C
cirisme
Guest
I don't see why the combatants can't participate here. The battle is over, and whatever they say now won't affect what they said in the battle.
POST GAME SHOW - Battle Royale III
- Thread starter Nathon Detroit
- Start date
- Status
D
Dee Dee Warren
Guest
Dear Jerry:
I did not say I would not answer your misrepresentations and misunderstanding of what I said about the Kingdom parables, I just said that I would not do so here. My last post listed a whole laundry list of things you dodged... The topic of this thread is not a debate, it is for comments on the debate that has already occured.
Can we agree to leave the observers to themselves?? I will answer your questions about that specific issue if you like on the thread that Rapt started. If you go and post it there, I will answer.
I did not say I would not answer your misrepresentations and misunderstanding of what I said about the Kingdom parables, I just said that I would not do so here. My last post listed a whole laundry list of things you dodged... The topic of this thread is not a debate, it is for comments on the debate that has already occured.
Can we agree to leave the observers to themselves?? I will answer your questions about that specific issue if you like on the thread that Rapt started. If you go and post it there, I will answer.
Jerry Shugart
Well-known member
Revelation717,
Perhaps you overlooked the fact that Dee Dee said early on in the debate that I was dishonest.I guess you overlooked the fact that she also said that my teaching has "BLASPHEMOUS implications".
And yes,I did call her an IDIOT,and that is because she repeatedly made IDIOTIC statements.Or do you believe her interpretation of Scripture whereshe says the following verses refer to the destruction of Jerusalem in AD70?:
"Then shall the Lord go forth and fight against those nations,as when He fought in the day of battle.Are you not aware that in the "day of battle" that He was VICTORIOUS?So if He fought in Jerusalem as He did in the DAY OF BATTLE,then He will be VICTORIOUS.
But Dee Dee says that this refers to the destruction of Jerusalem in AD70!
What could be more idiotic?
And what about this verse:
"And it shall come to pass,in that day,that I will seek to destroy all the nations that come against Jerusalem"(Zech.12:9).
Dee Dee makes the COMPLETELY IDIOTIC statement that this verse refers to AD70,when Jerusalem was destroyed.So I am not making a slander against Dee Dee,because she did in fact make an idiotic statement,and it takes an IDIOT to say such a thing.
Now I will ask you.Do you believe that these verses from Zechariah are referring to the DEFEAT of Jerusalem in AD70?
In His grace,--Jerry
Perhaps you overlooked the fact that Dee Dee said early on in the debate that I was dishonest.I guess you overlooked the fact that she also said that my teaching has "BLASPHEMOUS implications".
And yes,I did call her an IDIOT,and that is because she repeatedly made IDIOTIC statements.Or do you believe her interpretation of Scripture whereshe says the following verses refer to the destruction of Jerusalem in AD70?:
"Then shall the Lord go forth and fight against those nations,as when He fought in the day of battle.Are you not aware that in the "day of battle" that He was VICTORIOUS?So if He fought in Jerusalem as He did in the DAY OF BATTLE,then He will be VICTORIOUS.
But Dee Dee says that this refers to the destruction of Jerusalem in AD70!
What could be more idiotic?
And what about this verse:
"And it shall come to pass,in that day,that I will seek to destroy all the nations that come against Jerusalem"(Zech.12:9).
Dee Dee makes the COMPLETELY IDIOTIC statement that this verse refers to AD70,when Jerusalem was destroyed.So I am not making a slander against Dee Dee,because she did in fact make an idiotic statement,and it takes an IDIOT to say such a thing.
Now I will ask you.Do you believe that these verses from Zechariah are referring to the DEFEAT of Jerusalem in AD70?
In His grace,--Jerry
Revelation717
New member
Jerry,
You have God standing up and defending the WRONG Jerusalem!
Think of where the Bible tells us Jerusalem is NOW!
