A blow by blow account of Revelation

[Jay Ross]

You used the term, "MEGA DATA." And, "Yes", I would agree with that. MEGA DATA = The compilation of the whole sum of the Bible... NOT some selected "Proof Texts" chosen from here and there.

If a person tried to use the selected text of Luke 14:26 the way the KJV words it, they would be stating a pure contradiction to the way Jesus told us treat our Fathers and Mothers. It takes far more than just a favorite text to grasp what the Bible has to say.

I absolutely DO use the meanings of the Bible to decide if what someone else writes is to be considered or rejected..... But never would I assume to just pick a verse or two to hang my full understandings on.

WT, it seems to me that you are protecting your recommendation of a book which I have suggested is not worth reading because of its outdated understanding of scripture. When I said that people use their Mega Data, you then made the invalid suggestion that their Mega Data should encompass the whole sum of the Bible, whereas I was not judging the validity of the Mega Data that a person references when processing incoming information and making a decision as to how they should respond to the newly received information. A person's Mega Data is what it is, not what you believe it should be.

Our ability to understand how prophetic events will unfold, is limited to the timescale before they will actually unfold. Clinton's book on the Book of Revelation is not a reliable reference source as to how the Revelation prophetic events will unfold. It is also limited as to how the Biblical scriptures are interpreted.

Let me ask you a question, the answer of which, by your expressed view above, should be readily available within your Mega Data, without referencing any other source.

What is your understand of Stephan's defence just before he was stoned in the book of Acts, that it was not until after Abraham's father had died that he left Haran and proceeded southwards into the Land Of Canaan, which incidentally, the scribes, Pharisees and Priests did not fault? Who was Stephan referencing in his discourse when he mentioned Abraham's father?

What is contained in your Mega Data in this instance? Is it a valid Mega Data reference understanding?

 

[Willie T]

That is one of the silliest questions I have seen in a while, but I will indulge you. Simply reading in context (to include verses 2 and 3 of chapter 7) will help you out with something you seem to want to make complicated.

 

[bbyrd009]

Our ability to understand how prophetic events will unfold, is limited to the timescale before they will actually unfold.

so you say at least, but i'm not sure how you could support this wadr. The timescale might easily be arbitrarily decided, or misunderstood, these are just two off the top of my head.

For instance those in whom Christ has not been revealed yet would naturally assume a literal Second Coming at some point in "the future," and of course they would be correct--for themselves. And i guess for any others in whom Christ has not yet been revealed, iow the majority of us at any one time

And they will all of course enthusiastically verify the arbitrary pov bc it validates themselves and their current spot in their walk, but that does not mean it is true, just that "stay here for the present" is not being interpreted correctly (so to speak)

so to put this another way, you have maybe accepted an arbitrary and literal "timescale" that you believe applies to everyone, and you might even note that brand-new believers pretty much all accept your interpretation. enthusiastically even.

So possibly a...more truthful pov might be that the (arbitrary and incorrect) timescale that has been imposed has limited the ability to understand how prophetic events will unfold.

And we can even Witness the "New Believers" in Acts who acted according to this misunderstanding also, the little Hippie Commune Episode that we can't really read a conclusion for? No closure there, so to speak? See, they sold everything and gave it all away, just like Jesus said, but their belief was that Jesus was literally coming right back, too; and it isn't until one puts 2 and 2 together, and reads about Paul collecting alms for them a couple of years later, that the truth may be discerned.

even the title should make this obvious; The Revelation of Christ
so when you hear someone teach that Jesus is literally returning to some special snowflake generation, see, what you are really hearing is someone climbing onto a roof and shouting "I don't have a clue!"
wadr

 

[bbyrd009]

and i guess Bible is deemed Word by the same method.

 

[Jay Ross]

That is one of the silliest questions I have seen in a while, but I will indulge you. Simply reading in context (to include verses 2 and 3 of chapter 7) will help you out with something you seem to want to make complicated.

So you do not want to answer the question.

You dishonestly deflect the question by claiming that:

a. it is one of the silliest questions that you have seen in a while, and

b. You are claiming that it is something that I want to make it complicated.

You also said that you would indulge me but made no attempt to answer the question

So I can only conclude that your mega data does not include the full compilation of the Bible as you previously claimed.

