BATTLE TALK - Battle Royale III ~ Dee Dee vs. Jerry

[Carl Smuda]

Dee Dee's last post was superb! The entire battle has been great. It is interesting to watch Jerry betray his assumptions that Dee Dee would never agree with. Look at the way he sloppily has Paul saying things that are not anywhere in First-Corinthians-15. If our good Jerry really has anything systematic he hasn't shared it with anybody in the three pages of the Battle. Dee Dee wins. Time to put this one to bed. :nono:

 

[Revelation717]

Carl,

I agree when you said, "If our good Jerry really has anything systematic he hasn't shared it with anybody in the three pages of the Battle. "

It is getting rather boring actually that Jerry will not answer any questions but is clearly and simply seeking to undermine an interpretation that Dee Dee has shown from various Scriptures a logical explaination to support her thinking.

Jerry has not, matter of fact in the last 8 rounds HAS NOT even stated what his interpretation is! He is just disagreeing with Dee Dee for what seems to be simply the SAKE OF DISAGREEMENT! Bore, bore, bore.

Jerry says that Dee Dee's interpretation is confused but has anyone here noticed JERRY'S INTERPRETATION IS INVISIBLE. I guess I'd keep my interpretation hidden if I were him as well but it does nothing for this debate. I mean what is this debate supposed to be for? To show whether or not the Great Trib is a past or future event NOT WHETHER OR NOT DEE DEE IS WRONG OR RIGHT. JERRY DOESN'T SEEM TO UNDERSTAND THAT BY DISCREDITTING DEE DEE DOESN'T MAKE HIS POINT VALID the Scriptures are the only thing that validates anything concerning faith, and Jerry has failed to use them to substantiate any grounds for any theory.. But as instinctively as a baby sucks milk, Jerry thinks if he can make someone look bad he WILL LOOK GOOD, no matter what he says and even though he hasn't said a thing! Jerry has not focused on making any sort of substantial proofs for his arguement but used the LAST 8 ROUNDS to exclusively attack Dee Dee. I'm not sure that is what the debate was for but the guy is making no points for his interpretation. He has pointed to certain words such as "generation and coming" and said more or less "Well okay these words can be used in a future tense so therefore everything is future" But never taking into consideration that even when these VERY SAME WORDS were spoken they applied to the NOT SO FAR OFF FUTURE.

OKAY, we geddit, 70AD was FUTURE to the disciples when they heard these words!
70 AD was future to EVERY SINGLE BOOK IN THE BIBLE!

SO what's the point Jerry?

Dee Dee has done a superb job of using Scripture to verify Scripture. Jerry has verified what...????
Whether or not Dee Dee is right we cannot ignore the facts she has pointed out, The OT prophets, Historical Proof, NT Epistles and parallel passage between Matt. 24 and Luke 21.

All I've seen Jerry come up (ha, COMING UP) with is to try to raise doubt in all references so if you stand for nothing you'll fall for everything.

I'd really like to hear Jerry's interpretation. I'm sure it has some REALY cool black helicopters in it!

 

[Carl Smuda]

Revelation717,
Well said! you remind me of why I had NO CHOICE but to leave the sorry preTrib-Rapture theory behind. In the late 80's I searched and searched and searched and searched and searched and searched....I went to a Bible conference in Chicago and pleaded for somebody to find ONE VERSE in canon that shows the PAROUSIA to be MORE THAN ONE event in future history.

What was making me squirrelly was I didn't realize until about a year of reading and thinking and searching scripture, that THERE IS NO VERSE (NOT ONE) - NOT EVEN TWO- VERSE(S) that sets precedence for a parousia part one, and a parousia part two. Divided by several years of time.

Precisely the way you so succintly pointed out that Jerry's interpretation is invisible. Just like all the other invisible ghost verses that dispensationalism is built on.

Dee Dee is exegesis and Jerry is eisegesis. Dee Dee is clearly analysizing the text and Jerry is reading into the text. It is that simple. :doh:

respectfully,
Carl :nono:

 

[Hitch]

And Jerry is the best the DFs have on this forum...

H

 

[Cherith]

Funniest Line

Funniest Line

Jerry's funniest line in that whole convoluted "response" was:

There is no Scripture that says these signs will be SEEN. The "WATCHman" IS NOT WATCHING for any heavenly signs, but instead HE IS WATCHING for the "sword" to come upon the land.

