Core-debate

[Ltanner09]

Core, it's been awhile :)

On my previous visits I offered to debate your members on a variety of issues and eventually it boiled down to just you and I debating (and me leaving because members wouldn't join in). Yes I became frustrated.

It then occurred to me: Would it be possible for you and I to debate ..and place limits on the debating ...so as not to turn it into a forum that results in hard feelings toward each other?

My experience here...and on RR..... has been that our topics blossom into a hundred different side issues and staying on topic becomes virtually impossible. Certainly not the fault of this site, but an inherent problem on boards in general.

What I propose are strict rules for debating....and being the guest I defer to your Administrator's guidelines...in following such rules.

Feel free to modify my initial proposals as my utmost interest is to:

Get believers involved in Biblical issues, topics ,etc that are off the beaten path. To debate the issues in a Christian like manner where we aren't attacking each other but offering (what we believe to be) the correct interpretation of scripture.

We've known each other for nearly 10 years and it's a friendship I value, even though our paths have taken us in different interpretive directions .
I hope our discussions will be fruitful to your members even though it's probable my view(s) will be the least popular. That is a fact I need to accept and deal with.

My first proposal would be for the Administrator to decide who chooses a topic,who goes first then debate the issue.
Each of us has 4 posts (and ONLY 4 posts) total for each issue. I think that would cut down on the wandering from topic to topic and muddying the issue. Brevity being the key word.
(I notice spellchecker has accepted "muddying", wow...I gave it my best guess)

Maybe we can alternate who goes first on each topic.

I'll leave it up to you whether others can join in although I think it would be less confrontational, at least in the early stages of what I hope to be a lasting relationship, to limit it between you and I.

Each participant given, say, 2-3 days to reply to the others post....my work schedule varies, especially on weekends and I don't want to force myself, or you, to reply hastily.

I will finish with an apology to you and the members of this site for creating, what can best be described, as a hostile environment in previous visits. Its' tough for anyone with one view to discuss issues with others who hold a differing view...especially on their turf.

"S'long as I'm here I will introduce mysef to your members (please keep the eye rolling to a minimum). Began as a pre trib/pre Mill back (on message boards) in 1999, where I met CoreIssue on the Rapture Ready site.

Somewhere in early 2002 I began to question the accuracy of pre trib and after accepting the post trib view further questions arose about the accuracy of pre mill. The first question centered on the reason of animal sacrifices in the millennium.

After studying that topic loads of other questions arose, that will likely be covered in Core's and my debates, that caused me to abandon the pre mill understanding. (Just noticed that Firefox doesn't offer the variety of text adjustments that IE does here. Guess I'll be using IE on my next visit).

My current view is post trib and a current MK (realized MK, or amill).

Discussing the pre trib/post trib views alone can take forever and the various MK views about the same. The purpose of debating, within limited time frames, would give everyone the ability to digest each others views without the endless sub issues/sub topics that usually evolve in message board debates.

For example, one topic alone could be the 70 weeks, another...the AC...and so on.

I would urge the Administrator to ensure both participants stay on topic and keep reminding us to be nice :)

Core, my email address has changed and will check to see if it's updated.

Len

[CoreIssue]

Hi Len, long time.

I have never considered you anything but a friend who went wrong on some thinking. :D (Could not resist).

I use Firefox all the time. Never noticed a problem unless maybe you mean transferring text prepared elsewhere, which I don't do.

How about one subject chosen by you, then one aspect of the subject only. If too broad or needing definition that narrower aspect is dealt with first. So, if it needs to bring in something else that something else becomes the one and only item to discuss.

When one says dead end we either agree we can move on to the next aspect or if one says we cannot because we didn't reconcile what needed defining we end it or try one more time to clarify.

You have to admit that if we do not agree on the definition of some term or meaning of some aspects then there is no point moving on since our baseline terms are incompatible in meaning. But that alone speaks volumes over or differences and why we cannot possibly come to an agreement on meanings.

In other words only one thing at a time. Dig back to get a foundation as needed, then move forward until there is no forward.

If that is okay, pick a topic and aspect, but try to get to the foundational basics first so we have some kind of agreement to speak from.

