How extended of a break? (I'll miss you.)
I'll do library research on 1988.
|
How extended of a break? (I'll miss you.)
I'll do library research on 1988.
Yes I spout words. That's what discussions are. Words. Making you or anyone believe is not my responsibility. God does that. I can only spout words. How you perceive them is another matter.Quote:
calidado3: You spout words and have been trying to make others believe that it is but your not even practicing the bible.
By the way... what does it mean "but your not even practicing the bible?" Can you explain that ?
If you will not explain yourself to me, why should I explain myself to you ? Are you my superior ?
I acknowledged that the understanding that YHWH means "I AM" is evidence that Jesus actually said that He is YHWH. I said it's my own does not make it wrong. It means I take credit for that interpretation, and that no one spoon fed it to me, that I can recall at this moment. So what you said about me is wrong. I do not acknowledge that anything I said in this particular discussion about Abraham and Jesus is wrong. The wrong is entirely in your own perception. Clear enough ?Quote:
dwashbur: You did acknowledge that the statement was wrong as far as you might know, so why are you backpedaling now
Its your job according to the bible to spread forth the word. And that means trying or attempting to educate those even if unltimatly they don't listen. You are still suppose to make an attempt at it. But by closing off the conversation you are ignoring that fact. As it already seems your picking and choosing your belief based on something other then what is actually the written word. I find that contemptable at best. If your so right how can you be set up as you say to be wrong ?Quote:
Originally Posted by HeadStrongBoy
See the post where I broke down each word in each passage and showed that your apparently made-up statement that YHWH is Hebrew for "I am" is wrong. So I perceive that your statement was wrong, but that's mainly because it was. If I were you, II wouldn't be so quick to take credit for such a wrong interpretation, since it has no basis in the facts of the words in question. But that's your problem, not mine. If you like being wrong, go for it.Quote:
Originally Posted by HeadStrongBoy
The facts of the matter are that the Bible stating or even implying that the world will end on ANY specific date is INTERPRETATION based on BELIEF. There are NO hard facts to support making such a statement. And, In my opinion making such a statement borders on criminal. Because, unfortunately, there are people who will believe such garbage.Quote:
Originally Posted by HeadStrongBoy
I don't know whether to feel sorry for you or to wonder what loony bin you escaped from. For you to believe that this event will happen based on such flimsy evidence when you state that it clearly bothers you seems to me to border on mental illness.Quote:
Originally Posted by HeadStrongBoy
Excuse me? I didn't say any such thing. Please use the Quoting feature if you need to quote someone.Quote:
Originally Posted by HeadStrongBoy
If you like to play with numbers, as Harold Camping seems to like to do, here is this --
From Family Radio --
Interestingly this same message of salvation or judgment being the result of the Gospel is hidden in the total number of years the Gospel was to be sent by the churches into the world. We have learned that the church age began immediately after Christ demonstrated how He suffered and died to make payment for sin. That was in the year 33 A.D. We learned that the church age officially began on Pentecost, May 22, 33 A.D. It continued exactly 1,955 full years until May 21, 1988 when the church age came to an end.
The number 1,955 is made up of three prime numbers, each of which can have great spiritual meaning. The numbers are: 5 x 17 x 23 = 1,955.
Thus God by these numbers is echoing or paralleling 2 Corinthians 2:15-16, which is quoted above: 5 (atonement or redemption) times 17 (brings heaven) times 23 (or brings God's wrath or destruction).
First Jubilee year after "fig tree" came in to leaf is 1994
Feast of Tabernacles in that year, minus 2300 days = May 21, 1988
From HC's book, The End of the Church Age...and After --
[Note that on page 309 it says the official end of the church age is 1988, but on page 311 it says that the official end of the church age is 1994.]
From page 309 --
We are learning that there were two major shifts in God's Gospel plan for the world. The first was the shift from Old Testament Israel to the New Testament church age. From the time Israel came out of Egypt in 1447 B.C. until Christ arose from the grave in A.D. 33, the nation of Israel was the congregation with which most believers identified. The temple in Jerusalem and the synagogues located in various cities of Israel were the houses of worship in which the Bible believers gathered.
However, when Jesus was announced as the Lamb of God, that marked the beginning of an intense spiritual famine of hearing the Word of God. For three and a half years, very few were saved.
Immediately after this three and a half years, God made a major shift in the focus of the Gospel. No longer was the temple in Jerusalem to have any part of the Gospel focus. No longer were people to go to the synagogues to hear Biblical truth. They now were to go to the churches that began to spring up all over the world.
