Results 421 - 440 of 787
|
||||||
Results from: Notes Author: Radioman2 Ordered by Date |
||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
421 | Why not use Yahweh for LORD? | Bible general Archive 1 | Radioman2 | 86599 | ||
Cwade: I have replied to you in my Note, ID# 86597, "Yeshua, [which means 'ADONAI saves,']." The original thread, ID# 39684, is so long and cumbersome that I thought it good to leave it and begin a new one. Shalom, Radioman2 |
||||||
422 | Yeshua, [which means 'ADONAI saves,'] | Matt 1:21 | Radioman2 | 86597 | ||
Cwade: "She will give birth to a son, and you are to name him Yeshua, [which means 'ADONAI saves,'] because he will save his people from their sins." Mattityahu (Matthew) 1:21 (Complete Jewish Bible (CJB), David H. Stern, Jewish New Testament Publications, Inc., 1998) The original thread, ID# 39684, is so long and cumbersome that I thought it good to begin a new thread. Shalom, Radioman2 |
||||||
423 | Why not use Yahweh for LORD? | Bible general Archive 1 | Radioman2 | 86578 | ||
'Yahweh/Yah. YHWH, THE TETRAGRAMMATON BECAUSE OF ITS FOUR LETTERS, IS, STRICTLY SPEAKING, THE ONLY PROPER NAME FOR GOD. 'It is also the most frequent name, occurring in the Old Testament 6,828 times (almost 700 times in the Psalms alone). Yah is a shortened form that appears fifty times in the Old Testament, including forty-three occurrences in the Psalms, often in the admonition "hallelu-jah" (lit. praise Jah). English Bibles represent the name yhwh by the title "LORD" (written in capitals to distinguish it from "lord" [adonai]. The Septuagint rendered yhwh as kyrios (Lord). The line from yhwh to adonai to kyrios is significant for the Pauline statement: "And every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord" (Php 2:11).' (Baker's Evangelical Dictionary of Biblical Theology, http://bible.crosswalk.com/Dictionaries/BakersEvangelicalDictionary/bed.cgi). |
||||||
424 | Part 1 Testing "New" Revelation | Matt 24:11 | Radioman2 | 86563 | ||
Part 1 Testing "New" Revelation "Any prophet speaking for Jesus, in other words, as a conduit for Jesus' own words, with a clearer explanation of spiritual things than the Bible gives us, is going to be false." Part 1 Testing "New" Revelation '[Daniel] showed me a book that he had found, Fundamental Principles of Life , which includes the writings of Jacob Lorber...In the mind of Daniel, as he was reading through this, he found that it not only made the Christian case, but it made it better than anything he had heard before, in particular with regard to the nature of the Trinity, which was an issue he had been struggling with... 'Daniel found that he had stumbled upon, in this book, an explanation of things that made more sense than he had ever encountered before. We had a conversation about it and as he began telling me about this book, The Fundamental Principles of Life, and describing to me the format and what it really entailed, I realized there was a problem immediately because this was a record of Jacob Lorber's conversations with or revelations from Jesus Christ. In other words, the book was a "thus saith Jesus" kind of thing. Jesus is speaking to Lorber and Lorber is writing down what Jesus says. So we have the gospels and we have Lorber's revelations which purport to be the actual words of Jesus explaining these other kinds of things. 'Now, I have a rule of thumb...Any prophet speaking for Jesus, in other words, as a conduit for Jesus' own words, with a clearer explanation of spiritual things than the Bible gives us, is going to be false. All I need to know is that much. Jacob Lorber is giving us a revelation in which he is writing down the words of Jesus as communicated to him for us--I know it's false. Not because there is no theological possibility that Jesus can speak in revelation to someone today, though I think a case can be made against it. Even if I granted that as a theological possibility, I have never seen the real McCoy. These modern day revelations have always followed the same kind of pattern. I know when such a revelation is offered to me it's going to be false. I know it from experience. 'And I told Daniel that. I said, "Daniel, you don't have to read me any more. All I need to know is that this person claims that he has revelation directly from Jesus Christ that explains things like the Trinity in better detail and more accurately than the Bible can. All I need to know is that, to know this is a false prophet..." ( . . . ) 'Whenever you hear that kind of thing, there is a very important question you have to ask. I know what the truth is, and when I compare the first revelation to the second revelation, I know the second revelation couldn't be Jesus speaking through whoever that prophet is. It is not enough for someone to say, "Jesus told me this thing, therefore you ought to believe the revelation." Though many people leave it at that, quite frankly. I'm really surprised that there are so many so-called prophets of Jesus here now in these latter days, and they make a bald-faced authority claim and say, "You ought to believe this." Why? Because Jesus is speaking here. Well, the very question is...Why should I trust that any of this new material is a genuine revelation of Jesus? Why should I trust that? 