Heb:12:22: But ye are come unto mount Sion, and unto the city of the living God, the heavenly Jerusalem, and to an innumerable company of angels,
Heb:12:23: To the general assembly and church of the firstborn, which are written in heaven, and to God the Judge of all, and to the spirits of just men made perfect,
Heb:12:24: And to Jesus the mediator of the new covenant, and to the blood of sprinkling, that speaketh better things than that of Abel.
Was those who came against Jerusalem DEFEATED?
The Jews were hard-core against the Biblically Jerusalem and were DEFEATED with and ATROCIOUS loss. Think of this Jer, the Romans started persecuting the Christians (jerusalem) not long afterward and guess what buddy? IT FELL with a SLAM, dat da da ~ dat dada da ~ dat da da dat dada da
You need to quit looking here on earth for things that please God but look in heaven from which comes our salvation and Saviour.
That is the #1 ERROR of the Futurist dilemma. Looking for love in all the wrong places.
You have God standing up and defending the WRONG Jerusalem!
Think of where the Bible tells us Jerusalem is NOW!
Heb:12:22: But ye are come unto mount Sion, and unto the city of the living God, the heavenly Jerusalem, and to an innumerable company of angels,
Heb:12:23: To the general assembly and church of the firstborn, which are written in heaven, and to God the Judge of all, and to the spirits of just men made perfect,
Heb:12:24: And to Jesus the mediator of the new covenant, and to the blood of sprinkling, that speaketh better things than that of Abel.
Was those who came against Jerusalem DEFEATED?
The Jews were hard-core against the Biblically Jerusalem and were DEFEATED with and ATROCIOUS loss. Think of this Jer, the Romans started persecuting the Christians (jerusalem) not long afterward and guess what buddy? IT FELL with a SLAM, dat da da ~ dat dada da ~ dat da da dat dada da
You need to quit looking here on earth for things that please God but look in heaven from which comes our salvation and Saviour.
That is the #1 ERROR of the Futurist dilemma. Looking for love in all the wrong places.
Jerry Shugart
Well-known member
I agree with cirisme.The battle is over and nothing said herewill change what has already been said.
In His grace,--Jerry
In His grace,--Jerry
D
Dee Dee Warren
Guest
Jerry can we agree or not?? And I proved your dishonesty, which is well documented on another thread that I can provide the link to for whoever is interested. And if anyone is interested, I can also prove my statement about blasphemous implications. I never said you were intentionally blasphemous, for I do not believe that you are. But your theology does have blasphemous implications. I do feel that you sincerely are searching the Scriptures, but are sincerely wrong.
Jerry Shugart
Well-known member
Revelation717,
"And it shall come to pass,in that day,that I will seek to destroy all the nations that come against Jerusalem"(Zech.12:9).
Are you saying that this verse refers to the heavenly Jerusalem?
And you seem to be saying that the "nations" who came against Jerusalem were Jews.Is that what you are saying?
If you will read the previous verse,you can see that "in that day shall the Lord defend the inhabitants of Jerusalem."
Do you think that this refers to the heavenly Jerusalem?
The #1 error of the preterists is looking for the truth from the doctrines of men instead of the word of God.
In His grace,--Jerry
"And it shall come to pass,in that day,that I will seek to destroy all the nations that come against Jerusalem"(Zech.12:9).
Are you saying that this verse refers to the heavenly Jerusalem?
And you seem to be saying that the "nations" who came against Jerusalem were Jews.Is that what you are saying?
If you will read the previous verse,you can see that "in that day shall the Lord defend the inhabitants of Jerusalem."
Do you think that this refers to the heavenly Jerusalem?
The #1 error of the preterists is looking for the truth from the doctrines of men instead of the word of God.
In His grace,--Jerry
Jerry Shugart
Well-known member
You proved that I was dishonest?
Even rapt said that he was sorry for saying that I misrepresented what I was saying.He saw the truth.My words were plain,and the facts are clear.I never misrepresented anything.
You finally had to admit that you could only PROVE that I was DISHONEST by saying that my answer IMPLIED something that was dishonest.
Provide the link.I want everyone to see how you accused me of being dishonest when I was not being dishonest.
