Year for a day?

[Icyspark]

Icy;
you need to rethink your position
as Paul says
the things written are examples for that generation to come
"upon whom the ends of the world come"

Read Gen. Ch 24 very, very carefully

Who sent who to go get Isaac (the promised son) a Bride
Abraham sent his most trusted Servant
he did not send the Servants of Isaac (the promised son)
nor did he send Sarah; Isaac's (the promised son's) mother
nor did he send Isaac (the promised son) to get his own Bride

notice Isaac (the promised son) did not send his servants
(the 12 Apostles in the NT)
nor did Isaac go with the Servant of Abraham

And the servant took ten camels of the camels of his master,​

and departed;​

for all the goods of his master were in his hand:​

and he arose, and went to Mesopotamia,​

unto the city of Nahor.​

#2: After finding a bride Who tried to delay
the Servant and Rebekah, the Chosen Bride

​

And her brother and her mother said,​

Let the damsel abide with us a few days,​

at the least ten; after that she shall go.​

​

56 And he said unto them,​

Hinder me not, seeing the Lord hath prospered my way;​

send me away that I may go to my master.​

#3: After finding the Bride, did he go home
and then report to Abraham, then take Isaac
or anyone else back too Nahor's home
and introduce him to his Bride

Beware thou that thou bring not my son thither again.​

No he did not
in fact, he was forbidden to take Isaac there;
even if the chosen Bride would not come

And the servant said unto him,​

Peradventure the woman will not be willing to follow me unto this land:​

must I needs bring thy son again unto the land from whence thou camest?​

​

And Abraham said unto him,​

Beware thou that thou bring not my son thither again.​

..​

if the woman will not be willing to follow thee,​

then thou shalt be clear from this my oath:​

only bring not my son thither again.​

Icy;
Christ is not coming back to get his Bride;
The Father will send his most trusted Servant
The Archangel; to come get the Bride and take her to Christ
Not the other way around

------The Wedding----
at the wedding there will be
the Father and Mother, Christ and the "Best Men" = friends of the Bridegroom

​

John 3:29​

He that hath the bride is the bridegroom:​

but the friend of the bridegroom,​

which standeth and heareth him,​

rejoiceth greatly because of the bridegroom's voice:​

this my joy therefore is fulfilled.​

The Bride and all her Bridesmaids = the Daughters of Jerusalem
Song of Solomon
and the "The Guest" at the Wedding
Icy;
Christ does not marry his best men nor all the bridesmaids
and ""ONLY the Bride"" goes into the Bridal Chamber
and no one else ; no not one

another little hint recorded there
And Isaac went out to meditate in the field at the eventide:
and he lifted up his eyes, and saw,
and, behold, the camels were coming.

64 And Rebekah lifted up her eyes,
and when she saw Isaac, she lighted off the camel.

65 For she had said unto the servant,
What man is this that walketh in the field to meet us?
(Who is this man coming to meet us)
And the servant had said,
It is my master:
therefore she took a vail, and covered herself.

Gen.24:67​

And Isaac brought her into his mother Sarah's tent,​

and took Rebekah, and she became his wife;​

Is Christ coming back
Yes
But only after the Wedding has already happened in heaven
then Christ, his Bride, and all the wedding party
will come for the wedding feast

Hopefully you know that Parable
[

Hi Buzzard,

It isn't a good thing to try to develop one's theology on a parable while ignoring all the Bible texts which reveal something completely different (see the post to which you just replied yet didn't address a single point.). Actually even those passages which are not parables are being misused in unfortunate and strange ways (e.g. attempting to develop a theology based on the narrative of Genesis 24 and the story of Abraham sending a servant to get a wife for Isaac. There is no biblical warrant for reading something deeper into this singular instance, yet here you are doing that very thing.).

God bless.

