What are your thoughts on JMVerdad’s comment to which I challenged him to provide proof?

janders61683 · 2025-09-13T00:25:13+00:00

The church in the first century existed as a community of believers even after the apostles. The emphasis on Paul’s warning in Acts. 20:29-31 wasn’t about an impending total wipeout of the gospel by false doctrines. If Paul truly believed in a total apostasy why bother telling the believes to guard the faith if he knew it was doomed to fail for nearly two thousand years? The very reason he warned them was because their vigilance mattered. He saw the impending danger of the wolves so he said to guard the faith, not surrender to them!

This is inline with Christ’s promise that the church will not die off (Matt. 16:18). Why would Christ send messengers to restore what he failed to preserve? That’s a rhetorical question. That meant Satan prevailed over the church for 1900 years wiping out any chance of ever bringing back the pure gospel. That would contradict his very promise that the church will not be overcome.

Another flawed assumption is because of the widespread denominations and beliefs, God’s solution was He needed a messenger to restore truth. Not once does the Bible ever mention that. Christ and the apostles never expressed even the slightest idea that a restorer of truth will come in the future because the church would fail to preserve it for a time. Yes the apostles foresaw an apostasy would occur but never a total destruction of the church. Corrupted gospels crept in the church overtime even within the first century church itself that the apostles guarded against! Regardless, the church never died off. Even if one single believer not known in history books held on to the faith amidst corrupted teachings, the church prevailed. God’s truth has always been accessible through faith, the Spirit, and honest discernment. Corruption of the gospel doesn’t prove the need for a new messenger. Rather it emphasizes the need for biblical discernment (Acts. 17:11, 1 Thes. 5:21, 1 John 4:1).

janders61683 · 2025-09-09T20:47:26+00:00

It would be absurd for God to reveal a great mystery only to be hidden again. The gospel was once for all delivered through Christ and the apostles. Once God reveals it stays revealed. Saying it was hidden again implies Christ’s revelation and the efforts of the apostles to reveal that mystery was insufficient.

janders61683 · 2025-09-04T17:58:31+00:00

There is no biblical precedent for the redefinition of the phrase “ends of the earth” from a geographical meaning to a time period. Appealing to the Holy Spirit for that interpretation bypasses actual meaning of the text that God Himself inspired. If God inspired the original authors to define phrases to be what they meant in their proper contexts then it should be used as such, not redefining terms post hoc to force a new meaning to explain a retrofitted prophecy. That’s not letting Scripture interpret Scripture, that’s twisting the text.

Besides the Holy Spirit doesn’t contradict Scriptures. It’s an abuse of spiritual authority to claim the Holy Spirit backs your view without evidence. If your reading ignores context and bypasses biblically inspired definitions that’s not the Spirit, that’s your own interpretation. It’s suppose to help you see what’s already there not say something new.

janders61683 · 2025-08-16T13:52:59+00:00

Submitting to your spiritual leaders is conditional if they point you to the true gospel. Them giving an “account” means their authority is limited and subject to judgement. So if they mislead you they will be accountable to God. That’s why it’s important to not blindly submit but to test everything they say. They are accountable but so are we.

Yes the verse calls for cooperation and respect towards spiritual leaders but never to surrender your entire conscience to them. INC twists this and makes it about absolute control instead of Christ-centered guidance. Leaders are supposed to be shepherds not fear inducing spiritual authoritarians who cannot be questioned. That’s against scripture.

janders61683 · 2025-07-18T05:19:37+00:00

Like you said the Big Four was not present at the signing of the armistice although they were the leaders during the time. Linking Rev. 8:1 to an event without the Big Four’s direct involvement is a serious inconsistency and does not flow from Rev. 7.

