Judaism Debate Image Gallery
Last 30 Uploads
been there done that
25 m
250
† C †
trapper/kcmo
5 y
192
† C †
trapper/kcmo
5 y
749
† C †
omar goes all in on foreign influence on our government
tomi777
6 y
3,557
† C †
You'll find out the truth of it on judgment day, won't you tomi? The same word that you reject now as God's message to us will stand as your judge on that day.
Meantime, you can avoid finding yourself on the wrong side of that judgment by reading such books as F F Bruce's 'The New Testament Documents: Are They Reliable?', J B Phillips' 'Ring of Truth', or even B M Metzger's 'The Text of the New Testament - Its Transmission, Corruption and Restoration'. All three are top drawer scholars who will show all your skeptics a clean pair of heels where this subject is concerned. And there are many others I could cite, but I hafta draw the line somewhere.
So, either consider the evidence on the other side of that coin, or simply continue to spout your litany of half truths, gross misrepresentations of the facts, and even outright lies. While some readers might be fooled by your agnostic rationalism, hopefully the majority will see straight thru your unashamed appeal to and use of straw men.
Or were you perhaps just being deliberately provocative to draw a counterblast from me? Coz if so, then you know me far too well than is good for your own health.
"Then tell me Loquat what's your assertion ?"
Seriously? You can't work that out for yourself from the earlier exchange? All that vexatious drivel rotted your brain has it?
"Don't call me an agnostic"
"...mixed up like a packet of liquorish allsorts..."
"You have the gall to call it gods word."
"While your at it mate show me where I have lied."
UserX
6 y
3,547
Funny how the 1st & 3rd 'prophecies' flatly contradict each other, innit? The eschatology of the 1st immediately marks it out as false, so I'm gonna call 'false prophet' on all 3.
Yes indeedee Refreshed. The difference you ask? I'll let ya into a little secret.
Anything that glorifies Jesus, anything that preaches Him as the crucified and risen Lord of all creation who now sits at the Father's right hand, anything that maginifies Him to the personal cost of the messenger, anything that encourages us in these truths and helps us to grow in the faith, anything that emboldens us to be faithful witnesses to the salvation that is the free gift to all those who believe; all these, and more in similar vein, I would suggest are the true hallmarks of messages from God.
In clear contradistinction to all these, anything that puffs up or promotes the messengers, anything that flatters their ego, panders to their pride, or enriches them to the cost of their 'followers'; anything that leaves those followers spiritually impoverished [I wanted to slash my own wrists after just a few minutes of listening to Paula White]; any-thing that turns out to be proved false by the mere passage of time, anything that brings the faith into disrepute ........ well, those are just a few examples by way of illustration, but I hope you catch my drift.
Does that answer your question?
Sure glad I was finally able to answer a question from you without provoking the usual high horse reaction.
However, case in point. I thought that second name (Maurice Sklar) looked familiar, and sure enough, a cursory search confirmed this to be none other than the Sklar of Sadhu Sundar Selvaraj 'associate' fame, about whom Rainy and I have posted before. Except, of course, she was impressed by Selvaraj's 'revelations' - initially at least. This article is a good exposé of Sklar, Selvaraj's partner in crime - sorry - I mean prophecy:
https://endtimedelusion.com/2012/09/08/maurice-sklar-strikes-the-mother-lode-...
.......and it's interesting to note that this was originally a Benny Hinn 'prophecy' dating back to the late 80's. Hinn himself was 'only' 23 years out regarding Billy Graham's death, which is pretty good going for a false prophet.
But of special interest to me are the last few paragraphs of the article, which amount to an elaboration of what I have written above about distinguishing the true from the false. I'm glad to see that I'm not alone in thinking these might be sound principles that help us discern truth from falsehood.
The upshot of all this though is that our friend apparently rejects the historic Christian faith coz of what he's pleased to call its association with organised religion, etc., yet he's happy to quote false prophets instead. I can only assume he approves of the messages of these false prophets. BTW, did I mention that these prophets were false? No? Then please allow me to correct that heinous omission - they are all false prophets. All of them. False.
