Robert's Gospel According to the Apostle Paul

[Right Divider]

Thanks for pointing out that I put Matthew in lieu of Mark.

Mark 14:27 was Jesus telling the audience that Zech 13:7-9 was fulfilled.

Yet, you Dispies claim otherwise.

No, I don't. It was fulfilled, but not the rest of Zechariah. Plain as day.

 

[George Affleck]

Luk 17:20-21 KJV And when he was demanded of the Pharisees, when the kingdom of God should come, he answered them and said, The kingdom of God cometh not with observation: (21) Neither shall they say, Lo here! or, lo there! for, behold, the kingdom of God is within you.​

The YOU in verse 21 is PLURAL. This refers to the people of Israel, as THEIR King was in their midst!
According to your theory, the "kingdom" was inside these unbelieving Pharisees. :rotfl:

No, this is a case of using a collective pronoun to teach a maxim.
If Jesus had used the singular, He would have been telling one individual, to the exclusion of others, that the Kingdom resided in that person. Therefore, in order to teach at all, the plural must be used when addressing more than one person. We can tell the use of a collective pronoun, usually, by considering how it would go if the singular were used.

Consider the verse Mat 6:21KJV
"For where your treasure is, there will your heart be also."

This could be read as; For where the treasure of all of you is, there will the heart of all of you be also.
But this verse is designed to not define the treasure which could be any number of things. It is to be applied personally in a singular sense but understood universally in a plural sense as teaching a maxim.

It is also teaching that the Kingdom of God is outward but inward.

 

[tetelestai]

Sure a great tribulation but not THE great tribulation...

That one ends just before no flesh survives...and lots of other things happen and we go to tabernacle with Him...

So according to you, another temple has to be built, then a big wall has to be built around Jerusalem, then an army has to surround Jerusalem, then some Jews have to flee to the mountains, then an army will knock down the temple, and all the walls, and then leave not one stone left standing upon another.

Is this what "the" great tribulation will be?

 

[Right Divider]

Where does Zechariah say there will be a 2,000 year gap between verses 7 & 8?

It doesn't EXPLICITLY say that and does not have to. Scripture is not your toy.

You do know that two thirds of the Jews were killed from 66AD - 70AD?

I guess that was just some kind of coincidence?

Even if that were true, it's still your assumption that they are one and the same.

Zechariah 14 cannot be fulfilled until verse 4 is fulfilled by the Lord's return per Acts 1:9-12.

 

[Right Divider]

No, this is a case of using a collective pronoun to teach a maxim.
If Jesus had used the singular, He would have been telling one individual, to the exclusion of others, that the Kingdom resided in that person. Therefore, in order to teach at all, the plural must be used when addressing more than one person. We can tell the use of a collective pronoun, usually, by considering how it would go if the singular were used.

Consider the verse Mat 6:21KJV
"For where your treasure is, there will your heart be also."

This could be read as; For where the treasure of all of you is, there will the heart of all of you be also.
But this verse is designed to not define the treasure which could be any number of things. It is to be applied personally in a singular sense but understood universally in a plural sense as teaching a maxim.

It is also teaching that the Kingdom of God is outward but inward.

None of that precludes the fact that the Lord Jesus Christ will rule in a kingdom on earth, just like vast amounts of scripture proclaim.

 

[George Affleck]

None of that precludes the fact that the Lord Jesus Christ will rule in a kingdom on earth, just like vast amounts of scripture proclaim.

So after zeroing in on a specific item, when a specific answer is given and you can't find a rebuttal, you decide to appeal to generalities?

Here, I can play that game too.

The vast amount of scripture is against you. How's that for a rebuttal? Pretty good huh?

 

[Jerry Shugart]

To be God's people and then to have that taken away and given to others was far worse than physical tribulation.

The nation was temporarily set aside as the LORD's agent upon the earth but she has not been cast away because at the end of the tenth chapter of Romans and the beginning of the eleventh chapter Paul states:

"But to Israel He saith, All day long I have stretched forth my hands unto a disobedient and gainsaying people. I say then, Hath God cast away his people? God forbid" (Ro.10:21; 11:1).​

In this passage when Paul speaks of Israel it is obvious that it is Israel which is made up of the physical descendants of Jacob which is in view: "All day long I have stretched forth my hands unto a disobedient and gainsaying people."

