Google Ads

Google Ads

Bible Wheel Book

Google Ads

+ Reply to Thread
Page 3 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 42
  1. #21
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Yakima, Wa
    Posts
    15,150
    Quote Originally Posted by David M View Post
    I am not saying it is a rule, but that it sounds literal to me and I have given you my reason for thinking so. We all have our own "ideas".
    OK. I asked because fundamentalists frequently assert that the parable of the Rich Man and Lazarus in Luke 16 was not a parable because it mentions Lazarus by name. I never found that argument convincing.

    Quote Originally Posted by David M View Post
    I agree, but that is not how most of the chapter 14 reads. There might be a small part of the chapter than can be described as figurative language.
    I agree. That's why Zech 14 is probably just false. But from a Bible believing perspective, it needs to be interpreted figuratively to cohere with the rest of the Bible.

    Quote Originally Posted by David M View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by RAM
    There is a BIG difference between the scattering after 70 AD and all the other scatterings. All the other scatterings had very specific lengths and PROMISED end dates associated with them. I explain this in my post called Continuity of Prophetic History confirms Preterism that I wrote back in 2008 when I was still a Christian. The basic idea is that ALL the major events in the history of Israel were predicted with numerical precision with very specific end dates:
    I do not agree all history confirms preterism. I do not remember you answering Twospirits to identify the "Abomination that makes desolate" to which Jesus was referring.
    You are almost admitting the Bible is prophetic.
    I am giving the best arguments from a Bible believing perspective. Most of those examples would not convince a rational skeptic because there is no evidence that the Exodus even happened, so it was not really "predicted" at all.

    The best objective evidence is the fulfillment of the Olivet Discourse, and that's really ironic since most Christians reject it because it contradicts their futurism. If Christians reject it, why should skeptics believe it?

    As for twospirits and the Abomination of Desolation - I didn't answer that for the reasons I gave. No one has any certain knowledge about what the abomination means, and Henry was refusing to be rational about something that could be determined, namely, the unity of the Olivet Discourse, so it would be absurd to chase him down the rabbit hole of the AoD.

    Quote Originally Posted by David M View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by RAM
    That's it. There is NO PREDICTION or PROMISE in the Bible that says there would be any return after the scattering of 70 AD.
    God would not have promised "not to make a full end" of Israel had he intended to keep them scattered for ever.
    You have no right nor ability to declare what God would have done. My point stands.

    And besides that, Jeremiah 30:11 was talking about the Babylonian exile. It is an error to apply it to the scattering of 70 AD. This has been explained to you at least twice. Why do you persist in your error?

    Quote Originally Posted by David M View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by RAM
    Futurism fails on so many points I just can't imagine how anyone could believe it.
    The same goes for preterism the way I see it. That is just our opposite opinions.
    That's utterly absurd. There is no equivalence of any kind between Preterism and Futurism. Preterism is based on the "Big Picture" of what the Bible actually states in many mutually confirming verses. Futurism is based on fragments of verses ripped out of context and glued together with wild unbiblical speculations about things like a magical stretchy 2000+ year gap between Dan 9:26-27, the denial a the unity of Scripture (e.g. the Olivet Discourse), denial of the verses that explicitly state the end times was happening in the first century, etc., etc., etc. It is not a matter of mere opinion. It is a matter of fact.

    Quote Originally Posted by David M View Post
    How are we to identify; "all the pots in Jerusalem being like the bowls before the altar"? You have taken the word sacrifice and seethe and presumed they are speaking of sacrifices for sin. Although I mentioned plants, it by no means excludes animal sacrifice. The only exception and I agree with you that Jesus has abolished the need for animal sacrifice. Of course, if you do not see Jesus returning to earth to set up God's kingdom and restore the earth to its former glory, then the picture you have of the future is far different to mine. I do not see the killing of animals for food abolished. The word "seethe" does not have to relate to animal sacrifices. What proof do you have?
    There is not a single passage in the Bible that says Jesus will return and rule on the earth for a thousand years. Rev 20 doesn't say where he rules, and all the other passages don't say anything about a thousand years. The doctrine is very weak and since it is contrary to many other passages, there is no good reason to build a doctrine upon it.

    Your argument is a twisting of words because the text plainly speaks of sacrifices being seethed, which implies animal sacrifices. But there is a much bigger problem. You are trying to force an OT prophecy into something hyper literal even as you totally ignore the LITERAL meaning of the time pasages in the NT that plainly state that the end times happened in the first century. For example:
    1 John 2:18 Little children, it is the last hour; and as you have heard that the Antichrist is coming, even now many antichrists have come, by which we know that it is the last hour.
    Futurists must DENY the plain text, and then twist words about an OT prophecy that plainly speaks of animal sacrifices? I consider the Futurist game to be absurd in the extreme.

    Quote Originally Posted by David M View Post
    I am no more twisting words than you appeart to be doing. It can be argued that the old covenant with Israel was not totally removed. It was certainly broken by Israel not long after it was given. The new covenant in the blood of Jesus can be regarded as a renewed covenant. Some things in the law were no longer necessary. Until we can all live by the spirit and the law is innate, the law has not been done away with. The law was summed up in the two great commanments spoken by Jesus.
    It all depends upon what you mean by Israel. Who were all the first Christians? They were obviously TRUE ISRAEL, that is, members of Israel that were true believers. The unbievers were not true Israel. God has only one covenant people. He calls them "Israel." Paul made this explicit when he said that Christians are the "circumcision" which is the technical biblical term for Israel. Israel because the church. Carnal Israel died.

    The idea that the New Covenant is a "renewed covenant" is one of the most absurd teaching that Rood has popularized. And you just believe it because he told you? We KNOW it cannot be correct because the Bible contrasts the Old and New Covenants, and says the Old was "passing away." And there are many other reasons. You really need to think critically and not believe something just because Rood told you. He is one of the most ridiculous Bible teachers I've ever seen. I showed you some of his errors. For example, he teaches that the scroll in Rev 5 is the "title deed" of planet earth. The Bible doesn't teach anything like that. And he says the the rebellious fallen angel SATAN is actually HOLDING the title deed! Here is what he wrote on page 7 of his book "The Mystery of Iniquity":
    Satan is now holding fast to his authority in the heavens which allows him access before the throne of God where he now positions himself as the "accuser of the brethren." Satan's purposes and methodology are exposed in Revelation 12 (verse 10), and the book of Job (1:6-2:7) where he is depicted in both scenarios as the accuser before the throne, and the one who steals, kills, and destroys (John 10:10). Besides Satan's position as the accuser before the throne of God, by is deceptive wiles he also received the dominion of this world from the hand of Adam.

