I stay strictly with what is written in God's Word...
Good, well, that makes two of us. :)
I sense the tenor of this exchange to be taking a turn for the worse. I hope not, but it seems so...
Yet leaving the context of the "Where, Lord?" question Christ's disciples asked Him is exactly... what you did.
Hm, well, no... and yes...
We disagree, I gather, on what the disciples are actually asking that question in reference to. That disagreement does not amount to either one of us purposely "leaving the context." I'm not sure if that's what you are implying or not, but it doesn't. However, regardless whether your thinking on this is correct or mine, the fact still is that Christ doesn't answer their question directly, but rather with his answer
redirects it. And this is not unprecedented; He does so on other occasions documented in the gospels.
You instead went all the way back up to the Luke 17:20-21 verses where the Pharisees asked Jesus when the kingdom would come, which is a completely different... subject!
I believe you to be mistaken on that, Davy.
And by doing that you also left Jesus' answer to their question. I saw what you did with trying to 'change' the actual context of what Jesus' disciples asked Him in relation to the following... subject...
I didn't do any such thing, but I understand why you think I did. Yeah, so now it seems you're accusing me of purposefully changing Jesus's actual context to fit some kind of narrative of my own, which is tantamount to accusing me of dishonesty... and breaking the eighth commandment.
I saw what you did with trying to 'change' the actual context of what Jesus' disciples asked Him in relation to...
I get that you think I did, for sure; I anticipated that.
Luke 17:34-37
34 I tell you, in that night there shall be two men in one bed; the one shall be taken, and the other shall be left.
35 Two women shall be grinding together; the one shall be taken, and the other left.
36 Two men shall be in the field; the one shall be taken, and the other left.
37 And they answered and said unto Him, "Where, Lord?" And He said unto them, "Wheresoever the body is, thither will the eagles be gathered together."
KJV
Now if you pull my other leg, it plays Jingle Bells.
Hmmm...
...thinking with their 'fleshy' mind is one of the main problems many brethren have.
All people have that problem, Davy. It's the human condition. We're all sinners, even those of us who have been redeemed.
You actually think the EVENTS that Jesus gave with the final 3 Trumpet - Woe periods is dispensationalism?
No. I think your understanding of the events of Revelation is in accordance with your dispensational understanding of Scripture; dispensationalism is a theological framework that many have in interpreting Scripture and is distinguished from covenant theology. The two are opposed to each other in many important ways ~ not "adversarial," but differing in important ways. Unfortunately, though, people can reflexively get into adversarial positions/mindsets.
Based on your own words, I already believe YOU are a Dispensationalist, for they love to use that church "ages" expression like you did.
Absolutely not. I am very Covenantal in my theology, so, actually, what you say here is encouraging, really.
Disagree with Jesus in Matthew 24:6 all you want...
I don't, of course. And neither do you, I'm sure. But I do disagree with your take on it, though.
...the opposite of wars and rumors of wars is what He was pointing to when He said, "...but the end is not yet".
What you say is not an invalid understanding, Davy... or unreasonable, or illogical. However, just generally speaking, many things can be said but then understood (or misunderstood) by hearers of those things in different ways. So validity and accuracy are two different things; it is very possible for understandings to be valid, reasonable, and logical but yet still be inaccurate. And to that point, though you may believe it to be inaccurate, I think you have to say that the understanding that the wars and rumors of war not being in and of themselves signs that the end is upon is a valid, reasonable, logical understanding of His comment in Matthew 24:6.
Also, in 1 Thess.5, Apostle Paul made it plain that the deceived will be saying, "Peace and safety" just prior to the "sudden destruction" event upon them on the "day of the Lord". Paul was pulling that from the Old Testament prophets, so that idea is not just The New Testament Scripture only.
Uh, what!?!
Okay, I'm not laughing at you with this, so don't take it that way, but... LOL. :) Yes, Paul is referencing the prophets; he does that extensively throughout all his letters, and in this case Amos, Isaiah, Joel, Obadiah, Malachi, and Jeremiah (and possibly others). Here's the passage in question:
"Now concerning the times and the seasons, brothers, you have no need to have anything written to you. For you yourselves are fully aware that the day of the Lord will come like a thief in the night. While people are saying, “There is peace and security,” then sudden destruction will come upon them as labor pains come upon a pregnant woman, and they will not escape. But you are not in darkness, brothers, for that day to surprise you like a thief. For you are all children of light, children of the day. We are not of the night or of the darkness. So then let us not sleep, as others do, but let us keep awake and be sober" (1 Thessalonians 5:1-6).
I think you'll agree with me that this letter is written by Paul to reassure the believers in Thessalonica of their security in the Lord even unto the end. And it seems you agree with me that in mentioning people saying, “There is peace and security,” then sudden destruction coming upon them and them not escaping, he is there speaking of unbelievers. But in their saying "there is peace and security," I believe Paul to be referring to Jeremiah 6:14 and Jeremiah 8:11 ("(t)hey have healed the wound of my people lightly, saying, ‘Peace, peace,’ when there is no peace"), where similar language is used of unbelievers having a delusional sense of immunity from divine wrath.
No! Jesus said we would hear of wars and rumors of wars, and that DOES mean they will be taking place,
Hmm... Okay, so I agree with you here, so maybe I misunderstood you before. I thought, from your comment before, that your take on Jesus's saying we would
hear of wars and rumors of wars, that even before the end it would really be a time of peace, which would imply that no wars are actually taking place in that time. You did say before (and I quote):
"the END (tribulation time)... will not be a time of war and rumors of war, which means a time of peace."
And now you seem to refuting that. I might ask you to clarify these things. But even aside from that, just this statement I quoted here ~ as I said ~ seems to me contradictory. You're saying, in no uncertain terms (it seems), that the
tribulation time will be a time of
peace, and, well, in any time of tribulation,
by definition, there is not peace, but... tribulation. Feel free to clarify.
NOT some fiction that is dreamed up in your fleshy mind. I mean, you are funny!
Hmmm... Seems I was right about the tenor of this conversation...
You even take a passage from Lord Jesus where He is giving a direct SIGN to be watching for, and you turn it into some allegorical story?
This is very often the (misdirected) accusation (so I expected it at some point), but no. I would certainly agree that wars and rumors of wars (among other things) are signs that the end is coming ~ and has been a visible and audible sign of such ever since He spoke those words.
I'm done with your silly reasoning.
Well, neither of us is "silly." To call my reasoning "silly" is... silly. :) But fair enough.
Grace and peace to you.