Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 57 (9189 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: Michaeladams
Happy Birthday: marc9000
Post Volume: Total: 919,029 Year: 6,286/9,624 Month: 134/240 Week: 77/72 Day: 2/30 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Jesus The false prophet
hERICtic
Member (Idle past 4712 days)
Posts: 371
Joined: 08-18-2009


Message 196 of 213 (629993)
08-21-2011 8:31 PM
Reply to: Message 194 by jaywill
08-21-2011 6:42 PM


Re: Parable - Not a Prophecy
Jay writes:
Where do you read that some standing there will die ? All I read there is -
"Truly I say to you, There are some of those standing here who shall by no means taste death until they see the Son of Man coming in His kingdom." (v.27)
You're kidding, right?
If I say pick SOME shirts out of your drawer, does that mean all? No. It means a few while others will be excluded.
There isnt any way around this. Jesus clearly states of those standing there, some will perish.
Jay writes:
Were Peter, James, and John among that some? Yes.
Did Peter, James, and John taste death before what Jesus showed them. No? Good enough.
I don't need to ask "But who died?".
All did. Jesus never returned. Now go read Chapter 10, go read Chapter 24. In both chapters Jesus clearly lays out the calamity that will follow, the hardships his disicples will endure, how some will die before his return.
Jay writes:
It sounds like the coming of the Son of Man in His kingdom. It includes the preview as a foretaste to be demonstrated to some of the disciples and the full taste at the Second Coming.
Show me the scripture that states at the Transfiguration that mankind was rewarded for their deeds. Show me who perished.
This fits perfectly with the message of the return of Jesus.
In reference to "this generation"...
Jay writes:
The "timeframe" sometimes means as long as that moral condition exists at large. That's what you don't get.
No Jay, what you do not understand is that nowhere in scripture does "this generation" mean anything but the currect generation.
Show me.
In fact, lets take another look at chapter 24. You are obliterating context to make it say something it does not refer to.
His disciples ask "when" is the end of the age. Jesus then explains what?
He gives a step by step of the signs. The signs that they, the disciples will witness. He tells them what shall occur around them. The calamity, the horror, the death. He tells them to run to the mountains. He tells them they will be persecuted. He tells them to keep watch, be ready. He tells them they will witness all these things.
30 Then will appear the sign of the Son of Man in heaven. And then all the peoples of the earth[c] will mourn when they see the Son of Man coming on the clouds of heaven, with power and great glory.[d] 31 And he will send his angels with a loud trumpet call, and they will gather his elect from the four winds, from one end of the heavens to the other.
Wait a second. Is Jesus talking about the Transfiguration? Of course not.
Coming on clouds, with great glory? With angels?
Where else did he mention that?
Matthew 16: 27 For the Son of Man is going to come in his Father’s glory with his angels, and then he will reward each person according to what they have done.
So Jay, it does not refer to the Transfiguration. It refers to exactly what Jesus described, his return.
Now lets continue on with Chapter 24.
So Jesus explains all this to his disciples, that these events will occur during their lifetime....
34 Truly I tell you, this generation will certainly not pass away until all these things have happened.
So please, do not attempt to tell me suddenly "this generation" means something completely different than the time frame he is refering to. "This generation" is connected to "until all these things occur" What is going to occur? Well, Jesus just laid it out after his disciples asked when is the end of the age...and Jesus then proceeded to tell them they would be witness to it!
Jay writes:
Since some chonologically alive were believers in Jesus, they could not be included in the moral denunciation of "this evil generation".
No. Jesus is ripping into the teachers and the Pharisees, stating how throughout history they've been hypocrites and liars....
Matthew 23: 35 And so upon you will come all the righteous blood that has been shed on earth, from the blood of righteous Abel to the blood of Zechariah son of Berekiah, whom you murdered between the temple and the altar. 36 Truly I tell you, all this will come on this generation.
The "you" refers to those present, those he is talking to.The blood of those in the past is on their hands. The anger of god will come upon "this generation". That being, the one he is refering to.
Now I asked you this earlier about Matthew 10. You said you would not discuss it bc we were discussing Matthew 16. Yet you threw in Matthew 12, Matthew 23, Matthew 24 and Peter.
So I think it should not be a problem to discuss this. In fact, its quite imperative because it will shed some light on a few issues.
Matthew 10: 9 Do not get any gold or silver or copper to take with you in your belts 10 no bag for the journey or extra shirt or sandals or a staff, for the worker is worth his keep. 11 Whatever town or village you enter, search there for some worthy person and stay at their house until you leave. 12 As you enter the home, give it your greeting. 13 If the home is deserving, let your peace rest on it; if it is not, let your peace return to you. 14 If anyone will not welcome you or listen to your words, leave that home or town and shake the dust off your feet. 15 Truly I tell you, it will be more bearable for Sodom and Gomorrah on the day of judgment than for that town.
16 I am sending you out like sheep among wolves. Therefore be as shrewd as snakes and as innocent as doves. 17 Be on your guard; you will be handed over to the local councils and be flogged in the synagogues. 18 On my account you will be brought before governors and kings as witnesses to them and to the Gentiles. 19 But when they arrest you, do not worry about what to say or how to say it. At that time you will be given what to say, 20 for it will not be you speaking, but the Spirit of your Father speaking through you.
21 Brother will betray brother to death, and a father his child; children will rebel against their parents and have them put to death. 22 You will be hated by everyone because of me, but the one who stands firm to the end will be saved. 23 When you are persecuted in one place, flee to another.
Whom is Jesus addressing? When are these events to take place?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 194 by jaywill, posted 08-21-2011 6:42 PM jaywill has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 197 by jaywill, posted 08-22-2011 12:57 AM hERICtic has replied

jaywill
Member (Idle past 2137 days)
Posts: 4519
From: VA USA
Joined: 12-05-2005


Message 197 of 213 (630016)
08-22-2011 12:57 AM
Reply to: Message 196 by hERICtic
08-21-2011 8:31 PM


Re: Parable - Not a Prophecy
You're kidding, right?
If I say pick SOME shirts out of your drawer, does that mean all? No. It means a few while others will be excluded.
There isnt any way around this. Jesus clearly states of those standing there, some will perish.
You don't have nearly as strong a case as you imagine.
Some standing witness the coming of the Son of Man in His kingdom.
It is purely your imagination that if no one DIED then the event of the very next passages cannot be the fulfillment of His promise.
The Apostle Peter strongly testifies that it was (Second Peter 1:16-18)
QUESTION #1
To what event is Peter refering to with these words?
" ... We became eyewitness of that One's majesty. For He received from God the Father honor and glory, a voice such as this being borne to Him by the magnificient glory: This is My Beloved, in whom I delight.
And this voice we heard being borne out of heaven while we were with Him in the holy mountain."
ANSWER: Obviously the event recorded in Matthew 17:1-9
QUESTION #2
How does the Apostle Peter describe that experience ?
ANSWER:
" ... the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ" (2 Pet. 1:16)
WHO DIED before this event ?
Not relevant.
Had Jesus said "There are some standing here who will be DEAD ..." then it might be relevant. Then we might ask - "Well who died?" But the promise was that some standing by would NOT die. As long as "SOME" standing there were alive to witness the event of Matt. 17:1-9 the promise is true.
WHO were the SOME standing around to witness it before they died?
"And after six days Jesus took with Him Peter and James and John ... and brought them up to a high mountain" (Matt. 17:1)
Jay writes:
Were Peter, James, and John among that some? Yes.
Did Peter, James, and John taste death before what Jesus showed them. No? Good enough.
I don't need to ask "But who died?".
Heretic:
All did.
I take Peter's word against yours.
I take Matthew's strong implication against your obsession with accusing the Son of God of lying.
And I would add that Mark's word accumulates against you (Mark 9:2-8).
And I would add that Luke's word also accumulates against you (Luke 9:28-36) though Luke counts the days differently:
"Now about eight days after these sayings ...".
Jesus never returned.
Point out the word "return" in Matthew chapter 16.
What He said they would witness is "the Son of Man coming in His kingdom" .
Matthew and Peter were both of the twelve original disciples.
1.) Matthew confirms strongly that the transfiguration AFTER SIX DAYS was Christ keeping His promise. Otherwise it is doubtful that the promise would be IMMEDIATELY followed by his words "AND ... AFTER SIX DAYS ...".
2.) Peter also confirms it with his testimony in Second Peter
3.) Mark, Luke, add their support.
I will address Chapter 10 latter.
Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.
Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.
Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.
Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.
Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.
Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 196 by hERICtic, posted 08-21-2011 8:31 PM hERICtic has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 201 by hERICtic, posted 08-22-2011 8:49 AM jaywill has replied

Butterflytyrant
Member (Idle past 4618 days)
Posts: 415
From: Australia
Joined: 06-28-2011


Message 198 of 213 (630060)
08-22-2011 8:19 AM
Reply to: Message 192 by IamJoseph
08-21-2011 11:29 AM