    Adam originally received from God complete dominion and authority over the entire creation on earth (Gen 1:26). He also had dominion over Satan, but was "bribed" into a deal with Satan after Eve was seduced to sin. Now Satan legally holds the title deed to this world, a title and authority that was delivered to him by the original recipient, Adam. The same authority was offered to Y'shua by Satan, for the small price of worship.
    Now the thing that really blows my mind is that you have sought desperately to twist even Rood's words to fit your doctrine that there are no fallen angels. Rather than deal with the plain truth, you try to conform his words to fit your preconceived doctrines, just like you do with the Bible.

    Quote Originally Posted by David M View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by RAM
    There you go again! Making HUGE BOASTING CLAIMS without any evidence! Your words are FALSE! You have not shown that I have presented any misinformation. You have not shown that I have "misguided" anyone. You have never shown that anything I have written is "wrong."
    Yes I have, but I am unable to search the database and I am not wasting my time even if I could.
    No, you have not. Your words are not only false, but ridiculous in the extreme.

    And you can search the database using the search function just like everyone else. It works fine. It's what I use 99% of the time when I'm looking for old posts. I only used my direct access once long ago for a special purpose.

    You really need to stop making false and unsupported accusations David. You need to either state (from memory) exactly WHAT you corrected or admit that you don't really have any memory of it, let alone evidence. If you state what it was, I'll help you find the original post so we can all see the evidence. If you cannot support your words with evidence, you need to retract them or be exposed as someone willing to make accusations that are not supported by any evidence.

    Quote Originally Posted by David M View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by RAM
    You now have now OBLIGATED yourself to either 1) present evidence that supports your claims, or 2) admit your claims are false. If you fail to do one of those two things you will be exposing yourself to be a liar.
    How do I get access to the database?
    Click the "Advanced Search" link on the right just under the navigation bar at the top of every page. Enter your search terms, and there you go.

    But again, just tell me what you think you corrected me about, and I'll find the post for you. If you can't even remember what it was about, then you are admitting that you have no evidence at all and you need to acknowledge that fact.

    Quote Originally Posted by David M View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by RAM
    I do not claim to be "Mr. Perfect." That is absurd. All I claim is that you blatantly violated the most elementary rules of logic. For example, you explicitly declared that you "do not disagree" with the Law of Non-Contradiction even as you rejected both P and Not P! So quit complaining. All you need to do is show that you understand basic logic.
    I have given my reasons for refuting your logic and I am not going to repeat myself here.
    There are no valid reasons for rejecting the Law of Non-Contradiction, let alone saying that you "do not disagree" with it even as you contradict it! I proved your error over and over and over again in a hundred posts, and you refuse to admit the truth. L67 bears witness to this fact. The only path to truth is to admit your error, and write a detailed explanation that shows you understand your error. As it stands, you comments are radically irrational. You just don't get it. Your answers to all my explanations are radically irrational. They are on the level of a person adamantly asserting that Yes = No and Up = Down and 1 + 2 = 33.7. They're just nuts David. You need to man up and deal with the truth.

    Quote Originally Posted by David M View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by RAM
    And again you made another baseless assertions when you said you could not let my "mistakes" pass. What mistakes are you talking about? Where have you exposed any "error" of mine?
    I am unable to search the database, so until I can, the record stands. I cannot afford the time to trawl through the post. Should I stumble on an example, I will store if for future reference.
    I trust you now know how to search the database. Click the "Advanced Search" link just under the navigation bar, on the right.

    And if you still have trouble, just tell me what you remember and I'll help you find it.

    Quote Originally Posted by David M View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by RAM
    I am no "authority." My words are strong only because they are founded on LOGIC AND FACTS. They are founded on the solid rock of reality. Your words are weak because they have no foundation. They have no basis. They are just baseless claims that you repeat over and over and over without every presenting any FACTS to back them up.
    None of your facts are convincing. It is not only me you have to convince. I will accept your facts when they are sound.
    To assert that "none" of my facts are convincing is rank insanity. My facts on the level of "the earth is a globe" and my logic is on the level of "1 + 2 = 3." You rarely give any good reason for rejecting the logic and facts I have presented.

    And the irony of it all is that you blindly believe biblical charlatans like Michael Rood that are easily exposed as frauds!

    Quote Originally Posted by David M View Post
    Unless we agree to a set of rules when in discussion on this forum and we enforce the rules, I do not see any future in our conversations. We are diametrically opposed in our thinking and we shall for ever keep passing each other by. I will add my two-penny worth in threads and not be open to questioning from you. I have am not repeating that which has been posted already.

    This is now the end of this thread for me and I am moving on to another thread, unless someone posts something which is on topic.

    Our discussion has been taken off topic and my objective in this thread was to stay on topic, so this is the end of this discussion for me. I might have other replies from you in other threads and I shall do likewise and close of the discussions unless they are on topic.

    All the best

    David
    The "rules" are just the basic rules governing logic and facts. You know ... like the freaking LAW OF NON-CONTRADICTION that you directly contradicted even as you said you "do not disagree" with it?!?!

    So anyway, please use the search function to find the evidence supporting your claims, or tell me from memory of some time you "corrected" me and I will help you find it.

    All the best,

    Richard
    • Skepticism is the antiseptic of the mind.
    • Remember why we debate. We have nothing to lose but the errors we hold. Who but a stubborn fool would hold to errors once they have been exposed?

    Check out my blog site

  2. #22
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Yakima, Wa
    Posts
    15,150

    David M - this post is for you.

    Hey there David,

    Did you forget about this thread?

    Richard

    • Skepticism is the antiseptic of the mind.
    • Remember why we debate. We have nothing to lose but the errors we hold. Who but a stubborn fool would hold to errors once they have been exposed?

    Check out my blog site

  3. #23
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    2,564
    Hello Richard

    Again, this is way off the topic of this thread so I shall keep my reply short as I expect your agurments will come up again.

    Quote Originally Posted by Richard Amiel McGough View Post
    OK. I asked because fundamentalists frequently assert that the parable of the Rich Man and Lazarus in Luke 16 was not a parable because it mentions Lazarus by name. I never found that argument convincing.
    Good.


    Quote Originally Posted by Richard Amiel McGough View Post
    I agree. That's why Zech 14 is probably just false. But from a Bible believing perspective, it needs to be interpreted figuratively to cohere with the rest of the Bible.
    If you agree, it is a pity "you think it is probably false". I see it as true.


    Quote Originally Posted by Richard Amiel McGough View Post
    I am giving the best arguments from a Bible believing perspective. Most of those examples would not convince a rational skeptic because there is no evidence that the Exodus even happened, so it was not really "predicted" at all.
    This is way off topic. And the Exodus is true. There is evindence to prove it, but this is not the time to carry on this topic in this thread.

    Quote Originally Posted by Richard Amiel McGough View Post
    The best objective evidence is the fulfillment of the Olivet Discourse, and that's really ironic since most Christians reject it because it contradicts their futurism. If Christians reject it, why should skeptics believe it?
    The Olivet discourse is also off track. I am not talking about what other Christians believe and making that an excuse. Also, I am not considering what skeptics think. Stop introducing the same old questions as excuses and get down to the facts that are the words in the Bible.

