lekh l'kha

"Cosmo"? Hello Slippery, I noticed your arrogance and your condescending remarks toward Matt in the thread about his dream - which confirmed my suspicions - the most arrogant and condescending Christians are the ones who cry like babies claiming to be the victims of arrogance and condescension. Sometimes they will be arrogant and condescending quite openly - like you were towards Matt in his thread about his dream. And sometimes they will be either arrogant or condescending through the back-door of subtlety - like "accidentally" calling someone "Cosmo" when they know perfectly well that's not his name, and do so in a sentence which is ever so subtly sarcastic. I'd call that real slippery. No he doesn't - He said "Of (the) present time My Kingdom is not of this world" - I'm not going to do your homework for you - go look up the Greek word which is translated into English as "now" in that verse. His Kingdom is in the world right now - but of the present time it is not of the world. The kingdoms of this world are going to become the kingdoms of our Lord and of His Christ - Jesus Himself revealed that to us through His servant John. He did not deny anything when the apostles asked Him when He would set up His physical kingdom - He simply said that it's not for them to know the times or the seasons (regarding Christ setting up His physical Kingdom), BUT they were to take the gospel of His Kingdom to the world in the meantime. Neither Christ's answer to the apostles nor the later teaching of the apostles fits your understanding of the Kingdom of Christ. But have it your way, because although I know I said I would debate this with you, yet I have a complete lack of motivation to get into this debate with you at length. Maybe it's because I've been around this same block too many times before, and maybe it's because I have a complete lack of inspiration from the Holy Spirit at the moment to get into a lengthy debate with you about this subject, I don't know. So, therefore, have it your way for now. Maybe I'll debate this with you some other time, maybe not, I don't know. Lekh

Hey Matt, Is the Holy Spirit trying to tell you something? I think He is (and of course it's just going to be my opinion about it, not necessarily fact): I think that perhaps the following is what the Holy Spirit is trying to tell you regarding the 'guilty' feeling - and I'm going to quote certain things you said one at a time, because I think it has to do with your statement below which I will quote first (which is part of a common teaching and practice in the church, which I believe we should not be doing): "But Michael, the archangel, when contending with the Devil, he argued about the body of Moses, he dared not bring a judgment of blasphemy, but said, Let the Lord rebuke you!" (Jude 1:9) Re 12:11 "And they overcame him by the blood of the Lamb, and by the word of their testimony; and they loved not their lives unto the death." I know that this is common teaching and practice in the church, but who should be rebuking Satan - it is the only One who was powerful enough to defeat him at the cross and to bind him for a thousand years when the time comes and to send him into the lake of fire when the time comes: "But Michael, the archangel, when contending with the Devil, he argued about the body of Moses, he dared not bring a judgment of blasphemy, but said, Let the Lord rebuke you!" (Jude 1:9) Re 12:11 "And they overcame him by the blood of the Lamb, and by the word of their testimony; and they loved not their lives unto the death." We should not be rebuking Satan, or trying to rebuke him: "But Michael, the archangel, when contending with the Devil, he argued about the body of Moses, he dared not bring a judgment of blasphemy, but said, Let the Lord rebuke you!" (Jude 1:9) The only One who should be rebuking Satan is the only One who was powerful enough to defeat him at the cross and to bind him when the time comes. What happened in your dream when you kept throwing the blood at Satan? He faded away, and then he was sent away for a time (a thousand years), after which he will return. That's what I think the Holy Spirit is trying to tell you (actually I'm quite convinced of it, there's no doubt about that at all in my mind - but I'll leave it up to you to judge whether or not this interpretation of your dream is based on what I got from the Holy Spirit, or purely on my beliefs regarding "binding and rebuking Satan") Lekh

You never know, maybe we'll both learn something from one another along the way I'll be back to this thread sometime maybe to take it up from the OP again. Just don't know when yet, but when I have a break I'll come back to this thread before I go anywhere else. It'll keep you very very busy - and me. I have a feeling we've both been around this block a few times.

