"The Family" Netflix documentary -- The Whore and the Wolf King.

[dhchristian]

7 hours ago, Jonathan Dane said:

So...if I'm a deceiver (an apt title for one whose handling of God's Word is "akin to deception.") then I guess Arthur Pink is also a deceiver, seeing how that in this regard, we see eye to eye. This is problematic for Mr. DH because now it appears that he is posting material of authors whose interpretations are "akin to deception."

Leave Pink out of this thread, I Was quoting him, but did not agree with him on all of his teachings like you yourself stated. For example I agree with him on the seven church ages as well, as he is one of  the proponents of that concept, but he does not have a full understanding of that because he wrote what he wrote around the time of WW1. Obviously, My Point was totally missed by JD, So here I will elaborate it again.

In Isaiah 14 is discussing the King of Babylon, and then it moves to discussing Lucifer At verse 12. Yes, the King of Babylon is a type of antichrist, I do not doubt that and is why I quoted you verse 6 that shows he "rules nations in anger" Which I highlighted. But verses 16-17 which you quoted are part of the description of Lucifer, which you ascribed to the King of Babylon, and therefore the antichrist. Now you see there is a contradiction there, did he rule over nation, or did he Not rule over them. 14:6 clearly states that he ruled over nations , and this clearly in context points to the king of Babylon, verses 16-17 point to a different subject, namely Lucifer. 

Forgive me for not being clear on this point as I was very tired when I wrote the comment and did not elaborate it better. Applying one verse to a different character is not a very good reading of the passage, especially prophetic passages which can jump from one time frame to another separated by thousands of years within one paragraph, such as Micah 5:1ff. 

It is "Akin to deception" to do this. Please do a definitional search on the Word Akin, if you do not know what this means.

7 hours ago, Jonathan Dane said:

Yeah...LOL...Greenland HAHA, that's hilarious. Who in their right mind would see the tactical advantage of owning an island of ice?!? Right? It's not like the world is going to catch on fire or anything.

Oh... wait a second.

Oh know, here comes the Global cooling, I mean global warming, I mean climate change issue.... Do not even go there. I live in Michigan and we would already be the next French Riviera if this was taking place, But alas I still of to dig my driveway out of snow for six months of the year here. Last year our first snow was October, and our last snow was April. Some years we avoid April and October snow, But Not this Global warming year...

Or are you saying that they want to avoid the fire coming down from heaven? cause then it makes perfect sense... Not. There is no way to hide from the wrath of God. 

I will comment on how we prepare for the mark of the beast... We prepare, by learning to trust in God for his provision. Just like the sparrows do. Just like Israel did in the wilderness, and as the church will in the wilderness. 

[Guest Jonathan Dane]

5 hours ago, Diaste said:

I binged watched it several weeks ago. Fascinating to see it all come to light.  Not a new thing certainly. 

Thank you. There's one.

[Guest Jonathan Dane]

On 9/5/2019 at 7:15 AM, dhchristian said:

Leave Pink out of this thread, I Was quoting him, but did not agree with him on all of his teachings like you yourself stated. For example I agree with him on the seven church ages as well, as he is one of  the proponents of that concept, but he does not have a full understanding of that because he wrote what he wrote around the time of WW1. Obviously, My Point was totally missed by JD, So here I will elaborate it again.

In Isaiah 14 is discussing the King of Babylon, and then it moves to discussing Lucifer At verse 12. Yes, the King of Babylon is a type of antichrist, I do not doubt that and is why I quoted you verse 6 that shows he "rules nations in anger" Which I highlighted. But verses 16-17 which you quoted are part of the description of Lucifer, which you ascribed to the King of Babylon, and therefore the antichrist. Now you see there is a contradiction there, did he rule over nation, or did he Not rule over them. 14:6 clearly states that he ruled over nations , and this clearly in context points to the king of Babylon, verses 16-17 point to a different subject, namely Lucifer. 

Forgive me for not being clear on this point as I was very tired when I wrote the comment and did not elaborate it better. Applying one verse to a different character is not a very good reading of the passage, especially prophetic passages which can jump from one time frame to another separated by thousands of years within one paragraph, such as Micah 5:1ff. 

It is "Akin to deception" to do this. Please do a definitional search on the Word Akin, if you do not know what this means.

