jack
New Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by jack on Oct 25, 2011 19:02:42 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by edwardgoodie on Oct 26, 2011 14:04:13 GMT -5
I think I'll pass. The only thing different there is the lack of name calling. The attitudes, close-mindedness, and the over-arching desire to not use Scripture to support their claims IS STILL THE SAME. BTW, you are wrong regarding Ezekiel 37 and you continue to refuse correction: Reference: www.gracecentered.com/christian_forums/end-times-forum/why-preterism-is-a-false-doctrine/msg1054628519/#msg1054628519This is what I posted to you at CARM. No response was given. Source: forums.carm.org/vbb/showthread.php?72636-Two-death-blows-to-the-creedalist-s-quot-sanctified-quot-reincarnation-teaching&p=2189040#post2189040While I agree with much of what you say, I do believe you are in error regarding your assumption that chapter 12 speaks of the vision in chapter 37 regarding the time of fulfillment back in Ezekiel's time frame. I say this because the Apostle Paul refers back to Ezekiel 37 to show the fulfillment to the church (body of Christ) in 2 Corinthians 6:16:
Ezekiel 37:26-27 - Moreover I will make a covenant of peace with them; it shall be an everlasting covenant with them: and I will place them, and multiply them, and will set my sanctuary in the midst of them for evermore.
27 My tabernacle also shall be with them: yea, I will be their God, and they shall be my people.
2 Corinthians 6:16 - And what agreement hath the temple of God with idols? for ye are the temple of the living God; as God hath said, I will dwell in them, and walk in them; and I will be their God, and they shall be my people.
The Apostle Paul also refers to Ezekiel in Romans 2:24:
Romans 2:24 - For the name of God is blasphemed among the Gentiles through you, as it is written.
Where was it written?
Ezekiel 36:22 - Therefore say unto the house of Israel, Thus saith the Lord GOD; I do not this for your sakes, O house of Israel, but for mine holy name's sake, which ye have profaned among the heathen, whither ye went.
I believe your assumption that all of Ezekiel was fulfilled hundreds of years before Christ does not allow for the promises of Israel to be fulfilled in the first century (especially that of Ezekiel 37:14), unless you believe in a dual fulfillment of one prophecy as do the dispensationalists (one literal physical fulfillment and one spiritual fulfillment)... |
|
jack
New Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by jack on Oct 26, 2011 18:56:07 GMT -5
If you are Ted, then we went over this last year. Paul was not quoting Ezekiel specifically. He was citing a general principle which is found in a number of the scriptures that God's people of ALL AGES are His "temple" and that He will "dwell with them." The same statement in Ezekiel 37 is found also in Exodus 29:45 which CLEARLY had reference to them first of all. Because it is a general principle it may be applied to all of God's people of ALL AGES.
I told you this last year and you would not hear it.
The general principle which is found in Ezekiel 37 regarding God's people being His temple and His dwelling with them has ALWAYS APPLIED. This does NOT does not infer that the dry bones prophecy is fulfilled beyond the days of the original audience.
I told you last year that you that are employing the same fallacious hermeneutic that the Futurists use regarding the time texts of scripture. Chapter 12 explicitly says that the fulfillment of "EVERY vision" is in "YOUR days."
Note the bolded part "have profaned." Ezekiel was speaking to them regarding THEIR profanity and Paul applied THEIR profanity as a general principle. This does NOT constitute the fulfillment of the dry bones prophecy. In fact, there is not one statement in the new testament where it says, "This is that which was spoken by the prophet Ezekiel." Not one!
Ezekiel's promises were conditional and therefore the promise in 37:14 means, "I will pour out my Spirit if...." We know that they did not keep the covenant and so the promise could not be fulfilled. If Israel would have kept the conditions of the covenant, then animal sacrifices would still be offered today and there would be no such thing as eternal life (chapters 40-48).
BTW, After I realized who you were I was hoping that you would pass on the offer to join me at GCCF because your 'brand' of Preterism is doing harm to the movement.
Jack
Post script to Allyn: It looks like Ted and I are going to be engaging here so please put my name in with a capital "J." It wouldn't work when I registered and I don't like seeing my name in the lower case.
thanks,
Jack
|
|
|
|
Post by edwardgoodie on Oct 26, 2011 21:25:51 GMT -5
Jack, just two things:
1. I decided NOT to pass at that site. I have a couple of postings there already.
2. Ezekiel 37:11 - Then he said unto me, Son of man, these bones are the whole house of Israel: behold, they say, Our bones are dried, and our hope is lost: we are cut off for our parts.
You say that the whole house of Israel was restored in Ezekiel's day. You are clearly in error over this. What you have done is to place an over-emphasis on chapter 12 to explain away any future significance of the resurrection of Israel. So much for the necessity of Christ to die for the "world."
I am almost shocked that you do not see the following passage as having anything to do with the new covenant in Christ:
Ezekiel 37:13-14 - And ye shall know that I am the LORD, when I have opened your graves, O my people, and brought you up out of your graves,
14 And shall put my spirit in you, and ye shall live, and I shall place you in your own land: then shall ye know that I the LORD have spoken it, and performed it, saith the LORD.
Especially since the spirit is not put IN anyone in the OT and especially since the "land" promises were fulfilled long beforehand.
I won't be addressing this issue any more. Thank you for your time.
|
|
jack
New Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by jack on Oct 27, 2011 9:11:50 GMT -5
Jack, just two things: 1. I decided NOT to pass at that site. I have a couple of postings there already. Welcome! I should not have said what I said. But PLEASE contradict me in a pm and not on the board. My invitation was to JOIN me in defending Preterism. Though they resist Preterism they are not hostile like at CARM. It is a very busy board and it provides good opportunity to get the message out. I did NOT say that the whole house of Israel was restored. I said that EVERY vision was fulfilled. God's kingdom promises to Israel were conditional in nature. The word "fulfill" simply means "to put into effect" and so a conditional agreement is "put into effect" regardless of anything. The house of Israel need not be restored for it to be put into effect. Absolutely every word of God is fulfilled no matter what the final outcome. How can it refer to Christ when the "prince" who is over the people will offer sacrifices for his own sins (Ezekiel 45:22; 46:10-12)? It means, "I will put my breath into them simply meaning that God would give them covenantal life. You alerted me that you replied to me at CARM even after I said that I was done there. Then you challenged me here and after that contradicted me at GCCF. You dogged me and now you're done after only one reply by me? Jack |
|
|
|
Post by edwardgoodie on Oct 27, 2011 10:22:45 GMT -5
Jack,
I will respond one more time, but in a separate thread. I will call it "Ezekiel 37 - Fulfilled in Ezekiel's day???"
Remember, you said all of Ezekiel was fulfilled in Ezekiel's day. I am totally opposed to that view for several reasons.
Please affirm or deny as to whether you still hold to that same position at the newly started thread.
|
|
jack
New Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by jack on Oct 27, 2011 10:23:42 GMT -5
Ted,
I am glad you came to GCCF. But let's agree not to contradict each other publically. I want us to speak with one voice. If you want to take me to task on something please do it in a pm.
There are a couple of Prets there who post things I disagree with and I just leave it alone.
blessings,
Jack
|
|
|
|
Post by edwardgoodie on Oct 27, 2011 10:49:49 GMT -5
Ted, I am glad you came to GCCF. But let's agree not to contradict each other publically. I want us to speak with one voice. If you want to take me to task on something please do it in a pm. There are a couple of Prets there who post things I disagree with and I just leave it alone. blessings, Jack I understand what you are saying, Jack. However, I hold no loyalties to personalities. If you correct me (politely), and I see the error of my way, I will acknowledge that error and change my theology accordingly. To me, that is proper. I think it also would be beneficial for others (futurists) to see this kind of behavior enacted in real life. I suppose I will be considered arrogant if I said this kind of behavior exhibits humility. And, if you noticed, my post against your view that all of Ezekiel was fulfilled in his day, is much more preteristic in nature. If you forbid a future fulfillment of Ezekiel 37, you destroy the entire doctrine of the restoration of the Jews. I truly hope that you will one day see this... BTW, I started the new thread. Don't forget to affirm or deny in the very beginning as to whether you still hold to all of Ezekiel being fulfilled in Ezekiel's day (give or take). Thanks! |
|
|
|
Post by edwardgoodie on Jan 12, 2012 23:38:28 GMT -5
Would someone like to become a member at GCCF? www.gracecentered.com/christian_forums/end-times-forum/I have just been banned for having two IP addresses. No questions asked. No opportunity to plead my case. No time limit mentioned. Please contact "thethinker" to have him contact "BitterSweet," "Raggthyme," and "Lehigh" that it looks like my time is over. Thank you. Also, if someone wants to post the following navy blue reply (exactly as it is) in response to Larry2 (Reply #3) at this link: www.gracecentered.com/christian_forums/end-times-forum/is-nero-the-antichrist-of-end-times/msg1054657683/#msg1054657683, I would appreciate it. Please use the quote function to keep in in context... No. Why would you think the antichrist is going to make a covenant with the Jews? Hopefully, you are not referring to Daniel 9 because the structure for antecedents for such thinking makes it impossible:
Believing that the main subject is Messiah the Prince from verses 25 and 26, I cannot accept a change of subject to the "people of the prince that shall come" and then change him into a future antichrist somewhere in the undetermined future.
For those who are familiar with grammar and such, this should appeal nicely. Not all pronouns for deity are capitalized in the Bible. The "he" (second word and all the other he's in verse 27) is in the subjective and singular form. The prince from verse 26 is in the objective form “of the prince”. The indefinite pronoun "he" does NOT match its prior antecedent. The PEOPLE of the prince would be the subjective match. However, the word “people” is PLURAL and that doesn't work either. Also, "prince" lies within a subordinate phrase “of the prince” and describes the PEOPLE. To take "he", which is THE CHRIST, my Lord and Saviour, and turn Him into the antichrist, which is the spirit of everything that I should hate, makes me very mad! I find it absolutely appalling that I had once accepted this as truth. There is utterly no scriptural basis for this act of violence.
This was point #9 of eleven as to why Daniel 9:24-27 has nothing to do with a yet future antichrist..  Thanks all! P.S. - If someone is willing to do all the above, please state your desire to do so here so that others will not duplicate this request. NOTE: I just noticed that my "exactly as is" doesn't include the html tags in your reading view. You will have to get my desired statement by using the "Quote" function and grabbing the text from that area...[/b] |
|
|
|
Post by Morris on Jan 13, 2012 10:34:50 GMT -5
Well, I'm not a member there and have absolutely no intention of joining, I can at least give an "amen" to your reply!
|
|
|
|
Post by edwardgoodie on Jan 13, 2012 15:37:09 GMT -5
Please, is there anyone to take my message to them? I do not want them to think I just took off. The futurists are posting their usual "c**p" to my own threads and I am not there to respond. It looks like (to the futurist) that I have been beaten...
|
|
|
|
Post by Allyn on Jan 13, 2012 17:05:59 GMT -5
I posted there but I posted my own opinion. Hopefully when you are allowed back you can make your case. I have another opinion to state here and that is if we look like we are ganging up on them then that will be the biggest turn-off. But if it looks like various individuals participate on their own, which I am, then the message will come accross better. Its hard not to get rough with some of the comments we see all the time but my new resolution is never, ever, ever (did I say ever?) be the kind of poster on other boards that I used to be. Ever!
|
|
|
|
Post by edwardgoodie on Jan 13, 2012 17:47:10 GMT -5
I posted there but I posted my own opinion. Hopefully when you are allowed back you can make your case. I have another opinion to state here and that is if we look like we are ganging up on them then that will be the biggest turn-off. But if it looks like various individuals participate on their own, which I am, then the message will come accross better. Its hard not to get rough with some of the comments we see all the time but my new resolution is never, ever, ever (did I say ever?) be the kind of poster on other boards that I used to be. Ever! AMEN to that resolution, Allyn. Did you by chance inform that specific group of individuals that I had been banned? Just use the subject of EdwardGoodie and give them my email address of canadianpreterist@yahoo.com. I would really appreciate it. That was the main purpose for me writing here. And if you are IamOnetoo, that was a most excellent explanation regarding the throne of David: www.gracecentered.com/christian_forums/end-times-forum/the-throne-of-david-and-of-god-are-one-and-the-same-throne/msg1054658021/#msg1054658021. I am glad you incorporated Acts 15 into it as well because they had seen that from me in another post. I wanted to add the Amos prophecy as a reason to post to this thread: www.gracecentered.com/christian_forums/theology/why-is-acts-15-not-taught-as-doctrine/ but can not. Thanks, Allyn By the way, there was no limit mentioned on my banning. I'm assuming it is permanent. It's funny that they didn't even ask if another household member has a logon name for that forum too. Nope, just ban away. Merryone and Livelystone are apparently the same person too, but guess who gets banned? Yep, the nasty heretic preterist. Someone should start a thread called "Jesus was a heretic" (and he was according to the Judaizers) but I doubt that would go over very well...lol |
|
|
|
Post by Allyn on Jan 13, 2012 17:52:15 GMT -5
I posted there but I posted my own opinion. Hopefully when you are allowed back you can make your case. I have another opinion to state here and that is if we look like we are ganging up on them then that will be the biggest turn-off. But if it looks like various individuals participate on their own, which I am, then the message will come accross better. Its hard not to get rough with some of the comments we see all the time but my new resolution is never, ever, ever (did I say ever?) be the kind of poster on other boards that I used to be. Ever! AMEN to that resolution, Allyn. Did you by chance inform that specific group of individuals that I had been banned? Just use the subject of EdwardGoodie and give them my email address of canadianpreterist@yahoo.com. I would really appreciate it. That was the main purpose for me writing here. And if you are IamOnetoo, that was a most excellent explanation regarding the throne of David: www.gracecentered.com/christian_forums/end-times-forum/the-throne-of-david-and-of-god-are-one-and-the-same-throne/msg1054658021/#msg1054658021. I am glad you incorporated Acts 15 into it as well because they had seen that from me in another post. I wanted to add the Amos prophecy as a reason to post to this thread: www.gracecentered.com/christian_forums/theology/why-is-acts-15-not-taught-as-doctrine/ but can not. Thanks, Allyn You have my username correct. but I am not understanding you as to what you need for me to do concerning you being banned. I am hardly in the position to ask about that. I have posted only twice as of right now. |
|
|
|
Post by edwardgoodie on Jan 13, 2012 18:00:02 GMT -5
You have my username correct. but I am not understanding you as to what you need for me to do concerning you being banned. I am hardly in the position to ask about that. I have posted only twice as of right now. Allyn, From my original post: " Please contact "thethinker" to have him contact "BitterSweet," "Raggthyme," and "Lehigh" that it looks like my time is over.[/color]" [I would add banned to that line of thought. Since thethinker knows who you are, it wouldn't be like a cold contact. I am hoping that "thethinker" would be willing to spread that message on to the other three with my email that was mentioned beforehand... |
|
|
|
Post by Allyn on Jan 13, 2012 18:07:36 GMT -5
Ted, Are you banned forever? If not, and from my experience, you should be able to easily pick up where you left off. Forgive me, brother, but I just don't feel comfortable speaking for you on a "foreign" discussion board, where I have only 2 measily posts to my credit. I hope you understand.
|
|
|
|
Post by edwardgoodie on Jan 13, 2012 18:32:17 GMT -5
Ted, Are you banned forever? If not, and from my experience, you should be able to easily pick up where you left off. Forgive me, brother, but I just don't feel comfortable speaking for you on a "foreign" discussion board, where I have only 2 measily posts to my credit. I hope you understand. Allyn, All I want you to do is to contact (PM) the "thethinker" (which we all know is Kangaroo Jack from the intro post in this thread) and tell him I have been banned. I would also ask that you request (on my behalf) that "thethinker" [NOT YOU] spread that word on to the other three individuals named previously. Hopefully, "thethinker" would be able to include my email address of canadianpreterist@yahoo.com to those others as well. This has nothing to do with you speaking for me. I have absolutely no way to contact "thethinker" as it is obvious he doesn't look here much anymore. Do you need any more clarifications? You are not bound in any way, shape, or form to fulfill my request for a favor. If you are willing, just copy and past the following into a PM for "thethinker:" Subject: Edward Goodie
Message content:
Hi. Ted has asked me to inform you that he has been banned.
He has also asked me to ask you if you could inform “Lehigh,” “Raggthyme,” and “BitterSweet” that he is banned and also to give them Ted’s email address: canadianpreterist@yahoo.com should they wish to communicate further.
|
|
|
|
Post by Allyn on Jan 13, 2012 18:44:30 GMT -5
Ted, Are you banned forever? If not, and from my experience, you should be able to easily pick up where you left off. Forgive me, brother, but I just don't feel comfortable speaking for you on a "foreign" discussion board, where I have only 2 measily posts to my credit. I hope you understand. Allyn, All I want you to do is to contact (PM) the "thethinker" (which we all know is Kangaroo Jack from the intro post in this thread) and tell him I have been banned. I would also ask that you request (on my behalf) that "thethinker" [NOT YOU] spread that word on to the other three individuals named previously. Hopefully, "thethinker" would be able to include my email address of canadianpreterist@yahoo.com to those others as well. This has nothing to do with you speaking for me. I have absolutely no way to contact "thethinker" as it is obvious he doesn't look here much anymore. Do you need any more clarifications? You are not bound in any way, shape, or form to fulfill my request for a favor. If you are willing, just copy and past the following into a PM for "thethinker:" Subject: Edward Goodie
Message content:
Hi. Ted has asked me to inform you that he has been banned.
He has also asked me to ask you if you could inform “Lehigh,” “Raggthyme,” and “BitterSweet” that he is banned and also to give them Ted’s email address: canadianpreterist@yahoo.com should they wish to communicate further.
Ted, my first thought was to PM but I do not have enough posts under the belt yet. So no further clarification is needed  Sorry |
|
|
|
Post by edwardgoodie on Jan 13, 2012 21:21:50 GMT -5
Ted, my first thought was to PM but I do not have enough posts under the belt yet. So no further clarification is needed Sorry Oh, yeah...that rule...if anyone knows how I can contact Kangaroo Jack or thethinker by any other means, please let me know... Thanks, all |
|
jack
New Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by jack on Jan 16, 2012 15:28:17 GMT -5
Ted said:
Ted,
I don't think there is a rule against having two accounts on the same IP. Merryone may not be breaking a rule. Raggthyme's status is now "guest." He may have deleted his account. I am going to contact Jarrod and plead a case for you. He is a partial Pret Mod and has always been friendly towards us.
Jack
|
|
jack
New Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by jack on Jan 17, 2012 4:23:44 GMT -5
Ted,
Check your messages here. Jarrod said you were not banned for having two accounts but for the way you used the second account.
He said that I have to contact Lee who is the person in charge of unbanning people. He encouraged me to plead your case to Lee as you will see in his pm I copied to you. He said that he has shown grace to several people. I will be waiting to hear from him.
Jack
|
|