'Now, the Biblical answer to that is signs and wonders and miracles, and the authority of the resurrection, and the authority of the apostles, and all those other things that substantiate the Scriptures. The apostles themselves walked with Jesus. They could speak first hand for His teaching. Now, Paul was an exception here, but even in his case he brought his teaching before these same apostles who had actually walked with Jesus during his earthly ministry and these same apostles authenticated his gospel as being sound. We read about that in Galatians 2. He received the right hand of fellowship, and it was demonstrated there that he had not run in vain, and God had indeed spoken to him and that he was preaching what was true. Peter even referred to Paul's writing as Scripture in 1 Peter 3. So you have this tight group of people close to Jesus that can authenticate what is true. 'What about people who pop up nearly 2000 years later and claim to have the most recent word from Christ after a couple millennia of silence? Often times you will get this response, "Well, it feels right. I really have this feeling that it's true. I have a burning in my heart that authenticates the truth of this alleged revelation." This response just won't do because what they're offering is a mere subjective test for something that is supposedly objectively true. Yet this objective truth is not patently obvious on the face of it.' ____________________ 'Testing "New" Revelation' by Gregory Koukl. To read more go to: (www.str.org/free/commentaries/apologetics/other/testnew.htm) |
||||||
425 | That didn't really answer my question. | Rom 9:23 | Radioman2 | 86413 | ||
Whitewave: Please accept my sincere apologies for the sarcasm. I honestly was not directing it toward you, although I can see where it would appear that I was. (Search the archives for examples of questions that, over a period of 2 1/2 years, could drive a person to frustration. I do not include your question in that category.) I am truly sorry for replying the way I did. To contact the Lockman Foundation, sponsors of the NASB translation project, go to: (www.gospelcom.net/lockman/). I agree with you: it is sad, but true, that no one from the translating team monitors what is going on here at the forum. Sometimes I don't even know why I monitor it. :-) Grace and peace, Radioman2 |
||||||
426 | How does God speak to us? | Ps 119:105 | Radioman2 | 86408 | ||
Mommapbs: I, like you, continually dig into God's Word regarding what I believe -- i.e., "whether those things are so." Occasionally they aren't. :-) Grace and peace be multiplied to you, Radioman2 |
||||||
427 | Part 1 Testing "New" Revelation | Matt 24:11 | Radioman2 | 86405 | ||
"Any prophet speaking for Jesus, in other words, as a conduit for Jesus' own words, with a clearer explanation of spiritual things than the Bible gives us, is going to be false." Part 1 Testing "New" Revelation '[Daniel] showed me a book that he had found, Fundamental Principles of Life , which includes the writings of Jacob Lorber...In the mind of Daniel, as he was reading through this, he found that it not only made the Christian case, but it made it better than anything he had heard before, in particular with regard to the nature of the Trinity, which was an issue he had been struggling with... 'Daniel found that he had stumbled upon, in this book, an explanation of things that made more sense than he had ever encountered before. We had a conversation about it and as he began telling me about this book, The Fundamental Principles of Life, and describing to me the format and what it really entailed, I realized there was a problem immediately because this was a record of Jacob Lorber's conversations with or revelations from Jesus Christ. In other words, the book was a "thus saith Jesus" kind of thing. Jesus is speaking to Lorber and Lorber is writing down what Jesus says. So we have the gospels and we have Lorber's revelations which purport to be the actual words of Jesus explaining these other kinds of things. 