I live by the moto, "You need to be willing to be wrong." I have no problem listening, however, like you put I have "Come to understand" through research and experience, therefore what someone puts forth needs to merit my time. I don't think that's out of the realm of reason. I have come from a few sites were it gets down right personal. As far as you saying; I never suggested that you hadn't. However the language you used seemed quite condescending. This will be the last I mention of this, because I don't typically waste my time about these things however I am new to this site. Hopefully we can, even as people seeing things differently, get along and have some good interesting debates. Peace from Him to Us. I can see where your heart lies. You're welcome at Worthy, and that goes without saying - not because I say so (and mean it) - but because Worthy belongs to all Christians and is run by the good people who started it, and the Mods. At the end of the day there's complete unity between you and me because there is only one Holy Spirit who lives in both of us and He is the Spirit of truth. Trouble is, the illumination of the Holy Spirit of the Word of God has to pass through the filter of our minds, with all our preconceived ideas and beliefs - no matter who we are - because we all see as in a mirror, but dimly - because the mirror's image gets distorted by our own concepts. So while we might agree on a number of things, I might strongly disagree with you on a number of things (and I can see that I do), but I can see you're not arrogant, and so there won't be any reason why we won't be able to disagree agreeably. I strongly disagree with some people here who share your views about the Kingdom of Christ, the millennium etc, but I have a great deal of respect for them - like Bold Believer, for example. Why? Because it's obvious where his heart lies. So God bless you. By the way, "to the arrogant I appear arrogant" - it's a way of not allowing them to bully me. You've been around at various forums so you will know what I mean when I say that some Christians have an incredibly intelligent but extremely subtle way of making others look like they're stupid, and of gaining a "me clever, you stupid" hold over people - even though their arguments and point of view may be entirely wrong. I don't deal with everyone in the same way - I pay close attention to their tactics, and then I steal their own weapons that they use to slay others with out of their hands and use the same weapons to slay them.

Well I've certainly learned a lot in this thread. And I'm coming to the horrible conclusion that I could have done more damage to the cause of Christ by responding to Muslims' false statements about the Bible (taught them by Mohammed) by telling them that they worship Mohammed in their hearts and therefore worship two gods. I think that we need ex Muslims to teach us about the best approach - and therefore I'm paying a lot of attention to everything 2Christ has had to say in this thread. But changing course just a little: I find it more than coincidence that roughly 300 years after the resurrection Satan gave birth to a replacement Christ in the Western part of the Roman Empire (and in Rome itself), along with a replacement theology - and then roughly 300 years later he gave birth to another replacement Christ in the East (in Mecca), beginning with changing a central truth by saying that it was Ishmael and not Isaac (who is the type of Christ) whom Abraham took to the Mount to offer up as a sacrifice. In both cases the office and function of the Holy Spirit (Vicar of Christ - the Comforter of all those who believe in Jesus and the One who leads them into all truth) was claimed by a man. In both cases, new theological concepts about the Kingdom of God/Christ in the world which are alien to the Bible were taught. In the West, Christ's followers were forced to submit to the "authority" and deceptive claims of the man who claimed the office and functions of the Holy Spirit for himself - but the bishops and emperors of the Eastern empire would not acknowledge the "authority" of the deceptive doctrines and claims of the bishops in the Western Roman Empire - and so they and most of their citizens - the citizens in the East - would eventually be forced to submit to the "authority" of the deceptive doctrines and claims of the other man who claimed the office and function of the Holy Spirit, calling himself the Comforter and the fulfilment of Christ's promise that He would send the comforter to his followers. Oh, but I forgot, Satan was bound at the cross of Jesus and never deceived nobody Lekh.