This shift met with great resistance on the part of the leaders of the synagogues. Saul of Tarsus, who later became the Apostle Paul, is an example of this. He was ready to physically murder people who left the synagogues to join the Christian movement. Then after he became saved, he became a target of the synagogue rulers. He was stoned and left for dead. He was beaten with rods on four different occasions. He, indeed, experienced the anger of the synagogue leaders.
However, the shift to the church age was God's plan. It began with Pentecost in A.D. 33 and continued until A.D.1988, the year that officially ended the church age. The church age identifies with the early rain that brought in the harvest of the firstfruits. Finally, God's plan included one more shift. This shift was from the church age to the season of the latter rain that would bring in the end-time harvest. This latter rain season was also preceded by a period of a famine of hearing the Word of God. And even as the famine during Christ's ministry was precisely three and a half years, so this famine at the end of the church age is symbolically indicated to be three and a half days, or 42 months. Utilizing the Bible's methodology, we can see that the three and a half days is the same period as that spoken of as three and a half years. This three and a half years or 42 months season is not an actual literal season of three and a half years as was the situation during Christ's ministry. It more likely identifies literally with the 2300 evening mornings of Daniel 8. Thus, in all likelihood, the Great Tribulation began in A.D. 1988.
The church age was the time when the firstfruits were brought in. It was totally identified with Pentecost. Therefore, the last year of the church age ended the day before the day on which Pentecost was observed in the year 1988. That would have been in May, 1988. It is curious and perhaps significant that 1988 is precisely the 13,000 year anniversary of the creation of the world.
Also curiously and perhaps significantly, 2300 days after the day before Pentecost was observed arrives at September 6, 1994. This, too, is a day that identifies with the Old Testament feast days. If they are extended into the New Testament era, it would be the first day of the seventh month, which during the Old Testament, was a memorial of blowing of trumpets. Leviticus 23, verse 24 records:
Speak unto the children of Israel, saying, In the seventh month, in the first day of the month, shall ye have a sabbath, a memorial of blowing of trumpets, an holy convocation.
From page 311 --
The three and a half years are spoken of as 1260 days to distinguish this period of time from the 42 months (also three and a half years), during which the temple was trodden under foot. The 42 months symbolically represent the first part of the Great Tribulation season. It is the same period indicated in Revelation Chapter 13, verse 5, during which time Satan begins to rule in the local churches and congregations. It is the period that goes from the official beginning of the Great Tribulation period (probably 1988), until the official end of the church age (1994).
Why both 1988 and 1994 mentioned as the end of the church age --
"I think it's obvious that 1988 was always the end of the church age in Camping's mind. But when [the end of the world didn't happen in] 1994, he needed to plug some event into that slot to save his calendar, so he came up with this strange idea of a two part tribulation. Christ came 'spiritually' in 1994 to end the church age supposedly, even though we were told before it ended in 1988. This is what happens when you build your calender first, and then try to squeeze your events into it. Pretty soon you have to start making up events in order to keep your calendar on life support." (Depart Out • Harold Camping • End of the world • church age • Family Radio • View topic - Biblical Proof for End of the "Church Age")
And this varies from what I heard a church member speaking of as to how they got to that date of 5-21-11. Yet another part of the puzzle to be added.Quote:
Originally Posted by Wondergirl
Also from (Depart Out • Harold Camping • End of the world • church age • Family Radio • View topic - Harold fools you once? Shame on him.) --
"Yes, he fooled me once in 1994. I was there on September 6th. I remember the feeling of waiting all that afternoon for an end of the world to come that did not. I remember the next morning when the reality had set in that the end did not come.
I remember Harold Camping on Larry King Live before that. I remember him saying on Open Forum, that he was '99.99%' sure that it was going to happen. I remember him saying that he was more and more 'convicted' that it was going to happen. I remember buying his book 1994? at Barnes and Noble and I remember buying 2 copies.
I remember.
He fooled me twice for a few years, but I finally realized that his revelations are not harmonizing with the whole Bible."
A complication --
If the world is to end on the date [Harold Camping] said, Jerusalem time, what about the time difference? It could be 10/20 in the USA when it's 10/21 there? Or 10/22 there when it's 10/21 here?