Oh know, here comes the Global cooling, I mean global warming, I mean climate change issue.... Do not even go there. I live in Michigan and we would already be the next French Riviera if this was taking place, But alas I still of to dig my driveway out of snow for six months of the year here. Last year our first snow was October, and our last snow was April. Some years we avoid April and October snow, But Not this Global warming year...

Or are you saying that they want to avoid the fire coming down from heaven? cause then it makes perfect sense... Not. There is no way to hide from the wrath of God. 

I will comment on how we prepare for the mark of the beast... We prepare, by learning to trust in God for his provision. Just like the sparrows do. Just like Israel did in the wilderness, and as the church will in the wilderness. 

Let me see if I have this straight. You accuse me of something "akin to deception." I then inform you that Arthur Pink, in whom you have copiously quoted in the past, holds the same view as myself, and your response is: "Leave Pink out of this thread"  ???

Tell me something. Are you for real? Look, I don't have any problem with people disagreeing with my views. I don't have any problem with people taking me to task on Scripture. I don't have any problems with critique. But I have a problem...

You don't care for my interpretation of Isaiah 14? Fair enough. But when you describe my interpretation as, "akin to deception," and then double down adding, "Leave Pink out of this thread." -- That ain't gonna fly. Sorry.

For starters, this is my post, not yours, if anyone has a right to limit things on this thread, it's me (and the mods, of course.) But one thing's for sure, it's not you.

Second, this is ALWAYS your go-to when you run out of argument -- go on the personal attack. You suggested I look up the word, "akin." I did, thank you. It means: "allied by nature; having the same properties, having or showing an affinity; kindred."

If you want to call my teachings "akin to deception" then you must also call Arthur Pink's teaching likewise. He teaches the same thing.

You say that Isaiah 14:12 shifts to "exclusively" a picture of Lucifer. But as I noted, it is Pink himself who aligns Lucifer's name in verse 12 with the Antichrist. Here's Pink in his own words: "This term "Lucifer" has been commonly regarded as one of the names of Satan, and what is here said of the Morning Star is viewed as describing his apostasy. Against this interpretation we have nothing to say, except to remark that we are satisfied it does not exhaust this remarkable scripture. Isa. 14 may look back to the distant past when, through pride, Satan fell from his original estate, it most evidently looks forward to a coming day and gives another picture of the Antichrist." (Bold not in original) This quote is available here for context: 
https://www.biblebelievers.com/Pink/antichrist06.htm

Verse 16 says, "Is this the man...?" When is Satan called a man in Scripture? This is clearly a man pictured here, not an angel. The following verses describe things humans do, not angels. To be clear, I believe the AC will be possessed by Satan, as was Judas. What does Pink have to say about this verse? "He (the Antichrist) is spoken of as the man who will 'shake kingdoms' and 'make the earth to tremble' (Isa. 14:16)." 
https://www.biblebelievers.com/Pink/antichrist07.htm

There's Pink, in his own words, on this exact verse! If you are truly a student of prophecy (which I question), you will know the name Harry Ironside -- one of the great teachers of the prophetic word and my father's pastor for a time. In his commentary on Isaiah he says on page 76 under the heading - (Isaiah 14:16-27) "Isaiah depicted the utter destruction of the last great enemy of Israel in the Day of the Lord." Who is the great enemy of Israel during the tribulation? The Antichrist.

So now we have one of the great theologians of the 20th century, Arthur Pink, who wrote the consummate book on the Antichrist and perhaps the greatest teacher of the 20th century on the prophetic word, Harry Ironside -- They BOTH side with my position.

It's fine and dandy with me if you have a different interpretation of Isaiah 14 than myself.  But before you characterize me or my teachings as something, "akin to deception," you better be sure you get that one right. Deception is not error. It trades truth for a lie. If such holds true for me, then it holds true for Arthur Pink and Harry Ironside as well. You can't have it both ways. 

If I am TRULY an evil and deceitful man, you can rest easy. But if I speak the truth, I need not judge you. Isaiah already has: "WOE TO THOSE WHO CALL...GOOD -- EVIL." (Isaiah 5:20)

Greenland -- My comment was obviously said with a bit of levity (tongue-in-cheek). But rest assured, it was not motivated by a Leftist sense of panic about global warming. I don't need science to know the earth will catch on fire, I have the Word of God.