I'm sorry but, yeah it is. It is no more effective than any of the cheap insults hurled at us by atheists. What truth will set men free? How will the truth that Mohammed married a child set Muslims free? You think they don't know who Mohammed's most precious wife was? Knowing that truth hasn't set them free yet. What makes anyone think that using that "truth" as a cheap insult will set them free? Maybe we should focus more on the actual "truth" that Jesus was referring to rather than school-yard cheap-shots. Of course, there are muslims who don't respect christians and attack the bible. But its not fair to make that a global assumption. I am generally not disrespected by muslims...but then again, I don't come across as the kind of Christian thats gonna call Mohammed a pedophile either. I guess it's all about context. You have the right to your approach, and it might be (and is) the appropriate approach most of the time. But not all the time - it depends on the context of the interaction.

Good ending BB - that's why we'll always be brothers - because we all agree on the ending. It's the between "now" and "then" parts that non-Christians will find there are as many versions of as there are Christians. Well, maybe not quite, but you know what I mean

It was not a childish nor a nonsensical statement. "You shall know the truth, and the truth shall set you free". Muslims do not respect Christians who treat their religion with respect even while they consistently attack the Bible, telling YOU what the Bible says and doesn't say.

They deleted the whole subject-thread when, pointing out a few things to them that they had said about Mohammed, I told them that though they deny it, their words betray the fact that they worship Mohammed in their hearts as a god, and that they therefore have two gods: Mohammed + the god of the ancient Arabians he told them to worship. I also told them that Mohammed himself and his followers have been drawing the unflattering cartoons of him in the minds of non-Muslims for 1,400 years, and it's absurd for them to protest when the pictures of Mohammed they had drawn in the minds of others find expression in Facebook and newspapers and elsewhere. They simply deleted the entire thread and its subject - which had been started by a Muslim woman who started off praising Mohammed.

Hi SP, I also think it's funnny that you think I haven't studdied this out and have simply chosen to grasp at a few random scriptures. I'm also not going to pour out a huge study for you. Just like you, if I spend the next two hours typing a great explanation you would just skim it and not agree with it anyway. And like you, I have learned going through many different boards that's all people seem to be interested in. I also find that the moment that people (anyone - like you, me or anyone else) has a certain interpretation of certain things, then you, me and everyone else (yes- it includes you) are not interested in hearing what anyone else has to say, you're interested in telling them why they are wrong. Like you, I'm more interested in healthy debate, not condescending rhetoric - but I find that people who accuse others of using "condescending rhetoric" are normally doing that themselves and then conveniently accusing others of doing it to them. I hope I'm right about you when I say that I think you seem to be the kind of guy who is humble enough to accept that he could be wrong about anything he says or believes regarding his interpretation and understanding of the things written about in the Bible, except when he says that God is right about everything HE says. I hope you saw my apology about the sarcastic reply I gave you the first time I answered your post - I meant it. I am sorry. Quite often in the past, a guy has joined worthy - under two different names, and then got his two personalities to support his own argument - and for a short while I thought you and PaulT were one and the same person (and at the time PaulT was only interested in playing games and trying to show off his intellectual intelligence. He became more serious subsequent to that though). Anyway, don't know how much time I'll have to come back here and argue against the position you put forward here, so I might and might not be back for a while - but if I come back to answer one of your statements in one of your posts - be sure that IF I feel that your position is wrong, I will argue against it. God bless, Lekh.

