Truth

[Van]

Truth is an interesting concept. Those that lie claim to be telling the truth. Who is the Truth? Christ Jesus is the truth. What is non-Truth? Falsehood.

As we listen to the assertions and claims of men, all claiming to be presenting truth, we must sift and study what they say and compare with the truth revealed in God's word. Jesus said our yes should be yes and our no should be no, thus we should speak simply and clearly and not shroud our thoughts in implications and innuendo.

We have three enemies, Satan, the world, and our fleshly desires. All speak to us in lies, saying this is good, try it you will like it.

Did God create men, or did men create God? Which is truth? What does the Bible say?

Is there an objective reality, or do we live in a fiction of our mind? What does the Bible say?

If there is an objective reality, and we comprehend it and tell others about it, are we speaking truth?

Is truth what has fidelity to the original, is Jesus the perfect image of God, is Jesus Christ truth?

What does the bible say?

 

[DrJamesAch]

Theres much more evidence that Revelation was written before ad 70 than after friend--you are just picking out a few that supposes that it wasn't written before ad 70--but all the time statementsof the new testament and their strong Perception in the new testament that he would return in some of their lifetimes(before that generation passed)and audience revelance is plainly for the before ad 70 view friend--you reject all the new testament on your false information--it was the last days unto them--the end of all things for them--end of the world for them--end of their age unto them--you can try and refute and reject all you want but its plainly in front of you--but you are blinded by your own tradition as the jews in Christ's day:tear::tear:

I wrote my doctoral thesis on Preterism. I can show @ 100 different things that did not occur in AD 70 from Matthew 24,Ezekiel, Jeremiah, Zechariah, Isaiah, Daniel, 2 Thess 2, and all of Revelation that should have happened if Jesus had come back in AD 70. The few statements that I DID give can not be refuted. If you can't refute those few items that I listed, it would be pointless to list the other 100, but when I get time, I'll post them all on a separate thread for you

And considering that I actually AM a Jew from Israel, it's funny that you would say that I am blinded by my tradition because my "tradition" does not believe that Jesus Christ is the Messiah-I DO!

 

[DrJamesAch]

Truth is an interesting concept. Those that lie claim to be telling the truth. Who is the Truth? Christ Jesus is the truth. What is non-Truth? Falsehood.

As we listen to the assertions and claims of men, all claiming to be presenting truth, we must sift and study what they say and compare with the truth revealed in God's word. Jesus said our yes should be yes and our no should be no, thus we should speak simply and clearly and not shroud our thoughts in implications and innuendo.

We have three enemies, Satan, the world, and our fleshly desires. All speak to us in lies, saying this is good, try it you will like it.

Did God create men, or did men create God? Which is truth? What does the Bible say?

Is there an objective reality, or do we live in a fiction of our mind? What does the Bible say?

If there is an objective reality, and we comprehend it and tell others about it, are we speaking truth?

Is truth what has fidelity to the original, is Jesus the perfect image of God, is Jesus Christ truth?

What does the bible say?

Funny you should ask that! http://dorightchristians.wordpress.com/2013/04/10/wwjd-wdbs-getting-back-to-the-bible/

 

[HisWitness]

I wrote my doctoral thesis on Preterism. I can show @ 100 different things that did not occur in AD 70 from Matthew 24,Ezekiel, Jeremiah, Zechariah, Isaiah, Daniel, 2 Thess 2, and all of Revelation that should have happened if Jesus had come back in AD 70. The few statements that I DID give can not be refuted. If you can't refute those few items that I listed, it would be pointless to list the other 100, but when I get time, I'll post them all on a separate thread for you

And considering that I actually AM a Jew from Israel, it's funny that you would say that I am blinded by my tradition because my "tradition" does not believe that Jesus Christ is the Messiah-I DO!

i bet you can--the jews of Christ's day could do even more so than you can offer up--they could quote the old testament backwards and forward--can you do that ??they were the unbelieving jews also.

what do you say before their generation passed means ???

 

[DrJamesAch]

i bet you can--the jews of Christ's day could do even more so than you can offer up--they could quote the old testament backwards and forward--can you do that ??they were the unbelieving jews also.