I think I can add some insight into this particular problem. The idea that the Great Tribulation consists of two parts comes from the Bible. So that is not as strange as we may think. The error arises (or arose) because Camping published the book 1994? prematurely, before he had done enough homework to realize that the entire Tribulation would last 23 years rather than only 2300 days.Quote:
Wondergirl: Why both 1988 and 1994 mentioned as the end of the church age --
"I think it's obvious that 1988 was always the end of the church age in Camping's mind. But when [the end of the world didn't happen in] 1994, he needed to plug some event into that slot to save his calendar, so he came up with this strange idea of a two part tribulation. Christ came 'spiritually' in 1994 to end the church age supposedly, even though we were told before it ended in 1988. This is what happens when you build your calender first, and then try to squeeze your events into it. Pretty soon you have to start making up events in order to keep your calendar on life support." (Depart Out • Harold Camping • End of the world • church age • Family Radio • View topic - Biblical Proof for End of the "Church Age")
This part of the puzzle I've worked out myself, following the published study step by step. And as far as I can tell there are no errors. If you want details, I'd be happy to provide at least the basic outline of the derivation.Quote:
califdaof3: And this varies from what I heard a church member speaking of as to how they got to that date of 5-21-11. Yet another part of the puzzle to be added.
Sorry to take so long to give you an answer. I've been busy dancing around with some of the other posters on this thread. Since you asked for my opinion I'll give it to you straight without the accompanying scripture references. The environment that the candidate for salvation must be in consists of two parts. One is the hearing of the word of God. It does not have to be elaborate or extensive. Just Judgment Day is May 21, 2011 is the word of God. Two is humility (or obedience). The hearer must take the message seriously. That is a sign of humility. Of those people who fulfill those two requirements, God may save some of them. It's not a guarantee, because doing any of that is effort (or work) on our part. But that's it in a nutshell. For specific Bible references a little more work is required, on my part to provide them.Quote:
HeadStrongBoy: southamerica, Right now I'm too tired to work on this anymore. But if you don't want to wait for me, the information is available FREE from Family Stations, Inc. Ask for the book by Harold Camping called The End of The church Age and After.
Depressed in MO: Please, before you go, if you can suggest-how does someone who it took over a quarter of their lifetime to really accept Jesus into their heart-have a chance to be accepted by God when this day comes? (I'm using this as an example) What criteria must be met to be accepted? I'm just asking your opinion-nothing more.
What do you then do with all the passages that say that Jesus died for all?Quote:
Originally Posted by HeadStrongBoy
What do you do with the passages, such as Eph 2:8,9, that say God's grace is free, that He has done all the work of salvation, and asks us only to love Him and each other?Quote:
It's not a guarantee, because doing any of that is effort (or work) on our part.
Way to avoid the question yet again.Quote:
Originally Posted by HeadStrongBoy
Congratulations--you've proven to ME, if not to anyone else, that you're just a charlatan and a troll.
Actually, I think HC's reasoning and calculations are so complicated that any follower of his is hard pressed to justify and even repeat them so they make some semblance of sense to anyone else. That seems to be where HSB sits.Quote:
Originally Posted by Synnen
The beginning of The Day of Judgment will be May 21, 2011. That day will feature the great earthquake and the rapture. After that the world will be in great chaos for about 5 months (153 days) because of all the destruction caused by the great quake. Then on Oct. 21, 2011 the whole universe will be destroyed by fire.Quote:
Wondergirl: A complication --If the world is to end on the date [Harold Camping] said, Jerusalem time, what about the time difference? It could be 10/20 in the USA when it's 10/21 there? Or 10/22 there when it's 10/21 here?
The issue of the time zone differences is being hashed out as we speak. Callers to the Open Forum are discussing this question. And Mr.Camping is coming up with possible explanations of how exactly this will all go down. One possibility is that the quake will begin at the International Dateline in the Pacific near New Zealand. As the world turns the quake will roll along with the path of the sun. Making a complete revolution in 24 hours, obviously. There is also the controversy of whether the day begins in the evening, as in Genesis "evening mornings." Or whether God will honor the man-made custom of beginning the day at 12:00 o'clock midnight. Right now Camping seems to be in a bind because he can't seem to make up his mind which one. There is a Bible verse where Jesus says: "are there not 12 hours in a day...?" Camping says that refers not to the complete 24 hour cycle (day), but to the 12 hours (average) of daylight at the equator. As of the present moment Camping is saying that it will "most likely" begin at 6PM on May 21, 2011. But that means only 6 hours until midnight and May 22, 2011. Then the remaining 18 hours of the earthquake on the Day of Judgment would be occurring on May 22, 2011. Not a very satisfying solution to the time problem, I think.
This may come as a shock to you. But I don't know you from a hole in the wall. So why should I be in the least concerned what you think ? What are you going to do.. slap my wrist ?Quote:
Synnen: Congratulations--you've proven to ME, if not to anyone else, that you're just a charlatan and a troll.
