Results 1 - 20 of 27
|
||||||
Results from: Answered Bible Questions, Answers, Unanswered Bible Questions, Notes Author: Xerxes Ordered by Date |
||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
1 | Tell us a little about yourself. | Bible general Archive 2 | Xerxes | 128329 | ||
EdB, Sorry for not filling it out earlier. I didn't think about it until you said something. It's filled out now. By all means, check me out. :o) Xerxes |
||||||
2 | What is your definition of love? | John 13:34 | Xerxes | 128320 | ||
EdB, Hey, I'm sure it was unintentional on both sides. If you can apologize, so can I. I have a propensity for being harsh now and again without meaning to. I have four boys 6-10, so ... In any case, it would seem to me that we are in agreement to an extent. Use your chocolate example. You can tell someone you love chocolate, but if you never eat it, they may have reason to doubt it after a while, just as we can claim to be Christians, but if they don't see the love that Jesus said would identify us as his disciples, sooner or later they will doubt us and view us as liars or hypocrites. If, on the other hand, you tell no one that you love chocolate, but everyone you know sees you eating chocolate constantly, they will eventually believe that you love chocolate whether you tell them or not. This is the same as Christianity again, because if we love each other in deed, we need not tell anyone how much we love. They will see it and know it to be so without us having to say a word. Now, taking it to the next level, I'm not so sure I see it as a philosophy. If we are actively loving in deed, meaning that we are actively practicing the virtue of being kind, temperate, charitable, patient, joyful, exhortant, forgiving, humble, hating evil, loving righteousness, etc., then we will be unable to do those things that are contrary to God. For example, how can we kill someone we are trying to love? We wouldn't want someone to do that to us, so to actively love our neighbor as ourselves, we won't kill them. Nor will we steal from them, lay with their spouse, etc. I believe you covered these in one of your posts already. But on an even more obscure level, consider not rendering evil for evil, but good for evil. To actively practive love is to be forgiving, so we offer the other cheek instead of striking back. If someone sues us for our cloak, we exercise the active attitude of love in giving to them as they have need. If someone asks you to go with them a mile, go with them two, because they wouldn't have asked the one if they didn't need help ... so to go with them beyond what they requested is a loving attitude in practical application. This, I believe, is what Stultis was getting at. As stated in Romans 13, love (the active practice of doing those things that are indicative of a loving attitude) is the fulfillment of the law, does no harm to another, and all the commandments are summed up by it. So to answer his question in truth, what commands do we have that have nothing to do with love? I would have to say, "none." Every command I see, whether going to church or giving tithes, humbling yourself or being forgiving ... they are all products of an active loving attitude. To quote John, "If a man loves his brother he walks in the light and there is no occasion of stumbling in him." I would even go so far as to say that if you are actively practicing love, I really can't see any reason why we should ever stumble, fall, or sin. Your thoughts? Xerxes |
||||||
3 | What is your definition of love? | John 13:34 | Xerxes | 128292 | ||
You know Ed, I want to answer these questions for you, but seeing your post, I'm inclined instead to first ask: What in the world is your problem!? Was this really necessary: "I have no interest in being inquisitioned here by you or anyone else."? Darn near every one of your responses has some sort of snide, sarcastic, condescending, or contemptuous comment in it. I seem unable to get the sweet from you without the sour. Again, what is your problem? I haven't done you any wrong. I haven't challenged your Christianity. I haven't called you names. I haven't insulted anything you've posted. All I've done is ask you for a more clear understanding on your perspective so I could meet you at your level and be of one mind in discussing the issue. Furthermore, the questions I asked were simple ones, asked in order to gain information and understanding, and instead of answering them with clear and concise answers so we could continue, you instead treat this whole thing like I'm playing some kind of game with you and mask your answers as though you're trying to avoid the simple yes or no that would have sufficed. I'm not playing a game. I think, however, that you need to decide if you are, because your defenses make conversation with you extremely difficult. What can I say that will not offend you or fetch some sort of rude comment? That said, I'm going to answer the questions as I promised I would: 1) Love is an emotion AND an action. Love, in its typical English rendering, is a noun. This would be the reckoning you are understanding. An emotion that is just there. A "person, place, or thing." The word "agapao," used in all the commands to "love," is a verb, and that means that love is not an emotion Biblically speaking. Love, in and of itself, is an action. [A Concise Greek-English Dictionary of the New Testament]: agapao: love (primarily of Christian love); show or prove one’s love; long for, desire, place first in one’s affections. [An Intermediate Greek-English Lexicon]: agapao, f. eso: pf. egapeka: Ep. aor. 1 agapesa: (agape): I. of persons, to treat with affection, to caress, love, be fond of, c. acc., Att. for agapazo, Plato, etc.:—Pass. to be beloved, Id., Demosthenes. 