I had the first 5 books of the OT memorized at age 12 (was a 'traditional' requirement), and currently have the NT memorized-the NT also being a "tradition" currently rejected by my heritage.

You apparently know very little about traditional Judaism if you think any Jew that has converted to Christianity and relies on the NT is following tradition.

Now get back to refuting those points I made that show Revelation was after AD 70, or just keep resorting to generalized carte blanche denials of verifiable FACTS.

 

[HisWitness]

I had the first 5 books of the OT memorized at age 12 (was a 'traditional' requirement), and currently have the NT memorized-the NT also being a "tradition" currently rejected by my heritage.

You apparently know very little about traditional Judaism if you think any Jew that has converted to Christianity and relies on the NT is following tradition.

Now get back to refuting those points I made that show Revelation was after AD 70, or just keep resorting to generalized carte blanche denials of verifiable FACTS.

the whole new testament refutes the after ad 70 view--i don't have to refute it--if you have the NT memorized then you should see all that's there that refutes it :love2::love2:

your tradition that your bound in is the Futurist view--which i was also bound in --UNTIL God opened my eyes

 

[HisWitness]

Your view does not fit with what actually happened. It contradicts history itself.
"One shall be taken the other left behind."
Reconcile it again, this time using a historical account. Why did Jesus make that differentiation?
[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]http://ezinearticles.com/?The-Fall-of-Jerusalem-70-AD:-Cannibal-Lady-Feeds-on-Babys-Flesh&id=5476400[/FONT][FONT=&quot][/FONT]

fits perfectly--your just rejecting it

 

[agedman]

Truth is an interesting concept. Those that lie claim to be telling the truth. Who is the Truth? Christ Jesus is the truth. What is non-Truth? Falsehood.

As we listen to the assertions and claims of men, all claiming to be presenting truth, we must sift and study what they say and compare with the truth revealed in God's word. Jesus said our yes should be yes and our no should be no, thus we should speak simply and clearly and not shroud our thoughts in implications and innuendo.

We have three enemies, Satan, the world, and our fleshly desires. All speak to us in lies, saying this is good, try it you will like it.

Did God create men, or did men create God? Which is truth? What does the Bible say?

Is there an objective reality, or do we live in a fiction of our mind? What does the Bible say?

If there is an objective reality, and we comprehend it and tell others about it, are we speaking truth?

Is truth what has fidelity to the original, is Jesus the perfect image of God, is Jesus Christ truth?

What does the bible say?

Very good, Van!!!!!

Although somewhere my mind went to the theme music of the "twilight zone" because on first reading, my eyes went faster than the comprehension.

Upon second reading, the Scripture, "I am the way, the truth, the life..." came crashing into my mind.

 

[agedman]

the whole new testament refutes the after ad 70 view--i don't have to refute it--if you have the NT memorized then you should see all that's there that refutes it :love2::love2:

your tradition that your bound in is the Futurist view--which i was also bound in --UNTIL God opened my eyes

I have to state, I haven't investigated to the point of writing a doctoral level refutation, but what I read of the preterist view by preterist writers has done nothing to credit them with any credibility.

Just as I am not a-mil because it is not consistent with the teaching of Scriptures nor with the historical data now available that was not for centuries, I cannot be preterist because of the lack of consistency with Scriptures and the lack of historical support.

I am persuaded that Christ will return as the Angels who were standing by the apostles stated He would, and that when He comes I will be like Him. I certainly am a long way from shedding this mortal house, but have a stronger tug each day to be out of this world and in His presence.

 

[HisWitness]

.






.......................................................

 

[HisWitness]

I had the first 5 books of the OT memorized at age 12 (was a 'traditional' requirement), and currently have the NT memorized-the NT also being a "tradition" currently rejected by my heritage.

You apparently know very little about traditional Judaism if you think any Jew that has converted to Christianity and relies on the NT is following tradition.

Now get back to refuting those points I made that show Revelation was after AD 70, or just keep resorting to generalized carte blanche denials of verifiable FACTS.

Please explain what you think Christ meant when he told them that their generation would not pass away till all those things were fulfilled ??

