Failed Prophecies

[ScottA]

Jeremiah 17:9---> "The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately wicked: who can know it?"

Are you talking about me...because I wasn't.

 

[Lady Crosstalk]

It's a real problem if we insist the rich man is burning bodily in the flames of hellfire at death. Because Paul is clear that in the period between our current "tabernacle" in which we groan - an undeniable reference to our current mortal body - and the glorious body to come at the Second Coming, he says we will be "naked" and "unclothed" of any "tabernacle" which means "lying in the grave dead without a body".

It does not mean "in heaven without a body awaiting the resurrection body" which is just plain silly and stupid. If that truly were the case, then how asinine is it for Paul to say, "For in this tabernacle we do groan, being burdened, not that we would be unclothed, but clothed upon..." - who cares, Paul, if we're "unclothed" or "clothed upon" if we're in heaven rejoicing with everyone else? In the words of Luther who agrees with Phoneman777, "Nay, Paul, go to master (Sir Thomas) Moore and learn another way."

The only way for Paul's words to make sense is if Paul is saying he doesn't want to be lying dead in the grave naked without a body awaiting Jesus to come - JUST AS IS THE TESTIMONY OF JOB, DAVID, PETER, AND OTHERS - but he wants to skip that an go right from being "absent from the body" to being "present with the Lord", but he knew that didn't happen at death, because he himself says in verse 10, "For we must all stand before the judgment seat of Christ", which everyone agrees happens not at death, but at the "end of the world".

So, here is a clear example of identifying a colossal problem with making this passage literal instead of the parabolic passage that it is, and is not the only problem that arises when doing so. We can't callously brush aside such inconsistencies and pretend they don't exist for the sake of holding on to cherished interpretations. Jesuit Ribera did so, and is why Futurism is so popular today, albeit unBiblical.

The only thing is that you don't know what you are talking about. Go back and read that passage again. I won't give you book, chapter and verse, because you obviously know it--right? You have made a very tortured theology about something that is quite simple. But it is late and I'm going to bed. Pray for the Holy Spirit to guide you to the truth.

 

[Lady Crosstalk]

Are you talking about me...because I wasn't.

Have you been hanging around bbyrd too much? Cryptic comments are dumb.

 

[Phoneman777]

Not the same at all. Jesus chose parabolic language in order to hide truths from unbelievers. Dreams and visions are mostly even a mystery to the one who has them. Often, they only become clear much later.

He mercifully chose parabolic language not to prevent their discovery of truth, but because He knew open, plain revelation of it would never penetrate the hearts of unbelievers, which was as as paramount His objective as was dying for us on the Cross.

But assigning motive does not take away from the fact that He spoke of prophetic events to come in symbolism without dream or in a trance, as did Job, David, Paul, Malachi, etc., and did others.

 

[Lady Crosstalk]

He mercifully chose parabolic language not to prevent their discovery of truth, but because He knew open, plain revelation of it would never penetrate the hearts of unbelievers, which was as as paramount His objective as was dying for us on the Cross.

No--He plainly told His disciples that He hid the truths from unbelievers and revealed them to His followers. Matthew 13:11 is just one place where this is revealed in the gospels and there are others. But I am too tired to look them up for you tonight. I don't know where you get some of your strange theology--try the Bible.

 

[Phoneman777]

The only thing is that you don't know what you are talking about. Go back and read that passage again. I won't give you book, chapter and verse, because you obviously know it--right? You have made a very tortured theology about something that is quite simple. But it is late and I'm going to bed. Pray for the Holy Spirit to guide you to the truth.

Look, I've long since ceased from becoming impatient with people who get cornered with truth and react negatively as you've done. I, too, used to believe the serpent rather than God ("ye shall not surely die") regarding this issue, because misguided men who stand in pulpits taught me this, knowing that scaring people with the false idea of "eternal torment" is a great way to separate them from their money and time when the offering plate is passed around and when it's time to put on a new roof or paint the sanctuary.

I encourage you to "despise not prophesyings" but prayerfully examine what I've said and see if you can put together something other than an ad hominem response, OK?