Re: CLOWNS TO THE LEFT - JOKERS TO THE RIGHT.
IamJoseph,
The sheer volume of your bullshit is staggering.
I will ignore your little journey into self pity that most of the first paragraph of your post is. I will just take the final bit -
I find the Hebrew writings the most credible and honest among the three religions - by a margin which is varied in kind and degree.
it is no wonder that you are having trouble with reality. If the only choiced you think you have are the 3 big monotheistic faiths, then of course you are going to be terribly misguided. If you are going to limit your search down to three similar falsehoods, it is not surpsising that you have difficulty finding facts.
Each of the three faiths have attacked each other for various reasons at various times. They are all bad. Each one believes that their version of God gives them particular rights. Each one of them reject the others opinions on those rights.
we need two credible witnesses else the charge gets reversed - that's Hebrew and International law?
You put a question mark on this. I have already answered it several times but i will do so again. It is Hebrew law that you need more than one witness. There are no international laws that goven citizens. There are international laws that goven nations. There are treaties that many nations sign but there is no body of law that covers law in every nation on Earth. There are things like the Geneva convention that have rules of engagement in times of war. These are very specific cases though. There is no international law regarding the amount of witnesses that can give evidence in court. It is entirely legal to have a case tried with 1 witness or even no witnesses.
Your not an honest atheist.
how am I not an honest athiest?
my comment - They all have similarities and differences. None is more the odd one out than the other two. Are you suggesting that out of Judaism, Christianity and Islam, Judaism is the odd one out because it is older?
your reply - You will fail this test.
I cannot work out how your reply in any way relates to the question I asked. Try again, and try to make sense this time.
I will ignore the nest paragraph, I asked you to explain yourself but you refused to.
If you thought that God promised you a large section of California, how do you think you would go. Is it not convenient that God promised some people a land close by.
Whoah there! The difference in Europeans invading California and the Jews in Israel is this: "RETURN". Europeans did not "RETURN" to California. My history lessons say the Jews have never occupied/stolen another peoples' land in all their 4000 year history - despite being exiled throughout the nations. In fact occupying even a cubit of another peoples' land is firbidden in the Hebrew bible - you could not beg of Jews to occupy Califoria! I know there are many honest Christians around who know I am giving you a truthful account. Your 'God gave you this land' is used with wrong pespectives, it appears intentionally: who asked Muslims to dump a Mosque in Jerusalem and in India - they at all times knew these were not their lands?.Christians remain silent of this most unGodly violation of another peoples rights because they erected a church here first [FK the Jews!] - and Islam destroyed the church and dumped a huge mosque there. I don't hear you fussed by it - even that they did this claiming their lord and allah said so? So you point to some things which are clearly false, while omitting all truthful and impacting factors. Why is that - as an atheist you have to at least be honest about your views? Most atheists I found are even more honest than religionists.
Again, your comprehension is terrible. Your first sentence says invade. I never said anything about invasion. My statement was regarding God promising a patch of land. Nothing about invading. I will ask the question again. What if you thought through your interpretation of Bronze age texts that God had promised the Jews a section of California. How would you react? Would you expect the current citizens to leave so that your people could move in?
I am of English and Polish heritage. If I write up a holy book atht says that God promised that i could RETURN (i put this in capitals because for some reason this you think this makes it more significant) to lands my family previously occupied. My family line is pretty well known and we have located areas that still bear my family name. So not only would I have a holy book that says god promised it to me, but I could also say that it has my name on it.
Your history books say that the Jews never occupied or stole anyones land. Well, your history books are wrong. The Jews currently occupy Israel. The only basis for this is that yoru bronze age books says your god bagsied it for you. And the fact that it cannot be verified if any indigenous people survived the conflicts there. They also occupy lands not inside the state of Israel as set out in the 1949 Armistice agreement. The territories include the West Bank, Sinai Peninsula, the Gaza Strip, Lebanon, Palestine and the Golan Highlands. I wonder if the Canaanites thought that the land they lived on was theres? I bet they did. Were there any left alive to ask? The lands now called Israel were occupied by people before the Jews. There were cities and small empires. I reckon they probably thought it was theres. Unless you are suggesting that for all of history, in one of the areas with the highest population, the area now called Israel was totally empty and noone was living there.
You say my quotes are from the wrong perspective. How is that possible? They are direct quotes from the bible.
You say you dont hear me fussed about the Muslims putting a mosque in India. Of course I am not. Why the fuck would I talk about that? We are not discussing Islam or India. I have also not mentioned the Christians violating Indian burial grounds in the USA either. Know why, because it is totally irrelevant to the conversation. this appears to be your best tactic. Slowly broaden the arguement by brining up more and more bullshit until there is so much bullshit noone knows what the fuck they are talking about anymore. Its called the Gish Gallop. You are a master (that is not a compliment).
Again you question my honesty, what am I being dishonest about? I dislike all religions more or less equally. From our conversations and the research I have done on your claim, you have damaged my opinion of Judaism pretty badly.
Jews must not have their homeland where they were created and incepted! FYI - Jews predate both Islam and Arabs in Arabia, as do the Copts and the Kurds. The Islamic regimes are new - most never existed 100 years ago, including Saudi Arabia, Iraq, all the Gulf states, Jordan, Pakistan, Bangladesh, etc, etc - these states have fictional borders based on oil deposits. Jews have documented proof of their land backed by scientficaly verifiable relics and ancient writings from a host of nations. The Middle-east is not Islamic!
Why should the Jews get their homeland back? Have you any idea of the displacement of people on this Earth if everybody went back to their ancestral homeland? Half the bloody population of the world would have to move house. A vast amount of people alive today are not living in the nation of their ancestors. The populations of the USA, Canada, Australia, NZ, a fair chunk of South America, a fair chunk of Africa, large parts of Asia would all have to move to other countries if they had the chance to move back to their homeland. Few people have this opportunity. It is not a right. If I had this right, I could return to England or Poland and dispalce the people who currently live on my ancestral family lands. Both of my family lines were displaced by war. Start championing my rights IamJoseph.
You are trying to be provocative to cause a redicule of manifest truths and facts of history. Better you admit whether Jews have historical, legal and factually rights - you don't believe in God, remember?
I was not trying to be provocative. I was quoting the bible. If the bible is provocative, that is Gods fault. You are right. I dont believe in God. That is part of the reason that I do not believe that the Jews have any more rights to a bit of land than any other displaced people. Your bronze age books claims mean nothing to me.
Is Hebron the birthplace of Judaism?
Who gives a fuck if a bronze age faith started there. Does Salt Lake City belong to the Mormons because they started their faith there? No.
Who established and built Jerusalem?
There is evidence of perminent human settlement on the current site of Jeruselum as far back as 3500BCE. But again, who gives a fuck?
Why did the UN recognise the 'HISTORICAL CONNECTIONS OF THE JEWS WITH PALESTINE'?
There are lots of reasons. So truman could get votes, so the Western Powers had a friendly nation in a volitile region, because the Jews had lived there for a long time, because the Jews had a book that said God gave it to them, because all of the Jews holy sites are there, because the Jews were often rejected from their homelends after WW2. There are lots of reasons. My Jewish ancestry went to England because they could not return to Poland. Tell you what, I am fucking glad they didnt go to Israel.
Was there a sovereign country called Israel 3000 years ago? Was Israel legally established via the UN and all nations voting in the Motion?
3000 yeras ago? yes. The earliest archaeological artifact to mention the word "Israel" is the Merneptah Stele of ancient Egypt (dated to the late 13th century BCE). Israel was legally created by a very narrow margin. From your sentence you make it sound like every nation supported the proposal. 33 nations or 59% supported it. 23% were against the idea. You also said that all nations voted. This is also not true. 11 nations or 18% did not vote at all. 41% of the UN or 23 nations including China, the United Kingdom, Egypt and India did not vote in favour of the creation of Israel. Also, a large amount of nations, mosty in Africa and central Europe did not have a UN presence at the time, so their opinions went unheard. All of the Axis powers had no vote. If they had voted, and they would have voted against the USA, Israel would most likely not exist. So you cant make out like it was a universally approved of application.
But I dont really give a fuck about the debate as to the validity of Israels claims. We were talking bout your claims regarding laws. Get back to the topic.
my comment - If someone came up to me and said they spoke in the name of Jesus or God, I would tell them I am an athiest and they can go peddle their bronze age bullshit elsewhere. This is what I do anytime a religious person comes to my door with a religious message. I would not ask for proof of their words because I am already aware they dont have any.
your reply - I doubt it. You would be burnt at the stake. Europeans never had any choice about becoming Christians. Read up on the church rule the first 1000 years of Christianity. Read up what was done to the natives of invaded lands who refused to become Christian or Muslim? You wouldn't stand a chance as an athiest with Islam either.
We are talking about the present day. Notice that my comment is in present tense. I regularly tell people what I think of their bronze age myths. I have at no stage been in any danger of being burnt at the stake. I am aware of the history of these religions. I am also aware that the Jews did not have clean hands either. Canaanites?
my comment - Laws, history and truth are different things. There are no laws that govern the entire planet either.
your reply - Laws do govern thisnplanet, and not all laws are globally accepted. But the Hebrew laws are so; those who do not accept it are outside the law. I won't play with words.
Again with the same bullshit. You have said again that hebrew Laws are globally accepted. I have refuted this claim with many, many examples now. I would call continually repeating something that has been so thoroughly refuted as playing with words.
Edited by Butterflytyrant, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 192 by IamJoseph, posted 08-21-2011 11:29 AM IamJoseph has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 199 by IamJoseph, posted 08-22-2011 8:31 AM Butterflytyrant has replied
 Message 200 by IamJoseph, posted 08-22-2011 8:38 AM Butterflytyrant has replied

