You Be The Judge: Afp1996 vs Jason

[mfblume]

Originally Posted by Steve Epley

A slam dunk. Let me warn AFP Elder Blume is one of the best I have ever read on the bodily resurrection he will eat your lunch.

After all those thanks from you, let me thank you in return.

[Steve Epley]

Originally Posted by mfblume

After all those thanks from you, let me thank you in return.

Elder Blume I certainly wish you were not a PP we have disagreed on that for years now. In my opinion your materials are the best written on that subject though I fervently disagree.
However your writings on the resurrection should be a must for every Pentecostal preacher they are excellent.
Also your treatment of the end of wickness on the earth is also a good study.
With those I disagree with I can compliment with what I see as material of value.

[Bowas]

Originally Posted by mfblume

Is Crossfire the same person as William Price? If so, bro., you know better than to say we are gnostic. Whoever it is, it is someone associated with Gary Reckart, by the term "gnostic" repeated all the time. And if so, you have changed beliefs from preterism to post trib so many times we cannot keep count any more. If you are WP, I always advised you to stay away from prophecy due to your inability to stay in one belief system for a very long time. Still love you, though. If you are not WP, sorry. But you obviously know GR.

I thought WP went trintarian.

[mfblume]

Originally Posted by Bowas

I thought WP went trintarian.

He did at one point, maybe twice. Not sure. But lastly he was with GR.

[TK Burk]

Originally Posted by mfblume

There is a verse that mentions "rapture". 1 Thess 4:17. In the LATIN VULGATE Bible, the LATIN word for CAUGHT UP is RAPTURA or RAPTUS. We get the anglicized word RAPTURE from that Latin term. And the English word means the same thing. So although not used in an English Bible, the root word is used in the Latin version, and means the same thing in english as CAUGHT UP.

Well, nothing like using the Vulgate to prove a point....

Bro. Blume, you should listen to what Bro. Kelly Wilson used to say about this. When asked if he believed in the rapture he’d say, “I can't believe in something that isn't in the Bible.”

The Vulgate is hardly the source that can prove otherwise. The men behind its translation helped to popularize the Trinity theory. Like I originally said, there are as many scriptures that mention the “Trinity” as there is scriptures that mention the “rapture.” That holds true unless you lean toward RCC translations and theories.

[TK Burk]

Originally Posted by mfblume

I disagree. Bro Burk said the word is missing from the bible. He brought that up. And

The definition of rapture means exactly what rapturists claim....

Of course you agree with the Dispensationalists on this, futurists often stick together in effort to compensate for their lack of scripture....

Bro. Blume, the word “rapture” is not found in the pages of the KJV. If you still disagree, then please give the verse where it is found.

You really believe that “the definition of rapture means exactly what rapturists claim....” So you now believe in a secret rapture? Wow!

[TK Burk]

Originally Posted by Steve Epley

A slam dunk. Let me warn AFP Elder Blume is one of the best I have ever read on the bodily resurrection he will eat your lunch.

I've gotta hand it to you Eld. Epley, you sure get around. Within a few hours you've agreed with both Bill Price and Bro. Blume (no offense intended to either). Like I said, you will amen anybody regardless of who they are or what they believe. Elder, neither of these men believes like you. Will you ever get around to speaking for yourself instead of riding on the coattails of anyone that remotely sounds like they may be right to you?

[TK Burk]

Originally Posted by mfblume

By the way, LT Smith was accused of proposing Jesus came in clouds when Titus' army stirred dust from the roads, and he never taught nor ever believed that, or the record.

You are correct. He made this clear many times, and yet some of the same men he said this to still misrepresented him.

As a matter of fact, I have never read anyone who believed what Eld. Epley says about Titus and the clouds. But he has been told that for many years too. Seems he ignores what's told him also.

[Crossfire]

Preterists sure seem to love to throw focus away from their false doctrine. The truth is, they siritualize so much of scripture that they cannot understand what is being said without some hidden interpretation that only they understand.

They take the spiritual and make it physical, and that which is interpreted as being spiritual, they make literal. For example, the cloud issue. They say that this is a sign of judgment, and not Jesus coming in clouds. However, when we read how Jesus ascended, and was taken up into a cloud, and how the Word says He would return in the same manner as He left, we cannot help but see Christ's coming as literal, physical, and visible.

Despite all their deflections, all their misinterpretations, and their Gnosticism in their interpretations, preterists cannot be reconciled with scripture. While they seek to invoke personal attacks when their doctrine is discussed, the fact is, what I have said on here is proven to be true and accurate. Their inability to handle this shows the weakness of their doctrinal beliefs.

Jesus Christ is coming back again. This is true. He is coming back as He said, physically, literally, and visibly, every eye seeing Him on that day. he is coming to gather the saints, first those who sleep in the grave, and those who are alive and remain. So shal we ever be with the Lord. These beliefs of the faith have no waivered, and shall never change. For preterism to deny the future second coming, the rapture of the Church, and the physical resurrection of the body is to deny what is clearly taught in the Bible.

One last point in this post. Mamy preterists are recorded in their messages declaring that salvation is a resurrection, even claiming salvation as the first resurrection. Since we know that salvation was instituted before Paul was converted, thus this implies a form of past resurrection, a doctrine which reflects that of Hymenaeus and Philetus. This is spoken against by Paul.

Despite their deflections, preterists cannot evade the truth, that their doctrine has been proven false on here by myself, Elder Epley, and others.

[TJJJ]

Originally Posted by Crossfire

Preterists sure seem to love to throw focus away from their false doctrine. The truth is, they siritualize so much of scripture that they cannot understand what is being said without some hidden interpretation that only they understand.

They take the spiritual and make it physical, and that which is interpreted as being spiritual, they make literal. For example, the cloud issue. They say that this is a sign of judgment, and not Jesus coming in clouds. However, when we read how Jesus ascended, and was taken up into a cloud, and how the Word says He would return in the same manner as He left, we cannot help but see Christ's coming as literal, physical, and visible.

Despite all their deflections, all their misinterpretations, and their Gnosticism in their interpretations, preterists cannot be reconciled with scripture. While they seek to invoke personal attacks when their doctrine is discussed, the fact is, what I have said on here is proven to be true and accurate. Their inability to handle this shows the weakness of their doctrinal beliefs.

Jesus Christ is coming back again. This is true. He is coming back as He said, physically, literally, and visibly, every eye seeing Him on that day. he is coming to gather the saints, first those who sleep in the grave, and those who are alive and remain. So shal we ever be with the Lord. These beliefs of the faith have no waivered, and shall never change. For preterism to deny the future second coming, the rapture of the Church, and the physical resurrection of the body is to deny what is clearly taught in the Bible.

One last point in this post. Mamy preterists are recorded in their messages declaring that salvation is a resurrection, even claiming salvation as the first resurrection. Since we know that salvation was instituted before Paul was converted, thus this implies a form of past resurrection, a doctrine which reflects that of Hymenaeus and Philetus. This is spoken against by Paul.

Despite their deflections, preterists cannot evade the truth, that their doctrine has been proven false on here by myself, Elder Epley, and others.

So are you Bill Price?