Emphasis mine.

I was ROFL after that one! That statement alone was worth the pain of reading all the rest of this "debate"!!!

Really, I think the moderator should have ended this long ago. This never was a REAL debate. A true debate is where each opponent knows the position of the other and refutes it with something of substance. The first half of this debate (if not all of it) Dee Dee has had to clarify what her position IS rather than debate what the TOPIC *IS* - viz., Is the great tribulation past or future.

--Cherith

P.S. The part about the American Indians was extremely funny too! ;o)

 

[rapt]

Rev 7:17:

But as instinctively as a baby sucks milk, Jerry thinks if he can make someone look bad he WILL LOOK GOOD, no matter what he says and even though he hasn't said a thing!

(emphasis and color mine)

AMEN, Shugart hasn't said a thing. He just goes 'round and 'round and 'round asking the same questions over and over that have already been abundantly answered. And thinks THAT gains him points? It shows incoherance if anything. It certainly DOES make for a boring "debate", if it can even be called that. It's like watching a fencing match between one with a sword and the other with a noodle.:crackup: :doh:

How much more fillet of noodle can he stand, anyway?

 

[rapt]

Just face it, Jerry, and say like I have that you've been wrong. How can that be anything but HONORABLE? You've LOST debate regardless if you win in the poll. Just own up to the fact. Humility is better than winning men's praise anyway.

 

[Hitch]

Re: Funniest Line

Re: Funniest Line

Originally posted by Cherith
Jerry's funniest line in that whole convoluted "response" was:


Emphasis mine.

I was ROFL after that one! That statement alone was worth the pain of reading all the rest of this "debate"!!!

Really, I think the moderator should have ended this long ago. This never was a REAL debate. A true debate is where each opponent knows the position of the other and refutes it with something of substance. The first half of this debate (if not all of it) Dee Dee has had to clarify what her position IS rather than debate what the TOPIC *IS* - viz., Is the great tribulation past or future.

--Cherith

P.S. The part about the American Indians was extremely funny too! ;o)

Ya know whats even sadder??? Jerry has had months of DD's posts to go over(on the dispensationalism area and DD's greetings froma an Orthodox Preterists thread) and discover weaknesses. Still he must resort to trivelizations.



take care

Hitch

 

[Revelation717]

Carl,

You brought up an excellent point. That it was by READING the SCRIPTURES that you found the dispy futurist doctrine to be insanely unscriptural.

I think most of us here that are in agreement with Dee Dee found that we were converted to this line of thinking by diligently searching the Scriptures for answers.

I held the futurist doctrine for a long time and never once questioned it. I never came to the futurist conclusions I had by searching Scripture either but by listening to the popular opinions and the last day theories of others. Yeah, I would check the Scripture and see, "Well okay Revelation 13 has a 7 headed beast coming out of the sea" yep that Hal Lindsey was right the antichrist IS a surfer- dude! [/exaggeration] It was all merely well conceived ideas with NO Scriptural foundation. A house built on the sand next to the antichrist's beach pad, that's all.

It wasn't until my brother Rapt admonished and exhorted me and made me search the Scripture DILIGENTLY concerning the 70 weeks prophecy that I was able to understand.

The whole thread that binds the futurist dilemma is the teaching of an unfulfilled 70 weeks and the antichrist confirming the covenant.

And yet again, the Scripture is clear (you can possibly say even precisely and crystal clear in this very prophecy, even more so than others) as to it's fulfillment and length of time.

Nobody has ever become a futurist by searching the Scriptures.

I second Rapt's post: :thumb:

"Just face it, Jerry, and say like I have that you've been wrong. How can that be anything but HONORABLE? You've LOST debate regardless if you win in the poll. Just own up to the fact. Humility is better than winning men's praise anyway."

 

[rapt]

Thank you, Rev 7:17.


I would like to here thank God for putting it into the heart of Ralph Woodrow to write "Great Prophecies of the Bible", for before reading that short but powerful little book, I was utterly confused about prophecy. Thank God for the written word.

Though there be some who have suggested that the internet is not a good place to preach the gospel or to share the truth, and suppose that it is "unhuman", and that we can't get points across like we can face to face, I must disagree. It has become clear to me that it is much easier and quicker to understand someone's WRITTEN words than I could if we were face to face struggling with our emotions. I can also respond in a much more holy fashion, for I can re-read my words before posting them, clean them up, and hone my thoughts. The other party has that same benefit using this modem, but not so in a personal conversation. Emotions run high in disagreements, and unreasonableness with them.