Again, don't put words in my mouth. I said what I meant and you are out of line.You have a bad tendency to attack the person when you can't refute an argument. Cut it out....and that's not a request. You make a statement and when your statement gets challenged you're under personal attack? You have a bad tendency to become angry and claim you're under personal attack when no-one's attacking you, simply because you can't seem to tolerate opposition to your argument and your statements. I find your debate style is somewhat.... unique? Kind of like "This is what I say and it's the truth - don't you dare argue with me!!" I don't mind who believes or doesn't believe a dispensationlist pre-millennial interpretation - but if anyone posts arguments in support of their views here in this board, they really should not become angry when they make arbitrary, groundless statements like ""Christians who believe this or that are running around in a state of paranoid agitation playing "Pin the Tail On The Antichrist."", and their statements are challenged. I find you rather arrogant, claiming that opposition to your statements are a personal attack on you, and then saying "cut it out, and that's not a request". You've already made obvious by your own words that your interpretation of the Revelation is based entirely on the premise that: John, "the disciple whom Jesus loved". John, who wrote that Jesus said, "For God so loved the world that He gave His only-begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life." (Joh 3:16). John, "the disciple whom Jesus loved", whose head was on Christ's bosom at the last supper, whose gospels and epistles contain the word "love" far more times than any of the other gospels and epistles "hated Rome" and this was "his" motivation for writing what he wrote in the Revelation? We can be 100% sure that the only motivation John had for writing the Revelation was because it is "The Revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave unto him, to shew unto his servants things which must shortly come to pass; and he sent and signified it by his angel unto his servant John:"(Rev 1:1). Was God's motivation for giving the Revelation to Christ and Christ's motivation for "sending and signifying it by his angel unto his servant John" God's hatred for the Roman Empire? Is God's Revelation "a revenge fantasy against the Roman empire after the fall of Jerusalem"? PaulT, your own claims and your own words show that the above statements are the premise upon which your entire interpretation of the Revelation is built. That's such a terribly wobbly premise that your entire interpretation of the Revelation is going to come crashing down real soon, leaving you in a worse mess than Humpty Dumpty. I'm not attacking you - I'm addressing your arguments. I really hope it doesn't become a habit with you to claim you're under personal attack every time your statements are challenged - it's a really bad switching from a child-parent ("I'm under personal attack") disposition to a parent-child ("stop it - and that's not a request") disposition, all in one sentence, instead of trying to maintain and adult-adult disposition, and an adult reaction to having your views and statements challenged. Lekh

I thought you were going to be happy about this, BB!! It's about time you had someone on your side for a change - if even they are just dead wrong

There is no "final kingdom" That was the Jews problem also. Even the apostles asked Jesus about when He would set up His physical kingdom and Jesus told them His kingdom was not of this world. They expected it, just as you do, but Jesus himself denys it. They thought of a physical kingdom, God had givent them a physical kingdom, the was Israel, through David. Then that was done away with and now it's a Kingdom through spirit... "If anyone tells you that it is here or there, don't go out after it supposing it will be there for it is not. For the kingdom of heaven is in you." Aah, but you see, you ignore all the facts and verses which show that interpreting the Kingdom only in accordance with the verses you quoted, while ignoring all the Lord's other statements about the kingdom (as well as the statements of His apostles), leads you to the conclusion that 1+1=3. Jesus said, "My Kingdom is not NOW (Greek: "nun", meaning, "of present time") of this world. Here's an exercise for you: Go look for all the verses in the New Testament containing the word "until", and read them thoroughly. Then read what Rev.11:15 says about the kingdoms of this world becoming the kingdoms of Christ when the seventh trumpet sounds, and compare it with what Jesus said about His kingdom being not NOW (Greek: "nun", meaning "of present time") of this world. Do the same thing regarding what was said about the Jerusalem of the present time ("the Jerusalem which NOW is": Greek: "nun", meaning "of present time") being in bondage (in this present time) with her children - compare it with the word UNTIL which Jesus uttered about Jerusalem in Mat.23:39 and 37-39. First law of Hermeneutics: Don't isolate certain passages of scripture and insert a meaning to them without first studying what the rest of scripture has to say about the same subject. Pretend you're in a classroom kind of debate-competition situation and the teacher has assigned to you the task of debating in favor of a coming literal kingdom of Christ in this world in a literal millennium - and go and look for and study all the scriptures that you find in order to prove the position the teacher assigned you to debate in favor of. It's called "lateral thinking". You will be amazed when you thought you saw a picture of two faces (of people facing one another) and you suddenly realize it was also two glass vases standing next to one another.