'Now, I have a rule of thumb...Any prophet speaking for Jesus, in other words, as a conduit for Jesus' own words, with a clearer explanation of spiritual things than the Bible gives us, is going to be false. All I need to know is that much. Jacob Lorber is giving us a revelation in which he is writing down the words of Jesus as communicated to him for us--I know it's false. Not because there is no theological possibility that Jesus can speak in revelation to someone today, though I think a case can be made against it. Even if I granted that as a theological possibility, I have never seen the real McCoy. These modern day revelations have always followed the same kind of pattern. I know when such a revelation is offered to me it's going to be false. I know it from experience. 'And I told Daniel that. I said, "Daniel, you don't have to read me any more. All I need to know is that this person claims that he has revelation directly from Jesus Christ that explains things like the Trinity in better detail and more accurately than the Bible can. All I need to know is that, to know this is a false prophet..." ( . . . ) 'Whenever you hear that kind of thing, there is a very important question you have to ask. I know what the truth is, and when I compare the first revelation to the second revelation, I know the second revelation couldn't be Jesus speaking through whoever that prophet is. It is not enough for someone to say, "Jesus told me this thing, therefore you ought to believe the revelation." Though many people leave it at that, quite frankly. I'm really surprised that there are so many so-called prophets of Jesus here now in these latter days, and they make a bald-faced authority claim and say, "You ought to believe this." Why? Because Jesus is speaking here. Well, the very question is...Why should I trust that any of this new material is a genuine revelation of Jesus? Why should I trust that? 'Now, the Biblical answer to that is signs and wonders and miracles, and the authority of the resurrection, and the authority of the apostles, and all those other things that substantiate the Scriptures. The apostles themselves walked with Jesus. They could speak first hand for His teaching. Now, Paul was an exception here, but even in his case he brought his teaching before these same apostles who had actually walked with Jesus during his earthly ministry and these same apostles authenticated his gospel as being sound. We read about that in Galatians 2. He received the right hand of fellowship, and it was demonstrated there that he had not run in vain, and God had indeed spoken to him and that he was preaching what was true. Peter even referred to Paul's writing as Scripture in 1 Peter 3. So you have this tight group of people close to Jesus that can authenticate what is true. 'What about people who pop up nearly 2000 years later and claim to have the most recent word from Christ after a couple millennia of silence? Often times you will get this response, "Well, it feels right. I really have this feeling that it's true. I have a burning in my heart that authenticates the truth of this alleged revelation." This response just won't do because what they're offering is a mere subjective test for something that is supposedly objectively true. Yet this objective truth is not patently obvious on the face of it.' ____________________ 'Testing "New" Revelation' by Gregory Koukl. To read more go to: (www.str.org/free/commentaries/apologetics/other/testnew.htm) |
||||||
428 | That didn't really answer my question. | Rom 9:23 | Radioman2 | 86386 | ||
Hank: Are you suggesting that if we have a question about why a certain version translates a passage the way it does, we should contact the publisher, rather than take an opinion poll on the forum? What an odd notion! :-) Radioman2 |
||||||
429 | How does God speak to us? | Ps 119:105 | Radioman2 | 86362 | ||
Mommapbs: First let me say, I have followed your posts since you first started here on the forum. I respect and appreciate your Christian spirit and your participation in the forum. Thank you for replying to my post. To answer your question: please note first of all that I definitely believe the gifts of the Spirit are still in operation today. (I do NOT believe in the cessation of the gifts.) And all of us would do well to heed 1 Corinthians 14:40. When the whole church be come together into one place, "Let all things be done decently and in order." 1 Corinthians 12:1-14:40 instructs us in spiritual gifts and their use in love. (I'm sure you are familiar with these Scriptures -- I only refer to them here for the benefit of readers who may not be familiar with them.) After reviewing the posts in this thread, I must say that my position on what I have posted is that I agree with it. Also, I agree that God will lead, guide and direct us, "but in a way that encourages the individual and edifies the body," as you have said. Here's what I believe: New Living Translation James 1:5 If you need wisdom – if you want to know what God wants you to do – ask him, and he will gladly tell you. He will not resent your asking. NASB James 1:5 But if any of you lacks wisdom, let him ask of God, who gives to all generously and without reproach, and it will be given to him. Grace and peace, Radioman2 |