IamJoseph
Member (Idle past 3864 days)
Posts: 2822
Joined: 06-30-2007


(1)
Message 199 of 213 (630065)
08-22-2011 8:31 AM
Reply to: Message 198 by Butterflytyrant
08-22-2011 8:19 AM


Re: CLOWNS TO THE LEFT - JOKERS TO THE RIGHT.
quote:
it is no wonder that you are having trouble with reality. If the only choiced you think you have are the 3 big monotheistic faiths, then of course you are going to be terribly misguided. If you are going to limit your search down to three similar falsehoods, it is not surpsising that you have difficulty finding facts.
Each of the three faiths have attacked each other for various reasons at various times. They are all bad. Each one believes that their version of God gives them particular rights. Each one of them reject the others opinions on those rights.
With regard an ancient writing being evidenced via scientifically accepted criteria and volume of works, I know of no other ancient writings as the Hebrew: over 70% has been proven.
Stop being in auto defense; at least consider before you post.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 198 by Butterflytyrant, posted 08-22-2011 8:19 AM Butterflytyrant has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 205 by Butterflytyrant, posted 08-23-2011 4:40 AM IamJoseph has replied
 Message 206 by Butterflytyrant, posted 08-23-2011 4:40 AM IamJoseph has not replied

IamJoseph
Member (Idle past 3864 days)
Posts: 2822
Joined: 06-30-2007


(1)
Message 200 of 213 (630067)
08-22-2011 8:38 AM
Reply to: Message 198 by Butterflytyrant
08-22-2011 8:19 AM


Re: CLOWNS TO THE LEFT - JOKERS TO THE RIGHT.
quote:
Why should the Jews get their homeland back?
It is their land, so why not - the legality is not questionable, and the Brits and Polish should know better, considering their crimes against the Jews. The arguement being put is not even that, but that the Jews never owned this land, that Muslims are Palestinians, a 3-state is a 2-state, the Jewish temple is a Zionist myth, etc, etc. Answer those liers if you are interested in discussing this issue. If Europe and nIslam perpetrated grave crimes against others - that is hardly a reason to continue fostering them.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 198 by Butterflytyrant, posted 08-22-2011 8:19 AM Butterflytyrant has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 207 by Butterflytyrant, posted 08-23-2011 4:53 AM IamJoseph has replied

hERICtic
Member (Idle past 4712 days)
Posts: 371
Joined: 08-18-2009


Message 201 of 213 (630069)
08-22-2011 8:49 AM
Reply to: Message 197 by jaywill
08-22-2011 12:57 AM


Re: Parable - Not a Prophecy
Hey Jay,
Im going to have to wind this down. My apologies. I believe today will be the last day I can further this debate along. Originally I was having a great fun debate with GDR, but due to too many hours at work and family, I had to step aside. I'm only able to have this debate now due to a strike at my company. Thankfully, some issues have been worked out and I'm back to work tomorrow. Still no contract, but its work. And there will be PLENTY of work, long hours to clean up "the mess".
Anyway, I'll try to make a better case in this post. A summation so to speak. Hopefully you can respond and I can get in maybe one or two more rebuttels.
You seem to be focused on a few issues. You basic case against what I am claim is that 2 Peter states:
16 For we did not follow cleverly devised stories when we told you about the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ in power, but we were eyewitnesses of his majesty.
First, most scholars believe it is a forgery. This would render you point moot.
Second Epistle of Peter - Wikipedia
Even if you believe its the same author, another issue arrises.
1 Peter is believed by most scholars as an unknown author to begin with. Not Peter the apostle. This again would render your argument moot.
But for the sake of argument, lets start with 1 Peter.
The author believed the end times were near. Not far off in the future.
1 Peter 7 The end of all things is near. Therefore be alert and of sober mind so that you may pray
1 Peter 1:20
Who verily was foreordained before the foundation of the world, but was manifest in these last times for you,
1 Peter 1:13 Therefore, prepare your minds for action; be self-controlled; set your hope fully on the grace to be given you when Jesus Christ is revealed.
1 Peter 2:12 Live such good lives among the pagans that though they acuse you of doing wrong, they may see your good deeds and glorify God on the day he visits us.
1 Peter 4:13 But rejoice that you participate in the suffering of Christ, so that you may be overjoyed when his glory is revealed.
1 Peter 5:4 And when the Chief Shepherd appears, you will receive the crown of glory that will never fade away.
The audience Peter is addressing is not those today, but those back then. Yet Peter clearly lays out that the end times are near and that they will see his glory.
So we learn from this that the "glory" can be outside the transfiguration.
Now lets go back to the scripture you gave:
16 For we did not follow cleverly devised stories when we told you about the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ in power, but we were eyewitnesses of his majesty.
What are these stories he refers to? About the transfiguration? No. They're about his return. The "coming of Christ in power" refers to his return.
So Im not sure what 2 Peter does to help your cause. All it admits to is that there are stories of the return of Jesus and that Peter was there to witness the transfiguration.
But the biggest problem I have is that you automatically assume since Peter makes X case, that the author of Matthew is making the same case. This is why I hate jumping around from book to book. Different authors believed different thing. Now, I know you think its all one clear cut story, each book furthering along the next, but I would like to keep this within Matthew. Its this book we are addressing certain issues, its this book we should be trying to figure out what he is trying to convey.
We started our debate with Matthew 16: 27 For the Son of Man is going to come in his Father’s glory with his angels, and then he will reward each person according to what they have done.
28 Truly I tell you, some who are standing here will not taste death before they see the Son of Man coming in his kingdom.
So three things are gong to occur when the son of man comes in his fathers glory.
1) Angles will be present.
2) Mankind will be rewarded.
3) Some standing there will not be alive.
I will now show you with other scripture in Matthew, it could not be the transfiguration, but the return of Jesus.
Was mankind rewarded at the transfiguration? No.
Were some disciples dead at the transfiguration? No. You seem to have an issue with "some" and "standing "here". Obviously, if "some" are alive, "some" must be dead. This is simple reading comprehension. Those Jesus is addressing are standing in front of him. This alone negates the Transfiguration.
But lets go back a few chapters.
Chapter 10.
Jesus tells his 12 to preach his message. He tells them they will suffer by the local councils, flogged. Arrested. Brother will betray brother, father betray sons, children will have their parents put to death. They will be persecuted and they are to flee.
So does this occur before or after the transfiguration?
Lets go jump ahead. Matthew 24.
His disciples ask when is the end of the age. Jesus tells them they will be persecuted, hated. Put to death.
So now we know Matthew 10 mirrors Matthew 24. When is Matthew 24 to occur? After the transfiguration.
What else does Chapter 10 say?
Truly I tell you, you will not finish going through the towns of Israel before the Son of Man comes.
Since Chapter 10 is refering to the same "event" as Chapter 24 then we know "before the son of man comes" is not the transfiguration, but his return. The disciples will NOT be able to go through all the towns of Israel before Jesus comes.
So now we have a time line. This return must be during some of their lifetimes. Some will be alive, others will not.
Go back to Chapter 16. Some will NOT be alive when the "event" occurs.
What about angels and rewarding mankind as per Matthew 16?
Remember, I've already shown Matthew 24 occurs after the transfiguration.
Chapter 24: Then will appear the sign of the Son of Man in heaven. And then all the peoples of the earth[c] will mourn when they see the Son of Man coming on the clouds of heaven, with power and great glory.[d] 31 And he will send his angels with a loud trumpet call, and they will gather his elect from the four winds, from one end of the heavens to the other.
When is "then"? After the signs laid out starting in the chapter, when the disciples ask "when" is the "end of the age". Notice the "coming", as mentioned in Chapter 10. Notice angles will arrive. Notice it states with great glory.
You've tried to show that "glory" refers to the transfiguration, but the "glory" can manifest in many different ways at many different times.
But as I've stated, we are already passed the transfiguration.
Chapter 25: 31 When the Son of Man comes in his glory, and all the angels with him, he will sit on his glorious throne. 32 All the nations will be gathered before him, and he will separate the people one from another as a shepherd separates the sheep from the goats. 33 He will put the sheep on his right and the goats on his left.
46 Then they will go away to eternal punishment, but the righteous to eternal life.
Again it states Jesus arriving in his glory. Angels with him. Seperating sheep from goats. Saved and unsaved.
What does Chapter 16 say again about this "event"?
Angels arriving. Some standing in front of him will be alive, some dead. Mankind being rewarded. Does this line up so far with Chapter 24 and 25? Yes it does. Clearly.
The author of Matthew believed the end times were upon them.
The return of Jesus was near.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 197 by jaywill, posted 08-22-2011 12:57 AM jaywill has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 202 by jaywill, posted 08-22-2011 11:32 AM hERICtic has replied

jaywill
Member (Idle past 2137 days)
Posts: 4519
From: VA USA
Joined: 12-05-2005


Message 202 of 213 (630096)
08-22-2011 11:32 AM
Reply to: Message 201 by hERICtic
08-22-2011 8:49 AM