So we find in the debate. Jerry can't make, let alone prove any points, so emotionalism has taken over.

I'm thankful that Dee Dee has "allowed me to be wrong" as long as she has, and didn't just write me off. We had a lot of agreement on things EXCEPT for on the part about the coming in Matthew 24 and some other places (which other places I must still now reconsider).

 

[Revelation717]

The Greatest Tribulation

The Greatest Tribulation

I have been considering how 70 AD could be the great tribulation not ever known since the foundation of the world nor has ever been known.

Take into consideration the timing.

It was on Passover 70 AD that the armies of Titus began their seige of Jerusalem, no one in, and no one out.

It was also during this time that Jerusalem would have had it's largest number of visitors than any other time of the year. Many people came to offer their lamb as sacrifice as caommanded in the law of Moses. Moreover ALL Hebrew males were commanded to appear before the Lord in the place that He chose. Since to the Jew this place would have been Jerusalem and the Temple we can safely assume that there was a significantly LARGE number of Jewish males that were CAUGHT in the seige that began on Passover day - 70 AD and lasted 143 days afterward until the destruction of Jerusalem and desolation of the city and sanctuary.


De:16:16: Three times in a year shall all thy males appear before the LORD thy God in the place which he shall choose; in the feast of unleavened bread, and in the feast of weeks, and in the feast of tabernacles: and they shall not appear before the LORD empty:

Since we know that the majority of the Jewish populous were living in their homeland during this time we can know that the numbers were significant to this prophecy. During any other time besides these three times a year you might expect the population of Jerusalem to be approx. 200,000 people but we know from historical records and accounts of the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 AD that approx. 600,000 were killed during the seige and battle that culminated. This is rather substantial and it is due to the fact of the seige and the timing it began.

Had it been any other time than Passover (a celebration which is directly connected with offering sacrifice for ALL people and to be at the Temple) the loss of life, even though great, would not have been the greatest that city has ever experienced since the foundation of the world, nor has seen since 70 AD.

If we assume that ALL Jewish males kept the commandment of Moses and went to Jerusalem during the 70 AD Passover then we can assume that if the days were not shortened and those who were able to escape did not then ALL Jewish flesh would not have survived, especially since the male gene carries the seed.

But for the elect's sake those days were shortened and those who obeyed Jesus' commandment to flee did and were saved.

Even though the Holocost is great in numbers of lost lives, they were only Jews that lived in conquered European countries. But the Jewish nation at that time had been scattered throughout the world as a result of 70 AD. Therefore we can conclude that no matter how terrible it cannot be compared to 70 AD.

Think of it like this, If I had $100 and that was all I had or ever would have, if I lost it it would be the greatest loss I ever had but if I had $1000 the hundred, even though great would not be the greatest.

70 AD was the greatest tribulation in Biblical terms ever experienced, they lost a substantial portion of their populous (almost complete genocide), their beloved city, the heart of their worship and with all that their God because of denial and rejection, even murder of His Christ.

Nothing could be worse than this.

Living in America, today we mourn the loss of those who died last year on Sept. 11th. This was a great loss. But IMAGINE for a moment if our nation had been COMPLETLY destroyed and 95% of it's citizens killed and the other 5% carried away captive not to mention our most important symbols of our democracy (i.e. the White House, the Statue of Liberty) torn down brick by brick and the Living God and His Christ Jesus loking at us in utter abhorrence, despising our prayers and not forgiving us because we reject and do not repent for forgetting Him and worshipping Him in absolute VANITY.

Would you wait for another time or could you say, "This is it" If you waited for another time how would that time even COMPARE with the loss of the first time? It could not. Neither can a future fantasy compare with historical proof of Scriptural fulfillment.

 

[Cherith]

(No Subject)

(No Subject)

Testing: 1, 2, 3, 4...

 

[Cherith]

Argh! Jerry's "Answers" Don't Do The Job!

Argh! Jerry's "Answers" Don't Do The Job!

I couldn't sit by any longer and wait on Dee Dee hoping that she includes all of these points in her response, so forgive me all if I'm jumping the gun.

