Results 201 - 220 of 2030
|
||||||
Results from: Answered Bible Questions, Answers, Unanswered Bible Questions, Notes Author: mark d seyler Ordered by Verse |
||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
201 | rapture or tribulation? | Bible general Archive 3 | mark d seyler | 175271 | ||
Hi Kalos, I think the real challenge is to approach the Scripture to seek only what it truly says. One can equally ascribe any conclusion reached as the product of preconceptions. There is also the matter of reaching conclusions based on arguments offered by others, be it in books, websites, or speakers. Their conclusions may equally be the product of their preconceptions - how do we know? Why, we could even run into a false prophet or false teacher. We know such will run rampant in the last days. But solid, personal Bible study, without superimposing a learned doctrine, is, as they say, priceless! :-) Love in Christ, Mark |
||||||
202 | 40 in the bible | Bible general Archive 3 | mark d seyler | 175275 | ||
Perhaps you might reread my post to see if I asserted typology. As you asserted numerology, I just thought that I would share what numerology actually was, and to show that this is not it. Seeing a pattern in how things are written in Scripture is not numerology, no, not even a little bit. Nor do I have some "fetish" about numbers. Its good when you can say with assurance and accuracy that you are truly stating that which was in fact the original intention of the Author. Did He, or did He not intend to include these patterns? (that's rhetorical - I already know your answer!) But remember, contrary to the words of Ben Jowett, not all Scripture is necessarily confined to the meaning contained in the mind of the prophet that uttered it. Consider such passages as Hosea 11:1 "When Israel was a child, then I loved him, and I called My Son out of Egypt." Matthew lets us know this was a prophecy of Jesus, but did Hosea know that? You'd be hard pressed to make that case. What did the prophets know? Who can say? I suppose those who want to bolster their interpretations would equally claim them to be "true to the Bible, and true to the Bible-writers". Not a surprise. Love in Christ, Mark |
||||||
203 | 40 in the bible | Bible general Archive 3 | mark d seyler | 175304 | ||
Since you are basically jsut restated your same views while re-defining mine, I don't see where there is any benefit in continuing this discussion. I shall consider this a closed subject between us. And please, you never need to project values onto me to justify your actions. Love in Christ, Mark |
||||||
204 | rapture or tribulation? | Bible general Archive 3 | mark d seyler | 175318 | ||
Hi Shamrock, Even us "pre-tribbers" recognize that persecution may come before the 70th week, as it has indeed come to hundreds of thousands elsewhere in the world. I live in Southern California, where persecution is virtually non-existant, but there is much of the world that is actively and violently persecuting the Church, and we shouldn't think that we will be immune so long as the antichrist isn't in power yet. I would question whether in fact the Scriptures "prove" opposing views, there is only one that is correct, and all others will mishandle certain texts. We watch, we wait, we present our bodies a living sacrifice. Love in Christ, Mark |
||||||
205 | rapture or tribulation? | Bible general Archive 3 | mark d seyler | 175376 | ||
Hi Timmy68, According to Zechariah 14, the Feast of Tabernacles will be kept annually following the return of the Lord. According to Numbers 10, trumpets are to be blown with the burnt offerings. According to Leviticus 23, burnt offering are to be made each day of the Feast of Tabernacles. From this, I conclude that trumpets will continue to be sounded after the rapture, throughout the millenium, until the time when God makes "all things new." Based on the above, I conclude that the "7th trumpet", while being the last of its series, is not the "last trumpet" period. Other trumpets will be sounded. There are other series of trumpets spoken of in the Bible, one notable example being in Numbers 10:2. The first trumpet is blown to gather the people, the last trumpet is blown to signal departure. We see this in Exodus 19. As the trumpet sounded the first time, the people gathered to the holy mountain. When the trumpet sounded the second time, the LORD descended, and called Moses up. Since there are various series of trumpets we can choose from, we must make our choice in such a manner as to not conflict with any other passage. But consider also, what might be the meaning of Jesus' words in Luke 21:36 "Watch ye therefore, and pray always, that ye may be accounted worthy to escape all these things that shall come to pass, and to stand before the Son of man." What things are we to pray that we might escape? Well, Jesus had just finished describing the time of great trouble, culminating in His return in power. Regarding your last paragraph, this time comes upon the world after the world has rejected Jesus. Over and over it is written in the Revelation "They repented not..." But even so, God will appoint His servants for that time also. Just not the Church. Love in Christ, Mark |
