Results 121 - 140 of 787
|
||||||
Results from: Notes Author: Radioman2 Ordered by Verse |
||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
121 | Do Jesus and Paul agree on salv by faith | NT general Archive 1 | Radioman2 | 81208 | ||
NASB John 3:16 "For God so loved the world, that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him shall not perish, but have eternal life." NASB John 5:24 "Truly, truly, I say to you, he who hears My word, and believes Him who sent Me, has eternal life, and does not come into judgment, but has passed out of death into life." You can't find anywhere where Jesus Himself talked about faith alone getting one to the Kingdom of Heaven?* Try John 1:7; 1:12; 3:15; 3:16; 3:18, 3:36; 5:24; 6:29; 6:35; 6:40; 6:47; 7:38-39; 8:24; 11:25-26; 12:46. Note that in the above cited verses from the Gospel of John, it is true that Jesus didn't use the words "faith alone" or "believe alone." Neither did he say anything about belief PLUS commandment keeping, PLUS good works, PLUS works of the law, PLUS holding on and holding out, PLUS church membership, etc. In the above passages in John, JESUS DID NOT SAY WE ARE SAVED BY BELIEF plus SOMETHING ELSE**. ------------- *I'm not sure I find anywhere where Jesus Himself talked about "getting one to" the Kingdom of Heaven? I am familiar with the concept of "entering" the kingdom and "seeing" the kingdom. But "getting to" the kingdom of heaven? This is one I am not familiar with. **JESUS DID NOT SAY WE ARE SAVED BY BELIEF plus SOMETHING ELSE. I know he said "Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved" in a disputed passage in Mark -- a passage that does not appear in the earliest manuscripts (Mark 16:9-20). "The external evidence strongly suggests these verses were not originally part of Mark's gospel. While the majority of Gr. manuscripts contain these verses, the earliest and most reliable do not" (MacArthur Study Bible, Word Publishing, 1997). |
||||||
122 | Do Jesus and Paul agree on salv by faith | NT general Archive 1 | Radioman2 | 81211 | ||
"The Condition [for salvation]. Salvation is conditioned solely on faith in Jesus Christ. Nearly 200 times faith, or belief, is stated as the single condition in the N.T. (John 1:12; Acts 16:31). That faith must be placed in Christ as one's substitute for and Saviour from sin" (p. 1882, Ryrie Study Bible, Moody Press, 1976, 1978). reilly1041: Welcome to the forum. I appreciate that you are trying to get at the truth of this quesion to clear up your confusion. I encourage you to be a Berean. NASB Acts 17:11 Now these were more noble-minded than those in Thessalonica, for they received the word with great eagerness, examining the Scriptures daily to see whether these things were so. AMPLIFIED...searching and examining the Scriptures daily to see if these things were so. No matter who is preaching or teaching, whether it be me, others on this forum, a preacher in your church or on TV or the Internet, YOU examine the Scriptures daily to see if the things you hear are so. Grace and peace, Radioman2 |
||||||
123 | Do Jesus and Paul agree on salv by faith | NT general Archive 1 | Radioman2 | 81213 | ||
In the NT belief means "adherence to, committal to, faith in, reliance upon, trust in a person or an object." reilly1041: To help answer your questions, it would be helpful to define what belief actually means. "Belief in the N.T. denotes more than intellectual assent to a fact. The word (Gk. pistis, noun; pisteuo, verb) means *adherence to, committal to, faith in, reliance upon, trust in* a person or an object, and this involves not only the consent of the mind, but an act of the heart and will of the subject. "Whosoever believeth in him" is equivalent to "whosoever trusts in or commits himself to him [Christ]." Belief, then is synonymous with faith, which in the N.T. consists of believing and receiving what God has revealed" (New Scofield Reference Bible, Oxford, 1967). Grace and peace, Radioman2 |
||||||
124 | Do Jesus and Paul agree on salv by faith | NT general Archive 1 | Radioman2 | 81216 | ||
Stephanie: Thank you for the kind words. If I can be of any assistance or if you have any questions, I would be happy to do what I can to help. Just let me know. Grow in grace and in the knowledge of our Lord Jesus Christ, Radioman2 |
