Gabbylittleangel
Member
- Jul 20, 2006
- 1,937
- 2
BenJasher said:One quick question, for anyone to answer for me, especially Lyle Cooper from Oklahoma:
What is the definition of God's wrath?
God's wrath is what Jesus bore on the cross for me.
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Join For His Glory for a discussion on how
https://christianforums.net/threads/a-vessel-of-honor.110278/
https://christianforums.net/threads/psalm-70-1-save-me-o-god-lord-help-me-now.108509/
Strengthening families through biblical principles.
Focus on the Family addresses the use of biblical principles in parenting and marriage to strengthen the family.
Read daily articles from Focus on the Family in the Marriage and Parenting Resources forum.
BenJasher said:One quick question, for anyone to answer for me, especially Lyle Cooper from Oklahoma:
What is the definition of God's wrath?
BenJasher said:One quick question, for anyone to answer for me, especially Lyle Cooper from Oklahoma:
What is the definition of God's wrath?
Gabbylittleangel said:God's wrath is what Jesus bore on the cross for me.
BenJasher said:Thank you Coop for your candor. Very Caveman-like of you. At least now I can understand your mentality. It is very easy to summarize a mind and spirit like yours. Unteachable. You already know all the answers. You have no need to learn anything from anyone. So you therefore see no need to even consider that they could teach you something.
Bury your head in the sand and ignore what you don't understand. You fit right in with those who would kill the prophets because they didn't like what they were told. You will be guilty like the rest of them.
Vic C. said:They are all of God. That is Wrath, not tribulation.
Plus, you did suggest a 7 year tribulation, just by the way you answered Jay.
Jay T wrote:
Yes, I'm very interested in how some people even get a 7 year Trib. out of the Bible.
Scripture please ?lecoop wrote:
It is really very simple: Daniel said it would be one peroid of 7....
[/quote:a8147]Jay T said:[quote="Vic C.":a8147]They are all of God. That is Wrath, not tribulation.
Plaus, you did suggest a 7 year tribulation, just by the way you answered Jay.
Jay T wrote:
Yes, I'm very interested in how some people even get a 7 year Trib. out of the Bible.
Scripture please ?
As I don't recall Daniel ever saying that.
Still looking for a 7 year Trib. that is found in the Bible.
Where is the rest of the scripture verse which explains what is going on ?lecoop said:Dan 9
"27 And he shall confirm the covenant with many for one week [seven]:
BenJasher said:Coop,
If you are so interested in learning Truth, what are you doing in the Futurist camp?
That's a whole lot the same as trying to squeeze blood from a turnip, ain't it? A more accurate portrayal of that would be someone looking for a diamond in a pig's snout.
And why do you keep trying to tell us what the Holy Spirit spoke to you? Is it to give credence to your boyhood fantasies of a Rapture?
I can relate to that if what you are really looking for is some worthwhile fellowship. But there is a more effective way of finding that.
Bottom line is what the Lord speaks to you weighs less than nothing in these discussions. Your testimony of what the Lord says is unreliable, and suspect at best.
But my testimony of what the Lord spoke to me would weigh less than nothing and have no bearing on the discussion at hand. It would therefore be a waste of my time to tell the rest here what the Holy Spirit spoke to me.
Jay T said:What I want to know is.....why do people put a 2000 year gap between the 69th week and the 70th week ?
I learned in school, that 70 follows 69 immediately !
BECAUSE there is no such thing as 69th'week' + 2000 = 70th 'week'.lecoop said:Why did Jesus stop quoting with:
Luke 4
"to preach deliverance to the captives, and recovering of sight to the blind, to set at liberty them that are bruised, To preach the acceptable year of the Lord."
Why did Jesus not finish the sentence from Isaiah?
Isa. 61 "...to proclaim liberty to the captives, and the opening of the prison to them that are bound; To proclaim the acceptable year of the LORD, and the day of vengeance of our God; to comfort all that mourn;
Why indeed? Because the part of this prophecy that Jesus read, pertained to Jesus first coming. The rest of the sentence, pertains to His second coming! There was and is about 2000 years between these two parts of Isaiah's sentence!
Jesus went on to say that the part He read, was being fulfilled right in front of them. He could not have said that, if He had finished the sentence.
Why then, would you have a problem with a gap between the 69th week and the 70th week? Especially, if that "gap" was a special dispensation that allowed YOU a chance into heaven?
Coop
Vic C. said:As you may see, I edited out some derogatory comments from one post and all quotes which referenced the comment were edited as well.
Ben, do not continue to post in a manner that will personally incite other to post back. :x
Zero, thanks for your concerns, but I have to ask tat the Mods be the ones to step up and remind members of the rules of conduct. All do have the right to PM a mod or Admin about an infraction. Thanks again.
Coop, just for the record, a completed 70th. does not negate the possibility of future events like wrath, harpazo and His Second coming. That would be the Preterist's position, not the views of the historists'.
This is where you are mistaken. Please read what I posted again.lecoop said:...Coupled with that, all the events shown in Revelation that have not yet happened, again points to these events being in our future. Sorry, but my mind will not bend far enough to believe in a preterest possibility. : -))
Coop
BenJasher said:I apologize to the board. And to Coop. I should not have said those things. Even without the TOS, I should not have said those things.
However, contrary to Ian's summation of my upcoming book, which he has not yet read, my motive is not dollar signs, nor recognition. It isn't even in print yet. So therefore most of what he said about my book was wasted. Although, I am not clear what it was he intended to get across with all of what he wrote.
For future reference: I am not a Preterist. At least not a full, or radical Preterist I use the term Preterist because that is what people know and understand. What I claim to be is an Historicist.
It doesn't take much common sense to see that all of what has been prophesied has not come to pass yet. So I am not, nor cannot be a Full Preterist. And it only takes a simple overview of History to see that much of what is being proponed by others to be yet future is already Historical Fact. All it really takes to see this is to be teachable, and to be able to see that you could be wrong about some things.
If you are the type that is never wrong, or you aren't teachable, you will continue to hurtle headlong in your unbelief and delusion. And your arrogance will prevent those who would, from helping you.