"For behold, the day is coming, burning like an oven, when all the arrogant and all evildoers will be stubble. The day that is coming shall set them ablaze, says the LORD of hosts, so that it will leave them neither root nor branch." (Malachi 4:1-2)

"And a third of the earth was burned up, and a third of the trees were burned up, and all green grass was burned up." (Rev 8:7)

Your quote: "Or are you saying that they want to avoid the fire coming down from heaven? cause then it makes perfect sense... Not. There is no way to hide from the wrath of God."

It's not a "they." It's a "he" - the Antichrist. It doesn't really make "perfect sense" for the him to stand up in the Temple and proclaim himself as GOD, either. He does it anyway. 

Ascribing "sensibility" to the Antichrist? I see you haven't thought this through.  

Edited September 6, 2019 by Jonathan Dane

[dhchristian]

6 hours ago, Jonathan Dane said:

It's fine and dandy with me if you have a different interpretation of Isaiah 14 than myself.  But before you characterize me or my teachings as something, "akin to deception," you better be sure you get that one right. Deception is not error. It trades truth for a lie. If such holds true for me, then it holds true for Arthur Pink and Harry Ironside as well. You can't have it both ways. 

The Problem Here is that many theologians including yourself, Pink, Ironside et al, do not distinguish between the beast of rev. 13, and the beast from the bottomless pit in rev. 17. They are two different beasts, as is the case in Isa. 14 with the king of Babylon, and Lucifer. The King of Babylon IS synonymous with the antichrist beast of Rev. 13, and Lucifer with the  beast from the bottomless pit that has the harlot riding atop him. The beast of revelation 13 rules nations hence the crown on his head, the scarlet beast has no crowns. As such, when you use rev. 17 to describe the antichrist, you are making a mistake.

There are many other things I disagree with Pink on, such as he is a Calvinist, and This is not about him and his teachings, but about you. To defer this to him is to ignore the problem in your own understanding.

Akin means "similar to" so what you are doing here is similar to deception, By using a verse (Isa 14:16) and ascribing it to The King of Babylon. I Would say the same thing of Pink and his Calvinism. Being similar to is to take the edge off of full on deception, because I do not think you, nor Pink Nor Ironside are consciously or deliberately espousing this error, but are doing so out of ignorance of this distinction.

7 hours ago, Jonathan Dane said:

Greenland -- My comment was obviously said with a bit of levity (tongue-in-cheek). But rest assured, it was not motivated by a Leftist sense of panic about global warming. I don't need science to know the earth will catch on fire, I have the Word of God.

"For behold, the day is coming, burning like an oven, when all the arrogant and all evildoers will be stubble. The day that is coming shall set them ablaze, says the LORD of hosts, so that it will leave them neither root nor branch." (Micah 4:1-2)

"And a third of the earth was burned up, and a third of the trees were burned up, and all green grass was burned up." (Rev 8:7)

Your first verse is Malachi, not micah… My comment was made in jest as well, hence the comparison of Michigan to the French Riviera.   

 

7 hours ago, Jonathan Dane said:

It's not a "they." It's a "he" - the Antichrist. It doesn't really make "perfect sense" for the him to stand up in the Temple and proclaim himself as GOD, either. He does it anyway. 

It is a they as in the us in the following passage...

And said to the mountains and rocks, Fall on us, and hide us from the face of him that sitteth on the throne, and from the wrath of the Lamb: For the great day of his wrath is come; and who shall be able to stand? (Rev 6:16-17)

[Guest Jonathan Dane]

4 hours ago, dhchristian said:

Your first verse is Malachi, not micah… 

 

 

Yes, you are correct. That was an error. Thank you for that correction.

See how that works? I was in error. I was not trying to deceive you or even "sort of" deceive you. I was wrong because I was unaware and made a mistake. I was not aware and put the wrong citation on purpose. That's the difference between error and deception. And as a brother in the Lord, I just wish you would consistently extend me that courtesy rather than always assuming I'm "up to something." Really -- I'm not. Only what I believe to be truth. I may be in error. But I am not trying to deceive anybody.

(I'll go back and correct that, if I may. I hate mishandling God's Word in any way.)

Edited September 6, 2019 by Jonathan Dane

[dhchristian]

1 hour ago, Jonathan Dane said:

Yes, you are correct. That was an error. Thank you for that correction.