As long as moving forward, limiting the number of posts can be counterproductive. But if we start looping and not seeing we are looping, CTZonEdit or a mod can step in and point it out.

I am willing to give it a shot.

[Ltanner09]

Core, I had to select "standard editor mode" to get the text formatting box.

Now it's fine.

We'll debate your way, without limiting posts. My thought was that if we couldn't get our points across in a total of 8 posts we were likely headed to a dead end anyway. That way the debate, on that topic, would end by default without anyone calling it quits.

I'll begin a topic either later tonight or in the a.m.

[kay-gee]

I wait with baited breath!

all the best...

[CoreIssue]

I wait with baited breath!

all the best...
:eek: Go gargle!! :swoon:

[Ltanner09]

In the pre trib/post trib debate topic Core stated to me:

So, this thread is locked for you. If KG or someone asks a question here that justifies allowing you to post an answer, not just a justification to keep posting beliefs, I will unlock it for you.

I will also stay off the thread under the same rules.

Well, I'm still locked from the thread and Core's still posting. Willy posted a verse supporting his view, but I can't rebut him.

Core posted a rebuttal, but I can't rebut it as the thread is locked (to me) .

[Willy]

....Sorry LTanner09, I didn't notice the post was locked. Please respond here. ... hope nobody minds ... :tiphat:



2Th 2:1-17
Concerning the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ and our being gathered to him, we ask you, brothers,
not to become easily unsettled or alarmed by some prophecy, report or letter supposed to have come from us, saying that the day of the Lord has already come.
Don't let anyone deceive you in any way, for that day will not come until the rebellion occurs and the man of lawlessness is revealed, the man doomed to destruction.
He will oppose and will exalt himself over everything that is called God or is worshiped, so that he sets himself up in God's temple, proclaiming himself to be God.
Don't you remember that when I was with you I used to tell you these things?
And now you know what is holding him back, so that he may be revealed at the proper time.
For the secret power of lawlessness is already at work; but the one who now holds it back will continue to do so till he is taken out of the way.
And then the lawless one will be revealed, whom the Lord Jesus will overthrow with the breath of his mouth and destroy by the splendor of his coming.
The coming of the lawless one will be in accordance with the work of Satan displayed in all kinds of counterfeit miracles, signs and wonders,
and in every sort of evil that deceives those who are perishing. They perish because they refused to love the truth and so be saved.
For this reason God sends them a powerful delusion so that they will believe the lie
and so that all will be condemned who have not believed the truth but have delighted in wickedness.
But we ought always to thank God for you, brothers loved by the Lord, because from the beginning God chose you to be saved through the sanctifying work of the Spirit and through belief in the truth.
He called you to this through our gospel, that you might share in the glory of our Lord Jesus Christ.
So then, brothers, stand firm and hold to the teachings we passed on to you, whether by word of mouth or by letter.
May our Lord Jesus Christ himself and God our Father, who loved us and by his grace gave us eternal encouragement and good hope,
encourage your hearts and strengthen you in every good deed and word. As Core says ... the Holy Spirit goes ... the Church goes.

From the fall of Adam in the Garden of Eden, it is God who has been seeking lost man .... not man seeking God. There will be a time ... soon ... when this old world will get it's wish. They will get a chance to do it their way ... without interference ... without the restraining power of God holding back pure evil. ...As bad as it seems now, it is almost beyond comprehension what will occur without God's Spirit striving with man.


John 16 : 7-14
But I tell you the truth: It is for your good that I am going away. Unless I go away, the Counselor will not come to you; but if I go, I will send him to you.
When he comes, he will convict the world of guilt in regard to sin and righteousness and judgment:
in regard to sin, because men do not believe in me;
in regard to righteousness, because I am going to the Father, where you can see me no longer;
and in regard to judgment, because the prince of this world now stands condemned.
“I have much more to say to you, more than you can now bear.
But when he, the Spirit of truth, comes, he will guide you into all truth. He will not speak on his own; he will speak only what he hears, and he will tell you what is yet to come.
He will bring glory to me by taking from what is mine and making it known to you.