||||||
125 | Divisions in the church | NT general Archive 1 | Radioman2 | 87112 | ||
Issues -- Essential or Peripheral? Jman: "When we talk about the essentials of Christianity we're referring to the basic elements that make up and characterize our faith, and which, of course, separate it from other beliefs" (www.equip.org). PERIPHERAL ISSUES "There is a fundamental core of beliefs and teachings that identify any particular denomination as being Christian. That is why we call them Christian denominations. It may be that these denominations differ in regards to the finer points--points that may be moot or debatable. ( . . . ) "Most of the differences in denominations are similar to this kind of thing. Do you worship on Saturday or on Sunday? In the morning or the evening? Do you use instruments or no instruments? Should you have a choir? Should you teach topically or verse by verse? How do you baptize? What are your particular views about the way salvation is mediated by God? How about the Holy Spirit? Do you speak in tongues or not? These are more peripheral issues to the fundamental superstructure of what C. S. Lewis called 'mere Christianity'" (http://www.str.org/free/commentaries/theology/whatis.htm) (See also ID# 85744). ESSENTIAL ISSUES The essentials of Christianity include: "the plenary inspiration and inerrancy of the Scriptures; the triune Godhead composed of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit; the virgin birth and Deity of Christ; the necessity and efficacy of His atoning work; Christ's bodily resurrection and ascension;...the everlasting felicity of the redeemed; and the everlasting punishment of the lost." (New Scofield Reference Bible, Oxford, 1967) Radioman2 |
||||||
126 | John 1:1---"a god"? !?!? | NT general Archive 1 | Radioman2 | 87716 | ||
Part 1 JWs and John 1:1 The Jehovah's Witnesses and John 1:1 'In [the] beginning the Word was, and the Word was with God, and the Word was a god." The New World Translation ' This is one of the most common verses of contention between the Jehovah's Witnesses and Christians. Their false assumption is that Jesus is not God in flesh, but Michael the archangel who became a man. Therefore, since they deny that Jesus is divine, they have altered the Bible in John 1:1 so that Jesus is not divine in nature. The New World Translation has added the word "a" to the verse so it says, "...and the Word was a god." The correct translation for this verse is "In the beginning was the Word and the Word was with God and the Word was God." This is how it is rendered in the NASB, NIV, KJV, NKJV, ASV, RSV, etc. ' The New World translation is incorrect in its translation of this verse for several reasons. First of all, the Bible teaches a strict monotheism. To say that Jesus is "a god" is to suggest that there is another god besides YHWH, which is contrary to scripture (Isaiah 43:10; 44:6,8, etc.). Of course, the Jehovah's Witnesses will respond that Jesus is not the Almighty God, but a "lesser" kind of God. He is the "mighty God" as is referenced in Isaiah 9:6, "For a child will be born to us, a son will be given to us, and the government will rest on His shoulders, and His name will be called Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Eternal Father, Prince of Peace." Therefore, they say that Jesus is the mighty god, but not the Almighty God. ' The immediate problem with this explanation is that YHWH is also called the Mighty God in Jeremiah 21:18 and Isaiah 10:20. In all three verses, including Isaiah 9:6, the Hebrew word for "mighty" (gibbor) is used. 'Isaiah 10:20-21, "Now it will come about in that day that the remnant of Israel, and those of the house of Jacob who have escaped, will never again rely on the one who struck them, but will truly rely on the LORD, the Holy One of Israel. 21A remnant will return, the remnant of Jacob, to the mighty God." 