Posted on 02/22/2014 10:53:16 AM PST by PhilipFreneau
He who would understand the prophets had better begin with Paul’s Epistle to the Galatians, where he will find that the Church is one in the Old Testament and New, and the New Testament Church is the fulfillment of all prophecy, the very last phase of God’s redemptive work on earth.
He will discover in Galatians who the true Israel is, to whom the promises are made and that there is no other Israel, and no further fulfillment of prophecy.
The problem of the Galatian believers was the conspiracy to impose upon them Jewish interpretations of prophecy, and to claim over them a Jewish priority or privilege. Paul repulses this conspiracy with unparalleled severity...
(Excerpt) Read more at graceonlinelibrary.org ...
Your argument is unconvincing. The same Greek word "nah-os" is used in the following cases, and in context with what Paul wrote to the Thessalonians it does not fit your interpretation, which comes across as trying to stretch the evidence to save your theory (similar to dating Revelation early, etc.). All your theory hangs on many slender threads.
Here is the same Greek word translated as temple:
And again
And again
Who opposeth and exalteth himself above all that is called God, or that is worshipped; so that he as God sitteth in the temple of God, shewing himself that he is God.
Therefore, Paul was writing about the Temple of God in Jerusalem, not the human body of the Antichrist. No, Nero's palace in Rome was not the Temple of God.
Look at post #266. It was from dartuser.
And you would be wrong
What do think these mean?
They mean that God is going to redeem the portion of this world that can be saved before it passes away and we are going to inherit new heavens and a new earth. I though every Christian knew that.
Have you ever been in the Land of Israel ?
I think he was a Jewish doctor. It fits with the What advantage then hath the Jew? or what profit is there of circumcision? Much every way: chiefly, because that unto them were committed the oracles of God. principle but if God wanted to choose a Gentile to write the Scripture than he did. He certainly chose the Jews to copy and preserve the OT, as he also chose Gentile Catholics to preserve and copy the NT (as well as the OT) over many centuris. Luke is our brother, our family, whatever his nation was.
Excellent post
Boatbums, is that you? This is the evidence you refused to post that proves you were not being straight with everyone:
It began on this thread:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/religion/3116855/posts
My first post was a criticism of Scofield's pretense that Jesus did not mean what he said:
Me: 228 [Scofield claimed] John the Baptist wasn't really Elijah, like Jesus said more than once. His words had a "dual meaning," or something like that. (I kid you not!)
Cynical bear responded with this:
CB: 239 So now you are into Eastern religious reincarnation as well? Or was it a resurrection? How preposterous to believe that it was either reincarnation or resurrection of Elijah. (I kid you not)
I have to admit, I was stunned. Shocked. That was so strange I played along.
Me: 244 Jesus seemed to think it was him
CB: 254 I already showed you that Jesus said “in the spirit of Elijah”.
Me: 279 Jesus said John the Baptist was Elijah. He was unambiguous
CB: 303 Philip, this conversation is over.
Note that in the entire conversation on that point, the only one who mentioned anything about reincarnation was CB. Note also that ALL I did was confirm the words of Jesus.
Then you entered the conversation, boatbums, with this historical lecture:
BB 336: I think you may be missing CB's point here. Let's make this real clear...Christians don't believe in RE-incarnation. Jesus grew up knowing His cousin John (John the Baptist). John was born as a baby to his parents Zechariah and Elisabeth. He came, just as Jesus said he did, in the spirit and power of Elijah. This does not mean THE Elijah's spirit was reborn in the body and person of John, either. Plus, remember at the Mount of Transfiguration, the Apostles saw Jesus with Moses and Elijah. Did Peter think he was seeing John the Baptist and not Elijah? Surely he knew what John looked like, right? I'm going to have to disagree with you PF. John the Baptist was NOT the prophet Elijah.
This was my response. Read carefully?
ME: 338: Who said anything about reincarnation?
Then you replied:
BB: 341: Uh...YOU did!
That was your first mischaracterizing. Then you tried to justify your mischaracterizing in a manner that is still baffling:
BB: 341: Other than through reincarnation, how can a man, who lived a thousand years before Jesus Christ's incarnation, come back to earth again in the form of a different man starting all over at conception and birth? You stated several times that Jesus "unambiguously" said John the Baptist was Elijah the Prophet. That is what I am trying to clear up.
In response to your first mischaracterizing, I isolated it, and I replied:
Me: 344: No, I did not! . . . I will post my entire conversation on the matter:
Which I did. You ignored it, and continued with your 2nd mischaracterizing, which was a denial of the 1st.
BB: 345: No one is accusing you of lying.
Then you quoted part of what I said, and part of what Scofield said, and attributed it all to me, and continued with another accusation, before moving on the 2nd paragraph below:
When you say things like, "John the Baptist wasn't really Elijah, like Jesus said more than once."; "Jesus seemed to think it was him:"; "Jesus said John the Baptist was Elijah. He was unambiguous:", you are stating that somehow, some way, John was literally Elijah and you insist Jesus knew it and said so. What I am "accusing" you of doing is exactly what I have already explained twice. This will be the third time.
Jesus KNEW the man called John the Baptist, do you agree? He was his cousin so it's a safe assumption that he met him more than a few times, knew who he was, knew his purpose, even. Jesus also knew, as any Jew would, that Elijah the Prophet was one of THE most honored and respected Prophets of God and that Elijah was "taken up" into the heavens in a fiery chariot and nobody saw him die or buried his body. Okay so far?
Then it was a thousand years later after this happened to Elijah that Jesus comes to earth. There were other Prophets of God that spoke of Elijah coming back and they pointed to the Messiah and His coming to earth. Now, Judaism as well as Christianity rejects the idea that souls are reincarnated which is why we can KNOW that John the Baptist was NOT Elijah the Prophet. How could he be since Elijah was a grown man when he was taken up and John was conceived by his parents (in their barren - up til then - old age) and born as a baby. He grew up and became a man. There is NO way Jesus would have declared that his cousin John was Elijah reborn - that would be against the tenets of the faith and a false doctrine. So what could Jesus have meant when he said John was coming in the "spirit and power" of Elijah? That John was really Elijah in a new and different body? Nope, can't be. That, my FRiend, is the point I was trying to make. Do you get it now?
---
I reminded you that you seemed to be calling me a liar, but I gave you the benefit of the doubt, without letting you off the hook completely:
ME: 347: You really had me fooled. I thought you were calling me a liar. I know I never even whispered a word about reincarnation, and that is why I thought you were calling me a liar. I do recall some unnamed someone claiming I was talking about reincarnation; but I usually ignore the conspiracy theorists."
Then I reminded you that part of what you wrote was not what I said. And that what you claimed I said in other areas was not what I said. But I took credit for saying this:
"Jesus said John the Baptist was Elijah. He was unambiguous"
I was not ambiguous, either. I said, "I definitely said that."
I denied saying this:
BB: "you are stating that somehow, some way, John was literally Elijah"
ME: I never said that. Only you and the other one said that. Would you please refrain from adding to my words?
BB: and you insist Jesus knew it and said so
ME: What I said is what I said; not what you said I said.
BB: What I am "accusing" you of doing is exactly what I have already explained twice. This will be the third time
ME: You have explained nothing, except that you have not read either my posts or the context of the scripture I posted. I quoted Jesus verbatim, out of the King James Version, to boot. One should not ignore some of the scriptures just because they don't happen to like them, or understand them.
I went tit for tat with your accusations until we got to the end where you said this:
BB: I will not engage with you on any more debate of Dispensationalism. This is not the time or place (thread) to do so.
I am still wondering why you did not tell me that in your first post to me? Is that your idea of asking me to start another thread: wait until you get in all your questions and digs, first? That is what CB did. In fact, he questioned me--even hounded me--asking at least six pointed questions that required lengthy answers, before HE decided I should start another thread. Your sense of timing--both of you--needs much improvement.
Well, there you have it, boatbums. All I did was stand up for Christ and his words, in every instance. All you did was smear, patronize, and pretend I said or meant things I did not. In all that, I never denied Christ.
BTW, boatbums. Why are you so adamant that the Elijah that Malachi prophesied about was the old testament Elijah? Malachi never said "his" Elijah would come down from heaven in a whirlwind, or anything like that? Who told you Malachi's Elijah MUST be the old Elijah?
Philip
Look carefully at Col. 4:11. 14.
I didn't know it. Still don't. And you did not explain a single one of those verses I posted. When you get time, would you explain them?
How do you explain all the dead bodies here?
"For as the new heavens and the new earth, which I will make, shall remain before me, saith the Lord, so shall your seed and your name remain. And it shall come to pass, that from one new moon to another, and from one sabbath to another, shall all flesh come to worship before me, saith the Lord. And they shall go forth, and look upon the carcases of the men that have transgressed against me: for their worm shall not die, neither shall their fire be quenched; and they shall be an abhorring unto all flesh." (Isa 66:22-24 KJV)
I believe that is a prophecy that was supposed to be after this one:
"And ye shall leave your name for a curse unto my chosen: for the Lord God shall slay thee, and call his servants by another name: That he who blesseth himself in the earth shall bless himself in the God of truth; and he that sweareth in the earth shall swear by the God of truth; because the former troubles are forgotten, and because they are hid from mine eyes. For, behold, I create new heavens and a new earth: and the former shall not be remembered, nor come into mind. But be ye glad and rejoice for ever in that which I create: for, behold, I create Jerusalem a rejoicing, and her people a joy. And I will rejoice in Jerusalem, and joy in my people: and the voice of weeping shall be no more heard in her, nor the voice of crying." (Isa 65:15-19 KJV)
Now, if the Lord is going to literally destroy this earth and literally create a new one, as you imply, who get's punished for destroying the old one?
"And the nations were angry, and thy wrath is come, and the time of the dead, that they should be judged, and that thou shouldest give reward unto thy servants the prophets, and to the saints, and them that fear thy name, small and great; and shouldest destroy them which destroy the earth." (Rev 11:18)
If there is a literal new earth, where did these nations and kings come from?
"And the nations of them which are saved shall walk in the light of it: and the kings of the earth do bring their glory and honour into it." (Rev 21:24)
And why is there any healing required?
"In the midst of the street of it, and on either side of the river, was there the tree of life, which bare twelve manner of fruits, and yielded her fruit every month: and the leaves of the tree were for the healing of the nations." (Rev 22:2)
No matter how you respond to those, this one is a tough nut to crack:
"One generation passeth away, and another generation cometh: but the earth abideth for ever." (Ecc 1:4 KJV)
I believe the difference in you and me on this issue is: I really, truly love this earth. I cannot imagine a more beautiful place. The wonders of all of God's creation are breathtaking in their beauty, but this is my backyard. I would be perfectly happy here. I would love to be one of those who inherit the earth; but I am too old. I will have to settle for heaven, if I am found worthy enough.
"I truly believe that after Satan is defeated, everyone will "live happily every after," in a manner of speaking, much like it is explained here:
"And he shewed me a pure river of water of life, clear as crystal, proceeding out of the throne of God and of the Lamb. In the midst of the street of it, and on either side of the river, was there the tree of life, which bare twelve manner of fruits, and yielded her fruit every month: and the leaves of the tree were for the healing of the nations. And there shall be no more curse: but the throne of God and of the Lamb shall be in it; and his servants shall serve him: And they shall see his face; and his name shall be in their foreheads." (Rev 22:1-4 KJV)
Philip
My evidence is convincing. I don't have to pretend it is a physical temple, so I don't need any evidence to prove that it is. There is no such evidence in existence, anyway.
The only way the Greek word would be "evidence" is if it was the same Greek word that was used directly for the Jerusalem Temple, which it is not. Indirect references can go either way.
In the case of the temple John referenced in Rev 11, which I believe was referring to the Jerusalem Temple, John was referring to a temple in a vision, not the actual temple. Otherwise, how could he have measured it from Patmos? In Paul's temple, there is no indication one way or the other whether it is spiritual or physical. The only evidence points to spiritual.
One other major piece of evidence I have on my side is: where is the other evidence? Shouldn't something as significant as the building of a third temple have all sorts of N.T. references?
>>>Therefore, Paul was writing about the Temple of God in Jerusalem, not the human body of the Antichrist. No, Nero's palace in Rome was not the Temple of God.<<<
Again, you do not know that. You are only speculating, and you have no supporting evidence whatsoever.
I don't know why you brought Nero into the picture, because I never really considered him to be the one Paul was referring to, beyond a casual peek and discard. Paul spoke of the "man of sin" as one of their own who fell away, much like Judas. Both were even given the same label: the son of perdition.
John also spoke of those who fell away:
"Little children, it is the last time: and as ye have heard that antichrist shall come, even now are there many antichrists; whereby we know that it is the last time. They went out from us, but they were not of us; for if they had been of us, they would no doubt have continued with us: but they went out, that they might be made manifest that they were not all of us." (1 Jn 2:18-19 KJV)
Hebrews spoke of it as if it were not uncommon:
"For it is impossible for those who were once enlightened, and have tasted of the heavenly gift, and were made partakers of the Holy Ghost, And have tasted the good word of God, and the powers of the world to come, If they shall fall away, to renew them again unto repentance; seeing they crucify to themselves the Son of God afresh, and put him to an open shame." (Heb 6:4-6 KJV)
There were some real shenanigans going on in Jerusalem before the siege, including false christs and prophets, just like Jesus predicted. The most horrendous were the three factions that had divided control of the city into three parts. According to one of Josephus' witnesses, they defiled the temple and all sacred areas.
Philip
If you weren't saying John was Elijah, then why keep on claiming all you're doing is “defending” Jesus’ own words? You had ample opportunity to clarify what you meant and only an imbecile could miss the direct questions to do so. Take your games elsewhere, the Religion Forum is for serious dialog not a chance to play gotcha and pretend superiority over others. I won't bother with you again.
This so strange I don't know how to begin to respond. What is your point? Was God unfair? Did he promise the Gentiles anything I don't know about? Did any of the O.T. prophecies say the Gentiles would be part of the elect? Again, I don't know what kind of response you are expecting. I can only tell you what is in the scriptures.
>>>That fits nicely with your theory that the Catholic Church is apostate (Left Behind Gentiles could not figure it out by themselves and fell into verious errors).<<<
Well, I hadn't really thought about it that way. God's foresight is superior to all our collective hind-sights, so why would I consider it? In fact, I have, on many occasions, stood up for the Catholic church in the sense that it "carried the water" for us; that is, it maintained the manuscripts and kept the religion alive until something better came along. We have close catholic friends, and we have been close for quite some time. But we never talk about religion. LOL! I think they are good, kind hearted Christians, and they don't need my advice. One of that bunch is a former Jew who converted to Catholicism about 10 years ago. I think he is still adjusting. But he is a bona-fide convert.
>>>What you don't seem to realize is you are part of a small, recent movement (the same criticism you have a Darby and Scofield, except there is historical evidence of their view in the early Church Fathers, though it was certainly not unanimous; hence the Catholic position of not being dogmatic on what remains unknown but being dogmatic about the basics:<<<
What did the early Church fathers have to go on? There was no one left to inform them one way or another. There was an obvious absence of inspired documents. Consensus is not God's Word. We can either believe it as written, or we can speculate on what the writer was thinking when he wrote it. I personally see all the writers as mere instruments: scribes, if you will, with no say-so whatsoever in what they wrote. I didn't merely pull that understanding out of thin air: I got it from 2 Pet 1:20-21.
>>>the imminent return that has not happened yet<<<
One of them has not happened. The first resurrection has already happened, exactly when Jesus said it would. I am waiting for the second.
"…the special part Israel has to play and their ultimate national redemption through no merit of their own but just to show God's mercy and complete his Jewish and Gentile family."
If God was going to show them any mercy or privileges that he doesn't provide the Gentiles, Jesus or one of the apostles would have spoken about it. No one wrote about it. How many times did Paul say there is no difference between the Jew and the Greek? How many times did the Jesus and apostles say or imply, God is no respecter of persons?
If Paul didn't meant this, why would he say it?
"That at that time ye were without Christ, being aliens from the commonwealth of Israel, and strangers from the covenants of promise, having no hope, and without God in the world: But now in Christ Jesus ye who sometimes were far off are made nigh by the blood of Christ. For he is our peace, who hath made both one, and hath broken down the middle wall of partition between us; Having abolished in his flesh the enmity, even the law of commandments contained in ordinances; for to make in himself of twain one new man, so making peace;" (Eph 2:12-15 KJV)
And this?
"But ye [Jews and Gentiles] are come unto mount Sion, and unto the city of the living God, the heavenly Jerusalem, and to an innumerable company of angels, 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, And to Jesus the mediator of the new covenant, and to the blood of sprinkling, that speaketh better things than that of Abel." (Heb 12:22-24 KJV)
And why on earth would he say this?
"For I could wish that myself were accursed from Christ for my brethren, my kinsmen according to the flesh." (Rom 9:3)
And why would Moses say this?
"For Moses truly said unto the fathers, A prophet shall the Lord your God raise up unto you of your brethren, like unto me; him shall ye hear in all things whatsoever he shall say unto you. And it shall come to pass, that every soul, which will not hear that prophet, shall be destroyed from among the people." (Acts 3:22-23 KJV)
I really do not know where you are coming from. I wish it were true; but I don't see it anywhere in the scriptures.
>>>I already posted the latest historical evidence that the Jewish believers who escaped to Pella in 70 AD returned to Jerusalem and rebuilt their Messianic Synagogue after the end of the Jewish-Roman wars because they realized that the expected return of Messiah had not occurred yet. This is congruent with the testimony of the Church Fathers and tradtion of the Catholic Church, which is why almost all Orthodox, Fundamentalist, and Evangelical Christians are still waiting for the imminent return of the LORD Jesus Christ.<<<
All I can say is, it may have been a secret rapture after all. And these won't be disappointed.
Philip
>>>Take your games elsewhere, the Religion Forum is for serious dialog not a chance to play gotcha and pretend superiority over others.<<<
Why don’t you take your condescending games somewhere else. This forum is for serious dialog.
>>>I won’t bother with you again.<<<
That is the first good thing you have said to me.
Let’s just look at the comment by you that you claim “started” this thing.
You said “Me: 228 [Scofield claimed] John the Baptist wasn't really Elijah, like Jesus said more than once. His words had a "dual meaning," or something like that. (I kid you not!)
You were scoffing at Scofield for saying that John the Baptist wasn’t really Elijah. Now that statement is indicative of your entire misunderstanding of scripture. You claimed that Jesus’ intent was that John the Baptist in fact was literally Elijah which is preposterous. From that statement you must either believe that John the Baptist was either Elijah reincarnated or that he was Elijah resurrected. Neither of those would be consistent with teaching from scripture. That means that there is something wrong with your understanding of Jesus words. And that is exactly what many here have been trying to tell you.
That one example of you misunderstanding of what scripture is teaching is indicative of most if not all of your understanding regarding scripture. You really need to, as redleghunter has said several times, get down on your knees and ask for guidance from the Holy Spirit in understanding.
As it would take much to much space here there are several places that explain what Jesus words mean regarding John the Baptist and Elijah one of which can be found here and another can be found here.
I pray that you will get down on your knees and sincerely ask for guidance from the Holy Spirit in your understanding of scripture before you continue.
I have never before seen such a blatant example of a carnal understanding of scripture as we have seen here.
>>>I read through that entire thing. I have understood boatbums comments completely. She has been completely straight in everything she has said. It is NOT her that that has misunderstood. She has patiently tried to explain. It is you who doesn’t “get it”.
I appreciate you taking time out to write this letter. Are you certain you are not the least bit biased, Cynical Bear. You should already know your credibility with me is somewhere near zero, on a good day. >>>Let’s just look at the comment by you that you claim “started” this thing.
Scofield most certainly denied Christ, which is a damnable heresy. You seem to consider yourself the "Heretic Watch" for the forum. Why didn't you spot that one? >>>Now that statement by you is indicative of your entire misunderstanding of scripture. You claimed that Jesus’ intent was that John the Baptist in fact was literally Elijah which is preposterous.<<<
There you go again. My intent was to highlight the words of Jesus.
This is my belief, Cynical Bear: Jesus said (more than once) that John the Baptist WAS Elijah, and I believe Jesus. I don't know how it happened with John, and I really don't care. That was the point I was trying to get across to you and that other person.
If you recall, you accused me of believing in "reincarnation," which stunned me. I don't believe I have heard that word since being approached by the moonies, or Hari Krishnas, (or whatever they are called) in the LA airport 40 year ago! Naturally I was stunned that it would be right on the tip of your (forked?) tongue.
Early on you labelled me a heretic (I thought that humorous, at the time, coming from someone who follows the doctrine of a heretic.) I want to make this clear: listen carefully: there are no smears, aspersions, slanders, or downright dirty lies you can sling at me to make me deny Jesus. You are wasting your time, and mine. It may make you feel good; but it won't work with me. I know who you are, and what you believe. >>>From that statement you must either believe that John the Baptist was either Elijah reincarnated or that he was Elijah resurrected.<<<
Why didn't you ask me, instead of taking your ball and running home? >>>Neither of those would be consistent with teaching from scripture.<<<
Nor is a dual-fulfillment of Malachi 4:5, which clearly denies and marginalizes Christ's ministry on earth, and especially his crucifixion and his judgement on Jerusalem. Certainly any Christian would agree that denying the plain words of Christ is heresy, don't you agree, Cynical Bear? It is found right there in the New Testament, and even uses the words "damnable heresies." >>>That means that there is something wrong with your understanding of Jesus words.<<<
No, it means you don't believe the words of Jesus. His words will judge you on the Last Day; not Scofield's, not your pastors, not anyone's, but the Words of Jesus. >>>And that is exactly what many here have been trying to tell you.<<<
But you all (at least, many of you) appear to have "one mind." Consensus (one mind) is not a good indicator. You have heard of global warming, and the flat earth, haven't you? >>>That one example of you misunderstanding of what scripture is teaching is indicative of most if not all of your understanding regarding scripture. You really need to, as redleghunter has said several times, get down on your knees and ask for guidance from the Holy Spirit in understanding.<<<
I do not believe you have ever experienced the Holy Spirit, CB. I would highly recommend--I beg--that you get on your knees, humble yourself, and ask for guidance. He (the Comforter) will guide you into all truth, if you ask with a humble heart. Follow the leadership of those abandoning the false doctrine of dispensationalism into His marvellous light. >>>As it would take much to much space here there are several places that explain what Jesus words mean regarding John the Baptist and Elijah one of which can be found here and another can be found here.
That is Scofield 101. It means NOTHING! The only thing that means anything are the plain words of Christ and his apostles, as found in the new covenant. The devil can have the old covenant. It is finished. It was fulfilled by blood of the Lord Jesus Christ.
Cynical Bear, I want to leave you with one last thing to ponder: the Devil is the Great Deceiver! His goal is to destroy the Church. He would not be relying on plain-speaking simpletons, like me, to deceive the Church throughout the whole world (defined in the Revelation as the breadth of the earth.) He would rely on eloquent orators who could seduce the masses with their ministry, books, movies, and presence. He is the Great Deceiver! Please, keep that in mind, for the sake of those in darkness, and especially the Jews, who have been denied his Word for the longest of time.
Philip
>>>I read through that entire thing. I have understood boatbums comments completely. She has been completely straight in everything she has said. It is NOT her that that has misunderstood. She has patiently tried to explain. It is you who doesn’t “get it”.
I appreciate you taking time out to write this letter. Are you certain you are not the least bit biased, Cynical Bear. You should already know your credibility with me is somewhere near zero, on a good day. >>>Let’s just look at the comment by you that you claim “started” this thing.
Scofield most certainly denied Christ, which is a damnable heresy. You seem to consider yourself the "Heretic Watch" for the forum. Why didn't you spot that one? >>>Now that statement by you is indicative of your entire misunderstanding of scripture. You claimed that Jesus’ intent was that John the Baptist in fact was literally Elijah which is preposterous.<<<
There you go again. My intent was to highlight the words of Jesus.
This is my belief, Cynical Bear: Jesus said (more than once) that John the Baptist WAS Elijah, and I believe Jesus. I don't know how it happened with John, and I really don't care. That was the point I was trying to get across to you and that other person.
If you recall, you accused me of believing in "reincarnation," which stunned me. I don't believe I have heard that word since being approached by the moonies, or Hari Krishnas, (or whatever they are called) in the LA airport 40 year ago! Naturally I was stunned that it would be right on the tip of your (forked?) tongue.
Early on you labelled me a heretic (I thought that humorous, at the time, coming from someone who follows the doctrine of a heretic.) I want to make this clear: listen carefully: there are no smears, aspersions, slanders, or downright dirty lies you can sling at me to make me deny Jesus. You are wasting your time, and mine. It may make you feel good; but it won't work with me. I know who you are, and what you believe. >>>From that statement you must either believe that John the Baptist was either Elijah reincarnated or that he was Elijah resurrected.<<<
Why didn't you ask me, instead of taking your ball and running home? >>>Neither of those would be consistent with teaching from scripture.<<<
Nor is a dual-fulfillment of Malachi 4:5, which clearly denies and marginalizes Christ's ministry on earth, and especially his crucifixion and his judgement on Jerusalem. Certainly any Christian would agree that denying the plain words of Christ is heresy, don't you agree, Cynical Bear? It is found right there in the New Testament, and even uses the words "damnable heresies." >>>That means that there is something wrong with your understanding of Jesus words.<<<
No, it means you don't believe the words of Jesus. His words will judge you on the Last Day; not Scofield's, not your pastors, not anyone's, but the Words of Jesus. >>>And that is exactly what many here have been trying to tell you.<<<
But you all (at least, many of you) appear to have "one mind." Consensus (one mind) is not a good indicator. You have heard of global warming, and the flat earth, haven't you? >>>That one example of you misunderstanding of what scripture is teaching is indicative of most if not all of your understanding regarding scripture. You really need to, as redleghunter has said several times, get down on your knees and ask for guidance from the Holy Spirit in understanding.<<<
I do not believe you have ever experienced the Holy Spirit, CB. I would highly recommend--I beg--that you get on your knees, humble yourself, and ask for guidance. He (the Comforter) will guide you into all truth, if you ask with a humble heart. Follow the leadership of those abandoning the false doctrine of dispensationalism into His marvellous light. >>>As it would take much to much space here there are several places that explain what Jesus words mean regarding John the Baptist and Elijah one of which can be found here and another can be found here.
That is Scofield 101. It means NOTHING! The only thing that means anything are the plain words of Christ and his apostles, as found in the new covenant. The devil can have the old covenant. It is finished. It was fulfilled by blood of the Lord Jesus Christ.
Cynical Bear, I want to leave you with one last thing to ponder: the Devil is the Great Deceiver! His goal is to destroy the Church. He would not be relying on plain-speaking simpletons, like me, to deceive the Church throughout the whole world (defined in the Revelation as the breadth of the earth.) He would rely on eloquent orators who could seduce the masses with their ministry, books, movies, and presence. He is the Great Deceiver! Please, keep that in mind, for the sake of those in darkness, and especially the Jews, who have been denied his Word for the longest of time.
Philip
Please stop pinging me to this thread. It has reached rock bottom.
>>>Please stop pinging me to this thread. It has reached rock bottom.<<<
I replied to Cynical Bear’s pings. Tell him.
Show me where you think Scofield denied Christ.
>> This is my belief, Cynical Bear: Jesus said (more than once) that John the Baptist WAS Elijah, and I believe Jesus.<<
If you believe Jesus meant those words literally than you also must confess that scripture contradicts itself. You must also believe that the “violent” took over the kingdom of heaven because Jesus also said that just prior to His comment about Elijah.
First the contradiction. The Holy Spirit through Luke tells us that John the Baptist was to go in the spirit and power of Elijah not the physical being of Elijah.
Luke 1:17 And he shall go before him in the spirit and power of Elias, to turn the hearts of the fathers to the children, and the disobedient to the wisdom of the just; to make ready a people prepared for the Lord.
Now for you to say Jesus meant that John the Baptist was physically and literally Elijah you have a contradiction within scripture on your hands.
What was the “spirit and the power” of Elijah? John the Baptist is the New Testament forerunner who points the way to the arrival of the Lord, just as Elijah filled that role in the Old Testament. Elijah didn’t turn into John the Baptist. Elijah appeared with Jesus at His ascension into heaven. In your interpretation you would have him going from one person into another and then back again into the first.
The second problem you have is that if you believe that Jesus meant that John the Baptist was physically Elijah ”because He said it” then you also must believe the “the Kingdom of Heaven” was taken over by the violent ”because He said it” in a previous verse.
Now we come to the meaning of the name Elijah. In the Hebrew the meaning of the name Elijah means “My God is Jehovah”. It is what the prophet Elijah declared when prophesying about the coming of the Lord and it is what John the Baptist role was also. That is the “spirit and power of Elijah. There will be one more who comes “in the spirit of Elijah” before Jesus comes again although you have said you believe that has already happened.
Now until you can recognize that fact I will not respond to you again. There is no sense in wasting time with you if you can’t see that simple truth. As the rest have said I too will ignore your posts unless you can recognize that John the Baptist was NOT physically and literally Elijah.
>>>If you believe Jesus meant those words literally than you also must confess that scripture contradicts itself.<<<
I believe that Jesus said that John the Baptist was Elijah, because (drum-roll) Jesus said he was Elijah. How does that contradict the scripture, Cynical Bear? Explain yourself?
Since the Words of Jesus will judge me on the last day, I would be hard-pressed (or, be an absolute fool) to NOT believe Jesus when he said,
"And from the days of John the Baptist until now the kingdom of heaven suffereth violence, and the violent take it by force." (Mat 11:12)
Explain yourself, Cynical Bear?
Philip
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.