2. in N.T. to regard with brotherly love, v. agape. II. of things, to be well pleased or contented at or with a thing, c. dat., Demosthenes, etc.:—also c. acc. rei, Id.:—absol. to be content, Lucian:—ag. oti. ., ei. ., ean. ., to be well pleased that. . Thucydides, etc. [NASB Hebrew and Greek Dictionary]: agapao: of unc. or.; to love. Agape is the emotion. Agapao is the action. You feel agape. You do Agapao. A new commandment I give you, that you agapao one another as I have agapao you. By this standard, to "Agapao your neighbor as yourself," is identical in context to, "Do to others as you would have them do to you." This is not an emotion, but an action. So when Paul says that agapao is the fulfillment of the law, and that there is no commandment we have that is not summed up by "Agapao your neighbor as yourself," it is not a motivator, it is an action that is the completion in and of itself. If you say you agape your father, that means you have feelings for him, and it establishes the motivation to agapao. Since agape is defined in 1 Cor. 13:4-8, I would have to say that it does, in fact, establish a standard of performance in us. We should agapao according to the standards of agape in 1 Cor. 1 John 3:18 "My little children, let us not agapao in word or in tongue, but in deed and in truth." He is saying that we should not say we are performing the action, but actually do it. This does, in fact, not only imply but say, that we should agapao, and not simply sit back and agape. Your thoughts? Xerxes |
||||||
4 | Who do you love that you are unwill...? | John 13:34 | Xerxes | 128284 | ||
Sure EdB. I'll do the best I can to explain what I think the scriptures are saying. I'll do it on your question post so we can narrow this all down to a single line if that's okay with you? I would like to address this, though: "I must have got confused, but when someone comes into a thread saying I was unkind to another, inquisitioning me, taking my statements to places they were never intended and pressing me to explain myself. I mistake that as having an agenda." Brother, I don't want to sound in any way unkind to you, but recognize that you were on the verge of telling Stultis that he wasn't a Christian. Do you not agree that this was on the verge of going too far? Do you not also agree that it needed to be tempered a little by an outside influence? If I wanted to be a part of the conversation, do you not agree that I needed to be fully conscious of your position so I could ably discuss the topic with you? And if Stultis was not the only one to see that your statement seemed to say what he took it for, and as I also perceived at first, do you not agree that it is best that an explanation be provided in order to clarify what was otherwise becoming a nasty situation? I don't believe you disagree with me. It was all just poor communication, and we should put it behind us. If I did you wrong, forgive me please. Don't hold a grudge. I'll try to express what I think on the other thread. You needn't respond to this one unless you want to dredge up what I'm hoping we can put behind us. Xerxes |
||||||
5 | First Century Second Coming? | John 5:19 | Xerxes | 128278 | ||
Hey following him. You are observant and intuitive. I do, in fact, have a side that I lean a little more towards. It is still a true statement, however, that I am undecided. As I've pointed out in previous posts, both theories have holes that can't be explained without twisting things to suit the purpose. Both theories also have strengths that can't be refuted except to ignore or disregard them. Don't be disappointed that I didn't do a bigger post. I read all that you said, and it comfirms one of the two in ways I had already comprehended the strengths. The quote from Josephus: Yes, it could have had nothing to do with Jesus' return whatsoever. It could have simply been God abandoning the Jews to the Romans because of their wickedness. However, it could also have been a documented reference to Rev 19:11-18. Viewing it with an open mind, I recognize that either could be the case. Thus I choose not to stand on either. Thanks for responding. Xerxes |
||||||
6 | First Century Second Coming? | John 5:19 | Xerxes | 128269 | ||