 

[Buzzard]

The title of this thread is

Year for a day?​

But when the fulness of the time was come,​

God sent forth his Son, made of a woman, made under the law,​

​

5 To redeem them that were under the law,​

that we might receive the adoption of sons.​

-----------The Parables of Christ---------
"36 Then Jesus sent the multitude away,
and went into the house:"

Icy, Icy, Icy;
after sending the Multitude away
and giving a couple more in private too the 12
Christ said of the Parables

Matt.13:51​

Have ye understood all these things?​

They say unto him,​

Yea, Lord.​

and he replies

Therefore​

(because you understand)​

every scribe which is instructed (about)​

unto the kingdom of heaven​

is like unto a man that is an householder,​

which bringeth forth out of his treasure things new and old.​

what is it you do not understand
about the words of Christ
IE:
an understanding of the Parables is paramount to be
"Instructed about the Kingdom of Heaven
by the Parables"

Hi Buzzard,

It isn't a good thing to try to develop one's theology on a parable while ignoring all the Bible texts which reveal something completely different (see the post to which you just replied yet didn't address a single point.). Actually even those passages which are not parables are being misused in unfortunate and strange ways (e.g. attempting to develop a theology based on the narrative of Genesis 24 and the story of Abraham sending a servant to get a wife for Isaac. There is no biblical warrant for reading something deeper into this singular instance, yet here you are doing that very thing.).

God bless.

maybe its you that has
"develop one's theology"
on things which do not align with the Parables

Icy says
(e.g. attempting to develop a theology based on the narrative of Genesis 24 and the story of Abraham sending a servant to get a wife for Isaac. There is no biblical warrant for reading something deeper into this singular instance, yet here you are doing that very thing.).

was Paul also wrong by using the story of Abrahams Two (2) Wives

​

Galations 4:21​

21 Tell me, ye that desire to be under the law,​

do ye not hear the law?​

​

ahhh, Icy;
Paul wasn't speaking of the 10 Commandments

22 For it is written, that Abraham had two sons,​

the one by a bondmaid, the other by a freewoman.​

23 But he who was of the bondwoman was born after the flesh;​

but he of the freewoman was by promise.​

​

24 Which things are an allegory: for these are the two covenants;​

the one from the mount Sinai, which gendereth to bondage,​

which is Agar.​

​

25 For this Agar is mount Sinai in Arabia,​

and answereth to Jerusalem which now is,​

and is in bondage with her children.​

​

26 But Jerusalem which is above is free,​

which is the mother of us all.​

​

27 For it is written,​

Rejoice, thou barren that bearest not; break forth and cry,​

thou that travailest not:​

for the desolate hath many more children than she which hath an husband.​

Paul says
[indent[
That which was written,
is for examples and our instruction[/indent]

ahhh; Icy;
just in case you did not know it
neither Abraham, his 2 wives, nor the 2 sons were at Sinia
but Paul still uses the 2 wives and 2 sons as an example of
what happened at Mt Sinia
"to develop one's theology on"
and teach from,
ahh, but well; as you posted

There is no biblical warrant for reading something deeper into this singular instance,​

Tell that to Paul

maybe its you Icy, that has
"developed one's theology"
on things which do not align with the Parables
???

 

[Icyspark]

The title of this thread is

Year for a day?​

But when the fulness of the time was come,​

God sent forth his Son, made of a woman, made under the law,​

​

5 To redeem them that were under the law,​

that we might receive the adoption of sons.​

-----------The Parables of Christ---------
"36 Then Jesus sent the multitude away,
and went into the house:"

Icy, Icy, Icy;
after sending the Multitude away
and giving a couple more in private too the 12
Christ said of the Parables

Matt.13:51​

Have ye understood all these things?​

They say unto him,​

Yea, Lord.​

and he replies

Therefore​

(because you understand)​

every scribe which is instructed (about)​

unto the kingdom of heaven​

is like unto a man that is an householder,​

which bringeth forth out of his treasure things new and old.​

what is it you do not understand
about the words of Christ
IE:
an understanding of the Parables is paramount to be
"Instructed about the Kingdom of Heaven
by the Parables"



maybe its you that has
"develop one's theology"
on things which do not align with the Parables

Icy says
(e.g. attempting to develop a theology based on the narrative of Genesis 24 and the story of Abraham sending a servant to get a wife for Isaac. There is no biblical warrant for reading something deeper into this singular instance, yet here you are doing that very thing.).