||||||
206 | rapture or tribulation? | Bible general Archive 3 | mark d seyler | 175377 | ||
Hi Timmy68, There is one other point I would like to offer. 1Co 15:52 In a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trump: for the trumpet shall sound, and the dead shall be raised incorruptible, and we shall be changed. 1Th 4:16 For the Lord himself shall descend from heaven with a shout, with the voice of the archangel, and with the trump of God: and the dead in Christ shall rise first: Assuming you consider these passage to be speaking of the same event, the trumpet sounded is called the "trump of God." According to Rev 8:13 "And I beheld, and heard an angel flying through the midst of heaven, saying with a loud voice, Woe, woe, woe, to the inhabiters of the earth by reason of the other voices of the trumpet of the three angels, which are yet to sound!" these are not the "trumpets of God", they are the "trumpets of the angels". Love in Christ, Mark |
||||||
207 | U.S.A. the Babylon of Revelations 18? | Bible general Archive 3 | mark d seyler | 175622 | ||
babelonman, Are you asking a question, or making a statement? As this is a Bible Study Forum, I would ask you to study the Bible with us. Is there a particular passage you wish to look at? Love in Christ, Mark |
||||||
208 | U.S.A. the Babylon of Revelations 18? | Bible general Archive 3 | mark d seyler | 175624 | ||
near duplicate post | ||||||
209 | U.S.A. the Babylon of Revelations 18? | Bible general Archive 3 | mark d seyler | 175670 | ||
There are a couple of things I would like to mention about this article. I am not certain I would agree with their hermeneutic. Quote: 2. The beast came to power in a densely populated area of the world, "I…saw a beast rise up out of the sea" Rev. 13:1. "The sea", in prophecy, is generally considered to represent the gentiles, or the overall mass of humanity. Regarding the beasts of Rev. 13, one comes from the sea and one from the land. This is thought to mean that the beast from the sea will be a gentile, and the beast from the land will be Jewish. Here they interpret this beast to come from a "densely populated" part of the earth. I do not believe this symbol is that specific. It is not refering to a concentration of people, but rather to a catagory of people. Quote: 4. The beast ruled ruthlessly possessing absolute hegemony (domination) for 1260 years. This period must have a clear starting point and end with the 'deadly wound'. "Power was given unto him to continue forty and two months." "And I saw one of his heads as it were wounded to death." "And power was given him over all kindreds, and tongues, and nations" Rev. 13:5, 3, 7. Days are interpreted as years, but where is the Biblical foundation for that? If it says days, its days. Here is a prediction made in this article: Quote: The Bible tells us that one day, in the not too distant future, the USA will legislate a law requiring its citizens, and then the world, to worship the first beast, the papacy. (...) Soon the USA will renounce its religious freedom to enforce Sunday observance (the mark of the beast). This is certainly a rather loose interpretation at best. The bottom line to this article appears to be the upholding of the Sabbath, and that oft repeated claim that to worship on Sunday is to take the mark of the beast. Not only does this allegorize Scripture without Scriptural authority, but it is directly against what the Bible actually says about the Sabbath: Colossians 2:16-17 (16) Then do not let anyone judge you in eating, or in drinking, or in part of a feast, or of a new moon, or of sabbaths, (17) which are a shadow of coming things, but the body is of Christ. When you meet your wife at the airport, do you hug and kiss her shadow??? No, you hug and kiss (I hope!) her! If we insist on the keeping of the Sabbath, in spite of what the Bible tells us that the Sabbath is fulfilled in our rest in the finished work of Christ (see Hebrews 4), that's what we are doing. We are focusing on Jesus's shadow, and ignoring Jesus. There is nothing wrong with worshipping on Saturday, but there is nothing wrong with worshipping on Sunday either. Or Tues. Or Thursday, or any other day. Now, as an aside, you say you keep the Sabbath. Do you really? No light bulbs, cooking, driving, candles, long walks, hobbies, store trips, or encouraging, inciting, benefitting from anyone else doing those things? And even if you say yes to that, which would, in all honesty, greatly surprise me, do you then expect to be justified by doing this? Do you then keep the whole Law? This is not a very promising road you are on. But I digress. Love in Christ, Mark |
