you.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Thursday, April, 02, 2009 3:47 PM Jesse "The Mind" Norman writes:

Pentecost Day

happens during the last days. I'm not going to get into wisdom you aren't prepared to hear, but certain people will get their gifts probably right at the beginning of the Tribulation Period. If that's what you meant, then I agree with you. According to most, even myself, the last days are the last generation which Jesus spoke about. The final generation is what I consider to be the last days. The first day of the Tribulation Period will probably be a day of celebration around the world. The opposite of what most people think.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Thursday, April, 02, 2009 3:52 PM caday5 writes:

Jesse

There are very respectable Christians who hold to the same view of the Tribulation that you espouse. It is, however, more of a creation of Dispensational eschatology than the Scriptures.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Thursday, April, 02, 2009 4:05 PM Jesse "The Mind" Norman writes:

Caday

Coming from you, I'll take it that I'm definitely 100% right then.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Thursday, April, 02, 2009 6:08 PM caday5 writes:

Jesse

Believing you are right and being right can be different. Knock yourself out with your beliefs. Neither your beliefs nor mine imply anything.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Thursday, April, 02, 2009 6:11 PM Snow Knight writes:

caday

there is nothing wrong with my reading but there is a LOT wrong in your understanding. I could not care less about yoyr "experence" what I have pointed out to you is what the Koran plainly teaches and Yes, all muslums are commanded to obey if they are faithful muslums. A lot of people thought the way that you do---9/11 changed a lot of minds.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Thursday, April, 02, 2009 6:13 PM Snow Knight writes:

Jesse

There is no doupt that we are in the last days--I saw a program on the 7 churches and were they used to be-it was fasinating. I am sure things are gonna get a bit hairry in the future but I do not think the confederation is together yet.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Thursday, April, 02, 2009 7:55 PM caday5 writes:

Snow

See that is the problem. You believe you are right regardless of the evidence. It is called being willing to see if your interpretation is wrong.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Friday, April, 03, 2009 6:37 PM Snow Knight writes:

caday

The only one who is charging wayward in spite of the evedence is you. Both Jesse and I have provided strong Biblical evidence to refute many of your positions and yet you just plow ahead heading for a ditch. I have shown you from the Koran itself more than enough and you have excess to the same internet that I have so you can look up Islamic sites and read what they say about Christians and Jews--and by the way you claim to be a christian yourself so guess what--you are a target.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Friday, April, 03, 2009 6:39 PM Snow Knight writes:

Hey Jess

when do you think the confederation of nations wil happen??
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Friday, April, 03, 2009 8:55 PM caday5 writes:

Snow

In your minds, you and Jesse have refuted positions. But you never have shown that a literal interpretation of the epistles contradicts the literal interpretation to the OT that you take. Again, not all Israel is of Israel (Rom 9:6). Paul said that when comparing the children of the promise vs the children of the flesh. Guess where mere physical lineage takes you? And guess where there is no division between Jew and Gentile?

And guess what Jesus says to all who do not believe regardless of whether they are Jew or Gentile? Jesus said that if you believe in him, you believe in the Father but if you don't believe in him, you have rejected the Father. If you want, I can find the exact Scripture reference.

And you haven't justified domination, whether or not you admit to supporting it, when the fruit of the Spirit is against domination.

Our discussion is about hermeneutics. My view is that you have assumed your hermenutical principles rather than having learned them from the Scriptures.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Saturday, April, 04, 2009 12:36 AM Jesse "The Mind" Norman writes:

would be

right around the time the Antichrist confirms the seven year peace covenant. My interpretation is that will happen not long after Damascus is bombed by Israel.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Saturday, April, 04, 2009 6:02 AM caday5 writes:

Jesse

then we can see if you are a false prophet. But the question is, not when, but will Israel will bomb amascus?
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Sunday, April, 05, 2009 12:01 AM Jesse "The Mind" Norman writes:

the prophecy of Damascus

Isaiah 17:1 "The burden of Damascus. Behold, Damascus is taken away from being a city, and it shall be a ruinous heap." What will happen if I'm right? Will I get acknowledgement from you? I highly doubt it. To do so would be to admit that the Jews were to be in Israel in the last days. I doubt you'd let that go.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Sunday, April, 05, 2009 12:11 AM caday5 writes:

And of course,

that was Isaiah foretelling what would happen in our lifetime. The belief that the end of history would occur in one's own lifetime has a rich history in the Church.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Monday, April, 06, 2009 12:27 PM Snow Knight writes:

wrong...again caday

you have been refuted by God's word ( Matt 18;20). I asked you a simple question about a direct teaching of Jesus and you(because of arrogance??)would not even answer yes or no. I also said that you are a fellow target for Islamic hate because of not being a muslum and you said I was wrong---well 9/11 proved that otherwise. I have no problem with God's word whatsoever It is you who just cannot come to grips with the fact that God is gathering his people back thru Christs kingdom-YES in the modern state of Israel and worldwide. Both Jesse and I pointed out Biblical truth so it is God's word refuting you. I have not assumed anything when it is plainly tought in God's word. You are on a word/meaning twisting spree and the only person you are fooling is youself.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Monday, April, 06, 2009 2:30 PM caday5 writes:

Snow

And I could easily find 2 or 3 Christian friends who agree with me on these issues and if they wanted to take the time, they could and you would be refuted too. In addition, I believe you are taking Matthew 18 out of context because it is not talking about issues about which Christians have legitimate disagreements and eschatology is one of those subjects.

As for what happened on 9-11, one's interpretation depends on whether one sees 9-11 as a first strike or a response. Considering our past actions in the Middle East as well as documented interviews, it sees that the latter is the case. So the first step in preventing another 9-11 should be the listening to grievances in order to eliminate non-necessary offensive behavior and make amends. Concurrent with that, we need to pursue those guilty and have them tried, if possible in international court. In fact, we might want to allow some past presidents to be tried there as well.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Tuesday, April, 07, 2009 2:24 AM Jesse "The Mind" Norman writes:

Caday

Do you believe we are in the last days? If so, what was your point?
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Tuesday, April, 07, 2009 7:09 AM caday5 writes:

Jesse

the last days has lasted for at least 2,000 years. The end of history is a tad more dramatic because we are referring to when Christ will return. The end of history is the culmination of the last days.

The difference between the two is simple. I know we are in the last days, I have no clue as to when the end of history will occur.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Tuesday, April, 07, 2009 12:23 PM Snow Knight writes:

cady

If the whole world agrees with you is not the point. The point is God's word and what it teaches that trumps everyone. The passage that I pointed out to you teaches that if there is two or three gathered together in Jesus name-he is there. He is there Thus, his Kingdom is there. You could not even give me a yes or no answer to that. In regards to 9/11 the attackers committed those actions by their own choice. You can give reasons and try to blame America all you want to caday but the bottom line is THEY did it.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Tuesday, April, 07, 2009 12:43 PM caday5 writes:

Snow

Just because two or three Christians agree on something, doesn't mean Christ does. And certainly those who attacked us chose to. Just like we chose to attack the civilian infrastructure of Iraq, an international war crime, and enforce sanctions that killed hundreds of thousands of Iraqi children. And we have supported Israel in its occupation against the Palestinians.

remember that Jesus said woe unto those who cause someone to fall. Remember that Paul commanded fathers not to cause their children to be bitter by being harsh. When our wrongful behavior causes others to sin, we become accessories to their sins.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Tuesday, April, 07, 2009 2:13 PM Snow Knight writes:

caday

If two or three are gathered in his name--he is THERE. I see you are having your reading problem again-I certainly hope you can get that corrected-if that is possible. In regards to Iraq you are forgetting the infliction Saddam put on the Kurds and other muslums who were not sunni. ALSO we have saved hundreds id Iraqis in our medical teams and building programs so do not get off on a tangent there. I also thought we have settled the land question long ago-If it is Isreals land who are the ones in "occupation"?? futhermore who is causing someone else to trip when pride becomes a stumbling block?
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Tuesday, April, 07, 2009 2:23 PM caday5 writes:

Snow

Perhaps the problem is with the reader, not the writer.