Re: No Preview Allowed ?
Sounds like you work for Verizon. Anyway, hope things turn out so as to cause thanksgiving to God.
Anyway, I'll try to make a better case in this post. A summation so to speak. Hopefully you can respond and I can get in maybe one or two more rebuttels.
My answers may be short. That is because basically I think you regard the concept of a PREVIEW of the glory of the coming age (Matt. 17:1-9) to be illegitimate. At the bottom, I think that is what we're dealing with.
Ie. "No Preview Allowed!"
But its not up to you.
You seem to be focused on a few issues. You basic case against what I am claim is that 2 Peter states:
... etc.
First, most scholars believe it is a forgery. This would render you point moot.
Second Epistle of Peter - Wikipedia
I will not at this time get into matters of NT textural criticism. But it is quite easy for a skeptic to point to a collection of other skeptics and say "Most scholars ...".
I am not surprised that you can link to some skeptical article which claims things like -
"Peter didn't write Peter, John didn't write John,
Matthew didn't write Matthew, Jeremiah didn't write Jeremiah,
Daniel didn't write Daniel, Isaiah didn't write Isaiah ... etc. etc."
I won't debate the authorship matter at this time.
Even if you believe its the same author, another issue arrises.
1 Peter is believed by most scholars as an unknown author to begin with. Not Peter the apostle. This again would render your argument moot.
Authorship debate I will not tend to at this time.
I don't doubt Peter's authorship.
The workers of God worked in coordination, cooperation, harmony, and teamwork. The style of the writing may represent a co-worker of Peter polished up the writing. It is entirely possible that Peter authored his letter in conjunction with helpers.
See also Paul's letter to the Romans - "I, Tertius, who write this epistle, greet you in the Lord." (Romans 16:22)
WHO in the world is Tertius ?? What is he doing suddenly popping his head up in the Apostle Paul's mighty Roman Epistle ?
Tertius was a helper, helping Paul to write. Ie. "Paul, a called apostle of Christ Jesus through the will of God, and Sosthenes the brother" (1 Cor. 1:1)
The letter of First Corinthians could be called "the Epistle of Paul AND Sosthenes to the Corinthians".
Likewise - "Paul, an apostle of Christ Jesus through the will of God and Timothy the brother, to the church of God which is in Corinth" (2 Cor. 1:1)
The letter of Second Corinthians could be rightly called "the Epistle of Paul AND Timothy to the church in Corinth".
Paul and Tertius,
Paul and Sosthenes,
Paul and Timothy,
and yes, possibly Peter and some unknown Christian brother (or sister) as a co-worker helping him.
No cause for alarm when some scholar says "But we KNOW Peter didn't write thus and such ..."
But for the sake of argument, lets start with 1 Peter.
The author believed the end times were near. Not far off in the future.
He may well have and most certainly PREFERED that. But that is NOT relevant. As a responsible servant of the Lord his PERSONAL preference and expectation did not cloud his sense of RESPONSBILITY to equip his junior believers for the long haul in case Jesus DID NOT return within a short time.
And that is why he, just like the others apostles, included words to furnish the Christian church with needed endurance for the long distance race:
"Therefore I will be ready always to remind you concerning these things, ... as long as I am in this tabernacle, to stir you up by a reminder ... Knowing that the putting off of my tabernacle is imminent, even as also our Lord Jesus Christ has made clear to me.
Moreover I will also be dilignet that you may be able, after my exodus, to bring these things to mind at all times." ( 2 Peter 2:12-15)
This is a responsible "parent" like apostle looking out not for his own whims, but for those of his junior audience. "In case Jesus DOESN'T come back before I die, like in a few months, keep these sayings always as a reminder AFTER my departure."
Skeptics who harp on the apostles WANTING Jesus to come as soon as possible miss the point. They were not giddy. They were not depressed that years had passed and still no second coming. They responsibly made provision to their younger disciples that they could endure not matter HOW LONG it might take for Christ to return.
1 Peter 7 The end of all things is near. Therefore be alert and of sober mind so that you may pray
And that is good advice for ALL Christians down through the centries. It is STILL good advice even if the Lord's Second Coming is still 500 years off.
A follower of Jesus cannot go wrong to be alert and sober minded and praying. And such vigilance will be rewarded one day.
You REALLY miss the point here my unbelieving friend.
1 Peter 1:20
Who verily was foreordained before the foundation of the world, but was manifest in these last times for you,
Still true today. For 2,000 years Christians simply cannot go wrong to eagerly expect Christ to return in their lifetime.
You didn't notice John's word about expecting His return - "And everyman who has this hope in Him purifies himself, even as He is pure." (1 John 3:3)
Our Lord Jesus is about purifying and saturating His people with His Spirit. And if some believer in 1020 AD died having lived as if Jesus was just about to return, it is no loss to him. Such a one will be richly rewarded. He cannot lose.
It is your foolish unbelief leading you consider that it is a wasted life diligently living in the light of Christ imminent return. This living unto Christ is the losing the soul in order to gain the soul in the coming kingdom.
If you don't think that ALL such eager lovers of Jesus will be more than richly compensated, you just do not know the heart of God.
1 Peter 1:13 Therefore, prepare your minds for action; be self-controlled; set your hope fully on the grace to be given you when Jesus Christ is revealed.
LOL! WHEN is that not good teaching for the Christian ?
If you think that the Christian who fails to witness Christ's second coming after a lifetime of faithful diligence to it, will say on his death bed -
"My only regret is that I wish I had not wasted time being so self controlled, prayerful, and hoping on the grace from God in me. Think of all the sin I missed! Woe-is me. I could have had SO MUCH worldly fun"
You just don't know the kingdom life.
No regrets I have. I enjoyed a life of the grace of Christ and witnessed His overcoming power in my life. So I expire and He still will not return for another 1000 years ? I am still a winner.
Listen, When Jesus comes most people like you will think He is coming TOO SOON rather than TOO LATE. So repent now and receive Jesus to be filled up and saturated with the enjoyable grace of God.
Do you want to be lamenting " I wish I had had more time to love Jesus rather than the hours I used to teach people to disbelieve the Bible." ?
1 Peter 2:12 Live such good lives among the pagans that though they acuse you of doing wrong, they may see your good deeds and glorify God on the day he visits us.
The point of these samples of yours are to prove that the Apostle Peter expected and even wanted the Lord Jesus to return probably in his lifetime.
That is NOT a contested point. What lovers do not want and expect to be with their LOVE as soon as they can ?
My point is that ALL of the writers of the New Testament put this expectation aside and fulfilled their responsibility to furnish their audience with endurance for the long distance race.
Jesus did that with them. And they also did so with thier audience.
1 Peter 4:13 But rejoice that you participate in the suffering of Christ, so that you may be overjoyed when his glory is revealed.
Good fellowship for that last 2,000 years. And it will continue to be excellent advice should Christ delay His return for another 2,000 years.
In the meantime God is saturating His people with His life and Spirit. Like tea permeating hot water, through their endurance they are being steeped in Christ.
And this saturation will become VISIBLE glory one day. No regrets.
1 Peter 5:4 And when the Chief Shepherd appears, you will receive the crown of glory that will never fade away.
Get a hint! Get a clue!
The vain glory of this passing world will fade. Don't bank on it. Put your hope in the unfading eternal glory which God will work into your being through the Spirit of Jesus Christ. Amen !
The audience Peter is addressing is not those today, but those back then. Yet Peter clearly lays out that the end times are near and that they will see his glory.
There is nothing wrong with that. It is very perculiar that you would consider it vain or sad that followers of Jesus would eagerly expect His return.
Apparently you totally fail to understand that while we are serving Him, we are ENJOYING Him. He is here with us in Spirit unto the consummation of the age:
"And behold, I am with you all the days until the consummation of the age." (Matthew 28:20)
You must understand the balance of the truth of the Gospel.
Two Gospels, Luke and Mark end with the dramatic ascension of Christ back to Heaven.
But two Gospels, Matthew and John do not end with the flavor of Him going away anywhere. As far as Matthew and John are concerned, Jesus never left. He is with us disciples even unto the end of the church age.
The unbeliever considers the Christian church as a poor widow whose Husband has died or departed or forsaken her. This is the foolishnesss of your own unbelief.
Jesus is alive, available, knowable, enjoyable, as the Spirit Who can come into my heart. Physically He WILL return. But He is the Spirit - "the last Adam became a life giving Spirit" (1 Cor. 15:45)
And we need and have YEARS to be saturated with this "life giving Spirit" No time spent being saturated in personality with this available Jesus Christ is vain time or wasted time.
If He tarries His physical return we have more time to be saturated in our soul with His Spirit. And such permeation of the Spirit of Jesus Christ in our personalities will yield rich reward in the millennial kingdom.
So we learn from this that the "glory" can be outside the transfiguration.
The glory that Christ demonstrated came from within Him. It was important that His believers witness a preview of the coming enjoyment.
The coming of the Son of Man in power as a preview is what you cannot accept.
Now lets go back to the scripture you gave:
So Im not sure what 2 Peter does to help your cause.
I am sure of it. That is that it helps Christ's cause.
All it admits to is that there are stories of the return of Jesus and that Peter was there to witness the transfiguration.
Obviously Peter regarded their experience as a preview glimps of the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ.
But the biggest problem I have is that you automatically assume since Peter makes X case, that the author of Matthew is making the same case.
It is uncanny that all three writers of the synoptic Gospels FOLLOW the Lord's promise with the event of the transfiguration.
Matthew 17:1-8 - "And after six days Jesus took with Him Peter and James and John his brother, and led them up a high mountain apart. And He was transfigured before them ..."
Mark 9:2-8 - "And after six days Jesus took with him Peter and James and John, and led them up a high mountain apart by themselves; and he was transfigured before them ..."
Luke 9:28-36 - "Now about eight days after these sayings he took with him Peter and John and James, and went up on the mountain to pray. And as he was praying, the appearance of his countenance was altered, and his raiment became dazzling white."
Luke adds that it was eight days "AFTER THESE SAYINGS".
It is hard to miss that Luke is making a connection between the event of the transfiguration and the "SAYINGS" previously spoken by Jesus. In Luke's case that would be :
"But I tell you truly, there are some standing here who will not taste death before thay see the kingdom of God." (Luke 9:27)
One has to be very dense indeed to not see the purpose of the Evangelist to strongly imply that the transfiguration was the keeping of the Lord's promise in the "SAYINGS" preceeding by a number of days.
And that is all I can write at this time. But basically, your problem with Matthew 16,17, as well as Mark and Luke's support, is that you don't regard PREVIEW as a legitimate concept concerning the kingdom of God or Christ coming in His kingdom.
Other comments possibly to follow latter.
Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.
Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.
Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.
Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.
Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.
Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.
Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.
Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.
Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.
Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.
Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.
Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.
Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.
Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.
Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 201 by hERICtic, posted 08-22-2011 8:49 AM hERICtic has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 203 by hERICtic, posted 08-22-2011 1:22 PM jaywill has replied
 Message 204 by jaywill, posted 08-22-2011 4:30 PM jaywill has not replied

