Results 1 - 20 of 54
|
||||||
Results from: Answered Bible Questions, Answers, Unanswered Bible Questions, Notes Author: Treadway Ordered by Date |
||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
1 | Who "inherit the earth"? | Matt 5:5 | Treadway | 55921 | ||
You wrote, Steve: Rev 21:1) that it must be the new earth where the new Jerusalem will be. ---------------------------------------------- I just read this over in the NT. The New Jerusalem is to be 1500 miles high, and 1500 miles on all sides. Is that correct? Kinda of a cube effect? Also, this prophecy comes from a vision or dream of one man who wrote Revelations. And, I not sure about this, but I don't believe the real author has ever been pin-pointed. So, here's the question; Isn't this a lot riding on just the vision of one, maybe, unknown man? With no known track record? One is the considerations in any kind of revelation is that the only one who can vouch for it, is the one who says he had it. Is that reliable? Can we risk our lives on that? Another question: The last person that I'm aware of that had a "revelation" was Joseph Smith of the Mormons. He also envisioned the coming of a New Jerusalem but he said it would be somewhere on the New World continent, mainly, I think, somewhere in North America. I think he even suggested Missouri at one time. So there's another example of a revelation that can only be substantiated with the word of the person claiming it. Some people would suggest his revelation is just as valid as the previous one in the Book of Revelation. Now, the last question: Even if one is correct, is there a logistical problem fitting? Certainly Missouri won't hold it. And I don't believe the site of the old Jerusalem would accomodate it, either; although I'm not positive what the Middle East expanse is. ....good thoughts....Treadway |
||||||
2 | facts about genesis ? | Genesis | Treadway | 55915 | ||
Hello Steve: You wrote: Gen 1:1 gives an opening summary statement followed by the detail of the statement (actually going through Gen 2:3). Gen 2:4 then circles back to give increasing detail of the sixth day. It takes a little adjustment, but it's not insurmountable. ---------------------------------------- I do understand that's the "intent". I guess I don't really like to have to "insert" or "bend" when I read Scripture. If read literally, and that's the way this should have been written, also, then I shouldn't have to wonder what is going on. It is a problem. As you say, maybe not insurmountable, but there might never be a consensus. It's disheartening that so much needs explaining, and then it can get into the gray area of "explaining away." And just the examples I gave, are not that easy to explain away. Many scholars have deduced that there must have been two versions at work. I'd sure like it more definite......but who wouldn't? :) Treadway |
||||||
3 | facts about genesis ? | Genesis | Treadway | 55893 | ||
'Don't Gen. 1 and 2 present contradictory creation accounts? Hello Kalos: you wrote: - Day five - Sea life and birds are made. -------------------------------------------------------------------”Genesis 1:20…let the waters bring forth abundantly the moving creature that hath life, and fowl that may fly….Genesis 1:24…”Let the earth bring forth the living creature after his kind, cattle, etc… ”verses Genesis 2:19….”And out of the ground the Lord God formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air…”------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Seems to me that in one version, birds are formed out of the “waters”; and the beasts are formed out of the ground. They don’t’ seem to have been created together. In the second version, birds and beasts are formed from the ground, created at the same time. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- you wrote: Day six - Land animals, creeping things, and man (male and female) are made. 'Genesis 2 Then the Lord formed man from dust of the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life. Then God made Eve. 'There is no contradiction between Genesis 1 and 2. Genesis 1 is a detailed explanation of the six days of creation, day by day ----------------------- Genesis 1: 26…”Let us make man in our image…..and let them have dominion over (all life)…..27…”…male and female created he them… ”verses Genesis 2: 20…”…but for Adam there was not found an help mate for him…22…”made he a woman, and brought her unto the man…”----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------In the first version, male and female, in context, are made at the same time in the “image of “us”, a plural reference. In the second version, man is given a name, Adam, and created by a singular reference; the animals, in context, are made after Adam was created. In context, the female, Eve was not made at the same time as part of the overall plan of making male and female in the “image” of “us”. She came as a “help-mate”, made from a part of the man. These are clearly differences, clearly distinct.