Hey Neb, do u take communion??

[eternal]

Did Roldan get a new keyboard!!!

haha.

[DoGMaTiX]

eternal said:

Did Roldan get a new keyboard!!!

haha.

;D

[king neb]

Rick,

Well, I have to admit, I applaud your attempt…not bad for a cookie-cut reformer, but you misread Thayer as badly as the answer did I Cor. Let me guess, you looked up the word achris in thayers and found any definition that would contradict what I said, right? But here’s the problem, I wasn’t commenting on achris…I was commenting on HOU achris. You do realize the difference right? That's like someone arguing against my definition of 'basket ball' by pointing out the first definition given for 'basket'. Here, let me quote thayers here in full:

“D. joined to the relative hou- (achris hou|) it has the force of a conjunction, until, to the time that: followed by the indicative preterite, of things that actually occurred and up to the beginning of which something continued,”

“Terminius” is NOT the first definition given for ACHRIS HOU. It was a definition given for the word achris ALONE...but when joined to hou “it has the force of a conjunction..”

You’re right. You’re not a greek scholar – you’re not even a good English reader. My point still stands.

Second, you again commit a logical fallacy, right after I have pointed out elsewhere how certain Calvinists toss logic to the side:

“The Answers question is definately a valid one because in the historic orthodox reformed camp Christ has NOT returned”

In other words, the answer’s argument is valid because my poppy and his poppy says that Christ has not returned - Argumentum ad Populum anyone? But I guess Logic doesn’t matter in Theology, now does it?

Third, you tortured I Cor. 15. actually, im not really even sure what you said. You need to elaborate and/or type it out better. I’ll just offer my answers to your questions since you really did not even do that yourself…you just cited the texts.

First, to make some distinction between Jesus ruling as ‘Christ King of His Church/kingdom’ now, but as ‘God’ later is ridiculous. What in the world does that even mean?

The text says: ESV - The last enemy to be destroyed is death.

Of course, the futurist slant of virtually all translators screws it up here. The translation of the Greek, literally, is ‘last enemy BEING destroyed is THE death.’ Gordon Fee: ‘The grammar of this sentence is somewhat puzzling… The difficulty lies with the present tense and the passive voice of the verb, plus the fact that no conjunction or particle joins it to what preceeded.’

Well, of course it’s puzzling for futurists who claim that Paul is dealing with corpses coming out of the ground. Rick, I have asked you this before, and here we go again: If Paul is talking about physical death, how is physical death currently BEING destroyed and has been in the process of BEING destroyed for the past 2,000 years? You have no answer for that. (or at least you haven’t in the past two years)

My answer is quite simple and fits the text, as well as the imminency that invades the NT virtually on every page. ‘THE death’ is THE death Adam died THE DAY he ate of the fruit. As a result, mankind, including Israel, incurred this guilt and sin, thus separating them from God, regardless of whether or not a person is breathing. The first covenant served to INCREASE THE sin and rule of THE death.

Romans 5:20 The Law came in so that the transgression would increase;

Thus, the first covenant is called, by Paul, a “ministration of the death” (2 Corinthians 3:7 ) Now, Christ made this “ministration of the death” obsolete at the cross, and “what doth become obsolete and is old is nigh disappearing.” Hebrews 8:13 Therefore, the vanishing of the “ministration of the death” corresponds to ‘the death’ BEING destroyed in I Cor. 15, for Paul even further adds:

1 Corinthians 15:56 and the sting of the death is the sin, and the power of the sin the law;

It follows then, that the doing away of ‘the law’ (or better, our fulfilling the Law through the Spirit, a NC promise) would necessarily rob ‘the sin’ of it’s power, thus making it’s sting, the Death, null and void. And that I have my friend, in the finished work of Christ and the NEW covenant. Call me a non-christian if you like, I don’t give a rip. Christ is plenty.

Furthermore, the ‘rule’ must be understood in terms of Ezekiel 37,38; Jer. 31, etc. This rule in I Cor. 15 was over the House of Israel. Christ was regathering Israel ‘according to the Spirit’ just as He had promised Israel. The promise was made in Jer. 31 that He would save Israel (a remnant).(see Romans 11, Demar, Jordan) THIS is the kingdom he presented to the Father. It has absolutely nothing to due with Christ ruling during the New Covenant period and handing the Church (fulfilled Israel) up to the Father at the end of time so that He can rule as God again, whatever the heck that means.

You: According to Nebs paradigm Christ has ALREADY handed over the Kingdom over to the Father and is no longer King at this moment.

