Jump to content

DaveW

Member Since 19 Sep 2007
Offline Last Active Today, 04:40 AM
-----

#394363 Matthew 24

Posted by DaveW on 23 November 2014 - 08:50 AM

"Satan has more than one trick up his bejewelled sleeve, and extra-Biblical terms is one of them."

You mean like "bejewelled"?


#394143 David Cloud

Posted by DaveW on 20 November 2014 - 04:55 PM

Para-church organisation.

They do good work - I use their videos - but they will go off the rails. All Para-church organisation's do, because there is no church to keep them on track.

This means we should be careful about what we use from them, and be careful about blanket recommendations.

The fantastic thing about videos, dvd's etc, is that the speaker always says the same thing - every single time!
So you can know what is going to be said every time.

Although I use their materials, I would never have them speak at my church - for that reason - you don't know what doctrines may be (even inadvertently) mentioned.


#394108 Matthew 24

Posted by DaveW on 20 November 2014 - 07:23 AM

It would be so much more convincing if you properly addressed the points that have been brought up properly.

Your normal MO (as with JW'S, Mormons, etc) is to introduce so many points that you don't have to answer any of them and can simply sidestep from one to another when it gets sticky.

I asked about ALL the signs mentioned in the passage - which "that Generation" will see.
You conveniently left out those verses in their entirety, and refused to address them at all.

As to tribulation - it plainly says:
 21  For then shall be great tribulation, such as was not since the beginning of the world to this time, no, nor ever shall be.

There will never be as great tribulation on as that seen at this time - and it is very plain on its meaning.
There has been greater tribulation seen than the AD70 destruction, and to deny that is simply ridiculous.

How about you stick to a single point and answer it adequately and specifically?


#394088 Way Of Life - When Was The Pre-Tribulation Rapture First Taught?

Posted by DaveW on 19 November 2014 - 07:33 PM

If it is clear and abundant, please show where.

 

Again?

Why don't you do a search on previous discussions and actually read them?




#394081 Matthew 24

Posted by DaveW on 19 November 2014 - 04:45 PM

You might not see a problem with the other signs but they are specific and plain - and as yet unfulfilled.
And it is the generation that sees those signs which shall not pass.

And fleeing the city...... of course the only time that has ever happened was AD70, wasn't it.
Well, guess what - there is still a city and it is still inhabited by Jews. Considering the other signs are clearly as yet unfulfilled, and the potential for the fleeing of the city is still there, it makes no sense to tie down that event to AD70 - there is no Scriptural reason to do so.


#394018 Matthew 24

Posted by DaveW on 19 November 2014 - 04:55 AM

You apply vs 34 to AD70 destruction of Jerusalem.
 33  So likewise ye, when ye shall see all these things, know that it is near, even at the doors. note

 34  Verily I say unto you, This generation shall not pass, till all these things be fulfilled.

The fact is it relates to the Generation that sees these things - but what are these things?
Not the destruction of Jerusalem - not even mentioned....

The previous things:

27  For as the lightning cometh out of the east, and shineth even unto the west; so shall also the coming of the Son of man be.
 28  For wheresoever the carcase is, there will the eagles be gathered together.
 29  Immediately after the tribulation of those days shall the sun be darkened, and the moon shall not give her light, and the stars shall fall from heaven, and the powers of the heavens shall be shaken:
 30  And then shall appear the sign of the Son of man in heaven: and then shall all the tribes of the earth mourn, and they shall see the Son of man coming in the clouds of heaven with power and great glory.
 31  And he shall send his angels with a great sound of a trumpet, and they shall gather together his elect from the four winds, from one end of heaven to the other.

Nup - not seen in history - the generation Jesus was speaking to did not see this stuff.

Matthew 24 can not refer to the destruction of Jerusalem nor can it relate to the Generation that Jesus was then speaking to.
They did not see these things. "This generation" is the generation that sees these things.


#393982 Matthew 24

Posted by DaveW on 18 November 2014 - 07:08 AM

Sure then - leave out the verses that talk about the signs that were not fulfilled.

Misinterpret "this generation" so that it ignores the plain English.

Once again apply Daniel to AD70 with no reason but that it suits you.

You can not help but twist the Scriptures.


#393924 Way Of Life - When Was The Pre-Tribulation Rapture First Taught?

Posted by DaveW on 16 November 2014 - 06:35 PM

:beatdeadhorse:


Steve, I know.... but it displays again why I don't often bother.

With their sort of responses (JW style) there is no point - they sidestep, sidetrack, misrepresent, and confuse.
Or at least they try to.

Pointless.


#393915 Way Of Life - When Was The Pre-Tribulation Rapture First Taught?

Posted by DaveW on 16 November 2014 - 04:40 PM

Mark 13
10 And the gospel must first be published among all nations.

Not to mention the myriad of prophecies in that chapter that have not been fulfilled as yet.

Luke 21
20 And when ye shall see Jerusalem compassed with armies, then know that the desolation thereof is nigh.
21 Then let them which are in Judaea flee to the mountains; and let them which are in the midst of it depart out; and let not them that are in the countries enter thereinto.
22 For these be the days of vengeance, that all things which are written may be fulfilled.
23 But woe unto them that are with child, and to them that give suck, in those days! for there shall be great distress in the land, and wrath upon this people.
24 And they shall fall by the edge of the sword, and shall be led away captive into all nations: and Jerusalem shall be trodden down of the Gentiles, until the times of the Gentiles be fulfilled.
25 And there shall be signs in the sun, and in the moon, and in the stars; and upon the earth distress of nations, with perplexity; the sea and the waves roaring;

(I note that while I quoted the verse in its entirety, you conveniently left out the verses that cause you trouble - and then you call me a liar.......)

