Young Earth/Old Earth

[post]

7 hours ago, Joline said:

It is legitimate. As it spoke of John's ministry when he came. Jesus confirmed it.

if it's illegitimate to say that when Jesus, speaking of John, literally says "he is Elijah who was to come" it is a reference to and fulfillment of the only place in all of the scriptures where it is written, 'Elijah is to come,' how many prophecies that we say are fulfilled by Jesus are also "illegitimate" ?? 
on the basis that someone has difficulty comprehending them? 

& isn't it ironic to hear from a literalist that "yom" must mean "24 earth-hours" but "he is Elijah who was to come" can't possibly mean "he is Elijah who was to come" !? 
i think so. 

i guess there is a reason that Christ added, "if you are willing to accept it" -- as He expounded also, that men rejected John, who is Elijah who was to come, and also rejected Himself, being the Messiah who was to come. 
He knew that many would not accept either of them. but can anyone accept one, and not the other? 


 

[Guest shiloh357]

5 hours ago, post said:

if it is a "direct reference" it is not "veiled" -- and it's not an attack, it's a plain statement of fact. all i did is present some scripture, and a statement you assert that you completely agree with, but you found opportunity to attack an "exegesis" i never gave. fact. 
& that's what i reiterated. 
are you now willing to explain why you criticized the scriptures i praised God with, since i gave a brief explanation? 
or like Steve, do you also see no reason to justify your unexplained and as-far-as-it-can-be-ascertained unwarranted criticism? 
 

Yeah, you have been throwing under-the-radar jabs at me  and referencing me as if I am a nameless third person.   You reference what I said and then refer to me, as you did in your post to Joline as if I am just like one of those people who rejected Jesus and was hardened by God just like God hardened Israel.  You have been using that attack for close to the last 24 hours. 

I pointed to the illegitimate use of Scripture where you grabbed OT and NT verses about being "blind" and then string them together even though they were really talking to different issues, but you applying them to address the one issue you want to address.   You were not praising God with those Scriptures.   You were trying support your ongoing agenda.

I have, more than once, justified my criticism of how you are mishandling the text of Scripture.   But you are too busy pretending that you are being persecuted just because someone disagrees with you, to notice.

Quote

if you read my post without thinking it's all about you, then you ought to be able to see that i was musing whether i am also hardened in some way - whether we are all set in some stasis. if you consider just how many people have ever been convinced to change their mind about anything on this forum or any other like it, even though there are tens of thousands of pages of arguing, you might start coming to the same conclusion. 

LOL  That is not what you said or even meant, and going and looking back at your posts, anyone can see that.   You said that I just don't get it and that it must be like the way that God hardened the hearts of those who rejected Christ. 

Quote

what, do you disagree that your view of Genesis 1 is 'set in stone' ?

No, I believe that Genesis 1 is set in stone.  And I believe what it says, the way it is written.   I believe that because it is set in stone, we can anchor our hearts to it and we don't have to fear that it will be found to be incorrect later.

Quote

or your stance, contrary to Christ's, about John the baptist being the Elijah to come, as prophesied through Malachi? 

See, that is again, a dishonest assessment of what I said.   You cannot seem to correctly frame what I said.   I didn't say that Malahci didn't prophesy of John just as Jesus said.  He did.   I acknowledged that Malachi prophesied of John the Baptist.   The problem is that Jesus was referencing Malachi 3:1.    Jesus was NOT referencing Malachi 4:5.   No one, no biblical commentator out there claims that John the Baptist is depicted in Malachi 4:5.   You can't seem to accept that even though it has been demonstrated to you why Malachi 4:5 is not the ministry of John the Baptist.

 

Quote

because that's what i was talking about -- which is clear from the post, i thought, if you take the whole context of it. 
and you would even say that it's 'set in stone' because it's the 'understanding God intends' -- so it is God who has set that understanding firmly in your heart, right? firm, as in hardened, yes? 

No, that is not what you said and that is not what you originally meant.  You are trying to re-define and back peddle to avoid being guilty of what was clearly a personal attack in your attempt to compare me with unbelievers whose hearts God had hardened in judgment simply because I don't agree with you.

[Guest shiloh357]

9 minutes ago, post said:

if it's illegitimate to say that when Jesus, speaking of John, literally says "he is Elijah who was to come" it is a reference to and fulfillment of the only place in all of the scriptures where it is written, 'Elijah is to come,' how many prophecies that we say are fulfilled by Jesus are also "illegitimate" ?? 
on the basis that someone has difficulty comprehending them? 