hERICtic
Member (Idle past 4712 days)
Posts: 371
Joined: 08-18-2009


Message 203 of 213 (630105)
08-22-2011 1:22 PM
Reply to: Message 202 by jaywill
08-22-2011 11:32 AM


Re: No Preview Allowed ?
Jay writes:
Sounds like you work for Verizon. Anyway, hope things turn out so as to cause thanksgiving to God.
Yep. With all the work backed up....we are back to work tomorrow without an overtime cap. I should be working 14 hour days for about three weeks! Then its probably back to my normal 10-12 hour days. Hence why I wont be able to respond after today for awhile.
I agree, who wrote Peter is not something we should get into.
Although I am curious if there is a thread on Peter that deals with authorship. Are you aware of any?
Jay writes:
He may well have and most certainly PREFERED that. But that is NOT relevant.
Of course its relevant! If the author believed the return of Jesus was imminent, than it backs up my assertion, not yours. If you want to go down the route that perhaps he was just mistaken, well, if hes mistaken, why not other authors?
Jay writes:
And that is good advice for ALL Christians down through the centries. It is STILL good advice even if the Lord's Second Coming is still 500 years off.
A follower of Jesus cannot go wrong to be alert and sober minded and praying. And such vigilance will be rewarded one day.
You REALLY miss the point here my unbelieving friend.
The advice Peter may have been giving could very well apply to anyone through the centuries but it does not change two crucial issues.
He believed the end times were near.
He was talking to a specific audience most of the time, stating the end times were near.
Context.
Jay writes:
What lovers do not want and expect to be with their LOVE as soon as they can ?
True. But Peter when using "you" was not addressing you today, but those in that era.
Imagine a coach talking to his team. Stating that "you" should play hard, play with desire, play to win, play fair.....
This could apply to anyone in the future. But it does not change the fact he is addressing a specific audience, those in front of him.
Your argument only works if Peter never gave a time line, but he does. He believed Jesus would return quickly, so he was giving his advice to those then and there who would be present for Jesus. He was not addressing those thousands of years in the future.
Jay writes:
Luke 9:28-36 - "Now about eight days after these sayings he took with him Peter and John and James, and went up on the mountain to pray. And as he was praying, the appearance of his countenance was altered, and his raiment became dazzling white."
Luke adds that it was eight days "AFTER THESE SAYINGS".
It is hard to miss that Luke is making a connection between the event of the transfiguration and the "SAYINGS" previously spoken by Jesus. In Luke's case that would be :
"But I tell you truly, there are some standing here who will not taste death before thay see the kingdom of God." (Luke 9:27)
One has to be very dense indeed to not see the purpose of the Evangelist to strongly imply that the transfiguration was the keeping of the Lord's promise in the "SAYINGS" preceeding by a number of days.
You still have not truly addressed any issue I presented regarding Matthew. You keep ignoring the crucial aspects that the transfiguration fails to address.
But since brought up Luke...
Yes, it states "eights days after Jesus said this", which is just giving the time frame. Eight days later. Thats it. It does not say one is connected to the other. In fact, I already showed you using Matthew it cannot refer to the transfiguration.
Now lets examine what Luke has to say (which Matthew did also, but I failed to mention):
26 Whoever is ashamed of me and my words, the Son of Man will be ashamed of them when he comes in his glory and in the glory of the Father and of the holy angels.
27 Truly I tell you, some who are standing here will not taste death before they see the kingdom of God.
So you're telling me that of those Jesus is addressing, one or more would be ashamed of his words? Really? Or do you think it makes more sense to say it applies to mankind in general?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 202 by jaywill, posted 08-22-2011 11:32 AM jaywill has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 210 by jaywill, posted 08-23-2011 7:02 AM hERICtic has not replied

jaywill
Member (Idle past 2137 days)
Posts: 4519
From: VA USA
Joined: 12-05-2005


Message 204 of 213 (630131)
08-22-2011 4:30 PM
Reply to: Message 202 by jaywill
08-22-2011 11:32 AM