'Jer. 32:18, "who showest lovingkindness to thousands, but repayest the iniquity of fathers into the bosom of their children after them, O great and mighty God. the LORD of hosts is His name." ' We can see that the Jehovah's Witness explanation is not valid. Both the Son and God are called the Mighty God. ' Furthermore, how many actual gods are there in scripture? The obvious answer is that there is only one God in existence. Though there are others who have been falsely called gods (1 Cor. 8:5-6) or even said to be "as God" like Moses (Ex. 4:16; 7:1), there is only one real God (Gal. 4:8-9; Isaiah 44:6,8). If Jesus is "a god" that was "with God" in the beginning, then is Jesus a true god or a false god? ' But, the Jehovah's Witnesses often claim that Jesus is a god in the sense that Moses was called a god. But, Moses was not called a god. Rather, he would be "as God." '"Moreover, he shall speak for you to the people; and it shall come about that he shall be as a mouth for you, and you shall be as God to him, (Exodus 4:16). '"Then the Lord said to Moses, 'See, I make you as God to Pharaoh, and your brother Aaron shall be your prophet,'" (Exodus 7:1).' (continues in Part 2) (http://www.carm.org/jw/john1_1.htm) |
||||||
127 | John 1:1---"a god"? !?!? | NT general Archive 1 | Radioman2 | 87717 | ||
Part 2 JWs and John 1:1 (continued from Part 1) ' Why was Moses going to be "as God" to Pharaoh? Because Moses was given the authority and power to display powerful miracles that decimated much of Egypt. Was Moses really a god? Being "as God" in regards to power given to perform miracles over Egypt is not the same thing as being called "a god" that was in the beginning with God, (John 1:1). ' John was a strict Jew, a monotheist. Does the Jehovah's Witness really think that John would be saying that there was another God besides Jehovah, even if it were Jesus? Being raised a good Jew, the apostle John would never believe that there was more than one God in existence. Yet, he compared the word with God, said the word was God, and that the word became flesh (John 1:1,14). ' John 1:1 in a literal translation reads thus: "In beginning was the word, and the word was with the God, and God was the word." Notice that it says "God was the word." This is the actual word for word translation. It is not saying that "a god was the word." That wouldn't make sense. Let me break it down into three statements. '"In beginning was the word..." (en arche en ho logos) A very simple statement that the Word was in the beginning. "and the word was with the God..." (kai ho logos en pros ton theon) This same Word was with God. "and God was the word." -- Properly translated as "and the Word was God." (kai theos en ho logos) This same Word was God. ' Regarding statement 3 above, the correct English translation is "...and the Word was God," not "and God was the word." This is because if there is only one definite article ("ho"-"the") in a clause where two nouns are in the nominative ("subject") form ("theos" and "logos"), then the noun with the definite article ("ho"-"the") is the subject. In this case "ho logos" means that "the word" is the subject of the clause. Therefore, "...the Word was God" is the correct translation, not "God was the Word."1 But this does not negate the idea that John is speaking of only one God, not two, even though the Jehovah's Witnesses maintain that Jesus is "a god," or the "mighty god" as was addressed above. ' Is there suddenly a new god in the text of John 1:1? It is the same God that is being spoken of in part 2 as in part 3. How do the Jehovah's Witnesses maintain that the word had somehow become a god in this context, since there is only one God mentioned? Remember, the Jehovah's Witnesses teach that Jesus was Michael the Archangel. Therefore, is there any place in the Bible where an angel is called "a god," besides Satan being called the god of this world in 2 Cor. 4:3-4? 'John 20:28 - "Thomas answered and said to Him, 'My Lord and my God!'" ' In the Greek in John 20:28 Thomas said to Jesus, "ho kurios mou, kai ho theos mou," "The Lord of me, and the God of me." If Jesus was not God, but "a" god, then shouldn't Jesus have corrected Thomas? Shouldn't Jesus have said, "No Thomas, I am not the God. I am a god."