Just because I don't accept the dispensationalist pre-millenniel interpretation of the book doesn't mean I think the book itself is any less inspired. Good for you, PaulT - you had me really worried about you for a while. I'm pretty sure no Christian runs around debating interpretation of the Revelation with non-Christians. Time can be made (and is made by many Christians) for evangelism. This has nothing to do with what we're discussing here - if you think what anyone discusses here is a waste of time, then why are you posting here? What you actually mean is, "anyone who disagrees with the way I see things is a waste of time" He also said, "And there shall be signs in the sun, and in the moon, and in the stars. And on the earth will be anxiety of nations with perplexity; the sea and the waves roaring; men fainting from fear, and expecting those things which have come on the earth. For the powers of the heavens shall be shaken. And then they shall see the Son of Man coming in a cloud with power and great glory. And when these things begin to happen, then look up and lift up your heads, for your redemption draws near. (Luk 21:25-28) Regardless of whether or not we debate/discuss the Lord's Revelation, we have His peace, so who says Christians are anxiously "running around in a state of paranoid agitation playing "Pin the Tail On The Antichrist.""? What you actually mean is, "anyone who disagrees with the way I see things is in a state of paranoid agitation playing "Pin the Tail On The Antichrist."" You have every right to your opinion about the Revelation of Jesus, of course - and your opinion about it is most welcome here in the "eschatology" board and in the "prophecy" board - I do believe that is after all what these boards are created for, no?

Hi SP. I think (IMO) you're correct but only partly correct. I think the Roman Empire fits the bill like you said, but I think there's also a final kingdom which will rule the world immediately before the return of Christ, and I think 666 refers to more than one "antichrist". It may be coincidence, but there's at least one Islamic website which teaches that 666 is a holy number, that Satan tricked the world into having it inserted into the Christian Bible as an evil mark, and that this number 666 is the mark of Islam and the Qur'an, and it cites a number of interesting gematria calculations surrounding the Qur'anic verses - for example: According to them, the Arabic letters for "in the name of Allah" = 666, there are 6,666 verses in the Qur'an, etc. Personally, I don't believe anything about the number 666 - but I am open to a number of possibilities. The bottom line of my argument against your position though, is that I believe the Revelation of Jesus Christ transcends time and cannot be put into a box marked "A.D 70 to A.D400/500", and though the prophecies it contains might have been fulfilled, as you say, in a particular time-period, the wheel goes round and comes back again. Lekh.

Oops. Thanks, Traveller. Unfortunately there's no foot-in-mouth avatar here. My apologies to slipperyPete. I realize you were seriously debating from the point of view you are debating from, and I'm really sorry for giving you such a sarcastic reply (I thought you were PaulT, and PaulT doesn't seem to want to engage in serious discussion/debate).

SlipperyPete, You've put God and the Revelation of Jesus Christ into a box titled "A.D 70 to A.D 400/500". Unfortunately though, God is far too great to fit into your little box. I hope you don't mind, but I for one will not be looking for God in your little box - I will be looking for Him, as always, in Jam.1:5 and the rest of the Bible. I suggest you look for Him outside of your little box - because He transcends time - and so does His Revelation. Lekh Ad hominum, Lekh? I'm disappointed. You can do better than that. Well maybe it just seems as though the two of you - you and slipperyPete - are operating in a pair (or is it the one of you?) But anyway, PaulT, it's quite obvious that you like playing games and have no reverence for the Revelation of Jesus Christ, so when you've answered my question which you still haven't answered (Do you believe that Jesus is the Son of God, the Word of God in the flesh and that He died for your sins and rose again from the dead?), then I will suggest a board here at Worthy to you where they do play games. Perhaps yo will feel more at home there, because unfortunately, here in this board no-one else is going to pay any attention to you if you only want to play games, and you will be flatly ignored. So take your other personality slipperyPete which exists in your multiple personality disorder and discuss with him in your head how you would like to proceed - 'cause I'll also be ignoring you from now if you can't even answer such a basic question as the one I've asked you twice now, no?