    Quote Originally Posted by Richard Amiel McGough View Post
    As for twospirits and the Abomination of Desolation - I didn't answer that for the reasons I gave. No one has any certain knowledge about what the abomination means, and Henry was refusing to be rational about something that could be determined, namely, the unity of the Olivet Discourse, so it would be absurd to chase him down the rabbit hole of the AoD.
    Well, don't answer Twospirits and answer me. I want to know what you personally think the A.O.D. is and if yoy have no answer, then you have to keep an open mind. That is not proof it has happened around AD70 if you cannot identify it. Stay on track!!


    Quote Originally Posted by Richard Amiel McGough View Post
    You have no right nor ability to declare what God would have done. My point stands.
    Rubbish statement


    Quote Originally Posted by Richard Amiel McGough View Post
    And besides that, Jeremiah 30:11 was talking about the Babylonian exile. It is an error to apply it to the scattering of 70 AD. This has been explained to you at least twice. Why do you persist in your error?
    You are off track and I have answered you on the point of Jeremiah and the return of Israel and Judah so keep your remarks in that thread and stop introducing these diversions.



    Quote Originally Posted by Richard Amiel McGough View Post
    That's utterly absurd. There is no equivalence of any kind between Preterism and Futurism. Preterism is based on the "Big Picture" of what the Bible actually states in many mutually confirming verses. Futurism is based on fragments of verses ripped out of context and glued together with wild unbiblical speculations about things like a magical stretchy 2000+ year gap between Dan 9:26-27, the denial a the unity of Scripture (e.g. the Olivet Discourse), denial of the verses that explicitly state the end times was happening in the first century, etc., etc., etc. It is not a matter of mere opinion. It is a matter of fact.
    This is off track and we have a totally different understanding of scripture. This can continue in the threads where this discussion belongs.


    Quote Originally Posted by Richard Amiel McGough View Post
    There is not a single passage in the Bible that says Jesus will return and rule on the earth for a thousand years. Rev 20 doesn't say where he rules, and all the other passages don't say anything about a thousand years. The doctrine is very weak and since it is contrary to many other passages, there is no good reason to build a doctrine upon it.
    There is vedry good reason, to believe Jesus is going to return, and I have no intention of pursuing that discussion here.

    Quote Originally Posted by Richard Amiel McGough View Post
    Your argument is a twisting of words because the text plainly speaks of sacrifices being seethed, which implies animal sacrifices. But there is a much bigger problem. You are trying to force an OT prophecy into something hyper literal even as you totally ignore the LITERAL meaning of the time pasages in the NT that plainly state that the end times happened in the first century. For example:
    1 John 2:18 Little children, it is the last hour; and as you have heard that the Antichrist is coming, even now many antichrists have come, by which we know that it is the last hour.
    Futurists must DENY the plain text, and then twist words about an OT prophecy that plainly speaks of animal sacrifices? I consider the Futurist game to be absurd in the extreme. [/QUOTE
    The fact is you have a closed mind to accepting any other explanation which does not fit in with yours. End of discussion so long as you keep accusing me of twisting words when you have such a closed mind.


    Quote Originally Posted by Richard Amiel McGough View Post
    It all depends upon what you mean by Israel. Who were all the first Christians? They were obviously TRUE ISRAEL, that is, members of Israel that were true believers. The unbievers were not true Israel. God has only one covenant people. He calls them "Israel." Paul made this explicit when he said that Christians are the "circumcision" which is the technical biblical term for Israel. Israel because the church. Carnal Israel died.
    Pauls speaks about spiritual Israel and the gentiles are grafted in. Secular Israel is not the same. This is off topic so stay on track.

    Quote Originally Posted by Richard Amiel McGough View Post
    The idea that the New Covenant is a "renewed covenant" is one of the most absurd teaching that Rood has popularized. And you just believe it because he told you? We KNOW it cannot be correct because the Bible contrasts the Old and New Covenants, and says the Old was "passing away." And there are many other reasons. You really need to think critically and not believe something just because Rood told you. He is one of the most ridiculous Bible teachers I've ever seen. I showed you some of his errors. For example, he teaches that the scroll in Rev 5 is the "title deed" of planet earth. The Bible doesn't teach anything like that. And he says the the rebellious fallen angel SATAN is actually HOLDING the title deed! Here is what he wrote on page 7 of his book "The Mystery of Iniquity":
    Satan is now holding fast to his authority in the heavens which allows him access before the throne of God where he now positions himself as the "accuser of the brethren." Satan's purposes and methodology are exposed in Revelation 12 (verse 10), and the book of Job (1:6-2:7) where he is depicted in both scenarios as the accuser before the throne, and the one who steals, kills, and destroys (John 10:10). Besides Satan's position as the accuser before the throne of God, by is deceptive wiles he also received the dominion of this world from the hand of Adam.

    This is way of topic. I have an open mind about Rood and I am accepting some things. I have yet to hear everything from his own lips and that is what I base my judgement on. Not what might have been written about him or information that is old and he might have modified something which had been put in print years ago. As for what Satan is, this is a question I shall get to ask him and see what reply I get. Until then, all that I have heard him speak, he has not identified Satan.

    Quote Originally Posted by Richard Amiel McGough View Post
    Adam originally received from God complete dominion and authority over the entire creation on earth (Gen 1:26). He also had dominion over Satan, but was "bribed" into a deal with Satan after Eve was seduced to sin. Now Satan legally holds the title deed to this world, a title and authority that was delivered to him by the original recipient, Adam. The same authority was offered to Y'shua by Satan, for the small price of worship.
    Quote Originally Posted by Richard Amiel McGough View Post
    Now the thing that really blows my mind is that you have sought desperately to twist even Rood's words to fit your doctrine that there are no fallen angels. Rather than deal with the plain truth, you try to conform his words to fit your preconceived doctrines, just like you do with the Bible.
    As I have said, I have yet to get some answers from Rood and then I shall comment. I did not listen to him expecting to agree with him on everything, so we shall have to wait and see.


    Quote Originally Posted by Richard Amiel McGough View Post
    No, you have not. Your words are not only false, but ridiculous in the extreme.
    As if your words are any better. Just stay on track and do us all a favor.

    No, you have not. Your words are not only false, but ridiculous in the extreme.
    As if your words are any better. Just stay on track and do us all a And you can search the database using the search function just like everyone else. It works fine. It's what I use 99% of the time when I'm looking for old posts. I only used my direct access once long ago for a special purpose. [/QUOTE]
    Please find the post where you gave a mysql equation for searching my posts. (This is off track anyway).