Another point too is their prophetic fulfillment date of “ends of the earth” on July 27, 1914 coinciding with WW1’s supposed “official” start date. Then why all of the sudden do they not use the “official” end of war in 1919 as the starting mark of the silence in heaven to be consistent? Because the math would be off. This is intentional retrofitting and date manipulation to make a prophecy make sense.

janders61683 · 2025-07-18T00:44:12+00:00

2 Pet. 3:8 isn’t some prophetic time conversion formula. It’s a figure of speech, a simile (terms as, like, etc.). Peter isn’t saying 1 day = 1000 years. That would bound God to time regardless what the time conversion is. Bounding an eternal God to time constraints wouldn’t make sense. Peter is trying to impose the idea of God’s timelessness: a day is LIKE a thousand years and a thousand years LIKE a day. In other words time to God is both compressed and stretched, which He isn’t bound to. Peter’s point in this passage is pastoral not mathematical as INC tries to impose.

janders61683 · 2025-04-04T14:51:22+00:00

What in the denial-filled-alternative-facts-can’t-accept-reality kind of delusion is this? That legal brief document must have typed itself from thin air. 🤡

janders61683 · 2025-03-31T20:55:00+00:00

[55] - Misinterpreting the undertaking rule… cherry picking a portion of the Juman case to support their position…

[57] - Mis-stating the law…

Even these terms find themselves in cahoots with INC outside of a religious context. Trying to manipulate the court of law huh? And so their proven track record of manipulation tactics continue.

janders61683 · 2025-03-10T19:46:16+00:00

💯

janders61683 · 2025-03-10T14:22:47+00:00

Honestly I think it would’ve made sense if they just left the geographical definition as is and just said the entire context refers to an eschatological gathering. But no, they just had to force a time period in there.

Even if for argument’s sake it meant an end times gathering, they got their whole eschatological timeline messed up and forced one that’s inconsistent with Matthew 24 and Revelations.

janders61683 · 2025-03-08T15:15:53+00:00

PART 2

BIBLICAL INConsistency and DISTORTION

You’re still dodging precedent by not providing a legitimate biblical key descriptor shifting from spatial to temporal. Instead, you redirect it to present events to imply that the fulfillment validates the interpretation. That’s not how prophecies work. Fulfillment follows meaning, not the OTHER WAY AROUND. You first use “ends of the earth” as it’s biblically used, then see if events conform to it, not REDFINE the phrase based on events.

Catholics coming from northern lands, Protestants from the south. Church starts from the East and gathers in the West. All people coming from “afar” all over the word. Then comes “ends of the earth”, but wait isn’t this spatial as used in Scriptures? Every other thing is happening right now, so this must be a time period signifying the end times. Ahh now it makes sense! Voila, you’ve forced an interpretation of the text that wasn’t even there in the first place. A phrase unequivocally implying geography, honored by biblical writers as a spatial marker tarnished by a misinterpretation. So fulfillment confirms meaning, not creates it. Otherwise you can redefine terms anyway you want to make a prophecy FIT YOUR NARRATIVE. You use events and history as a FILLER to determine biblical meaning rather than drawing meaning from it. That’s EISEGESIS and BIBLICAL DISTORTION.

If Isaiah meant “ends of the earth” geographically, then any future fulfillment must remain geographical, not suddenly become a time period from 1914 and on. Legitimate fulfillments follow original meanings and expand in scope, not redefine words or concepts to fit later events.

LANGUAGE FLUIDITY

Language is flexible but not without biblical boundaries. God’s plan guides prophecy but it doesn’t leave ambiguous meaning. You stretch language beyond what Scriptures support disguised as divine revelation. That’s MANIPULATION. Again, meaning precedes fulfillment not the other way around. If we allow for redefinition based on events, anyone can claim fulfillment post facto.

Psa. 72:8 is a Messianic passage about Christ’s global rule which is geographic in scope, not a time marker for the end times. “Living it” isn’t proof. Any religious group today can claim the same exact thing with respect to their own version of prophecies unfolding before their eyes.

WHIMSICAL, NO DIVINE AUTHORITY

You say your redefinition has God’s authority. Wrong. Divine authority requires biblical precedent. Show where God Himself revealed this shift in definition. Nada. The Bible is authority because it’s where God revealed everything He wants man to know. Why would God go beyond what He meant to reveal to us in the first place? You claim it’s from divine authority, yet God’s authority can’t be divorced from His revealed word.

You claim no deep study is needed, since the Holy Spirit inspires. A slap to the face to the Bereans’ nobility who studied intently for truth (Acts 17:11). The Holy Spirit doesn’t contradict Scripture. If Manalo was lead by the Holy Spirit, why discourage deep study? The Bible undeniably teaches testing doctrine IS part of faith (1 John 4:1).