--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Genesis 1: 29….God tells man and woman, together, that they may eat any herb, every fruit, etc, for their “meat”. There is nothing forbidden. In context, man and woman are both the recipients of this information. Genesis 2: 17 In the second version, God tells Adam—there is no Eve at this time—not to eat of the fruit from the tree of Knowledge. Another distinction between the two versions.------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Too tired to continue on this….but there’s enough smoke created that a person would be remiss not to see if there’s a fire. If not two versions, then at the very least, it’s a rather awkward way to present one story. ……………….good thoughts, Treadway |
||||||
4 | facts about genesis ? | Genesis | Treadway | 55865 | ||
Hello Makarios: You asked: Would you kindly explain what you mean by "two distinct creation stories?" ------------------------------------------- A couple of things here and there: in chp 1, the animals are made first, before man is made; in chp 2, the animals are made after Adam is made. In chp 1, God seems to be creating in concert with others when He says: "Let us make man--someone like ourselves." Then They make man and woman, apparently at the same time, with no notions of a help-mate factor. Chp 2 describes man being made out of dust (not so in the first chp) and then Eve being made from Adam's side or rib. There's a couple of other differences easily discerned. Thought this was "old hat" stuff. Guess not. .........good thoughts, Treadway |
||||||
5 | facts about genesis ? | Genesis | Treadway | 55838 | ||
..."It is commonly believed that Moses wrote the Book of Genesis. It is thought that Moses wrote Genesis during the 40 year time period..... -------------------------------------------- Seems to me that it is more commonly believed that Moses did not write Genesis but that it was attributed to him some 500 to 600 hundred years after he died. Not unusual that a well-known figure was given credits. And, there's always the two distinct creation stories. Would an author write two different versions, back to back? ........Treadway :) |
||||||
6 | Jehovah's Witnesses in a Nutshell | Rom 3:4 | Treadway | 55559 | ||
Getting Jehovah's Witnesses to understand the "Trinity": There should be no problems understanding the Trinity 1. Christ, according to the faith, is the second person in the Trinity, the Father being the first and the Holy Ghost the third. Each of these three persons is God. Christ is his own father and his own son. The Holy Ghost is neither father nor son, but both. The son was begotten by the father, but existed before he was begotten -- just the same before as after. Christ is just as old as his father, and the father is just as young as his son. The Holy Ghost proceeded from the Father and Son, but was equal to the Father and Son before he proceeded ( before he existed,) but he is of the same age of the other two. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Now, the above is paraphrasing, of course. Is the summation correct? But let me restate in other ways: So, the Father is God, and the Son is God and the Holy Ghost is God, and these three Gods make one God.? Perhaps it is better understood mathematically? a) Addition: two plus one and you have one. Each one is equal to himself and to the other two. b) Multiplication: one X one equals three, and three X one equals one. c) Subtraction: and if we take two from three, three are left. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------- But maybe it’s not as clear as it could be. Let’s just look at the official creed: “One is the person of the Father; another is the person of the Son, and another is the person of the Holy Ghost. Now the Godhead of the Father, and the Godhead of the Son, and the Godhead of the Holy Ghost is all one.” (Note: everyone knows what a “Godhead” is, so no need to explain it.) “All three are in glory equal, and in majesty coeternal. The Father is untreated, the Son is untreated, the Holy Ghost is untreated.” “The Father is incomprehensible, the Son is incomprehensible, the Holy Ghost is incomprehensible.” (Maybe this is the reason we know so much about the whole thing after 2000 years?) “Now, the Father is eternal, the Son is eternal, the Holy Ghost is eternal, but yet there are not three eternals, only one eternal. Also, there are not three untreated, nor three incomprehensible but only one untreated, only one incomprehensible.” “In the same vein, the Father is almighty, the Son is almighty, and the Holy Ghost is almighty. Yet there are not three almighties, only one