||||||
430 | No Pretrib Before 1880 A.D. | Joel 2:31 | Radioman2 | 86335 | ||
Correction: The title of the original Note should be: No Pretrib Before 1830 A.D. 'First of all, pretribulationism didn't exist before 1830...' |
||||||
431 | No Pretrib Before 1880 A.D. | Joel 2:31 | Radioman2 | 86334 | ||
WHAT IS PRETRIB'S ORIGIN? 'First of all, pretribulationism didn't exist before 1830 and there is considerable documentary proof that it was initially introduced in England by Edward Irving, the father of the charismatic Apostolic Church and not John Darby. Edward Irving probably picked up the idea of an "any moment rapture" from his work on the translation of Emanuel Lucunza's book, The Coming of the Messiah in Glory and Majesty, a Catholic priest who initially wrote the book in Spanish under the pen name of Rabbi Ben Ezra. In reality, with whom the pretribulationism position originated really does not make that much difference other than the fact that it contradicts the first 1800 years of prophetic thought and contradicts the plain teaching of the New Testament. 'On the other had, the basic tenant of prewrath (that the Church will undergo the persecution of Antichrist before the return of Christ) was taught clearly and consistently by early Church fathers. Among the evangelicals, what other basic doctrine of Scripture, other than pretribulationism, has been "discovered" in the past 160 years and directly contradicts the basic, accepted teachings (as a whole) of the early church fathers? There is none. Some will tell you that pretribulationism is a result of "progressive revelation," but look out. There is a lot of baggage when you take that position. Where do you stop and who decides where? The revelation of God ceased with the completion of Scriptures.' To read more go to:(http://www.solagroup.org/articles/endtimes/et_0006.html) |
||||||
432 | The coming of the Lord at the rapture | Joel 2:31 | Radioman2 | 86332 | ||
Basic Second Coming Passages "Prophetic teaching is scattered throughout the Bible. There are however, certain passages that are "basic" if one is to grasp an understanding of the return of Christ. They are: "1. The Prophecies of Daniel "Of particular importance, is the 70 Weeks of Daniel, recorded in Daniel 9:24-27. This passage gives us the general time frame for the fulfillment of God's plan of the ages from Daniel's time forward. It identifies when the 70 weeks begin, what will happen during the 70th Week and what will happen after the completion of the 70th Week. It also informs us of some critical information that will take place during the 70th Week. When one realizes that 69 of those weeks have already transpired, it is more than interesting to note that the world is rushing toward that day in the future when Christ will return and history as we know it will conclude. "2. The Olivet Discourse "It was the Lord, Jesus Christ, who taught about the sign of His second coming on the Mount of Olives during the final week of His life on earth. What He said ought to parallel what the Scripture teaches in other places, since Christ is the author of the visions of Daniel (cf. Dan. 10:5-6; compare with Rev. 1:13-16), the instruction in the Olivet Discourse (Matt. 24:1:1ff) and the book of Revelation (cf. Rev. 1:1ff). When the sequence in Matthew 24:3-31 is examined, it will be found to parallel what Paul taught in I Thessalonians 4-5 and II Thessalonians, particularly chapters one and two, and what we read in Revelation. "3. The Thessalonian Epistles "It is Paul who gives us some detailed information regarding the moment when Christ returns for His own. Paul tells us that what he teaches is "by the word of the Lord" (I Thess. 4:15). The information he gives us perfectly parallels what Jesus taught in the Olivet Discourse and in the book of Revelation. "4. The Book of Revelation "If Daniel gives us the time frame for the end times and the Olivet Discourse gives us a thumbnail sketch of the sequence of the end times, then Revelation gives us the details. "The above passages are essential to an understanding of the end times. God has given the church all the information she needs in order to understand His unfolding plan. Using the study tools referred to above and saturating the heart and mind in prayer and as God's plan of the ages continues to unfold in history, the clarity of our understanding of Biblical revelation will become sharper and more distinct." (http://www.signministries.org/faqs/faq018_wheretobegin.htm) To read more go to: (http://www.solagroup.org/) |
||||||
433 | The coming of the Lord at the rapture | Joel 2:31 | Radioman2 | 86294 | ||