Paul is quoting from the OT so his reference to "Israel" at Romans 10:21 must be the Israel which had its beginning in the OT. Here is the verse which he quoted:

"I have stretched forth my hands all day to a disobedient and gainsaying people, to them that walked in a way that was not good, but after their sins. This is the people that provokes me continually in my presence; they offer sacrifices in gardens, and burn incense on bricks to devils, which exist not" (Isa.65:2-3; LXX).​

So when Paul asks, "Hath God cast away His people" the words "His people" are referring back to the people of whom he just wrote about, the Israel he describes as being "a disobedient and gainsaying people."

So when Paul asked, "Hath God cast away His people" he was asking if the nation of Israel that had its beginning in the OT had been cast away.

And what he says next makes it plain that God has not cast away the Israel of the OT:

"God forbid."​

At the time when the book of Romans was written Paul made it plain that Israel has not been cast away and what he says later makes that fact plain:

"Israel has experienced a hardening in part until the full number of the Gentiles has come in, and in this way all Israel will be saved. As it is written: 'The deliverer will come from Zion; he will turn godlessness away from Jacob. And this is my covenant with them when I take away their sins'" (Ro.11:25-27).​

 

[Right Divider]

So after zeroing in on a specific item, when a specific answer is given and you can't find a rebuttal, you decide to appeal to generalities?

You were actually referring to a form of generalization in your previous comment.

Here, I can play that game too.

The vast amount of scripture is against you. How's that for a rebuttal? Pretty good huh?

The scripture speaks of a kingdom on the earth where Christ will reign. Shall I do your homework for you?

 

[Rosenritter]

Nope

Jesus made it clear that everything He prophesied, pertained only to the unbelieving Jews and Jerusalem:

(Luke 19:41-44) As he approached Jerusalem and saw the city, he wept over it 42 and said, “If you, even you, had only known on this day what would bring you peace—but now it is hidden from your eyes. 43 The days will come upon you when your enemies will build an embankment against you and encircle you and hem you in on every side. 44 They will dash you to the ground, you and the children within your walls. They will not leave one stone on another, because you did not recognize the time of God’s coming to you.”

This has absolutely nothing to do with anyone else in any other city. It specifically pertains to the Jews in Jerusalem.

Moreover, history refutes you. We know from secular history that everything Jesus said, happened 40 years later, and it only happened to Jerusalem, and the unbelieving Jews inside Jerusalem.

Jesus did not "make it clear that everything he prophesied pertained only to Jews and Jerusalem." Do you have a statement where he says "I prophesy only concerning the Lost House of the Sheep of Israel?" Or something to that effect? Because otherwise if seems that you are trying to assert a logical fallacy that because we mutually recognize that Jesus prophesied concerning Jerusalem once then every prophecy was Jerusalem and Jerusalem only. That does not logically follow, but if that is what you assert it calls your reasoning ability and/or objectivity into question.

And to the specific point, secular history does not show that everything Jesus said happened forty years later. Secular history does not show that Jesus returned in the skies, as lightning east from west, that he gathered his elect with the holy angels, that the final trumpet sounded, that the dead did rise, or that tribulation was like no other that should ever come to pass. History shows the opposite that these did not happen, and that greater tribulations have happened in the history of the earth before and continued to happen after.
That's why we are having this discussion.

 

[Rosenritter]

LOL....

Noah was born 1,056 years after Adam according to Genesis. He was 600 years old when the flood came.

If the flood happened around 2500 BC, that is about 4,500 years ago.

So, according to you, the earth's population went from 2 people to 10 trillion in roughly 1,600 years, but only from 8 people to 7.7 billion people(today) in 4,500 years?

That makes no sense.

You're not much of a math person, are you? Or a reader? Because even if you aren't up to those type of calculations yourself, the link I included showed how those population estimates are made. If you're not into math then please at least avail yourself of reading.

It's not only the amount of time, but also the amount of children people have, and the lifespans in which people can continue to have children. That's not even including other factors including that mass extinctions from disease would likely not be a factor, and that wars would have been less likely between different cultures because of one unified language.