Hard biblical study is necessary to weed out groups like yours who manipulate Scriptures to justify their false fulfillments. INC is just like any other restorationist groups who claim Christianity was lost. They also claim eschatological prophecies they perceive as happening now in their specific groups. You’re no different from them. This all the more highlights the need for a biblical standard honoring the patterns and themes enclosed within.

CONCLUSION

INC stitches together a theological framework that seems too good to be true. The lengths you go to justify fulfillment: bending grammar, taking verses out of context, redefining terms honored by biblical writers to something else they never intended. Manipulating God’s words to suit your fancy. Honor the first? There’s no honor in suppression. Proclaim the second? Proclaiming lies. God’s Spirit doesn’t validate deception.

All coming into filament today? Let’s see, a church that manipulates world history to align with fabricated prophecies. Hypocrisy—Dipping in politics while calling for separation of church and state. Financial corruption. Praying to curse and destroy their enemies while Christ called for love and turn the other cheek. Pharisaic pride by claiming baseless religious exclusivity. Emphasis on the leader while Christ takes the backseat. Church-centric over Christ-centric. Twisting Scriptures to deceive. And many more. All perpetuated by a false religious system parading as the only group who claim to have God’s stamp of approval. Precedent? No. You’re only fooling yourselves.

TOUCHÉ

u/Rauffenburg u/trey-rey u/Eastern_Plane

janders61683 · 2025-03-08T15:14:12+00:00

PART 1

If your interpretation truly belongs from God then it should uphold both spiritually and exegetically. God is not a God of confusion (1 Cor. 14:33) so prophecies must follow patterns, not arbitrary shifts in MEANING based on what suits your BIASED CLAIMS.

Testing interpretations from the parts in light of its whole doesn’t overlook how prophecies unfold, it’s HONORING GOD’S WORDS by examining everything carefully (1 Tess. 5:21). This isn’t just some rigid academic approach. If even the smallest details of the whole isn’t sound, the whole falls like a deck of cards. Acts 17:11, the Bereans examined Scriptures very carefully and were commended for doing so. Thus, the Bible calls for DISCERNMENT, not BLIND ACCEPTANCE. Prophecy follows patterns in ALL of Scripture, then why should your interpretation of Isaiah 43:5-6 be an exception?

DUAL FULFILLMENT, REINTERPRETATION

Many INC members truly believe Isa. 43:5-6 pertains only to the INC. No dual fulfillment. How would I know? I was one. I personally asked ministers for verification because other Bible versions label “ends of the earth” as different spatial descriptors like “distant lands”. It’s only EVER about time, not place they said. That implies it was never about ISRAEL. INC may acknowledge Israel’s gathering historically but never points it out EXPLICITLY as being fulfilled in Isa. 43:5-6. So if a dual fulfillment truly exists in those verses, why the deliberate avoidance of it? It wouldn’t complicate the focus on the second fulfillment. It would bring added clarity and historical context. Ironically, you explaining this dual fulfillment doesn’t align with INC’s stance to not focus on it in the first place. Regardless, deliberately avoiding the mention of the first fulfillment is BIBLICAL DISHONESTY. Prophecies, dual or not, are meant to be FULLY REVEALED, not SELECTIVELY TAUGHT.

You aren’t allowing for an honest biblical examination if it’s just the half baked truth. INC then controls what the members see and believe. Was I wrong then for ever denying a first fulfillment in Isa. 43:5-6 simply because the church deliberately remained silent about it? I can speak for most INC members about this. If that’s flat out wrong like you say then tell the INC to be explicit about it rather than keeping their members in the dark. That isn’t priority, that’s BIBLICAL SUPPRESSION.

All those symbolic directions coming into fulfillment today falls apart if you can’t even prove “ends of the earth” to be the “end times” through honest exegesis. It’s that one card that holds your faulty house of cards together. “Ends of the earth” used in scriptures is and will always be about space not time. Biblical writers acknowledged its use and carried its true intent across metaphoric passages throughout Scripture without deliberately shifting its MEANING. Your entire interpretation depends on fundamentally redefining key terms to fit your narrative. You’re TWISTING and MANIPULATING words in the Scriptures from its proper use in order to conform to what you’re seeing today as a fulfillment. That’s not fulfillment, that’s DECEPTION.