In His grace,--Jerry
Even rapt said that he was sorry for saying that I misrepresented what I was saying.He saw the truth.My words were plain,and the facts are clear.I never misrepresented anything.
You finally had to admit that you could only PROVE that I was DISHONEST by saying that my answer IMPLIED something that was dishonest.
Provide the link.I want everyone to see how you accused me of being dishonest when I was not being dishonest.
In His grace,--Jerry
D
Dee Dee Warren
Guest
I have answered Jerry's Kingdom parable question here:
http://www.theologyonline.com/vbulletin/showthread.php?goto=newpost&threadid=3272
http://www.theologyonline.com/vbulletin/showthread.php?goto=newpost&threadid=3272
D
Dee Dee Warren
Guest
And Rapt since withdrew that retraction if my understanding is correct. I cannot speak for him, and he and I do not always agree on everything believe it or not.
D
Dee Dee Warren
Guest
Selective quotation is dishonest in a Christian debate. "Technically correct" does not fly amongst those who are to be above reproach.
Here is the link:
http://www.theologyonline.com/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=3164&goto=lastpost
And if anyone cares enough to look (and I don't think anyone is), check out how Jerry claims apostolic authority to change the Bible to make it say that I hate God.
Here is the link:
http://www.theologyonline.com/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=3164&goto=lastpost
And if anyone cares enough to look (and I don't think anyone is), check out how Jerry claims apostolic authority to change the Bible to make it say that I hate God.
D
Dee Dee Warren
Guest
And here I detail and am prepared to defend the comment that I made about the "blasphemous implications" of what Jerry believes.
http://www.theologyonline.com/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&postid=109113#post109113
And I reiterate again, I am not calling Jerry intentionally blasphemous. I would not do that. He is a believer, and I believe that he is sincere. I certainly was sincere when I was a dispensationalist and a futurist.
http://www.theologyonline.com/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&postid=109113#post109113
And I reiterate again, I am not calling Jerry intentionally blasphemous. I would not do that. He is a believer, and I believe that he is sincere. I certainly was sincere when I was a dispensationalist and a futurist.
Revelation717
New member
Zec:12:8: In that day shall the LORD defend the inhabitants of Jerusalem; and he that is feeble among them at that day shall be as David; and the house of David shall be as God, as the angel of the LORD before them.
Zec:12:9: And it shall come to pass in that day, that I will seek to destroy all the nations that come against Jerusalem.
Zec:12:10: And I will pour upon the house of David, and upon the inhabitants of Jerusalem, the spirit of grace and of supplications: and they shall look upon me whom they have pierced, and they shall mourn for him, as one mourneth for his only son, and shall be in bitterness for him, as one that is in bitterness for his firstborn.
Yes Jer, it is quite clear, don't ya think?
"...and he that is feeble among them at that day shall be as David;"
What of David, he was strong in the Lord, he searched out for God, he was repentant, he knew his strength came from God, he was a king.
All these we know we have in Christ Jesus.
"; and the house of David shall be as God"
The house of David shall be as God. According to your interpretation you would have something here on earth being as God. But we know the house of David is the BODY of Christ Jesus, who is GOD!
The name "Christian" actually means "Of the house of Christ" So since we know Jesus is God and He is the root and offspring of David we can see the house of David being God. We shall be as David and live in our(David's) HOUSE JESUS. Where else did David live?
"And it shall come to pass in that day, that I will seek to destroy all the nations that come against Jerusalem."
Heb:12:22: But ye are come unto mount Sion, and unto the city of the living God, the heavenly Jerusalem, and to an innumerable company of angels,
Well Jerry, what saith the Lord? Are we come to heavenly Jerusalem or shall we still wait?
I think it is QUITE OBVIOUS the Scripture says "Ye ARE come to the city of the living God, the HEAVENLY JERUSALEM"
But you would have God STILL defending the UNBELIEVING Jew while citizens of the heavenaly Jerusalem are defeated by their foes. The unbelievers, whether a Jew or Muslim or Russian have no part in the heveanly Jerusalem.
