Results 1 - 20 of 43
|
||||||
Results from: Notes Author: tomsweetstir Ordered by Verse |
||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
1 | The Problem with WoF in a nutshell | Bible general Archive 2 | tomsweetstir | 96540 | ||
Simply put, I accept ALL of Scripture, not a hit and miss viewpoint according to man's doctrine. I was just reading in 1st Timothy yesterday morning. Please allow me to copy it from my Bible. 1 Tim 4:3ff : “These are the things you must teach and preach. Anyone who teaches different views and does not agree with the wholesome instruction which comes from out Lord Jesus Christ, and with religious teaching is a conceited, ignorant person with a morbid craving for speculations and arguments which result only in envy, quarreling, abuse, base suspicions, and mutual irritation between people of depraved minds, who are lost in the truth and think of religion only as a means of gain. “For we bring nothing into the world, and we can take nothing out of it. If we have food and clothing we will be satisfied. But men who want to get rich fall into temptations and snares and many foolish, harmful cravings, that plunge people into destruction and ruin. ”For the love of money is the root of all evils, and in their eagerness to get rich, some men wander away from the faith and pierce themselves in the heart with many a pang. “But you, man of God, must fly from these things. Strive for uprightness, godliness, faith, love, steadfastness, gentleness.” Etc. etc. etc. It sounds to me, the Word of Faith teachers neglect to strive for their listeners to strive for what the Holy Spirit would desire. His word says: “Ask of Me and I will give you nations”... HOw dare we ask HIM for cars, castle-sized homes, pleasure boats, etc. May the Lord bless us with HIMSELF, so we all can rid ourselves of ourself. Tom |
||||||
2 | RAPTURE: PRE-TRIBULATION OR NOT? | Bible general Archive 2 | tomsweetstir | 108144 | ||
Kalos, help me get this straight, please. It seems that you ARE claiming, as I pointed out in my previous post to REX, that Jesus’ explanations to His disciples concerning the “resurrection” in Matt 13 and Matt 24 are INCORRECT? How can you change what Jesus taught about the tares (children of the wicked one) being removed FIRST, before the wheat (the children of the kingdom)? He explained His angels will FIRST REMOVE the tare FROM the wheat. Just like He said in Matthew 24:38-41 “….BEFORE the flood THEY were eating and drinking … and knew not until the flood came and took THEM all away” “They” and “them”, who WERE TAKEN do not refer to Noah and family. They are the “children of the wicked one”, according to the parallel of Matthew 13. Jesus continued by stating … “there shall be two in the field; the one will be removed, and the other left.” WHO WILL BE “REMOVED”, according to what Jesus declared in Matt 13? Concerning the flood, WHO didn’t know about the flood until it came and TOOK THEM away? One answer fits all questions. The wicked. Did David lie, or was he deceived when he wrote in Psalm 37:35-36? “I have seen brutal people abuse others … suddenly THEY disappeared! I looked, but THEY were gone and no longer there.” Vs 38- “But not a trace will be left of the wicked or their families.” John 17:15 is where Jesus specifically prayed that God WOULDN’T do what you claim God will do. I love what it says, and what those words mean. Checking out some of Greek in this verse actually cancels the “rapture THEORY. “Father, I don’t ask you to TAKE them OUT of the world, but KEEP them safe from the evil one.” “Take” (airo) is defined as “to take UP”; “to LIFT”. “Keep” (tereo) is defined as “to guard from loss or injury by keeping your eye upon them. It implies a fortress or full military line of apparatus.” Ask anybody "the reason for a rapture", and the answer screams out “To save us from the tribulation.” 