was Paul also wrong by using the story of Abrahams Two (2) Wives

​

Galations 4:21​

21 Tell me, ye that desire to be under the law,​

do ye not hear the law?​

​

ahhh, Icy;
Paul wasn't speaking of the 10 Commandments

22 For it is written, that Abraham had two sons,​

the one by a bondmaid, the other by a freewoman.​

23 But he who was of the bondwoman was born after the flesh;​

but he of the freewoman was by promise.​

​

24 Which things are an allegory: for these are the two covenants;​

the one from the mount Sinai, which gendereth to bondage,​

which is Agar.​

​

25 For this Agar is mount Sinai in Arabia,​

and answereth to Jerusalem which now is,​

and is in bondage with her children.​

​

26 But Jerusalem which is above is free,​

which is the mother of us all.​

​

27 For it is written,​

Rejoice, thou barren that bearest not; break forth and cry,​

thou that travailest not:​

for the desolate hath many more children than she which hath an husband.​

Paul says
[indent[
That which was written,
is for examples and our instruction[/indent]

ahhh; Icy;
just in case you did not know it
neither Abraham, his 2 wives, nor the 2 sons were at Sinia
but Paul still uses the 2 wives and 2 sons as an example of
what happened at Mt Sinia
"to develop one's theology on"
and teach from,
ahh, but well; as you posted

There is no biblical warrant for reading something deeper into this singular instance,​

Tell that to Paul

maybe its you Icy, that has
"developed one's theology"
on things which do not align with the Parables
???

You're not Paul.

 

[AMOSFIVE]

You're not Paul.

Have you no answer to buzzard’s point?

 

[Icyspark]

Have you no answer to buzzard’s point?

Hi AMOSFIVE,

I suppose my answer'd be the same as in my previous post. That he ignored. In favor of appealing to something totally unrelated. Elevating his private and finite opinion to the level of Paul's inspired writing. That doesn't work for me. Does that work for you?

God bless.

 

[AMOSFIVE]

Hi AMOSFIVE,

I suppose my answer'd be the same as in my previous post. That he ignored. In favor of appealing to something totally unrelated. Elevating his private and finite opinion to the level of Paul's inspired writing. That doesn't work for me. Does that work for you?

God bless.

Icy posts scripture with commentary- something requiring thought.

Buzzard responds with scripture and brief commentary- something requiring thought.

Icy responds with a don’t read scripture that way: you’re wrong and I’m right.

Buzzard responds again with scripture and brief commentary - something thought provoking and pointing to scripture’s self interpretation aspects.

Icy responds with “you’re not Paul” - again a response of I’m right; your wrong.

Yeah, I see what just happened. Thanks Icy. You did indeed answer my question ?

 

[Icyspark]

Icy posts scripture with commentary- something requiring thought.

Buzzard responds with scripture and brief commentary- something requiring thought.

Icy responds with a don’t read scripture that way: you’re wrong and I’m right.

Buzzard responds again with scripture and brief commentary - something thought provoking and pointing to scripture’s self interpretation aspects.

Icy responds with “you’re not Paul” - again a response of I’m right; your wrong.

Yeah, I see what just happened. Thanks Icy. You did indeed answer my question ?

Icyspark responds with relevant Scripture to the topic at hand.

Buzzard responds with irrelevant square pegs of Scripture and attempts to force them into the round hole of the topic at hand.

Icyspark points out the irrelevance of Scripture reference.

Buzzard points out that Paul did the same thing.

Icyspark points out that Buzzard is not Paul.

AMOSFIVE jumps in and responds with snarky commentary.

Icyspark responds to AMOSFIVE's snarky review with a more accurate review and a bit less snark.

 

[Sherloc]

Icyspark responds with relevant Scripture to the topic at hand.

Buzzard responds with irrelevant square pegs of Scripture and attempts to force them into the round hole of the topic at hand.

Icyspark points out the irrelevance of Scripture reference.

Buzzard points out that Paul did the same thing.

Icyspark points out that Buzzard is not Paul.

AMOSFIVE jumps in and responds with snarky commentary.

Icyspark responds to AMOSFIVE's snarky review with a more accurate review and a bit less snark.

Actually Icy, all you did was make the claim Buzzard was referencing irrelevant scripture - you failed to prove your claim. Amos asked you to address Buzzard’s post and you failed to do it asserting your claim as if it were settled.

So no, you did not provide a “more accurate” review with “less snark” - you made Amos’ point quite eloquently actually: you have no scripturally based answer to Buzzard’s post.

Do you? Buzzard’s point actually makes a lot of sense and relied on scripture to interpret scripture. Indeed, if Buzzard’s conjecture is incorrect and thoroughly irrelevant (according to your claim) then any interpretation of scripture using Issac as allegory to the promised messiah is also incorrect: thus Paul’s references to those exact passages is incorrect.