Hi Angel. I am not suggesting or implying complacency. If Christ already came, I'm living my life accordingly as it befits a Christian living in the Kingdom of Christ. If He has not come, I am ready for his arrival. Whether or not I look up at the sky when he appears in the clouds is not relevent. He will not leave me behind because I was taking a nap. Point of fact, if He came back right now, he would find me typing to you, exploring and discussion a topic of His word. He would find two open Bibles, and several other books of reference and study ready at hand. If Christianity suddenly became illegal, I would be convicted on all counts, and there is so much evidence of my faith in my house that I could not possibly dispose of or hide it all. What you consider clear cut scripture requires a distortion of the scriptures to explain why Jesus did not return in the lifetime of the Apostles when He stated clearly that He would. Preterists have to distort the scriptures to explain why there is no physical evidence of the return. The internal evidence of the Bible does not lean towards a "two-thousand-year-later" return. It leans towards an immediate return. But a lack of apparent happening causes us to reevaluate what is written plainly. So again, I would recommend that you educate yourself a little bit on the preterist point of view. There is a lot of evidence to that position, and while I have not made a decision on my personal position, I find that the preterist scholars make a lot of valid, competent, and credible arguments. Please don't think less of me for choosing not to stand on one or the other without sufficient evidence for either. You seem to believe that what you interpret as the only way to see the scriptures is absolute. You are not the only person being guided by the Holy Spirit. I myself have prayed on this subject in order to understand it better. I'm sure the scholars that write books towards a preterist point of view have prayed too. Now, I am not a Jehovah's Witness, so I don't think that need be brought into this. The only disagreement you and I have is that I choose to remain undecided regarding the apocalypse without solid proof one way or another since both arguments are credible. Let's let our disagreement stay there and agree to disagree. I don't want to be at strife with you. I just want to exercise my right to not make a decision on this particular matter. Upon all other matters related to the Bible, my doctrine is quite firmly rooted in conviction. First and foremost being that Jesus Christ is the Son of God, God in the flesh, that he was born of a virgin, suffered under Pontius Pilate, was crucified, died, and was buried, and on the third day rose again from the dead, and that he is ascended to heaven and seated at the right hand of power. Thank for some good discussion, Xerxes |
||||||
7 | Who do you love that you are unwill...? | John 13:34 | Xerxes | 128255 | ||
Dear EdB, You wrote: "I agree but I also think your missing something. There seems to be an agenda here on the part of some of the other participants and I'm curious to see how they intend to play it out." Stultis hasn't posted to this thread since last night around midnight. It has been mostly you and me. That leads me to believe you are suggesting that I have an agenda. We can cease the discussion now if that's all you think of me. I haven't done anything to provoke you. Point of fact, I have made an earnest and sincere attempt to clearly understand your position in order to consider it. If this is not agreeable to you, say so, and I will not offend you with further posts. Xerxes |
||||||
8 | Please Expound | John 13:34 | Xerxes | 128254 | ||
Hey EdB. I'm really sorry that you feel the need to guard your words. I am genuinely sympathetic that you have come to such a pass that my sincere questions make you feel like I'm playing a game with you. I'm truly trying to understand your point of view for the sake of my own edification, and while I can glean and assume your position in your guarded statements, that's really as much as I can do without straightforward answers. When you say, "I'm saying love without action is nothing more than a word," in response to, "Are you saying that love is NOT an action?" I am understanding that as, "Love is not an action. Love and action are two separate things." Is this a correct assessment of what you are answering? When you say, "I'm saying if we love and allow it to dicate our actions then the law will be fulfilled," in response to, "Are you saying that love is not enough to fulfill the law?" I am understanding that as, "Love does not fulfill the law. Our actions fulfill the law. Love is an emotion that dictates our actions, but not an action in and of itself." Is this a correct assessment of your answer? In regard to question 5, I have a new question. Do the attributes joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness and self-control fall within the bounds of behavior indicative of love? In other words: If you are "acting" with love in your heart, will you be joyful and inspire joy in others? If you are "acting" with love in your heart, will you be patient with others that otherwise vex you? If you are "acting" with love in your heart, will you be kind to both friends and strangers that are in need? If you are "acting" with love in your heart, will you