"And I will pour upon the house of David, and upon the inhabitants of Jerusalem, the spirit of grace "
But you have God's Spirit being poured on unbelievers. Why?
"and they shall look upon me whom they have pierced, and they shall mourn for him, as one mourneth for his only son, and shall be in bitterness for him, as one that is in bitterness for his firstborn."
They shall look upon Jesus who they have peirced.
You say this is yet FUTURE but even the Scripture says it is FULFILLED:
Joh:19:36: For these things were done, that the scripture should be fulfilled, A bone of him shall not be broken.
Joh:19:37: And again another scripture saith, They shall look on him whom they pierced.
But the only people that mourn His death and rejoice in His being raised from the dead and alive forevermore are CHRISTIANS not the Jews.
Besides, the Jews did not pierce Jesus but it was a Gentile. Think of that for a moment. Where does the Scriptures EVER say the Jews PIERCED Jesus? No WHERE.
Like I said, keep your affection on the things from above.
Zec:12:9: And it shall come to pass in that day, that I will seek to destroy all the nations that come against Jerusalem.
Zec:12:10: And I will pour upon the house of David, and upon the inhabitants of Jerusalem, the spirit of grace and of supplications: and they shall look upon me whom they have pierced, and they shall mourn for him, as one mourneth for his only son, and shall be in bitterness for him, as one that is in bitterness for his firstborn.
Yes Jer, it is quite clear, don't ya think?
"...and he that is feeble among them at that day shall be as David;"
What of David, he was strong in the Lord, he searched out for God, he was repentant, he knew his strength came from God, he was a king.
All these we know we have in Christ Jesus.
"; and the house of David shall be as God"
The house of David shall be as God. According to your interpretation you would have something here on earth being as God. But we know the house of David is the BODY of Christ Jesus, who is GOD!
The name "Christian" actually means "Of the house of Christ" So since we know Jesus is God and He is the root and offspring of David we can see the house of David being God. We shall be as David and live in our(David's) HOUSE JESUS. Where else did David live?
"And it shall come to pass in that day, that I will seek to destroy all the nations that come against Jerusalem."
Heb:12:22: But ye are come unto mount Sion, and unto the city of the living God, the heavenly Jerusalem, and to an innumerable company of angels,
Well Jerry, what saith the Lord? Are we come to heavenly Jerusalem or shall we still wait?
I think it is QUITE OBVIOUS the Scripture says "Ye ARE come to the city of the living God, the HEAVENLY JERUSALEM"
But you would have God STILL defending the UNBELIEVING Jew while citizens of the heavenaly Jerusalem are defeated by their foes. The unbelievers, whether a Jew or Muslim or Russian have no part in the heveanly Jerusalem.
"And I will pour upon the house of David, and upon the inhabitants of Jerusalem, the spirit of grace "
But you have God's Spirit being poured on unbelievers. Why?
"and they shall look upon me whom they have pierced, and they shall mourn for him, as one mourneth for his only son, and shall be in bitterness for him, as one that is in bitterness for his firstborn."
They shall look upon Jesus who they have peirced.
You say this is yet FUTURE but even the Scripture says it is FULFILLED:
Joh:19:36: For these things were done, that the scripture should be fulfilled, A bone of him shall not be broken.
Joh:19:37: And again another scripture saith, They shall look on him whom they pierced.
But the only people that mourn His death and rejoice in His being raised from the dead and alive forevermore are CHRISTIANS not the Jews.
Besides, the Jews did not pierce Jesus but it was a Gentile. Think of that for a moment. Where does the Scriptures EVER say the Jews PIERCED Jesus? No WHERE.
Like I said, keep your affection on the things from above.
Last edited:
Jerry Shugart
Well-known member
According to Dee Dee,the parable of the"tares and wheat" is only about the "purging of the apostate Old Covenant people of God",the Jews.
But there is no indication in that parable that the purging only includes the Jews.According to the Lord Jesus,the "field is the world"(Mt.13:38).
"The kingdom of heaven is likened unto a man who sowed good seed in his field;But,while the man slept,his enemy came and sowed tares among the wheat"(Mt.13:24,25).