Re: No Preview Allowed ?
This is why I hate jumping around from book to book. Different authors believed different thing. Now, I know you think its all one clear cut story, each book furthering along the next, but I would like to keep this within Matthew.
I do not imply the truth can always be gleaned without some in depth labor. But we who have followed the Lord love Him and His word and are more than willing to take the time to explore this "gold mine".
It is God's business that He has revealed His revelation to us in different books.
Its this book we are addressing certain issues, its this book we should be trying to figure out what he is trying to convey.
We started our debate with Matthew 16: 27 For the Son of Man is going to come in his Father’s glory with his angels, and then he will reward each person according to what they have done.
28 Truly I tell you, some who are standing here will not taste death before they see the Son of Man coming in his kingdom.
So three things are gong to occur when the son of man comes in his fathers glory.
1) Angles will be present.
2) Mankind will be rewarded.
3) Some standing there will not be alive.
My point about the PREVIEW has been made sufficiently clear that I don't feel the need to repeat it right now.
I understand that you don't buy it. But even without reference to Second Peter the three Evangelists - Matthew, Mark, and Luke position the Transfiguration after the Lord Jesus's prediction in such a way as to know they regarded the Transfiguration as a PREVIEW, a FORETASTE which a few disciples were honored to glimpse beforehand.
This assurance, I am sure, strengthened their Gospel preaching after Christ's ascension. It may have been one of the signal experiences which strengthened Peter in his martyrdom.
I will now show you with other scripture in Matthew, it could not be the transfiguration, but the return of Jesus.
Was mankind rewarded at the transfiguration?
Mankind was not intended to be rewarded. The words "each man" in terms of reward is directed to those who are disciples of Christ.
The "reward" was a promise not to mankind in general. It was a promose to those who follow the Lord Jesus. That is those who gave up the soul life for His sake that they may gain the soul as a reward in the coming millennial kingdom.
" If anyone wants to come after Me, let him deny himself and take up his cross and follow Me. Whoever wants to save his soul- life shall lose it; but whoever loses his soul-life for My sake shall find it." (Matt. 16:25)
The reward is to those who wish to follow after the Lord.
"For what shall a man be profited if he gains the whole world, but forfeits his soul-life? Or what shall a man give in exchange for his soul-life?
For the Son of Man is to come in the glory of His Father with His angels, and then He will repay each man according to his doings." (v.27)
The words "each man" here refers to those who wish to follow the Lord as His disciples.
No.
Were some disciples dead at the transfiguration? No.
I addressed that. There is no promise that SOME would be DEAD. There was a promise the SOME would NOT die.
The promise that some would not taste death is not a promise that in six days some standing there would DIE.
You seem to have an issue with "some" and "standing "here".
Heretic, you are the one with the issues here.
Obviously, if "some" are alive, "some" must be dead.
That would not survive basic discreet mathematics. Let's not get into formal rules of logic.
We could draw out some kind of logic table of binary ones and zeros to stand for true and false. I'd rather not take it to that degree.
Your basic beef is that the PREVIEW concept is not legitimate.
This is simple reading comprehension. Those Jesus is addressing are standing in front of him. This alone negates the Transfiguration.
Look at the way Matthew, Mark, and Luke lay out the promise followed by the Transfiguration.
At best, at best you could say (excluding Peter's epistle) that Matthew, Mark, and Luke should be suspicioned of being historical revisionists.
I think that is about the only case one might make. Then we have to decide whether we should trust Matthew, Mark, and Luke's opinion or Heretic's.
If it came down to that I would side with Matthew, Mark, and Luke. I would not come to HERETIC in order to find out what was in the heart of Jesus Christ. Nothing personal.
But lets go back a few chapters.
Chapter 10.
Jesus tells his 12 to preach his message. He tells them they will suffer by the local councils, flogged. Arrested. Brother will betray brother, father betray sons, children will have their parents put to death. They will be persecuted and they are to flee.
So does this occur before or after the transfiguration?
These kinds of oppositions came mostly after the resurrection, let alone the transfiguration. Before the transfiguration they are more welcomed. Though there was some rejection.
Strong oppostion came after the resurrection. Your point does not negate the concept of a PREVIEW of the coming of the Son of Man in His kingdom.
Lets go jump ahead. Matthew 24.
His disciples ask when is the end of the age. Jesus tells them they will be persecuted, hated. Put to death.
So now we know Matthew 10 mirrors Matthew 24. When is Matthew 24 to occur?
There is a lot of things in Matthew 24. It depends on what you are talking about.
After the transfiguration.
None of this negates the concept of a PREVIEW - a "TRAILER" in the modern slang, of the coming of the Son of Man in power.
Peter and James and John were priviledged to get a "trailer" of an upcoming magnificent event - Christ and His overcoming saints glorified and brought together with even Old Testament saints - Ie. Elijah and Moses being present at the Transfiguration.
And actually, the Lord's CONTINUED discussion as they are coming DOWN the mountain argues against your way of thinking.
"And the disciples asked Him, saying, Why then do the scribes say that Elijah must come first ?
And He answered and said, Elijah indeed is coming and will restore all things; But I say to you that Elijah has already come and they did with him the things they wished. So also the Son of Man is about to suffer by them.
Then the disciples understood that He spoke to them concerning John the Baptist." (Matt. 17:10-13)
Much like you, the opposers found fault with some of the prophetic detail of Christ's first coming.
"Hey, the Bible said that Elijah must come first. So this One claiming to be the King of Israel cannot be the fulfillment of the prophecy."
But God tests hearts. God tests hearts. Jesus says that for all intents and purposes the coming of John the Baptist was all the Elijah that they needed. And look how they treated John the Baptist.
So you see, the heart of men are tested when it comes to details of prophecy. You can be "dead right" but spiritually wrong.
The discussion in verses 10 through 13 should caution us that we can be distracted with mechanical details of prophecy while our hearts are no where near ready to recieve what God has for us.
The faulting of Jesus for not fulfilling prophecy because Elijah did not preceed Him is an exposure of the heart of some.
And the faulting of Jesus for not fulfilling prophecy of His second coming because of not perceiving the PREVIEW of it in His transfiguration is also a big exposure of the unready heart.
Now you complained about jumping around in the Bible. Well it so happens that Elijah is probably one of the two witnesses which will come in the days of the great tribulation as seen in Revelation 11. So the Lord still keeps His word in detail.
In the darkest days of the great tribulation - "And I will cause My two witnesses to prophesy a thousand two hundred and sixty days, clothed in sackcloth. These are the two olive trees and the two lampstands which stand before the Lord of the earth... And they havbe the authority to shut heaven that no rain may fall during the days of their prophecy; and they have authority over the waters to turn them into blood and to smite the earth with every plague as often as they desire." (See Revelation 11)
Sound like Moses and Elijah come back to do the typical works of power they were known for doing.
God is exceedingly wise. He sent before Christ John the Baptist in the spirit and power of Elijah. And the opposers rejected him and the Christ after Him. Yet God, in the last 42 months of this age, will send His two witnesses which seem very much like Moses and Elijah at the darkest time of the reign of the Antichrist.
We have faith in God. The very hairs on our head are numbered
"But even the hairs of your head are all numbered" (Matt. 10:30)
Think about it. If God has all the hairs on your head numbered, do you think He will be sloppy and forget the details of prophecy ?? Of course not. Do you know God ?
If you can pluck out a single hair from your head, and in heaven God knows that that was maybe hair # 253,471 , do you think He will forget the words of His prophecies or neglect the details of His divine promises?
Instead of trying to catch Christ in a mistake or lie, some of us choose to trust Him even through some of the arguable statements.
I don't think that you have more light on the matters than Matthew, Mark, Luke, and Peter. Why no trust these men who gave their lives for the Gospel service, that Jesus previewed His glorious coming on that mountain of transfiguration SIX (or EIGHT days, depending on your counting,) after His words on the climax of His kingdom?
What else does Chapter 10 say?
Truly I tell you, you will not finish going through the towns of Israel before the Son of Man comes.
Here Jesus must have been refering to the time of the great tribulation. Their preaching at that time was accompanied by following crowds rather than intense opposition.
It doesn't matter to the FORTASTE of the radiant glory they might expect with their Master and with their own reward. To strengthen them, Jesus promised that some would not taste death until they witnessed the Son of Man coming or the kingdom of God.
The customary inner circle of Peter, James, and John were honored to be eyewitnesses of the preview.
And I will suspend talk for now because of duties.
We will come back to chapter 19. But it doesn't effect much of what I perceive the synoptics intended to present.
You want me to trust you, HERETIC, against two of the Lord's twelve apostles plus Mark, the likely assistant to the Apostle Peter.
Not going to happen. What is your goal ? Is it to prove that Jesus was a False Prophet as the OP states ?
Nay. Jesus is trustworthy. You may trust Him with your eternal destiny.
Since Chapter 10 is refering to the same "event" as Chapter 24 then we know "before the son of man comes" is not the transfiguration, but his return. The disciples will NOT be able to go through all the towns of Israel before Jesus comes.
In chapter 10 Jesus is arming the disciples for the long run, the long haul, the great tribulation to come. There is enough encouragement there to equip the disciples through the ages.
This assurance of His ultimate vindication and of their unstopable preservation and salvation is extensive. None of this causes me not to account His giving the three disciples Peter, James, and John a PREVIEW of the glories of that vindication.
There is simply nothing in chapter 10 or 24 which negates Christ allowing some standing before Him to foretaste and preview His ultimate kingdom.
In fact, along with the extensive words of encouragement in chapter 10 there is the doubly assuring transfiguration to strenthened three of the closest disciples.
They were not permitted to tell anyone until after the resurrection (Matt. 17:9)
"And as they were coming down from the mountain, Jesus commanded them, saying, Tell the vision to no one until the Son of Man is raised from the dead." (17:9)
This mighty and glorious vindication was related to Him overcoming even DEATH itself. In resurrection His humanity would be deified and He would be come the Firstborn Son of God.
And in resurrection He is leading many sons into glory (Hebrews 1:14) Jesus in resurrection will lead many sons into the glorious expression of the Divine Being. This is the witnessed promised of the Transfiguration
"For it was fitting for Him, for whom are all things and through whom are all things, in leading many sons into glory, to make the Author of their salvation perfect through sufferings." (Heb. 2:10)
"Since therefore the children have shared in blood and flesh, He also Himself in like manner partook of the same, that through death He might destroy him who has the might of death, that is, the devil." (v.14)
Jesus temporarily allowed the glorious expression of the Divine Being to shine through the shell of His humanity. Not only opposition will not stop Him. Even death will not stop Him. In resurrection He will lead many brothers into His eternal kingdom of the glorious expression of God united with man.
A PREVIEW of both His resurrection and glorification was in order. And it was most definitely a factor which caused the early disciples to be so utterly faithful in the face of cruel opposition and martyrdom.
This PREVIEW was that of the kingdom of God. It was a foretaste for them of the Coming of the Son of Man in Power.
And before some tasted death, they would witness this matter.
Other passages of Matthew 10 and 24 simply do no erase the Lord's right to speak this way. There is nothing that you can point out to this disciple that causes me to regard as illegitimate the PREVIEW.
So now we have a time line. This return must be during some of their lifetimes. Some will be alive, others will not.
Go back to Chapter 16. Some will NOT be alive when the "event" occurs.
What about angels and rewarding mankind as per Matthew 16?
Remember, I've already shown Matthew 24 occurs after the transfiguration.
Chapter 24: Then will appear the sign of the Son of Man in heaven. And then all the peoples of the earth[c] will mourn when they see the Son of Man coming on the clouds of heaven, with power and great glory.[d] 31 And he will send his angels with a loud trumpet call, and they will gather his elect from the four winds, from one end of the heavens to the other.
When is "then"? After the signs laid out starting in the chapter, when the disciples ask "when" is the "end of the age". Notice the "coming", as mentioned in Chapter 10. Notice angles will arrive. Notice it states with great glory.
You've tried to show that "glory" refers to the transfiguration, but the "glory" can manifest in many different ways at many different times.
But as I've stated, we are already passed the transfiguration.
Chapter 25: 31 When the Son of Man comes in his glory, and all the angels with him, he will sit on his glorious throne. 32 All the nations will be gathered before him, and he will separate the people one from another as a shepherd separates the sheep from the goats. 33 He will put the sheep on his right and the goats on his left.
46 Then they will go away to eternal punishment, but the righteous to eternal life.
Again it states Jesus arriving in his glory. Angels with him. Seperating sheep from goats. Saved and unsaved.
What does Chapter 16 say again about this "event"?
Angels arriving. Some standing in front of him will be alive, some dead. Mankind being rewarded. Does this line up so far with Chapter 24 and 25? Yes it does. Clearly.
The author of Matthew believed the end times were upon them.
The return of Jesus was near.
And all of this you are going through to prove to me that Jesus is a false prophet ?
Or all of this you are going through to say the New Testament has failed prophecy ?
What did the disciples SEE on the mount of transfiguration ?
They may not have seen angels,
They may not have seen the sun darkened.
They may not have seen the moon turn dark.
They may not have seen many things elaborated in Matthew 24.
But what DID they see? They saw the ESSENCE of the matter. They saw the Son of Man, radiant with the divine splendour. They saw His face as the sun shining. They saw the cloud of Shekinah glory reminiscient of the Old Testament pillar of fire or the cloud of glory in the temple.
They heard the voice of some divine utterance that this was the Son of God.
They saw Moses and Elijah transcend TIME itself and appear to be conversing with Jesus.
They saw the majesty, the splendour, the glorious expression, and the beauty.
You cannot tell me that they did not witness a FORETASTE of the kingdom of God, a PREVIEW of the Son of Man coming in Power.
Your nitpicking to find missing details from Matthew 10 or 24 is useless. They witnessed the ESSENCE of the matter. They witnessed the core and instrinsic nature of the Son of Man coming in power.
Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.
Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.
Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.
Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.
Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.
Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.
Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.
Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.
Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.
Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 202 by jaywill, posted 08-22-2011 11:32 AM jaywill has not replied