Almighty. So, the Father is God, the Son is God, the Holy Ghost is God, and yet there are not three Gods, but just one God.” The Father is Lord, the Son is Lord, the Holy Ghost is Lord, yet there are not three Lords, but only one Lord. It is forbidden to think or say that there are three Gods or three Lords. The Father is made of no one, not created or begotten. The Son is from the Father alone, not made or created, but begotten. The Holy Ghost is from the Father and the Son, not made nor begotten, but proceeding Let’s see if I can sum it all up: In this Trinity there is nothing before or afterward, nothing greater or less, but the whole three persons are co-eternal with one another, and co-equal, so that in all things the unity is to be worshiped in Trinity, and the Trinity worshiped in unity. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- And for everlasting Salvation: Now I have to believe AND confess that Jesus is the Son of God, and he is both God and man. I must believe that Jesus is “of the substance of his Father begotten before the world began.” And not only that, I must then believe that Jesus is the substance of his mother (this one’s easy) born into the world as Perfect God and Perfect man, and “the rational soul in human flesh, subsisting equal to the Father according to his Godhead (Godhead, again), but less than the Father according to his manhood, who being both God and man is not two but one, one not by conversion of God into flesh, but by the taking of the manhood into God.” I must believe all this in order to be have Everlasting Salvation. “. It must be believed by the saved person that One altogether, not by a confusion of substance by unity of person, for as the rational soul and the flesh is one man, so God and man is one Christ, who suffered for our salvation, descended into hell, rose again the third day from the dead, ascended into heaven, where he sits at the right hand of God, the Father Almighty, and He shall come to Judge the living and the dead. And there you have it! Any Questions? Treadway...good thoughts....:) ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |
||||||
7 | Will the 2nd Coming Ever Occur? | Matt 24:34 | Treadway | 55431 | ||
To Joe and Tim: First, thank you, Joe, for the info. I haven't gotten to any stage where I'm declaring myself any kind of "preterist". Although what I've suggested may align with that view, in the final analysis the road forks. Again, I stress the "inconvertible" support that lies within Scripture. Although this evidences may fly in the face of long held beliefs, it cannot be hidden from discerning eyes. What it means, ultimately, for the 2nd Coming proponents, is up to them. It will be their perspectives, their hopes and faith, that are tested. They can choose to ignore, which is fine; or, they can adapt. Again, I appreciated your response that was well thought out, well written, and very informative. ----------------------------------- Greetings Tim: You wrote: "I am definitely saddened by the route you are taking my friend. You have progressed from abritraily deciding how long 'soon' is to deciding that 'soon' now means 'never'! :-( " Well Tim, I am saddened that you are saddened. But any kind of revelation should be cause for rejoicing. Truth can set one free. Epiphancy can lighten the heart strings. As for my deciding "arbitrarily", nothing could be farther from the reality. I didn't have to decide. It's there, black and white, no wiggle room. Two plus two adds up to four. Nothing arbitrary about piecing together the supplied evidence. "Soon" meant "then", in the 1st Century. Jesus, Peter, Paul, John, Revelations declared the coming to be "right around the corner". You wrote: Scripture is very clear - Christ is coming again! In all of your listed verses, Tim, who is Jesus talking to? Can you make a definitive declaration that He means an indefinite future of genertions? Also--and this is the most important aspect of your assertion--you fail to list all the verses from all the participants that state that Jesus is expected in their lifetime. Why would you want to ignore them? I certainly won't list all those utterances, since I have already done so in other posts, but to ignore them is nothing short of escapism. Then, you do not address the OT prophecies. Do you suggest that the OT prophecied that the Messiah would come twice? Who would know better than anyone else what the promised Messiah was supposed to do, than the Jews? According to their prophecies, Jesus did not qualify, and certainly would not be returning. That must be dealt with; it is part of the equation. This issue is far too important, too critical, for "arbitrariness". Good thoughts....(I'll check back in a couple of weeks :) Treadway |
||||||
8 | Will the 2nd Coming Ever Occur? | Not Specified | Treadway | 55348 | ||