The coming of the Lord at the rapture 'The Bible clearly and repeatedly teaches that the Second Coming of Christ and the rapture of the Church will occur after the opening of the sixth seal, sometime after the midpoint of Daniel's 70th Week (often erroneously called The Tribulation). If you believe that the rapture occurs at any other time than this, we invite you to see if your beliefs can stand in light of these five scriptures . . . 'In general, there are four events that will characterize the coming of the Lord at the rapture: '1. The return of Jesus Christ '2. The raising of the dead in Christ '3. The rapture of the Church, or the gathering together of the elect. '4. The cosmic signs in heaven that signal Christ's coming and, at the same time, usher in the Day of the Lord (which contains God's wrath). 'Look for the relationship of these four events in the verses below. ------------------------------ '1. Matthew 24:29-31 "Immediately after the tribulation of those days, the sun will be darkened, and the moon will not give its light; the stars will fall from heaven, and the powers of the heavens will be shaken. Then the sign of the Son of Man will appear in heaven, and then all the tribes of the earth will mourn, and they will see the Son of Man coming on the clouds of heaven with power and great glory. And He will send His angels with a great sound of a trumpet, and they will gather together His elect from the four winds, from one end of heaven to the other." '2. 1 Thess. 4:16-17, 5:1-4 "For the Lord Himself will descend from heaven with a shout, with the voice of an archangel, and with the trumpet of God. And the dead in Christ will rise first. Then we who are alive and remain shall be caught up together with them in the clouds to meet the Lord in the air. And thus, we shall always be with the Lord...But concerning the times and the seasons, brethren, you have no need that I should write to you. For you yourselves know perfectly that the day of the Lord so comes as a thief in the night [for unbelievers]...But you, brethren are not in darkeness, so that this Day should overtake you as a thief." '3. 1 Corinthians 15:51-52 "Behold, I tell you a mystery: We shall not all sleep, but we shall all be changed — in a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trumpet. for the trumpet will sound, and the dead will be raised incorruptible, and we shall be changed." '4. Joel 2:31 "The sun shall be turned into darkness, and the moon into blood, before the coming of the great and awesome day of the Lord." '5. Revelation 6:12-13, 7-9,14 "I looked when He opened the sixth seal, and behold, there was a great earthquake; and the sun became black as sackcloth of hair, and the moon became like blood. And the stars of heaven fell to the earth, as a fig tree drops its late figs when it is shaken by a mighty wind...After these things, I looked, and behold, a great multitude which no one could number, of all nations, tribes, peoples, and tongues, standing before the throne and before the Lamb...These are the ones that come out of the Great Tribulation...'" ____________________ (www.strongtowerpublishing.com/fivescripturechallenge.htm) |
||||||
434 | The Lord's Day (Rev 1:10) | Rev 1:10 | Radioman2 | 86292 | ||
The Lord's Day (Rev 1:10) "I was in the Spirit on the Lord's Day[5] when I heard behind me a loud voice like a trumpet," Rev. 1:10 New English Translation '[5] translators' note Concerning the phrase kuriakh'/ hJmevra/ (kuriakh Jhmera) BAGD 458 s.v. kuriakov states: '"belonging to the Lord, the Lord's '...k. hJmevra/ the Lord's day (Kephal. I 192, 1; 193, 31) i.e. certainly Sunday (so in Mod. Gk.) Rv 1:10 (WStott, NTS 12, '65, 70-75)."' (http://www.netbible.com) |
||||||
435 | Things the untaught and unstable distort | 2 Pet 3:16 | Radioman2 | 86195 | ||
Direct quotations from the pen of dschaertel. "To the degree that we claim to be right we in a sense are simply trying to justify ourselves." "The Bible to many people has become a crutch, kind of a security blanket." "The Bible can become a destructive tool..." "So my trust is in Him (Christ), not the Bible." ("So my trust is not [in] the Bible.") "Sola Scritpura (sic) is a doctrine that is not taught in the Bible." "You say there is agreement that the Bible is true, and I agree with that as well. But I don't believe in it's sufficiency..." Adam and Eve "didn't get kicked out of the garden because the[y] disobeyed." "Sola Scriptura is not taught in the scriptures. It was an invention in response to the oppresion of the Catholic hierarchy." "This talk about a future antichrist and this elaborate end times story is great for selling books, making movies and scaring people into coming to church, but it just isn't in the Bible." "There will be death in the millenium, because that is the period of time that we are