Butterflytyrant
Member (Idle past 4618 days)
Posts: 415
From: Australia
Joined: 06-28-2011


Message 205 of 213 (630219)
08-23-2011 4:40 AM
Reply to: Message 199 by IamJoseph
08-22-2011 8:31 AM


Re: CLOWNS TO THE LEFT - JOKERS TO THE RIGHT.
With regard an ancient writing being evidenced via scientifically accepted criteria and volume of works, I know of no other ancient writings as the Hebrew: over 70% has been proven.
The Hebrew bible may have some sections that agree with science, pretty much any book does if you look hard enough. If the book mentions men and women, you could say that it agrees with scientific evidence. There are some stroies in that book that probably did happen. There are probably mountains mentioned in it that do exist. That is pretty common in ancient religious texts. All of the important stuff, everything that mentions god, has no scientific evidence. So yes, there may be bits that can be scientifically proven, but all of the stuff that matters, the Creation, God etc all have no evidence whatsoever.
over 70% proven huh?
That is bullshit. You know it, I know it. You have thrown that figure out a few times. I have requested sources every time. You can never supply anything to support it.
You cant provide any supporting data because there is none. You are just making stuff up.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 199 by IamJoseph, posted 08-22-2011 8:31 AM IamJoseph has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 208 by IamJoseph, posted 08-23-2011 4:55 AM Butterflytyrant has replied

Butterflytyrant
Member (Idle past 4618 days)
Posts: 415
From: Australia
Joined: 06-28-2011


Message 206 of 213 (630220)
08-23-2011 4:40 AM
Reply to: Message 199 by IamJoseph
08-22-2011 8:31 AM


Re: CLOWNS TO THE LEFT - JOKERS TO THE RIGHT.
Post deleted, for some reason my post came up twice.
Edited by Butterflytyrant, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 199 by IamJoseph, posted 08-22-2011 8:31 AM IamJoseph has not replied

Butterflytyrant
Member (Idle past 4618 days)
Posts: 415
From: Australia
Joined: 06-28-2011


Message 207 of 213 (630221)
08-23-2011 4:53 AM
Reply to: Message 200 by IamJoseph
08-22-2011 8:38 AM


Re: CLOWNS TO THE LEFT - JOKERS TO THE RIGHT.
my comment - Why should the Jews get their homeland back?
Your reply - It is their land, so why not - the legality is not questionable, and the Brits and Polish should know better, considering their crimes against the Jews. The arguement being put is not even that, but that the Jews never owned this land, that Muslims are Palestinians, a 3-state is a 2-state, the Jewish temple is a Zionist myth, etc, etc. Answer those liers if you are interested in discussing this issue. If Europe and nIslam perpetrated grave crimes against others - that is hardly a reason to continue fostering them.
Another pointless rant.
My point once again, I believe for the thrid time now, is that a huge amount of the population of the Earth is from ancestral stock who were forcibly displaced at one time or another, or are people who are living in a nation or region where the Indigenous people could lay a claim. Some of these nations include - Australia, NZ, USA, Canada, Japan, most of England, a fair bit of South America, a fair bit of Africa etc.
What I am saying is that most off the population of the Earth does not get to do what the Jews got to do. So I dont think that their rights to be on their own ancestral land is the real reason. If it were the real reason, the rest of the world would be making that same demand and they would be getting it.
i dont give a fuck about all of the complaints you have about the politics of Israel. I dont give a fuck about any of your whinging about your percieved European and Islamic crimes against the Jews.
You were still trying to show me the acts and laws (and the source) for all of the commandments remember?
Quit the gish gallop and stick to the one topic.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 200 by IamJoseph, posted 08-22-2011 8:38 AM IamJoseph has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 209 by IamJoseph, posted 08-23-2011 4:59 AM Butterflytyrant has not replied

IamJoseph
Member (Idle past 3864 days)
Posts: 2822
Joined: 06-30-2007


Message 208 of 213 (630222)
08-23-2011 4:55 AM
Reply to: Message 205 by Butterflytyrant
08-23-2011 4:40 AM


Re: CLOWNS TO THE LEFT - JOKERS TO THE RIGHT.
quote:
The Hebrew bible may have some sections that agree with science, pretty much any book does if you look hard enough. If the book mentions men and women, you could say that it agrees with scientific evidence. There are some stroies in that book that probably did happen. There are probably mountains mentioned in it that do exist. That is pretty common in ancient religious texts. All of the important stuff, everything that mentions god, has no scientific evidence. So yes, there may be bits that can be scientifically proven, but all of the stuff that matters, the Creation, God etc all have no evidence whatsoever.
over 70% proven huh?
That is bullshit. You know it, I know it. You have thrown that figure out a few times. I have requested sources every time. You can never supply anything to support it.
You cant provide any supporting data because there is none. You are just making stuff up.
I am not saying what you are, which amounts to zero, equating it with any and everything. The Hebrew bible marks the first recording of a host of factors and is unique:
1. The universe is finite.
2. The first listing of life form groups [species]
3. The intoruction of the DAY & WEEK.
4. The oldest active calendar [5770]
5. The first recording of a host of historical items [Mount Ararat, the Tigris, Goshen, Mount Nebo], and ancient nations [Midianites, Moabites, Philistines]; the first kings [Nimrod, Ramseys], the first alphabetical book, the first cencus, the only source for the history of Abraham and Israel.
One can go on. The Hebrew bible is the world's most known and accepted document. Yes, over 70% has been scientifically proven, including a 3,500 year Egyptian stelle which mentions Israel, a 3,200 year king David, 3000 year Hebrew writings, etc. This is unseen anywhere else.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 205 by Butterflytyrant, posted 08-23-2011 4:40 AM Butterflytyrant has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 211 by Butterflytyrant, posted 08-23-2011 9:57 AM IamJoseph has replied

IamJoseph
Member (Idle past 3864 days)
Posts: 2822
Joined: 06-30-2007


Message 209 of 213 (630223)
08-23-2011 4:59 AM
Reply to: Message 207 by Butterflytyrant
08-23-2011 4:53 AM


Re: CLOWNS TO THE LEFT - JOKERS TO THE RIGHT.
Strange display of rightiousness - let's kill you off because others have been killed! Let's get you out from the land you were legally returned to - because! When the Jews were displaced from their land - they were genocided and holocausted, and their return barred. Now they are pursued because they returned. Rocket science what you mean. This guy knows what you mean:
Inside Every Progressive Is A Totalitarian Screaming To Get Out - David Horowitz
Edited by IamJoseph, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 207 by Butterflytyrant, posted 08-23-2011 4:53 AM Butterflytyrant has not replied

jaywill
Member (Idle past 2137 days)
Posts: 4519
From: VA USA
Joined: 12-05-2005


Message 210 of 213 (630233)
08-23-2011 7:02 AM
Reply to: Message 203 by hERICtic
08-22-2011 1:22 PM


Re: No Preview Allowed ?
Concerning NT authors expecting and wanting Christ's to return perhaps in their lifetimes.
Of course its relevant! If the author believed the return of Jesus was imminent, than it backs up my assertion, not yours. If you want to go down the route that perhaps he was just mistaken, well, if hes mistaken, why not other authors?
The route that I am going is that the evidence more than indicates they responsibly included both Christ's and their own words furnishing the church for a long distance race of endurance.
You cannot make the case that we only read words preparing the believers for Christ's second coming in months.
For example: "Heaven and earth will pass away, but My words shall by no means pass away." (Matt. 24:35)
In other words, though the universe itself dissolve, His promises cannot fail to come to pass.
For example: "But do not let this one thing escape you, beloved, that with the Lord one day is like a thousand years and a thousand years like on day. The Lord does not delay regarding the promise, as some count delay, but is long-suffering toward you, not intending that any perish but that all advance to repentance." (2 Pet. 3:9)
Endurance and longsuffering are mentioned much by Peter for the very cause of equiping the believers for the long distance race in case the church age is longer than they anticipated.
Jay writes:
And that is good advice for ALL Christians down through the centries. It is STILL good advice even if the Lord's Second Coming is still 500 years off.
A follower of Jesus cannot go wrong to be alert and sober minded and praying. And such vigilance will be rewarded one day.
You REALLY miss the point here my unbelieving friend.
Heretic:
The advice Peter may have been giving could very well apply to anyone through the centuries but it does not change two crucial issues.
He believed the end times were near.
He was talking to a specific audience most of the time, stating the end times were near.
The Christian should always live as if he only has today to live unto Jesus.
Yesterday is under the blood of Christ. Tomorrow is under God's sovereignty. We only have today to live unto Jesus.
Jesus said concerning the unfaithful servant - "But if that evil slave says in his heart, My master delays, and begins to beat his fellow slaves and eats and drinks with the drunken, the master of that slave will come on a day when he does not expect him and at an hour which he does not know,
And will cut him asunder and appoint his portion with the hypocrits. In that place there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth." (Matt. 24:48-51)
There are two extremes to be avoided. One is to become a sloppy servant thinking that the Master has delayed His coming and we can therefore live sinfully. The other is to become so sure He is coming as to neglect reasonable living responsbilities and thereby causing disrepute to the Gospel.
The Second Thessalonian letter deals mainly with adjusting the attitude of those thinking they can drop responsibilities because of the soon return of Jesus.
In Matthew 24 Jesus teaches that the vigilant saints will be working in the field or grinding at the mill when He suddenly raptures them:
"At that time two men will be in the field, one is taken and one is left.
Two women will be grinding at the mill; one is taken and one is left.
Watch therefore, for you do not know on what day your Lord comes." (Matt. 24:40-42)
This is a teaching of disciples going about their responsibilties in a normal way. History has its share of occurances of people dropping normal daily living to go wait for Jesus in white robes.
The lattest case was with Harold Camping. Christ will come. But the point is that Christ is HERE with the disciples living within them as the Holy Spirit. And they should live so as when He comes it is neither shock or surprise.
They simply are transported physically where their inward heart and affections already have daily been.
The more time logged in this state of watching and vigilance in His presence the more saturation of the soul of the Holy Spirit takes place. And Christ needs, from the long ages, a remnant of those permeated and transformed in soul to be fit to be co-kings with Him.
The delay has its useful purposes.
"But know this, that if the house holder had known in which watch the thief was coming, he would have watched and would not have allowed his house to be broken unto.
For this reason you also be ready, because at an hour when you do not expect it, the Son of Man is coming." (Matt. 24:43,44)
Incidently, Jesus taught that in this sudden rapture in an hour that we expect not, some would be working in the field (Matt. 24:40) ie. working during the daytime. And some the same time would be asleep on the bed (Luke 17:34) during the nighttime. This implies both that the earth is round and that the gospel will have spread around the globe.
When He comes it will be day on one section of the planet and night on another section.
Context.
Jay writes:
What lovers do not want and expect to be with their LOVE as soon as they can ?
True. But Peter when using "you" was not addressing you today, but those in that era.
This is the word of God. And we definitely feel it is written for the sake of believers down through all the centries.
That it circulated beyond Peter's expectation is not relevant. His ministry was for the whole church universal.
"And we have the prophetic word made more firm, to which you do well to give heed as to a lamp shining in a dark place, until the day dawns and the morning star rises in your hearts;
Knowing this first, that no prophecy of Scripture is of one's own interpretation; For no prophecy was ever borne by the will of man, but men spoke from God while being borne by the Holy Spirit." (Second Peter 1:19-21)
The Apostle Peter is pointing his audience to the Scripture, the prophetic word of God, which is enduring and timeless. His own letter has joined the inspired Scripture.
It is God speaking to the church throughout whatever long ages need to commence.
Imagine a coach talking to his team. Stating that "you" should play hard, play with desire, play to win, play fair.....
This could apply to anyone in the future. But it does not change the fact he is addressing a specific audience, those in front of him.
And in the "Christian game" if you will, it is still going on.
You are the one who deems that it is NOT.
You are the one foolishly assuming that it is all over.
You are reading the black and white on the pages of the Bible. You need the Holy Spirit's speaking to your heart.
You should try reading a few lines of Matthew or Peter's Epistles and then taking them to God in prayer. Read a little - Pray a little.
Read a little - Pray a little.
You are applying some liturary skills to the black and white on the page. But you need the Spirit of Christ to enlighten you inwardly as Peter spoke -
"And we have the prophetic word made more firm, to which you do well to give heed as to a lamp shining in a dark place, until the day dawns and the morning star rises in your hearts." (2 Pet. 1:19)
You should read the Bible with an openess of heart, willing to be changed by the Spirit of God. You need the morning star of heaven's light to rise in your heart.
Your argument only works if Peter never gave a time line, but he does. He believed Jesus would return quickly, so he was giving his advice to those then and there who would be present for Jesus. He was not addressing those thousands of years in the future.
The following passage equips the Christian church for the possibility of a longer than expected long distance run to the second coming of Christ:
"But do not let this one thing escape you, beloved, that with the Lord one day is like a thousand years and a thousand years like one day.
The Lord does not delay regarding the promise, as some count delay, but is long-suffering toward you, not intending that any perish but that alll advance to repentance." (2 Pet. 3:8,9)
The passage of TIME is used by God to work more of His life and nature into the believers. It is not solely a matter of meeting some objective deadline. It is a matter of we and God using the time to be united and mingled together.
He is about changing people into the image of Christ from within.
The unbeliever cares nothing for this. He only cares about a timeline. He doesn't think about God wroughting Himself into his personality. He doesn't consider the will of God to work His Spirit into your soul.
Nothing of the inward being being touch is a concern to the skeptic. Nothing of the word of God even reaches the surface of his skin let alone the inner chambers of his soul. It is all outward to him of schedules, timelines, deadlines of prophecy.
But Peter said the believers are "partakers of the divine nature having escaped the corruption which is in the world through lust." (2 Pet. 1:4)
God needs time to work His divine nature into the kingdom people. God needs time to infuse their mind, emotion, and will with His element - to permeate them with life. That is to conform them to the image of Christ.
He needs to saturate with His divine nature those who have believed. And He needs the Gospel to continue to be preached to all the nations.
While we await His promise we serve, we enjoy, we "hasten" the day of the Lord. We tend to our legitimate responsibilities and testify of the Christ by Whom we live.
As Peter wrote we need time to grow in grace - "But grow in the grace and knowledge of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ." (2 Pet. 3:18)
We are not just impatiently watching our clock to be picked up as is by the Second Coming train. We need and utilize the time to GROW in grace and to be deeper and deeper PARTAKERS of the divine nature.
This is need for the building of the church and the building of the kingdom of God. Christ is the building material. The only thing we can take into the next age is the Jesus Christ who has been worked into the fabric of our personalities.
So we say with Paul - "And let us not lose heart in doing what is good, for in the proper season we will reap if we do not faint." (Gal. 6:9)
Why don't you FOR ONCE ... read Peter's epistles and take not of all the words centered on endurance, patience, long-suffering and attributes design to furnish the believer for the long run.
You still have not truly addressed any issue I presented regarding Matthew. You keep ignoring the crucial aspects that the transfiguration fails to address.
But since brought up Luke...
Yes, it states "eights days after Jesus said this", which is just giving the time frame. Eight days later. Thats it. It does not say one is connected to the other. In fact, I already showed you using Matthew it cannot refer to the transfiguration.
Luke is drawing attention to the connection between the sayings and what he is about to recount. He is doing the same that the other two Gospels did.
There are multitudes of other events in which Luke did not inform us how much time occured between some sayings and some event. When he does it must have some significance.
The Bible is economical and purposeful. And like the six days of Mark and Matthew, the eight days of Luke purposely connects the promise with the event.
Perhaps Luke was including the day Jesus spoke and the day of the transfiguration and arriving at 8 rather than 6, had Mark and Matthew figured the counting of days differently.
Now lets examine what Luke has to say (which Matthew did also, but I failed to mention):
26 Whoever is ashamed of me and my words, the Son of Man will be ashamed of them when he comes in his glory and in the glory of the Father and of the holy angels.
27 Truly I tell you, some who are standing here will not taste death before they see the kingdom of God.
So you're telling me that of those Jesus is addressing, one or more would be ashamed of his words? Really? Or do you think it makes more sense to say it applies to mankind in general?
There are Christians who are ashamed to be too readily identified with belonging to Jesus Christ. It is not always easy. There is a price to pay to bear His name at times.
There is a bumper sticker - "If you were arrested for being a Christian, would there be enough evidence to convict you ?" .
The whole teaching is for following the Lord Jesus with absoluteness. This is a losing of some worldly soulish enjoyment. But in losing the soul now we will gloriously enjoy the transformed soul now and in the coming kingdom.
The three disciples got a glimpse of this extraordinary enjoyment.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.
Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.
Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.
Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.
Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 203 by hERICtic, posted 08-22-2011 1:22 PM hERICtic has not replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024