Is there any Biblical evidence for the 2nd Coming? For some unknown reason, Hank, I remembered that I had not responded to the message below. I had always meant to, but found it mildly disturbing, since I felt your earnest concerns. But then, perhaps, I overreacted. And because I consider the topic to be of the utmost importance—it is critical, in fact—I have returned to it, to the forum, to reconcile this omission. Always good thoughts… ---------------------------------- Note(Treadway) on the question you raise about our Lord's Second Coming and about the word 'soon.' As to His return, He said He would return. This constitutes a promise from the Son of God. Therefore, not to believe Him, not to take Him at His word, really does play havoc with our own personal trust in Jesus Christ as our Savior and Lord, doesn't it?---------------------------------------------------- Hank, when you say “not to believe Him”, that may not be the crux of the scenario. It’s not a question of believing, but a question of understanding. For sure, those surrounding Jesus did believe what he said; and what he said was that he was coming back within their lifetime. His words, the disciples’ words, Paul, Peter, and John’s words, and the author of Revelations, all testify to that reality. The only contest to this reality is the statement that’s cited concerning that a day is like a thousand years to God. Other than an appeasement for the followers who were trying to narrow down the day and time, this statement has little bearing upon the “soon” emphases. In fact, the statement is even said in offhanded, incidental fashions. Second, you said that if what I’ve proposed is true, then, it “really does play havoc with our personal trust in Jesus Christ as our Lord and Savior, doesn’t it?” Well, that would be an individual matter. What it also would do is create an arena of understanding. Yes, it would certainly cause some reflection. And that reflection might start a domino effect, but at the end would be understanding and knowledge about a great many things.------------------------------------------------------------------ (Hank). But this we know: that 'soon' each of us is going to cross the unavoidable bar that separates temporal life on earth from eternity. It will be too late then to speculate about our Lord's return; thus, to my mind, while it is important to watch and wait in expectation of His return, it is of more vital importance to place our total faith and total trust in Him here .' There can be no nobler calling in all of heaven and earth than 'just in simple faith to trust Him, just to take Him at His word.' ----------------------------------------------------- Hank, I agree with much of what you say. But when it becomes clear to me that something is simply not true, then, I must accept that clarity. I have spent much, much time in tracking down this “soon” business, and the conclusion is that the evidence is overwhelming that Jesus will not be coming back. Now, that doesn’t mean it can’t be wrong, but I have bounced this off of a multitude of people of different stripes, and so far, not one of them has been able to present anything that comes close to contradicting my findings. And, bolstering these findings overall have been forays into the Messianic prophecies. Not one prophecy suggests that Jesus will come twice—not one. If you, or anyone else knows of any, I’d be most appreciative to hear it. (The same goes for anything in the NT that refutes that the people in association with Jesus did not believe that He would come back within their lifetime). The Messiah of the Jews was to come once, and once only. This is the inconvertible message that does not waver in the prophecies. This, in and of itself, should be pause enough for serious reflection; but then couple it with “soon”, and the reality is overwhelming. I once believed, once thought it was cut and dried; but once I put my efforts into the Bible I learned it is just that—cut and dried—but just the opposite of all that I had been taught, and believed for oh so many years,. Anyway, interested to be shown otherwise, in the OT, or the NT. Good thoughts, Treadway |
||||||
9 | Will the 2nd Coming Ever Occur? | Matt 24:34 | Treadway | 55369 | ||
