Freethought & Rationalism Archive

sugarhitman · 02-16-2008, 09:18 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Stacey Melissa

Quote:

Originally Posted by sugarhitman

Read that very carefully. The only people standing there were the diciples. "I tell you the truth, some who are standing here will not taste death UNTIL they see the Son of Man coming in His kingdom." Note the word UNTIL. Which means they would die after they see His coming. Christians know that when Jesus returns those who remain alive will be with the Lord forever (see Paul Thessolonians) and will not see death. Later some of the diciples such as John did indeed see Jesus return....in visions...and died afterwards. Daniel also saw His return. The word UNTIL OR BEFORE is the hint.

The passage isn't talking about mere visions. It's talking about the actual Second Coming. That's why verse 27 includes the bit about the coming judgment - when "he will repay everyone for what has been done" - which is supposed to be part of the Second Coming, and not a moment before the Second Coming.

The idea that Jesus was referring to mere visions is ludicrous. "Uhhh, some of you will have visions of me before you die."???!!! That's not a prophecy. That's not even a prediction. That's an inevitability. Any clown could have guessed that and been right. Big freakin' deal.

It doesnt make sense to an unbeliever (why should it, when they disbelieve the Gospel) Read the texts no christian is to die AFTER the coming of Jesus. The use of the word UNTIL or BEFORE shows that whoever was to SEE His coming would die afterwards. The Apostles did SEE His coming, and died afterwards. This makes sense. If you remove the word UNTIL and SEE then you have a strong case....but those words destroy it. :wave:

Casper · 02-16-2008, 09:24 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jayrok

I'm convinced that sugarman is merely fishing here on this site to see how many people he or she can get to bite the stinky bait and argue.
...

It certainly brings out the worst sometimes. Unfortunately for the forum. But I think there can be positive results, even without firm, or even shaky agreement.

Fishermen regularly use stinkbait for bottom feeders. We should all mind the hook from time to time

Johnny Skeptic · 02-16-2008, 09:26 AM

Message to sugarhitman: Micah 5:2 says “But thou, Bethlehem Ephratah, though thou be little among the thousands of Judah, yet out of thee shall he come forth unto me that is to be ruler in Israel; whose goings forth have been from of old, from everlasting.” If Micah had predicted that the messiah would rule a heavenly kingdom instead of an earthly kingdom like Micah misled the Jews to believe, and had predicted that the messiah would heal people, and that the messiah would be crucified, buried, and rise from the dead in three days, and that Pontius Pilate would become the Roman governor of Palestine, and that Herod would become the King of Judea, would at least one more Jew have accepted Jesus? Please answer the question yes or no. If you wish to elaborate further, that is fine, but please start with a yes or no answer.

I do not really need that argument, or any other argument regarding a particular Bible prophecy. No God who wanted people to believe that he can predict the future would refuse to make indisputable predictions, and needlessly create confusion by making disputable predictions. An example of an indisputable prediction would be a prediction when and where a natural disaster would occur, month, day, and year. If the Bible contained lots of predictions like that, there would be no need to debate whether or not at least one being exists who is able to predict the future.

Why doesn't the Bible contain any indisputable prophecies?

If you continue to refuse to directly reply to my arguments, I will refuse to directly reply to your arguments, and even if you continue to refuse to directly reply to my arguments, I will still frequently repost them in this thread, and in all of your other threads on prophecy in order to show the undecided crowd that you are not nearly as confident of your arguments as you pretend you are.

Casper · 02-16-2008, 09:28 AM

Sugarhitman,

Are you saying that the words AFTER and UNTIL and BEFORE all have the same meaning?

If there was a typo please edit it, but that is what your quote and post above says to me. That can't be what you meant.

Casper · 02-16-2008, 09:36 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Johnny Skeptic

...
If Micah had predicted that the messiah would rule a heavenly kingdom instead of an earthly kingdom like Micah misled the Jews to believe, and had predicted that the messiah would heal people, and that the messiah would be crucified, buried, and rise from the dead in three days, and that Pontius Pilate would become the Roman governor of Palestine, and that Herod would become the King of Judea, would at least one more Jew have accepted Jesus?