I challenge you to address Buzzard’s post with scripture or critically dismantle the whole premise, assuming it’s possible. If you are unequaled with scripture or critical reasoning to do so, simply admit it and leave it to another to do so.

 

[Buzzard]

OK; lets keep on the subject of this thread

The title of this thread is

Year for a day?​

Mark. 1:14
14 Now after that John was put in prison,
Jesus came into Galilee,
preaching the gospel of the kingdom of God,
15 And saying,
The time is fulfilled,
and the kingdom of God is at hand:

Gal.4:4
But when the fulness of the time was come,
God sent forth his Son,
made of a woman, made under the law,

5 To redeem them that were under the law,
that we might receive the adoption of sons.​

well, I'll be
wonder where Paul got that from ?????
lets ask Icy;
hey Icy, do you know what story in Moses or the Prophets
Paul is refering to ????????

we all know of this

Daniel 9:1
In the first year of Darius the son of Ahasuerus,
of the seed of the Medes,
which was made king over the realm of the Chaldeans;

In the first year of his reign
I Daniel understood by books
the number of the years,
whereof the word of the Lord came to Jeremiah the prophet,
that he would accomplish seventy years in the desolations of Jerusalem.​

But where did Paul get this from

But when the fulness of the time was come,
God sent forth his Son,
made of a woman, made under the law,

5 To redeem them that were under the law,
that we might receive the adoption of sons.​

lets ask Icy;
hey Icy, do you know what story in Moses or the Prophets
Paul is refering to ????????
as Daniel was told

I will shew thee that which is noted in
the scripture of truth:
and there is none that holdeth with me in these things,
but Michael your prince.

where can we find that; as Daniel was told
IE: which is noted in the scripture of truth:

already written / revealed in the scripture of truth:​

 

[Icyspark]

Actually Icy, all you did was make the claim Buzzard was referencing irrelevant scripture - you failed to prove your claim. Amos asked you to address Buzzard’s post and you failed to do it asserting your claim as if it were settled.

So no, you did not provide a “more accurate” review with “less snark” - you made Amos’ point quite eloquently actually: you have no scripturally based answer to Buzzard’s post.

Do you? Buzzard’s point actually makes a lot of sense and relied on scripture to interpret scripture. Indeed, if Buzzard’s conjecture is incorrect and thoroughly irrelevant (according to your claim) then any interpretation of scripture using Issac as allegory to the promised messiah is also incorrect: thus Paul’s references to those exact passages is incorrect.

I challenge you to address Buzzard’s post with scripture or critically dismantle the whole premise, assuming it’s possible. If you are unequaled with scripture or critical reasoning to do so, simply admit it and leave it to another to do so.

Hi Sherloc,

You sound respectful so I'll take a moment to address your post.

If you read Buzzard's first interaction along the line of the second coming of Jesus he ignored every Bible text I posted which was explicitly tied to the second coming. Not only that but he started his post by saying this:

Icy;
you need to rethink your position
as Paul says
the things written are examples for that generation to come
"upon whom the ends of the world come"

Read Gen. Ch 24 very, very carefully

If one is not familiar with the Scriptures this quote might come off as Buzzard intends it--a tacit approval of what he plans to foist on the unsuspecting. Fortunately I know what the Bible says and he just recontextualized the text he alluded to. Let's take a look at this text in it's context:

1 Corinthians 10:6-13​

Now these things occurred as examples to keep us from setting our hearts on evil things as they did. Do not be idolaters, as some of them were; as it is written: “The people sat down to eat and drink and got up to indulge in revelry.” We should not commit sexual immorality, as some of them did—and in one day twenty-three thousand of them died. We should not test Christ, as some of them did—and were killed by snakes. And do not grumble, as some of them did—and were killedby the destroying angel.​

​

These things happened to them as examples and were written down as warnings for us, on whom the culmination of the ages has come. So, if you think you are standing firm, be careful that you don’t fall! No temptation has overtaken you except what is common to mankind. And God is faithful; he will not let you be tempted beyond what you can bear. But when you are tempted, he will also provide a way out so that you can endure it.​

Buzzard conveniently(?) leaves out the context of this passage which flips his upside down interpretation back to right side up. These things did not happen as examples "for that generation to come." Paul indicates that the example of the Hebrews was "for us." Of necessity that would include Paul because the word "us" is inclusive language and would include any true believer from the time of Paul to now.