||||||
210 | Pre-Trib Rapture Assistance | Bible general Archive 3 | mark d seyler | 175858 | ||
Hi Kathy, I agree with you regarding the pre-trib rapture. These two examples that you have already refered to, Enoch being removed before the flood, and Lot being removed before the destruction of Sodom, are the two main examples in Scripture, and it is these two times that our Lord Jesus refered to: Luke 17:26-30 (26) Just as it was in the days of Noah, so will it be in the days of the Son of Man. (27) They were eating and drinking and marrying and being given in marriage, until the day when Noah entered the ark, and the flood came and destroyed them all. (28) Likewise, just as it was in the days of Lot--they were eating and drinking, buying and selling, planting and building, (29) but on the day when Lot went out from Sodom, fire and sulfur rained from heaven and destroyed them all-- (30) so will it be on the day when the Son of Man is revealed. This is a common factor between these two judgments, that in each case, someone was supernaturally removed before the judgment came. There is one other instance I would like to bring up, not exactly what you are asking about, but interesting anyway. In Daniel 3, when Nebuchadnezzar builds an image, commanding it be worshipped, Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego refuse, and are cast into the furnace of fire. God supernaturally preserves them. This is comparable to the Jews during the Seventieth Week. The interesting question arises, where was Daniel? I have personally studied this topic a great deal, and would be happy to help you with any questions you may have regarding the pre-trib rapture, and why Scripture supports it. I would also be happy to address any questions or concerns regarding the other rapture views, as I believe that they are irreconcilable with Scripture. Love in Christ, Mark |
||||||
211 | Pre-Trib Rapture Assistance | Bible general Archive 3 | mark d seyler | 175870 | ||
Hi Kathy, There are many who believe that these prophecies have already been fulfilled, but in order to believe that, you must also believe that the Revelation is mostly allegorical, without textual evidence that it is. While John wrote in the first verse that the revelation was "signified" (they will say encoded in symbols), the word used does not exclusively mean that. It can mean "expressed in a symbol", but it can also mean "to make a plain statement" (John 12:33, Acts 25:27), "to make an allusion" (John 21:19), basically, it means to "indicate something", using any number of methods from "encoding in symbols" to "plainly expressive language". Acts 25:27 is especially significant in that Festus needed to make a very plain statement of charges against Paul. When you look at the language of the Revelation, it tells you when something is a symbol, and what those symbols mean. There are also symbols used that are both identified and defined as apocalyptic symbols in the Old Testament, such as the "beast" in Rev. 11 is explained in Daniel 7. But I think it's a big mistake to claim something to be allegorical or symbolic that the Bible does not expressly state to be allegorical or symbolic. So this leaves us with a literal interpretation of Scripture, and now I have to ask, when did the abyss open? When was the time the people were unable to die? When did all sea life die? The sun scorch men? And all the other rather fantastic events outlined in the Revelation? When was there a time that the only servants of God numbered 144,000, and all were Jews? When did the sky part like a scroll being rolled up? When did every island and mountain change location? When did 2 prophets of God kill their enemies with fire coming out of their mouths? I just don't think these things have been fulfilled. The same word used in Rev. 1:1, "the things which much occur "tachei", commonly translated quickly, also translated suddenly, is also used in Rev. 22:6, in the same sort of context, "These Words are faithful and true. And the Lord God of the holy prophets sent His angel to show His slaves what must happen quickly." Except this is at the end of the book, after the prophecies of Jesus' return, the judgment of the dead, the re-creation of heaven and earth, Satan cast into the lake of fire... I just can't believe these things have been done. And to allegorize it all into "a symbol of the church" or some such thing is just without textual warrant. So apparently, when God says soon may be a little different than when we say soon. Or perhaps the scholars are right, and it can also mean "suddenly", "with speed"? And besides, who exactly did God address this book to? His servants. Are you His servant? All true believers are. Look up! Your redemption is getting close! Love in Christ, Mark |
