POST GAME SHOW - Battle Royale III
- Thread starter Nathon Detroit
- Start date
- Status
Jerry Shugart
Well-known member
Revelation717,
The verse from Ephesians says nothing about the Body of Christ being the bride of Christ.
First (the verse you left out) we read:
"For we are members of His Body,of His flesh and of His bones."
Then He demonstrates just how close that relationship is in the next verse:
"For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother,and shall be joined into hiswife,and the two shall be one flesh."
Paul is using the words from Genesis2:24 to show that the believer is joined to Christ in the same way that a man is joined to hiswife.If he wasteaching that the Body is the Bride,he would say so.But nowhere does anyone ever say that the Body of Christ is the Bride of Christ.
And why can´t you deal with my words as they are stated?Instead of doiung that,you take my words and make them say something entirely different from what I said.And then you attack the new made up words.
I NEVER SAID THAT ISRAEL WOULD EVER ATTAIN THIS RIGHTEOUSNESS IN UNBELIEF!!!
Again,I will ask you to quote my words where I ever said such a thing.You think that you can make up anything that you want and attribute it to me,and that is exactly what you are doing.
I am through discussing anything with you.You cannot discuss these matters in an honest way,and I will not stoop to your level.
The verse from Ephesians says nothing about the Body of Christ being the bride of Christ.
First (the verse you left out) we read:
"For we are members of His Body,of His flesh and of His bones."
Then He demonstrates just how close that relationship is in the next verse:
"For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother,and shall be joined into hiswife,and the two shall be one flesh."
Paul is using the words from Genesis2:24 to show that the believer is joined to Christ in the same way that a man is joined to hiswife.If he wasteaching that the Body is the Bride,he would say so.But nowhere does anyone ever say that the Body of Christ is the Bride of Christ.
And why can´t you deal with my words as they are stated?Instead of doiung that,you take my words and make them say something entirely different from what I said.And then you attack the new made up words.
I NEVER SAID THAT ISRAEL WOULD EVER ATTAIN THIS RIGHTEOUSNESS IN UNBELIEF!!!
Again,I will ask you to quote my words where I ever said such a thing.You think that you can make up anything that you want and attribute it to me,and that is exactly what you are doing.
I am through discussing anything with you.You cannot discuss these matters in an honest way,and I will not stoop to your level.
D
Dee Dee Warren
Guest
LOLOL, that argument about the Body and the Bride is the same sort of thing we see from Unitarians... they go see, it says here that Jesus is a man, so he can't be Deity. Newsflash, the Body and the Bride are not mutually exclusive terms. The Church is BOTH!!! That is the point of thse verses. Denying that the Church is the Bride totally the destroys the full analogy presented.
D
Dee Dee Warren
Guest
And don't forget 2 Corinthians 11:2 and Romans 7:4. Wait a minute, let me get my popcorn so I can be entertained on how Jerry worms his way out of those two.
Jerry Shugart
Well-known member
Dee Dee,
You want to discuss the issues you raised in your tenth post,and that is exactly what I am doing.Did you forget that the parable of the"wheat and tares" was a part of your discussion in that post?
What you mean is that you will discuss any issue BUT THAT ONE!
And I can understand why you do not care to get into that.
You want to discuss the issues you raised in your tenth post,and that is exactly what I am doing.Did you forget that the parable of the"wheat and tares" was a part of your discussion in that post?
What you mean is that you will discuss any issue BUT THAT ONE!
And I can understand why you do not care to get into that.
D
Dee Dee Warren
Guest
I already answered that one Jer.. and you know darn well what I am referring to.... there is nice long list there of the things you have avoided. Or can't you see it, like you can't see where I already answered you on this one but you are stuck in first gear?? That can be really bad for your transmission...
D
Dee Dee Warren
Guest
I am still waiting for your assessment of those teachers I brought up and your wiggly move out of those two other verses.
Jerry Shugart
Well-known member
Dee Dee,
Yes,you answered it,but your answer is in direct contradiction of the word of the Lord Jesus Christ in the parable of the "wheat and tares".Are you telling us that that is your final answer,and we should believe you instead of the Lord Jesus Himself?