2 Tim 3:5 fits too many “Christians” in this land of ours. “Having a form of godliness, but denying the power thereof …” Trembling they whine, “Surely God doesn’t expect us to suffer at the hands of the antichrist. He knows how BAD it will get.” Since Abel, men, women and children have suffered at the hands of the children of the wicked one. All of a sudden, God is going to yank up into the clouds all who have placed their trust in Him. Talk about “trust”. Scriptures PROMISES in John 16:33 “These things I have spoken to you, that in Me you might have peace. In the world you SHALL HAVE tribulation, but be of good cheer, I have overcome the world.” Your comment – “in the clouds at His second coming (parousia") raised a question NO rapture follower has provided a REAL answer concerning what Rev 2:4-6 expresses compared to 1 Thess 4:15-17. You claim that “The DEAD shall rise, and we which are alive shall be caught up in the clouds to meet the Lord in the air” happens BEFORE the end of the tribulation. What about those who are supposedly martyred AFTER the “rapture”. Those who were killed for not worshiping the beast, nor taking his mark, are said to be resurrected AFTER Satan is bound for 1,000 years. Please carefully read, Rev. 20:5 “This is the FIRST resurrection.” FIRST? What “number” do you give the resurrection BEFORE the “FIRST resurrection”, the one that supposedly took place at the “rapture”? Tom |
||||||
3 | RAPTURE: PRE-TRIBULATION OR NOT? | Bible general Archive 2 | tomsweetstir | 108249 | ||
Please heart my heart here, Tim. I have the deepest respect for you, your ministry, your wisdom, your character, your faith, etc. That said, and meant ---- My brother Tim, I don’t agree with your opening sentence – “I do not consider the timing of the rapture to be one of those 'essential' doctrines which we must agree upon.” I admit that Heb 6:1-2 exhorts us on leaving the principles of the doctrine of Christ to go ON to perfection; not laying again the FOUNDATIONS of …. resurrection of the dead and eternal judgment. But, I am sure you will heartily agree with me when I state “the resurrection of the dead and eternal judgment" ARE a portion of that foundation. And a faulty foundation is sure to make everything else that rests upon it to fail and fall. However, I will agree that the belief of pre-trip rapture itself has been around for much longer than 150 years. It was somewhat what Paul had trouble with as expressed in 2 Tim 2:17-18. And verse 19 refers to “the foundation”, signifying ITS importance to get this “doctrine” right. When I saw REX’s question, HOW could I not respond? Many people who don’t verbally participate, read this forum. Am I to merely close my eye to teaching that is so blatantly unscriptural? REX’s question was about the origin of the pre-trib rapture theory. Thank you, Tim, for taking the effort and time sharing what you expressed about the “pre-trib” statement written in the third century. In a previous post to Rex, I listed numerous well-known and respected writers who, through the centuries refute the pre-trib notion. So, there must have a “REASON” for them to teach how Christians would have to undergo the whole tribulation, otherwise why would they waste words? I wasn’t insinuating the pre-trib teaching “originated” in the 1800. I was merely giving facts concerning where “the rapture before the trib” TOOK SOLID ROOT. Much like the JW’s - the pre-trib “doctrine” changes. When confronted with Scriptures that “cancel” their theory, “pre-tribbers” attempt to use another portion of Scripture, (one that likewise disproves it) rather than accepting what the “first confrontational” Scripture exposes. I BELIEVE IN THE RAPTURE!!! I also understand what the word means. As I am sure you well know, it comes from the Latin word “rapere” which merely means to take away, or seize. This WILL indeed happen. Jesus' prayer in John 17, where He specifically asked His Father NOT to REMOVE them from the world, but to protect them, would be the only prayer that the Father REFUSED, IF the pre OR mid-tribs are right. Me? I'm going with Jesus KNOWS His Father will "heed to the prayer" and allow us to "pass through the fires and not be burned." According to the pre-trib AND mid-trib theories, they both claim, when the Lord comes in the clouds, the trumpet will blow, the dead will arise, and those still alive will be seized up and we all will MEET the Lord in the air. THEN WHAT HAPPENS? Tom |
