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

[Hitch]

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.



So much trafffic today I dont eevenremeber who's quote this is, but its right.

There were many many deaths and destruction nearing a modern war in Jerusalem in ad 70. but none of that equalled the crime they committec in choosing he pagan over the King of glory and the subssequent regice. And no event will equal the covenantal dismemeberemt that followed.

Hitch

Lots of fine reading today..thanx

 

[Cherith]

PRESUPPOSITIONS, The Jews & Romans

PRESUPPOSITIONS, The Jews & Romans

At the risk of starting a new debate, I'd like to respond to something Rev717 said:

"Even though the Holocaust 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 AD 70. Therefore we can conclude that no matter how terrible it cannot be compared to 70 AD."

This statement (and others like them, on this thread and Dee Dee's other one) PRESUPPOSE that there is ANYMORE SUCH A THING AS AN "ETHNIC" JEW. There is not and the realization of that would go far toward a right understanding of the eschatology of the Bible.

A case cannot be made on ANY grounds - whether it be Biblical, Theological, Genealogical/Physiological, Philological, or even Etymological. (Did I leave out any -ologies?)

Until a person has dealt with "the Jewish question" he/she cannot rightly interpret and defend Romans 11.

In His Grip,
--C

 

[rapt]

Cherith,

That's a very interesting supposition. I'd like to understand it and how you come to that conclusion. Can you please explain it to me in layman's terms. (I'm not good at "ologies".) :doh:

 

[Revelation717]

Yes Cherith please explain.

Are you referencing possibly Revelation 2:9 & 3:9?


Re:2:9: I know thy works, and tribulation, and poverty, (but thou art rich) and I know the blasphemy of them which say they are Jews, and are not, but are the synagogue of Satan.
Re:3:9: Behold, I will make them of the synagogue of Satan, which say they are Jews, and are not, but do lie; behold, I will make them to come and worship before thy feet, and to know that I have loved thee.

Are you saying that those that are called Jews today are not actually Jews in the sense of the Bible.

Or am I way off base? This is interesting because I've always wondered and had certain ideas about these passages.

 

[rapt]

It appears that you've interpreted them like I have, Rev 7:17.

 

[rapt]

The ONLY TRUE Jews according to scriptural defintion

The ONLY TRUE Jews according to scriptural defintion

Romans 2
28 For he is not a Jew, which is one outwardly; neither is that circumcision, which is outward in the flesh:

29 But he is a Jew, which is one inwardly; and circumcision is that of the heart, in the spirit, and not in the letter; whose praise is not of men, but of God.


(Who's praise is not of disps,and of any who's doctrine make the above word of God of none effect, but of God!)


Romans 9
6 Not as though the word of God hath taken none effect.

For they are not "all Israel", which are of Israel:

7 Neither, because they are the seed of Abraham, are they all children (of Abraham): but, In Isaac shall thy seed be called.

8 That is, They which are the children of the flesh, these are not the children of God: but the children of the promise are counted for the seed.


(It's ONLY those who are of faith in Jesus Christ that are the children of God, being the children of the promise. See Gal 3)


Jn 8:

23 And he said unto them, Ye are from beneath; I am from above: ye are of this world; I am not of this world.


(The Jews made the SAME LYING CLAIM of themselves that disps today make about them, which Jesus showed to be a LIE: )


39 They answered and said unto him, Abraham is our father... we have one Father, even God.

Jesus saith unto them, IF ye were Abraham's children, ye would do the works of Abraham.

40 But now ye seek to kill me, a man that hath told you the truth, which I have heard of God: this did not Abraham.


42 Jesus said unto them, If God were your Father, ye would love me:...


(So we can know if one is not a child of God when they DON'T love Jesus!)


24 I said therefore unto you, that ye shall die in your sins: for if ye believe not that I am he, ye shall die in your sins.

41 Ye do the deeds of your father.

44 Ye are of your father the devil, and the lusts of your father ye will do. He was a murderer from the beginning, and abode not in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own: for he is a liar, and the father of it.


(The Father of all lies claims that HIS OWN are the children of God and of Abraham! ...and the disps BELIEVE HIM.)


They aren't "Jews", they aren't "Israel", they aren't "the children of Abraham", they are not the "elect", and they're not "the children of God" who are the children of the flesh: outward Israel. They were of the synogogue of Satan who persecuted and killed the prophets and Jesus Christ, as are all today who reject Jesus Christ, whether Jew OR Gentile. One is either a child of God or a child of the devil. There aren't any other fathers to be of. Being outwardly Jewish won't save ANYONE.

 

[Jaltus]

Ack, bad mistake by Dee Dee in her latest post (though I doubt Jerry will pick up on it). She talked about authority and power and rule all being put under Christ now. The problem is that the parallel is also in Ephesians 6, and Jerry can show that this means spiritual powers, and that the age to come has yet to come because of this. However, Dee Dee could respond by bringing in the term "last days" and making liberal use of it, but I doubt she would.

 

[JackS]

Jaltus,

What problem are you talking about? I don't see it, please be more specific. She pretty much nailed Psalm 110 and I cor 15, which does not leave a lot of doubt, unless you don't want to believe what the text says.

 

[rapt]

Knight or Goose,

I wish there was a direct link to the Battle on these pages.

 

[JackS]

Great idea!

 

[rapt]

I find it interesting that those voting for Jerry aren't commenting on WHY they think he's winning anything!