    Quote Originally Posted by Richard Amiel McGough View Post
    You really need to stop making false and unsupported accusations David. You need to either state (from memory) exactly WHAT you corrected or admit that you don't really have any memory of it, let alone evidence. If you state what it was, I'll help you find the original post so we can all see the evidence. If you cannot support your words with evidence, you need to retract them or be exposed as someone willing to make accusations that are not supported by any evidence.


    Click the "Advanced Search" link on the right just under the navigation bar at the top of every page. Enter your search terms, and there you go.

    But again, just tell me what you think you corrected me about, and I'll find the post for you. If you can't even remember what it was about, then you are admitting that you have no evidence at all and you need to acknowledge that fact.
    I am not trawling through past post but if I happen to stumble upon anything I know I have written, I shall make make a note of it and keep a reference for future use.


    Quote Originally Posted by Richard Amiel McGough View Post
    There are no valid reasons for rejecting the Law of Non-Contradiction, let alone saying that you "do not disagree" with it even as you contradict it! I proved your error over and over and over again in a hundred posts, and you refuse to admit the truth. L67 bears witness to this fact. The only path to truth is to admit your error, and write a detailed explanation that shows you understand your error. As it stands, you comments are radically irrational. You just don't get it. Your answers to all my explanations are radically irrational. They are on the level of a person adamantly asserting that Yes = No and Up = Down and 1 + 2 = 33.7. They're just nuts David. You need to man up and deal with the truth.
    I have given my explanations in other threads and this is off track here.


    Quote Originally Posted by Richard Amiel McGough View Post
    I trust you now know how to search the database. Click the "Advanced Search" link just under the navigation bar, on the right.

    And if you still have trouble, just tell me what you remember and I'll help you find it.
    I do not get the results I expect when I search for words. I might get a thread listed and then I have to read through every post to find the one I want and if there are 100 posts, I find it impossible.


    Quote Originally Posted by Richard Amiel McGough View Post
    To assert that "none" of my facts are convincing is rank insanity. My facts on the level of "the earth is a globe" and my logic is on the level of "1 + 2 = 3." You rarely give any good reason for rejecting the logic and facts I have presented.
    By "rarely" you mean I have given you at least one.


    Quote Originally Posted by Richard Amiel McGough View Post
    And the irony of it all is that you blindly believe biblical charlatans like Michael Rood that are easily exposed as frauds!
    I look for agreement, and will not agree with everyhting. That is what we can all do. I do not reject everything based on a little and I am suspect of what other people report.



    Quote Originally Posted by Richard Amiel McGough View Post
    The "rules" are just the basic rules governing logic and facts. You know ... like the freaking LAW OF NON-CONTRADICTION that you directly contradicted even as you said you "do not disagree" with it?!?!
    stick with examples like "All dogs are mammals" and we agree.

    Quote Originally Posted by Richard Amiel McGough View Post
    So anyway, please use the search function to find the evidence supporting your claims, or tell me from memory of some time you "corrected" me and I will help you find it.
    If that is the only way I can search, then I will do it that way, but do not hold your breath while you wait.

    All the best,

    David

    PS. Please stay on topic. I do not intend to get sidetracked as we do in practically every thread so far.

  4. #24
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    2,564
    Hello Beck

    Quote Originally Posted by Beck View Post
    Hi David,

    The things you have not address is the continued flow of thoughts that Zech is given... (I say they are in an figurative language)...Like how would you explan to the readers in any literal sence that living waters are to flow out from Jerusalem? Well that's just after mentioning of the splitting of the mount of Olives and a cry to them to flee to the valley.

    Also just becasue certain names are mentioned it don't make what is being said as an literal events. Consider Jesus often spoke in parables of certain men or of a certain rich man and give such names as Lazarus to a certain man. All along Luke maded note that Jesus was speaking of parables unto the Phraisees. (Luke 15:3), (Luke 16:1-31). that story 'parable' is in the same context of the Lost son, the lost coin within the continued parable.
    I see Richard commented on this. I agree Lazarus could have been a fictitious person, but then Jesus uses everyday examples in the his parables for people to associate with.


    Quote Originally Posted by Beck View Post
    The context of Jesus saying that his own disciples could move the mountain was by faith. What you are overlooking is the simple fact that they would never move a literal mountain by faith, but move 'this mountain' which was the high places of authority that would be casted down. Jesus said and likewise Paul made mentioned that they whom where transformed or quicken by the spirit of God hath been rasied to sit in heavnly places with Christ. (Eph 2:5-6) In such figurative language it was that they where replacing those kings and priest over Jerusalem. The Lord God have given them all power over the prince of darkness. This is how that mountain was removed and casted into the deepth of the sea, but it would only be done through faith.
    That is one explanation of faith, but hardly expalins the splitting of the Mount of Olives. With enough time, you could literally remove a physical mountain even if as the Chinese proverb solution is to move int one stone at a time.

    Quote Originally Posted by Beck View Post
    Think!!!! Why would Zech cry to those to run to the valley? If there was a literal earthquake that split the mountain why in the world would one to the low places. That's like running to where the earthquake had just split and made an low place....Reading this in a literal event makes no sence.
    Of course we have to see the compete sequence of events which mioght not be clearly seen at present. The valley created might be seen as a way of escape. God will give opportunity for those who see the signs to escape the destruction that is to come of Israel and Jerusalem a final time.


    Quote Originally Posted by Beck View Post
    The book of Isaiah has many verses that parallel I just pick those that I thought was the most obvious. Also consider Isaiah 2:1-4 ....I laugh when JW comes to my home and attemp to use Isaiah reference of beating swords into plowshares to make their claim that one day there will be no more war... Now that not understanding figurative language.
    It does say in that chapter of Isaiah; neither shall they learn war any more. I would like to know when this has happened. Nations are learning about war and how they sell defeat their enemies all of the time. When does this reversal begin?

    Quote Originally Posted by Beck View Post
    Well lets see....Zech 13:1 prophecies of 'in that day' there will be a fountain for the sins of the people of Jerusalem. Shall I assume that to be an literal fountain of water since a proper name was used and a place was given as in Jerusalem. What would be the need for Jesus to come if this prophesy was of a literal fountain of water for the remission of sins?
    Even when Jesus has returned, there will people who have not believed. There will be children born who grow up not to believe and yet might come to believe. There will be people who sin and will need some way of proivng their repentance for the forgiveness of their sins. We are talking of a different age to this present age and the role of Christ is somwhat different as it is now. We do not have a clear understanding in detail of how Christ will rule. It is not made any clearer by those who say Christ is ruling now from Heaven.

    Quote Originally Posted by Beck View Post
    To do the will of the Father you must first die to self. What Zech is showing that those come to worship the Lord will be poured out the latter rain in so that their 'pot' cup will not be able to hold it that it would run down to be bottom of the altar like that of the bowls before the altar at the dedication. Fill my cup O lord fill it Full....
    I am not sure this is the way Ricahrd is interpreting those verses. What do you associate the "seething" with. Why are all the jars in Jerusalem like the bowls before the altar? I do not profess to have the answer and that is why I am open to opinions about this particular verse. It does not detract from condsidering the splitting of the Mount of Olives as literal.