See how that works? I was in error. I was not trying to deceive you or even "sort of" deceive you. I was wrong because I was unaware and made a mistake. I was not aware and put the wrong citation on purpose. That's the difference between error and deception. And as a brother in the Lord, I just wish you would consistently extend me that courtesy rather than always assuming I'm "up to something." Really -- I'm not. Only what I believe to be truth. I may be in error. But I am not trying to deceive anybody.

(I'll go back and correct that, if I may. I hate mishandling God's Word in any way.)

What I am saying is no different than correcting a citation of a bible verse here either. when you use false and misleading sources, you are going to end up with false and misleading results. I Am just trying to point that out to you. It is like using a video of Obama quoting Psalm 46 and saying he is declaring himself God by ripping that video from the context it was spoken in.

[Guest Jonathan Dane]

3 hours ago, dhchristian said:

What I am saying is no different than correcting a citation of a bible verse here either. when you use false and misleading sources, you are going to end up with false and misleading results. I Am just trying to point that out to you. It is like using a video of Obama quoting Psalm 46 and saying he is declaring himself God by ripping that video from the context it was spoken in.

Actually, comparing someone's interpretation of a Bible passage to something "akin to deception" is a bit different than correcting one's Bible citation. To say they are the same thing is another falsehood. (Can't say that I am shocked you cannot distinguish the difference.) 

I'm ripping nothing out of context. That's another falsehood. Because that was done with Obama does not mean that is what I am doing. You haven't a clue what's in my book because you have not read it. My primary source in my book and in my writings is the Bible, regardless of how you characterize it otherwise. The reporting in today's news media did not foreshadow my book -- just the opposite. But you will never know that because you are content with your ongoing false narrative. I understand. It's your only alternative. Thus far, your appeals to Scripture have not bode well for you.

Edited September 6, 2019 by Jonathan Dane

[Guest Jonathan Dane]

I want to say what a great blessing it has been discussing this documentary with all the viewers of this thread -- all the questions about the "Family," their beliefs, how it may tie into the false religion of the end times, Douglas Coe and the Family's influence on the Church and government. Trump and his role. It's been really awesome. 

(Daydreaming is fun.)

[dhchristian]

18 hours ago, Jonathan Dane said:

Actually, comparing someone's interpretation of a Bible passage to something "akin to deception" is a bit different than correcting one's Bible citation. To say they are the same thing is another falsehood. (Can't say that I am shocked you cannot distinguish the difference.) 

I'm ripping nothing out of context. That's another falsehood. Because that was done with Obama does not mean that is what I am doing. You haven't a clue what's in my book because you have not read it. My primary source in my book and in my writings is the Bible, regardless of how you characterize it otherwise. The reporting in today's news media did not foreshadow my book -- just the opposite. But you will never know that because you are content with your ongoing false narrative. I understand. It's your only alternative. Thus far, your appeals to Scripture have not bode well for you.

No, It is the same thing, only you have more invested in your opinions, and therefore the correction of them offends more. Think about this....

If you did not have a book written pointing to DJT as the AC, and you were just expressing an opinion on a forum, and someone disagreed with your opinion, you may debate it, but you would not take offense to what they are saying. Just like correcting a biblical citation is none offensive. 

It may be a moot point to try and correct you per se, but the others that come along and read this may use some logical reasoning as opposed to emotional attachment to arrive at their own conclusions of this topic, and that of what is on your other post. God will judge each man's work by fire. 

Every man's work shall be made manifest: for the day shall declare it, because it shall be revealed by fire; and the fire shall try every man's work of what sort it is. If any man's work abide which he hath built thereupon, he shall receive a reward. If any man's work shall be burned, he shall suffer loss: but he himself shall be saved; yet so as by fire. ( 1 cor. 3;13-15)  

[dhchristian]

18 hours ago, Jonathan Dane said:

I want to say what a great blessing it has been discussing this documentary with all the viewers of this thread -- all the questions about the "Family," their beliefs, how it may tie into the false religion of the end times, Douglas Coe and the Family's influence on the Church and government. Trump and his role. It's been really awesome. 

(Daydreaming is fun.)

Here comes the "pity party"...

pity party

[pity party]

 

NOUN

informal

US

1. an instance of indulging in self-pity or eliciting pity from other people.

   "I'm not going to throw a pity party—I don't think many people would show up"

    

   Source: Bing dictionary

    

   

 

Edited September 7, 2019 by dhchristian