What things in particular is Paul referring to which were to be examples "for us"? This is not left for Buzzard's private interpretation as Paul provides his own explicit examples:

• Do not be idolaters
• We should not commit sexual immorality
• We should not test Christ
• do not grumble

Contextually the example of the Hebrews which was "written down as WARNINGS for us" was there "to keep us from setting our hearts on evil things as they did." So right off the bat Buzzard's first few words indicate that the rest of what he writes is going to be suspect and likely unreliable.

Apparently hoping no one will notice his misuse of Scripture as an affirmative for his upcoming further misuse he then quickly jumps into a biblical narrative which has zero to do with the second coming of Christ (Genesis 24). No inspired Bible author refers to Genesis 24 as any sort of relevance to Christ's return and I'll bet no trusted theologian from the time of the early church till now has ever attempted to read the second coming into this story (That's known as eisegesis).

I pray this helps.

 

[Buzzard]

and Icy replies

You're not Paul.

No, I am not
but Paul uses Mt Sinia as an example of the two covenants;
they had just been freed from "Bondage to a Pharoah and his Taskmasters"
--------so----------
what happened at Mt Sinia,
that brought them into back into "Bondage"
to a bunch of Tutors and Governors

Galation 4:​

Tell me, ye that desire to be under the law,​

do ye not hear the law?​

​

22 For it is written, that Abraham had two sons,​

the one by a bondmaid, the other by a freewoman.​

​

23 But he who was of the bondwoman was born after the flesh;​

but he of the freewoman was by promise.​

​

24 Which things are an allegory:​

for these are the two covenants;​

the one from the mount Sinai,​

which gendereth to bondage,​

which is Agar.​

​

25 For this Agar is mount Sinai in Arabia,​

and answereth to Jerusalem which now is,​

and is in bondage with her children.​

​

26 But Jerusalem which is above is free,​

which is the mother of us all.​

​

Tell me, ye that desire to be under the law,
do ye not hear the law?
....
then Paul says
Nevertheless what saith the scripture?
Cast out the bondwoman and her son:
for the son of the bondwoman
shall not be heir with the son of the freewoman.

now back to my origional post

when it became time to get a bride for the promised son
the one that was born of the free woman
Who did Abraham send ?????

 

[Buzzard]

]]

Hi Buzzard,

It isn't a good thing to try to develop one's theology on a parable while ignoring all the Bible texts which reveal something completely different (see the post to which you just replied yet didn't address a single point.). Actually even those passages which are not parables are being misused in unfortunate and strange ways (e.g. attempting to develop a theology based on the narrative of Genesis 24 and the story of Abraham sending a servant to get a wife for Isaac. There is no biblical warrant for reading something deeper into this singular instance, yet here you are doing that very thing.).

God bless.

and Paul says

Galations 4:21
Tell me, ye that desire to be under the law,
do ye not hear the law?

22 For it is written, that Abraham had two sons,
the one by a bondmaid,
the other by a freewoman.

23 But he who was of the bondwoman
was born after the flesh;
but he of the freewoman was by promise.

24 Which things are an allegory:
for these are the two covenants;
the one from the mount Sinai,
which gendereth to bondage, which is Agar.

25 For this Agar is mount Sinai in Arabia,
and answereth to Jerusalem which now is,
and is in bondage with her children.

26 But Jerusalem which is above is free,
which is the mother of us all.

27 For it is written,
Rejoice, thou barren that bearest not;
break forth and cry, thou that travailest not:
for the desolate hath many more children
than she which hath an husband.

28 Now we, brethren, as Isaac was,
are the children of promise.

29 But as then he that was born after the flesh
persecuted him that was born after the Spirit,
even so it is now.

30 Nevertheless what saith the scripture?
Cast out the bondwoman and her son:
for the son of the bondwoman shall not be heir
with the son of the freewoman.
31 So then, brethren,
we are not children of the bondwoman,
but of the free.​

Hey Paul;
It isn't a good thing to try to develop one's theology on a parable while ignoring all the Bible texts which reveal something completely different (see the post to which you just replied yet didn't address a single point.). Actually even those passages which are not parables are being misused in unfortunate and strange ways (e.g. attempting to develop a theology based on the narrative of Genesis 24 and the story of Abraham sending a servant to get a wife for Isaac. There is no biblical warrant for reading something deeper into this singular instance, yet here you are doing that very thing.).

