Well I finished the book of Revelation what next?

a reply to: intrepid

I've never been the least bit impressed by such "scholarship."

imho, they should get over themselves.

originally posted by: intrepid
No. Christ and Paul never met. Unless Paul had a Ouija board.

.
Then you essentially are calling Paul a liar and the NT record false.
.
I don't read it that way, at all.
.
And the mention of a Ouija board for Paul is extremely impolite and offensive, to me.
.
It bespeaks a seemingly deliberate crassness and derisiveness of the NT record.
.
I guess "polite" is and always will be in the eyes or fingers of the one doing the labeling.

originally posted by: BO XIAN

originally posted by: intrepid
No. Christ and Paul never met. Unless Paul had a Ouija board.

.
Then you essentially are calling Paul a liar and the NT record false.

Pretty much. I dig Christ. Paul, not so much. Not the NT. Just the Paulian parts. No problem with the Gospels and John's work. He actually knew Christ.

And the mention of a Ouija board for Paul is extremely impolite and offensive, to me.

Believe me. I'll lose sleep over that.

a reply to: intrepid

I have 0.0% need for you to lose sleep over that.

I was merely highlighting how the shoe on the other foot might look--did look, from my perspective.

imho, that's fair and reasonable in a fairly free-wheeling exchange of ideas from very different perspectives.

However, IF we are going to appeal to CIVILITY as a hallmark standard of relating in all exchanges . . . then, for me, that was not very civil as it was a crass commentary on Paul who understood very well The Biblical commands to avoid contact with all such things anything close to a Ouija Board.

BTW, God seems to have a different take on Paul--tasking him with so much of the NT writings.

And, Christ went out of His way to turn Paul 180 degrees around. Evidently God saw something different in Paul than you see.

originally posted by: BO XIAN
And, Christ went out of His way to turn Paul 180 degrees around. Evidently God saw something different in Paul than you see.

According to Paul.

a reply to: intrepid

Peter Affirmed Paul's kosherness as an honorable Apostle worth listening to and submitting to . . . and the authenticity of his letters.

And, I don't construe The Bible as a

pick & choose book of options.


New or Old Testament.

It's a rather seamless whole from Genesis to Revelation 66 books by dozens of scribes over many hundreds of years.

a reply to: BO XIAN

"Peter Affirmed Paul's kosherness as an honorable Apostle worth listening to and submitting to . . . and the authenticity of his letters."

Where? I don't recall that at all.

OK. What bible book explains them all? It's only one.

a reply to: intrepid

I don't recall if it was 1st, 2nd or 3rd Peter. Will check and get back to you.

I will say, however, that Paul's writings are exceedingly consistent with Christ's words, teachings in the Gospels. On that score alone, I think they would bear thoughtful and favorable consideration.

And . . . it won't do

to think of Christ as a great philosopher, teacher.

He was either a lunatic or He was who He said He was.

If He was a lunatic, how does one explain so many centuries of astounding influence in a myriad of cultures around the world.

If He is who He said He was/is, why won't you obey Him?

There is NO middle road. He made that VERY clear.

On the other hand . . . God is Holy but He is NOT prissy. He wants a RELATIONSHIP, not religion . . . and He went and goes to extreme lengths in behalf of RELATIONSHIP.

I have found that He always responds to an earnest prayer asking Him to make Himself real to a person. Though virtually never in the way the person hopes. And rarely in the timing the person wants. He IS God, after all!.

I'll have to search Peter more carefully. My quick scan didn't find it. And, it may have been Luke quoting Peter in Acts.

Cheers.

a reply to: intrepid


2 Peter 3:14-16New Living Translation (NLT)

14 And so, dear friends, while you are waiting for these things to happen, make every effort to be found living peaceful lives that are pure and blameless in his sight.

15 And remember, our Lord’s patience gives people time to be saved. This is what our beloved brother Paul also wrote to you with the wisdom God gave him— 16 speaking of these things in all of his letters. Some of his comments are hard to understand, and those who are ignorant and unstable have twisted his letters to mean something quite different, just as they do with other parts of Scripture. And this will result in their destruction.

Looking for this, I re-read a lot of verses in Acts about Paul. I wonder if you have read Acts with any fair-mindedness, at all?

a reply to: luciferslight

*Knock Knock*

a reply to: luciferslight

OK, Am finally getting to my commitment to offer evidence that REVELATION was NOT about historic events vs future events.