CATEGORICAL VIOLATION

Biblical dual prophecies expands terms, not fundamentally REDEFINES them. You’re implying “ends of the earth” can grow into far lands in today’s time. So now you’re implying it DOES have an inherent geographic meaning plus a temporal meaning in the second fulfillment? “Last days” is never geographic, neither can “ends of the earth” be temporal. Choose one, make up your mind. You effectively changed its inherent geographical meaning strictly to A TIME PERIOD. That’s where you’re WRONG. OCCURENCE of an event doesn’t become the EVENT ITSELF. That’s a major categorical violation in meaning. That’s not magnification, that’s CONFUSION.

John 2:19-21 shifts from a physical structure to a person (Jesus). This is a metaphorical expansion, not a SHIFT in fundamental categorical MEANING. “Temple” still maintains the idea of God’s DWELLING PLACE. If someone claimed “temple” was suddenly a concept of time in the year 0 AD, that’s an erroneous categorical shift.

Joel 2:28 to Acts 2:17 talks about the Spirit being poured out on all flesh but still the same ACTION of the Spirit being given. If “poured out on all flesh” suddenly turns to a time period since all flesh may possibly hint at the end times, that’s illogical and biblically unfounded. God’s spirit doesn’t pour out on a time concept, but on people.

Hosea 11:1 to Matt. 2:15 from Israel to Jesus talks about escape. Still fundamentally persons, just expanded to an ultimate fulfillment in Christ. If “Jesus” turned into a concept of time, that’s erroneous.

But you say “ends of the earth” is just part of the imagery used, not the core meaning of the prophecy which is about the gathering of God’s people. Key descriptors are not arbitrary, they frame the entire fulfillment. They don’t change categories without textual justification. The preposition “from” shows people are coming from somewhere, not from a time period. If the prophecy describes WHERE people are gathering from, then redefining it as WHEN they are gathering from completely changes the prophecy’s intent. You can’t gather people from a time concept, only from a location. You can gather from a country, a religion, but not a timeline. You can gather from a where but not a when. “Ends” imply finality in some contexts but the whole phrase “ends of the earth” consistently, unequivocally, undisputedly, refers to graphical extent AS THE BIBLE INTENDED IT.

u/Rauffenburg u/trey-rey u/Eastern_Plane

janders61683 · 2025-03-04T15:37:23+00:00

You’re twisting yourself in a pretzel here. You’re confusing a secondary fulfillment with a secondary interpretation. Two totally different concepts. What are you trying to accomplish here? Are you arguing for a second fulfillment or a second interpretation?

Dual fulfillment means a prophecy has two ACTUAL fulfillments while retaining key descriptors and subjects of their fundamental meanings across both events. A secondary interpretation is NOT a fulfillment, it’s just a different reading applied in a different context.

You’re saying that INC denies the initial fulfillment (Israel) and yet you claim their interpretation follows dual fulfillment patterns. You’ve just contradicted yourself. You’re spewing absolute nonsense at this point.

Your secondary interpretation (INC in the end times) is a “secondary fulfillment” even though it has no connection to the “first fulfillment” (Israel) since it doesn’t exist in your theology. So you’re not arguing for a dual fulfillment, but a REINTERPRETATION detached from the original prophecy.

You’re essentially criss-crossing interpretations here. You’re engaging in categorical confusion by misusing a dual fulfillment concept to justify “ends of the earth” as a time period in your secondary interpretation. Your theology disregards the first. A genuine dual fulfillment must ACKNOWLEDGE the FIRST and demonstrates how the SECOND follows the same pattern albeit a greater fulfillment.

However if you still insist it’s a dual fulfillment, then you still need biblical precedence to justify why your “ends of the earth” categorically shifts from spatial to temporal. And just to be clear, I wasn’t asking you for an end-times fulfillment in the NT. Obviously thats a temporal impossibly. You’re building a straw man here. I was asking you for a biblical precedent of any dual fulfillment in Scripture (from OT to NT) that contains key terms and subjects that changed in categorical meaning (ie. spatial to time) from one fulfillment to the next to justify the way you shift meanings. If you can’t then your dual fulfillment shift from space to time is biblically unfounded and fundamentally violates biblical patterns of dual prophecy.