Is there any Biblical evidence for the 2nd Coming? For some unknown reason, Hank, I remembered that I had not responded to the message below. I had always meant to, but found it mildly disturbing, since I felt your earnest concerns. But then, perhaps, I overreacted. And because I consider the topic to be of the utmost importance—it is critical, in fact—I have returned to it, to the forum, to reconcile this omission. Always good thoughts… ---------------------------------- Note(Treadway) on the question you raise about our Lord's Second Coming and about the word 'soon.' As to His return, He said He would return. This constitutes a promise from the Son of God. Therefore, not to believe Him, not to take Him at His word, really does play havoc with our own personal trust in Jesus Christ as our Savior and Lord, doesn't it?---------------------------------------------------- Hank, when you say “not to believe Him”, that may not be the crux of the scenario. It’s not a question of believing, but a question of understanding. For sure, those surrounding Jesus did believe what he said; and what he said was that he was coming back within their lifetime. His words, the disciples’ words, Paul, Peter, and John’s words, and the author of Revelations, all testify to that reality. The only contest to this reality is the statement that’s cited concerning that a day is like a thousand years to God. Other than an appeasement for the followers who were trying to narrow down the day and time, this statement has little bearing upon the “soon” emphases. In fact, the statement is even said in offhanded, incidental fashions. Second, you said that if what I’ve proposed is true, then, it “really does play havoc with our personal trust in Jesus Christ as our Lord and Savior, doesn’t it?” Well, that would be an individual matter. What it also would do is create an arena of understanding. Yes, it would certainly cause some reflection. And that reflection might start a domino effect, but at the end would be understanding and knowledge about a great many things.------------------------------------------------------------------ (Hank). But this we know: that 'soon' each of us is going to cross the unavoidable bar that separates temporal life on earth from eternity. It will be too late then to speculate about our Lord's return; thus, to my mind, while it is important to watch and wait in expectation of His return, it is of more vital importance to place our total faith and total trust in Him here .' There can be no nobler calling in all of heaven and earth than 'just in simple faith to trust Him, just to take Him at His word.' ----------------------------------------------------- Hank, I agree with much of what you say. But when it becomes clear to me that something is simply not true, then, I must accept that clarity. I have spent much, much time in tracking down this “soon” business, and the conclusion is that the evidence is overwhelming that Jesus will not be coming back. Now, that doesn’t mean it can’t be wrong, but I have bounced this off of a multitude of people of different stripes, and so far, not one of them has been able to present anything that comes close to contradicting my findings. And, bolstering these findings overall have been forays into the Messianic prophecies. Not one prophecy suggests that Jesus will come twice—not one. If you, or anyone else knows of any, I’d be most appreciative to hear it. (The same goes for anything in the NT that refutes that the people in association with Jesus did not believe that He would come back within their lifetime). The Messiah of the Jews was to come once, and once only. This is the inconvertible message that does not waver in the prophecies. This, in and of itself, should be pause enough for serious reflection; but then couple it with “soon”, and the reality is overwhelming. I once believed, once thought it was cut and dried; but once I put my efforts into the Bible I learned it is just that—cut and dried—but just the opposite of all that I had been taught, and believed for oh so many years,. Anyway, interested to be shown otherwise, in the OT, or the NT. Good thoughts, Treadway |
||||||
10 | Are we ever "worthy" of God's love? | John 3:16 | Treadway | 52227 | ||
Hello John: Thanks much for the note of empathy. I may be too far gone, or too far along. In fact, just writing this feels like my last posting. (I said this last week, also, by the way!) :) Good bunch of people, for the most part, but I need, I think, a wider depth site, one that will accomodate the really hard questions. Here is not the place. Plus there's a little too much of the "dueling" verses--reminds me of that old saying: "My daddy can beat up your daddy..." :) And all using the same criteria, the same Books, chapters, and verses! And what is really odd, is that no one seems to recognize that when they declare the other not to have the "truth", is that all believers are basing their own arguments on ancient "paraphased" hearsay, no more, no less. I wrote a position post the other day, in effect, saying that the 2nd Coming will not happen, and tried to coherently connect the dots for its support. Did I succeed? Well, I don't know, since no one really took issue with the thrust of its theme. I found that disappointing. If my position is wrong, I would have expected some strong remedy. None came. What could that mean? Indifference? Denial? Disgust? Incredulity? Made too much sense? Or, maybe it was thought that this notion was just too silly. Or, could be that it was thought that this kind of position really shouldn't be discussed on this kind of site? I think I'm going to accept this last one as bona fide. And that leads me back to this will be the last posting...again, thanks for stopping by.... Treadway, always good thoughts. (And, Hank, Tim, enjoyed you two, especially...but I'm gone. Might see you somewhere else in cyberspace, though. Who can know? Take care. Tread) |