Well,since you do not want to discuss that,perhaps you will discuss the matter of the timing of the resurrection of the dead.We can see that it comes right after the "great tribulation":
"...and there shall be a time of trouble,such as never was since there was a nation even to that same time;and at that time thy people shall be delivered,every one that shall be written in the book.And many of those who sleep in the dust of the earth shall awake,some to everlasting life,and some to shame and everlasting contempt"(Dan.12:1,2).
But that does not fit your scenario,does it?
To add further weight,we can see that the TIME of the signs in heaven of the Olivet Discourse is described as "the end of the age" and "the last days"(Mt.24:3;Acts2:17,19).And we can also see that it is on the LAST DAY when the resurrection of the dead comes to pass:
"...And this is the will of Him Who sent Me,that I should lose none of all that He hath given Me,but raise them up in THE LAST DAY"(Jn.6:39).
So the "great tribulation" will occur in the "last days",and then the resurrection of the dead will occur on the very last day of that age.
So we can see in the prophecy of Daniel that the resurrection of the dead occurs after the great tribulation.And we can also see that the same resurrection occurs on the last day of the end of the age.
And since that did not happen in AD70,we can also be sure that the "great tribulation" did not occur then either.
In His grace,--Jerry
Yes,you answered it,but your answer is in direct contradiction of the word of the Lord Jesus Christ in the parable of the "wheat and tares".Are you telling us that that is your final answer,and we should believe you instead of the Lord Jesus Himself?
Well,since you do not want to discuss that,perhaps you will discuss the matter of the timing of the resurrection of the dead.We can see that it comes right after the "great tribulation":
"...and there shall be a time of trouble,such as never was since there was a nation even to that same time;and at that time thy people shall be delivered,every one that shall be written in the book.And many of those who sleep in the dust of the earth shall awake,some to everlasting life,and some to shame and everlasting contempt"(Dan.12:1,2).
But that does not fit your scenario,does it?
To add further weight,we can see that the TIME of the signs in heaven of the Olivet Discourse is described as "the end of the age" and "the last days"(Mt.24:3;Acts2:17,19).And we can also see that it is on the LAST DAY when the resurrection of the dead comes to pass:
"...And this is the will of Him Who sent Me,that I should lose none of all that He hath given Me,but raise them up in THE LAST DAY"(Jn.6:39).
So the "great tribulation" will occur in the "last days",and then the resurrection of the dead will occur on the very last day of that age.
So we can see in the prophecy of Daniel that the resurrection of the dead occurs after the great tribulation.And we can also see that the same resurrection occurs on the last day of the end of the age.
And since that did not happen in AD70,we can also be sure that the "great tribulation" did not occur then either.
In His grace,--Jerry
Last edited:
D
Dee Dee Warren
Guest
Jerry you brought up some new points that I will gladly address in the Back Alley, like I said, when I am ready to post substantively. But what you posted already contradicted your own time line.... I think you need to straighten out your own time line before trying to comment on mine.
Now what about those other teachers that I brought up?? And those verses regarding the Bride?
Now what about those other teachers that I brought up?? And those verses regarding the Bride?
Jerry Shugart
Well-known member
Dee Dee,
Your whole argument depends on the fact that the resurrection of the dead does not occur not long after the "great tribulation",but yet the Scriptual passages I provided strongly indicate that that resurrection does occur at that time.
These verses are devestating to your case (just like the parable of the "wheat and the tares"),but again you will not address these verses.And you accuse me of dodging the issues!
In His grace,--Jerry
Your whole argument depends on the fact that the resurrection of the dead does not occur not long after the "great tribulation",but yet the Scriptual passages I provided strongly indicate that that resurrection does occur at that time.
These verses are devestating to your case (just like the parable of the "wheat and the tares"),but again you will not address these verses.And you accuse me of dodging the issues!
In His grace,--Jerry
The dispy quack-mire teaching that the "Bride" of Christ is the Jews is a doctrine of RESPECT OF PERSONS, which we know from scripture that God does not practice.