||||||
4 | RAPTURE: PRE-TRIBULATION OR NOT? | Bible general Archive 2 | tomsweetstir | 108251 | ||
Tim, this is sort of separate from the previous post I sent. You know Greek better than anyone I know. Please, what does the Greek word that Paul used here mean? I noticed it is only used in the NT four (4) times. EACH time, it deals with a situation of going to meet someone of great importance who is on their way to be with you, and then returning to where YOU were before. Matt. 25:1 and 6 – the story of the virgins who went out to MEET the bridegroom who was coming TO them. They didn’t leave to GO with Him. They went to MEET Him. Acts 28:15 – Paul was traveling TOWARDS Rome. When the brethren in Rome heard Paul was on his way, those in Rome came out to MEET them. Verse 16 explains, “When we came to Rome…” ! Thess. 4:16 – The dead and those alive “hear” the sound of the LAST trumpet and we MEET Jesus in the air, and according to the use of that word MEET – we return back here. So, Tim, WHY would Paul use that term IF we would be staying UP there somewhere? The tribulation is FINISHED when 1 Cor 15:52, and Rev 11:15, and other verses happen. We must agree that the LAST and SEVENTH are one and the same. The rest of Rev 11 explains the results. This world ravaged by Satan passes into the total possession of our Lord and He shall reign forever. THEN WHAT? The time comes for the dead to be judged AND for rewards to be given. And some teach that those rewards will be handed out while the earth is undergoing the tribulation. Wrong. OUR GOD WAS NOT POWERLESS to protect His people from “tribulation” before Moses led them out of Egypt. And I believe HE IS the same today, yesterday and forever. According to my expository dictionary of NT words, the word MEET is used in the papyri of a newly arriving magistrate. It seems that the special idea of the word was the official welcoming of a newly arrived dignitary.” (Moulton, Greek Text. Gram. Vol. 1. p.14) So, Tim, WHY would Paul use that term IF we would be staying UP there somewhere? Bless you, Tim Tom |
||||||
5 | RAPTURE: PRE-TRIBULATION OR NOT? | Bible general Archive 2 | tomsweetstir | 108282 | ||
Tim, your P.S. comment reminded me of dear friend from years long gone. Thank you. Whenever anyone asked this Bible-teacher friend if he was pre-trib, mid-trib or post-trib, he lips would creak up under his bushy white moustache. With a twinkle in his eyes he would whisper, “I’m pan-trib.” Blessings, Tom P.S. “Pan-trib” means – Whenever Jesus returns, everything will pan out OK. :) |
||||||
6 | RAPTURE: PRE-TRIBULATION OR NOT? | Bible general Archive 2 | tomsweetstir | 108284 | ||
Tim, thank you for your explanations. And also, thank you for your continual courtesy demonstrated in your giving me a “warm, from the heart” reply. Your gentle spirit and mannerism is admirable. Not JUST to me, but to all with whom you share. The real impressive part is your never changing easy and mild methods of your replies to those you KNOW will disagree with you. Reading your postings over the months, you come across with an even temperament (although on a very, very few occasions, your edges might have been a mite scratchy – generally justifiably so, I add). :) Many regulars, newcomers, and “hit and miss” people like me could stand to “catch your spirit.” May you and yours receive all the Lord has for you, Tom |
||||||
7 | RAPTURE: PRE-TRIBULATION OR NOT? | Bible general Archive 2 | tomsweetstir | 108285 | ||
REX, you are most welcome! Thank you for the "tip" on that web-site. It's a sobering thought about today being the last day for thousands. Blessings to you as you study and teach. Tom |
||||||
8 | How do we get our Bible? | Bible general Archive 1 | tomsweetstir | 81067 | ||