All of which goes to prove that old adage that the person who rejects belief in God will believe anything.
They can be just as false, like the one you quoted and I immediately found error in. Alexander was it? If I found error that quickly in a small portion of his book that you quoted, then how much more would I find if I read his whole book?
As vekky's reply suggests, you have a strange concept of what constitutes error. By your definition, yes, you will indeed find 'error' in every single paragraph of his writings. Like me, he belongs to the 'Jacked Up' school of prophetic interpretation - just like every inspired writer of the NT in fact.
His interpretation of the symbolic significance of Hosea's wife is a widely held view within the ranks of conservative scholarship, and is even advocated by no less an authority than the mighty Hengstenberg himself. In fact, those who hold this view are only slightly outnumbered by those who believe she was an historical person, even though she is still regarded by them as a type for faithless Israel. To call this 'error' is a severe case of over-egging the pudding, and greatly devalues any impact your criticism of him might have had.
But by all means continue to deprive yourself of the rich pickings that are available to you in his writings, lest you unwittingly fall victim to yet more such grievous 'errors'.
Vekky
6 y
2,265
refreshed
6 y
2,211
trapper/kcmo
6 y
2,149
trapper/kcmo
6 y
1,291
† C †
trapper/kcmo
6 y
1,182
trapper/kcmo
7 y
1,824
and dont think for one second that anything has changed for the better.
tomi777
7 y
1,869
trapper/kcmo
7 y
1,874
trapper/kcmo
7 y
1,834
For the avoidance of doubt, this post looks better on the other forum, not the .info version.
I just believe that there is a dual meaning. A spiritual one of God and a physical one that satan is trying to mimic.
Now I really am confused. So the 'beloved city' is now a Satanic imitation? And the object of a Satanic onslaught after the end of the millennium? Satan attacking Satan? How does that work exactly?
What am I failing to understand here? Something is seriously adrift somewhere, and I'm not even being deliberately obtuse. I genuinely want to understand, so please clarify.
@ vektek - HELP! Do you understand what refreshed is trying to say here?
I use this colour when it's my own writing.
This when quoting a boarder. But I see red rather than pink, so not sure what's going on there.
This when quoting Scripture, emboldened for emphasis, ....
and for additional emphasis, back to red again.........
and for super duper emphasis, this colour.
I do this purely for clarity, so if it's only served to confuse you, I might hafta recconsider my formatting idiosyncrasies.
loquat1
7 y
1,173
Ah, ok. Wondered why/how my formatting could cause such confusion when I go to the trouble of making it as clear as possible. As for how I do it, I mainly use the CK text editor, which is the second button to the right:
If you click the Edit CK button instead of the Edit Text button (which is just a plain text editor), you'll have a lot more editing features at your disposal, which gives you a lot more control over the text. The other advanced editors give you even more features, but I find the CKeditor more than adequate to the task.
Hope that helps sis.
OK guys & gals, over here now please, and I think I managed to read the last few posts in the end. You have certainly been busy lately, haven't ya?
@ refreshed - To conclude re. Hosea & Gomer, my pastor is also a 'Finalist' (I know, pick y/self up off the floor, right?), and he has this to say on the subject:
Thank you for the question! I have struggled with this one, and people in church history have taken different views on it. On balance I think that he really was asked to marry her. There is no hint in the text that it is just a metaphor; it’s recounted as an event. The names given to the children are highly symbolic. It’s been suggested that they are part of what is an allegory. But many names in the OT are given to be symbolic, including in the prophets (e.g. Isaiah 7).
It is possible that Gomer was not unfaithful at the point of marriage, but that the statement “Go and take to yourself an adulterous wife" is spoken after she has committed adultery, and is taken to play to the whole marriage. BUT, I think the LORD does ask him to marry an untrustworthy woman. Hosea wasn’t just going to learn to think of Israel’s sin against God as adultery against him. He was going to feel what God felt like: the betrayal, the anger, the jealousy and the undying love. (It is similar to the emotional intensity of Ezekiel’s prophetic loss of his wife in Ez. 24).