 

[Chivato1969]

It is very interesting that Jerry’s supporters are very bold to vote but too timid to post anything. I challenge them to post here in depth on how they think Jerry is winning anything. He is a terrible debater, and has not won any of the skirmishes. Obviously people are voting by what they already believe, but as I understand it, that is not how the voting is supposed to work. A person can win a “debate” and still be wrong on the issue, so voting for the better debater does not mean that you necessarily agree with their point of view. Jerry has been outrageously outdebated, outsmarted, and outwitted. It isn’t even close. That does not mean automatically that he is wrong in his eschatology, but anyone thinking with their heads reading this bloodbath could not believe he is “winning.” Impossible. Dee Dee is simply a much better debater by far. I challenge again any of Jerry’s supporters to put their mouth where their vote is.

 

[rapt]

Good point, Chivato, about what the poll is for to begin with!

Are those voting for Jerry using their heads or merely their emotions, and just casting a vote for disp doctrine REGARDLESS of how horrible a job Jerry has done to support it?

 

[Sola Scriptora]

No problem. If you read earlier, I answered Jack and mrsmacks on a couple of points that they thought were "sure fire can't miss" points against dispensationalism. Jack ran from my answers and never bothered to bring up the "Kingdom offer" argument against us , nor did he bring up how Psalms 110 was against us.

I proved from Scripture that these two arguments, and smacks argument were false, for any "thinking person". They were quite the pasting.

So if anyone wants to Battle royal, no problem Time permitting, We can see that most of the big brave talk on here against Dispensationalism is just that--talk. It is hardly Scriptural, and some of it is downright comical.

 

[Hitch]

Jerry speaks

Dee Dee says that the Lord came in the first century.But I pointed out that Paul taught that when the Lord comes then at that time the believers would receive new glorified bodies just like the Lord´s body.But since that did not happen it is obvious that the Lord did not come in the first century.I also pointed out that Paul was urging the Christians to be “waiting” for the Lord to return at any moment.


Hmmmm

According to this logic JERRY or JESUS one or the other has a problem with truth.


Matt 18:20
20 For where two or three are gathered together in my name, there am I in the midst of them.
(KJV)

Of course this coundnt be because of what Jerry has enlightened us to above...

How come you dont have a glorified body JERRY ? Why does your logic fail the first test?


Hitch

 

[Hitch]

Originally posted by Sola Scriptora
No problem. If you read earlier, I answered Jack and mrsmacks on a couple of points that they thought were "sure fire can't miss" points against dispensationalism. Jack ran from my answers and never bothered to bring up the "Kingdom offer" argument against us , nor did he bring up how Psalms 110 was against us.

I proved from Scripture that these two arguments, and smacks argument were false, for any "thinking person". They were quite the pasting.

So if anyone wants to Battle royal, no problem Time permitting, We can see that most of the big brave talk on here against Dispensationalism is just that--talk. It is hardly Scriptural, and some of it is downright comical.

How common. But its still after 100 years the best and only way for DFs to win.

Declare victory, then describe anyone in opposition as 'unthinking' (if that doest do it try unchristian)

Hitch

 

[Hitch]

Actually this poor helpless christ of the dispensationalists who tried his best to give a kingdom to those bad old jew,,but,,,they wouldnt let him...

Sounds more like the chirist of Islam. not the real Son of god by any stretch. Just another failure...

Certainly the One who orders history couldnt be controlled by a nation of apostates.

In case anyone doesnt know;;

The DF doctrine of the 'Parenthetical Church' , a pillar of Jerry's outlook is as antichrist as slaughtering animals for sacrfice. And as foul as adding animal blood to the real Sacrfice.

Hitch
,

 

[Hitch]

Originally posted by Chivato1969
It is very interesting that Jerry’s supporters are very bold to vote but too timid to post anything. I challenge them to post here in depth on how they think Jerry is winning anything. He is a terrible debater, and has not won any of the skirmishes. Obviously people are voting by what they already believe, but as I understand it, that is not how the voting is supposed to work. A person can win a “debate” and still be wrong on the issue, so voting for the better debater does not mean that you necessarily agree with their point of view. Jerry has been outrageously outdebated, outsmarted, and outwitted. It isn’t even close. That does not mean automatically that he is wrong in his eschatology, but anyone thinking with their heads reading this bloodbath could not believe he is “winning.” Impossible. Dee Dee is simply a much better debater by far. I challenge again any of Jerry’s supporters to put their mouth where their vote is.

Well C I reckon is has a lot to do with the mindset neccessary to accept Dispensational fallacies to begin with.

take care

Hitch

 

[Revelation717]

Sola, "So if anyone wants to Battle royal, no problem Time permitting, We can see that most of the big brave talk on here against Dispensationalism is just that--talk. It is hardly Scriptural, and some of it is downright comical."

PUH-LEEEESE :down:

Scriptural? Like I said in the PM I sent you and you haven't answered and on this thread several times, YOU NEED TO CHANGE YOUR NAME!

Your hero Jerry, the champion of the Disps has been defeated, he was shot down in Round 1.

Read back through the threads, both here and the Battle. Jerry's floating fantasies have been sunk and your "sola mineowna scriptura comments and fables have been nuked as well.

Like Rapt stated earlier why don't you see any of Jerry's voters posting here? Probably cuz they'd get as battered as Jerry is :shocked:

 

[rapt]

Good point made with scripture, Hitch!

Here's some more verses for those who deny that Jesus came in the first century to consider:

Jn 14:18
I will not leave you comfortless: I will come to you.

19 Yet a little while, and the world seeth me no more; but ye see me: because I live, ye shall live also.

20 At that day ye shall know that I am in my Father, and ye in me, and I in you.

When Jesus said these things, was He refering to His final COMING, or was He telling the disciples in the first century that He would come to THEM and even live IN them?