in right now. The thousand years in the bible is not a literal thousand years." "And the question still stands, where does the Bible speak of the 66 or more books that we call the bible, and where does it say that they are the exclusive and sufficient revelation of God? What prohecy was this? I haven't found it, and nobody I know has found it either. As far as I can tell you are just making that up." "The question is of course what is scripture? Where does the Bible tell us what it is? You can't just say the Bible. Men wrote it and decided which books were in it . . . Where is the prophecy that there would be a New Testament with 27 books?" In reference to Genesis chapters 1 and 2: "But if we actually examine the text of the story, I guess I have to question it as being literal history. The imagery is quite fanciful and symbolic." "...take another look at the Garden [of Eden] story. There is some intersting things. Like for instance, God is walking and can't find them. What kind of God is that? He has leggs, and can't see through the trees. . . You see, the story doesn't hang together if it is literal." "Jesus can in fact be real even if Adam is a parable. Sorry, you have proven nothing here except that you wish Adam to be a real person . . . But I find no problem with the idea that it is a parable. And I find no real evidence that it isn't. I do see that it was in the character of Jesus Christ to speak in parables and it wouldn't be a surprise to me if the Garden story is a parable. What I do find problematic is people's religous devotion to it being literally true." |
||||||
436 | Will we be here once anti-Christ appears | 1 John 2:18 | Radioman2 | 86175 | ||
Is Revelation Prophecy or History? "Over the centuries, four main approaches to interpreting the book of Revelation have developed. Each approach has had capable supporters, but none has proved itself the only way to read this book. However, the most basic application question for each approach can be summarized by asking yourself, Will this help me become a better follower of Jesus Christ today?" (Life Application Study Bible, Tyndale House, 1996) ____________________ Four main approaches to interpreting the book of Revelation ____________________ 'The Book of Revelation is the most difficult of all New Testament books to interpret because of the extensive symbolism. These symbols, which often seem strange and bizarre, have resulted in various methods of interpretation, from which we can identify four: *historical, idealist, futurist, and preterist*. 'The *historical* sees Revelation as a symbolic prophecy of the entire history of the church from the Incarnation to the return of Christ to establish the eternal state. In contrast to this view, the *idealist* avoids the difficulty of trying to find fulfillment of the book's images in history. Rather, these interpreters see only a symbolic portrayal of the spiritual cosmic conflict between the kingdom of God and the powers of evil. 'Probably the most popular interpretation of Revelation at the end of the twentieth century—evidenced by the millions of copies that Tim LaHaye and Jerry Jenkins have sold in their popular Left Behind series—is the *futurist*. This approach interprets the book not as what was future to John and is now past or present to us, but as what was future to John and still future to us. It understands that the Book of Revelation has to do with the future of the world. 'Recently, theologians such as R. C. Sproul, in his 1998 book The Last Days According to Jesus (Baker), have revived interest in the *preterist* interpretation. This approach regards the events symbolized in Revelation as having occurred roughly contemporaneously with John's writing of the book, which Sproul dates before the fall of Jerusalem in A.D. 70. Thus, for the preterist, the "last days" arrived at the time of John. Preterist interpreters stress the fact that Revelation belongs to a distinct genre of Jewish-Christian writings called "apocalyptic," which are "spiritual guides for difficult times." ( . . . ) 'Both the futurist and preterist views have their strengths and weaknesses. Instead of choosing only one or the other, a "both/and" approach that applies the strengths of each is a better option. ( . . . ) 'The preterist position by itself fails to understand that Revelation confronts the modern reader with promises, challenges, and choices that are similar, if not identical, to those faced by the book's original readers. The futurist position by itself is prone to see Revelation as a crystal ball with a literal timetable of events that will happen in the future. 'While the final book in the Bible had immediate relevance to the first-century church, it also speaks powerfully to us about the return of Christ, his judgment of this world, and God's ultimate eschatological victory over the power of evil.' ____________________ By David S. Dockery, president of Union University and the author of Our Christian Hope: Biblical Answers to Questions About the Future (LifeWay Press). Christianity Today, October 25, 1999 (Emphasis added.) Go to (www.christianitytoday.com/ct/9tc/9tc086.html) for links to read more about these related topics: —End Times —Apocalypse —Y2K —Christian Fiction P.S. I can guarantee you, on the forum there will NOT be a long, inappropriate discussion of this question. |