Hello Tim, Your “How did we get our Bible” is wonderful. Thank you for taking the time it took. I assure you, your efforts were well worth all that time. Ralph Woodrow has written some interesting books. One, “Reckless Rumors, Misinformation, Doomsday Delusions” points out some interesting facts about the KJV only problem. He discounts the reckless rumor of those who “demonize” all other versions. KJV mentions the name of Jesus 983 times. The rest of any “reference” to Jesus is translated “HE”. The NIV mentions the name of Jesus 1,275 times. So which would “seem to be from Satan”? :) In Woodrow’s book “Amazing Discoveries within the Book of Books”, he points out “reformers” like John Huss, Wm Tyndale, Martin Luther, John Calvin, John Knox, etc. ALL DIED before 1611. WHICH translation did they glean truth from. IT WASN'T KJV. Many translators predated King James’. Tyndale translated from Greek to English in 1536. Wyclif translated from Latin to English around 1384. A "1599" translation is available on the net. Speaking of Wyclif’s, we can be grateful, his isn’t the one we “use” today. Matthew 7:1, 2 would read: “Nyl yee deme, that yee be no demede, for in what dome yee demen, yee schulen be demede.” Don’t forget, THIS IS ENGLISH. :) I’m so grateful. Aren’t you? :) Or, for example, the Tyndale’s 1536 translation. 1 Cor. 13:6 … “reioyseth not in iniquite…” Most of those who stand by KJV, rather than “modern revisions” don’t realize that 1611’s underwent major revisions in 1629 and in 1638. In 1762, Thomas Paris corrected many errors, and in 1769, Benjamin Blayney revised it again. Blessings to you, Tim. AND THANKS !!! Tom P.S. I use KJV most, but certainly not all the time. |
||||||
9 | What does the bible mean by strong drink | OT general | tomsweetstir | 94948 | ||
What about what it says in Deuterononmy 14:24-26? "And if the way be too long for thee, so that thou art not able to carry it; or if the place be too far from thee, which the LORD thy God shall choose to set his name there, when the LORD thy God hath blessed thee: 25Then shalt thou turn it into money, and bind up the money in thine hand, and shalt go unto the place which the LORD thy God shall choose: 26And thou shalt bestow that money for whatsoever thy soul lusteth after, for oxen, or for sheep, or for wine, or for strong drink, or for whatsoever thy soul desireth: and thou shalt eat there before the LORD thy God, and thou shalt rejoice, thou, and thine household,..." Personally, I can't stand the taste - but ... Tom |
||||||
10 | source references | OT general | tomsweetstir | 107324 | ||
Tara1, get ready. The day is fast approaching when one of two things will happen. Your elders will command you to get off this forum and stay off, OR, you will finally agree with all those who are obeying Jesus’ command and you will, like so many others, become HIS witnesses, as Jesus instructs in Acts 1:8. As for the fact that Aniset instructed you with his - “Friend, go to the CD Rom and research that the answer is there” - have you ever given any thought to going to Scripture itself? There you will learn Scriptures only mentions Michael FIVE times. You will also discover that NOT ONE says anything about that particular angel being, or becoming Jesus. IF using the “with an archangel’s voice” makes Jesus Michael, “with God’s trumpet” has to also make Jesus God. One can’t have one “rule” of interpretation change mid-sentence. Now you can better understand WHY your leaders had you look only at the FIRST part of 1 Thess 4:16. Jesus WAS and IS worshipped. IF you can get your hands on a 1961 edition of NWT, check out Hebrews 1:3 where God the Father gives a command concerning His Son, “let all angels worship him”. Your present day edition changed that verse to “obeisance” even though the Greek word “proskuneo” remains the same in Heb 1:6. AND Rev. 22:8-9 tells you that ONLY GOD is to be worshipped. So if “proskuneo” (worship) is only for God, and God commands “proskuneo” towards Jesus, well, any more questions? Without learning a smidgen of what the Bible says - read IT rather than going to that faulty CD Rom. Blessings, and may HE grant you wisdom about Him Tom |
||||||
11 | source references | OT general | tomsweetstir | 107325 | ||