Hey Rev 7:17, does this remind you of something a while back?
Consider which doctrine actually DOES accuse God of sin.
Hey Rev 7:17, does this remind you of something a while back?
Consider which doctrine actually DOES accuse God of sin.
Revelation717
New member
C'mon Rapt, Jerry is using solid
I mean his theory is based on the most sound
Did you hear when he quoted
Our arguements are hopeless against his
He surely knows
So why shouldn't we believe his ideas on
The 70 weeks haven't even started. We have all 70 to go. There is no Temple in Jerusalem, so we must wait for that fulfillment.
The antichrist hasn't confirmed the covenant to rebuild it yet.
Revelation 11 clearly shows rebuilding the temple after the antichrist gives the command to restore and build.
The Messiah hasn't even come.
I mean, go look, find the name Messiah in the New Testament. You can't and I know Solo Scrupitore would eat us up for not having the SOUNDEST doctrine like he does.
Even Jesus said another would come in his own name and the ETHNIC jews would receive him.
Joh:5:43: I am come in my Father's name, and ye receive me not: if another shall come in his own name, him ye will receive.
This has got to be Messiah the Prince because the ETHNIC jews have not received the promises that come with Messiah the Prince.
They still sin, they transgress, their iniquity hasn't been reconciled etc... etc...
So since we have not one of the things mentioned in Daniel 9:24-27 then we obviously have all 70 weeks to go.
I mean the Bible nevers mentions a gap but CLEARLY there must be because the ETHNIC JEw is GOD'S People and everlasting righteousness hasn't come to Jerusalem, so if it doesn't mention a gap then it cannot specify where the gap is to be placed and SINCE none of the specs of the prophecy have been realized by ETHNIC jews or earthly jerusalem then the 70 weeks are yet future in it's entirety.
Any proof it is not? I'm asking Jerry and SOLO.
You guys have all the
I should have listened to your
I know you've got the
Man, you guys are just
:thumb:
I mean his theory is based on the most sound
Did you hear when he quoted
Our arguements are hopeless against his
He surely knows
So why shouldn't we believe his ideas on
The 70 weeks haven't even started. We have all 70 to go. There is no Temple in Jerusalem, so we must wait for that fulfillment.
The antichrist hasn't confirmed the covenant to rebuild it yet.
Revelation 11 clearly shows rebuilding the temple after the antichrist gives the command to restore and build.
The Messiah hasn't even come.
I mean, go look, find the name Messiah in the New Testament. You can't and I know Solo Scrupitore would eat us up for not having the SOUNDEST doctrine like he does.
Even Jesus said another would come in his own name and the ETHNIC jews would receive him.
Joh:5:43: I am come in my Father's name, and ye receive me not: if another shall come in his own name, him ye will receive.
This has got to be Messiah the Prince because the ETHNIC jews have not received the promises that come with Messiah the Prince.
They still sin, they transgress, their iniquity hasn't been reconciled etc... etc...
So since we have not one of the things mentioned in Daniel 9:24-27 then we obviously have all 70 weeks to go.
I mean the Bible nevers mentions a gap but CLEARLY there must be because the ETHNIC JEw is GOD'S People and everlasting righteousness hasn't come to Jerusalem, so if it doesn't mention a gap then it cannot specify where the gap is to be placed and SINCE none of the specs of the prophecy have been realized by ETHNIC jews or earthly jerusalem then the 70 weeks are yet future in it's entirety.
Any proof it is not? I'm asking Jerry and SOLO.
You guys have all the
I should have listened to your
I know you've got the
Man, you guys are just
:thumb:
Revelation717
New member
Oh I see. So he wouldn't use words like wife or husband, two become one, body etc... he would just say bride, right.
Well my bride here thinks you gotta be foolin' Jer. And my wife thinks the same. Oh am I a two timer now?
You know the other day I spoke with the woman whom bore me from her womb and I told her I loved her alot. Even as an off spring loves their parent. We talked for awhile and she told me of things I did when I was her newborn baby and she my maternal nurse, it was quite the conversation. I told her she was the best matriarch a adolescent could have but that I had to go so I could call my mother.