The most common perspective on that score is PRETERISM.

www.puritandownloads.com... er-preterism-or-hymenaeism-free-audio-and-text-of-sermons-by-greg-price-15-free-mp3s-and-pdfs-and-much-more/

It is generally recognized that Preterism was first systematized by the Roman Catholic Jesuit, Luis de Alcasar, in his commentary on Revelation (1614 a.d.). Alcasar applied the principles of Preterism to the Book of Revelation in identifying the Beast, the False Prophet and Mystery Babylon with past historical events in order to shield the papacy from the Protestant interpretive system (called "Historicism") which identified the man of sin, the antichrist, the False Prophet and Mystery Babylon with the papacy and the Roman Catholic Church. Even Professor Moses Stuart, one of the chief and earliest proponents of Preterism in the United States, noted in his commentary on Revelation (1845 a.d.) the following in regard to the Jesuit, Alcasar (Vol. 1, pp. 463,464):

= = = = = =
So, rather than reinvent the wheel on my own . . . with a topic that has become dreary and tedious, to me, I'll post a good article shredding Preterism.

Link:

www.bereanresearchinstitute.com...
.

2. Revelation 16:12-16 describes how the Battle of Armageddon will commence (or how it did commence - allegedly). So, here is our first question: Who conquered Jerusalem in fulfillment of this prophecy and from where did they come?

.
3. The Preterist position teaches that this prophecy was fulfilled in the year 70 A.D. when the Roman General Titus and his Roman army conquered Jerusalem.

.
4. But Rome is virtually due WEST of Jerusalem and the prophecy (Rev 16:12) says that the Euphrates was dried up so that the kings of the EAST could be prepared to make war against Jerusalem at Armageddon.

= = = == =
www.fether.net.../
.

Refuting Preterism

[Note: this is about “full preterism”, where nothing at all remains of Bible prophecy. I consider “partial preterism” to be completely untenable due to even greater inconsistency than full preterism.]
.
In general, if the detailed prophecies of the last days are symbolic, what reality do they point to? John was shown a vision of “things that must soon/quickly take place”, but what were the things to be? If they pointed to nothing that could be seen or observed, then why give the prophecy at all, and why in such detail? The whole Revelation is stripped of all meaning and relevance if we were never to take it as a prophecy of real and observable events. The same can be said for Daniel, whose prophecies were undeniably literal (see the book “Daniel in the Critics’ Den” by Sir Robert Anderson, or later similar books by Josh McDowell or Joyce Baldwin).
.
. . .
.
But even if this were true, the sequence cannot be denied. While all prophetic views largely agree on the first five to seven items, the sticking point is on the identity of “he”: is it Jesus or someone evil? Let us examine each of the remaining items in the list:
.
There is no indication in the Gospels or anywhere else that the beginning of Jesus’ public ministry or his baptism signified the confirmation of any covenant. There is also no firm proof that his ministry lasted 3-1/2 years. And since his ministry began and ended on Passovers, there is no room for a half-year. And Jesus himself stated, at the Last Supper, that his death would be the signing of a new covenant.
.
Sacrifice and offering at the temple did not end at Jesus’ death, resurrection, ascension, or at Pentecost. It did not end until the destruction of the city and temple about 40 years later.
.
If Jesus was the one who did something to the temple, then what he said in Mat. 24:15 makes no sense: “So when you see standing in the holy place ’the abomination that causes desolation’ spoken of through the prophet Daniel…” The Greek of that verse is unambiguous: something abominable stands in the Holy Place of the temple. And there is no record of people immediately running to the mountains at the sight of Jesus being killed or of the curtain of the Holiest Place being torn in two.
.
Conversely, if an evil person was to defile the temple, and if this was future to Jesus and Paul (2 Thes. 2:4) and not already fulfilled by Antiochus Epiphanes (2nd century BC), then it clearly was not fulfilled in 70 AD since no one went into the temple to be declared God but demolished it instead.
.
. . .
.
If Jesus is to be taken literally when referring to “the abomination of desolation” and the destruction of the Temple and “this generation”, then He must also be taken literally when He said all of the following:

And this gospel of the kingdom will be preached in the whole world as a testimony to all nations, and then the end will come. (Mt. 24:14)
For then there will be great distress, unequaled from the beginning of the world until now--- and never to be equaled again. (Mt. 24:21)
Immediately after the distress of those days
’the sun will be darkened,
and the moon will not give its light;
the stars will fall from the sky,
and the heavenly bodies will be shaken.’
At that time the sign of the Son of Man will appear in the sky, and all the peoples of the earth will mourn. They will see the Son of Man coming on the clouds of heaven, ...