||||||
11 | Are we ever "worthy" of God's love? | John 3:16 | Treadway | 52112 | ||
Hello Tim: You repeat: Parapharsing can allow us to make a verse same something which it actually doesn't say, by simply adding the words we want to add! :-) -------------------- I repeat: :) Paraphasing doesn't allow this; the person who knowingly presents a slanted or skewed message is the culprit. If I listen to a sermon, then go home and tell my wife about it, I'm going to paraphase--tell her in a shortened version what I believe I heard. If the summation is incorrect, if the parphrasing is in correct, then the message, interpretation, implication will be incorrect. When a lawyer presents his "summation", he is using a good deal of paraphasing. His intent (hopefully) is to present the testimonies of the witnesses as best he can. Paraphasing is just using another "form" of communication to convey the same message. There is no intent, when paraphasing, to twist the original messages. Quite the opposite. The intent is to focus, sharpen, expedite. After the President's speech, the News Anchor will "sum up", "wrap up", "go over again", "restate", "reiterate" what was just heard. If paraphasing was not a legitimate tool to be used, then we'd be hard put to communicate what we think something "means", what something "may imply". And that means I erred big time when I used to teach the "art", "skill", "methods" of parphasing. Gosh, I hope not. Anyway, good thoughts, as per usual.....Treadway.... And oh, by the way, you might appreciate this: The word "paraphrastic" (from GK paraphrastikos fm paraphrazein) means: explaining or translating more clearly and amply. :) |
||||||
12 | What is truth? | John 18:38 | Treadway | 52094 | ||
Hello Orlando: You said: "....yet the Bible does not contradict itself." --------------------------------------------- Whether is contradicts itself or not, may not be the central issue when people get their "different" meanings from the same source. Part (or most) of it happens because of that old cliche: "What you get out of something, is what you bring to that something." Everyone comes with his own baggage. Some have more than others. :) Treadway |
||||||
13 | Are we ever "worthy" of God's love? | John 3:16 | Treadway | 52091 | ||
Hello Tim: You said: "The Lord does not delay the promise, as some understand slowness, but He is patient toward you, not wanting any to perish but all to come to repentance." The pronoun 'you' is only used once in this verse. The last phrase uses the indifinite pronoun 'any' and the adjective 'all'. ----------------------------------- Just an observation here, no more, no less: sometimes forgotten is "meaning in context." Or, maybe another way to say: the forest is never seen when we stay among the trees. Another observation: commas, not semi-colons are the separators. KJV: "...but is longsuffering to us-ward, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance." Then what is always beneficial is to try and paraphase what is read. Paraphasing can help to stay in context. Just a quick thought...but an interesting conversation, this.... But too busy today to really get involved. Treadway...always good thoughts.... |
||||||
14 | 4 Principles of Interpretation | 2 Tim 2:15 | Treadway | 52076 | ||
Hello Hank: Just passing through and noted the Dr. Patterson principles. I sure do agree with them and I sure do wish I had written them. Treadway |
||||||
15 | Where do I go from here? | 2 Pet 3:4 | Treadway | 51973 | ||
Hello Hank: You asked if I "truly know the Lord?" ------------------------- At this particular stage of my life, I don't have the foggiest notion of how to answer. "In limbo" hasn't provided the luxury of decision or commitment. In legalistic terms, my jury is out, mulling over the arguments. A verdict could come, eventually, but then it could also be a "hung" jury, and that would probably mean a retrial. Once, when I did reside on the side of faith, I had no worries or doubts. I was completely confident in my belief, in my destiny. Unlike what I see a lot of on this forum, the discussions concerning "baptize or not", "hair-splitting salvation theories", all the "dueling verses", I had no such thoughts or concerns. I was going to Heaven, no doubt about it. But as I said, once the Bible reading began, it