 

[Phoneman777]

" bulldookey."
No, Jesus spoke the truth, and just kept moving on. What the people did with His message was up to them. He didn't argue with anyone! Cept for maybe the money changers
, but that was not really "arguing", He was angry, righteous anger...unlike most of ours .

Yep, how easy it is for us to fall off the wagon of Christlike patience. May God have mercy on us one and all.

 

[Phoneman777]

No--He plainly told His disciples that He hid the truths from unbelievers and revealed them to His followers. Matthew 13:11 is just one place where this is revealed in the gospels and there are others. But I am too tired to look them up for you tonight. I don't know where you get some of your strange theology--try the Bible.

What does a doctor do when he wants to give a small child a shot of life saving medicine, but knows if the child sees that needle, he'll freak out? If Jesus straight up told unbelievers "the mysteries of heaven" they'd harden their hearts to the point of no return.

 

[Keraz]

You keep saying that but no matter how many times by many people you are shown scriptures , you deny and reject it.
Yet , with your beliefs , I reject the replacement theology you teach, which has not any basis in scripture and denies God's plans and purposes for the nation of Israel.

But there IS no actual scripture that says God will take His people to heaven. Only wrongly made assumptions and inferences made from at pre-conceived belief.

Your thinking of what I believe, is totally incorrect. I espouse the continuation of the congregation of all the people who believe in God and keep His Commandments. From Adam until now.
As for the 'nation of Israel', thinking they are just the Jewish people, is plainly wrong.
Explain this; Matthew 21-43 The Kingdom is taken from you [Jews] and give to a nation [Christian peoples] who bear the proper fruit.

 

[Keraz]

I'm asking why you would think that I believe pre-trib rapture because I want to escape the trials and testing?

One of the favorite pre-trib scriptures is Luke 21:34-36.
In most trans, v36 says 'escape all these things'. But my REBible says: pass safely through all that is coming.
The REB is correct, otherwise there is a Biblical anomaly, as v35 states: these things will come upon everyone, the whole world over.
1 Peter 4:12 and many other verses plainly say we must face the fiery trial, the forthcoming Sixth Seal event.

 

[Stranger]

Actually, the author never does disparage "The Rapture" in that excerpt I posted. He derides people 'setting dates' in order to sell books.

And did you buy Gary North's book? You must have. You said the quote came from this old book you had? Was that an old book or an old download?

Did Gary North make money on his book?

Stranger

 

[Stranger]

I do too. But don't say that out loud... he thinks we are sad to like to do that.

I don't mind reading or giving a link to support an argument. But just because one has access to a book because they can download it off the internet doesn't mean they have read the book. If a book is some 300 pages long are you going to sit at your computer and read all 300 pages. I seriously doubt it. It simply becomes an access to a brief quote. Something you can get from somewhere else on the internet and use.

Do you print out all the pages of the book, bind them together and then read them. Easier to just buy the book. But then, Gary North makes some money off of you. How evil of him.

Stranger

 

[Stranger]

Very feeble... both of you. Men are setting themselves up as prophets and people who believe in what they are selling are shelling out their $ to clamor after the words they write. If "Christians" really believed the words of the Bible, there would be almost none of those "Rapture" books sold. But the truth is that half the people in churches run out to buy them.

A gross assumption and a lie.

I believe the Words of the Bible. I own many books by the dispensational authors you and others have listed. Plus some you haven't.

I encourage any who want to know the truth of dispensational teaching to buy a book by one of it's leading authors and study it and make up your own mind. Listening to Rapture and Dispensational bashing on a forum becomes nothing but propaganda for influence.

Stranger

 

[bbyrd009]

Interpreting this passage as literal creates a lot of inconsistency with the rest of Scripture - even with other things Jesus said. The best any of us can hope to do is to be CONSISTENT with the principles of hermeneutics...but too often, when consistency undermines cherished beliefs, we tend to throw such principles out the window so that our beliefs may be retained. When it comes to consistency of interpretation, I'm my own worst critic.

I think i got your last sentence, but could you rephrase? Ty

 

[bbyrd009]

Personally, I don't think you understand at all what is meant by taking a literal reading of the Bible.