do those things that are good or righteous? If you are "acting" with love in your heart, will you be faithful, both to God and to others, in the things you've promised or know that you ought to do because it is the right thing? If you are "acting" with love in your heart, will you be gentle in your doings and behavior towards others? If you are "acting" with love in your heart, will you exercise self-control or temperence in moments of anger, distress, or temptations that would otherwise inspire you to behave in a way contrary to God's expectations? IF the answer to these is "yes," then they aren't actually additional attributes external of love, but are attributes of love itself. Do you agree with this assessment? I hope you will be good enough to answer them so that we may be of one mind. I know it is tedious, but specifics help us come to conclusions, and again ... I wish to fully understand your position. Finally, we are all agreed, even Stultis I'm sure, that faith and belief in Christ is absolutely necessary. I don't think it is necessary to continue bringing that up except as reference. We aren't even Christians if we don't believe in Christ and have faith in him. From here on, it should be moot, because that is not an issue. So any further talk by other parties along the lines of, "Love is enough," should be viewed not in a humanistic, heathen perspective, but as one within the bounds of faithful Christianity, and an attempt to understand how best we ought to please God. Is this agreeable to you? Now, I would be curious to understand what "holiness" means to you. I myself have read various passages, and that particular word seems to imply a specific thing to me. I would be interested to hear your thoughts on it. Xerxes |
||||||
9 | Who do you love that you are unwill...? | John 13:34 | Xerxes | 128244 | ||
Hello Sir Pent. I am not personally heated at all. The exhortation is appreciated though. If I was beginning to chew pride, I certainly needed a reminder of who I am in Christ, so it was good of you to referree. :o) That's precisely what I was trying to do myself. It was getting to the point of name calling, and that's no good, so I made a meager attempt to remind people to cool off, though likely inadequate. I believe you are correct that we all believe that faith in Christ is first, foremost, and essential to being a Christian. I believe you are also correct that we all believe we are to obey his commandment to love one another. Also, I believe you are correct that we all believe that following that commandment is more than just saying, "I love my neighbor," but requires deed. Reading through the posts, what I am gathering, also as a more or less bystander (I only just started posting to this thread), is that there are three issues on the table that can't seem to be agreed upon. 1. Is love merely an emotion that motivates us to keep other commandments that exist independently from love, or is love the commandment and action in and of itself, motivated by our love for God which inspires our willingness to keep the commandment to love one another? 2. Depending on the answer to question number 1, is love enough to live up to the full standard God has established for us, or must we love and do other things as well that may or may not have anything to do with love? 3. Do we have commandments that do not pertain directly to brotherly love? I have my opinions on these questions, but I am hoping to understand both positions a little better so I can make a more educated decision. Thanks again for referreeing. If I have unintentionally caused anger, strife, indignation, or any other such thing, I sincerely apologize to those in question. Such was not my intention. Xerxes |
||||||
10 | You are saying that our command to...? | John 13:34 | Xerxes | 128239 | ||
Ahhhh, okay. Gotcha Steve. Thanks for clarifying that. I hope I wasn't unintentionally harsh. I know I can be sometimes without meaning to be. Xerxes |
||||||
11 | Please Expound | John 13:34 | Xerxes | 128238 | ||
Hi EdB. Thanks for writing back. Okay, listen, I am NOT trying to be difficult, but I'm still not understanding clearly what you're saying. So if you're okay with this, I'd like to ask a few more questions to more clearly grasp what you're saying. I'm certain that it is my failing, not yours, so please bear with me. 1. Are you saying love is an emotion? 2. Are you saying that love is NOT an action? 3. Are you saying love is a command that motivates a secondary command? 4. Are you saying that love is not enough to fulfill the law? 5. Are you saying that because John Lennon preached "love is all you need," the same concept can only be proper as a humanist concept and has no application to the Christian lifestyle AFTER believing in Christ?? Again, I am not trying to trap you into anything as you believe another is attempting to do. I am genuinely trying to get a better understanding of your position. Thanks in advance for your patience and willingness to help. All my best, Xerxes |
||||||
12 | You are saying that our command to...? | John 13:34 | Xerxes | 128235 | ||