You used the term, "MEGA DATA." And, "Yes", I would agree with that. MEGA DATA = The compilation of the whole sum of the Bible... NOT some selected "Proof Texts" chosen from here and there.

<snip>

I absolutely DO use the meanings of the Bible to decide if what someone else writes is to be considered or rejected..... But never would I assume to just pick a verse or two to hang my full understandings on.

But this is what you have done and made it complicated.

I asked a very simple question that only require the name of the person who Stephen was referring to, but it seems that you either cannot provide the name of the person or that you do not want to answer the question and in response you so "nicely" put me down as being irrelevant to the discussion because I do not hold to your Mega Data understanding.

I do know the answer. I just wanted to know if you knew the answer. Whether or not the question was silly or not, it certainly exposed you for what and who you are and confirmed that your recommended book was not worth reading, just as I discovered by searching how the author had dealt with one of my proof texts from the scriptures.

Oh, another point that I should make. I do not nor have not used nor hung my understanding of the ET's on just one or two arbitrary scriptures which have been taken out of context like other notable leaders that have led people with their wrong undeerstandings.

 

[Willie T]

So you do not want to answer the question.

You dishonestly deflect the question by claiming that:

a. it is one of the silliest questions that you have seen in a while, and

b. You are claiming that it is something that I want to make it complicated.

You also said that you would indulge me but made no attempt to answer the question

So I can only conclude that your mega data does not include the full compilation of the Bible as you previously claimed.




But this is what you have done and made it complicated.

I asked a very simple question that only require the name of the person who Stephen was referring to, but it seems that you either cannot provide the name of the person or that you do not want to answer the question and in response you so "nicely" put me down as being irrelevant to the discussion because I do not hold to your Mega Data understanding.

I do know the answer. I just wanted to know if you knew the answer. Whether or not the question was silly or not, it certainly exposed you for what and who you are and confirmed that your recommended book was not worth reading, just as I discovered by searching how the author had dealt with one of my proof texts from the scriptures.

Any other person on this forum can read the verses I posted, and know who was speaking to Stephen. Why do you want to drag Abram's father into it?

 

[Jay Ross]

so you say at least, but i'm not sure how you could support this wadr. The timescale might easily be arbitrarily decided, or misunderstood, these are just two off the top of my head.

For instance those in whom Christ has not been revealed yet would naturally assume a literal Second Coming at some point in "the future," and of course they would be correct--for themselves. And i guess for any others in whom Christ has not yet been revealed, iow the majority of us at any one time

And they will all of course enthusiastically verify the arbitrary pov bc it validates themselves and their current spot in their walk, but that does not mean it is true, just that "stay here for the present" is not being interpreted correctly (so to speak)

so to put this another way, you have maybe accepted an arbitrary and literal "timescale" that you believe applies to everyone, and you might even note that brand-new believers pretty much all accept your interpretation. enthusiastically even.

So possibly a...more truthful pov might be that the (arbitrary and incorrect) timescale that has been imposed has limited the ability to understand how prophetic events will unfold.

And we can even Witness the "New Believers" in Acts who acted according to this misunderstanding also, the little Hippie Commune Episode that we can't really read a conclusion for? No closure there, so to speak? See, they sold everything and gave it all away, just like Jesus said, but their belief was that Jesus was literally coming right back, too; and it isn't until one puts 2 and 2 together, and reads about Paul collecting alms for them a couple of years later, that the truth may be discerned.

even the title should make this obvious; The Revelation of Christ
so when you hear someone teach that Jesus is literally returning to some special snowflake generation, see, what you are really hearing is someone climbing onto a roof and shouting "I don't have a clue!"
wadr

WADR, you might be right, but a fool was always the smart one in the court and I have no probs with being considered that by people with no understanding.

I agree with you that coming to an understanding of when the prophetic events will unfold when we are give the breadth of the prophetic event is only complicated by knowing the start and end points of the prophesised event. We do make assumptions that lead us astray. Ellen White's assumptions on the starting point of the 2,300 years of the Gentiles Trampling the Sanctuary of God provided the wrong outcomes. If you chose the wrong starting point, then the end point will also be wrong. It should also be confirmed by other prophecies that point to the same signpost marker of the timing for either the start or end of the said event.