||||||
437 | Will we be here once anti-Christ appears | 1 John 2:18 | Radioman2 | 86171 | ||
Part 2 'Did Jesus Already Return in AD 70? 'If the Rapture "has already taken place", then the resurrection has already taken place. Paul, in 1 Corinthians 15 writes of the day when the final "trumpet" for believers will be blown and mortality will put on immortality. In this passage, he links the Rapture with the resurrection of believers. In other words, when the Rapture takes place, the resurrection occurs. 'Those who insist that the events of Matthew 24 are history and say that the "generation that sees these things" was the generation concurrent with Jesus nearly 2,000 years ago, must of necessity show that the resurrection has also taken place. The only way that is possible is to spiritualize the text by saying that the resurrection was a spiritual one and not a physical one. 'Moderate (or partial) preterist, R.C. Sproul recognizes this when he says, To maintain that these events [the Olivet teaching] were indeed fulfilled in the first century, one must interpret the relevant passages in a way that makes early fulfillment possible. The most severe obstacle [to that] is the absence of any historical record that the rapture of the living and the resurrection of the dead occurred. (R.C. Sproul, The Last Days According to Jesus, Baker Books, 1998, pg 161) 'There are two serious problems with understanding the resurrection as a "spiritual" event. R.C. Sproul says, The first difficulty is that it [Paul's teaching in 1 Corinthians 15] involves propositions and assertions that can be neither verified nor falsified empirically. ... if one announces or predicts things that will take place in the arena of real history involving physical reality, then empirical verification becomes relevant and crucial...It is unfortunate that the apostle failed to alert the Corinthians-and us, by extension-that he was speaking of a secret, hidden, spiritual resurrection. His language certainly suggests something else, particularly as Paul so clearly conjoins the resurrection of our bodies with the resurrection of Christ's body. The resurrected Christ is the firstfruits of all who will be raised. (R.C. Sproul, The Last Days According to Jesus, Baker Books, 1998, pg 162) 'And what was the resurrected body of Jesus like? First, the tomb was empty. In other words, there was a physical body in it but on the day of His resurrection, it became empty. A body had departed from it. Second, he had a glorified body. It was different from His previous mortal body, but it was the same body. Third, Jesus was visible to the disciples until the time He ascended and was touched by them and ate with them. Christ's resurrected body was a physical body, not a spiritualized one. 'A theological problem with a spiritualized understanding of the resurrection is likewise addressed by R.C. Sproul - If a spiritual body cannot be seen, touched, or handled, is it a body at all? It is one thing to say that our resurrected bodies will be spiritiual bodies, but quite another to imply that our resurrected bodies will be merely spirits. The Bible speaks of spiritual bodies. (R.C. Sproul, The Last Days According to Jesus, Baker Books, 1998, pg 164) 'A common problem among interpreters of the Bible is that of "shifting gears". If a person approaches his interpretation of the Bible with, for example, a face value hermeneutic, then it is critical that he remain consistent with his approach. However, many often "flip flop" in their interpretation approach to maintain a preconceived understanding of a text. An example of this is the above. Preterists interpret "this generation" in the simple sense as meaning the generation concurrent with Christ and then suddenly "shift gears" and apply a figurative approach to arrive at a spiritualized understanding of the Rapture and the resurrection. That is an inconsistent hermeneutic and leads to error. 'When spiritualization is introduced into one's interpretation, Pandora's box is opened and various meanings can be understood. The only way the integrity of the Author/author's wording and meaning can be preserved is by taking Scripture at face value. Taking Scripture at face value means that the student of Scripture recognizes the difference between what can be called the "simple sense" of a passage and what is understood as a literal understanding. A literal understanding includes the examination of the historical/cultural and lexical/syntactical considerations. It also recognizes symbols and figures of speech and realizes there is a referent for them. For further information on hermeneutical principles, see the "links" section of this website for an explanation. (Did Jesus Already Return in AD 70? By Rev. Bill Lee-Warner) (http://www.solagroup.org/articles/endtimes/et_0003.html) |