    All the best

    David

  5. #25
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Posts
    981
    Quote Originally Posted by David M View Post
    Hello Beck


    I see Richard commented on this. I agree Lazarus could have been a fictitious person, but then Jesus uses everyday examples in the his parables for people to associate with.
    Hey David,

    I just wanted to give you an example of Jesus using a proper name in a parable. That in itself dosen't make the name a real person only that 'names' in the Jewish custom was to give a meaning behind them. Jesus seems to be imploying the same as the other parables and used Lazarus (Eliezer, Eliazar) to denote the opposite of the rich man.

    That is one explanation of faith, but hardly expalins the splitting of the Mount of Olives. With enough time, you could literally remove a physical mountain even if as the Chinese proverb solution is to move int one stone at a time.
    That might just take their life time and many others....I hardly think that is what Jesus meant.

    It does say in that chapter of Isaiah; neither shall they learn war any more. I would like to know when this has happened. Nations are learning about war and how they sell defeat their enemies all of the time. When does this reversal begin?
    David I think it's the time of planting seed for the harvest figuratively. Jesus and his disciples wasn't fighting with swords, but with the word of God as their sword. (Matt.13:1-43) Instead of fighting with swords in the physical army they overcame by planting seed as the vineyard hubandmen and fishermen of men. For we wrestle not against flesh and blood...but against powers and rulers of this world..(Eph.6:12). They learned not to make war, but to love thy neighbor.


    I am not sure this is the way Ricahrd is interpreting those verses. What do you associate the "seething" with. Why are all the jars in Jerusalem like the bowls before the altar? I do not profess to have the answer and that is why I am open to opinions about this particular verse. It does not detract from condsidering the splitting of the Mount of Olives as literal.
    First of all this chapter deals with a judgment day upon Jerusalem and in that day peoples will come to Jerusalem to worship the Lord God and it would be an time of Tabernacle unto God. It is in this theme of Tabernacles that Zech relates the coming together of God's people (Isaiah 2:1-4). It is as when the rain falls it brings life, but to those not coming no rain hints no more life, but death judgment. To those that come and worship their pots 'cups, vessels' will be maded fill in the House of God (Tabernacle) by his Holy Spirit being poured out as the latter rain. Here again Zech is using figurative language to describe a time of coming to the house of God and paralleling it as the day feastival of Tabernacles. Every pot will be maded Holy and separted unto God's for his holy work. The 'seething' is to boil. They were to be used as a Holy vessel unto God. Zech has drawn a parallel to that of the House of God to that of his People being maded Holy and to do the will of the Father.

    We only need to read this chapter like much of the other chapters in Zech as being figurative. You have not attempted to address the part of Living Waters shall flow out from Jerusalem. Is this to also be taken literally? What then is Living Waters?
    Beck

  6. #26
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    2,564
    Hello Beck

    Quote Originally Posted by Beck View Post
    Hey David,

    David I think it's the time of planting seed for the harvest figuratively. Jesus and his disciples wasn't fighting with swords, but with the word of God as their sword. (Matt.13:1-43) Instead of fighting with swords in the physical army they overcame by planting seed as the vineyard hubandmen and fishermen of men. For we wrestle not against flesh and blood...but against powers and rulers of this world..(Eph.6:12). They learned not to make war, but to love thy neighbor.
    I think it is good when we can see lessons in scripture that can be applied in our own lives. The same lessons applied to all generations and to those who understood the lessons to be learned. So we have spiritual lessons to be learn from what we read as well as applying the words of scripture to specific times and events.


    Quote Originally Posted by Beck View Post
    First of all this chapter deals with a judgment day upon Jerusalem and in that day peoples will come to Jerusalem to worship the Lord God and it would be an time of Tabernacle unto God. It is in this theme of Tabernacles that Zech relates the coming together of God's people (Isaiah 2:1-4). It is as when the rain falls it brings life, but to those not coming no rain hints no more life, but death judgment. To those that come and worship their pots 'cups, vessels' will be maded fill in the House of God (Tabernacle) by his Holy Spirit being poured out as the latter rain. Here again Zech is using figurative language to describe a time of coming to the house of God and paralleling it as the day feastival of Tabernacles. Every pot will be maded Holy and separted unto God's for his holy work. The 'seething' is to boil. They were to be used as a Holy vessel unto God. Zech has drawn a parallel to that of the House of God to that of his People being maded Holy and to do the will of the Father.
    We are talikng after the time Jerusalem has come under the final seige. Now Zechariah is talking about the ONE king who is over all the earth and whose throne in another verse we learn is in Jerusalem from where the law goes forth. The law that the people must keep.
    Zechariah 14
    9 And the LORD shall be king over all the earth: in that day shall there be one LORD, and his name one. 10 All the land shall be turned as a plain from Geba to Rimmon south of Jerusalem: and it shall be lifted up, and inhabited in her place, from Benjamin's gate unto the place of the first gate, unto the corner gate, and from the tower of Hananeel unto the king's winepresses. 11 And men shall dwell in it, and there shall be no more utter destruction; but Jerusalem shall be safely inhabited.
    This is speaking of the time when Jerusalem will finally be at peace, the peace we do well to pray for, for peace will not come to Jerusalem until Jesus returns. No-one will defeat the king over all the earth reigning from Jerusalem. Once again, the words of Zechariah are very specific naming places and things which will happen. There might be a spiritual lesson to come from this, but spiritual lessons have nothing to do with whether the kanguage is figurative or literal.


    Quote Originally Posted by Beck View Post
    We only need to read this chapter like much of the other chapters in Zech as being figurative. You have not attempted to address the part of Living Waters shall flow out from Jerusalem. Is this to also be taken literally? What then is Living Waters?
    Sorry, I missed that off, although I did look up more references and forgot to bring them into my reply. I will do so here. There are only 4 verses in which the phrase occurs. You might be able to tell me if the original Hebrew words are the same in every occurrence:-
    (Song of Solomon 5:15) A fountain of gardens, a well of living waters, and streams from Lebanon.
    (Jeremiah 2:13) For my people have committed two evils; they have forsaken me the fountain of living waters, and hewed them out cisterns, broken cisterns, that can hold no water.
    (Jeremiah 17:13) O LORD, the hope of Israel, all that forsake thee shall be ashamed, and they that depart from me shall be written in the earth, because they have forsaken the LORD, the fountain of living waters.
    (Zechariah 14:8) And it shall be in that day, that living waters shall go out from Jerusalem; half of them toward the former sea, and half of them toward the hinder sea: in summer and in winter shall it be.