This is most ridiculous. I have never said any such thing nor can it be logically implied and is borderline slander. Your objection is based on a faulty assumption that Christ stops reigning as King one day based on your faulty interpretation of I Cor. 15 – I don’t believe that. Maybe you do, but I don’t. Christ will ALWAYS BE KING.

Ezekiel 37:24-25 24 And My servant David is king over them, And one shepherd have they all, And in My judgments they go, And My statutes they keep, and have done them. 25 And they have dwelt on the land that I gave to My servant, to Jacob, In which your fathers have dwelt, And they have dwelt on it, they and their sons, And their son's sons -- unto the age, And David My servant is their prince -- to the age.

Again, it was His 40 year rule (David anyone? Saul 40 years, David 40 years, Solomon 40 years…hello? Is this just coincidental? I Kings 11.42, 1 Kings 2.11, Acts 13.21) over the House of Israel that was handed to the Father, not Christians living in the New Covenant / age to come. His dealings with ethnic Israel is done, not His Kingship over all under the New Covenant.

Next, you asked if I take the Table with Christ present? Yes. And frankly, I don’t care what Calvin said about it. Calvin interpreted the meaning of the Table with futurists goggles still on.

Next, you say that I “fail to realize that the Passover Lamb was the OT sign of the Covenant and its main importance was pointing the perfect lamb that was to be slain it pointed to Christ.” WHAT? Dude, where in the world did you get that? Again, are you seriously interested in what I believe or are you just going to continue slandering me like this. Of course I understand the significance of the Passover Lamb. I’ll take it even further than you: Christ, by His sacrifice as the Lamb, not only fulfilled this type but it was a clear indication to His disciples that the New EXODUS had arrived.

Speaking of the first 40 year wilderness generation (ut, there’s that 40 again), Paul states:
1 Corinthians 10:11 11 And all these things as types did happen to those persons, and they were written for our admonition, to whom the end of the ages did come,

Not only that, but in the original Passover meal, Israel’s calendar was reset (Ex 12) indicating that their redemption as a blood-bought people ushered in a ‘New Creation’. (only as a type, of course)

Therefore, not only did Christ simply die as the Passover Lamb, but this also ushered in the anti-typical Exodus and New Creation…how bout them apples? Yet, you’re the one that destroys all the type/anti-type by delaying the ‘end of the ages’ and the ’40 years’ of the wilderness wanderings AND rule of David to 2,000+ years and counting. Apparently Christ, who was supposed to be the ‘end of the law’, had only come to delay things even longer and set up more types for us. You nullify the words of I Peter:

1 Peter 1:5-13 5 who, in the power of God are being guarded, through faith, unto salvation, ready to be revealed in the last time, 6 in which ye are glad, a little now, if it be necessary, being made to sorrow in manifold trials, 7 that the proof of your faith -- much more precious than of gold that is perishing, and through fire being approved -- may be found to praise, and honour, and glory, in the revelation of Jesus Christ, 8 whom, not having seen, ye love, in whom, now not seeing and believing, ye are glad with joy unspeakable and glorified, 9 receiving the end of your faith -- salvation of souls; 10 concerning which salvation seek out and search out did prophets who concerning the grace toward you did prophecy, 11 searching in regard to what or what manner of time the Spirit of Christ that was in them was manifesting, testifying beforehand the sufferings of Christ and the glory after these, 12 to whom it was revealed, that not to themselves, but to us they were ministering these, which now were told to you (through those who did proclaim good news to you,) in the Holy Spirit sent from heaven, to which things messengers do desire to bend looking. 13 Wherefore having girded up the loins of your mind, being sober, hope perfectly upon the grace that is being brought to you in the revelation of Jesus Christ,

Revelation 1:1-3 A revelation of Jesus Christ, that God gave to him, to shew to his servants what things it behoveth to come to pass quickly; and he did signify it, having sent through his messenger to his servant John, 2 who did testify the word of God, and the testimony of Jesus Christ, as many things also as he did see. 3 Happy is he who is reading, and those hearing, the words of the prophecy, and keeping the things written in it -- for the time is nigh!

Furthermore, prove to me that believing Israelites still did not participate in the 'old' ritual up until ad 70- in fact, Christ said this:

Matthew 5:18-19 18 for, verily I say to you, till that the heaven and the earth may pass away, one iota or one tittle may not pass away from the law, till that all may come to pass. 19 'Whoever therefore may loose one of these commands -- the least -- and may teach men so, least he shall be called in the reign of the heavens, but whoever may do and may teach them, he shall be called great in the reign of the heavens.

Does the old passover meal not fall in that category?

and Lastly, this leads to the point that of course the ‘already / not yet’ was limited to Paul’s generation. As I have explained a little, the ‘already /not yet’ is to be understood in the context of the transition of the two covenants. The Table was being perfected - it was transitioning from the old. This transition did not happen overnight, but was a process. Jesus DID NOT say, 'Here, this is the New mode, forget Torah, forget the ceremonies, I just took care of all that in a snap. No need bro." No, the old form of the meal, just like everything else in the Law, was made obsolete but in the process of vanishing forever, consummated at His coming. For someone who prides himself in being a 'Covenant' theologian, it amazes me how very little covenantal context is actually brought into your futurist explanations. Amillennialism is nothing more than spiritualized dispensationalism. They are bed buddies.

Regarding your sin question, again, the reason this is hard for you to handle is because you ASSUME that to be delivered from sin means to never sin again, and that is NOT how Paul defines victory. The sin has no power over me simply for the reason that having been washed by the blood of Christ and God causing me to be obedient under the terms of the NEW covenant through walking in the Spirit, sin CANNOT CONDEMN ME. Christ is the central focus here.

Your futurism is actually a denial of the work of Christ. For you argue that “things cannot possibly be finished because I still sin,” SO!?!? Are you or are you not IN CHRIST? WHOSE ACTIONS/WORK IS ACCEPTED BY THE FATHER? Yours or His? In that case, how are we any better off in a New Covenant?

Futurism takes the supremacy of Christ and the central focus of HIS WORK and places it back on the sinner who, I guess, cannot possibly be in a final state of ‘glory’ until he is doing what humans have never been able to do to begin with.

Rick, why/how did Adam fall? And I don’t want some cute answer that he fell because he ate the fruit. How could Adam, in a perfect state, having not yet fallen into the ‘sin nature’, SIN? You may not think I’m answering your last question, but I am – chew on it.

[DoGMaTiX]

Neb, can you ever have a civil discussion with anyone?

Must you always resort to being condenscending and disrespectful. This is why people stop talking anything with you. Get a grip. Where have I name called you are spoke down about you in my post, show me and I will repent from it. I was only posting in debate format, nothing was said that was a personal attack on your character or intellect, was there? But you on the other hand have disrespected me for the LAST time, sure maybe you don't give a crap but thats how prideful cats like you are. I was going to modify your post but i will now quote all the disrespectful remarks you made towards me and let everyone see it for themselves.

I guess Eternal didn't see any cheap shots in your lengthy post, that figures.

You accuse me of deliberate slander. WHere? Matter of fact forget it I promised myself that I would dialogue with you in a civil and loving matter but obviously you can't handle that. To be honest with you, you are a complete jerk when it comes to theological discussions outside of that your a pretty funny and kind cat. Don't know what happens when you turn into theological monster guy, kind of skitso.

Examples of Nebs condencsending statements:

not bad for a cookie-cut reformer

You’re right. You’re not a greek scholar – you’re not even a good English reader. My point still stands.

For someone who prides himself in being a 'Covenant' theologian, it amazes me how very little covenantal context is actually brought into your futurist explanations.

Nebs intellectual pride:

Therefore, not only did Christ simply die as the Passover Lamb, but this also ushered in the anti-typical Exodus and New Creation…how bout them apples?

Answer, now you see why things get deleted or modified around here.


Neb, I'm done with you

I pray that God will humble you so that you can treat people more civil and respectfully.

one

[eternal]

dogmatix said:

I guess Eternal didn't see any cheap shots in your lengthy post, that figures.

LOL. What was the point of bringing me into that? And what is "figures" supposed to imply?

Looking at the quotes you shown, I do not approve of that tone, especially since Neb has been wanting a conversation with you, and even criticising your non participation, and then when you do, he goes at you with a fervor that he has long held against you. That wasn't right.

Unfortunately, your own bias against me has shown through, because I never read Neb's post yet, so I couldn't have said anything..."figures."

[king neb]

Rick,

whatever dude...do with it what you want..i don't care. It's the same pattern over and over again...my sarcasm (which has always been) is fine until i start getting lengthier to the point where you can't handle it. you're not running from the sarcasm but from the obvious fact that you goofed (like the thayer's comment for example) it's a cop out and has been for two years

also, explain to me this: How in the heck are you getting upset about my comments in light of the fact that YOU have called me every d**nable name in the book? Heretic, d**ned to hell, etc.

So let me get this straight: heretic is ok, as long as it's in a 'debate' context and its coming from the 'orthodox', but me calling you a 'cookie-cut reformer is just...oh..oh my..wow...that is so shocking...i can't believe he said cookie!.

And YOU are the one who writes the Roldan vs. Godzilla songs, going after pelagians and everyone else like there was no tomorrow. You are the one writing the songs coming across as some theological reformed gangsta.

You want a civil discussion: stop treating me like some d**n idiot.

furthermore, the people that stopped talking to me are the 'heretic hunters'- and as far as im concerned , good riddens.

[DoGMaTiX]

eternal said:

dogmatix said:

I guess Eternal didn't see any cheap shots in your lengthy post, that figures.

LOL. What was the point of bringing me into that? And what is "figures" supposed to imply?

Looking at the quotes you shown, I do not approve of that tone, especially since Neb has been wanting a conversation with you, and even criticising your non participation, and then when you do, he goes at you with a fervor that he has long held against you. That wasn't right.

Unfortunately, your own bias against me has shown through, because I never read Neb's post yet, so I couldn't have said anything..."figures."

My bad E. Got caught up in the moment

[DoGMaTiX]

kingneb said:

Rick,

whatever dude...do with it what you want..i don't care. It's the same pattern over and over again...my sarcasm (which has always been) is fine until i start getting lengthier to the point where you can't handle it. you're not running from the sarcasm but from the obvious fact that you goofed (like the thayer's comment for example) it's a cop out and has been for two years

also, explain to me this: How in the heck are you getting upset about my comments in light of the fact that YOU have called me every d**nable name in the book? Heretic, d**ned to hell, etc.

So let me get this straight: heretic is ok, as long as it's in a 'debate' context and its coming from the 'orthodox', but me calling you a 'cookie-cut reformer is just...oh..oh my..wow...that is so shocking...i can't believe he said cookie!.

And YOU are the one who writes the Roldan vs. Godzilla songs, going after pelagians and everyone else like there was no tomorrow. You are the one writing the songs coming across as some theological reformed gangsta.

You want a civil discussion: stop treating me like some d**n idiot.

furthermore, the people that stopped talking to me are the 'heretic hunters'- and as far as im concerned , good riddens.

Where have I called you those things in my last post?

I was civil and humble with you trying to start a fresh relationship with you without the name calling and disrespect. If you don't care thats fine, as long as God has seen my hearts attitude as of late.

no good riddens from me

I say God bless

[king neb]

Rick,

ask yourself why i treat you like this and not your brother Dennis...ask yourself why i can be a cool guy and all...simple...last i checked, Dennis hasn't calle me a heretic and told me that if i don't change my mind im d**ned to hell...

ask anyone else for that matter that doesn't treat me that why..heck, ask the answer...ask him why he invited me to this board to begin with.

again Rick, stop with the dumb a name calling of heretic, twisting the Bible, blah, blah, and maybe i could have a civil discussion with you as i do with most everyone else.

[eternal]

dogmatix said:

My bad E. Got caught up in the moment

No doubt. Hope you and Neb can fix up yall nonsense.

[OrthodoX]

heretic- n. a person who holds unorthodox opinions. (The American Heritage Dictionary, fourth ed.)

[king neb]

John,

1.) thanks for responding to my arguments
2.) what do you think of those who openly embrace/welcome groups you consider to be heretical?
3.) Let’s get beyond your superficial definition for words. Obviously your definition needs further explaining, because what is considered ‘heretical’ and ‘orthodox’ changes with context.

Heresy, in and of itself, simply means “choice”, from the Greek “haireo” (to choose) In and of itself, it does not imply something good or bad. As the ISBE points out, “it may be used either in a good or a bad sense, first, simply for "choice," then, "a chosen course of procedure," and afterward of various schools and tendencies….In Acts, the word is used in the Greek, where the King James Version and the Revised Version (British and American) have "sect," "sect of the Sadducees" (Acts 5:17), "sect of the Nazarenes" (Acts 24:5). In Acts 26:5 the Pharisees are called "the straitest Grk: hairesis (sect)." The name was applied contemptuously to Christianity (Acts 24:14; 28:22)”

Those of the heresy/sect (choice) of the Pharisees are obviously those who held to that school of thought, and so on. It denotes a sect, without reference to its character.

So, yes, “a person who holds unorthodox opinions” can fit into this definition, but that doesn't tell us anything...what is 'orthodoxy'?

'Orthodoxy' in its purest form simply means “correct teaching” or similar. “Ortho” is Greek for 'right', 'correct'; “Dox” Greek for 'thought', 'teaching'. It is adherence to the correct observance of religion, as determined by some overseeing body. Like the word heresy, in and of itself, it does not necessarily indicate good or evil thinking. If a Jehovah Witness is teaching that Christ was not God, he is inline with the ‘correct teaching’ of the J.W. sect. Orthodoxy is thus subject to the group that has gathered together and what they have declared as it pertains to the ‘choice teachings’ of their group. This is why when you look up ‘orthodoxy’ in the dictionary, you will also find:

• of or relating to Orthodox Judaism - Webster.com

In the example of Judaism, my teachings of Christ as God would be consider ‘heretical’ to the ‘orthodoxy’ of Judaism.

This is what you fail to explain in your definitions. Again, what is considered orthodox and heresy changes with context. What was considered BAD ‘heresies’ by Peter may not be considered BAD ‘heresies’ by Judaism, and vice a versa.

Now over time, the word 'heresy' has taken on a negative connotation to refer to those who disagree with a set standard of 'correct teaching' of a particular group.

Because these words, in and of themselves, do not tell us anything apart from a proper context, as followers of The Way, we must insist that the Word of God be our standard and judge and that it alone has the final and ultimate so say in what is to be considered ‘correct teaching’ and ‘heretical’. Which leads me to my last point.

To use the non ‘God-breathed’ statements of councils as the final word on defining ‘orthodoxy’ and ‘heresy’ is wrong and ultimately an attack on the authority and self-sufficiency of God’s Word, for HIS LOGIC and judgment have been replaced by men in your scheme of things. To simply gather a group of people and declare yourself ‘orthodox’ and all others as ‘heretics’, is no different than what every other group out there has done (Judaism); therefore, a final word, a higher authority must speak, God’s Word.

WCF 1:10 The supreme Judge, by which all controversies of religion are to be determined, and all decrees of councils, opinions of ancient writers, doctrines of men, and private spirits, are to be examined, and in whose sentence we are to rest, can be no other but the Holy Spirit speaking in the Scripture.

I do not define ‘correct doctrine’ by the Apostle’s Creed, but by the Word of God.

And what you and every other ‘preterist’ hunter have absolutely failed to do is to demonstrate, logically deduced from the Word of God, that teaching that the second coming of Christ happened in Paul’s generation is BIBLICALLY ‘heretical’ and d**nable. To cry that Preterism redefines Christianity is true ONLY in the sense that it redefines the so-called Christianity that YOU hold to, which is not Biblical to begin with. (note the word Biblical) For Paul, to teach that Christ would not or did not come at the consummation of the first covenant, is BIBLICALLY ‘unorthodox’.

Lastly, if you have a problem with me saying that the Bible is the standard for orthodoxy and not the Creeds, I invite you to listen to Gary Demar (the man whose site you have listed on yours) tell Lou Rugg of Unchained radio and Sam Frost, who called in, that Full Preterism is not heresy, for these very reasons, which is why i asked question #2 and am anxious to see your response.

www.unchainedradio.com/nuke/listen.php?requestURL=http://unchainedradio.com/freedownload/nm09202005.mp3

[eternal]

consistent said:

heretic- n. a person who holds unorthodox opinions. (The American Heritage Dictionary, fourth ed.)

Which is terrific. First, Orthodoxy itself is split into variant denominations and movements. No protestant can claim historical orthodoxy, and no protestant will grant orthodoxy to the Eastern Orthodox or the Catholic.

Funny huh?

Really, who cares if I am a heretic then according to this deffinition. Problem is, that most Christians understand the term to have the connotation of the "heretic" not being a Christian at all. That is where the problems arise, because we begin cutting off and hurting legititmate Christians and family over nonsense disputes of doctrine.

peace.

[DoGMaTiX]

kingneb said:

Rick,

ask yourself why i treat you like this and not your brother Dennis...ask yourself why i can be a cool guy and all...simple...last i checked, Dennis hasn't calle me a heretic and told me that if i don't change my mind im d**ned to hell...

ask anyone else for that matter that doesn't treat me that why..heck, ask the answer...ask him why he invited me to this board to begin with.

again Rick, stop with the dumb a name calling of heretic, twisting the Bible, blah, blah, and maybe i could have a civil discussion with you as i do with most everyone else.

Again, where in my last civil post did I call you heretic?

My intentions was not to piss you off but only to discuss, you actually had some good points but I don't care to discuss this anymore.

Once again God bless

Btw, My brother holds to my view of Hyprets as well.

[king neb]

good rick...cya! i don't care anymore...im just as happy. My salvation is in Christ, not you - bye bye

ps. you deleted your own thread...remember that

[DoGMaTiX]

kingneb said:

good rick...cya! i don't care anymore...im just as happy. My salvation is in Christ, not you - bye bye

ps. you deleted your own thread...remember that

oook