Aniset, I see the JW’s TACTIC still hasn’t changed. With so much material from Watchtower to read, the one book they neglect for answers is the Bible. Thank you, Aniset, for once again coming forth with a “truthful” answer. Every year, with thousands of pages of Watchtower material to read, e.g. lessons, books, magazines, and such, but limited Bible reading assigned, and the majority of that in the OT, it’s no wonder you refer to yourselves as Jehovah Witnesses. After all, Jesus instructed HIS FOLLOWERS in Acts 1:8 “You will be MY WITNESSES … even to the remotest parts of the earth. And they were JESUS CHRIST’S witnesses, as stated in Acts 11:26 that the disciples first came to be known as CHRISTians. Jehovah or YHWH is OT. Jesus is NT. Both are God. Speaking of Watchtower. Does that CD Rom have access to old copies of their literature? You know, the ones that PROPHECED things that embarrassed The Society almost into extinction. Are you able to still read, “The Time is at Hand” from Watchtower Bible and Tract Society, Allegheny, PA published in 1897? If so, read what it says on page 620 about the “present proofs that the setting up of the Kingdom of God IS ALREADY (emphasis mine) begun, that it is pointed out in prophecy as due to begin the exercises of power in A.D. 1878, and that the “battle of the great day of God Almighty” (Rev. 16:14) which will end in the A.D. 1915 ….” Or, perhaps the material that was distributed later on, like those other embarrassing dates like 1799; 1874; 1878; 1914; 1915; 1918; 1925; 1929; 1975. Are you old enough to remember when Witnesses were praised for selling their homes in May's 1974 "How Are You Using Your Life"? IF you can still obtain a copy, read on page 3 "Certaianly this is a fine way to spend the short time remaining before the wicked world's end. - 1 John 2:17" If you aren’t able to read those anymore because the society hopes everyone doesn’t recall them, and if you WANT to – let me know. I have some material that will interest anyone searching for truth, and I talking about material straight from the “prophet’s mouth”. Tom |
||||||
12 | source references | OT general | tomsweetstir | 107357 | ||
Hello, friend. Sorry, but I know of no site concerning the JW’s. There might be one someplace, but all I have is a little experience, a friend who used to belong to them, some literature and books. Some of that literature from way back gives them a “black-eye”, and whenever I’ve confronted them about what they have written, they get defensive, offended, and “disappear”. I’ve noticed it has happened again. Apparently, they “disappeared”. Not necessarily because of what I have written, but from what other postings previously have said, which is mighty good stuff that goes to the heart of their error. Most likely, their elders ordered them to stop visiting this site. Like when someone who knows how to witness to them, is finally avoided by them under the pretense they are hopelessly lost. They can’t “disobey” their elders, or they will be “disfellowshiped” from associating with any JW’s. Tom |
||||||
13 | Pre-Tribulation Rapture | NT general Archive 1 | tomsweetstir | 94698 | ||
DarcyA, excuse me, but I am confused with something you wrote: “When it comes to the rapture it doesn't really matter if you believe pre, mid, post or don't believe in the rapture at all. Cause we are all going up in the first load.” The various views that you listed all have one thing in common. They EACH DISPROVE all the other “theories”. When Jesus informed His disciples that the temple they had just exited was going to be destroyed, they said, “When is this to happen, AND what will be the sign of your coming AND of the end of the age?“ Jesus IMMEDIATELY instructed His disciples, “DO NOT LET ANYONE DECIEVE you concerning these (three) things.” If there are four people in one room and one uses verses that “prove” pre-trib, and one uses the very same verses to “prove” mid-trib, and one uses the very same verses to prove post-trib, and one uses the same verses to prove there won’t be a rapture at all (I have used the same verses to prove which ever "theory"), well that leaves 75 percent or three out of the four are badly deceived. IT DOES MATTER. There is little else that Scriptures "warn" against being decieved about. Tom P.S. The world is round, so which way is UP for "us" is not for those "down under". |
||||||
14 | Why didn't Noah stop tower of Babel? | Genesis | tomsweetstir | 95764 | ||