||||||
212 | Calendar of Christ's public ministry | Bible general Archive 3 | mark d seyler | 175879 | ||
Hi Des, Here is a link to a site that may have what you are looking for. There are some events in Jesus' life that you really can't put in sequence, because the gospel writers wrote differently, and they didn't always give enough information to really work it out exactly, so different lists and charts will show some things differently. But these differences are relatively minor. I hope this helps! Love in Christ, Mark |
||||||
213 | Pre-Trib Rapture Assistance | Bible general Archive 3 | mark d seyler | 175880 | ||
Hi CDBJ, I just realized something about something you wrote. You said: "Just as the church age and the temple in Israel ran together for a while until AD 70, even so believers in Christ and Daniel’s 70th week will run hand and hand for a while before the rapture removes the believers." Except that the efficacy of temple sacrifice ended the moment Jesus died. The continuation of animal sacrifice after Jesus' death and resurrection was meaningless, and even apostate, as it represented the refusal to receive Jesus as the true sacrifice. Hebrews makes this very clear in chapter 10. The purpose of the Seventieth Week is the salvation is Israel. If the Church was still on the earth, every Jew that believed would cease to be a Jew, and would be joined to the Church, in which is neither Jew nor Greek. One could even say that the "church" will exist after the rapture, for a time, but not the true church. Not the "saved" church. Just as the temple sacrifice continued after Jesus's death, but not the "saving" sacrifice. So as the apostate temple worship continued for a time following the beginning of the true church, so will the apostate church continue for a time following the beginning of the Seventieth Week. One other thing I'd like to say. Whether you or I believe in a pre-trib or mid-trib rapture (we're both "pre-wrath") has absolutely zero effect on God's ability to fulfill His promise to keep us safe unto salvation. I need not fear anything that may come against me. We could be martyred for our faith at any time, within the Seventieth Week or without it. We do not need to wait for the Seventieth Week to be killed for our faith. Hundreds of thousands are being martyred each year. Should we teach people to think they are safe until they see the antichrist? But of course, I don't believe the true church will see the antichrist, even as Jesus taught: Luke 21:36 "Then be watchful at every time, begging that you be counted worthy to escape all these things, the things being about to happen, and to stand before the Son of Man." Love in Christ, Mark |
||||||
214 | Mark, there is no link | Bible general Archive 3 | mark d seyler | 175901 | ||
Uhhhh. . . ooops! http://www.lifeofchrist.com/life/harmony/ Sorry! Here it is! :-) Mark |
||||||
215 | What if both parties want a divorce? | Bible general Archive 3 | mark d seyler | 175920 | ||
Hi Jeff, I think that both you and Justme have made excellent points on this topic. Now, mind you, I'm not chiming in as a theologian, I'm a customer service rep, but I would like to add in this. When you look at how "agape" love is treated in the New Testament, I think it is very safe to say that it can be defined as the love that causes you to devote yourself to the wellbeing of the object of your love. To be devoted to the wellbeing of one's wife I would say is clearly an act of will. Love in Christ, Mark |
||||||
216 | Mark Thanks for your help. Des | Bible general Archive 3 | mark d seyler | 176003 | ||
Hi Des, You are welcome! I'm glad it was useful. Love in Christ, Mark |
||||||
217 | what can God do against man's free will? | Bible general Archive 3 | mark d seyler | 176083 | ||