So as you can see, my dear friends, it is simply not the case that Finalists 'spiritualize' everything out of existence on a mere whim. We also accept what the Bible says at face value, but if that's all we did, we would miss out on so much.
Case in point: For the record, I also believe that Jonah was historical. But don't forget it's deeper meaning - Mt 12:40. And without the benefit of Heb.7, who would have guessed the true significance of Gen. 14:17-20? Elijah was a real prophet, but he was also a prophecy (or perhaps slightly more accurately, a 'type') in his own right (Mal. 3:1; 4:5-6 and Mt 17:9-13). The list goes on, and these deeper meanings have filled entire volumes. E W Hengstenberg, arguably one of the greatest (if not the best) evangelical scholars of the 19thC, would not have been able to write his monumental 'Christology of the Old Testament' without these deeper meanings. If you ignore this aspect of revealed truth, you impoverish your own source of real spiritual food.
@ vektek - The thread was cross-posted on the Conspiracy forum coz, if you recall, the OP was about Prince Harry being identified as the antichrist. As this entails a certain level of 'conspiracy' to pull off, I though it only apropo to cross-post there as well. As it's now become almost exclusively a debate about interpretation, end-times, etc., I have now removed it from the Conspiracy Forum.
@ Vekky - Ha!, yeah, forgot that joke. I used to know what pan-m meant, but that was a long time ago. Memory ain't what it used to be, but I think I do ok considering. Can't say I blame him tho. Many pastors will avoid the subject coz it's so controversial and potentially divisive. It doesn't need to be really - we still generally agree on the fundamentals.
Not familiar with those WCC-type groups, so can't really comment. If they preach Christ and Him crucified, then I'm with Paul:
15 Some indeed preach Christ from envy and rivalry, but others from good will. 16 The latter do it out of love, knowing that I am put here for the defense of the gospel. 17 The former proclaim Christ out of selfish ambition, not sincerely but thinking to afflict me in my imprisonment.18 What then? Only that in every way, whether in pretense or in truth, Christ is proclaimed, and in that I rejoice.
But if they preach 'another gospel..............' Need I say more?
@ vekky - So I wasn't far off with my WCC comparison then. Yes, I'll do some background on them when I have a bit more time on my hands. A bit tied up @ the moment with tax returns, etc.
Well, we were warned about this, weren't we?:
.......so that we may no longer be children, tossed to and fro by the waves and carried about by every wind of doctrine, by human cunning, by craftiness in deceitful schemes.
Eph4:14
Without putting a date on it, I consider it one of the main 'signs of the times'. When the world is arraigned in united opposition to the faithful under the banner of a single religion, the great deception will be complete. It fits in perfectly with the scenario depicted in Ezek. 38-39, 2 Thess. 2:1-12, 2 Pet. 3:1-13 and, of course, Rev. 20:7-10. Therein lies one of the most powerful clues as to the correct interpretation of vv 1-6.
Are you paying attention refreshed? Good.
@ vekky - Exactly. Scripture consistently depicts the period immediately preceding the second advent as one of great peril to Christians who refuse to compromise their faith. That leaves no room for the postmillennial dream that things can only get better. It is much harder to conceive of an end-time rebellion if virtually the entire world has been evangelised, whereas it fits in perfectly with the way the world has been going for the last 100 years or so.
How about:
For the earth will be filled
with the knowledge of the glory of the Lord
as the waters cover the sea.
???
loquat1
7 y
1,362
Add This Forum To Your Favorites!
This is not a conspiracy theories forum. We do have a dedicated conspiracy theories debate forum on curezone. Challenge the message and not the messenger!
The first person to resort to name calling and personal attacks automatically loses the debate!
Forum Stats:
forum viewed 55,310 times
575 messages
21 topics
topics per page limited to: 8
average number of messages per page: 288
2 pages
CureZone Newsletter is distributed in partnership with www.netatlantic.com
Copyright 1999 - 2024 www.curezone.org