• Jerry quotes 1 John 3:2 (and Phil 3:20-21) - two passages which no preterist in their right mind would say refers to the Olivet Discourse & the destruction of Jerusalem. Most commentators agree that the 1st epistle of John was written AFTER the destruction of Jerusalem. Duh! So, of course, the beloved apostle is referring to the Second Advent. No orthodox preterist IDENTIFIES/EQUATES the two "events"!

• Jerry uses the passage in Phil 3:20-21 about the General Resurrection which no preterist in their right mind would say refers to the Olivet Discourse & the destruction of Jerusalem. You will not FIND the RESURRECTION in the Olivet Discourse because the Lord is NOT addressing His Second Advent & the General Resurrection at the end of the world (i.e. cosmos).

• No preterist in their right mind would deny that when Jesus Returns that His Coming will be BODILY.

Jerry says that:

"the Lord Jesus Christ...will RETURN to earth"

• I would like to know, according to diSpENSATIONAL eschatology what the PURPOSE is for Christ returning TO EARTH? Because the Scriptures make it self-evident that with the Return of Christ there is nothing beyond that "event" for the ungodly except Judgment! The earth will be rejuventated by fire and presented as a homeland to the children of God.

The REALLY BIG THING that irked me was Jerry's misrepresentation of the Deity when he said regarding the parable of the wicked vinedressers:

"it is not the 'son' who returns in judgment, but instead the father. Therefore, this could not be in reference to AD70 because in that case, ...it is the Son Who comes in judgment."

• This is dividing The Indivisible Deity. It is attempting to divide God against Himself. Hear O Israel, the Lord our God is One and those who worship Him (singular) must worship Him (singular) in spirit and in truth. Wherever you find the Son you find the Father and vise versa. You cannot have the Father apart from the Son. This smacks of modalism and is at the very least a misrepresentation of the doctrine of the Triunity of God.

• Regarding the parable of the wheat and the tares, please notice that the TARES are gathered FIRST!

"Gather ye FIRST the TARES and bind them in bundles to burn them..."

The ONLY ones to be FIRST in "the end of the age" are the wicked - they are GATHERED for DESTRUCTION!

Jerry keeps quoting Matt 24:30:

"...and THEN shall all of the TRIBES of the (ge) MOURN, and THEY shall SEE the Son of Man coming in the clouds of heaven with power and great glory."

• What relevance is the word TRIBES in this passage? Are the inhabitants of the EARTH today designated by "TRIBES"?!? And what of the Greek word "ge" (which can be translated EARTH or LAND), does it NECESSARILY mean the whole earth or IS IT LIMITED BY IT'S CONTEXT!?!

• Finally, I would ask Jerry AGAIN about who "Jerusalem" is in Zech 12:9 - is it Jerusalem AFTER THE FLESH or is it HEAVENLY Jerusalem? Be careful how you answer, Jerry, because even premillennialist commentators might not agree with you...

Argh!!!
--C

 

[Cherith]

Zech 12:9 - A Premillennial Commentary

Zech 12:9 - A Premillennial Commentary

I would like to quote from Thomas V. MOORE's commentary on Zechariah regarding chapter 12 verse 9. Before I do that I wanted to include a blurb in the front jacket for those who are not familiar with the name of Thomas MOORE. It says:

Thomas V. MOORE (1818-1871), along with such men as Charles HODGE and J.A. ALEXANDER, was an American commentator who set a standard of exposition a century ago which has not been surpassed and rarely equalled. This long out-of-print work on Zechariah, with its clear exegesis and powerful application of the truth to the heart, is fully up to that standard and earned from C. H. SPURGEON the title of "A capital book".

The author was trained at Princeton Theological Seminary (1839-1842), and ordained on June 21, 1842, to his first pastorate at Carlisle, Pennsylvania. Thereafter he was pastor of churches at Greencastle (1845-1847), Richmond, Virginia (1847-1868), and Nashville, Tennessee (1869-1871). Dr. MOORE was Moderator of the General Assembly of the Southern Presbyterian Church in 1867.

I might also add that Dr. MOORE, like SPURGEON, was a premillennialist. (Of course, now he knows better... ;o) I would also like to add that because of his premillennialist bent that I do not agree with some of conclusions/interpretations. With that said, let me quote him on Zech 12:9:

"And it shall be in THAT DAY I will seek to destroy all nations who come up against Jerusalem."