The Bible does not say that God Never overrides a man's choice in a matter. An example of this is with Jonah, in that God exerted a strong influence over Jonah to cause Jonah to change the choice he was making. Another example would be 1 Kings 12:15, "Wherefore the king hearkened not unto the people; for the cause was from the LORD, that he might perform his saying, which the LORD spake by Ahijah the Shilonite unto Jeroboam the son of Nebat." Here, the Lord specifically caused the King to not pay attention to the people. Soloman wrote of this in Proverbs 21:1, "The king's heart is in the hand of the LORD, as the rivers of water: he turneth it whithersoever he will." We know that God directs the flow of history, acting through individuals, and often by causing them to act a certain way. The death of King Ahab is another example, the Lord directing events to achieve an outcome. But, that is only part of the story. There is an area that God has left strictly up to man, and that is our relationship with God. The Lord has made a way so that anyone can come to Him and be forgiven, and reborn, and invites all to come. To those who want this, He will not turn them away. To those who don't, He will not force them. There are several places that show this principle in action: Ezek 18:30 "Therefore I will judge you, O house of Israel, each according to his conduct, declares the Lord GOD. "Repent and turn away from all your transgressions, so that iniquity may not become a stumbling block to you. Ezek 18:31 "Cast away from you all your transgressions which you have committed and make yourselves a new heart and a new spirit! For why will you die, O house of Israel? While God pleads with man to turn from his sin, the choice is clearly left up to the man. Another example is: Luke 13:34-35 "Jerusalem! Jerusalem! The one killing the prophets, and stoning those having been sent to her, how often I desired to gather your children in the way a hen gathers her brood under the wings, and you did not desire it. 35 Behold, your house is left to you desolate. And truly I say to you, You shall not at all see Me until it comes when you say, Blessed is the One coming in the name of the Lord. Again, God earnestly desires to gather these together, but they did not desire it, so it did not happen. But when they have invited Jesus to come, He will come to them. So again, this clearly demonstrates that God desires relationship with those who do not want relationship with Him, and He allows their choice to be the determining factor. Rev 3:20 Behold, I stand at the door and knock: If anyone hears My voice and opens the door, I will enter to him, and I will dine with him, and he with Me. "If anyone hears My voice and opens the door" - something that you have to do - then - "I will enter to him..." So to summarize, God can and does change man's will, and predetermine man's choice in some areas, but in the area of man's relationship with God, God allows man to choose. God's preference is clearly expressed: Eze 18:32 "For I do not have delight in the death of him who dies, declares the Lord Jehovah. So turn and live." If it were God's wish that some were to perish, then why would not God delight in their deaths, as He delights in those who are saved? If both were His choosing, surely both would be His delight. But as is written throughout the Bible, our Lord desires all to be righteous. But He won't force us to love Him. Do you, who are created in the image of God, prefer the willing love of your living child, or the words of Chatty Cathy when you pull the string in its back "I-love-you"? Love in Christ, Mark |
||||||
218 | was the new testament translated into Gr | Bible general Archive 3 | mark d seyler | 176788 | ||
Hi micole, While there are some people who claim that the New Testament, or portions of it, was in fact written in either Hebrew or Aramaic, then translated into Greek, there is not one single pieces of historical or manuscript evidence of this. The best argument that can be made to suggest original semetic writings is that there are many semetic idioms and grammatical constructions used in the New Testament. But this would be equally true if it was written in Greek by men who thought in Hebrew. Not to mention that much of the New Testament is written in very good, eloquent Greek, and evidences being written by ones who clearly thought in that language. I hope this helps! Love in Christ, Mark |
||||||
219 | Emergent Church question | Bible general Archive 3 | mark d seyler | 177216 | ||