    In the first three references, God is represented as the "fountain" of "living waters". It is the same as Jesus says; (John 4:14) But whosoever drinketh of the water that I shall give him shall never thirst; but the water that I shall give him shall be in him a well of water springing up into everlasting These are the same words which Jesus told his disciples; (John 15:15) for all things that I have heard of my Father I have made known unto you. and they are the words that have come to us and give us eternal life to come. The word fountain does not appear in Zechariah, so I regard this as not identical to the other three references.

    (Amos 1:2) The LORD will roar from Zion, and utter his voice from Jerusalem; (Micah 4:2) for the law shall go forth of Zion, and the word of the LORD from Jerusalem. I let you see the similarity between those two verses. Both events will take place once Jesus is set up as the King ruling as God from Jerusalem.
    Living waters in a figurative sense will flow from Jerusalem, but also waters will flow to make the land bloom as it has not bloomed before. As I write this, I have in mind that picture you will see of the rock in Arabia which is said to be the rock Moses struck and God brought forth water. That rock is an enormous rock that is split down the middle and water at one time gushed up from the middle and produced a lake capable of supplying 2 million people and their cattle. I think we are given the same picture of toipography of the land being changed and the rivers will flow to the west and the east. Again, the words of Zechariah are very specific. Why to the east and west? Why not in all directions? Is it due to the physical topography of the land? We also are given an indication that seedtime and harvest continue and that God's watering the physical land will continue and not be dependent on the seasons.

    If the transformation of the land of Israel, made to bloom after the return of the Jews to the land, is a fraction of what the land will be like after Jesus returns, then the continuous supply of water required to water the whole of the land, which the Jews are presently working to make happen, God will make that provision in the future.

    Revelation 21:2 speaks in figurative language in which a river flows; In the midst of the street of it, and on either side of the river, was there the tree of life, which bare twelve manner of fruits, and yielded her fruit every month: and the leaves of the tree were for the healing of the nations. This is part of the prophetic image of the new Jerusalem, which is of God (heavenly). The language in this passage of Revelation is figurative and not specific in physical terms; the way the prophecy of Zechariah is.

    As for the word "seething" I take it you do not see this part of the prophecy in the same way as Richard does, or do you?

    All the best
    David
    Last edited by David M; 04-09-2013 at 03:23 AM.

  7. #27
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Posts
    981
    Quote Originally Posted by David M View Post
    Hello Beck


    I think it is good when we can see lessons in scripture that can be applied in our own lives. The same lessons applied to all generations and to those who understood the lessons to be learned. So we have spiritual lessons to be learn from what we read as well as applying the words of scripture to specific times and events.
    Hey David,

    I probably will be short in my reply since I feel that I have given ample responses already.


    Sorry, I missed that off, although I did look up more references and forgot to bring them into my reply. I will do so here. There are only 4 verses in which the phrase occurs. You might be able to tell me if the original Hebrew words are the same in every occurrence:-
    (Song of Solomon 5:15) A fountain of gardens, a well of living waters, and streams from Lebanon.
    (Jeremiah 2:13) For my people have committed two evils; they have forsaken me the fountain of living waters, and hewed them out cisterns, broken cisterns, that can hold no water.
    (Jeremiah 17:13) O LORD, the hope of Israel, all that forsake thee shall be ashamed, and they that depart from me shall be written in the earth, because they have forsaken the LORD, the fountain of living waters.
    (Zechariah 14:8) And it shall be in that day, that living waters shall go out from Jerusalem; half of them toward the former sea, and half of them toward the hinder sea: in summer and in winter shall it be.

    In the first three references, God is represented as the "fountain" of "living waters". It is the same as Jesus says; (John 4:14) But whosoever drinketh of the water that I shall give him shall never thirst; but the water that I shall give him shall be in him a well of water springing up into everlasting These are the same words which Jesus told his disciples; (John 15:15) for all things that I have heard of my Father I have made known unto you. and they are the words that have come to us and give us eternal life to come. The word fountain does not appear in Zechariah, so I regard this as not identical to the other three references.
    You say that they are the same as Jesus said, but then say you regard them as different. Which are they figurative or literally? Also 'fountain' is found in Zech it's in Zech 13:1 which speaks of 'in that day' same same chapters 12, 13 and 14 all say it's in that day.

    (Amos 1:2) The LORD will roar from Zion, and utter his voice from Jerusalem; (Micah 4:2) for the law shall go forth of Zion, and the word of the LORD from Jerusalem. I let you see the similarity between those two verses. Both events will take place once Jesus is set up as the King ruling as God from Jerusalem.

    Living waters in a figurative sense will flow from Jerusalem, but also waters will flow to make the land bloom as it has not bloomed before. As I write this, I have in mind that picture you will see of the rock in Arabia which is said to be the rock Moses struck and God brought forth water. That rock is an enormous rock that is split down the middle and water at one time gushed up from the middle and produced a lake capable of supplying 2 million people and their cattle. I think we are given the same picture of toipography of the land being changed and the rivers will flow to the west and the east. Again, the words of Zechariah are very specific. Why to the east and west? Why not in all directions? Is it due to the physical topography of the land? We also are given an indication that seedtime and harvest continue and that God's watering the physical land will continue and not be dependent on the seasons.
    I highligted in bold that you are saying and agreeing that Living waters was in a figurative sence. Glad we could come to that agreement.

    Revelation 21:2 speaks in figurative language in which a river flows; In the midst of the street of it, and on either side of the river, was there the tree of life, which bare twelve manner of fruits, and yielded her fruit every month: and the leaves of the tree were for the healing of the nations. This is part of the prophetic image of the new Jerusalem, which is of God (heavenly). The language in this passage of Revelation is figurative and not specific in physical terms; the way the prophecy of Zechariah is.
    But it give proper names as in the streets of the New Jerusalem and give desciptions of on both sides of the rivers. Now you what to say that these are different? Just becasue you don't what to come to acknowledge that they both are written in figurative langauges.

    As for the word "seething" I take it you do not see this part of the prophecy in the same way as Richard does, or do you?

    All the best
    David
    I'm not sure how Richard understands this part of Zech. I don't recall ever him speaking about it.
    Beck

  8. #28
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    2,564
    Hello Beck

    Quote Originally Posted by Beck View Post
    Hey David,

    I probably will be short in my reply since I feel that I have given ample responses already.
    I agree we have both given ample responses and we agree on some things and differ on others. One interpretation often depends on how we interpret something else and since there are a number of separate topics it is possible to have different understandings, this is the cause for the many different interpretations and understandings. Two wrongs make for right in some people's book.



    Quote Originally Posted by Beck View Post
    You say that they are the same as Jesus said, but then say you regard them as different. Which are they figurative or literally? Also 'fountain' is found in Zech it's in Zech 13:1 which speaks of 'in that day' same same chapters 12, 13 and 14 all say it's in that day.
    The first three use figurative language. The last one I regard "living streams" as liiteral rivers. A spiritual sense can also apply so in that sense it can be seen as figurative. I do not exclude the literal for saying it has spiritual connotations.