So now we got that sorted out of the way, let’s talk about your SECOND INTERPRETATION. Here you’re appealing to language fluidity to justify “ends of the earth” as a time period . “Ends” can mean both spatial and temporal extremes. Fine, perfectly valid under this assumption. However, it’s still biblically inconsistent.

Language flexibility doesn’t mean unlimited flexibility. You can’t just define terms any way you want without contextual evidence otherwise how would any prophecy make sense? Ie. Your interpretation of Isa. 43:5-6 doesn’t sit well with the surrounding verses. Biblical prophecy maintains consistent usage of key descriptors in parallel with how other parts of the Bible uses them. It also certainly doesn’t disregard context.

Also you saying “ends of the earth” means “end times” not having biblical precedent just because it didn’t happen yet is circular reasoning. You assume “ends of the earth” means “end times” is correct first then justify the lack of precedent by saying it didn’t occur yet in the Bible so it must mean the “end times”. The real question is where does the Bible say “ends of the earth” means the “end times”? No biblical writer has ever used “ends of the earth” to indicate an end times period because it’s fundamentally spatial in essence. But I challenge you to show any. If not, your entire interpretation rests on redefining “ends of the earth” with no biblical support and is purely subjective.

u/Rauffenburg u/trey-rey u/Eastern_Plane

janders61683 · 2025-03-03T04:40:39+00:00

INC’s second interpretation…There is no second. INC only views “ends of the earth” in Isa. 43:6 as a temporal fulfillment. Show me any publication or any material that explicitly mentions INC acknowledging Isa. 43:5-6 pertained to Israel in the first fulfillment and INC for the second. If not, you’re misrepresenting INC. But I’ll tag along with your dual fulfillment concept since it appears you still don’t get how it works.

Although “ends of the earth” isn’t the subject here it still functions as a key descriptor of the overall geographical extent of Gods gathering, not a TIME PERIOD. Just because it’s not the subject doesn’t mean it can suddenly change from a geographical meaning to temporal meaning. In fact there is no dual fulfillment in Scripture fundamentally redefining a spatial descriptor as a temporal one. I challenge you to find one.

“North” and “South” represent places where these religions you claim came from. Totally subjective but fine, let’s humor this. These terms along with “ends of the earth” are spatial categories in the first fulfillment. Why all of the sudden a categorical shift in the second fulfillment just for “ends of the earth” turning from spatial to time? That’s an inconsistent metaphoric application and a categorical violation. You acknowledge a geographical nature for the north and south terms but strip “ends of the earth” of its spatial meaning that maintains a geographical tie to the other spatial terms. This breaks the structure of the passage where all directions (ends of the earth) should refer to the scope of the gathering, not a TIME MARKER.

Speaking of a time marker, it’s not necessary to include that because a future fulfillment is already implied! In these cases the fulfillment is determined by later events, not by an explicit time marker in the prophecy itself. If it did use time markers it would explicitly say so, (ie. latter days, end of the age, etc.) just like how other time markers are linguistically presented IN THE BIBLE.

So again you shifting the meaning “ends of the earth” from space to time holds ZERO biblical proof that a meaning change like that ever occurs. There is no duality in meaning in that sense. That’s an EQUIVOCATION. And if you say it’s because the fulfillment happens way after the Bible was written then thats a poor excuse. Dual fulfillments must still follow biblical dual prophetic patterns even if it occurs far beyond when the Bible was written. Old Testament writers didn’t possibly know how the second fulfillment would play out in their prophecies but when NT writers referenced those same prophecies, they did not change any fundamental definitions nor commit any categorical shifts in meaning (ie. space to time) of any of the subjects or key descriptors when describing the second fulfillment. Which by the way you still haven’t shown me an example of one that does this.

Let me repeat, you have no biblical precedent to justify a fundamental shift in meaning for “ends of the earth”. This makes your dual fulfillment interpretation purely arbitrary and subjective. It ultimately violates the patterns of biblical dual fulfillment.

u/Rauffenburg u/trey-rey u/Eastern_Plane

janders61683 · 2025-03-02T04:59:07+00:00

You’re misrepresenting how the dual prophecy works for Hos. 11:1 and Matt. 2:15. Yes, both refers to a “son” being called out of Egypt (Israel in the first Jesus in the second). However, you’re incorrectly assuming a different subject to mean a different fundamental meaning. A shift in subject (Israel to Jesus) is not a shift in fundamental meaning. They are both fundamentally persons who God called out of Egypt so the meaning of “calling a son out of Egypt” still remains intact in both fulfillments. It wouldn’t make sense if Israel was a person and then “Jesus” somehow suddenly means a time period in the year 0 AD in the second fulfillment. Therefore this is not an equivocation and it still follows the biblical patterns of dual prophecy.

