Another Gospel

KYChristian · is under review Joined: 25 Sep 2006 Posts: 11

I believe you are treading on very dangerous ground here. First of all, the later part of Jonah 3 makes it clear why Nineveh was not destroyed. It was completely God's decision.

Now, in regards to Matthew 24:34, are you claiming that Jesus lied? I sure hope not. It is a common mistake in reading Matthew 24 to presume that Jesus was referring to His second coming in this verse. This chapter is not referring to one event, but two. The first part of the chapter is foretelling the destruction of Jerusalem in AD 70. The last part of the chapter is dealing with Jesus' return.

Eugene Shubert · Posted: Wed Sep 27, 2006 8:54 am Post subject:

I can't answer your general question about something being "absolutely false" unless you can illustrate your meaning according to Scripture. Your apparent answer about Jonah seems to involve the requirement of knowing God and in rightly discerning God's mysteries. That's very good.

Jesus didn't lie according to my hermeneutic for prophetic interpretation but maybe he did in yours. "All these things" (Matthew 24:34) means everything that Jesus said up to this point in the Olivet discourse.

KYChristian · is under review Joined: 25 Sep 2006 Posts: 11

You are putting words in my mouth. Of course Jesus did not lie. The verses up to verse 34 are dealing with events leading up to the destruction of Jerusalem in AD 70. When I said 2 events, I meant two main events. I clearly spelled out what those events were.

Neither Jonah nor Jesus lied.

Eugene Shubert · Posted: Wed Sep 27, 2006 9:22 am Post subject:

I said maybe. I assert you either have Jesus lying or you are stating absolute, ignorant falsehood to cover up your confusion of Scripture.

KYChristian · is under review Joined: 25 Sep 2006 Posts: 11

Honestly, I don't know the exact meaning of those 2 verses. However, I do know that since Jesus said that all those things would take place before the current generation passed away, that is exactly what happened.

Eugene Shubert · Posted: Wed Sep 27, 2006 9:51 am Post subject:

In other words, the Second Coming may have happened in the First Century, and we're the damned who were left behind. Honestly, the state of your Christianity frightens me. I think you are in danger of being swept away.

If you don't understand the fundamental teachings of Scripture, then I don't think that you're qualified to condemn obvious Christians like Ellen G. White just because they know what they are talking about and you don't have the discernment to understand their God-given inspiration.

KYChristian · is under review Joined: 25 Sep 2006 Posts: 11

I never said, nor implied, that the return of Christ could have happened in the first century. It absolutely is still to come. Anyone who read my posts in this topic would not have a hard time figuring out what I meant, unless they wanted to portray me in a certain light. It is obvious that is what you are trying to do. I am confident in my beliefs, because they are based solely on the Word of God, and I don't have to rely on the "revelations" of those who came well after God's revelation was "once delivered unto the saints" (Jude 3).

Eugene Shubert · Posted: Wed Sep 27, 2006 10:33 am Post subject: Back to your original accusation

Matthew 24:29-30 is a clear reference to the Second Coming of Christ. One only needs to know how to compare Scripture with Scripture to see that. Don't fault me for your failure to recognize the logical implications of your own theology.

No one said that you have to rely on anyone's revelation. You can arrogantly continue on pretending that you are full of wisdom and of sufficient enlightenment to condemn genuine believers.

Isn't this thread about you accusing Ellen G. White of denying the gospel? What books of Ellen White have you read in their entirety? What scraps of evidence do you have and are willing to cite to prove your accusations as being Biblically valid?