Paul;
know ye not
It just not a good idea to base your teaching of the
two covenants;
based on a short story in Genesis

 

[Icyspark]

]]


and Paul says

Galations 4:21​

Tell me, ye that desire to be under the law,​

do ye not hear the law?​

​

22 For it is written, that Abraham had two sons,​

the one by a bondmaid,​

the other by a freewoman.​

​

23 But he who was of the bondwoman​

was born after the flesh;​

but he of the freewoman was by promise.​

​

24 Which things are an allegory:​

for these are the two covenants;​

the one from the mount Sinai,​

which gendereth to bondage, which is Agar.​

​

25 For this Agar is mount Sinai in Arabia,​

and answereth to Jerusalem which now is,​

and is in bondage with her children.​

​

26 But Jerusalem which is above is free,​

which is the mother of us all.​

​

27 For it is written,​

Rejoice, thou barren that bearest not;​

break forth and cry, thou that travailest not:​

for the desolate hath many more children​

than she which hath an husband.​

​

28 Now we, brethren, as Isaac was,​

are the children of promise.​

​

29 But as then he that was born after the flesh​

persecuted him that was born after the Spirit,​

even so it is now.​

​

30 Nevertheless what saith the scripture?​

Cast out the bondwoman and her son:​

for the son of the bondwoman shall not be heir​

with the son of the freewoman.​

31 So then, brethren,​

we are not children of the bondwoman,​

but of the free.​

Hey Paul;
It isn't a good thing to try to develop one's theology on a parable while ignoring all the Bible texts which reveal something completely different (see the post to which you just replied yet didn't address a single point.). Actually even those passages which are not parables are being misused in unfortunate and strange ways (e.g. attempting to develop a theology based on the narrative of Genesis 24 and the story of Abraham sending a servant to get a wife for Isaac. There is no biblical warrant for reading something deeper into this singular instance, yet here you are doing that very thing.).

Paul;
know ye not
It just not a good idea to base your teaching of the
two covenants;
based on a short story in Genesis

Ha! Now you're elevating your private and finite interpretation to someone specifically called and inspired by God. You are not Paul, yet you think your writing is just as authoritative as Paul. Not.

 

[Buzzard]

H

Hi Buzzard,

It isn't a good thing to try to develop one's theology on a parable while ignoring all the Bible texts which reveal something completely different (see the post to which you just replied yet didn't address a single point.). Actually even those passages which are not parables are being misused in unfortunate and strange ways (e.g. attempting to develop a theology based on the narrative of Genesis 24 and the story of Abraham sending a servant to get a wife for Isaac. There is no biblical warrant for reading something deeper into this singular instance, yet here you are doing that very thing.).

God bless.

Hey John; as Icy says
it isn't a good idea to develop one's theology on a parable

Matt.13:43
Then shall the righteous shine forth as the sun in the kingdom of their Father.
Who hath ears to hear, let him hear.

Revelation 12:1
And there appeared a great wonder in heaven;
a woman clothed with the sun,
and the moon under her feet,
and upon her head a crown of twelve stars:

and as Paul says

Jerusalem which is above is free,​

which is the mother of us all.​

And she being with child cried,
travailing in birth, and pained to be delivered.

Thou must be born again

John 3:1​

There was a man of the Pharisees,​

named Nicodemus, a ruler of the Jews:​

..​

That which is born of the flesh is flesh;​

and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit.​

​

as Paul says
But he who was of the bondwoman
was born after the flesh;
but he of the freewoman was by promise.

​

Nicodemus answered and said unto him,​

How can these things be?​

​

10 Jesus answered and said unto him,​

Art thou a master of Israel,​

and knowest not these things?​

​

11 Verily, verily, I say unto thee,​

We speak that we do know,​

and testify that we have seen;​

and ye receive not our witness.​

​

12 If I have told you earthly things,​

and ye believe not, how shall ye believe,​

if I tell you of heavenly things?​

​

 

[Icyspark]

H

Hey John; as Icy says
it isn't a good idea to develop one's theology on a parable

Matt.13:43
Then shall the righteous shine forth as the sun in the kingdom of their Father.
Who hath ears to hear, let him hear.