With that being said, WT is defending his Mega Data of his understanding and does not have the ability to correctly process new information that possibly demands a change in his Mega Data. The parable of the Fig tree gives an indication of when the end of this present age will draw to an end, but sadly many look to a generation as the sign without understanding that the English translation of the Greek word found in the verse a little further down in the Matt chapter should be understood to have the meaning of an "age" but the timespan of an age is beyond our ability to grasp.

I have been able to confirm my timeline by considering other prophesies and I chose to hint at the time when the end of this present age will occur. One of the proofs that I have used to confirm the end of this present age I found in the Ten Commandments, but the time span that it covers is beyond many peoples ability to understand.

I may even be able to see the end of this age unfold, if I follow the trends of my ancestors and live for another 30 or so years.

Shalom

 

[Jay Ross]

Any other person on this forum can read the verses I posted, and know who was speaking to Stephen. Why do you want to drag Abram's father into it?

Please answer the question that I asked you, not something else.

This is the question that I asked: -

What is your understand of Stephan's defence just before he was stoned in the book of Acts, that it was not until after Abraham's father had died that he left Haran and proceeded southwards into the Land Of Canaan, which incidentally, the scribes, Pharisees and Priests did not fault? Who was Stephan referencing in his discourse when he mentioned Abraham's father?

Why are you avoiding answering the question?

 

[Enoch111]

Why are you avoiding answering the question?

Why is this a big deal? Stephen simply said that Abraham move to Canaan after his father died. That sounds reasonable.

 

[Jay Ross]

Why is this a big deal? Stephen simply said that Abraham move to Canaan after his father died. That sounds reasonable.

But who was his father that he was referring too? Give me a name to confirm that you understand who Stephan was talking about.

 

[Enoch111]

But who was his father that he was referring too? Give me a name to confirm that you understand who Stephan was talking about.

Terah was the father of Abram.

 

[Willie T]

Why is this a big deal? Stephen simply said that Abraham move to Canaan after his father died. That sounds reasonable.

Jay thinks he is privy to some deep Spiritual reference to Jesus that he is sure the rest of us are too thick to see...though it is spelled out in black and white. But, I have no idea why he tried to confuse things by claiming Stephen was calling Abraham's father someone else.

 

[Enoch111]

Jay thinks he is privy to some deep Spiritual reference to Jesus that he is sure the rest of us are too thick to see...

The K.I.S.S. principle also applies to Bible Christianity. It is called "the simplicity of Christ".

But I fear, lest by any means, as the serpent beguiled Eve through his subtilty, so your minds should be corrupted from the simplicity that is in Christ (2 Cor 11:3).

 

[Jay Ross]

Terah was the father of Abram.

Yes this is true from a descendant generational perspective, but Terah died, according to the Genesis account around 1 year before Sarah died, about 60 years after Abraham left Haran to go down to the land of Canaan, so the answer cannot be Terah as you have suggested in your response above.

Biblical Proof: - Genesis 11:26 tells us that Terah was 70 years old when begat Abraham, Nahor and Haran. Genesis 11:32 tells us that Terah died when he was 205 years old. Genesis 12:4 tells us that Abraham was 75 years old when he left Terah. Also Genesis 22:20-24 also confirms that something significant had happened in Abraham's family, i.e. the death of Terah as Nahor, probably, sent messagers to Abraham to tell him of Terah's death. Abraham also learnt at this time some of what had happened within Nahor's family.

Jay thinks he is privy to some deep Spiritual reference to Jesus that he is sure the rest of us are too thick to see...though it is spelled out in black and white. But, I have no idea why he tried to confuse things by claiming Stephen was calling Abraham's father someone else.

WT I have made no reference to Jesus in my question so once again you are making an untrue claim about what I might be asking.

As to how thick you are is not my concern, as you are the one who is confirming that fact all by yourself without any help from me by your use of false arguments etc.. It is obvious that you have no understanding of Israelite customs in this area otherwise with your Vast Mega Data base you would have been able to answer my question concerning Stephens defence where he spoke of Abraham's father having died before Abraham left Haran.

So are you going to answer the simple question or continue to throw your created untrue mud in my direction to deflect away from your views.