Whoa now, EdB. Stultis did not, at any time, say we did not need Jesus. He's talking about Christian lifestyle, and how, according to scripture, to live up to the standard the Lord has set for us. He has been asking you for an example of a commandment that is not summed up by "Love your neighbor as yourself," as according to Romans 13:8-10. You are saying that there are commandments that are not summed up by "Love your neighbor as yourself" in direct conflict with the scripture. Now, I saw what Stultis saw. He points out that Paul says "Love your neighbor as yourself" fulfills the law. You said that it does not, but is simply an emotion, and equated his stance on Roman 13:8-10 as being "All you need is love," which you then equated to being the same "junk" John Lennon got from his Guru. Romans 13:8-10 says that in your Christian life, love fulfills the law, because there is no commandment we have that is not summed up by the statement "Love your neighbor as yourself." You are saying that that statement is equivalent to John Lennon's "Junk." If I am not understanding, please clarify, but I do not think he has twisted anything. Your statements were clear, as were your correlations. The commandment of Christ was to "love one another as he loved us," and Romans mirrors this commandment, giving us the further information that it is all we need in our Christian walk. If you are saying that Stultis' stance is humanism, which he took from Paul, then you are saying that Paul's stance is humanism, which HE got from Christ. Hence, you are calling the commandment of Christ "junk" and humanism. Again, if I am misunderstanding what you are trying to express, then please accept my sincerest apologies, and by all means explain. If, however, I have properly understood what you were trying to express, then you need to stop being nasty to Stultis if the mistake was your own. He is plenty Christian. His knowledge of scripture that I have been able to observe speaks to his dedication, and despite some hasty responses made to him in anger or indignation, his responses have not seemed to me to be loveless. He's trying to have a discussion, and nothing more. With all intended best intentions, Xerxes |
||||||
13 | Please Expound | John 13:34 | Xerxes | 128230 | ||
Hi EdB. I stumbled on this thread and read through it. I haven't twisted any of your words, so I hope you will communicate with me. Based on the posts, I was hoping you could clear an issue up for me. Giving some weight to what you have had to say, would I be accurate in saying that if love, by definition, is an emotion and not an action, then "To love the Lord your God with all your heart, all your soul, and all your might [Deut 6:4-6]" means that we should be emotionally and affectionately "in love with" God, so to speak? I'm trying to understand your position so I can give it its proper and due consideration. Thank you for your time, Xerxes |
||||||
14 | You are saying that our command to...? | John 13:34 | Xerxes | 128228 | ||
Whoa Steve, your quote of 1 Cor 13:1-3 is not being stated contextually, and I'm certain you know it. If he speaks in the tongues of men and of angels, if he has prophetic powers and understands all mysteries and all knowledge, if he has all faith so as to remove mountains, if he gives away all that he has, if he delivers up his body to burned ... "and has not love, then he is nothing!" Unless I'm misunderstanding the nature of your post, it seems you are disputing the inclusive superiority of love with a passage that is directly speaking to the superiority of love over everything else, leaving out the pertinent half of each passage that actually makes Stultis' point ... that everything we do should be done for love, and without love it's pointless, for we can be regular church goers, tongue speakers, prophets, great preachers, whole paycheck givers ... and if we don't have love, it's all for naught because we are nothing without it. I think Stultis makes a valid point. Xerxes |
||||||
15 | First Century Second Coming? | John 5:19 | Xerxes | 128226 | ||
Listen Angel, you aren't saying anything I haven't heard before. Nor are you saying anything that I potentially disagree with. I expressed clearly that I am not disposed to either position. Personally, I see holes in what you are saying. I don't know if you read all my posts on this subject. I gave a reasonable explanation on the "coming in clouds" that you have not acknowledged, and I see no reason to express it a second time. Also, your Corinthians example is clearly talking about the dead being glorified in new bodies because the bodies we have now are mortal and cannot inherit the kingdom of God. Now, in part one, I feel the need to say that I resent you implying that I am "luke warm," and will thus, according to the scriptures, be spewed out of Christ's mouth. Being undecided due to a lack of understanding about the Revelation does not make me "neither hot nor cold." My walk with God is plenty strong, and I am an active Christian. I am by no means complacent or lazy about what I believe, what I study, or what I do with the knowledge I have. Confusion