& isn't it ironic to hear from a literalist that "yom" must mean "24 earth-hours" but "he is Elijah who was to come" can't possibly mean "he is Elijah who was to come" !? 
i think so. 

i guess there is a reason that Christ added, "if you are willing to accept it" -- as He expounded also, that men rejected John, who is Elijah who was to come, and also rejected Himself, being the Messiah who was to come. 
He knew that many would not accept either of them. but can anyone accept one, and not the other? 


 

Wrong.  I didn't say it is illegitimate to say that John was "Elijah who was to come."   I said it is illegitimate to claim that Malachi 4:5 is a reference to the ministry of John the Baptist.   We need get the facts straight.   I have never said that "he is Elijah who is to come" doesn't mean that.   All I said that was that Malachi 4:5 is referencing the prophet Elijah.   Sorry to burst that little bubble, but you are the one who is getting this wrong and you are misquoting and misrepresenting me because evidently it is more important to personally attack me than it is to be accurate in what you claim.

[Guest shiloh357]

47 minutes ago, post said:

For I can testify about them that they are zealous for God, but their zeal is not based on knowledge.
(Romans 10:2)

Again, I was referencing those religious leaders who had no zeal for God, but for their traditions.   Paul is speaking of the Jewish people in general.   Even today, I know many Jewish unbelievers who have a zeal for God just as Paul said, but their zeal is incomplete and is rooted in ignorance about God.   But the enemies of Jesus were not zealous for God and Jesus said that they were of their father the devil. 

Quote

that's actually pretty funny of you to say that, since you are so zealous about "adding things that are not actually found in the text" !  

I was not adding anything to the text.  I am clarifying what I was saying in my original comment. 

 

Quote

Paul is writing in Romans 10-11 about Jews who have rejected Christ. that's abundantly clear & shouldn't need direct references pointed out. these are the same Jews who crucified Him: remember, though He was brought before the sanhedrin, Pilate sought to release Him, because Pilate found no fault in Him. he offered him to the public - not to the sanhedrin - and it was the crowd who rejected Him then, and cried 'crucify Him!' -- Pilate washed his hands of the matter, and the crowd said 'His blood be upon us and our children' (re: Matthew 27:25). all those therefore who rejected Him, also have share in crucifying Him.
((and so does everyone, Jew or Gentile, who hears of Him and also rejects Him, it can be cogently argued -- i'm not being anti-Semitic here))

so when Paul says 'they are zealous for God, but their zeal is not based on knowledge' he is referring to all Jews who have not come to a true knowledge of God - a knowledge found only in Christ. quite literally then, this statement is made about the Jews 'who rejected Jesus' -- if they had accepted Christ, Paul would be calling them brethren or believers or saints.

Yes, Paul is making a general reference to Jewish unbelievers.  But I was referencing the enemies that Jesus faced during his earthly ministry and I am referencing Jesus' own criticism of THEM.  It is a very simple point and not hard to understand. 

Not all of the Jews when faced with the Gospel, rejected Jesus.   According to some historical sources there were some 1 million Jewish believers by the end of the first century.  

[Guest]

6 hours ago, shiloh357 said:

Wrong.  I didn't say it is illegitimate to say that John was "Elijah who was to come."   I said it is illegitimate to claim that Malachi 4:5 is a reference to the ministry of John the Baptist.   We need get the facts straight.   I have never said that "he is Elijah who is to come" doesn't mean that.   All I said that was that Malachi 4:5 is referencing the prophet Elijah.   Sorry to burst that little bubble, but you are the one who is getting this wrong and you are misquoting and misrepresenting me because evidently it is more important to personally attack me than it is to be accurate in what you claim.

Luke1:14  And thou shalt have joy and gladness; and many shall rejoice at his birth.
15  For he shall be great in the sight of the Lord, and shall drink neither wine nor strong drink; and he shall be filled with the Holy Ghost, even from his mother’s womb.
16  And many of the children of Israel shall he turn to the Lord their God.
17  And he shall go before him in the spirit and power of Elias,  to turn the hearts of the fathers to the children, and the disobedient to the wisdom of the just; to make ready a people prepared for the Lord.

The above is the context for Mal 4-5 Below

Mal 4-5  Behold, I will send you Elijah the prophet before the coming of the great and dreadful day of the LORD:
6  And he shall turn the heart of the fathers to the children, and the heart of the children to their fathers, lest I come and smite the earth with a curse.

 

Christ not only confirms John's fathers prophetic utterance, but also the one whom the Scribes spoke of................................... 