Revelation 12:1
And there appeared a great wonder in heaven;
a woman clothed with the sun,
and the moon under her feet,
and upon her head a crown of twelve stars:

and as Paul says

Jerusalem which is above is free,​

which is the mother of us all.​

And she being with child cried,
travailing in birth, and pained to be delivered.

Thou must be born again

John 3:1​

There was a man of the Pharisees,​

named Nicodemus, a ruler of the Jews:​

..​

That which is born of the flesh is flesh;​

and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit.​

​

as Paul says
But he who was of the bondwoman
was born after the flesh;
but he of the freewoman was by promise.

​

Nicodemus answered and said unto him,​

How can these things be?​

​

10 Jesus answered and said unto him,​

Art thou a master of Israel,​

and knowest not these things?​

​

11 Verily, verily, I say unto thee,​

We speak that we do know,​

and testify that we have seen;​

and ye receive not our witness.​

​

12 If I have told you earthly things,​

and ye believe not, how shall ye believe,​

if I tell you of heavenly things?​

​

Wow, your hubris is expanding. You continue to illustrate that you think that your abilities are equivalent to Bible authors. Fail.

I think you're just trolling now so I'm done responding to your nonsense.

 

[Sherloc]

Ha! Now you're elevating your private and finite interpretation to someone specifically called and inspired by God. You are not Paul, yet you think your writing is just as authoritative as Paul. Not.

@AMOSFIVE, do you feel @Buzzard elevated his post to inspirational levels of scripture?

I can see how Buzzard failed to respond to Icy’s rebuttal of Buzzard’s viewpoint of Paul’s writings. Perhaps Buzzard would be willing to address Icy’s concerns of “context” directly?

I hardly see how quoting scripture and making some of it bold to emphasize where one’s view is being derived from qualifies as an attempt at

elevating your private and finite interpretation to someone specifically called and inspired by God.

Indeed, quoting what’s written in scripture as authoritative is exactly what we are to do. We are also explicitly warned against relying on our own wisdom to impart or derive meaning from scripture: so the lack of additional commentary by Buzzard is actually a positive.

As I read this, Buzzard appears to be following the trail of bread crumbs scripture lays out: precisely what scripture tells us about its own self interpretation. In contrast, Icy provides significant commentary - something Buzzard rarely does if at all.

“It is the glory of God to conceal a thing: but the honour of kings is to search out a matter.
(Proverbs 25:2 KJV)

“For precept must be upon precept, precept upon precept; line upon line, line upon line; here a little, and there a little:”.
(Isaiah 28:10 KJV)

Buzzard however did fail to directly address Icy’s call to Paul’s “context” of what specifically, as Icy reads it anyhow, to what were the “examples” Paul was referring scripture to mean.

So no Icy, I do not see Buzzard as trolling at all - what I see here is a difference of opinion and difference in styles of debate form.

@Buzzard: care to address Icy’s interpretation of Paul’s “examples” and why you see Paul’s wording to mean beyond the explicitly given actions within the passage?

To the wallflowers and other posters here: it’s a good reminder here that when we post we’re really not posting for the responder so much as we are to the wallflowers and those who come through these threads months and even years after we have long left the keyboard. Hence, polite decorum and chivalry goes a long way.

After all, body language and tone of voice does not come through text: all we is digital text and emojis to understand one’s intentions and we have all been catastrophically misunderstood in text messages at some point.

 

[Buzzard]

''

Wow, your hubris is expanding. You continue to illustrate that you think that your abilities are equivalent to Bible authors. Fail.

I think you're just trolling now so I'm done responding to your nonsense.