Hi MJH, I fellowship in a congregation that is an offshoot of a congregation that shares a similar history as yours. The senior pastor stepped into a church of about 25 people, around 40 years ago. The attendance quickly numbered in the thousands, and now approximately 30,000 people call that congregation their home church. Somewhere between 1400 and 1500 congregations currently exist around the world, in nearly every country and corner of the planet, pastored by those that have come out of that congregation, or it's offshoots. There have been started numerous Bible colleges. Millions of Bibles have been distributed within "closed" countries, and I can't begin to imagine how many people have come to know Christ through this movement. I have heard much criticism of this senior pastor, of the movement, of the doctrines, and such. Much of it is vitriolic, and some of it is exceedingly vile. But no matter. Christianity is not a popularity contest. Remember, the one's who crucified Jesus did so on the claim that He spoke falsely. But you need to judge for yourself if your congregation and your pastor are correctly handling and teaching Scripture. It's really as simple as that. There is much about the "emergent church" that is simply revising the cultural trappings of Christianity. People like to do that from time to time. Some like to worship with organ music, some with chiors, and some with electric guitars. Far be it from us to judge and divide over whether we sing with instruments or not, or if we recite liturgy. The "emergent church", in many ways, is simply the pendulum swinging back the other way again for a while. Should the Lord tarry, I am certain it will swing yet again. Meanwhile, if it serves to draw more to Christ, praise to Him! But in many ways, the emergent church is changing the gospel, and exchanging the requirements of holiness for that of worldly, temporal pursuits. Not so much of blatant sinfulness, but in some of this movement, there is more of a concern for people's property, or stomachs, or bank accounts than there is for their salvation, and the doctrine of Christ Alone. I do not know where in the spectrum your church falls, but I know you are intelligent and well studied, and as you seek to do God's will, I do not doubt that He will reveal to you such as what you should know. Many times people will do just as you have postulated, resorting to insults when they are short on facts. This is very common. There was another post in which I believe you stated, correctly, something to the effect of that just because the claim is made by an impeachable source does not affect whether the claim is correct or not. I do not believe that we are to ever treat anyone with anything less than love, but we must be clear and strong on doctrine. The doctrinal issues within the emergent church vary greatly depending on who exactly we are talking about. Some of them trouble me greatly. I am not asking you to name names, I do not know that doing so would enhance the discussion. But I would like to ask you, are there particular doctrines being taught by your pastor that his detractors claim to be false? Are there doctrines that you yourself question? Love in Christ, Mark |
||||||
220 | Emergent Church question | Bible general Archive 3 | mark d seyler | 177249 | ||
Hi Hank, Thank you for the time you spent researching this. I think the article you selected to pass along to us was well-chosen indeed! I know that at various times in the past the Bible has been "re-interpreted", Christianity "re-invented", and the "mainstream church" takes yet another turn for the worse. And it would not surprise me if this were to be the lastest, and perhaps last such turn. Post-modern thinking is the subjective justification for ecumenicalism. I recently heard an interview with Bob Edgar, the General Secretary of the National Council of Churches. He was asked if he believed that salvation was in Jesus alone. He answered no, that if someone, by "accident of birth," was born into a "different tradition", God would not condemn them for it. I found it very interesting in this article that the same kind of wording was used, in stating the claims of the "emergent church" that people formulate truth as a result of their "tradition". Well, we know what Jesus said about placing man's traditions above the Word of God! I know that the true church is hidden within the "apparent church", and so it has been, and so it will be, until that day comes. I know that one day the "apparent church" will join with the harlot, and this may well be the openning of the door for them to do so. But I find comfort in knowing God's word is true: Isaiah 55:10-11 For as the rain comes down, and the snow from the heavens, and does not return there, but waters the earth, and makes it bring out and bud, and give seed to the sower and bread to the eater; so shall My Word be, which goes out of My mouth; it shall not return to Me void, but it shall accomplish what I please, and it shall certainly do what I sent it to do. Love in Christ, Mark |
||||||
Result pages: << First < Prev [ 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 ] Next > Last [102] >> |