Mt 17:10  And his disciples asked him, saying, Why then say the scribes that Elias must first come?
11  And Jesus answered and said unto them, Elias truly shall first come, and restore all things.
12  But I say unto you, That Elias is come already, and they knew him not, but have done unto him whatsoever they listed. Likewise shall also the Son of man suffer of them.
13  Then the disciples understood that he spake unto them of John the Baptist.
 

So who did the scribes expect to be Elijah. And why did they expect him to be Elijah???????????????????

Luke11:47  Woe unto you! for ye build the sepulchres of the prophets, and your fathers killed them.
48  Truly ye bear witness that ye allow the deeds of your fathers: for they indeed killed them, and ye build their sepulchres.
49  Therefore also said the wisdom of God, I will send them prophets and apostles, and some of them they shall slay and persecute:
50  That the blood of all the prophets, which was shed from the foundation of the world, may be required of this generation;
51  From the blood of Abel unto the blood of Zacharias, which perished between the altar and the temple: verily I say unto you, It shall be required of this generation.
 

 

And where do you get your understanding from the prophets differently than the Scribes? Where does your understanding on this verse come from?

 

[Guest shiloh357]

13 minutes ago, Joline said:

 

 

sorry, but you have not proven that Malachi 4:5 is connected to John the Baptist.  The rest of your post is not worth responding to because you are trying to refute an argument I never raised.

Show me where the Bible makes a direct connection between Malachi 4:5 and John the Baptist.

[Guest]

6 minutes ago, shiloh357 said:

 

sorry, but you have not proven that Malachi 4:5 is connected to John the Baptist.  The rest of your post is not worth responding to because you are trying to refute an argument I never raised.

Show me where the Bible makes a direct connection between Malachi 4:5 and John the Baptist.

Yeah, I really have.

 

your ignoring of the Gospel of Luke does not change that. The scribes and the Pharisees all taught and expected Elijah to come. John's father prophesied of John Malachi 4:5.

Jesus confirms that John was the Elijah the teachers Taught was to come.

So where are you points for us to consider another appearance of Elijah apart from that which the Scribes and Pharisees expected, and John's father prophesied, and Jesus confirmed?

I wonder If Christ's prediction that the blood of all the prophets being on that generations head, might be sufficient to be the great and terrible day of the Lord for them HUH?

[Guest shiloh357]

3 minutes ago, Joline said:

Yeah, I really have your ignoring of the Gospel of Luke does not change that. The scribes and the Pharisees all taught and expected Elijah to come. John's father prophesied of John Malachi 4:5.

Jesus confirms that John was the Elijah the teachers Taught was to come.

So where are you points for us to consider another appearance of Elijah apart from that which the Scribes and Pharisees expected, and John's father prophesied, and Jesus confirmed?

 

I am not denying that the John was the one promised to come as "Elijah."   As  I said, you are wasting your time trying refute what I never claimed.  

My argument is about John the Baptist being Elijah.   My point is that Malachi 4:5 is about Elijah, himself.   It is not connected to John the Baptist.  That doesn't mean I am saying that he was not "Elijah."  

Address what I said, not what you think I said or whatever you want to falsely assign to me.

[Guest]

8 minutes ago, shiloh357 said:

I am not denying that the John was the one promised to come as "Elijah."   As  I said, you are wasting your time trying refute what I never claimed.  

My argument is about John the Baptist being Elijah.   My point is that Malachi 4:5 is about Elijah, himself.   It is not connected to John the Baptist.  That doesn't mean I am saying that he was not "Elijah."  

Address what I said, not what you think I said or whatever you want to falsely assign to me.

Who were the scribes and Pharisees expecting to come Shiloh? That is who John was. So who are you expecting that is different than he that they preached? LOL, concerning John's response to them, I would say the same you are preaching right here and now......

 Ac 2:40  And with many other words did he testify and exhort, saying, Save yourselves from this untoward generation.

I wonder do you accept the blood of all the prophets to be on their heads? Or just all except Elijah....................

[Guest shiloh357]

1 hour ago, Joline said:

Who were the scribes and Pharisees expecting to come Shiloh? That is who John was. So who are you expecting that is different than he that they preached? LOL, concerning John's response to them, I would say the same you are preaching right here and now......

 Ac 2:40  And with many other words did he testify and exhort, saying, Save yourselves from this untoward generation.

I wonder do you accept the blood of all the prophets to be on their heads? Or just all except Elijah....................

You are completely evading what I said.  I am not arguing over whether or not John was Elijah.  

I am simply saying that the NT does not link Malachi 4:5 with John the Baptist.   I don't understand what concept is not registering with you.  You need to show that Malachi 4:5 is referring to John the Baptist.