(http://www.christiantalkzone.net/forum/newreply.php?do=newreply&p=35276)

[CoreIssue]

Len, I will let you back on the thread IF and only IF you address the words and grammar of the Revelation 3:10 directly. Not leaping elsewhere as if that deals with those words. Not inventing word definitions that are true to the Greek meanings of the words.

I repeatedly asked you to do so and you never did.

KG asked me specifically about the words and grammar of Revelation 3:10. I addressed the words and grammar.

Can you do the same thing? Post ACTUAL Greek meanings. Deal with the ACTUAL words of the passage?

Don't transfer to here to continue the that thread.

[Ltanner09]

Len, I will let you back on the thread IF and only IF you address the words and grammar of the Revelation 3:10 directly. Not leaping elsewhere as if that deals with those words. Not inventing word definitions that are true to the Greek meanings of the words.

That thread is still locked, I can't get in.

Your credibility is only as good as your word, Core. You shouldn't claim that you would refrain from posting there, then post and keep me locked out.

Anyway, I'll reply here to Willy's post first.

He referenced: 2 THESS 2, 1-17, and followed with:

As Core says ... the Holy Spirit goes ... the Church goes.

From the fall of Adam in the Garden of Eden, it is God who has been seeking lost man .... not man seeking God. There will be a time ... soon ... when this old world will get it's wish. They will get a chance to do it their way ... without interference ... without the restraining power of God holding back pure evil. ...As bad as it seems now, it is almost beyond comprehension what will occur without God's Spirit striving with man.

Nothing in the referenced verses does it say anything about the church being removed from earth.

2Th 2:6 And now ye know what withholdeth that he might be revealed in his time.

7 For the mystery of iniquity doth already work: only he who now letteth will let, until he be taken out of the way.


Somehow there's an accepted teaching that the restrainer is the Holy Spirit and the Holy Spirit, together with the church, will be removed from earth then followed by tribulation. Of course 2 THESS says nothing remotely about such a teaching.

In fact, 1 CO 12:3 dismisses that theory:

1Co 12:3 Wherefore I give you to understand, that no man speaking by the Spirit of God calleth Jesus accursed: and that no man can say that Jesus is the Lord, but by the Holy Ghost.

Re 12:17 And the dragon was wroth with the woman, and went to make war with the remnant of her seed, which keep the commandments of God, and have the testimony of Jesus Christ.

Re 14:12 Here is the patience of the saints: here are they that keep the commandments of God, and the faith of Jesus.

The Holy Spirit is here during the book of Rev, those with the testimony of Christ are here during the book of REV and those with the faith in Jesus are here during the book of Rev. No one can confess Jesus but through the Holy Spirit.

For the pre trib theory to work, it must show the church being removed from the earth during the trib. Core references REV 3:10 (which I'll address next).

But....plenty of verses show many in Christ throughout the book of Rev. Can one be in Christ, but be excluded from His body, which is the church?

I haven't found any verses substantiating that thought.

[Ltanner09]

Core insists we deal with this verse (REV 3:10) using the Greek meanings.
His claim is it will prove the church is removed from earth during the tribulation.


Re 3:10 Because thou hast kept the word of my patience, I also will keep thee from the hour of temptation, which shall come upon all the world, to try them that dwell upon the earth.

The area highlighted in red is the more specific area of contention.
Core claims the above is proof that the church is removed from the earth (raptured) to avoid the hour of temptation.

More specifically "keep thee from the hour of temptation" are the keys words being addressed by Core and MOST specifically "Keep from" (tereo ek in Greek).

Along with Rev. 3:10, the phrase tereo ek is found one other time in the New Testament. Again it is John who uses it, thereby giving us a better understanding of exactly how he meant the phrase to be used.

Jesus' great high-priestly prayer was given for the sake of all those in every age who trust in Him. Christ's appeal to His Father in this prayer has had and will continue to have the same meaning to His saints in every age as it will to those who will live during that last great hour of testing: "

"I do not pray that You should take them out of the world, but that You should keep them from [tereseis...ek] the evil one.

They are not of the world, just as I am not of the world. " Sanctify them by Your truth. Your word is truth. As You sent Me into the world, I also have sent them into the world John (17:15-18 15).

The contex of John 15:17 shows that Christ is praying for the protection of the believer while he is still in this world.

If Christ were referring to keeping believers while he is outside the sphere of danger (which is what many would have us believe is the meaning of tereo ek in Rev. 3:10), then a phrase such as "take them out of the world (as in the first half of verse 15) would have been far more appropriate.

In his first epistle John explains, "We know that whoever is born of God does not sin; but he who has been born of God [Christ] keeps him [the believer that is in the world] , and the wicked one does not touch him" (1 Jn 5:18). The idea is clearly that of protection while within the sphere of danger, not that of keeping the believer outside the sphere of danger.

In reply to John's question about the identity of the great multitude "standing before the throne and before the Lamb," one of the elders explained, "These are the ones who come out of [ek, out from within] the great tribulation, and they have washed their robes and made them white in the blood of the Lamb" (Rev.7:9, 14). Peter declares that "the Lord knows how to rescue the godly from [ek, out from within] tempation [peirasmos translated testing in Rev. 3:10]... (2 Pet. 2:9).

In summary, if those two Greek words (tereo ek) are taken at face value, with their primary and customary meanings, the inescapable conclusion is that Rev. 3:10 does not refer to divine protection of believers by taking them away from the place of affliction before it occurs, but to their divine protection while they are in the midst of affliction.

The exact same phrase "tereo ek" is used in John 17 and the context is clear of its meaning from the entire verse.
Joh 17:15 I pray not that thou shouldest take them out of the world, but that thou shouldest keep them from the evil.

Christ's prayer was His disciples would NOT be taken out of the world but KEPT FROM (tereo ek) the evil.

Most certainly REV 3:10 does NOT promise an escape (taking out of the world) from TRIBULATION. Core claims the temptation is BY tribulation, yet that claim is unsubstantiated by the verse.

EVEN IF this verse is cloudy to the casual reader, there are LOADS of verses in the New testament that instruct the believers they WILL experience tribulation.

[Ltanner09]

Core, I won't pursue any further debating on REV 3:10. I don't see it relating to tribulation, which is what this debate was about.

Quite frankly temptation doesn't even MEAN tribulation (greek or any other language).

[kay-gee]

Glad you brought out those verses from John. I have read that several times, but it never clicked, as a connection to Rev3:10, but it makes perfect sense to me now. I believe all people who write (including inspired writers) have a commonality in word choice and language usage over all the things they write. John was also the writer of Rev. I have always found it interesting that John is the only writer to use the term "anti-Christ" (separate issue)
I think we can put Rev3:10 to rest. It is so much clearer now.

all the best...

[CoreIssue]

Len, I kept my word. I limited myself to specifically answering a specific question to me. I created no new effort just on my own.


KG, John is not related to Revelation in any way, size shape or manner.

The word used for trib is NOT the same word used in Revelation. But you are refusing to see the difference.

Why you cannot see the difference between tribulation caused by Satan and Man, versus God using tribulation as a tool of testing is plain disappointing. Or that the trib of John has no comparison to the scale of Revelation.

Also, what is the place spoken of to be kept from in John? Local, around them. What in Revelation 3:10, the whole world.

Why you cannot see the difference there, as well, is staggering.

The word definitions and such have been posted multiple times. Yet, Len and KG, you refuse to acknowledge they are accurate, but keep returning to what you want to hear, versus the truth in what they mean. So neither of you are really interested in facts, just what you want to hear.

Neither of you want Israel to return as covenant nation. Neither of you can even begin to deal with Israel existing today. Neither of you have any problem in throwing away whole sections of the Bible to be comfortable in what you want to find.

Don't go there you are literal or interested in truth.

Here is proof. Here are the two words you keep trying to claim mean the same thing.

In John Christ asks the Father to keep them from the evil around them. In Revelation they are kept from the Hour of Testing upon all Man on the Whole Earth.

Testing by God versus evil in the world. Kept from local to them issues versus the Whole Earth.

And you guys somehow claim that demands they are still on the earth during the Trib. Great reading comprehension skills, guys.

Truly fruitless conversations for you. But for lurkers and such, good to see Amil and non literalists thinking in action. To get them scratching their heads on how you guys get 1 + 1 = 32.

Locking both threads. This issue is over.