"V. 9 declares in general terms the destruction of all the enemies that shall combine AGAINST THE CHURCH, here SYMBOLISED by Jerusalem. ...The general meaning seems to be, that there shall be hereafter a wide and formidable combination of enemies AGAINST THE CHURCH; that God shall deliver HER, not by the instruments to which she has looked, but by others, of the humbler and obscurer part; and that this deliverance should be accompanied by cordial union of affection among all portions OF THE CHURCH, and followed by a vast accession of strength to every portion of it, and by complete overthrow of HER enemies."

Dr. MOORE ends each section on Zechariah with the heading "PRACTICAL INFERENCES". His "practical inference" number 7 reads thus:

(7.) The enemies OF THE CHURCH of God shall at last perish, (v. 9.)

I would say that if one cannot SEE an allusion to Romans 11, then I would regard that person as willfully BLIND

In His Grip,
--C

P.S. The German scholar Ernest Wilhelm HENGSTENBERG interpreted Zech 12:2, which makes references to "Jerusalem" and "Judah" as corresponding to the Jews as TYPICAL of the ENEMIES of the chosen people - i.e. the ISRAEL of God (for you dullards, he means the CHURCH), that HER enemies should all be destroyed.

 

[Carl Smuda]

I agree. I wish no disrespect to Jerry. But the truth is (even more so if he is the best DF on the site) the way they emphasize little things is sad. I've done it. did for years. To this day I know good people -whose opionions I do respect- who will not see that their whole theology is based on ghost passages. I do not wish to single Jerry out. I respect Jerry. But he is doing the same thing that all dispy's seem to do. They jump at every chance to wiggle out of the problem that their basic assumption is not presentable in canon. And then come right back arguing from a position of no position to begin with. They read into the text their own unprovable assumptions.

Somebody help me if I off on this: the whole system wants needs insists on a two-fold parousia. The need and want desperately to divide up all references in scripture dealing with our Lord's coming into two categories. Return A, Return B. this without without withou one single precedence in canon to do so. this is the one fact I cannot get past. And yet they've been doing it since at least A.D.1840.

Only after I was able to houdini my way out of that was I even able to consider the little apocalypse as before, during, or after.

:nono:

 

[Carl Smuda]

I READ Ralph Woodrow's "Great Prophesys of the Bible" when I was on Guam in the U.S. Navy. That was the book that introduced preterism to me I believe. Do I have the right book? I read it and it was like 'seed' in my head. there was no internet or packs of debate teams. I just read it and told a few friends. It didn't really connect to the preTrib-rapture problem I was having. But then it came up later. It was like I was reading stuff and waiting for it to sink in. Which took at least ten years. The wonder of it all...

 

[rapt]

Amen, Carl. Disp'ism's whole false premise is based on a two-fold second coming. It's also based on two peoples of God. They deny that the church is the ONLY people of God now, so they must assume that God still has a "plan" for natural, unbelieving Israel outside of the lake of fire.

 

[rapt]

Yes, Carl, that's the book! It's first chapter debunks the two-stage rapture fantasy better than anything else I've seen yet...and so succintly.

It's only 173 eye-opening pages with 11 pages of references.


It's not expensive.

http://www.ralphwoodrow.org/books/great.htm

 

[Carl Smuda]

rapt,
thank you. Isn't it fascinating? I've been blessed to really begin to take in the protestant reformed almost everything. the heritage is so full and rich. the history is awesome and staggering. Much to learn and that is really a joy and rejoycing of my heart. I'm really sorry. But I had no choice but to leave dispy-land. One of the pleasures was I tried by myself to really study our Blessed Hope. I looked and looked and By God's blessings I slowly realized that all these bozo's -all my friends whom I still love- were blind to the fact that their end-time beliefs were resting on AIR!

 

[rapt]

Disps deny, deny, deny scripture

Disps deny, deny, deny scripture

Cherith:

Regarding the parable of the wheat and the tares, please notice that the TARES are gathered FIRST!

"Gather ye FIRST the TARES and bind them in bundles to burn them..."

Yes, that's what SCRIPTURE says, but Scofield DENIES it in his disp reference bible, turning it around backward, doing a 180!:

[1] Gather

The gathering of the tares into bundles for burning does not imply immediate judgment. At the end of this age(#Mt 13:40) the tares are set apart for burning, but first the wheat is gathered into the barn. #Joh 14:3 1Th 4:14-17.