 

[DHK]

Theres much more evidence that Revelation was written before ad 70 than after friend--you are just picking out a few that supposes that it wasn't written before ad 70--but all the time statementsof the new testament and their strong Perception in the new testament that he would return in some of their lifetimes(before that generation passed)and audience revelance is plainly for the before ad 70 view friend--you reject all the new testament on your false information--it was the last days unto them--the end of all things for them--end of the world for them--end of their age unto them--you can try and refute and reject all you want but its plainly in front of you--but you are blinded by your own tradition as the jews in Christ's day:tear::tear:

I have not yet read all the succeeding posts, but I have debated many of the other preterists on the board especially on this one point, and I know you are wrong. All of the recent scholarship points to a later dating of the writings of John. Almost every conservative scholar will date the books with a late date. Those that don't usually have an agenda. Just like those that prefer to give late dates to Isaiah and Daniel in the OT, doing away with the supernatural and fulfillment of prophecy, giving an early date here accomplishes the same thing. The liberals love to do this. The critics who attack the Bible will give an early date, not honest Biblical scholarship.
It is impossible that John should have written this book in 70 or before that date. He wrote them later during his exile while he was on Patmos.

The testimony begins with Irenaeus, writing ca. 175, who assigns the date of this book to 95 or 96 A.D. Eusebius states that, "in the persecution of Domitian, John the Apostle and Evangelist was banished to the Island of Patmos for his testimony to the Divine Word."
Domitian reigned from 81-96 A.D.

There is no possible way that it could have been written even close to 70 A.D.

 

[HisWitness]

I have not yet read all the succeeding posts, but I have debated many of the other preterists on the board especially on this one point, and I know you are wrong. All of the recent scholarship points to a later dating of the writings of John. Almost every conservative scholar will date the books with a late date. Those that don't usually have an agenda. Just like those that prefer to give late dates to Isaiah and Daniel in the OT, doing away with the supernatural and fulfillment of prophecy, giving an early date here accomplishes the same thing. The liberals love to do this. The critics who attack the Bible will give an early date, not honest Biblical scholarship.
It is impossible that John should have written this book in 70 or before that date. He wrote them later during his exile while he was on Patmos.

The testimony begins with Irenaeus, writing ca. 175, who assigns the date of this book to 95 or 96 A.D. Eusebius states that, "in the persecution of Domitian, John the Apostle and Evangelist was banished to the Island of Patmos for his testimony to the Divine Word."
Domitian reigned from 81-96 A.D.

There is no possible way that it could have been written even close to 70 A.D.

if you want to keep on believing that--its your choice brother--But the time statements and audience revelance of the new testament totally disagrees with you also..:love2::love2::love2:

 

[DHK]

if you want to keep on believing that--its your choice brother--But the time statements and audience revelance of the new testament totally disagrees with you also..:love2::love2::love2:

First you are simply relying on just your interpretation of Scripture.
Secondly, have you considered that what you are considering as fulfilled prophecy, most of us realize it to be "partial fulfillment," with the complete fulfillment coming at a future date. That is true with many Scriptures.
Third, the preterist cannot account for the second coming of Christ. To say that there was a "spiritual coming" is a J.W. belief. There is no such thing as a "spiritual resurrection" as a resurrection always refers to the body and not the spirit. His coming is a coming of the body and not the spirit.
Fourth, at his coming the first resurrection will take place. Since I am still here, I know it hasn't. That is how sure I am of my salvation. If I am not resurrected I know that Christ has not come yet. That means you are wrong.
Fifth, we live in a sin-sick, sin-cursed, world, where Christians are being severely persecuted for their faith in more than 80% of this world.

Take a look:
http://www.worthynews.com/12439-eritrea-a-giant-prison

http://www.worthynews.com/12338-two...arrested-in-ethiopia-for-crimes-against-islam

http://www.worthynews.com/12329-iran-pastor-irani-facing-death-penalty-health-deteriorating

http://www.worthynews.com/12327-christian-convert-kidnapped-in-pakistan-by-taliban-militants

http://www.worthynews.com/12325-india-militants-attack-baptist-pastors-several-injured

If you know the Scriptures, when Christ comes he will set up his kingdom and the saints of God will rule with him. There will peace throughout the world, for Christ himself will rule with a rod of iron.

Now consider the above links, and the atrocities that are being carried out against Christians. Would Christ allow that in his Kingdom?
If yes, your kingdom is not Christ's.