Of course this was fulfilled in 1099 when Jerusalem was compassed with armies wasn't it.....

Jerusalem has been besieged many times - but none of them have been accompanied by the signs of vs 25.

But of course you falsely accuse me (yet again) so that you can ignore the plain English point of the verse, and introduce a variety of other arguments to save yourself from having explain your false position.
Just like a Jehovah's Witness at the door.

Standard methodology as I already said.

And then you wonder why I won't discuss it, but simply point out that you are a false teacher. Maybe if you actually discussed the points properly it would be worthwhile, but not with your twisting side tracking ways.


#393902 Sheep, Shepherd, Or Wolf?

Posted by DaveW on 15 November 2014 - 10:30 PM

I didn't watch them. Not interested.


#393895 Way Of Life - When Was The Pre-Tribulation Rapture First Taught?

Posted by DaveW on 15 November 2014 - 08:30 PM

And how about this: Luke 17:22  And he said unto the disciples, The days will come, when ye shall desire to see one of the days of the Son of man, and ye shall not see it.
 

Jesus, talking to His Disciples, says taht they WILL NOT SEE the days of the Son of Man.

 

These two passages combined indicate to me that what the Bible is actually teaching here is not in fact nonsense.

 

The only reason to take the Matthew passage as meaning the people listening right then is to force it to fit with your false claim that everything was fulfilled in AD 70.

Without that presupposition there is no need to change what the structure of the language says, nor to ignore the passage in Luke.




#393852 Way Of Life - When Was The Pre-Tribulation Rapture First Taught?

Posted by DaveW on 14 November 2014 - 05:39 PM

Matt 24: 33 and 34 is talking about the generation that sees the things spoken of in the passage, not the generation he was speaking to.


#393775 Way Of Life - When Was The Pre-Tribulation Rapture First Taught?

Posted by DaveW on 13 November 2014 - 06:09 PM

And to prove my point, Covey attacked one single aspect of the original article and now claims the victory over the whole subject.
Pointing out similarities in his method and JW and SDA methods is not personal attack - it is observable truth.


#393771 Way Of Life - When Was The Pre-Tribulation Rapture First Taught?

Posted by DaveW on 13 November 2014 - 05:00 PM

DaveW is unwilling to constantly repeat points with someone who refuses to discuss things properly and who refuses to take obvious Biblical meaning.
All the subjects I listed previously have been ignored by you as soon you are pressed on any of them.
At that point you ignore, sidestep, or change the subject.

It is pointless to engage proper debate with you, because you, as is the norm for people of your persuasion and belief, are not I retested in debate - you are interested only pushing your false teaching in any way you can.
Introducing secondary arguments to avoid answering hard questions, challenging points not even made in the hopes to sidetrack discussion, and changing the subject when you have no answer.

Exactly the same way a Jehovah's Witness or Seventh Day Adventist does at your door.


#393552 Way Of Life - When Was The Pre-Tribulation Rapture First Taught?

Posted by DaveW on 11 November 2014 - 12:21 AM

Dave is obviously accusing me & Invicta of lying, by not believing Cloud & others in the specific area of the PTR being taught by Ephraem and therefore rejecting historical evidence. Invicta consistenetly maintains that the modern dispensational teaching was invented by Jesuits to divert from the Reformation teaching that the Pope is Antichrist.    

 

No I am not - I am pointing out that in this subject there have been several times when this lie has been rolled out in spite of the facts being presented multiple times.

 

PreTrib was known from the oldest times - it is referenced by many, not just this Eph bloke.

 

But still it makes no real difference - it is either biblical or it is not.

 

As to proving it to you - you have shown time after time that you do not accept biblical explanations of end times - there is no point continuing it.

 

You do not accept what the Bible clearly says, you do not answer when points you don't like are put up, but deflect onto other subjects.

 

You don't accept a true understanding of Daniel's 70 weeks, you don't accept the timing of those 70 weeks, (the cutting off for instance???), you don't accept when it is clearly stated that the whole 70 weeks are concerned with God's Holy city and His nation.

You don't accept that 1000 years means 1000 years.

You don't accept that history falls heavily on the side of AD90 for the writing of Revelation in spite of the arguments put.

You don't accept that the history shows no such events as recorded in much of Revelation which you say has already been fulfilled.

 

All in all, there is so much that you simply twist from what the BIble actually says because it doesn't fit with what you believe that there is no point "debating" it with you.

 

This is why I simply point it out time and again. It has been done over so many times -

And it is why I believe that your teaching threads should be stopped.

 

You do not hold to BIblical positions on many areas of this subject, and the idea of one such as you teaching on a baptist Website is abhorrent to me.

 

Apparently not to some others here, but then again neither have I been told to keep this opinion to myself.

 

Until I am so told, I will keep pointing out that you do not hold to either Baptist or Bible views on eschatology.

 

And rememebr that one single instance of a basic pretribulational view being taught in say AD200 is enough to show that the premise of pretrib being modern is a lie - and this has been provided several times.

Unless you care to blow each and every one of the numerous examples of pretrib teaching away with proof, then an attack on this one source is useless.

Not to mention largely wrong.






The Fundamental Top 500IFB1000 The Fundamental Top 500