Also, remember that we supported Saddamn even after his worst offenses. We supported him until he invaded Kuwait--something he consulted us about and we reacted with ambivalence. So not only did we kill more Iraqi civilians than he did with the first war and sanctions, we are accomplices in many of his crimes. You will note that he was on trial for one of his lesser crimes and one that did not involve us.

Finally, I never thought we agreed on whose land that was. It was not the Israelis' land, and thus the Israelis are occupying Palestinian territory and annexing part of what they are occupying which is against international law.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Tuesday, April, 07, 2009 3:32 PM Jesse "The Mind" Norman writes:

caday

Are we in the last generation? When I say "last days", I'm using Biblical terms. I wouldn't call the time right after Jesus' death the last days. As he said, he would rise on the third day, which he did. Also when you take the meaning of "a day to the Lord is as a thousand days", then we are approaching the third day there as well. People may have thought in generation's past that the end was coming in their lifetime, but the prophecies of the last generation weren't anywhere to be found for them to think that way. We have those prophecies being fulfilled now. There hasn't been a one world government before. We are getting very close to one now. Are we in the last generation in your opinion?
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Tuesday, April, 07, 2009 3:55 PM caday5 writes:

Jesse

To avoid confusion we need to distinguish the last days, which has lasted roughly 2,000 years and the day when the Lord returns which is the culmination of the last days.

Are we in the last days? Certainly. How many generations will it take before the Lord returns? don't know.

I do know that the one world gov't talk has caused Christians to confuse legitimate cooperative efforts as establishing peace with "the one world gov't."
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Tuesday, April, 07, 2009 5:30 PM Snow Knight writes:

caday

"it was not the Israelis land??shame on you caday are you so forgetful that you do not remember that God gave (and called) the land Israel?
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Tuesday, April, 07, 2009 6:14 PM caday5 writes:

Snow

There is no shame for me when I defend an indigenous people's right to live on the land their families have been living on for centuries. Yes, the land once belonged to the Israelis and for certain reasons it did. Those reasons past and God's people are told to disperse to preach the Gospel rather than to consolidate to create nations.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Wednesday, April, 08, 2009 3:17 PM Jesse "The Mind" Norman writes:

Caday

So will the peace covenant that the Antichrist confirms be a worldly cooperative effort to establish peace that we should all applaud?
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Wednesday, April, 08, 2009 3:34 PM caday5 writes:

Jesse

There is the problem. This "peace covenant" is specifically identified with a specific person who no one knows. Thus, any movement toward peace or international standards of justice automatically become suspect.

At the other end, any move toward a complete lack of regard for the views of others is applauded as long as it is done by our country or its satellites. When those outside of our circle do the same as we do, we claim they are immoral.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Wednesday, April, 08, 2009 3:46 PM Jesse "The Mind" Norman writes:

Caday

Who suspects different past "peace" initiatives as in the one that the Antichrist confirms? I don't know of any that have happened. I'd like to know which peace covenant of the past that people thought was confirmed by the Antichrist. If you're going towards any peace proposal involving Israel, it's not that they suspect it's the one the Antichrist confirms but that it won't work. Instead of dodging my question by coming up with another ridiculous assertion, why don't you answer it? Will the peace covenant that the Antichrist confirms be a worldly cooperative effort to establish peace that we should all applaud? It certainly will be. That's why I always taught people that the first day of the Tribulation Period will be the opposite of what most people think.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Wednesday, April, 08, 2009 7:13 PM caday5 writes:

Jesse

Again the mindset that has been propagated is that we are not to work for peace under international law. We are only to work for peace when either Christ returns or when we use our military.