Since the gospel will be reached "in all the world"(Mt.24:14),then we can only conclude that the tares will be sown in the whole world also--"his enemy came and sowed tares among the wheat".
So there are tares and wheat in the whole Roman Empire,and not just in Israel.Next,we see that the tares and the wheat are gathered together:
"Let both grow together until the harvest;and in the time of the harvest I will say to the reapers,Gather together first the tares,and bind them in bundles to burn them,but gather the wheat into my barn"(Mt.13:30).
Notice the Lord did NOT say to the reapers,"Gather together SOME OF THE TARES",but instead said,"Gather together first the tares..."
The Lord is saying that all the "unrighteous" will be gathered out of the kingdom at the end of the age.Not just some of them,as Dee Dee would have you believe.
And all of the "tares" were not gathered out of the Roman Empire in AD70.So the destruction of Jerusalem in AD70 does not refer to the "end of the age",because the events at the end of the age will come about just as the Lord Jesus said they will:
"As,therefore,the tares are gathered and burned in the fire,so shall it be at the end of the age.The Son of Man shall send forth His angels,and they shall gather out of the kingdom ALL THINGS THAT OFFEND,and them who doeth iniquity,and shall cast them into a furnace of fire"(Mt.13:40-42).
The Lord´s words are plain.His angels will cast out of the kingdom ALL THINGS THAT OFFEND,and not just some of the things that offend,as Dee Dee would have you believe.
And that did not happen when Jerusalem was defeated in AD70!
In His grace,--Jerry
But there is no indication in that parable that the purging only includes the Jews.According to the Lord Jesus,the "field is the world"(Mt.13:38).
"The kingdom of heaven is likened unto a man who sowed good seed in his field;But,while the man slept,his enemy came and sowed tares among the wheat"(Mt.13:24,25).
Since the gospel will be reached "in all the world"(Mt.24:14),then we can only conclude that the tares will be sown in the whole world also--"his enemy came and sowed tares among the wheat".
So there are tares and wheat in the whole Roman Empire,and not just in Israel.Next,we see that the tares and the wheat are gathered together:
"Let both grow together until the harvest;and in the time of the harvest I will say to the reapers,Gather together first the tares,and bind them in bundles to burn them,but gather the wheat into my barn"(Mt.13:30).
Notice the Lord did NOT say to the reapers,"Gather together SOME OF THE TARES",but instead said,"Gather together first the tares..."
The Lord is saying that all the "unrighteous" will be gathered out of the kingdom at the end of the age.Not just some of them,as Dee Dee would have you believe.
And all of the "tares" were not gathered out of the Roman Empire in AD70.So the destruction of Jerusalem in AD70 does not refer to the "end of the age",because the events at the end of the age will come about just as the Lord Jesus said they will:
"As,therefore,the tares are gathered and burned in the fire,so shall it be at the end of the age.The Son of Man shall send forth His angels,and they shall gather out of the kingdom ALL THINGS THAT OFFEND,and them who doeth iniquity,and shall cast them into a furnace of fire"(Mt.13:40-42).
The Lord´s words are plain.His angels will cast out of the kingdom ALL THINGS THAT OFFEND,and not just some of the things that offend,as Dee Dee would have you believe.
And that did not happen when Jerusalem was defeated in AD70!
In His grace,--Jerry
Jerry Shugart
Well-known member
Dee Dee says that my teaching that there is a "gap" in the prophecy concerning Daniel´s 70 Weeks has blasphemous implications.
That means that many of the early church fathers were also teaching things that have blasphemous implications.
On the PreteristArchive.com we see the following words:
"Irenaeus,Bishop of Lyon,companion of Polycarp,John´s pupil..."
Irenaeus,who was a companion of Polycarp (who studied at the feet of the Apostle John) also saw a gap in Daniel´s 70 weeks.He did not believe that the antichrist had appeared on earth.And can anyone but Dee Dee think that he might have beem misinformed?