 

[clefty]

So according to you, another temple has to be built, then a big wall has to be built around Jerusalem, then an army has to surround Jerusalem, then some Jews have to flee to the mountains, then an army will knock down the temple, and all the walls, and then leave not one stone left standing upon another.

Is this what "the" great tribulation will be?

Whatever I think will end in the Son of Man coming to take His own...

If there is a temple involved it will not be man made as that would be an abomination...

Christ will not be found in a “holy” desert nor in secret places of a third temple built by man...if you hear He is DOŃ’T GO!

 

[Rosenritter]

1. Why would you say that the verse numbering is not inspired? Do you say this based on specific evidence or assumption?

2. Do you likewise say that the canonization of the books of our bible are also uninspired? Again, is there specific evidence you would use for this determination (for or against) or is this assumption (you haven't given this specific thought before this?)

Where does the Bible say that they are "inspired". Are you just trying to be obnoxious?


I made no comment on the subject.


Please go ahead and give us the argument in favor of your assumption

No, I am not "trying to be obnoxious" by asking you these questions. If you want to see what "obnoxious" looks like there are plenty of posters who use abusive language and mockery as their standard fare. It might be considered somewhat obnoxious to avoid answering polite questions though.

1. Is it correct to say that you assume that the verse numbering of scripture is not inspired, but do not have specific evidence or previous thought behind this assumption? (Y/N)

2. Of course you made no comment on whether the canonization of our Bible is inspired. That's why I asked you, and it's relevant to the previous question. Do you consider that the choice of the books within our scripture canon are inspired or uninspired? And is your consideration an assumption or based on specific evidence? Y/N + why?

3. Once upon a time I gave no thought to the choice of the books in our bible. The only argument in favor of that initial assumption would be trusting that ones parents and church and tradition would provide proper scripture, but that isn't a very good argument as parents and churches and tradition can be prone to error. So I cannot give a good argument in favor of assumption. I might be able to give a better argument as touching some elements of evidence and faith.

If you are willing to answer the prior questions we could explore this. If not, then I can draw some conclusions by what you have already said and combine that with deductions from that which will not be answered.

 

[Rosenritter]

Did God literally ride a cloud into Egypt in Isaiah 19:1?

Did God literally stand on mountains in Micah 1:3?

The same metaphoric language used in the OT to describe the wrath of God in the form of an army invading a country is what is used in the NT to describe the Roman army invading Jerusalem.

I understand that you may want to metaphor away "coming in the clouds of heaven" ... but "with power and great glory" is not something you can dispense with so easily. "With power and great glory" is not in the form of a metaphor.

Matthew 24:30-31 KJV
(30) And then shall appear the sign of the Son of man in heaven: and then shall all the tribes of the earth mourn, and they shall see the Son of man coming in the clouds of heaven with power and great glory.
(31) And he shall send his angels with a great sound of a trumpet, and they shall gather together his elect from the four winds, from one end of heaven to the other.

Revelation 1:7 KJV
(7) Behold, he cometh with clouds; and every eye shall see him, and they also which pierced him: and all kindreds of the earth shall wail because of him. Even so, Amen.

Acts 1:11 KJV
(11) Which also said, Ye men of Galilee, why stand ye gazing up into heaven? this same Jesus, which is taken up from you into heaven, shall so come in like manner as ye have seen him go into heaven.

Considering that Jesus specifies that every eye shall see him, the "coming in the clouds" is best fit as literal. It makes sense that Jesus will return from above rather than below. "In like manner" implies that as they saw him ascend, they shall likewise see him descend. But aren't you suggesting that Jesus returned in unlike manner? That's what doesn't add up.

 

[Rosenritter]

Tribulation is oppression, anguish, distress and affliction, not just physical war.

There was only one nation ever chosen by God to be His people. And there was only one occurrence in history where God nullifies that relationship forever. Along with all the physical horrors was the spiritual horror. To be God's people and then to have that taken away and given to others was far worse than physical tribulation.

Jesus is commenting here on the uniqueness of an unrepeatable event.

Extermination and Genocide and the destruction of every living thing not on a boat and world wars and mustard gas and flesh being literally boiled off the bones is in a scale that exceeds 70 A.D. both in numbers and intensity.