I am sorry posters;
I owe Icy an apology

I must have misread the words of Christ here
after giving the Kingdom Parables
Christ said

Matt.13:51​

Jesus saith unto them,​

Have ye understood all these things?​

They say unto him, Yea, Lord.​

​

52 Then said he unto them,​

Therefore every scribe which is instructed unto the kingdom of heaven​

is like unto a man that is an householder,​

which bringeth forth out of his treasure things new and old.​

the 1st of these Parables was

​

And he spake many things unto them in parables,​

saying,​

Behold, a sower went forth to sow;​

​

4 And when he sowed,​

some seeds fell by the way side,​

and the fowls came and devoured them up:​

now lets stop there, for Christ said in Luke

Lk.4:18​

13 And he said unto them,​

Know ye not this parable???????​

​

and how then will ye know all parables?​

​

When any one heareth the word of the kingdom,
and understandeth it not,
then cometh the wicked one,
and catcheth away that which was sown in his heart.
This is he which received seed by the way side.

so who are these "Waysiders" that heard but did not understand

don't fret Icy;
"Fret not thyself to do evil"
and that,s from one of those small stories in the OT
but then again as you said
is not a good idea to base one understanding,
on some thing in Moses nor the prophets

the title of this thread is
Year for a Day
we will be back as soon as we get passed

Therefore every scribe which is instructed unto the kingdom of heaven​

is like unto a man that is an householder,​

which bringeth forth out of his treasure things new and old.​

and lay the Parables in order in Johns Revelation

 

[Buzzard]

written to the Romans

For whatsoever things were written aforetime were written for our learning,
that we through patience and comfort of the scriptures might have hope​

.​

..

@Buzzard: care to address Icy’s interpretation of Paul’s “examples” and why you see Paul’s wording to mean beyond the explicitly given actions within the passage?

And the God of peace shall bruise Satan under your feet shortly.
The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ be with you​

.
Amen.​

when Paul says
"things were written aforetime were written for our learning,"
he wasn't just refering to Mt Sinia

even tho what Paul wrote to the Chosen Bride

2Cor.11:1​

Would to God ye could bear with me a little in my folly:​

and indeed bear with me.​

​

2 For I am jealous over you with godly jealousy:​

for I have espoused you to one husband,​

that I may present you as a chaste virgin to Christ.​

were for her ears and hers only

do we think Rebecka did not have many conversations with the servant of Abraham
on the way back to the land of Abraham
she would have wanted to know all about Isaac and her new Family
there it would have been a 1 on 1
without all the many voices crying to be heard

what Paul wrote to the Romans
is also
""things (which) were written aforetime were written for our (her's also) learning,"
as well
as Paul says
"all scripture is written for our learning"
not limited to just a verse or two here and there

 

[CharismaticLady]

Wow, your hubris is expanding. You continue to illustrate that you think that your abilities are equivalent to Bible authors. Fail.

I think you're just trolling now so I'm done responding to your nonsense.

Hey Icyspark!

Are you going to read my post to you???

Why do SDA’s reject the words of the Bible? #34​

Do you understand what I'm saying? It is quite unlike anything you've ever been taught as an Adventist. It is why Paul wrote this in Galatians 3:

19 What purpose then does the law serve? It was added because of transgressions, till the Seed should come to whom the promise was made.

Do you know who the Seed is and what He accomplished?

 

[Icyspark]

''

I am sorry posters;
I owe Icy an apology

I must have misread the words of Christ here
after giving the Kingdom Parables
Christ said

Matt.13:51​

Jesus saith unto them,​

Have ye understood all these things?​

They say unto him, Yea, Lord.​

​

52 Then said he unto them,​

Therefore every scribe which is instructed unto the kingdom of heaven​

is like unto a man that is an householder,​

which bringeth forth out of his treasure things new and old.​

the 1st of these Parables was

​

And he spake many things unto them in parables,​

saying,​

Behold, a sower went forth to sow;​

​

4 And when he sowed,​

some seeds fell by the way side,​

and the fowls came and devoured them up:​

now lets stop there, for Christ said in Luke

Lk.4:18​

13 And he said unto them,​

Know ye not this parable???????​

​

and how then will ye know all parables?​

​

When any one heareth the word of the kingdom,
and understandeth it not,
then cometh the wicked one,
and catcheth away that which was sown in his heart.
This is he which received seed by the way side.

so who are these "Waysiders" that heard but did not understand

don't fret Icy;
"Fret not thyself to do evil"
and that,s from one of those small stories in the OT
but then again as you said
is not a good idea to base one understanding,
on some thing in Moses nor the prophets

the title of this thread is
Year for a Day
we will be back as soon as we get passed

Therefore every scribe which is instructed unto the kingdom of heaven​

is like unto a man that is an householder,​

which bringeth forth out of his treasure things new and old.​

and lay the Parables in order in Johns Revelation

Trolling