The Rabbi's now believe it is a build up for Ezekile 38... Please tell me more about what the Rabbis are saying. I don't know about you, but when I see (for the first time in history and/or in the history of the Arab-Israeli conflict), a joint military co-ordinations operations centre in Damascus under the command of Iran, all ready for the next Arab-Israeli war to break out, and when I see thousands of long-range missiles all aimed at Israeli military and civilian targets all over Israel and already placed into position along the borders of Israel with Lebanon, Syria and Gaza, and when I see Turkey cooperating with Syria, turning against Israel and threatening Israel with war, and when I see how the Muslim leaders of Iran, Syria, Lebanon, Hamas and Hizbullah almost can't wait for Israel to attack Lebanon or Gaza again in self-defence so that they can all declare an all-out war against Israel bent on its annihilation, and when I hear their excited war-rhetoric and very self-confident assertions that the next time Israel strikes, Israel will be finished off forever, ... then I want to know what the Rabbis are saying - because regardless of whether or not the next war that's about to break out is "THE" war, nevertheless all the signs are there that the next war is going to be such a catastrophic and violent war that if it's not the end, it's the beginning of the end.

Thanks for the link! I'M busy downloading it.

SlipperyPete, You've put God and the Revelation of Jesus Christ into a box titled "A.D 70 to A.D 400/500". Unfortunately though, God is far too great to fit into your little box. I hope you don't mind, but I for one will not be looking for God in your little box - I will be looking for Him, as always, in Jam.1:5 and the rest of the Bible. I suggest you look for Him outside of your little box - because He transcends time - and so does His Revelation. Lekh

PaulT, First, you denigrate the Word of God like you did in the other thread: http://www.worthychristianforums.com/Antic...40&start=40 "A Revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave to Him to declare to His servants things which must shortly come to pass. And He signified it by sending His angel to His servant John," (Rev 1:1). "Write the things which you have seen, and the things which are, and the things which shall be after this," (Rev 1:19). "After these things I looked, and behold, a door was opened in Heaven. And the first voice which I heard was as it were of a trumpet talking with me, saying, Come up here, and I will show you what must occur after these things." (Rev 4:1). "For I testify together to everyone who hears the Words of the prophecy of this Book: If anyone adds to these things, God will add on him the plagues that have been written in this Book. And if anyone takes away from the Words of the Book of this prophecy, God will take away his part out of the Book of Life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which have been written in this Book." (Rev 22:18-19) PaulT, You denigrate the Revelation of Jesus Christ to the position of "a revenge fantasy against the Roman empire after the fall of Jerusalem." Then you denigrate the Revelation of Jesus Christ by asserting that "John's hatred of Rome was such that he called down condemnation on anyone conducting commerce within the Roman empire." Your intellectualizing doesn't impress anyone here. Your denigrating of the Revelation of Jesus Christ in support of your arguments reminds me of the type of thing that Muslims do when they bring forward their arguments against the Word of God. Do you believe that Jesus is the Son of God and the Word of God in human form who died for your sins and rose again from the dead? Lekh

"A Revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave to Him to declare to His servants things which must shortly come to pass. And He signified it by sending His angel to His servant John," (Rev 1:1). "Write the things which you have seen, and the things which are, and the things which shall be after this," (Rev 1:19). "After these things I looked, and behold, a door was opened in Heaven. And the first voice which I heard was as it were of a trumpet talking with me, saying, Come up here, and I will show you what must occur after these things." (Rev 4:1). You have just denigrated the Revelation of Jesus Christ to the position of "a revenge fantasy against the Roman empire after the fall of Jerusalem." Do you really expect me to take you seriously? C'mon, PaulT, I hope you can display better scholarship than that.

John wrote Revelation as a revenge fantasy against the Roman empire after the fall of Jerusalem. There is no justification, literary or otherwise, for your position. Hi Paul. There is no justification, literary or otherwise, for your position. John may have received the Revelation during a specific time period - but that cannot force your assumption that "John wrote Revelation (ONLY) as a revenge fantasy against the Roman empire after the fall of Jerusalem." In fact, some scholars now cite evidence for their belief that the Revelation was written before the fall of Jerusalem. But that doesn't matter, because there is no justification, literary or otherwise, for your position - as your own contradiction to your own statement below shows: It is no coincidence. John uses Daniel and others as a "language arsenal."