Wouldn't that mess up all the math, what with the 144,000 and all? The text is very specific, as SugarRay likes to point out...

schilling.klaus · 02-16-2008, 09:42 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sugarhitman

1. Israel destroyed by the Romans
2. Israel restored as a Nation
3. The final conflict....Aremegeddon.

the Roman Christian community is Israel restored

Klaus Schilling

Sheshbazzar · 02-16-2008, 09:55 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sugarhitman

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sheshbazzar

So then you are predicting that "Aremegeddon" is to take place 60 years from now? 1948+120=2068
Sill wearing that moldy old William Miller, Charels T. Russell, JW, SDA, et.al holey robe of doom and gloom?
This is the tradition that "sugarhitman" is yet again espousing;

www.religioustolerance.org/end_wrl2.htm

'Hitman, Didn't your mommy ever read you the story of Chicken Little?

No, but she did read me the story of the little boy who cried wolf which many of these false prophets like Charles T. Russell remind me of.....but regardless in the end....the wolf came. :wave:

Perhaps you have never realised that "The Story of The Little Boy Who Cried Wolf" -is- only a Fairy-Tale, and that in reality, there was no actual little boy, and that the wolf never really did come?
Just as with another well known fairy-tale.

When 2068 passes by (and it will), you also will be only another added to that long list of "false prophets".

Casper · 02-16-2008, 09:59 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by schilling.klaus

Quote:

Originally Posted by sugarhitman

1. Israel destroyed by the Romans
2. Israel restored as a Nation
3. The final conflict....Aremegeddon.

the Roman Christian community is Israel restored

Klaus Schilling

Would you like to elaborate, Klaus? I can look at that in many ways.

Amaleq13 · 02-16-2008, 10:14 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sugarhitman

In the preceding verses of the same chapter the end times and the Anti-Christ are being described.

Yes, Jesus was responding to direct questions from his disciples and provided his answers to them throughout. They asked for signs and he tells them what they should look for and what they will experience.

It is clear that they are the generation to which he refers and there is no indication he meant a generation thousands of years in the future.

sugarhitman · 02-16-2008, 10:37 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jayrok

I'm convinced that sugarman is merely fishing here on this site to see how many people he or she can get to bite the stinky bait and argue.

His or her silly response to John Kesler in post #14 is evidence enough for that.

Quote:

By John Kesler

Matthew 10:5-8, 23
5 These twelve Jesus sent out with the following instructions: "Go nowhere among the Gentiles, and enter no town of the Samaritans, 6 but go rather to the lost sheep of the house of Israel. 7 As you go, proclaim the good news, 'The kingdom of heaven has come near.' 8 Cure the sick, raise the dead, cleanse the lepers, cast out demons. You received without payment; give without payment...23 When they persecute you in one town, flee to the next; for truly I tell you, you will not have gone through all the towns of Israel before the Son of Man comes.

sugarman takes this passage and does the typical mental gymnastics to turn it away from Jesus talking to the disciples he's sending out to towns and gives it to Jesus talking to the 144K Jews in Revelation in a desperate attempt to put a bandaid on the gaping wound the John Kesler points out in sugar's flawed reasoning.

It isn't convincing, mind you, but amusing none the less. It looks like he or she has been reading JPH or G. Miller websites (say anything to squelch a contradiction).

While it may seem annoying to some here, I don't think it has the same effect that sugarman wants. If there are christian lurkers here from time to time and they read his or her crap and lame excuse after lame excuse they may take another look at these stories and begin to question if they really believe them as truth.

It was lame christian apologetics and mental gymnastics used to explain away difficult issues that furthered me along the path away from the faith.

I can see sugarman's motives backfiring for many christians reading from the fence on some issues.

"O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, the one who kills the prophets and stones those who are sent to her! How often I wanted to gather your children together, as a hen gathers her brood under her wings, but you were not willing! See! Your house (city) is left to you desolate; and assuredly, I say to you, you shall not see ME UNTIL THE TIME COMES when you say, Blessed is He who comes in the name of the Lord." In other words Jerusalem will be destroyed because it rejected it's Messiah, now compare it to this:

"Now as He drew near, He saw the city and wept over it, saying 'If you had known, even you, especially in this your day, the things that make for your peace! But now they are hidden from your eyes. For the days will come upon you when your enemies will build an embankment around you, surround you and close you in on every side, and level you, and your children within you, to the ground, and they will not leave in you ONE STONE UPON ANOTHER, because you did not know the time of your visitation."