= = = = = =

www.egalitarian.biz...
.
Please scroll down to the yellow section that begins with:
.

.
. . .
.
Within Matthew 24

14 And this gospel of the kingdom will be preached in the whole world as a testimony to all nations, and then the end will come.

Only since the advent of communication satellites has this been possible. "Sputnik," the first satellite ever, was launched only 52 years ago.

21 For then there will be great distress, unequaled from the beginning of the world until now -- and never to be equaled again.

The most terrible distress the world has seen so far came more than 1,830 years after 70 A.D. -- the time that some people these days actually and ludicrously believe was the fulfillment of the events Jesus prophesied: The Holocaust, the Russian pograms, and the millions that died as Mao Tes-Tung came into power. Every terrible time in the past paled compared to those. Such as the Crusades, and the Spanish Inquisition. The Black Plague was terrible, but far more died in World War II.

But now even those awful events are in the past. And Jesus said that the Tribulation He was prophesying would be unequaled, past, present or future.

It surely didn't happen in 70 A.D.

It didn't even happen in the 1930s and '40s.

But it will happen during the time frame of the generation that started either in 1948 (when Israel became a nation) or after the Israelis captured all of Jerusalem in 1967. Jesus will return in this generation now alive. Probably right after the only remaining prerequisite sign comes to pass.
.
. . .
.

to be continued

a reply to: BO XIAN

More to the point re REVELATION from this link:
.
www.fether.net.../
.

Scholars have determined* that the Revelation was seen and written toward the end of the reign of Domitian, the Roman emperor following Nero. Nero died in 68 AD and Domitian in 96 AD (see www.roman-emperors.org...). The consensus is that it was seen and written around 95 AD. So the destruction of the Temple in 70 AD was long past and thus not the fulfillment of Revelation. And since there is little doubt that Revelation is referring to the same final “week” as Daniel, it must therefore be that prophecy’s final and complete fulfillment.

* Citing Irenaeus, Clement of Alexandria, Origen, Victorinus, Eusebius, and Jerome. Some who are not scholars have tried to argue that the references in these writings were ambiguous; e.g. “The problem here is that the word ’it’ in the Greek could refer to the visions John saw, the book he wrote, or John himself.” (mikeblume.com...) But such alleged ambiguities are not mentioned by scholars, and ’it’ would not refer to John himself.

Preterists may ask why John would not mention the destruction of the Temple if it post-dated it, but there is no compelling reason for him to do so since this was not a historical record but a vision from God. And we might also ask why none of the early “church fathers” mentioned it as being a fulfillment of John’s prophecy.

The letter to Laodicea in Rev. 3:17 treats it as a prosperous city. But it had been ruined by an earthquake around 61 AD, which makes a date during Nero’s reign impossible. Cities could not so quickly be rebuilt, much less return to a high level of prosperity.

.
= = = =
.

PRETERISM & BIBLICAL PROPHECY . . . Preterism's inconsistencies:
.
www.biblicalstudies.com...
.
= = = =
Full Preterism Refuted Part 2 YOUTUBE:
.

www.youtube.com...
.
= = = =
========================================================================

FOR ME . . . It's pretty simple.

The events that Revelation, Daniel, Ezekiel etc. speak of in terms of the END TIMES EVENTS COULD NOT have already happened.

Particularly:

1. The setting up of the Anti-Christ's image in the Holy of Holies (or even as some contend, in the courtyard) of the Jewish Temple. The historic events did not come close to the description of the still future event. The future event entails Israeli's fleeing as they are slaughtered . . . fleeing to Petra to be hidden and protected there by God.

2. The resurrection of Christians and Christ's bodily return in his 2nd Coming to reign bodily on earth as KING OF KINGS AND LORD OF LORDS has certainly not come to pass. Any blather about symbolic this and that is utterly devoid of any Biblical support and understanding.

a reply to: BO XIAN

Your information is more than a lot flawed, imho. Christians are exhorted by Paul to avoid taking one another to court but to handle conflicts within the Body of Christ--asking other brothers to mediate, where necessary.