That is not what Christ endorsed. The interpretation of a specific peace agreement with an antichrist from europe is highly speculative because of the hermeneutics used in interpreting the scriptures so that we arrived at that conclusion.

remember that the scriptures are clear, they say that there are many antichrists in the world. These antichrists do not rely on Biblical principles. Whereas we have many non-Christians who, however inadvertently, rely on Biblical principles
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Thursday, April, 09, 2009 2:21 AM Jesse "The Mind" Norman writes:

Caday

That's what you basically said the last time as another smokescreen. People are highly suspect of peace treaties that have no chance of working. People, at least none that I know of, aren't saying "let's not make peace because it might be the Antichrist that confirms it". Please tell me if you have. I asked you a simple question. Please don't give me that "there are many antichrists" thing. I know there are a lot, but in this context I am talking about the only one that really matters. And he WILL come from Europe despite how much more of the Word you are willing to gray. That peace covenant written of in Daniel 9, which is confirmed by the lead antichrist (better?), is broken in the middle of the seven years. Should we celebrate it when it comes? That's all I'm asking.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Thursday, April, 09, 2009 11:48 AM caday5 writes:

Jesse

You have to take peace treaties case by case. The rejection of a peace treaty because of antipation of the antiChrist and the "future" treaty with Israel means that Christians can be guilty of advocating unnecessary war.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Friday, April, 10, 2009 3:44 AM Jesse "The Mind" Norman writes:

Caday

You're still dodging my question. I think we'll know the treaty that the Antichrist confirms when it happens, won't we? It will most likely involve Israel and it is supposed to last seven years and happens to be confirmed by a high level man from the eleventh nation to join the new Roman Empire. I think that those that look for it will know it when it happens. Should we celebrate the confirmation of that peace covenant?
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Friday, April, 10, 2009 7:55 AM caday5 writes:

Jesse

Did you ever consider that, since the events you expect to happen really rely on an interpretation of Revelation rather than on Revelation itself, you might be waiting for Gidot?
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Saturday, April, 11, 2009 9:22 AM Snow Knight writes:

caday

have YOU ever concidered that the events that Jesse and I have pointed out to you could be right? This incudes the 144,000 and the coming treaty with the anti-christ. We know that it is going top happen -only God himself knows excactly when. What we have to do trust him and keep our eyes open.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Saturday, April, 11, 2009 9:33 AM caday5 writes:

Snow

I don't the events you are predicting and your interpretation of Revelation to be Biblically consistent. But eschatology is a tough subject at which everyone of us can make many mistakes.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Sunday, April, 12, 2009 1:12 AM Jesse "The Mind" Norman writes:

Caday

I'll take it that you are unwilling to answer my question. I guess I know why. You couldn't really answer "yes" because you know it shouldn't be celebrated, but you couldn't answer "no" either because you are unwilling to betray your logic. As for your question, someone's gotta be right about Revelation. The Greek word "apocalypse" means to reveal, so someone's going to understand it. Besides, I'll take my understanding of it over anyone else I know. You can call it egotistical, but I'm quite confident that I'll know what to expect before it happens. To those that study faithfully God's true word, God wants them to be ready. If I am wrong and these things don't come to pass within the next couple of decades, then I'll have no problem admitting I'm wrong. Whenever you're proven wrong, you somehow try to turn it into that you were really right and that I somehow was wrong even if it's conclusive that I was right.

Everybody including Caday, have a happy Lord Defeating Death Day!
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Sunday, April, 12, 2009 7:18 AM caday5 writes:

Jesse

Many American conservative Christians are suspect of any international, especially UN, efforts at peace for at least one of two reasons. First, they think that unless enough people are converted to Christ, there will be no peace. Second, most joint efforts, especially UN efforts are evaluated out of expectation of a one world gov't. They see the US, perhaps egotistically, as the guardian against the one world gov't and the antiChrist. As a result they use non-biblical criteria when evaluating peace treaties. They ask, are we dictating the conditions of the peace treaty or not--as if the world should revolve around our judgments.

Biblical characteristics of any peace treaty revolve around good will, help for the oppressed, justice, reconciliation, and so forth. Biblical characteristics do not revolve around whether the US is in control.

As for "the AntiChrist" and Europe, again there is not any evidence for that. Again such a view leads us to use unbiblical criteria. Instead of looking at characteristics, we look for locale to ascertain who is and who isn't the antiChrist.

So while you look for your 7 year treaty written by a dynamic European leader, you will never know what evil you inadvertently approve of and what violence and injustice that you let slip by.