over apocalyptic literature is not an uncommon thing, and I would exhort you to refrain from judging others in regard to such literature. I recognize and acknowledge your position on the matter, but the preterist position makes a strong case as well. Both sides have been studied and researched by scholars for hundreds of years. Preterism is not a minority sect. It is just as prominent as its rival, and I choose not to put on blinders against either position. I would exhort you also to purchase some books on the subject of preterism so you may learn in greater detail what the position is, what sources they take from, how they explain certain key passages, etc. A good book I can recommend is "Before Jerusalem Fell" by Dr. Kenneth Gentry. There are also a few by Dr. David? Chilton. (You'll have to double check that first name). A Revelation study is not as cut and dry as you might like to make it. Each person is disposed to a particular view based on whichever argument seems most credible to them. You find the premillenialist argument most credible. Dr. Gentry, a pastor with a degree, and Dr. Chilton, also a pastor with a degree, find the preterist argument more credible (this is not to imply or suggest that you are not qualified or certified, only that Drs. Gentry and Chilton are not blowing smoke because they read two passages and twisted them, but are in fact well read and have degrees to prove it). I appreciate the time you've put into your reply. I read it thoroughly, gave it consideration, but have determined that you are either unwilling or unable to discuss this topic objectively, so I will put an end to it here before it turns to strife. Again, I thank you for the time you put into your response. It was not ignored. Xerxes |
||||||
16 | First Century Second Coming? | John 5:19 | Xerxes | 128223 | ||
Good job Mr. Tim *laugh* You and I are in the same boat regarding the preterist position. I don't know that I agree with it either. Nor am I sure I agree with the premillenial position. Thus, I am undecided. I see holes in both cases, and I am content to continue exploring until I learn the truth or see Christ return. Thanks for the debate. Peace and prosperity to you in the Lord Jesus Christ, Xerxes |
||||||
17 | First Century Second Coming? | John 5:19 | Xerxes | 128190 | ||
Hey Tim, Good point. You're absolutely right that my bias is that I adhere to neither, but I am willing and prepared for both. About the "lack of evidence" comment: I am not saying that the premillenialist theory has no foundation or is not credible. I'm saying that its credibility is in the fact that many of the stated things seem not to have happened yet, and this perception allows for unsubstantiated substantiation. *laugh* Get my drift? Now, are you truly telling me in all honesty that you had no preconceived notions whatsoever? Because I find that hard to believe. I know complete heathens that believe "Jesus is coming back," or have at least heard the concept. If you heard the concept prior to picking up the book, you would have a natural affinity for taking the scriptures in that sense. Also, the liklihood of you being well versed in history at that stage in your Christianity, while not impossible, is not likely, so you would not have any idea that some of the things mentioned COULD have already happened. Xerxes |
||||||
18 | First Century Second Coming? | John 5:19 | Xerxes | 128187 | ||
Tim, It is plain that you are not being objective here. The "kings" I counted are the kings the Jews would have recognized as "kings," regardless of the Senatorial decrees. This line of kings is consistent with scripture, fulfills all three enumerations of kings without any play on words, provides for the number of the beast at the appointed time, and gives a simple and adequate representation of Rome's role in the scheme of things. The number of the beast should be added because the wisdom tells us to "count" it. What good is the wisdom if no one can ever figure it out? If Nero was not the one, but someone else will be in the future, how will we know? By means of trigonometry? And again, there is no transliteration involved. The name is pronounced one way in Greek. It is pronounced another way in Latin. Whichever way it is pronounced, written in Hebrew according to the pronunciation, it "counts" to the two respective numbers. I found the both of them in an hour. It only took me as long as it took to learn how to write the name in Hebrew according to each pronunciation, then to count them. This, I did not find, was difficult or challenging. I assert these things as "possibilities," not facts. The method being used both for the kings and the number is very simple, and I have not had to twist anything to my purposes. Again, the kings are the kings as recognized from a Jewish perspective, and the number is the counted name as written in Hebrew by Jews according to pronunciation. Again, I wish to express, before it gets shuffled to the back shelf: I am of neither persuasion. What I am expressing here is the argument from the preterist point of view in order that you may be challenged and provoked to edification. I want that understood so as to prevent strife. It is not my goal to make you or anyone else angry over a "fun" debate, which is what I consider this. It is good entertainment to test the theories and sharpen one another. Xerxes |