    Quote Originally Posted by Beck View Post
    I highligted in bold that you are saying and agreeing that Living waters was in a figurative sence. Glad we could come to that agreement.
    Its good we do not disagree on everything.


    Quote Originally Posted by Beck View Post
    But it give proper names as in the streets of the New Jerusalem and give desciptions of on both sides of the rivers. Now you what to say that these are different? Just becasue you don't what to come to acknowledge that they both are written in figurative langauges.
    Please give me the names you are thinking of. I cannot find names in the verse I was referring to. Here is the verse; (Rev. 22:1) And he showed me a pure river of water of life, clear as crystal, proceeding out of the throne of God and of the Lamb. 2 In the midst of the street of it, and on either side of the river, was there the tree of life, which bare twelve manner of fruits, and yielded her fruit every month: and the leaves of the tree were for the healing of the nations.


    Quote Originally Posted by Beck View Post
    I'm not sure how Richard understands this part of Zech. I don't recall ever him speaking about it.
    Richard felt obliged to respond to my reply to you. Here is Richard's reply in which he siezes upon the word "seethe" to wrongly associate (IMO) with animal sacrifices for sin;
    Quote Originally Posted by Richard Amiel McGough View Post
    You ignored the rest of the passage!
    Zechariah 14:20 In that day shall there be upon the bells of the horses, HOLINESS UNTO THE LORD; and the pots in the LORD'S house shall be like the bowls before the altar. 21 Yea, every pot in Jerusalem and in Judah shall be holiness unto the LORD of hosts: and all they that sacrifice shall come and take of them, and seethe therein: and in that day there shall be no more the Canaanite in the house of the LORD of hosts.
    That is speaking about ANIMAL SACRIFICES that are seethed. And the phrase "House of the Lord" refers to the Temple. It was destroyed in 70 AD and cannot be rebuilt because the true temple (Christ and his Church) has come. Ye are the Temple of God. From a Christian perspective, it is obviously all figurative. You are twisting words again, looking for ways to force your interpretation by suggesting "plant sacrifices." That totally misses the point. The WHOLE FIRST COVENANT JEWISH SYSTEM ENDED with the coming of Christ. That's why God destroyed the Temple. That's why there is no promise of a rebuilt temple. The old carnal (physical) Temple had to die to make room for the True Temple (Christ and his Body, the Church).
    All the best

    David
    Last edited by David M; 04-10-2013 at 04:00 AM.

  9. #29
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Posts
    981
    Quote Originally Posted by David M View Post
    Hello Beck

    The first three use figurative language. The last one I regard "living streams" as liiteral rivers. A spiritual sense can also apply so in that sense it can be seen as figurative. I do not exclude the literal for saying it has spiritual connotations.
    So do you acknowledge that Zech speaks of a fountain? And also do you think that there are such passages as one part to be literal and the next figurative? I know of the use of parallelism, but never saw any using one part literal and the next part figurative...Do you? If we can agree that in Zech 14 usage of the living waters as being figurative then why would you concluse that the splitting of the Mount as literal?


    Please give me the names you are thinking of. I cannot find names in the verse I was referring to. Here is the verse; (Rev. 22:1) And he showed me a pure river of water of life, clear as crystal, proceeding out of the throne of God and of the Lamb. 2 In the midst of the street of it, and on either side of the river, was there the tree of life, which bare twelve manner of fruits, and yielded her fruit every month: and the leaves of the tree were for the healing of the nations.
    The pervious verses mentioned Jerusalem from which you have the street, the river of life and tree of life on each side. (Rev.21:10) Jerusalem is a proper name one such as Zech uses (Zech 14:8) from which the living waters flow from Jerusalem. Now is the river and street in Revelation literal or figurative language? Now consider Zech and the mention of the mount of Olives to be split as literal or figurative? I hope you can see how these both are written in the figurative sence.

    Richard felt obliged to respond to my reply to you. Here is Richard's reply in which he siezes upon the word "seethe" to wrongly associate (IMO) with animal sacrifices for sin;

    All the best

    David
    I agree with Richard he said "it is obviously all figurative". Yes as I said it was a picture of the feastival of Tabernacle which includes offerings and sarcifices to God. Zech is saying that every pot in Jerusalem will be made holy and used for God not only those at the altar. The implcation of this is that everyone will be a vessel unto God and maded holy to recieve the Holy Spirit. Know you not that you body is the Temple [Tabernacle] of God.
    Beck

  10. #30
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Yakima, Wa
    Posts
    15,150
    Quote Originally Posted by David M View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Beck
    You say that they are the same as Jesus said, but then say you regard them as different. Which are they figurative or literally? Also 'fountain' is found in Zech it's in Zech 13:1 which speaks of 'in that day' same same chapters 12, 13 and 14 all say it's in that day.
    The first three use figurative language. The last one I regard "living streams" as liiteral rivers. A spiritual sense can also apply so in that sense it can be seen as figurative. I do not exclude the literal for saying it has spiritual connotations.
    That strikes me as very strange. Why would anyone interpret the phrase "living waters" literally? In Jeremiah, God uses that phrase figuratively to describe himself:
    Jeremiah 2:13 "For My people have committed two evils: They have forsaken Me, the fountain of living waters, And hewn themselves cisterns -- broken cisterns that can hold no water.
    Here God is describing himself as the "fountain of living waters." Likewise, he repeats himself later in the same book:
    Jeremiah 17:13 O LORD, the hope of Israel, All who forsake You shall be ashamed. "Those who depart from Me Shall be written in the earth, Because they have forsaken the LORD, The fountain of living waters."
    Exactly the same phrase is used in all three passages:
    Zechariah 14:8 And it shall be in that day, that living waters shall go out from Jerusalem; half of them toward the former sea, and half of them toward the hinder sea: in summer and in winter shall it be.
    The New Testament explains what the living waters really are:
    John 7:38 He that believeth on me, as the scripture hath said, out of his belly shall flow rivers of living water. But this He spoke concerning the Spirit, whom those believing in Him would receive; for the Holy Spirit was not yet given, because Jesus was not yet glorified.
    And this is the water Christ promised to the woman by the well:
    John 4:10 Jesus answered and said to her, "If you knew the gift of God, and who it is who says to you, 'Give Me a drink,' you would have asked Him, and He would have given you living water." 11 The woman said to Him, "Sir, You have nothing to draw with, and the well is deep. Where then do You get that living water? 12 "Are You greater than our father Jacob, who gave us the well, and drank from it himself, as well as his sons and his livestock?" 13 Jesus answered and said to her, "Whoever drinks of this water will thirst again, 14 "but whoever drinks of the water that I shall give him will never thirst. But the water that I shall give him will become in him a fountain of water springing up into everlasting life."
    Likewise, the fountains of water in both Zechariah 13 are obviously figurative:
    Zechariah 13:1 "In that day a fountain shall be opened for the house of David and for the inhabitants of Jerusalem, for sin and for uncleanness.
    Of course, the fact that figurative language is used doesn't mean it is not referring to a literal historical event, in this case the crucifixion of Christ, which happened "in that day" - meaning the first century coming of Messiah.