 

[Rosenritter]

That's the same tack Satan used with Jesus but He refused.

Jhn 18:36KJV, Dan 2:44KJV, Luk 17:20-21KJV,

What Jesus refused was to bow down and worship the devil. He did not say that these kingdoms of the world were not Satan's to presently assign as he wished, nor did he say that he wasn't coming in the future to forcibly take them back from this fallen angel. It isn't his plan to take them presently, but in his time.

 

[tetelestai]

You're not much of a math person, are you?

Math is my strong suit. Which is why the site you linked to is so funny to me.

It's not only the amount of time, but also the amount of children people have,

How do you know how many children people had in those days?

and the lifespans in which people can continue to have children.

Where does it say how long women were fertile back then?

That's not even including other factors including that mass extinctions from disease would likely not be a factor, and that wars would have been less likely between different cultures because of one unified language.

Yet, there's virtually no trace of these 10 trillion people you claim exited, or the civilizations they allegedly lived in.

 

[tetelestai]

The scripture speaks of a kingdom on the earth where Christ will reign.

Christ Jesus said the exact opposite.

(John 4:21) “Woman,” Jesus replied, “believe me, a time is coming when you will worship the Father neither on this mountain nor in Jerusalem.

You have people worshipping God on top of a mountain in Jerusalem again.

You have Jesus sitting on top of a mountain on a manmade throne, in a manmade temple, overseeing animal sacrifices for sin atonement again.

Jesus makes it clear what the future was to look like:

(John 4:23) Yet a time is coming and has now come when the true worshipers will worship the Father in the Spirit and in truth, for they are the kind of worshipers the Father seeks.

Worshipping the Father in the Spirit, does not involve a temple on top of a mountain.

Yet, that's what you Dispies claim.

 

[tetelestai]

Revelation 1:7 KJV
(7) Behold, he cometh with clouds; and every eye shall see him, and they also which pierced him: and all kindreds of the earth shall wail because of him. Even so, Amen.

Some of "those who pierced Him" were still alive in 70AD.

Yet, you think "those who pierced Him" will somehow see Him 2,000 years after they died.

Moreover:

(Rev 1:1) The revelation from Jesus Christ, which God gave him to show his servants what must soon take place....

"what must soon take place" is not 2,000 years into the future, as you claim.

 

[tetelestai]

Extermination and Genocide and the destruction of every living thing not on a boat and world wars and mustard gas and flesh being literally boiled off the bones is in a scale that exceeds 70 A.D. both in numbers and intensity.

Nope

Not one city on planet earth has had as many people die in it, then Jerusalem in 70AD. The people who died in Hiroshima & Nagasaki combined, don't even equal half of how many died in Jerusalem in 70AD.

Nor did any city have as many people die in it before 70AD.

 

[Rosenritter]

(Zech 13: 7-9)
“Awake, sword, against my shepherd,
against the man who is close to me!”
declares the Lord Almighty.
“Strike the shepherd,
and the sheep will be scattered,
and I will turn my hand against the little ones.
8 In the whole land,” declares the Lord,
“two-thirds will be struck down and perish;
yet one-third will be left in it.
9 This third I will put into the fire;
I will refine them like silver
and test them like gold.
They will call on my name
and I will answer them;
I will say, ‘They are my people,’
and they will say, ‘The Lord is our God.’”

Jesus quoted verse 7 in Mark 14:27.

The Dispensationalists wants us to believe there is a 2,000+ year (and still counting) gap between verse 7 and verse 8.

2 Peter 3:7-10 KJV
(7) But the heavens and the earth, which are now, by the same word are kept in store, reserved unto fire against the day of judgment and perdition of ungodly men.
(8) But, beloved, be not ignorant of this one thing, that one day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day.
(9) The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some men count slackness; but is longsuffering to us-ward, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance.
(10) But the day of the Lord will come as a thief in the night; in the which the heavens shall pass away with a great noise, and the elements shall melt with fervent heat, the earth also and the works that are therein shall be burned up.

Question: how many years do you believe are between "the day of the Lord" that comes as a thief in the night, and when the heavens shall pass away with great noise? If you believe that day of the Lord was 70 AD, then when will the earth and its works be burned up?