The problem is that all of this leads to the kind of theology described by the quote below:

"Bad Christian theology regarding the "Holy Land" contributed to the tragic cruelty of the Crusades in the Middle Ages. Lamentably, bad Christian theology is today attributing to secular Israel a divine mandate to conquer and hold Palestine, with the consequence that the Palestinian people are marginalized and regarded as virtual "Canaanites."

From the website you didn't read:

http://www.ifamericansonlyknew.com/cur_sit/wdoor.html
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Monday, April, 13, 2009 12:35 AM Jesse "The Mind" Norman writes:

Caday

You really do have a problem with concession, don't you? "As for "the AntiChrist" and Europe, again there is not any evidence for that. Again such a view leads us to use unbiblical criteria. Instead of looking at characteristics, we look for locale to ascertain who is and who isn't the antiChrist." That quote says everything about your lack of understanding. Daniel said in the second and seventh chapters that the fourth empire to come would be the last, since he listed no other after. Then he described the reforming of this empire in the seventh chapter. What was the fourth empire to come into Israel? That would be the Roman Empire. The eleventh nation to join the reforming of this empire would be diverse from the first ten, and would bring in three more nations. Many as I do believe the EU is the reformed Roman Empire. It started off as a humble trade pact of nations. Now the EU has its own army and came out with its own monetary system and is comprised of twenty-seven nations. The eleventh nation to join the EU was either Spain or Portugal, since they came in at the same time. The EU steps in during skirmishes between Israel and Palestinians, Hezbollah, Syria, and Hamas through Madrid. Spain was heavily involved in bringing in the next three countries Austria, Sweden, and Finland. Now whether or not the EU is this revived Roman Empire is one thing. To say there is no biblical evidence that the Antichrist will come from Europe is either a lie or a complete lack of understanding. Perhaps your disdain for the US twists your opinion that the Antichrist will come this country.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Monday, April, 13, 2009 12:39 AM Jesse "The Mind" Norman writes:

cont...

I think of all the quotes you've made, this shows your impotence in God's word above any other. No biblical evidence that the Antichrist will come from Europe... That's bad. You shouldn't speak from a point of view of fact about something you obviously know very little about. It's not becoming. Of course I'm typing this to a person that would not learn a lesson or admit he's wrong even if his life depended on it. By the way, I never said it would be written by a dynamic European leader. Neither does the Bible. It just says the Antichrist will confirm it. I never said anything different. If you're going to point out my wrongs, then get it right.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Monday, April, 13, 2009 7:09 AM caday5 writes:

Jesse

Or perhaps you have a problem with presumption. It isn't a display of the fruit of the Spirit to insult fellow Christians who disagree or anyone who disagrees. The fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, gentleness, and so on. Tell someone they are impotent in God's Word because they are not willing to come to the conclusions you seem eager to agree with does not display the fruit of the Spirit. Rather, your behavior indicates pride which is never spoken kindly of in the Scriptures.

This is especially true when the eschatology you embrace is still an infant compared to the other three schools of eschatology. That newness does not imply that your view is wrong, but it should give anyone reason for pause who wish to denigrate others for holding different views.

That some Christians have, throughout history, sincerely believe that their time was the time when Christ would come should also give your reason for pause before you look down on others who have different views. That they have been wrong in the past should tell us how not to be wrong today.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Monday, April, 13, 2009 10:50 AM Snow Knight writes:

caday

What is not "Biblicaly consistant" is your answers caday-"not coming from europe" This is where the revived Roman empire is goning to be. We know that the beast will have power to rule and make war. I also see that you are still repeating your failed position--falsly accuse Israel of "conquering" . you again do not see (perhaps willfully?) the ones who really are on a conquering and domination mission are the Islamic maraders who drew the first blood in the first place- that led to the crusades. Not only is your history is seriously flawed your high minded approch to this matter is also. You accuse Jesse and I of not having the fruit of the spirit and yet you approch so high on your horse you are airsick.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Monday, April, 13, 2009 10:53 AM Snow Knight writes:

Jesse

sorry so late in repling my computer glitched on saturday--right after repling to caday(go figure) I agree with you 100% the anti -christ will cime out of europe-where the revised roman empire will be.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Monday, April, 13, 2009 2:58 PM caday5 writes:

Snow

The emphasis on the "revived Roman empire" is a Dispensational interpretation. Again, the newness of dispensational eschatology does not imply it is wrong, it should give reason for pause for excluding other interpretations. You are writing as if this the only meaning that could be gathered from reading Revelation.