Excuse me for "butting in", but the name Methuselah acutally means "His death shall bring." Interesting to think it took him 969 years for his name to take on the meaning his parents gave him, don't you think? Tom |
||||||
15 | Why didn't Noah stop tower of Babel? | Genesis | tomsweetstir | 95767 | ||
Hello Darcy, on my calculator I figured that even Abraham was in his fifties when Noah died. Wow, my old teacher WAS right about math. By learning math one can learn lots of other things too. :) Tom |
||||||
16 | Why didn't Noah stop tower of Babel? | Genesis | tomsweetstir | 95769 | ||
TommyS, either my calculator or yours needs new batteries. The way I added them up, Noah lived about 10 years after Peleg died. Either way, thanks for the "insight". Tom |
||||||
17 | Why did Eve orginally leave the garden? | Gen 3:1 | tomsweetstir | 93978 | ||
Emmaus, wow – you responded to both of my questions from last night. Thank you. Your response to my concept of Eve being outside the garden is understandable. Too often we hear a sermon from some rushed priest or preacher and take it for gospel. Another preacher adds his or her two-bits and pretty soon we have a “doctrine” that doesn’t fit Scripture. When I read His Word, I pay attention to ALL the words, not just the verbs and nouns. In that portion of Scripture, Eve and the serpent are talking about the tree which IS IN THE MIDST of the garden. IF they were standing in the garden, and in particular, next to the tree being discussed, they wouldn’t be making reference “to the tree in the midst of the garden”. They would be making references to “this tree”. It was later that Eve saw that the fruit looked good to eat. And Adam was with her at that time. The four letter word WHEN she saw – tells me that a period of time had transpired since the serpent and she had had their little conversation. Many such words fill that story to prove my point. So I am wondering the same thing still about Eve being where she shouldn’t have been. But I do appreciate your imput, Emmaus. Tom |
||||||
18 | Why did Eve orginally leave the garden? | Gen 3:1 | tomsweetstir | 94008 | ||
Emmaus, thank you for your insight into my “question”. It has helped me better understand where my “conclusions” went array. You are most likely correct in your assessment. Now, after rereading that portion, I see what you mean. I guess I had better make sure my glasses (both natural and spiritual) are not too smudged before coming to any “assumptions. I believe yours merits much. Thanks again. Tom |
||||||
19 | Why did Eve orginally leave the garden? | Gen 3:1 | tomsweetstir | 94069 | ||
Emmaus, I don't know what happened, but I just not found your kind note about the Catholic Scripture Study by scrolling down StudyBibleForum's. I WILL check it out. Thanks for the "tip". Tom |
||||||
20 | Why did Eve orginally leave the garden? | Gen 3:1 | tomsweetstir | 99528 | ||
Justme, Often, when I read Scripture, I attempt to put aside what I “already know” about the portion being read. It helps to “see things for the first time.” Too often, we merely skip over the words we deem “unimportant”. But I have discovered too many things that change my “preconceived” concepts. Why would the author of Genesis “word” it as it is worded, IF satan and Eve were standing smack next to the tree? “The tree which is IN the middle of THE garden.” Also – that tiny word in verse 6 – “when” told me time had past from the conversation to the looking. The word continues to say that Eve gave a bite to her husband, who was with her. This presents the probability of Eve and Adam talking over what satan had told her, as she led him to the middle of the garden to take a better look at the forbidden fruit. Adam, according to Scripture was THE ONLY ONE told not to eat from that tree. He MUST of told Eve, and perhaps it was Adam who added that footnote, not to touch it, who knows. What we do know is Adam KNEW he wasn’t suppose to eat – and did anyway. From the perspective that Eve got it second hand, she might have figured Adam had it all wrong. Had Adam “corrected” Eve – we wouldn’t be having this “conversation”. :) Tom |
||||||
Result pages: [ 1 2 3 ] Next > Last [3] >> |