I am of the opinion that both Polycarp and Irenaeus were serious students of the Scriptures.And I find it inconceivable that Irenaeus would be misinformed about whether or not the antichrist appeared on earth in AD70.After all,who better to inform him of the truth than someone who had studied under John.
Dee Dee wants us to believe that those living less than a hundred years after AD70 were wrong when they said that the antichrist did not come then.They are wrong,but Dee Dee is right.
In His grace,--Jerry
That means that many of the early church fathers were also teaching things that have blasphemous implications.
On the PreteristArchive.com we see the following words:
"Irenaeus,Bishop of Lyon,companion of Polycarp,John´s pupil..."
Irenaeus,who was a companion of Polycarp (who studied at the feet of the Apostle John) also saw a gap in Daniel´s 70 weeks.He did not believe that the antichrist had appeared on earth.And can anyone but Dee Dee think that he might have beem misinformed?
I am of the opinion that both Polycarp and Irenaeus were serious students of the Scriptures.And I find it inconceivable that Irenaeus would be misinformed about whether or not the antichrist appeared on earth in AD70.After all,who better to inform him of the truth than someone who had studied under John.
Dee Dee wants us to believe that those living less than a hundred years after AD70 were wrong when they said that the antichrist did not come then.They are wrong,but Dee Dee is right.
In His grace,--Jerry
C
cirisme
Guest
Why does it have blasphemous implications?
D
Dee Dee Warren
Guest
Dear Cirisme:
I answered that question on your dispensationalism thread.
I answered that question on your dispensationalism thread.
D
Dee Dee Warren
Guest
And I will continue my answer to Jerry where my original answer was posted.
Sorry, I apologized prematurely. That was before I saw you saying that Thayer AGREES WITH YOU, which he most certainly DOES NOT. Certainly you saw my withdrawal, but now you are twisting my words too! How can you call yourself "honest" when you KNOW THIS?
________________
"And it shall come to pass in that day, that I will seek to destroy all the nations that come against Jerusalem."
Speaking to GENTILE believers, Paul said:
(See Dan 9:25 for a scriptural definition of what "cut off" means!)
Now we know that Paul was refering in the above scriptures to the JUDAIZERS, who seduced the church with ANOTHER GOSPEL (one perverted with judaism).
God indeed fought against the Jewish persecuters of the Church! They CLAIMED to be Jews, but they were not. They were of the synogogue of satan! (Rev 2:9; 3:9) Jesus Himself SAID they were of their father the devil, and that they would do his lusts: liars who would kill the prophets and those God would send them, and they DID JUST THAT.
God justly recompensed judgment upon them in the same generation. Disps discount that judgment just as if it NEVER HAPPENED. They DENY the fulfillment of Dan 9 just as they do most all the other prophecies of the end of Judaism and the law and the Old Covenant. They think it's still in effect on the Jew today! How ELSE could they suppose a rebuilt temple could still be called "the temple of God"? They must DENY that Christ DID AWAY with that entire system so they can suppose that it won't be done away until the end of the 70 weeks, which they say were never fulfilled.
Disps deny, deny, deny, and ignore every scriptural proof that they are just as much unbelievers in the fulfillment of God's Word as the unbelieving Jews are. They profess to know God, but deny His Word, and make it of none effect. They have closed their ears to the truth.
If Daniel 9 isn't fulfilled, then Daniel is a liar and Jesus isn't the Messiah. You can't have it both ways!! Either Daniel was a false prophet, and Jesus is an imposter, or else the seventy weeks are already fulfilled, Jesus was who confirmed THE covenant (which was obviously the New Covenant of forgiveness of sins and reconcilliation for iniquity spoken of in Dan 9:24), caused the animal sacrifices to cease, brought judgment upon the blasphemous and murderous Jews of His day by the use of Rome in 70AD, even as He Himself said would happen, destroyed the temple and the city, and there won't come some future individual 'antichrist' to do any of those things!
If the latter is the case (and I firmly believe it IS), then futurism is ANOTHER GOSPEL, and a big fat blasphemous lie that places an antichrist in the place of Christ!
Last edited:
- Status