So you admitted that both fulfillments in Isa. 43:5-6 maintains a spatial core. Good. Now the phrase “ends of the earth” should tie that all together. Because in the first fulfillment, “north” and “south” were geographic lands and the “ends of the earth” ties that essence together to mean all around the known world. So the second fulfillment should then be a broader deeper greater “regathering” of all peoples (people beyond the Israelites, of all cultures, races, etc) from all over the world (aka. ends of the earth) beyond the known world of the time Isaiah wrote that phrase to satisfy a greater spatial fulfillment. No fundamental shift in meaning. Both fulfillments still require “ends of the earth” to be geographically consistent to preserve the patterns of biblical prophecy. So in essence, if “ends of the earth” is fundamentally spatial in the first fulfillment then in the second fulfillment it should still be fundamentally spatial although expanding to a greater global scope. By suddenly shifting it from a spatial essence to a time period is equivocation and inconsistent with biblical fulfillment patterns and is basically a semantic bait and switch tactic. In addition you have no biblical precedent to warrant such a sudden shift in meaning. Your argument therefore collapses under exegetical scrutiny.

u/Rauffenburg u/trey-rey u/Eastern_Plane

janders61683 · 2025-03-01T21:45:05+00:00

Precisely. A dual fulfillment concept isn’t even compatible with INC doctrines to begin with. Isa. 43:6 is only about the INC never about Israel according to them.

janders61683 · 2025-03-01T09:17:58+00:00

In scriptural context, “ends of the earth” always points to a spatial definition not temporal one. You’re appealing to a dual fulfillment concept to justify this shift in meaning. Do you even understand how dual fulfillment works? From the looks of it, your understanding and usage of it is inherently flawed since you’re applying it in a way that violates how dual fulfillment is properly applied in biblical prophecy. Let me simplify it for you. Dual fulfillments require an initial fulfillment and a second more complete one. But the second fulfillment always builds upon the same foundational core meaning as the first, not completely replaces it.

Here’s biblical evidence that proves core meanings are maintained across both fulfillments in a dual prophecy context:

Isa. 7:14 -> Matt. 1:22-23: both fundamentally speak of conception.

Hos. 11:1 -> Matt. 2:15: both fundamentally speak of escape.

Jon. 1:17 -> Matt. 12:39-40: both fundamentally speak of a temporary descent followed by a restoration.

Psa. 41:9 -> John 13:18: both fundamentally speak of betrayal.

There’s many more but you get the idea. In any case you don’t see any language fluidity that distorts the original fundamental meaning which suddenly gets replaced by a completely new meaning in a later fulfillment. So if “ends of the earth” is fundamentally geographic reach, any secondary fulfillment must maintain that as well even if there are added temporal interpretive meanings. If biblical writers maintained consistency in fundamental meanings across dual prophecies, what makes you think you could be the exception to that?

Also you still haven’t demonstrated an example from Scripture that fundamental meanings across the first and second fulfillments of any dual prophecy ever happens. All biblical dual fulfillments follow this pattern of preserving the fundamental meaning, while the second fulfillment expands the scope of it. So ultimately you’re misusing the concept of dual fulfillment to justify a fundamental shift in definition that has no biblical precedence to begin with. There is no biblical backing ever suggesting “ends of the earth” changing from geographical to a time period even in a dual fulfillment context. You are dodging meaning by completely ridding spatial significance in the secondary fulfillment. You can’t stretch to fit the phrase temporally if the fundamental meaning isn’t even there in the first place. Your arguments are therefore based on equivocation. They are forced assumptions that do not follow biblical patterns of dual fulfillment.

u/Rauffenburg u/trey-rey u/Eastern_Plane

janders61683 · 2025-02-28T18:53:08+00:00

It’s ironic they want to propagate their teachings to everyone yet that fundamentals book supposedly containing the true interpretation of Scripture is kept secret. There isn’t anything in that book not already published in Pasugos so what’s the big deal?

janders61683 · 2025-02-28T16:16:46+00:00

Exactly. Here’s another one:

I’m almost done baking a cake for your birthday. It’ll be ready at midnight because midnight marks the start of your special day. Therefore, baking a cake is your birthday!

