Thessalonian Comfort or Future Coming? 2 Thess. 1

[asterisktom]

This doctrine is unknown and unheard of - generally speaking - and I guess that it is best encapsulated as, The Doctrine of the Reign of Christ on the Davidic Throne at the Right Hand of the Father. So this is what I think I will call it.

Emphasis mine.

Hmmm. New stuff? Isn't there a verse or two in the Bible about that?

And you call me arrogant.

 

[Eagle]

Emphasis mine.

Hmmm. New stuff? Isn't there a verse or two in the Bible about that?

And you call me arrogant.

Hey Tom,

You have a point, I will attempt to re-word. There is much clear, consistent scripture on this "doctrine" that I have pointed out - and yet it seems to be glossed over, ignored, etc., because it is not discussed anywhere - nor does it hold any prominence in most eschatologies - such as those discussed here. Yet it remains - and deserves to be seriously addressed - even if to offer scholarly refutation. However, it is not being addressed - and this fact sticks out like a sore thumb to me - and should to everyone else - once they have seen it. It isn't "new" in the sense that it has always been there - nor am I the first to "see" it - but I am certainly one of the few who believes it and stands on it as a framework of Eschatolgy - at least in my experience.

I have shown you strong scriptural NT evidence for something "new" for you to consider, that may be a blessing to you, and your response is that I have to decipher the mysterious OT references first? You see, this is one of the problems. We ought to be getting the irrefutable basic outline established first by virtue of clear evcidence - especially where NT writers have already interpreted OT for us - and then see how the less clear scriptures fit it - whether OT or NT - and not do it the other way around. You are going about it backwards.

"When the plains sense makes sense, look for no other sense."

 

[asterisktom]

"When the plain sense makes sense, look for no other sense."

Hi Eagle,

Let me get this last thing out of the way first. I am definitely against this dictum. It is methodology from man, in this case, a man named David L. Cooper, a fellow BJU graduate. It goes contrary to Scripture itself:

"14 But the natural man does not receive the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him; nor can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned" I Cor. 2:14

" who also made us sufficient as ministers of the new covenant, not of the letter but of the Spirit; for the letter kills, but the Spirit gives life." 2 Cor. 3:6

BTW, one can read more about Cooper here:
http://www.promisestoisrael.org/jewish.php?id=17

He was strongly predisposed toward literal interpretations (as in "the letter killeth") for essentially spiritual promises. His theology was Jewish-centered, not Christ-centered. Over against his neo-Zionism I believe the plain Word:

"For all the promises of God in Him are Yes, and in Him Amen"., 2 Cor. 1:20

"Worship God! For the testimony of Jesus is the spirit of prophecy.”, Rev. 19:10

People nowadays have no idea what those two verses mean because they have been so steeped in Cooper's theology .This is not to say that he originated it, just that he encapsulated it so succinctly in his "Golden Rule of Interpretation".

Though the Jews of Christ's time did not have Cooper's dictum, they pretty much followed the gist of it. When Christ spoke of raising His temple in three days they understood it literally. That interpretation made sense to them so they "sought no other sense". Likewise they botched Christ's teaching of eating His flesh and drinking His blood, John 6.

The above verse would have helped them. There are several other passages where the Jews - sometimes Christ's own disciples! - were so bound to the letter that they did not see the true meaning. They refused to spiritualize and missed the Truth, John 8:24.

 

[Eagle]

Hi Eagle,

Let me get this last thing out of the way first. I am definitely against this dictum. It is methodology from man, in this case, a man named David L. Cooper, a fellow BJU graduate. It goes contrary to Scripture itself:

Hey Tom,

Look, that quote, was something I threw in there, I do not know its origination - nor does it matter to me - although I do generally agree with it. I heard a similar but longer version somewhere years ago, that made me smile, but I can't remember it - or I would have put it in there.

My point is simply that when you do have plain, simple, easy to understand scripture - that is where your feet should stand. I would call this "solid ground." On the other hand, obscure passages that could mean this but also may fit that, etc., are no place to stand - these are, or can be, support - but not sufficient to buttress a load.

Who Mr. Cooper is, and what he believes is immaterial to me - I know nothing of him. No need to go down this rabbit trail - if you don't mind - let's stick to the issues!

 

[asterisktom]

I have shown you strong scriptural NT evidence for something "new" for you to consider, that may be a blessing to you, and your response is that I have to decipher the mysterious OT references first? You see, this is one of the problems. We ought to be getting the irrefutable basic outline established first by virtue of clear evidence - especially where NT writers have already interpreted OT for us - and then see how the less clear scriptures fit it - whether OT or NT - and not do it the other way around. You are going about it backwards.

Underlining of the quote above is mine, asterisktom's. I hope you don't mind my breaking your response into manageable bits like this. I underlined the parts I wanted to answer in particular.

I believe your response is contrary to that of the Bereans. They had a much greater advantage than us - they had the inspired Apostle Paul. Yet they did not say, along the lines of what you wrote, "Oh good. He is interpreting the Old Testament for us." No. they "searched the Scriptures daily to find out whether these things [the things taught by Paul and Silas] were so." Now, we know that some of the things being taught by them are the very things that later come up in the the Epistles to the Thessalonians.

"Do you not remember that when I was still with you I told you these things?", 2 Thess. 2:5

Your choice of the word "decipher" concerning the Old Testament is both poignant and revealing. I well remember all the years when very much of the OT was one big cipher, like one big inscrutable slab of Linear B. But first Reformed theology and then, especially, preterism provided wonderful keys to unlock what used to be so mysterious.

You implied earlier that the fact that the NT writers referred to the OT, and based their teaching on it was good enough. But it is one thing to say this, another to go to an actual clarifying example.

Here is a good example from 2 Peter 3:11 - 12

"Therefore, since all these things will be dissolved, what manner of persons ought you to be in holy conduct and godliness, looking for and hastening the coming of the day of God, because of which the heavens will be dissolved, being on fire, and the elements will melt with fervent heat?"

For the sake of brevity we will just focus on the word "dissolve". The futurist view is that the actual physical world, the universe, will be loosened, destroyed. But the one who is familiar with the Old Testament - not just saying that Peter's prophecy is based on the OT, but actually is familiar with this big chunk of inspired Scripture - will recognize that this phrase is very familiar. Isaiah 34:4:

All the host of heaven shall be dissolved,
And the heavens shall be rolled up like a scroll;
All their host shall fall down
As the leaf falls from the vine,
And as fruit falling from a fig tree.

This is called the "Day of the LORD", one of several in the Old testament.

There are five images here that are repeated several places in the New Testament, but the one that is noteworthy right now for my purpose is that first one, underlined.

The "All the host of heaven shall be dissolved" of Isaiah 34
matches up to the " all these things will be dissolved" of 2 Peter.

But - and here is the clincher - Isaiah was prophesying about God's judgment against Idumea and Bozrah. These are nation-states that no longer exist. The judgment already happened. All that "dissolving" in the Old Testament is done with. It was, in fact, apocalyptical language, biblical hyperbole.

The same is the case with 2 Peter 3. There will be no physical dissolving, only the dissolving that has to do with the 1st-century Jew's Day of the Lord.

Studying the Old Testament with purpose and diligence will clear these obscurities up.
Merely calling them "obscure" and :vague" (as another has done) will just keep you in the dark about these prophecies.

 

[asterisktom]

Who Mr. Cooper is, and what he believes is immaterial to me - I know nothing of him. No need to go down this rabbit trail - if you don't mind - let's stick to the issues!

OK. I realize you don't care who he is. But, believe it or not, it is an issue with you, because his rule has defined how you look at Scripture. And not just you, but the overwhelming majority of Christians today.

 

[Winman]

Let me get this last thing out of the way first. I am definitely against this dictum. It is methodology from man, in this case, a man named David L. Cooper, a fellow BJU graduate. It goes contrary to Scripture itself:

The problem with this is that David Cooper is a believer with the indwelling Holy Spirit.

If this statement came from an unsaved person, you might have an argument.

I agree with this general rule of interpretation. If the text makes plain sense, look for no other sense. For example, when the scriptures say Jesus ate fish and honeycomb after his resurrection, that makes plain sense and an alternate meaning should not be looked for. But when Jesus told his disciples that they had to drink his blood and eat his flesh to have life in them, that does not make plain sense and an alternate meaning should be looked for.

Seems to me that your rule of interpretation is to interpret scripture to fit your presuppositions regardless of whether it makes sense or not. Any text that can be interpreted to show all prophesy was fulfilled in 70 A.D. you eagerly accept, anything that shows that there is a future fulfillment of prophesy to come you reject.

For instance, in Zechariah 14 it shows when the Lord comes that living water will issue from Jerusalem and flow into the Dead Sea.

Zech 14:8 And it shall be in that day, that living waters shall go out from Jerusalem; half of them toward the former sea, and half of them toward the hinder sea: in summer and in winter shall it be.

This is shown again in Ezekiel and says the Dead Sea will be healed and multitudes of fish will live in it. Fishermen will fish from it, and trees will grow along it's banks.

Eze 47:8 Then said he unto me, These waters issue out toward the east country, and go down into the desert, and go into the sea: which being brought forth into the sea, the waters shall be healed.
9 And it shall come to pass, that every thing that liveth, which moveth, whithersoever the rivers shall come, shall live: and there shall be a very great multitude of fish, because these waters shall come thither: for they shall be healed; and every thing shall live whither the river cometh.
10 And it shall come to pass, that the fishers shall stand upon it from Engedi even unto Eneglaim; they shall be a place to spread forth nets; their fish shall be according to their kinds, as the fish of the great sea, exceeding many.
11 But the miry places thereof and the marishes thereof shall not be healed; they shall be given to salt.
12 And by the river upon the bank thereof, on this side and on that side, shall grow all trees for meat, whose leaf shall not fade, neither shall the fruit thereof be consumed: it shall bring forth new fruit according to his months, because their waters they issued out of the sanctuary: and the fruit thereof shall be for meat, and the leaf thereof for medicine.

This of course did not happen in 70 A.D. and has not happened since. But you ignore many passages of scriptures like these because it does not fit your presuppositions.

 

[asterisktom]

This of course did not happen in 70 A.D. and has not happened since. But you ignore many passages of scriptures like these because it does not fit your presuppositions.

You have absolutely no clue as to what I believe, Winman, or you wouldn't have even said that. I don't ignore those living water passages. On the contrary, they were most gloriously fulfilled - and are still being fulfilled.

I f I thought you really cared what I believed, Winman, I would go into more detail for you. But you already know what is in mind (you think) so why bother?

 

[Eagle]

Underlining of the quote above is mine, asterisktom's. I hope you don't mind my breaking your response into manageable bits like this. I underlined the parts I wanted to answer in particular.

I don't mind.

I believe your response is contrary to that of the Bereans. They had a much greater advantage than us - they had the inspired Apostle Paul. Yet they did not say, along the lines of what you wrote, "Oh good. He is interpreting the Old Testament for us." No. they "searched the Scriptures daily to find out whether these things [the things taught by Paul and Silas] were so." Now, we know that some of the things being taught by them are the very things that later come up in the the Epistles to the Thessalonians.

"Do you not remember that when I was still with you I told you these things?", 2 Thess. 2:5

Your choice of the word "decipher" concerning the Old Testament is both poignant and revealing. I well remember all the years when very much of the OT was one big cipher, like one big inscrutable slab of Linear B. But first Reformed theology and then, especially, preterism provided wonderful keys to unlock what used to be so mysterious.

You implied earlier that the fact that the NT writers referred to the OT, and based their teaching on it was good enough. But it is one thing to say this, another to go to an actual clarifying example.

Here is a good example from 2 Peter 3:11 - 12

For the sake of brevity we will just focus on the word "dissolve". The futurist view is that the actual physical world, the universe, will be loosened, destroyed. But the one who is familiar with the Old Testament - not just saying that Peter's prophecy is based on the OT, but actually is familiar with this big chunk of inspired Scripture - will recognize that this phrase is very familiar. Isaiah 34:4:

This is called the "Day of the LORD", one of several in the Old testament.

There are five images here that are repeated several places in the New Testament, but the one that is noteworthy right now for my purpose is that first one, underlined.

The "All the host of heaven shall be dissolved" of Isaiah 34
matches up to the " all these things will be dissolved" of 2 Peter.

But - and here is the clincher - Isaiah was prophesying about God's judgment against Idumea and Bozrah. These are nation-states that no longer exist. The judgment already happened. All that "dissolving" in the Old Testament is done with. It was, in fact, apocalyptical language, biblical hyperbole.

The same is the case with 2 Peter 3. There will be no physical dissolving, only the dissolving that has to do with the 1st-century Jew's Day of the Lord.

Studying the Old Testament with purpose and diligence will clear these obscurities up.
Merely calling them "obscure" and :vague" (as another has done) will just keep you in the dark about these prophecies.

Hey asterisktom,

Here is what you are doing - again. The issue at hand is what I presented to you from Acts 2, etc., and instead of addressing what I showed you - I get the David L. Cooper/Isaiah 34, runaround/rabbit trail.

My point in NT writers interpreting OT writings is merely this:

Act 2:6 Now when this was noised abroad, the multitude came together, and were confounded, because that every man heard them speak in his own language.
Act 2:7 And they were all amazed and marvelled, saying one to another, Behold, are not all these which speak Galilaeans?
Act 2:8 And how hear we every man in our own tongue, wherein we were born?
Act 2:9 Parthians, and Medes, and Elamites, and the dwellers in Mesopotamia, and in Judaea, and Cappadocia, in Pontus, and Asia,
Act 2:10 Phrygia, and Pamphylia, in Egypt, and in the parts of Libya about Cyrene, and strangers of Rome, Jews and proselytes,
Act 2:11 Cretes and Arabians, we do hear them speak in our tongues the wonderful works of God.
Act 2:12 And they were all amazed, and were in doubt, saying one to another, What meaneth this?
Act 2:13 Others mocking said, These men are full of new wine.
Act 2:14 But Peter, standing up with the eleven, lifted up his voice, and said unto them, Ye men of Judaea, and all ye that dwell at Jerusalem, be this known unto you, and hearken to my words:
Act 2:15 For these are not drunken, as ye suppose, seeing it is but the third hour of the day.
Act 2:16 But this is that which was spoken by the prophet Joel;
Act 2:17 And it shall come to pass in the last days, saith God, I will pour out of my Spirit upon all flesh: and your sons and your daughters shall prophesy, and your young men shall see visions, and your old men shall dream dreams:
Act 2:18 And on my servants and on my handmaidens I will pour out in those days of my Spirit; and they shall prophesy:
Act 2:19 And I will shew wonders in heaven above, and signs in the earth beneath; blood, and fire, and vapour of smoke:
Act 2:20 The sun shall be turned into darkness, and the moon into blood, before that great and notable day of the Lord come:
Act 2:21 And it shall come to pass, that whosoever shall call on the name of the Lord shall be saved.

Peter very clearly says here that this event on Pentecost is the fulfillment of Joel's prophecy. Period. End of discussion. Good enough for me - y'know what I mean? Now, honestly, when I read this in Joel - I really don't see it. It is somewhat hard for me to make the connection that Peter does - but he does. End of discussion.

Act 2:22 Ye men of Israel, hear these words; Jesus of Nazareth, a man approved of God among you by miracles and wonders and signs, which God did by him in the midst of you, as ye yourselves also know:
Act 2:23 Him, being delivered by the determinate counsel and foreknowledge of God, ye have taken, and by wicked hands have crucified and slain:
Act 2:24 Whom God hath raised up, having loosed the pains of death: because it was not possible that he should be holden of it.
Act 2:25 For David speaketh concerning him, I foresaw the Lord always before my face, for he is on my right hand, that I should not be moved:
Act 2:26 Therefore did my heart rejoice, and my tongue was glad; moreover also my flesh shall rest in hope:
Act 2:27 Because thou wilt not leave my soul in hell, neither wilt thou suffer thine Holy One to see corruption.
Act 2:28 Thou hast made known to me the ways of life; thou shalt make me full of joy with thy countenance.
Act 2:29 Men and brethren, let me freely speak unto you of the patriarch David, that he is both dead and buried, and his sepulchre is with us unto this day.
Act 2:30 Therefore being a prophet, and knowing that God had sworn with an oath to him, that of the fruit of his loins, according to the flesh, he would raise up Christ to sit on his throne;
Act 2:31 He seeing this before spake of the resurrection of Christ, that his soul was not left in hell, neither his flesh did see corruption.
Act 2:32 This Jesus hath God raised up, whereof we all are witnesses.
Act 2:33 Therefore being by the right hand of God exalted, and having received of the Father the promise of the Holy Ghost, he hath shed forth this, which ye now see and hear.
Act 2:34 For David is not ascended into the heavens: but he saith himself, The LORD said unto my Lord, Sit thou on my right hand,
Act 2:35 Until I make thy foes thy footstool.
Act 2:36 Therefore let all the house of Israel know assuredly, that God hath made that same Jesus, whom ye have crucified, both Lord and Christ.

Here again, Peter says that all of what is happening there at Pentecost, how Christ came, died, was resurrected, and is now seated on His Davidic throne at the right hand of the father - is fulfillment of what David wrote, specifically, and other OT writers, by inference.

All of the OT references to Messiah, that were so familiar to Peter's audience, came flooding into their minds and hearts, and they saw the truth of it - based on their knowledge of all OT scripture and prophecy. We know this because the very next thing out of their mouths was:

Act 2:37 Now when they heard this, they were pricked in their heart, and said unto Peter and to the rest of the apostles, Men and brethren, what shall we do?
Act 2:38 Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost.
Act 2:39 For the promise is unto you, and to your children, and to all that are afar off, even as many as the Lord our God shall call.
Act 2:40 And with many other words did he testify and exhort, saying, Save yourselves from this untoward generation.
Act 2:41 Then they that gladly received his word were baptized: and the same day there were added unto them about three thousand souls.

These are what I mean by NT writers interpreting OT writings. It does not take much of a scholar to recognize and accept these truths/facts - does it?

None of this is to say that I believe, or practice, shunning and not studying OT - that is pure hogwash from your own mind - and not true in the least. I do maintain, however, that taking the example I cited from Joel, for instance, we could debate exactly whether, and to what degree (partially?), that prophecy was fulfilled at Pentecost - and many could come up with arguments for different things - it is somewhat obfuscated or hidden to us. However, when a NT writer explains to us that it IS/WAS fulfilled at Pentecost - end of discussion. This is plain, clear, simple, interpretation - and solid ground to stand on.

 

[lastday]

Eagle,

When a NT writer explains to us that it IS/WAS fulfilled at Pentecost - end of discussion.
This is plain, clear, simple, interpretation - and solid ground to stand on.

In the opening salvo, you score brilliantly against your unbending opponent!
With computer science, NASA and USNO have proven that Peter was correct!!
There was a total lunar eclipse suddenly made visible at 3 PM when Christ died!!!

There will be a total lunar eclipse in the Americas and westward 2000 years later!
It will occur on the East Coast of America early in the morning and last 3.5 hours!!
The sun will darken at noontime in Israel when it is 5 AM here...on a Sabbath Day!!!
Mel

 

[asterisktom]

None of this is to say that I believe, or practice, shunning and not studying OT - that is pure hogwash from your own mind - and not true in the least.

My time is too important to waste on someone who will merely call it hogwash. Believe it or not, I was taking your words seriously, but I was going back to the foundations of your theses, to show what was missing.

Hogwash it is. Fine. I have plenty other irons in the fire. I'm not going to waste my time with you. And I don't care if you think it is arrogant or not.

 

[asterisktom]

Eagle,

In the opening salvo, you score brilliantly against your unbending opponent!
With computer science, NASA and USNO have proven that Peter was correct!!
There was a total lunar eclipse suddenly made visible at 3 PM when Christ died!!!

There will be a total lunar eclipse in the Americas and westward 2000 years later!
It will occur on the East Coast of America early in the morning and last 3.5 hours!!
The sun will darken at noontime in Israel when it is 5 AM here...on a Sabbath Day!!!
Mel

Hey, Eagle, you are in good company. Mel, the date-setter is on your side. 2030 will be a long time to wait, but what's a few decades when we've already stretched "soon" and "at hand" to 2000 years.

Who needs the Bible, eh? when we have NASA helping us to get to the truth.

But Mel hitched his wagon to the wrong star. The crucifixion day did not have an eclipse at all. Check out the following sites:
http://eclipse.gsfc.nasa.gov/SEhistory/SEhistory.html

And Wiki:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crucifixion_eclipse

An excerpt. Note my underlining:

"However, a solar eclipse could not have occurred on or near 14th of Nisan, because solar eclipses only occur during the new moon phase, and 14th of Nisan always corresponds to a full moon.

Solar eclipses are also too brief to account for the crucifixion darkness. The length of the crucifixion darkness described by biblical and extra-biblical sources was more than a full order of magnitude for the totality of solar eclipses. Seven minutes and 31.1 seconds has been the established maximum limit of solar eclipse totality.[34] The maximum duration of the total eclipse of November 3, 31 AD, was only one minute and four seconds. The maximum duration of the total eclipse of March 19, 33 AD, was only four minutes six seconds. Neither one had paths of totality passing near Jerusalem. Eclipses lasting at least six minutes, that were close to the crucifixion year, occurred on July 22, 27 AD, for a maximum duration of six minutes and thirty-one seconds and on August 1, 45 AD, for a maximum duration of six minutes and thirty seconds.[35]"

There was no hours-long eclipse at the time of the crucifixion, whether you think it was 30 or 33 AD.
The darkness was caused by God Himself - like He did in the time of Pharaoh.

Unbending - because I'm standing on the Word - Tom

 

[lastday]

Lastday

Friends Interested in Biblical Foundational Truth,
Quote from AsteriskTom:

Who needs the Bible, eh? when we have NASA helping us to get to the truth.

But Mel hitched his wagon to the wrong star. The crucifixion day
did not have an eclipse at all. Check out the following sites:
http://eclipse.gsfc.nasa.gov/SEhistory/SEhistory.html
And Wiki:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crucifixion_eclipse

Tom's Question:

"Who needs the Bible, eh"

I certainly need the Bible!
Tom evidently doesn't need the Bible!!
Since he refers to NASA but not to Peter's words!!!
Mel's Question:

Does AsteriskTom even understand Biblical and Astrophysical data?

ONE: The Bible does not state there was/would be a SOLAR Eclipse!
TWO: The Sun darkens by an act of God...not by a predictable Eclipse!!
THREE: Tom's "New Moon" didn't/couldn't turn into a Total SOLAR Eclipse!!!

Tom, you need to learn the difference between LUNAR and SOLAR Eclipses!
You need to understand the Jewish concept of a total "blood-red-moon"!!
You need to recognize the Chiastic nature of Biblical Interpretation!!!

Here's where I side with Eagle in classifying you as being arrogant:
You Wrote:

There was no hours-long eclipse at the time of the crucifixion, whether you think it was 30 or 33 AD.
The darkness was caused by God Himself - like He did in the time of Pharaoh.
Unbending - because I'm standing on the Word - Tom

Tom, If you had begun your diatribe against Eagle with just stating that
"God Himself created the darkness of the sun", you would stick with truth!
You took the remarks of men that it couldn't have been a SOLAR Eclipse!!
"You missed Peter's message completely; for it was a "blood-red-moon"!!!
Mel

 

[Eagle]

My time is too important to waste on someone who will merely call it hogwash. Believe it or not, I was taking your words seriously, but I was going back to the foundations of your theses, to show what was missing.

Hogwash it is. Fine. I have plenty other irons in the fire. I'm not going to waste my time with you. And I don't care if you think it is arrogant or not.

Hey asterisktom,

I am sorry you feel this way. How you spend your time, is of course, your business. I think you are being a little too sensitive here, tho. You are a smart and well-studied guy - no doubt. This is good for you.
However, there seems to be an air of condescension about you toward others on this board. This is not good for you - or us.

If you do have anything worthwhile to show us, and if we have anything worthwhile to show you, it sometimes can't get to the light of day - because you are too busy looking down your nose at us. You made the assumption, apparent by your posts to me, that I do not properly value OT and that you had to point this out to me - for my good I suppose.

Two problems: 1) Your assumption is false and somewhat offensive for you to go there. 2) Instead of pointing out my "weaknesses" generally - it might be better to just point out the specific OT reference you have in mind - and deal with it in the context of the NT references I have shown you. We could just give that a try.

 

[asterisktom]

I certainly need the Bible!
Tom evidently doesn't need the Bible!!
Since he refers to NASA but not to Peter's words!!!

Mel

It was tongue in cheek, Mel. I am not the one setting dates. You were the first one to refer to NASA as some sort of proof.

 

[lastday]

Tom,
There is absolutely NO "tongue in cheek" when it comes to setting dates!
The moment the Two Prophets arrive from heaven, 1260 days remain!!
Messianic Jews count to 1260 + 3 or 4 more until Messiah appears!!!
Mel

 

[asterisktom]

Tom,
There is absolutely NO "tongue in cheek" when it comes to setting dates!
The moment the Two Prophets arrive from heaven, 1260 days remain!!
Messianic Jews count to 1260 + 3 or 4 more until Messiah appears!!!
Mel

I was talking about you saying that Christ will come in 2033. And then you say that I don't need the Bible.

 

[asterisktom]

Friends Interested in Biblical Foundational Truth,
Quote from AsteriskTom:

Tom's Question:
I certainly need the Bible!
Tom evidently doesn't need the Bible!!
Since he refers to NASA but not to Peter's words!!!
Mel's Question:

ONE: The Bible does not state there was/would be a SOLAR Eclipse!
TWO: The Sun darkens by an act of God...not by a predictable Eclipse!!
THREE: Tom's "New Moon" didn't/couldn't turn into a Total SOLAR Eclipse!!!

Tom, you need to learn the difference between LUNAR and SOLAR Eclipses!
You need to understand the Jewish concept of a total "blood-red-moon"!!
You need to recognize the Chiastic nature of Biblical Interpretation!!!

Here's where I side with Eagle in classifying you as being arrogant:
You Wrote:

Tom, If you had begun your diatribe against Eagle with just stating that
"God Himself created the darkness of the sun", you would stick with truth!
You took the remarks of men that it couldn't have been a SOLAR Eclipse!!
"You missed Peter's message completely; for it was a "blood-red-moon"!!!
Mel

Mmm, crow. You know, with a little salt it isn't really that bad.

Before you go using up all the rest of the exclamation marks, leaving none for us, yes, Mel, I goofed. I sent the wrong link. I do know the difference between solar and lunar eclipse. My point still stands. But I was too hasty this morning in writing back.

 

[lastday]

Lastday

Tom,
Why did you refer to NASA and WIKI if you are apposed to mentioning dates?
I wrote:

Tom,
There is absolutely NO "tongue in cheek" when it comes to setting dates!
The moment the Two Prophets arrive from heaven, 1260 days remain!!
Messianic Jews count to 1260 + 3 or 4 more until Messiah appears!!!
Mel

You admitted the legitimacy of referring to the exact date of Christ's death!
You wrote:

I was talking about you saying that Christ will come in 2033.
And then you say that I don't need the Bible.

You made scorn of me by falsely assuming "I don't need the Bible" because
I referred to corroborating evidence...and then you resorted to the same
method of supporting your claim that I do wrong in "setting dates"!
This is part of your constant method of casting aspersion on others!!
That's why I, Eagle and others keep referring to your arrogant stance!!!
Mel

 

[asterisktom]

Tom,
Why did you refer to NASA and WIKI if you are apposed to mentioning dates?
I wrote:

You admitted the legitimacy of referring to the exact date of Christ's death!
You wrote:


You made scorn of me by falsely assuming "I don't need the Bible" because
I referred to corroborating evidence...and then you resorted to the same
method of supporting your claim that I do wrong in "setting dates"!
This is part of your constant method of casting aspersion on others!!
That's why I, Eagle and others keep referring to your arrogant stance!!!
Mel

The doing wrong is not just in the setting of dates (and BTW, trying to determine when Christ died is not bad thing) but in the bad teaching that goes with it. All of this obscures the true nature of Christ's kingdom, His nature, and salvation itself.

I am really not concerned about your (plural) assessment of me as arrogant. If anything, it is reassuring.

There are some things I am not sure of, some things I am now positive of. Those things I am positive I am going to write in a positive way. That is not arrogance, as you say, or "condescension", as Eagle whined, it is being mature.

Not all confident stances are "arrogant stances'. "I know whom I have believed".