Enlighten us, who is the Bride, Jerry?
I've already did that once, THEN I ASKED YOU TO DO THE SAME< WHERE YOU BORE FALSE WITNESS AGAINST ME BUT YOU HAVE YET TO OBLIDGE A MAN THE RIGHT TO SEE HIS ERROR but continue in saying he is in error. You resemble your father, a liar and accusser of the brethren!
So when you can at least be honest enough to quote me as I asked previously or apologize I will do no such thing for I can see it will yield NO FRUIT from a stiff necked unrepentant ready for the fire dead tree.
So quid pro quo, quote me or apologize! I will leave it up to you to find the reference and quote fella, happy searching!
Last edited:
D
Dee Dee Warren
Guest
Dear Jerry:
Please see here and tell me what you think:
http://www.theologyonline.com/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&postid=110567#post110567
Please see here and tell me what you think:
http://www.theologyonline.com/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&postid=110567#post110567
Jerry Shugart
Well-known member
Dee Dee,
You are free to answer or not.This thread is for comments on the debate we just had.Feel free to respond in any way you choose.You keep saying that you are thrashing me,but all you are doing is avoiding answering the points I have raised.
Now,earlier I had provided Scriptures that demonstrate that the "resurrection of the dead" will occur after the "great tribulation"(Dan.12:1,2),on the "last day" of the "end of the age".You provided no evidence whatsoever that refuted any of this.
Earlier,in the debate,I provided the following evidence to support my contention that the kingdom has not yet been put into place.The Lord Jesus told His Apostles:
"But I say unto you,I will not drink henceforth of this fruit of the vine,until that day when I drink it new with you in My Father´s kingdom"(Mt.26:29).
Earlier you said that the kingdom was put in place shortly after the destruction of Jerusalem in AD70,but when I asked you WHEN the Apostles drank wine with the Lord in the kingdom,you did not answer.
If the kingdom has been in place for almost two thosand years (as you maintain),then perhaps you are ready now to tell us when the Lord´s Apostles drank of the fruit of the vine with the Lord Jesus Christ?
We also see that not only are the Apostles going to eat and drink at the Lord´s table in the kingdom,but they are also going to judge the twelve tribes of Israel:
"That ye may eat and drink at My table in the kingdom,and sit on the thrones judging the twelve tribes of Israel"(Lk.22:30).
Since you say that we are now in the kingdom,perhaps you can also tell us when the Apostles have judged the twelve tribes,Dee Dee.
In His grace,--Jerry
You are free to answer or not.This thread is for comments on the debate we just had.Feel free to respond in any way you choose.You keep saying that you are thrashing me,but all you are doing is avoiding answering the points I have raised.
Now,earlier I had provided Scriptures that demonstrate that the "resurrection of the dead" will occur after the "great tribulation"(Dan.12:1,2),on the "last day" of the "end of the age".You provided no evidence whatsoever that refuted any of this.
Earlier,in the debate,I provided the following evidence to support my contention that the kingdom has not yet been put into place.The Lord Jesus told His Apostles:
"But I say unto you,I will not drink henceforth of this fruit of the vine,until that day when I drink it new with you in My Father´s kingdom"(Mt.26:29).
Earlier you said that the kingdom was put in place shortly after the destruction of Jerusalem in AD70,but when I asked you WHEN the Apostles drank wine with the Lord in the kingdom,you did not answer.
If the kingdom has been in place for almost two thosand years (as you maintain),then perhaps you are ready now to tell us when the Lord´s Apostles drank of the fruit of the vine with the Lord Jesus Christ?
We also see that not only are the Apostles going to eat and drink at the Lord´s table in the kingdom,but they are also going to judge the twelve tribes of Israel:
"That ye may eat and drink at My table in the kingdom,and sit on the thrones judging the twelve tribes of Israel"(Lk.22:30).
Since you say that we are now in the kingdom,perhaps you can also tell us when the Apostles have judged the twelve tribes,Dee Dee.