||||||
438 | Will we be here once anti-Christ appears | 1 John 2:18 | Radioman2 | 86170 | ||
Part 1 'Did Jesus Already Return in AD 70? 'By Rev. Bill Lee-Warner '"Truly I say to you, this generation will not pass away until all these things take place." Matthew 24:34 'The above passage is found in what is referred to as the Olivet Discourse of Jesus given a few days before Christ's crucifixion. The context for Matthew 24:34 is Jesus' response to the questions of the disciples regarding His return and the end of the age. There are those in the church of Jesus Christ who understand "this generation" to refer to the generation to whom Jesus was speaking the day He gave the discourse. 'The apostle Paul recognized this error and warned Timothy of it when he wrote, "But avoid worldly and empty chatter, for it will lead to further ungodliness, and...spread like gangrene. Among them are Hymenaeus and Philetus, men who have gone astray from the truth saying that the resurrection has already taken place, and thus they upset the faith of some." (2 Tim. 2:16-18) 'Today, there is a resurgence of this teaching known as preterism. The term preterism comes from the Latin word praeterism and means "past" or already gone by. The basic teaching of preterism is that the great tribulation has already occured in the distant past, principally at AD 70. Those who hold to this teaching are known specifically as full preterists. There is another subgroup of preterists known as partial or moderate preterists. This latter group sees parts of the Olivet Discourse, or Jesus' teaching on end times, as partially fulfilled in AD 70 but other parts as yet to be fulfilled at the second parousia of Christ. Several efforts have been made to establish preterism as historically sound and biblical but the clear warning of Paul reminds us that it is an heretical and false teaching. The following reasons are offered to the student of Scripture and prophecy for consideration. Be a Berean (Acts 17:11) and examine the Word to "see if these things are so."' (http://www.solagroup.org/articles/endtimes/et_0003.html) |
||||||
439 | The Rich Man and Lazarus... | Luke 16:23 | Radioman2 | 86035 | ||
If hell fire is false and if self-awareness after death is also false, then Jesus is using false doctrines to teach a truth. Parables illustrate truth. | ||||||
440 | Prove all things hold fast to the good.. | 1 Cor 15:1 | Radioman2 | 86032 | ||
Jude2425: "Shalom Goodnewsminister, Do you subscribe to the teachings of Herbert W. Armstrong?" Goodnewsminister: "He [Herbert W. Armstrong] still had more truth than most of the churches today." ____________________ Who is Herbert W. Armstrong? 'The Worldwide Church of God became known for an assortment of doctrinal distinctives that placed it at odds with historic Christianity. Among other aberrations, Armstrong: 'Condemned the Trinity as a pagan doctrine. 'Taught that “all saints” become little gods after their resurrection. 'Denied that Christians can be born again prior to the resurrection. 'Promoted Anglo-Israelism, the belief that British people are the literal descendants of the ten “lost” tribes of Israel. 'Urged keeping the Old Testament law, including strict Sabbath observance and dietary restrictions. 'Prohibited celebrating Christmas or Easter, which he condemned as pagan holidays. (Instead, WCG members observed seven Holy Days: Passover, the Festival of Unleavened Bread, Pentecost, the Festival of Trumpets, the Day of Atonement, the Festival of Tabernacles, and the Last Great Day.) 'Forbade members to consult medical doctors when sick. 'Stressed tithing to a legalistic extreme. (Strictly observant WCG members gave 30 percent: 10 percent for a regular tithe, 10 percent to support the annual Feast of Tabernacles, and 10 percent intended to support widows and orphans within the WCG) 'Forbade members to remarry after divorce and insisted that they remain celibate if they remarried after divorce. 'Insisted that the WCG was the only true church. 'Closed the movement’s doors to visitors and welcomed only converts.' ____________________ (http://www.equip.org/free/DW070.htm) |
||||||
Result pages: << First < Prev [ 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 ] Next > Last [40] >> |