    I see no justification for interpreting Zechariah 14 as yet future. It is naturally understood just like all the other prophecies concerning the first century coming of Messiah, and his judgment upon Jerusalem in 70 AD. Indeed, that is demanded by context, as we can see when it speaks of the destruction of Jerusalem in the context of the crucifixion of Messiah:
    Zechariah 12:10 "And I will pour on the house of David and on the inhabitants of Jerusalem the Spirit of grace and supplication; then they will look on Me whom they pierced. Yes, they will mourn for Him as one mourns for his only son, and grieve for Him as one grieves for a firstborn. 11 "In that day there shall be a great mourning in Jerusalem, like the mourning at Hadad Rimmon in the plain of Megiddo.
    This coheres perfectly, of course, with the prophecy of Daniel 9 (sans the magical stretchy 2000+ year gap):
    Daniel 9:25 "Know therefore and understand, That from the going forth of the command To restore and build Jerusalem Until Messiah the Prince, There shall be seven weeks and sixty-two weeks; The street shall be built again, and the wall, Even in troublesome times. 26 "And after the sixty-two weeks Messiah shall be cut off, but not for Himself; And the people of the prince who is to come Shall destroy the city and the sanctuary. The end of it shall be with a flood, And till the end of the war desolations are determined. 27 Then he shall confirm a covenant with many for one week; But in the middle of the week He shall bring an end to sacrifice and offering. And on the wing of abominations shall be one who makes desolate, Even until the consummation, which is determined, Is poured out on the desolate."
    Is that not what happened? First the Messiah was killed and then about 40 years later the city and the sanctuary were destroyed, exactly as Christ warned in the Olivet Discourse:
    Luke 21:20 "But when you see Jerusalem surrounded by armies, then know that its desolation is near. 21 "Then let those who are in Judea flee to the mountains, let those who are in the midst of her depart, and let not those who are in the country enter her. 22 "For these are the days of vengeance, that all things which are written may be fulfilled. 23 "But woe to those who are pregnant and to those who are nursing babies in those days! For there will be great distress in the land and wrath upon this people.
    And on and on it goes. This is why I say Preterism coheres with what the Bible actually states so much better than Futurism. Almost all Futurists admit that Luke was talking about the destruction of 70 AD. The only way then can then force their Futurist doctrine is to shred its unity with the parallel passages in Matthew and Mark which is utterly impossible as I proved in my famous post #3 that no one can refute (as explained in my victory post).

    Quote Originally Posted by David M View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Beck
    I highligted in bold that you are saying and agreeing that Living waters was in a figurative sence. Glad we could come to that agreement.
    Its good we do not disagree on everything.
    I'd like to get in on some of that agreement!

    Quote Originally Posted by David M View Post
    Richard felt obliged to respond to my reply to you. Here is Richard's reply in which he siezes upon the word "seethe" to wrongly associate (IMO) with animal sacrifices for sin;
    Quote Originally Posted by Richard Amiel McGough
    You ignored the rest of the passage!
    Zechariah 14:20 In that day shall there be upon the bells of the horses, HOLINESS UNTO THE LORD; and the pots in the LORD'S house shall be like the bowls before the altar. 21 Yea, every pot in Jerusalem and in Judah shall be holiness unto the LORD of hosts: and all they that sacrifice shall come and take of them, and seethe therein: and in that day there shall be no more the Canaanite in the house of the LORD of hosts.
    That is speaking about ANIMAL SACRIFICES that are seethed. And the phrase "House of the Lord" refers to the Temple. It was destroyed in 70 AD and cannot be rebuilt because the true temple (Christ and his Church) has come. Ye are the Temple of God. From a Christian perspective, it is obviously all figurative. You are twisting words again, looking for ways to force your interpretation by suggesting "plant sacrifices." That totally misses the point. The WHOLE FIRST COVENANT JEWISH SYSTEM ENDED with the coming of Christ. That's why God destroyed the Temple. That's why there is no promise of a rebuilt temple. The old carnal (physical) Temple had to die to make room for the True Temple (Christ and his Body, the Church).
    I don't recall feeling "obliged." I just felt like answering that point, that's all. And you have not, to my knowledge, refuted my point, let alone shown any understanding of the New Testament teachings concerning the symbolic meanings of the OT symbols like the Temple, the sacrifices, and so forth which you are erroneously assuming to be LITERAL. The Book of Hebrews explains the meaning of the OT symbols:
    Hebrews 9:8 the Holy Spirit indicating this, that the way into the Holiest of All was not yet made manifest while the first tabernacle was still standing. 9 It was symbolic for the present time in which both gifts and sacrifices are offered which cannot make him who performed the service perfect in regard to the conscience -- 10 concerned only with foods and drinks, various washings, and fleshly ordinances imposed until the time of reformation. 11 But Christ came as High Priest of the good things to come, with the greater and more perfect tabernacle not made with hands, that is, not of this creation. 12 Not with the blood of goats and calves, but with His own blood He entered the Most Holy Place once for all, having obtained eternal redemption.
    The message could be no clearer. The Temple and sacrifices were SYMBOLS of the "better things to come" with Christ. This is repeated:
    Hebrews 10:1 For the law, having a shadow of the good things to come, and not the very image of the things, can never with these same sacrifices, which they offer continually year by year, make those who approach perfect.
    And it is repeated again by Paul:
    Colossians 2:16 So let no one judge you in food or in drink, or regarding a festival or a new moon or sabbaths, 17 which are a shadow of things to come, but the substance is of Christ.
    The whole Futurist paradigm denies the plain teaching of the NT on countless points, especially in the HYPER-LITERAL interpretation of the symbols that were fulfilled in Christ and the Church.

    Now think about this. All these many verses I've quoted in this one little post are only the tip of the iceberg of many mutually confirming verses that establish the Preterist view. This is why I keep saying we need to count up the "score" for the two systems. The "score" is the number of clear and unambiguous mutually confirming passages that support your view minus the number that you must "explain away" (or ignore). I'm pretty sure the answer will be ten thousand to one in favor of Preterism. We really should try it.

    Great chatting,

    Richard
    • Skepticism is the antiseptic of the mind.
    • Remember why we debate. We have nothing to lose but the errors we hold. Who but a stubborn fool would hold to errors once they have been exposed?

    Check out my blog site

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may edit your posts
  •