In His grace,--Jerry
D
Dee Dee Warren
Guest
Dear Jerry:
I would still like your answer on the other thing that I proposed if you don't mind. And yes, this thread is for comments on the debate, not to rehash the debate. And I did thrash you thoroughly, and will gladly do some more as I indicated that other thread. You can fire away over there if you want to agree to that I said. I await your response.
I would still like your answer on the other thing that I proposed if you don't mind. And yes, this thread is for comments on the debate, not to rehash the debate. And I did thrash you thoroughly, and will gladly do some more as I indicated that other thread. You can fire away over there if you want to agree to that I said. I await your response.
D
Dee Dee Warren
Guest
Oh and where I said I thrashed you was in the Debate.... not here for I have been pretty much ignoring your questions here as I said that I would. And where I will thrash you further is in the Back Alley if you agree.
Jerry Shugart
Well-known member
All you who believe that ethnic Israel has been forever cast aside have yet to answer the following verses.But you just continue to ingnore them and go on your merry ways in total ignorance of the truth.
The Lord declared that He would not permanently cast away ethnic Israel:
"For the Lord will not cast off His people,neither will He forsake His inheritance"(Ps.94:14).
"For the Lord will not forsake His people for His great name´s sake,because it hath pleased the Lord to make you His people"(1Sam.12:22).
And the following verse reveals exactly who "His people" is in reference to:
"For thou art an holy people unto the Lord thy God;the Lord thy God hath chosen thee to be a special people unto Himself,above all people who are upon the face of the earth...the Lord brought you out with a mighty hand,and redeemed you out of the house of bondage,from the hand of Pharaoh,king of Egypt"(Deut.6:6,8).
So the words "His people" are in regard to ethnic Israel,because it was ethnic Israel who was redeemed out of Egypt.So if words have any meaning,we can KNOW for sure that the Lord has not permantently cast away ethnic Israel.
"For Thou hast confirmed to Thyself Thy people,Israel,to be a people unto Thee FOREVER;and Thou,Lord,art become their God"(2Sam.7:24).
So the Lord has made it abundantly clear in His Holy Scriptures that ethnic Israel will not be forever cast away.
But there are those on this thread who refuse to believe His words.They would rather remain in ignorance and continue to promote the false teaching that they have received from men.
None of them have yet even attempted to answer these verses.Why should anyone take them seriously?Anyone can build false doctrines by ignoring all the verses which clash with their false ideas.
In His grace,--Jerry
The Lord declared that He would not permanently cast away ethnic Israel:
"For the Lord will not cast off His people,neither will He forsake His inheritance"(Ps.94:14).
"For the Lord will not forsake His people for His great name´s sake,because it hath pleased the Lord to make you His people"(1Sam.12:22).
And the following verse reveals exactly who "His people" is in reference to:
"For thou art an holy people unto the Lord thy God;the Lord thy God hath chosen thee to be a special people unto Himself,above all people who are upon the face of the earth...the Lord brought you out with a mighty hand,and redeemed you out of the house of bondage,from the hand of Pharaoh,king of Egypt"(Deut.6:6,8).
So the words "His people" are in regard to ethnic Israel,because it was ethnic Israel who was redeemed out of Egypt.So if words have any meaning,we can KNOW for sure that the Lord has not permantently cast away ethnic Israel.
"For Thou hast confirmed to Thyself Thy people,Israel,to be a people unto Thee FOREVER;and Thou,Lord,art become their God"(2Sam.7:24).
So the Lord has made it abundantly clear in His Holy Scriptures that ethnic Israel will not be forever cast away.
But there are those on this thread who refuse to believe His words.They would rather remain in ignorance and continue to promote the false teaching that they have received from men.
None of them have yet even attempted to answer these verses.Why should anyone take them seriously?Anyone can build false doctrines by ignoring all the verses which clash with their false ideas.
In His grace,--Jerry
D
Dee Dee Warren
Guest
Jerry I would like an answer to that other proposal I made to you.
- Status