Mistake number one, and of course it brings the whole house of cards crashing down, but some people can't figure that out. First of all, my alter ego, Sir Nitpick, sez it's not 33 A.D. it's A.D. 33. I'll let that pass.Quote:
Originally Posted by Wondergirl
But it wasn't 33 A.D. or A.D. 33. We don't know what year it was. The year 33 comes from the statement that Jesus began his public ministry when he was "about thirty years of age" and the idea that his public ministry lasted roughly three years. The three year figure comes from the mention of three different Passovers in the Gospels. But notice that both numbers are approximate; "about thirty" could mean anything from twenty-nine to about thirty-two, and the mention of three Passovers doesn't preclude the idea that there were more than three and the others simply aren't mentioned. So we have a plus-or-minus of almost ten years. And we have NO WAY to tell what year it actually happened.
But it gets even worse. We also know that our calendar is wrong. Jesus wasn't born in year A.D. 1; when the calendar was calculated, the authorities who calculated it were off by somewhere around 4-6 years. Jesus was born somewhere around 6 or 4 B.C. Again, we don't know for sure. So that gives us close to 15 years or so of uncertainty. How on earth anyone thinks they can make a precise calculation based on that, remains to be explained.
If this is how Camping arrives at his precise dates, I think it's safe to say his calculations are based on, um, NOTHING. And his followers are hanging their hats on, precisely, NOTHING.
I'd love to believe this whole movement is a joke. Sadly, it's not.
Synn is a super moderator who can boot you off the site if you are a troll.Quote:
Originally Posted by HeadStrongBoy
I started reading the latest posts and came across this, and I have to comment.Quote:
Ya know... I just don't feel like working that hard right now. The atmosphere is not particularly to my liking. Why put myself out for a bunch of skeptics. And they're not only skeptical in a rational and scientific way, they also strike me as somewhat arrogant and rude, almost to the point of outright disrespect. I refuse to put forth diligent effort for a bunch of smart a**es.
HSB, if you don't like the atmosphere here, and you don't want to put in the effort to answer any questions, or to be a part of the discussion, then why are you still posting?
You say we're all skeptics, well, show us why we shouldn't be. Start answering some questions. Fish, or cut bait!
You refuse to put forth any effort for a bunch of smart a$$es. Well, you got the smart part right, and I'm sure that's why you won't respond to any of the questions being asked of you. You've dug yourself into a hole and you have no way out. Instead of gracefully admitting that you don't have the answers to the questions being asked, you name call and try to turn the tables onto the people that have asked you these questions.
I know we're not as stupid as you had hoped. We won't just take your word for anything. I find it funny that you call us arrogant. I guess it takes one to know one. :)
You and you alone have backed yourself into this corner. If you truly believe that you're right, then prove it! If you really think you're smarter than everyone else, then answer the questions asked of you. Surely that shouldn't be too difficult for a genius such as yourself. :rolleyes:
Haven't we gone through all of this before ? In my opinion it becomes complicated because you're favoring the particular verses that make God's program fit your preferences.Quote:
HeadStrongBoy: God may save some of them.
Wondergirl: What do you then do with all the passages that say that Jesus died for all?
HSB: It's not a guarantee, because doing any of that is effort (or work) on our part.
WG: What do you do with the passages, such as Eph 2:8,9, that say God's grace is free, that He has done all the work of salvation, and asks us only to love Him and each other?
When we diligently, with God's help, compare the other verses that describe salvation we must realize that salvation for ALL must mean those all who have been predestinated by God. And NOT all who on their own have decided to become Christians. I see no problem at all with Ephesians 2:8,9. The faith that is being talked about is a gift. And it has NOT been given to everyone. And it is NOT a function of any decision that we have made.
Not in this thread. :)Quote:
Originally Posted by HeadStrongBoy
As are you.Quote:
In my opinion it becomes complicated because you're favoring the particular verses that make God's program fit your preferences.
That's Calvin. I'm with Luther.Quote:
When we diligently, with God's help, compare the other verses that describe salvation we must realize that salvation for ALL must mean those all who have been predestinated by God.
Not on their own, but with the help of the Holy Spirit.Quote:
And NOT all who on their own have decided to become Christians.
Que sera sera. I do what I do. And she will do what she will do.Quote:
HeadStrongBoy: This may come as a shock to you. But I don't know you from a hole in the wall. So why should I be in the least concerned what you think ? What are you going to do.. slap my wrist ?
WG: Synn is a super moderator who can boot you off the site if you are a troll.