Jesus here is referring to the destruction of the city by the Romans because Israel rejected and crucified Him compare with Daniel 9. "And after the sixty-two weeks MESSIAH SHALL BE CUT OFF (KILLED), BUT NOT FOR HIMSELF. AND THE PEOPLE (ROMANS) OF THE PRINCE (ANTI-CHRIST) WHO IS TO COME SHALL DESTROY THE CITY AND THE TEMPLE." Two things are mentioned here the Messiah would be killed and the city and temple destroyed by the Romans. Jesus said of His crucifixion: "Behold we are going up to Jerusalem, and all things that are written by the prophets concerning the Son of Man will be accomplished. For He will be delivered to the Gentiles and will be mocked and insulted and spit upon. They will scourge Him and Kill Him. And the third day He will rise again."

In the Gog Magog war of Ezekiel (Aremegeddon, The judgement against the Anti-Christ and the Gentiles.) We read that Gog comes against a restored Israel: "After many days you will be visited. In the latter years you will come into the land of those brought back from the sword and gathered from many people on the mountians of of Israel, WHICH HAD LONG BEEN DESOLATE...."Ezekiel 38. The longest desolation of Israel was for 1900 years after Rome destroyed them which ended in 1948.

The prophets and Jesus are clear.

1. Israel rejects their Messiah
2. Israel destroyed by Rome
3. Israel restored after a long desolation
4. Anti-Christ and Gentiles come against Israel
5. The Messiah returns

You didnt understand because you did not study. Jesus knew that Israel would be destroyed and desolated by Rome and that the desolation would be long. He was not talking about the then generation (because they would be dispersed by Rome)....but the generation in which the signs appear in....mainly when the "Abomination that causes desolation" appears "standing in the Holy Place" Now the abomination can not do this if Israel is not a nation. And neither can the signs take place if Israel is destroyed. :wave:

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

02-16-2008, 09:26 AM	#23
Johnny Skeptic Banned Join Date: Jun 2005 Location: Florida Posts: 19,796	Message to sugarhitman: Micah 5:2 says “But thou, Bethlehem Ephratah, though thou be little among the thousands of Judah, yet out of thee shall he come forth unto me that is to be ruler in Israel; whose goings forth have been from of old, from everlasting.” If Micah had predicted that the messiah would rule a heavenly kingdom instead of an earthly kingdom like Micah misled the Jews to believe, and had predicted that the messiah would heal people, and that the messiah would be crucified, buried, and rise from the dead in three days, and that Pontius Pilate would become the Roman governor of Palestine, and that Herod would become the King of Judea, would at least one more Jew have accepted Jesus? Please answer the question yes or no. If you wish to elaborate further, that is fine, but please start with a yes or no answer. I do not really need that argument, or any other argument regarding a particular Bible prophecy. No God who wanted people to believe that he can predict the future would refuse to make indisputable predictions, and needlessly create confusion by making disputable predictions. An example of an indisputable prediction would be a prediction when and where a natural disaster would occur, month, day, and year. If the Bible contained lots of predictions like that, there would be no need to debate whether or not at least one being exists who is able to predict the future. Why doesn't the Bible contain any indisputable prophecies? If you continue to refuse to directly reply to my arguments, I will refuse to directly reply to your arguments, and even if you continue to refuse to directly reply to my arguments, I will still frequently repost them in this thread, and in all of your other threads on prophecy in order to show the undecided crowd that you are not nearly as confident of your arguments as you pretend you are.

02-16-2008, 09:28 AM	#24
Casper Regular Member Join Date: Jul 2004 Location: Texas Posts: 430	Sugarhitman, Are you saying that the words AFTER and UNTIL and BEFORE all have the same meaning? If there was a typo please edit it, but that is what your quote and post above says to me. That can't be what you meant.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.