TILL
You talk a lot about "correcting" my errors, Tony, so let me correct yours.
To say that Jesus WILL come in the clouds is to assume the truth and
inerrancy of the Bible, but that is the issue at stake in this discussion.
You must first prove that the Bible is inerrant, and then you can say , "He
WILL come in the clouds." Until then, the only legitimate statement you can
make is that the Bible SAYS that he will come in the clouds. There's quite
a difference.
WOODCOCK
and will go through them(the clouds) fighting, with the sword in His mouth
(Prov. 18:21 symbolism verse).
TILL
I wonder if the Holy Spirit told Tony that this is what Proverbs 18:21
means. Here is the verse: "Death and life are in the power of the tongue,
and they that love it shall eat the fruit thereof." This has about as much
to do with the second coming of Jesus as does the Rybaiyat of Omar Khayyam.
WOODCOCK
As you see in both of the scriptures above there is the mention of
the birds that eat carcasses and that Heaven was opened(He came in
the clouds: clouds opened He came through:Holy Ghost's help)(sp.) Christ
is coming in the end just like I said and the Bible states.
TILL
A little evidence that what the Bible states is infallibly true would help
your case a lot, Tony. The only way you know to argue is from a base of
unproven assumptions. I want to insist that from now on we argue from the
assumption that everything the Bible says is untrue. How willing would you
be to make that concession? About as willing as I am to concede that
everything the Bible says is true. Either give us some sound, logical
evidence to support your claim that the Bible is the inspired, inerrant word
of God or else admit that you can't.
WOODCOCK
Now, time to whip ALL your foolishness,
TILL
Tony, it's past time for you to show some ability to "whip ALL of [my]
foolishness."
WOODCOCK
remember no matter how much you pervert the scriptures you are wrong(If you
are speaking against God's interpretation).
TILL
No unproven assumptions in that statement, are there?
WOODCOCK
You stated YOURSELF that the tribes of the earth will see Christ(Matthew
24:29-31).
TILL
No, let me correct you, Tony. I didn't say MYSELF that "the tribes of the
earth will see Christ." "Matthew" SAID that Jesus SAID that all the tribes
of the earth would see Jesus coming in the clouds and mourn over him
IMMEDIATELY AFTER the tribulation of those days. So if you want to argue
with someone, argue with your inspired, inerrant "Matthew." The irony of
your statement is that even you cited the passage (Matthew 24:29-31) where
the "inspired, inerrant word of God" makes the very statement you are disputing.
WOODCOCK
It says the nations(tribes) of the earth were attacked by Him and that He
treads on the wine press of the fierce wrath of God.
TILL
You're doing it again! You are jumping from Matthew to Revelation (19:15,
to be exact) to try to prove that "Matthew" couldn't have meant what he
clearly said. This is unsound literary interpretation, so why don't you
take a course in basic hermeneutics or literary principles?
WOODCOCK
This the scriptures above and the Holy Spirit speak of these things.
TILL
The scriptures speak of these things, but how does pitting one scripture
against another prove that the one scripture doesn't mean what it clearly
says? The only thing that this interpretative method proves is that there
is a contradiction in the Bible, for if the Bible says X in one place but
not X in another, we have a clear contradiction. Haven't you ever taken a
course in logic, Tony? Oh, I forgot. You don't need to take courses in
logic. You have a direct hotline to the Holy Spirit. My mistake.
WOODCOCK
There was also a verse that a lot of historians incorrectly interpret.
TILL
But, of course, Tony Woodcock knows what the correct interpretation is.
WOODCOCK
The verse is Luke 21:20. It states, "But when you see Jeruselem surrounded
by armies, then recognize that her desolation is near." So whats the
problem? It states clearly in scripture(a few verses before) that there
would be wars, and it says this is only a sign of what is to come.
TILL
Jesus presumably made this statement shortly before his crucifixion, and
according to biblical chronology and comparison to secular records of the
time, this would have been around A. D. 29. The destruction of Jerusalem
happened around A. D. 70. Check historical records, and I think you will
find that there were events occurring in that region between A. D. 29 and 70
that could properly be called "wars and rumors of wars." The reference to
wars and rumors of war may have been "only a sign of what was to come," but
Luke had Jesus saying, "But when you see Jerusalem compassed with armies,
then know that her desolation is at hand." The Roman armies encompassed
Jerusalem in A. D. 69 (I believe) and destroyed it in
A. D. 70. So what is your point?
WOODCOCK
Jesus said there will be not one stone on another, that is proof that that
war in the past is not it.
TILL
Why would this prove that "war in the past is not it." What you are doing
is arguing from the assumption that the Bible is inerrant, so since Jesus
said that not one stone of the temple would be left on another and since
parts of the temple still remain intact, the destruction of Jerusalem in A.
D. 70 could not have been the event that Jesus meant would bring about the
destruction of the temple. Are you going to let me argue from an assumption
that everything the Bible says is NOT true? Certainly not, so don't expect
me to let you argue from an assumption that everything the Bible says IS
true. You need evidence to support your case, Tony, and you apparently
don't have it.
WOODCOCK
So it has to be in the future(like I have pointed out).
TILL
No, it doesn't have to be in the future "like [sic] you pointed out,"
because errancy in the Bible is a distinct possibility. What you must do is
establish that there is no errancy in all of the texts relevant to this
matter. When are you going to do this?
WOODCOCK
Now, you for some reason have a problem with Jesus telling the priest and
the others in the council that they are going to see Him coming in the clouds.
TILL
No, I don't have a problem with it. The problem is sitting in your lap.
Jesus (according to Mark) told the priests at his trial that they would see
him "coming with the clouds of heaven" (14:62). I just want you to tell us
when the priests saw this.
WOODCOCK
Why? Jesus said it is going to happen that means it is going to
happen(period!).
TILL
So God said it, you believe it, and that settles it? Is that it? Well, if
it happened, then it would have been something that many would have seen and
would have created such a sensation as all the tribes of the earth saw him
(Matthew 24:30) that some records of this amazing event would certainly have
been left not just in Jerusalem but all over the world. Why don't you cite
for us some of the records that testify to the fulfillment of this promise?
WOODCOCK
If God(Jesus) can make the World in seven days, He certainly can get a hand
full of people to watch Him come in the clouds.
TILL
It wasn't just a handful of people but all the tribes of the earth that were
supposed to witness this IMMEDIATELY AFTER the tribulation of those days.
Where is the evidence that anything like this happened at that time?
As for your "If God (Jesus) can make the world in seven days," I think it is
time to post my French proverb again. Before you came onto the list, I told
someone who was always iffing about this and iffing about that, that I
learned a French proverb while I was working as a missionary in France. "If
my aunt had balls, she wouldn't be my aunt." The point is, Tony, that ifs
won't cut anything. You need to present clear, sound evidence, and you're
not doing it. If I were you, I would cancel my membership in the Holy
Spirit's select group that gives you so much insight into what the
scriptures mean.
WOODCOCK
Now, I can't really remember anything other futile ARGUEMENT you brought up
to get destroyed.
TILL
You can't? Well, I won't bother to post again the ones you overlooked.
What good would it do? As for destroying my ARGUEMENT [sic], when exactly
did you do that? You can't even recognize when you are getting the
daylights whipped out of you.
WOODCOCK
How about the Greek word. I already told you what it means "RACE", what's
wrong?
TILL
Yes, and I showed that this was an arbitrary, strained definition to assign
to the word, and then I went on to show that Jesus allegedly said that some
standing in his presence as he spoke would not "taste of death" until they
"see the son of man coming in his kingdom" (Matt. 16:28), and in analyzing
this statement, I pointed out that it was made in a context where Jesus was
warning that he would return with his angels to "render unto every man
according to his works" (v:27). The NT clearly teaches that the final
judgment will happen when Jesus returns, so clearly this statement was
intended to mean that some standing in his presence would live to see him
return to render judgment to all. But, of course, you didn't say anything
about this, because you " can't really remember anything other [sic] futile
ARGUEMENT [sic]" that I made.
WOODCOCK
There is no contradictions here.
TILL
And, of course, if you say so, that necessarily makes it so, because you
have the Holy Spirit directing you.
WOODCOCK
Guess what, I don't have all day to waste my time on your decieving the
simple-minded followers arguements(how about that english grammar).
TILL
You were the one who contacted me, Tony. If you don't have time, why did
you do it? I suspect the answer is that you have never really engaged an
informed individual in discussions about the Bible, and so what you have
found awaiting you on this list has given you the shock of your life.
As for your grammar, Tony, I don't think you have any idea how bad it really
is. In your two-line statement above, you have a common splice right at the
beginning. You misspelled "deceiving." A very simple basic spelling rule
says that "i" should come before "e" when the vowel cluster is pronounced
like long "e," except when the letter "c" comes immediately before the
cluster, and then the spelling will be "e" before "i." This is a completely
consistent rule: receive, deceive, conceit, conceive, receipt, ceiling, etc.
"Followers" is possessive, and so it should have been written "followers'
arguments" with "arguments" spelled without the "e" in the middle, which you
consistently put there when you use the word. "English" is a national name,
and it should always be capitalized, as in the case of French, German,
Italian, Spanish, Russian, Chinese, etc. But the sad thing, Tony, is that
your grammar is excellent compared to your critical-thinking skills. They
are about as defective as any I have ever seen, and in 30 years of teaching
college writing, I had the opportunity to examine the critical-thinking
skills of thousands of college students.
WOODCOCK
If I forgot any REBUKE I am sorry, but believe me that you have been REBUKED.
TILL
So if you say that I have been rebuked, then (believe you) I have been
REBUKED? Why don't we just let the subscribers on the list decide who has
been rebuked? I think many will agree that you have had your hide tanned
and nailed to the wall.
WOODCOCK
So what ever you say against what I said directly is wrong.
TILL
Because you say so?
WOODCOCK
I am going to bed soon. Please read what I have written carefully,
TILL
I don't read all postings carefully, but if I decide to engage a poster in
detailed debating, as I have done with you, I read everything carefully, as
well as my responses, which I go back through to revise and edit. (You
should try that.) At any rate, I hope that you will read carefully what I
have written. By the way, "carefully" is obviously misplaced in your
sentence above. You want me to read carefully what you have written, but
certainly you didn't write it carefully.
WOODCOCK
it is probably hard to read.
TILL
Yes, it is, and so you violate a very basic writing principle. A writer
should never irritate his readers by writing so carelessly that they have to
stop and reread sections to try to understand what the writer is trying to say.
WOODCOCK
God loves you guys and wants all of you to have a personal realationship
with Him.
TILL
Allah loves you too, Tony, and so does Ahura Mazda and Vishnu. Please come
home to them. You have been a prodigal far too long. I could say more, but
I don't want to cast my "perils" before swine.
Farrell Till
Skepticism, Inc.
jftill@midwest.net
====================================================================
For help, send a message to errancy-request@infidels.org with the word
"help" in the subject or body of your message. To unsubscribe from
ERRANCY, send a message to errancy-request@infidels.org with the word
"unsubscribe" in the subject or body of your message.