Futurism

[Riverwalker]

2 minutes ago, DeighAnn said:

How would Yeshua go about writing a message to a generation 2000 plus years down the road to make sure they got it,  KNOWING events in history repeat, so knowing there would be EVENTS that take place of a very similar in nature?

Would you make sure there were details that would ONLY take place in the end that DIDN'T take place in between, so they could be recognized and set in proper place?  
Wouldn't every detail be important to know so to discern which event was only an example and which was to be the final one to come?  

Like how the spiritual part of Daniels prophecy may have been fulfilled but not all for the people and the holy city and like a small portion of Joels was but many parts not.

Part of the omniscience of God is knowing everything that has happened and will happen. I like to say God is everywhen, that is the definition of eternal.  He knows it all because he sees it all, past present and future

[Your closest friendnt]

1 hour ago, Diaste said:

And yeah...what Alive said.

AMEN!

What did he say?

[Justin Adams]

16 minutes ago, DeighAnn said:

Like how the spiritual part of Daniels prophecy may have been fulfilled but not all for the people and the holy city and like a small portion of Joels was but many parts not.

Quite possibly true. I do not care for the subject of the eschaton except when I see an 'agenda' that tries to befuddle people with distant pre-trib stuff and MOB ideas and seven year this and that.

"the ALREADY but not YET" is a theme often seen in scripture. If a major seminary is teaching from RCC/Augustine, Darby/Scofield etc., I will raise a red flag and say - think again!

Edited April 1, 2021 by Justin Adams

[Your closest friendnt]

13 minutes ago, Riverwalker said:

Part of the omniscience of God is knowing everything that has happened and will happen. I like to say God is everywhen, that is the definition of eternal.  He knows it all because he sees it all, past present and future

You are not responding to the issues at hand, you are avoiding and are steering away from the issues the quoted poster had raised.

At not time you have express an interest to discuss anything with the quoted poster.

It's customary as a courtesy to a poster to leave the door open to what they want to discuss, it was very important to her to post what she was posted.

Someone has done her wrong and like the person in the parable in Luke 18: she is asking to be vindicated.

From the parable we learn to hear her out and consider what she wants to say and do something about that at the least show some empathy. 

Our sister is hurting. 

 

 

[Riverwalker]

2 minutes ago, Your closest friendnt said:

Our sister is hurting. 

 

 

I do feel for here, but I was responding to a specific question she asked. What is the offense here?

[Your closest friendnt]

32 minutes ago, Justin Adams said:

Quite possibly true. I do not care for the subject of the eschaton except when I see an 'agenda' that tries to befuddle people with distant pre-trib stuff and MOB ideas and seven year this and that.

"the ALREADY but not YET" is a theme often seen in scripture. If a major seminary is teaching from RCC/Augustine, Darby/Scofield etc., I will raise a red flag and say - think again!

Hello brother Adam's I have to say that the more I read your post, the better I get to know you.  And I am bless to find that out. 

Edited April 1, 2021 by Your closest friendnt

[Your closest friendnt]

5 minutes ago, Riverwalker said:

I do feel for here, but I was responding to a specific question she asked. What is the offense here?

Perhaps I keep somethings to my self when I post and I am not rude or authoritative and no one I think has the right to be. 

I am just sensitive when something unfair has happened and it's not considered they way it should be, and it does not be that way as long as someone may think so. Maybe I am not also very considerate to you and I may have not been fair to you and for that I need to be more careful. 

 

[Riverwalker]

1 minute ago, Your closest friendnt said:

Perhaps I keep somethings to my self when I post and I am not rude or authoritative and no one I think has the right to be. 

I am just sensitive when something unfair has happened and it's not considered they way it should be, and it does not be that way as long as someone may think so. Maybe I am not also very considerate to you and I may have not been fair to you and for that I need to be more careful. 

 

Its all good. And I will try and keep the larger picture in mind.

[Alive]

40 minutes ago, Josheb said:

No, I take offense when posters fail to keep the posts about the post and write about others. This is particularly so when posters do so negatively. It has nothing to do with whether I agree with the position or not. The problem is practice or method, not content. I was just attacked even while being told I wasn't being attacked!!! I take offense at hypocrisy, too. And that happened while being wished peace! So take a minute and look as objectively as you can at how your own post reads, Retro. 

"Hi Josh. Peace be with you while I off-topically attack you falsely by telling you what it is offends you."

All the op-relevant content of your post could have been posted without mentioning me at all. 

But we find you unable to do so. Look at your own posts, Retro. 

I take offense at these sort of things because they violate the tou! They are offenses. The solution is simple: 

 

Keep the posts about the posts and not the posters.  

 

Especially if you wish to trade posts with me. You fix those problems, Retro, and I will be happy to discussed all the problems with modern futurism. Fix them so I can see they've been fixed.

Josh---you do the very same thing on a regular basis when you address the individual directly when criticizing either their content or style or delivery.

As is the case, in pointed form--when one member attempts to instruct and even manipulate another into posting in a manner more acceptable. This does not come off well.

You all can speak to the subject matter without mentioning the individual.

I'm on the outside looking in, and its obvious.

So--I encourage all posters to look at their own manner and adjust accordingly. If we all try harder at this, OPs won't go off the rails as frequently.

Grok?

I don't want to argue this stuff. Consider what I am writing and if the shoe fits?

:-)

[DeighAnn]

3 hours ago, Riverwalker said:

Part of the omniscience of God is knowing everything that has happened and will happen. I like to say God is everywhen, that is the definition of eternal.  He knows it all because he sees it all, past present and future

Then do you believe that God could make a deal with Himself in which He would create 'beings with freewill' and allow them to sink or swim on their own and not get involved in their lives, unless personally asked?