I hope she doesn't boot you off, at least for a while, because this is giving me a much-needed laugh.Quote:
Originally Posted by HeadStrongBoy
I really don't see the difference. Unless you want to make an issue of the particular phrase "help of" the Holy Spirit. The way I see it there is only one God, not three. The Holy Spirit is God. The Holy Spirit is not just a helper. God must give the human being a new soul. He doesn't help the person get a new soul. He actually does all the work of giving the person a new heart (soul, or spirit). He must do it all, because before we're saved we're spiritually dead. Before we're saved we cannot believe to save ourselves. Help is out of the question. It's an all or nothing kind of situation. There are other scriptures that make a big issue of verifying that point. Exodus 31:13 and Numbers 15:32-36. Open your eyes !Quote:
WG: That's Calvin. I'm with Luther.
HSB: And NOT all who on their own have decided to become Christians.
WG: Not on their own, but with the help of the Holy Spirit.
LOL! I'm not laughing so much as banging my head against the wall. He's infuriating, arrogant, unkind, and just an overall pain in the butt.Quote:
Originally Posted by dwashbur
Not what I consider a good Christian by any means.
Harold Camping says 1988 marked the end of the church age. It turns out that 1987 is the year he was asked by the elders of his church to refrain from teaching his new doctrine, which of course he refused to do.
The deity of Jesus is exactly the question.Quote:
dwashbur: The deity of Jesus isn't the question. The question was your statement that YHWH is Hebrew for "I am." Thank you for admitting that you made it up and that it's wrong.
YHWH is one possible form for the words "I AM." It may be that YHWH is the infinitive form of the verb "to be." I am personally not interested in the specific conjugation of the verb "to be" in Hebrew, unless it strengthens my case that Jesus actually said (perhaps in veiled form) I am YHWH. It seems to me the Pharisees and Lawyers picked up on it immediately and wanted to stone Him for the blasphemy of making Himself equal to God.
The logic (if we can use that word) is that if Jesus is YHWH, then all the words in the so called Old Testament are the words of Jesus personally, as if they were printed in red. That's why any question about Jesus being YHWH calls into question the authorship of the Old Testament, which was given by YHWH.
What's your point ? Besides your info is wrong. He submitted to their decision to stop teaching. And because of it, he decided to leave amicably. Because he considers himself to be a teacher, first and foremost.
Where did you get this info? Is it factually based, or based only on Camping's word?Quote:
What's your point ? Besides your info is wrong. He submitted to their decision to stop teaching. And because of it, he decided to leave amicably. Because he considers himself to be a teacher, first and foremost.
I admit it's based only on Camping's word.
Independent Baptist was the denomination he was in?
Only to you. My point was your abuse of the Hebrew language.Quote:
Originally Posted by HeadStrongBoy
No, it isn't. I already told you what the form of "I am" is in Hebrew and you chose to ignore it, even though I took the word straight out of Exodus 3. Well, maybe it's the other tense? No, that would be HYYTY. Anyone who really knows Hebrew will admit that we don't know what YHWH actually is. It's a name, but what it's derived from, if anything, is beyond our current knowledge.Quote:
YHWH is one possible form for the words "I AM."
Wrong again. The verb "to be" is HYH. The infinitive form, if there was one (which there isn't) would be HYH with slightly different vowels. No matter how you try to slice it, you can't get there from here. YHWH and the verb "to be" are two very different words.Quote:
It may be that YHWH is the infinitive form of the verb "to be."
Did you really just say that you don't care what the actual facts of the language are, unless they support your preconceived notions? Thank you for finally admitting that!Quote:
I am personally not interested in the specific conjugation of the verb "to be" in Hebrew, unless it strengthens my case that Jesus actually said (perhaps in veiled form) I am YHWH.
They actually made that accusation earlier when he said God was his father. They tried to stone him in this instance for claiming he was older than Abraham.Quote:
It seems to me the Pharisees and Lawyers picked up on it immediately and wanted to stone Him for the blasphemy of making Himself equal to God.
Well, you're right about one thing: it's questionable whether there's any logic there. I would conclude: no.Quote:
The logic (if we can use that word) is that if Jesus is YHWH, then all the words in the so called Old Testament are the words of Jesus personally, as if they were printed in red. That's why any question about Jesus being YHWH calls into question the authorship of the Old Testament, which was given by YHWH.
Wikipedia says Christian Reformed Church. And I have heard him confirm that.
My chiropractor is Christian Reformed -- healing, speaking in tongues, anointing with oil.
Ahhh... the plot thickens... so apparently the church age is done since they won't receive his teaching... brilliant.
Dwashbur, beautifully put.
Wondergirl... so is mine.
| All times are GMT -7. The time now is 04:21 PM. |