In essence, do we really know that the end times are revolving around the White race so much that the beast must come from Europe?

Finally, there is no false accusation against Israel here. They have kicked people off the land the ones that remain are not treated as equals. In addition, they continue to confiscate land from the Palestinians and occupy much of what they have not confiscated. Why not consider that the US and Israel are part of the man-centered attempts to fight against the Gospel?
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Wednesday, April, 15, 2009 4:28 AM Jesse "The Mind" Norman writes:

Caday

What do you know of the "fruit of the spirit"? You can't read what is there and just go along with it. You give terms to what is written saying "dispensationalist" over and over again. At the same time you won't admit when you are wrong. You put words in people's mouths constantly. And you accused me of heresy because your argument failed and needed some time to an escape route to be found. You know nothing of the "fruit of the spirit". You can call it what you want, but again I have to point this out, it's written clear as day in Daniel 2 and 7 that it will be the fouth empire to come. What was that empire? You give me YOUR interpretation instead of labeling mine. Let me guess, the Antichrist must be a Jew right? Is that where you are leaning towards? I never studied "dispensationalism". I read and study the Bible, and that's it. Tell me what Daniel 2 and 7 mean to you instead of labeling my interpretation and saying "the Bible doesn't support your view" when it's there plain as day. "Ummm duh well sure if you read it for what it says it does but when you have a certain frame of mind before you read it, you can twist and turn it like me and come up with something else that is contradicted in other parts in the Bible. You can point it out to me and then I will say again 'sure, only if you read it the way it's written'. It's all about interpretation and hating Israel."
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Wednesday, April, 15, 2009 4:39 AM Jesse "The Mind" Norman writes:

Snow

Not a problem. I'm officially done with Caday. Daniel 2 is clear that the the fourth empire to come into Israel will be the one to look out for. It says this empire will be broken. In Daniel 7 again it's clear that the fourth empire to come into Israel would be the diverse one and described its reformation, saying plain as day "oh sure if you read the actual words" that the eleventh nation to join would have a prince that shall speak great things against the Almighty and will confirm the seven year peace covenant. This is the Antichrist. The fourth empire was the Roman Empire. We can argue whether or not the EU is the reformation of the RE, but we can't argue whether or not the fourth empire to come was the Roman one. Caday accused me of not having the fruit of the spirit, yet I've laid out his offenses in my last comment. I wonder if in his opinion that Elijah used the fruit of the spirit when he mocked the pagan priests for their ineptness.

Got a new post up you might find funny.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Wednesday, April, 15, 2009 9:31 AM caday5 writes:

Jesse

First, like what you believe how you see these issues, I don't believe I am wrong. Unlike you, I understand why you don't agree and thus I don't say "you won't admit when you are wrong.

Second, how does mentioning "dispensationalism" prohibit me from knowing what the fruit of the spirit is? I don't use that term in a derogatory way. I mention dispensationalism historically which is the same as I would mention non-dispensational premillennialism, postmillennialism, and amillennialism.

Third, I never accused you of heresy. I disagree with you and think you are wrong. But that alone does not constitute heresy.

Fourth, you don't have to formally study dispensationalism to have been exposed to it. It is the eschatology du jour taught by American conservative Churches. So if your minister ever preached about the end times, most probably, but not certainly, he was preaching from a dispensational perspective and was thus teaching it.

Fifth, I will read Daniel 2 and 7 later. I may be able to understand it and maybe not. But not understanding it does not imply that any other interpretation is true. When I evaluate your interpretation of Revelation and the rest of the Bible, I judge it by the Scriptures I know and understand. And I disagree with you. But my disagreement doesn't imply that I think your view is heretical. Christians disagree on simple subjects let alone complicated, complex ones.

Finally, simply because I disagree with your view of Israel's place now, doesn't imply I hate it. I want Israel to survive and I want equality. And when Israel does not promote and practice equality, it is sabotaging its own existence.

EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive