Is there a final authority?

[agedman]

Maybe, but maybe not.

Farrah Fenton in his translation placed the gospel of John first as he believed it was the first written.

My dad always said that Mark was the first because it said

• Mark 1:1 The beginning of the gospel of Jesus Christ, the Son of God;

Sadly, Fenton, though admittedly a scholar, ran into assumptions that marred his work.

One being his thinking on the chronology of the NT. Had he the resources of the modern times, he may not have missed the dating so badly. As an Asiatic society member, he relied (IMO) on incomplete information somewhat prevalent in those times.

Another was his thinking of British Israel.

I give these two as examples not so much to discredit as to show him more (IMO) as a product of the times and social aspects of his class group.

I like the way Mark starts out. Very direct. Mark presents what I consider the most linear account.

He starts similarly to John (In the beginning...), but starts in Isaiah rather than Genesis.

 

[TCassidy]

So it wasn't part of Herod's temple.

The western wall was. The decorative capstones were added later.

 

[agedman]

So it wasn't part of Herod's temple.

Here is a good read concerning the history of the Western Wall.

Interesting to me was the lack of interest in it by the Jews.

History & Overivew of the Western Wall

 

[TCassidy]

the English bible was also inspired by the Holy Spirit

That is rank heresy. The canon closed around 100 AD. If the Holy Spirit was still inspiring scripture in modern times then the Crazymatics are right with their "prophecies" and we are wrong.

That is "I tell you truthfully" the truth, mark you, "that this generation will not pass without all these things having happened"

Yes, the generation (all those descended from a single ancestor) of mankind would not pass away until all was fulfilled. The end of the world will not happen until God says so.

 

[agedman]

This is important when considering the wall as part of the temple

The Jews apparently didn’t.

...there is no ancient Jewish tradition that designates the Western Wall as a sacred site. Instead, it was designated as a place of prayer less than five hundred years ago by a Muslim ruler. It took more than three centuries for the wall to attract the Jewish masses and, only in the last 150 years, has it become Judaism’s most sacred site. Yet, even if this place was not intrinsically holy (let alone as holy as the Temple Mount), or even if it had not been so designated by Suleyman the Great, it has become sanctified over time as Jews have increasingly utilized it for prayer.

Taken from. History & Overivew of the Western Wall​

 

[TCassidy]

I should thought that you, and intelligent man would have understood from that,

When you don't explain what you understand them to mean, and tend to "spiritualize" them in the most absurd way it is impossible to see what your point was if you refuse to make it!

John's baptism was not into Christ, but to OT repentance.

So, who rebaptized the Twelve? I can't help notice you keep avoiding that question.

 

[David Kent]

John states that there were MANY antichrists in his day.

So what is the point?

Your statement about the antichrist does not disprove anything of the "futurist" thinking. There have been and will be antichrists. Some will be renown, some in the neighborhood of which believers live.

Doesn't disprove that one day there will be a mighty powerful antichrist, just as John wrote about.

There were many antichrists in John's day, they all came out of the Church. Antichrist would also come from the church. He did, we call him the pope, the vicar of Christ, which means exactly the same as antichrist,

The church has recognised that for over 800 years. But in the last couple of centuries have adopted the Jesuit teaching and said that is not so,

 

[TCassidy]

This is important when considering the wall as part of the temple

Yeah, but all of that was after the destruction of the temple. During His earthly ministry Christ certainly considered it part of the temple complex. He preached there quite often.

 

[David Kent]

So, who rebaptized the Twelve? I can't help notice you keep avoiding that question.

If you show me I will know.

 

[TCassidy]

If you show me I will know.

John the Baptist. Because His baptism was a testimony of the coming death, burial, and resurrection of He Whom John said of "Behold the Lamb of God Who takes away the sin of the world."

 

[agedman]

There were many antichrists in John's day, they all came out of the Church. Antichrist would also come from the church. He did, we call him the pope, the vicar of Christ, which means exactly the same as antichrist,

The church has recognised that for over 800 years. But in the last couple of centuries have adopted the Jesuit teaching and said that is not so,

I’m not certain that I agree they all came out of the church.

 

[David Kent]

Yeah, but all of that was after the destruction of the temple. During His earthly ministry Christ certainly considered it part of the temple complex. He preached there quite often.

But see

This is important when considering the wall as part of the temple

The Jews apparently didn’t.

...there is no ancient Jewish tradition that designates the Western Wall as a sacred site. Instead, it was designated as a place of prayer less than five hundred years ago by a Muslim ruler. It took more than three centuries for the wall to attract the Jewish masses and, only in the last 150 years, has it become Judaism’s most sacred site. Yet, even if this place was not intrinsically holy (let alone as holy as the Temple Mount), or even if it had not been so designated by Suleyman the Great, it has become sanctified over time as Jews have increasingly utilized it for prayer.

Taken from. History & Overivew of the Western Wall​

Of course it doesn't matter any way. Herod built the temple mount up to expand the temple. If the temple itself was levelled to the temple mount, the prophecy was fulfilled. I really can't understand the simple words of my Lord. Why do you try to make them say something different to what the scripture says? Just more wriggling I suppose to make it fit your Darbyite theories.

 

[David Kent]

I’m not certain that I agree they all came out of the church.

• 1 John 2:18-19 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.
• 19 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.

 

[agedman]

But see



Of course it doesn't matter any way. Herod built the temple mount up to expand the temple. If the temple itself was levelled to the temple mount, the prophecy was fulfilled. I really can't understand the simple words of my Lord. Why do you try to make them say something different to what the scripture says? Just more wriggling I suppose to make it fit your Darbyite theories.

Neither TCassidy nor I hold Darby as anything more than a scholarly resource, just as any educator may do with a scholar they may agree or disagree as to statements.

What should be of more concern is that TCassidy and I are essentially stating similar thinking as to the retaining wall.

I even posted a link to a Jewish source to show how their own history is consistent with our thinking.

If there are worms to be found, it is the unsupportable statements from those concerning not agreeing to a literal second coming / millennial reign.

 

[agedman]

• 1 John 2:18-19 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.
• 19 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.

But see what you posted proved my questioning your statement.

“... but they were not of us ...”. Seems pretty clear that these folks were never really adopted children but those who snuck in over the walls.

 

[TCassidy]

Why do you try to make them say something different to what the scripture says?

I don't. I believe the temple was completely razed in 70AD. "One stone upon another" is simply a metaphor for completely destroyed.

Just more wriggling I suppose to make it fit your Darbyite theories.

LOL! ROFLOL! Have you forgotten (again) who you are talking to? I am not a dispensationalist.

 

[David Kent]

But see what you posted proved my questioning your statement.

“... but they were not of us ...”. Seems pretty clear that these folks were never really adopted children but those who snuck in over the walls.

Absolutely. That is what I have been saying,

That is what the Papal Antichrist has done, He went out from the Church which he claimed to lead, and eventually said he was head of the Church. How can he be any other than Antichrist, when Christ is head of the Church.

If Christ is head of the church which I absolutely believe, How can an imposter claiming to be head of the church, be any other than Antichrist.

Calvin said: If one considers the claims of the pope with the claims of Christ, anyone can see he is the antichrist, even if he were a ten year old boy.

It seems a ten year old boy in Calvin's day can see clearly what educated men cannot see today.

 

[David Kent]

LOL! ROFLOL! Have you forgotten (again) who you are talking to? I am not a dispensationalist.

Sorry, I thought you were. What are you then? Not trying to be rude.

 

[TCassidy]

Sorry, I thought you were. What are you then? Not trying to be rude.

I am an historic Chilliast. Just like the ECFs.

 

[agedman]

Absolutely. That is what I have been saying,

That is what the Papal Antichrist has done, He went out from the Church which he claimed to lead, and eventually said he was head of the Church. How can he be any other than Antichrist, when Christ is head of the Church.

If Christ is head of the church which I absolutely believe, How can an imposter claiming to be head of the church, be any other than Antichrist.

Calvin said: If one considers the claims of the pope with the claims of Christ, anyone can see he is the antichrist, even if he were a ten year old boy.

It seems a ten year old boy in Calvin's day can see clearly what educated men cannot see today.

However, many educated folks in this modern time don’t take the Scriptures as literal as possible, and have had invent views that take partial truth from Scripture and depart.

Some regulate the Scriptures to mystic stories and fables.

Others attempt to manipulate Scriptures into a view that they must bolster with ripping scriptures out of their appropriate context.

But none of these may be Antichrist.

The one who is Antichrist doesn’t always oppose Christ, but may supplant Christ.

Such are the papist, the David Koresh, the Jim Jones, the thousands of other pretenders the history doesn’t even record.

The supplanter will one day become the absolute final Antichrist, totally under control of Satan, trusting no one, and seeking to control everyone by manipulation and cunning. Deceit is this one, and death is his tool of choice.

Such comes offering world peace on his terms, only. Exalting himself, this Antichrist cannot abide disloyalty, competition is removed, and none are allowed to share the spotlight, for he, alone, is to be worshipped not just as the supreme leader, but the final authority.