has been a whole new ball game. I'm not sure of the inning, maybe top of the 3rd, so there's a lot of game left. The cold water in the face was this: after reading a good deal of the Bible, I began to realize that my God had been, for all intents and purposes, one of my imagination. My God did not fit the Bible God. But through all this, I have come to know others in the same sinking boat, that the God of their worship is seldom aligned with the Bible. It makes you take a step back. Is that good or bad? Does it matter? Can it be adjusted? Is that where the concept of a "personal" God comes from? So, it's all been eye-opening. I knew next to nothing. Didn't even know about Dec. 25th, Easter, how Christianity actually came into being, what it consists of. It's a whole different world. :) always good thoughts Treadway ---------------------------- PS: as for the "..nothing to lose.." idea, I think that's is the Pascal doctrine, right? You know, when JEOPARDY has biblical questions, I've been doing quite well.... :) |
||||||
16 | Where do I go from here? | 2 Pet 3:4 | Treadway | 51949 | ||
Hello Hank: Just saw your post. And thanks again for the kind words and even kinder guidance. Personally, I've always liked the "...seek and ye shall find..." admonition. Another one, I heard or read somewhere is: "My heart cannot accept what my mind cannot believe." So, this search is quite ultimate. I don't know where it will wind up. In the middle right now, the doldrums, in limbo. I've haven't given up on pure faith, but I want to be sure there isn't anything that I've missed. In a way, faith is a kind of gamble and I guess I'm trying to "hedge" the bet. ...Treadway.... :) |
||||||
17 | Where do I go from here? | 2 Pet 3:4 | Treadway | 51941 | ||
Hello Tim: You say: Do you see my problem? ---------------------------------------- Sure. After a "summation", it is always in the hands (minds) of the individual jury members. But I do wonder: what if "Nero" and 666 is true? How would that change perspectives? Would that destroy the Rapture industry, just for one of many changes.....but ah, that's a whole new avenue to travel....certainly no energy or time for that.... :) Treadway |
||||||
18 | Where do I go from here? | 2 Pet 3:4 | Treadway | 51938 | ||
Greetings Tim: You say: So, my point is simply that Jesus does not specifically say that His disciples will see Him return. Scripture only says that they will see His kingdom coming in power. To what does that refer? That is debatable! ------------------------------- Everything is debatable. I just presented a position that makes sense to me, based upon my individual reading and understanding ablility. Personally I see no wriggle room. And, as I said, each person is the jury. I do know this: a LOT would be at stake if this were viewed as I have described. A lot of motive for keeping it ambiguous. But, at least, you are willing to recognize that it is "debatable". That is admirable.... Treadway :) |
||||||
19 | Where do I go from here? | 2 Pet 3:4 | Treadway | 51934 | ||
Hello Tim: You write: "..who knows" concerning 666. True. But if true, that it was supposed to be Nero, then it does fit snugly into my theme. It's certainly not the end-all, but a part of a definite whole. Does it make sense? Maybe. Especially since numerical values were assigned, and some have deduced it to be Nero. Then take that with the reality of the "times" of Rev. and then compare the "soon" emphasis with the preceding NT. A case can be made. Does it sway your mind's jury? That's up to you.... Treadway |
||||||
20 | Where do I go from here? | 2 Pet 3:4 | Treadway | 51931 | ||
Hello Tim: You write: but where exactly did Jesus say point blank to His disciples, "Some of you will live to see Me return"? there is a big difference between a direct statement and a statement which you interpret to mean something. ;-) -------------------------------------------- Let's see what it says: KJV: Matthew 16: 27-28 "For the Son of man shall come in the glory of his Father with his angels; and then he shall reward every man according to his works. Verily I say unto you, There be some standing here, which shall not taste of death, till they see the Son of man coming in his kingdom." The Book chose to say the above in this manner: Instead of having Jesus referring to himself in the 3rd person, the 1st person is used: "For I, the Son of Mankind, shall come with my angels in the flory of my Father and judge each person according to his deeds. And some of you standing right here now will certainly live to see me coming in my kingdom." Your question again: where does it say that some will live to see Jesus's return? Well, I just read the two passages again, and again. Guess I don't understand your interpretative problem? Treadway |
||||||
Result pages: [ 1 2 3 ] Next > Last [3] >> |