How about you actually provide an answer to my simple question instead. I have made it easier for you by eliminating Terah for you, so who was the "father" that Stephen was referring to when Stephen said that Abraham left Haran after his father had died. And no there is no deep spiritual reference to Jesus in the question that I have asked for you to respond too.

 

[Helen]

Interesting! I love reading about biblical history

 

[Willie T]

Yes this is true from a descendant generational perspective, but Terah died, according to the Genesis account around 1 year before Sarah died, about 60 years after Abraham left Haran to go down to the land of Canaan, so the answer cannot be Terah as you have suggested in your response above.

Biblical Proof: - Genesis 11:26 tells us that Terah was 70 years old when begat Abraham, Nahor and Haran. Genesis 11:32 tells us that Terah died when he was 205 years old. Genesis 12:4 tells us that Abraham was 75 years old when he left Terah. Also Genesis 22:20-24 also confirms that something significant had happened in Abraham's family, i.e. the death of Terah as Nahor, probably, sent messagers to Abraham to tell him of Terah's death. Abraham also learnt at this time some of what had happened within Nahor's family.



WT I have made no reference to Jesus in my question so once again you are making an untrue claim about what I might be asking.

As to how thick you are is not my concern, as you are the one who is confirming that fact all by yourself without any help from me by your use of false arguments etc.. It is obvious that you have no understanding of Israelite customs in this area otherwise with your Vast Mega Data base you would have been able to answer my question concerning Stephens defence where he spoke of Abraham's father having died before Abraham left Haran.

So are you going to answer the simple question or continue to throw your created untrue mud in my direction to deflect away from your views.

How about you actually provide an answer to my simple question instead. I have made it easier for you by eliminating Terah for you, so who was the "father" that Stephen was referring to when Stephen said that Abraham left Haran after his father had died. And no there is no deep spiritual reference to Jesus in the question that I have asked for you to respond too.

Oh, now that you aren't playing as many games..... are you talking about Abe's father's profession of carving idols, and that supposedly being a tie to pagan roots? Or are you talking about the formation of the Israelite nation?

 

[Jay Ross]

Oh, now that you aren't playing as many games..... are you talking about Abe's father's profession of carving idols, and that supposedly being a tie to pagan roots? Or are you talking about the formation of the Israelite nation?

I am not the one playing games as you have suggested in the quoted post above. The only one playing games is your good self. All that I have asked of you is to provide the name of the "father" that Stephen was referring to just before he was stoned.

From what you are doing, it suggests that you do not know the answer to this particular question, which means that your Mega Data is much smaller than what you were suggesting for yourself.

So WT can you just answer the question, rather than continuing to confirm that you are playing a game of deception and ignorance.

 

[bbyrd009]

WADR, you might be right, but a fool was always the smart one in the court and I have no probs with being considered that by people with no understanding.

i don't mean to say that i consider you the fool at all, regardless of your current understanding. i held the same pov for years, 30 years or something, and you might see that i have as much or really even more access to the "fool" designation, among the churched at least. It is perfectly natural and even advisable to seek out those who supposedly know stuff, if you want to learn the stuff; that's what i did too. If i have no understanding then i will be exposed soon enough i guess.

so i have to grant that you have removed yourself from one crowd, but should you find yourself in another, let's say, since i don't know you, you might want to consider. Revelations are personal experiences that do not require any outside change, right? Which is why the terms "appears, is revealed" are used for Christ, and not "returns, comes back" etc.

You cannot Quote "When Christ returns," imo that should bug you a little?
http://biblehub.net/search.php?q=when+Christ+returns

 

[bbyrd009]

I agree with you that coming to an understanding of when the prophetic events will unfold when we are give the breadth of the prophetic event is only complicated by knowing the start and end points of the prophesised event.

then you did not agree with me at all, Mr Ross, no offense meant.
You just agreed with yourself again

 

[bbyrd009]

If you chose the wrong starting point, then the end point will also be wrong.

the moment you pick a fixed point you are lost, Mr Ross. i understand that leaving the camp will be hard, ok, and i'm certainly not asking you to do it for my sake. What you believe right now is just fine with me. i learned a lot from Messianic Jews myself. i attended Shemen Sasson, dunno if maybe you're fam with it or not