Why would I listen to Paul when I just suggested (a view held by many) that Paul usurped Christianity?

a reply to: BO XIAN

I find that an unnecessarily and very gratuitously exceedingly offensive thing to have read.

"Offensive" is hardly an excuse to shut down discussion on things you may not agree with - surely the "truth" is stronger than that, and can stand on its own merits?

a reply to: BO XIAN

Christ made Himself real to Paul

Well the why is Paul lying?

www.voiceofjesus.org...

1. On the time of the coming of the Lord:

Paul says:
Rom.13
[12] the night is far gone, the day is at hand.

Jesus says:
Luke.21
[8] Take heed that you are not led astray; for many will come in my name,
saying, . . . `The time is at hand!' Do not go after them.



3. On the God of the dead:

Paul says:
Rom.14
[9] For to this end Christ died and lived again, that he might be Lord both of the dead and of the living.

Jesus says:
Luke.20
[38] Now he is not God of the dead, but of the living;



7. On being justified:

Paul says:
Rom.3
[24] they are justified by his grace as a gift, through the redemption which is in Christ Jesus,
[28] For we hold that a man is justified by faith apart from works of law.
Rom.5
[9] Since, therefore, we are now justified by his blood, much more shall we be saved by him from the wrath of God.

Jesus says:
Matt.12
[37] for by your words you will be justified, and by your words you will be condemned.

a reply to: BO XIAN

Paul a liar and the NT record false. .

You do realize that what books were included in the NT was a decision of Nicae - presided over by Constantine. a roman ruler , who conveniently had a "Saul" like moment prior to his conversion.

a reply to: BO XIAN

Paul who understood very well The Biblical commands to avoid contact with all such things anything close to a Ouija Board.

And yet he preached to the Gentiles...and allowed the un-circumcised to be on an equal footing with the Israelite. He obviously didnt uphold all the OT edicts contrary to what you're claiming!

a reply to: BO XIAN

Peter Affirmed Paul's kosherness as an honorable Apostle worth listening to and submitting to . . . and the authenticity of his letters.

You're being a bit liberal with the "truth"

www.justgivemethetruth.com...

Before we get to the subject of Yeshua’s prophecy to Peter, there are several things in this quote that should be pointed out. First, notice that there is only one issue clearly stated by Peter in which we know he is in agreement with Paul... the patience in persecution issue. Second, the "things hard to understand" are not identified in this short passage, much less outlined as to which position is correct and which is the twisted version.* Third, it is interesting to note that in spite of the fact that Peter has obviously read many of Paul’s epistles and is therefore fully aware of Paul claiming to be an apostle, Peter does not call him a fellow apostle, but instead calls him "brother". Fourth, claiming that Peter was endorsing Paul’s letters, as the Holy Word of God is a bit of a stretch. Though the Greek word for "Scripture" does in fact mean "Holy Writings", and the Greek word for "rest" means "the rest of any number or class under consideration". When Peter said, "as they do", he wasn’t doing anything more than comparing similarities in the way some people deal with both Paul’s writings and the Holy Word of God. If we are concerning ourselves with only this passage, just exactly what Peter thinks of Paul’s writings is somewhat up for grabs.*

a reply to: BO XIAN

Peter Affirmed Paul's kosherness as an honorable Apostle worth listening to and submitting to . . . and the authenticity of his letters.

You're being a bit liberal with the "truth"

www.justgivemethetruth.com...

Before we get to the subject of Yeshua’s prophecy to Peter, there are several things in this quote that should be pointed out. First, notice that there is only one issue clearly stated by Peter in which we know he is in agreement with Paul... the patience in persecution issue. Second, the "things hard to understand" are not identified in this short passage, much less outlined as to which position is correct and which is the twisted version.* Third, it is interesting to note that in spite of the fact that Peter has obviously read many of Paul’s epistles and is therefore fully aware of Paul claiming to be an apostle, Peter does not call him a fellow apostle, but instead calls him "brother". Fourth, claiming that Peter was endorsing Paul’s letters, as the Holy Word of God is a bit of a stretch. Though the Greek word for "Scripture" does in fact mean "Holy Writings", and the Greek word for "rest" means "the rest of any number or class under consideration". When Peter said, "as they do", he wasn’t doing anything more than comparing similarities in the way some people deal with both Paul’s writings and the Holy Word of God. If we are concerning ourselves with only this passage, just exactly what Peter thinks of Paul’s writings is somewhat up for grabs.*