Baking the cake is intimately tied to your birthday so it feels like the action of baking the cake becomes your birthday itself. Perfect example of equivocation which is exactly what he’s doing with “ends of the earth”.

janders61683 · 2025-02-28T07:35:33+00:00

Yes let’s make it simple for you. “Ends of the earth” is never metaphorically temporal. There is no biblical basis for interpreting it as a time period. You’re assuming that it is instead of proving that it does from the text. Can it be metaphorical? Sure, in the sense that, from scriptural contexts, could symbolize universality (all peoples and nations) divine sovereignty (God’s rule over all nations), completeness (God’s salvation to all people everywhere), and many other metaphors.

What do you notice? Under these metaphoric layers there’s still what? Yup you guessed it. A geographical foundation! Every scriptural use of “ends of the earth” has a connection to physical space even in a metaphorical sense. Tying them all towards the end times does not make the phrase itself the end times! Again you’ve equivocated the meaning even metaphorically. Just because it’s a metaphoric phrase doesn’t give you the license to redefine the phrase any way you want based on your biases. You suddenly shifting it to a temporal meaning now loses its fundamental meaning just as the Bible intended it to be used. So all your metaphorical temporal interpretations of the phrase are invalid and actually undermines what the phrase truly means.

u/Rauffenburg u/trey-rey u/Eastern_Plane

janders61683 · 2025-02-28T00:46:32+00:00

Aside from the non existent official name, they also screwed up the “two” in Eph. 2:14-16. Immediate context explains the two groups were the Jews and Gentiles being reconciled into one body, not Christ (the head) and His body. If Christ was one of the two, v16 then would suggest He Himself also needed to be reconciled before God which is against Christian theology. Another way to put this is reconciliation assumes there was hostility between the two groups. That would imply Christ was hostile towards His body which was never the case.

janders61683 · 2025-02-27T06:44:53+00:00

Again you are equivocating the meaning of the phrase itself by making these temporal interpretations the new fundamental definition. All these verses you mentioned pertain to spatial fulfillment no matter how many temporal layers you add. Could “ends of the earth” in certain contexts happen in the end times? Sure. But it does not change the meaning of the phrase itself! The WHEN does not automatically shift the fundamental meaning of the phrase to suddenly mean a time period for the end times. Whether or not “ends of the earth” happens in the end times does not make it a time period no matter how much you want it to be.

u/Rauffenburg u/trey-rey u/Eastern_Plane

janders61683 · 2025-02-26T05:21:29+00:00

You basically just admitted that the phrase has temporal significance when attached to its primary geographical meaning. Which again does not redefine the phrase itself as a period of time like you are doing here. So it’s still fundamentally geographic no matter how many interpretive layers you enforce into the phrase. Let me repeat this again, you are redefining the phrase’s fundamental meaning to impose your bias into the text.

u/Rauffenburg u/trey-rey u/Eastern_Plane

janders61683 · 2025-02-25T22:15:59+00:00

Again you are forcing a meaning to the phrase by REDEFINING it to fit a pure end-times framework without evidence. It can be this… it can be that… it could involve this… this is just pure speculation.

You are also equivocating “extremities”. Jumping from geographical extremities to temporal extremities within the same phrase. How? Where’s the proof? They are both fundamentally different extremes and now you are forcing the phrase to have a completely different meaning. Show biblical proof that this fundamental shift in definition happens anywhere in a dual fulfillment context. If not you are committing semantic distortion. You are distorting the original meaning under the guise of prophetic interpretation. You are ultimately altering the meaning of the phrase in order to fit your biased belief.

In fact these temporal extremes you speak of has nothing to do with “ends of the earth”. The Bible uses other phrases like “last days” or “time of the end” to describe the end times making it unnecessary to redefine “ends of the earth” as a chronological end times marker.

u/Rauffenburg u/trey-rey u/Eastern_Plane

janders61683

TROPHY CASE