||||||
19 | First Century Second Coming? | John 5:19 | Xerxes | 128183 | ||
Hey Tim, Again, we have a difference of opinion on the interpretation of Jesus' signs. I'm using NASB, NRSV, and NKJV. None of mine say "visible," so I can't debate that. Mine say "flashes," which again indicates to me a brief happenstance that's over quickly. Lightning flashes for a matter of seconds. While lightning is visible from the east to the west, it is still brief, unexpected, destructive, and over almost as soon as it begins. Xerxes |
||||||
20 | First Century Second Coming? | John 5:19 | Xerxes | 128180 | ||
Tim, Julius, while never decreed "Emperor" of Rome, crossed the Rubicon and declared himself dictator for life. Whether formally recognized or not, he was the first, and the Jews would have recognized him. Further, this would be the rising of the beast. Antony I included because he was a legitimate ruler of Judea. After the death of Julius, Antony was given control of the East, including Judea and Egypt. From a Jewish perspective, he would have been one of the "kings," and I find it reasonable to include him in the list. Galba, Otho, and Vitellius, while recognized historically as emperors, were not in the public eye of the Jews. The Jews were busy being seiged during the time of the Roman civil war. They would have recognized the succession as being Nero to Vespasian, then to Titus, then to Domitian. Revelation 17 would actually set Vespasian as the eighth, who was in fact "an" eighth "king," but not necessarily "the" eighth king, that went forth to destruction (You may want to see if that word is an active verb; I haven't looked in the Greek), and the king that "is" is Claudius, not Nero. Paul mentions in 2 Thess 2:7-8 the mystery of lawlessness is already at work; only he who now restrains will do so until he is taken out of the way. Then that lawless one will be revealed whom the Lord will slay with the breath of His mouth and bring to an end by the appearance of His coming. And also in 2 Cor 12:1 I know a man in Christ who fourteen years ago—whether in the body I do not know, or out of the body I do not know, God knows—such a man was caught up to the third heaven. And I know how such a man—whether in the body or apart from the body I do not know, God knows— was caught up into Paradise and heard inexpressible words, which a man is not permitted to speak. Both of these things were written in the early to mid 50s AD. Claudius reigned from 41 to 54, and given a date of 41-43, the Revelation would be right on key with the line of kings, the statements of Paul, the internal evidence of the Revelation itself, etc. The dating IS a questionable issue, and there are two sides to that debate due to a translation error presented by ???? (have to get the book back from my brother to get the name) in regard to Iraeneus' statement regarding the writing of the Revelation during the time of Domitian. Even premillenialist scholars conceded to the correction in translation, and that correction threw the date back up in the air. Compare this line of kings also to Daniel's ten horns and one. Ten horns, and a little horn pushing three out of the way. Julius, Antony, Augustus, Tiberius, Caligula, Claudius, Nero, Galba, Otho, Vitellius. Ten rulers in all. Then up comes Vespasian, the eleventh horn, pushing three horns, Galba, Otho, and Vitellius out of the way. It is typically agreed that although the three were considered emperors, Otho and Vitellius were emperor at the same time as Vespasian, each on their own front, and of the three (Galba, Otho, and Vitellius), they were in truth little more than opportunists that barely held the throne. Vespasian and Titus, representing the smaller beast with two horns, were acting under the orders of Nero at first. So the two, though not yet emperors in their own right, still exercised the authority of the first beast. Now again, in relation to the number of the beast, if Nero was the one, then the number spoken of was the warning, and the wisdom of the number was given so it could be understood. If Nero fits the criteria, then there is no reason to believe he was not the one being spoken of. It does not take wild arithmetic to determine the number. Each character has a value. Add them up, and there you go. In the forties, John's primary audience would have been Jewish, so the Hebrew spelling of the pronunciation is not only reasonable but probable, as opposed to Greek. The questions to be considered are: COULD Nero have been the one of whom the number spoke? COULD this line of kings have been the line? COULD the persecution of Rev. 13 have been the one under Nero that lasted the appointed time? The answer to these questions is yes. These things COULD have been the ones spoken of, and they therefore bear consideration. Xerxes |
||||||
Result pages: [ 1 2 ] Next > Last [2] >> |