|
|
USER COMMENTS BY MURRAYA |
|
|
Page 1 | Page 7 · Found: 500 user comments posted recently. |
| | | |
|
|
5/21/08 11:35 PM |
MurrayA | | Australia | | | |
|
Add new comment Reply to comment Report abuse
|
Casob wrote: "Furthermore, you say that "The DAY of the Lord" is not 1 particular, terrible day, but rather a period of 7 years? Is that what you're saying? If so, that's NOT being a good literalist, is it." _ It is hard for me to comprehend that a man who is in the charge of spiritual souls would know so little about a subject that he would make a comment like this exposing gross ignorance I take it that you are referring to me with these latter comments. JD/Casob, we have gone through this before, but here you do the very thing you accuse me of, viz. attacking the man without supplying substantive comment on the issue raised.Now cut the bluff and bluster, and answer the objection. You accuse me of spiritualising everything, and looking for other than literal interpretations, yet on the Day of the Lord (assuming that the expression in the OT prophets refers to the same thing as it does in the NT, which incidentally I along with many theologians deny) for me a day is a day, but for you it is a 7-year period. Now again: you jettison literalism when it suits you (and your system). |
|
|
5/21/08 7:30 PM |
MurrayA | | Australia | | | |
|
Add new comment Reply to comment Report abuse
|
DJC49, "Furthermore, you say that "The DAY of the Lord" is not 1 particular, terrible day, but rather a period of 7 years? Is that what you're saying? If so, that's NOT being a good literalist, is it."I've gone through that issue with JD before and got nowhere. He organises interpretations, and levels charges at others, to suit himself. I insisted to him that for me, in this respect a day meant a day. But he says 'no', because it doesn't suit his Dizzy-spin-sational system. By all means try, but he has his fixations - part of his security zone, I think - and nothing at all will make him budge, no matter how inconsistent or contradictory he gets. That's why he never answered when I challenged him with the reductio ad absurdam argument form. |
|
|
5/21/08 1:56 AM |
MurrayA | | Australia | | | |
|
Add new comment Reply to comment Report abuse
|
DJC49, "(Now I await in fear and trembling for Pope John Darby Casob IV to proclaim anathema upon my head. Excommunication is surely in order!)"DJC49, you can't be excommunicated if you were never there in the first place! However, wrath is indeed reserved for you, you wicked blasphemer! ____ jago, You cited Gen.42:6, I think you mean Isa.42:6 (and a very similar text in Isa.49:6 too). You are indeed right, but this announcement anticipates the New Covenant, made for both Jews and Gentiles, and ratified and guaranteed by the mediator Christ Jesus. See Heb.9:15 I daresay his nibs will object to this too! |
|
|
5/19/08 7:22 PM |
MurrayA | | Australia | | | |
|
Add new comment Reply to comment Report abuse
|
Casob/JD, "Lets think this thing through, DJC49."JD, say that to a mirror, and heed your own advice (if you can). I posted a clear statement with appeal to Gal.3:7 and 3:14. What do I get in reply? The usual statements of Dispensational dogma, replete with citations, relevant or otherwise, of Bible verses, but no real argumentation. And you tell us to "think things through"! Waffle, waffle, waffle! And I also posted Rom.4:13 - "2. That promise to the children of Abraham is now THE WORLD, Rom.4:13! Get it?? Who cares a twig about a sliver of land at the eastern end of the Mediterranean when we are promised the world!! And we are!" You not only live in Dispensational fantasy land, but you live in the Old Testament world. You prattle on about the New Covenant, but you live in an Old Covenant world with your continual fussing about a revived state of Israel, and a revived temple (on that score if the temple of Ezek.40-48 was ever meant to be built, why was there no attempt to do so in the post-Exilic situation?). The New Covenant has replaced the Old - for good and all! Get with it! |
|
|
5/19/08 8:29 AM |
MurrayA | | Australia | | | |
|
Add new comment Reply to comment Report abuse
|
Casob/JD, Clearly we have come to another impasse, and I have no desire to take another trip around the merry-go-round with your incessant ravings about the modern state of Israel. For me there are two things of vital, crucial importance: 1. It is the children of faith, Jews and Gentiles under the Gospel, who are now the children of Abraham (Gal.3:7), and who are all heirs of the ancient promise (Gal.3:14). 2. That promise to the children of Abraham is now THE WORLD, Rom.4:13! Get it?? Who cares a twig about a sliver of land at the eastern end of the Mediterranean when we are promised the world!! And we are!Casob/JD, you just don't get it at all. It's NOT a matter of faith vs. unbelief; it's a matter of a proper, responsible hermeneutic which interprets the OT in the light of the NT, and NOT the other way around. We've gone through this sooooo maaaany times! So let's just leave it there. |
|
|
5/18/08 11:20 PM |
MurrayA | | Australia | | | |
|
Add new comment Reply to comment Report abuse
|
Apology accepted, DJC49. I think we all know what BS denotes, but in all our frustration we should never descend to that level.However, I note that Casob/JD still ducks, weaves, and ignores. When he can't answer my challenges he resorts to the "allegorising" charge; when that fails he tries the "illogical" label; now he brings in a total red herring, viz. the "Calvinism" bogeyman (as in 5/18/08 8:43 AM). Meanwhile, I note that he tries the same tactic against you as against me, viz. the "scoffing" charge, when all you have been employing is the same reductio ad absurdam argument form as I have tried to use myself. But he still doesn't get it. I don't think he knows what I am talking about in this regard. After all, I have challenged him twice, and each time he has ducked. This is the third time. |
|
|
5/18/08 2:53 AM |
MurrayA | | Australia | | | |
|
Add new comment Reply to comment Report abuse
|
Casob/JD, We have gone through all this before - your false charges about allegorising and so on. The boot is very firmly on the other foot: you indulge some of the wildest allegorising about the lives of Abraham and Jacob; you tell me about the churches of Revelation being seven periods of church history, when there is nothing at all in the text, there or anywhere else, to suggest that they should be read that way; you tell me that the fig tree of Matt.24:32 represents the Jewish nation, contrary to all precedent in the OT. So who, pray, is allegorising??I suggest that your virulent opposition to me is that I see through your fundamental assumptions, and am consistent in my rejection of Disp'ism and adherence to amillennialism. The others you talk about are merely inconsistent: accepting some of your outlook while rejecting other parts. The burden of my previous post concerned the reductio ad absurdam argument form. Significantly, you did not address that at all. I believe that's because of a fundamental inability on your part to think logically. So when someone comes up to you with consistent argumentation, according to standard argument forms, you simply do not know how to handle it, with the result that you either dodge the issue, or resort to bluff and bluster. |
|
|
5/17/08 8:01 PM |
MurrayA | | Australia | | | |
|
Add new comment Reply to comment Report abuse
|
DJC49, I have just looked through Casob/JD's (rather tiresome) posts, and as expected, I see little wisdom in them. He still fills them up well over half-way with quotes from Bible verses (as if we don't know or can't look them up), and for the rest just pumps out his Dispensational shibboleths.------ Casob/JD, You complain about me and others scoffing at your Dispensationalism as if that's a refutation. Well, it is! I asked you once before, have you ever heard of reductio ad absurdam - the argument form that shows by internal contradictions and absurdities that a proposition or system cannot be true? Apparently not, because you just bore on with your system despite DJC49 and others attempting to show you by precisely this method that you have to rethink that system. Moreover, you apparently will never admit that others who reject that Dispy system are still Bible believers, but you brand them as apostates and unbelievers, and put them on your prayer list. This is nothing but abominable bigotry. |
|
|
5/16/08 8:06 PM |
MurrayA | | Australia | | | |
|
Add new comment Reply to comment Report abuse
|
I have just finished listening to James White's "Dividing Line" on this matter. Well worth hearing! www.aomin.orgHe insists that the America which won World War II no longer exists; that America will be spewed out of its land because of its wickedness just like both Israel and other nations (He's right there - I am currently going through the judgments on the nations in Jer.46-51 in my own reading); that what happened in California will soon spread across the country; that "hate speech" laws will follow quickly after that, and First Amendment rights will no longer apply. While he refused to "do the Hal Lindsey thing", he nevertheless did intimate that this could well be the path to Antichrist. My friends, be watchful, and do not be taken up in any way, shape, or form with the corruption which is overtaking the world, and prepare for a withering time of world-wide persecution, beyond which is the visible Second Coming in glory of our Lord Jesus Christ. Thou Judge of quick and dead, Before whose bar severe, With holy joy, or guilty dread, We all shall soon appear: Our cautioned souls prepare For that tremendous Day, And fill us now with watchful care, And stir us up to pray. [Charles Wesley] |
|
|
5/14/08 11:52 PM |
MurrayA | | Australia | | | |
|
Add new comment Reply to comment Report abuse
|
cont'd Consider the following: Gen.17:8 - the promise of the land "for an everlasting possession, and I will be their God." here are two of the aspects of the Abrahamic covenant, but the condition is then stated in v.10 circumcision, and also back in vv.1-2, "walk before Me and be blameless. I will establish My covenant with you..."The in Exod.19:3-6 Israel was to be God's own possession, but only if they kept His covenant. Finally, Moses made it clear that Israel would keep the land only if she obeyed, Deut.28:63-68. The long commentary in 2 Kings 17 makes it abundantly clear that because of persistent disobedience and apostasy Israel lost the land of promise, and were carted away to Assyria and various lands of the empire, where they lost their identity. After the Exile of the southern Kingdom there were prophetic promises of restoration, but these were fulfilled in the return beginning with the decree of Cyrus (cf. the specific mention by name in Isa.44:28 & 45:1). After the Roman expulsion of A.D. 70 there was NO equivalent prophecy of restoration to the land. Bur we do have a prophecy of a restoration (Rom.11) whereby Israel embraces Jesus as their messiah. We still wait for this to happen. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|