I wonder if anyone does? Doubt i do. Is it possible that "I read the Bible literally" is just a convenient way to justify oneself, maybe? I recall even using the term in a convo with Amadeus recently. "Literally" is sounding a lot like "what makes sense to me" all the sudden lol.

The Rich Man and Lazarus (Eleazer, in Hebrew) is a wonderful, amazing allegory imo, and the symbolism is really nothing short of stark i think. The inconsistencies in a "literal" reading of the "two Lazarus's" is how i found the Abarim, and then Hegelian Dialectic, etc. I think it was the first dominoe, so to speak
The amazing name Lazarus: meaning and etymology

And fwiw the "lesson" does not change, so much as the history becomes more accessible imo.

 

[bbyrd009]

As for literal view for one eg even though the bible says God shall cover us with His feathers and give us refuge , the literal interpretation understands it doesn't mean God is a bird.

So again, the term "literal" seems to be a handy way to justify ones position, and shut down any further seeking, wadr. For even in your assessment there, Literal is by your own admission forced into Symbological, yes? What do Feathers stand for, then, if they are not "literal" feathers, iow?

 

[bbyrd009]

Seems making a problem where none exists.
A literal interpretation of the bible does not mean taking every separate word as literal, nor does it mean taking the parables as literal, or something that was poetry as literal, etc, etc...

well so you say, but we can easily get a different set of rules from another "literal" (logical, Hegelian, Satan's) thinker though, see. I could even provide examples from this forum, easily. And pls don't be put off by "Satan's up there ok, i still use it all the time, the Naive Dialectic is still mostly an abstract theory to me too. I obv still "play to win" virtually all the time, etc, as can be seen in here right

Not the same at all. Jesus chose parabolic language in order to hide truths from unbelievers.

Lol, you are still so sure, LC, in your misrepresentations of Scripture; doesn't that trouble you at all? Can you Quote "in order to hide truths from unbelievers" anywhere? I thought you were a "literal" reader? Yet this is what we get, see. And could you please address the point and not the perceived slight, Bc i don't mean to be putting you down here ok

 

[bbyrd009]

That is just sooo messed up, so wrong on so many levels.

First...God is spirit. By His own definition and existence, spiritualizing would be most godly. Why would anyone speak so against the very nature of God - what spirit has such a one? (Rhetorical) We know by what spirit.

As for interpretations...there is only one interpretation according to the spirit of God. That is the point. To anyone who is of that same spirit of God, there is no contradiction in scripture nor spiritual revelation...all things are reconcilable. But the fact that there are a multitude of interpretations, does not make void the one that is correct. Nor does one scripture make void another or win an argument.

I suggest that there may be more than one valid interp mostly Bc the same principle might play out in more than one area, atoms look just like solar systems, etc. But if you can Quote "there is only one interpretation according to the spirit of God" anywhere, i might demure

 

[Willie T]

I don't mind reading or giving a link to support an argument. But just because one has access to a book because they can download it off the internet doesn't mean they have read the book. If a book is some 300 pages long are you going to sit at your computer and read all 300 pages. I seriously doubt it. It simply becomes an access to a brief quote. Something you can get from somewhere else on the internet and use.

Do you print out all the pages of the book, bind them together and then read them. Easier to just buy the book. But then, Gary North makes some money off of you. How evil of him.

Stranger

Actually, I do. I convert almost all of my downloaded books to MS Word (that's how so many people here have received 'zipped' copies of many books from me) and I read them throughout my day at the computer. I happen to have two up at the moment, one by John Rushdoony, and one by Joanna L. Brooks. Since I have vision problems, being able to "ZOOM" to any size onscreen makes reading very easy.
I've given away many hardcopies because I can no longer read the tiny (to me) print.

 

[bbyrd009]

I don't mind reading or giving a link to support an argument. But just because one has access to a book because they can download it off the internet doesn't mean they have read the book. If a book is some 300 pages long are you going to sit at your computer and read all 300 pages. I seriously doubt it. It simply becomes an access to a brief quote. Something you can get from somewhere else on the internet and use.



Stranger

you say these like they are bad things, Stranger? I guess I'm not getting your point, could you expound a little? Ty