? But Jesus did not. To do so would have been ludicrous. Nevertheless, the Jehovah's Witness will say that Thomas was so stunned by Jesus' appearance, that he swore. This is ridiculous because it means that Thomas, a devout man of God, swore in front of Jesus and used the Lord's name in vain in violation of Exodus 20:7. This is hardly the case since we find no New Testament equivalent of a disciple of Christ using God's name in vain. ' In conclusion, John 1:1 is best translated without the "a" inserted into the text. "The Word was God" is the best translation. This way, we do not run into the danger of polytheism, with Jesus being "a god." We do not have Thomas the disciple swearing and using God's name in vain. And, we do not have the problem of Jesus being a "mighty god" and yet not the God -- even though God Himself is called the Mighty God (Jeremiah 21:18; Isaiah 10:20).' __________________ 1. Chapman, B. (1994). Greek New Testament Insert. (2nd ed., revised.). Quakertown, PA: Stylus Publishing. Also, Louw, J. P. (1989; Published in electronic form by Logos Research Systems, 1996). Greek-English lexicon of the New Testament : Based on semantic domains (electronic edition of the 2nd ed.) (Page 592). New York: United Bible societies. (http://www.carm.org/jw/john1_1.htm) |
||||||
128 | John 1:1---"a god"? !?!? | NT general Archive 1 | Radioman2 | 87764 | ||
'No one uses the NWT except the JW's. 'JW's on the other hand will use nothing else!' - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - JibbyJee: Jehovah's Witness doctrine by any other name is still Jehovah's Witness doctrine. Regarding the NWT which allegedly "by far is a superior translation" (ID# 87758): 'The NWT is so extremely biased and perverted, it is questionable if any Hebrew or Greek scholars worked on it. It is nothing more than a sectarian paraphrase, not a translation. 'No one uses the NWT except the JW's. 'JW's on the other hand will use nothing else! 'It has undergone many revisions. 'It is not a translation, but a corrupt sectarian paraphrase' (www.bible.ca/Jw-NWT.htm). Radioman2 |
||||||
129 | release and faith | NT general Archive 1 | Radioman2 | 91455 | ||
Gracefull: Not to be argumentative, but I would like to point out the following. You ask: "Would God have been able to fulfill His promises in these people's lives had they NOT had faith?" My answer is: Yes, God would have been able to do what He did even if the people did not have faith. God's power and ability are not dependent on anything in man. For example, if the Lord had kept His promise to Abraham throughout the generations based on the faith of the Israelites, they never would've survived as long as they have. God is perfect and complete in Himself. He needs nothing from man. He needs nothing -- period. If He did, then He would not be perfect and complete in Himself. Grace and peace to you. Trusting that we can disagree with each other and still remain friends, Radioman2 |
||||||
130 | release and faith | NT general Archive 1 | Radioman2 | 91460 | ||
Gracefull: Not every promise in the Bible is conditional, just as not every promise in the Bible is unconditional. Some are and some are not. The text within the context of each promise determines whether that promise is conditional or not. Grace to you, Radioman2 |
||||||
131 | Pre-Tribulation Rapture | NT general Archive 1 | Radioman2 | 94653 | ||
'Why is the church not mentioned in Revelation 4-22? 'By Rev. Charles Cooper 'It is assumed by pretribulationists that the church is not present on earth during the events spoken of in the majority of the book of Revelation. This thinking is based primarily on the absence of the word "church" from Revelation 3:22 to Revelation 20:16. If the "church" is not mentioned, it is concluded, she must have been raptured prior to the events written about. Further, it is assumed that the invitation to the apostle John in Revelation 4:1 to "come up here" is a picture of the rapture of the church preceding the events of the 70th week. 'It is important to examine these assumptions because they clearly attempt to place the rescue of the righteous (the rapture) before Daniel's 70th week and not after. If that is so, it should be clearly taught in Scripture. 'For several compelling reasons, it is a false conclusion to assume that the church will be raptured before the 70th week of Daniel (and for that reason is not mentioned between chapters 4 and 20): '1. The plain teaching of Scripture. Jesus, in the Olivet Discourse (Matthew 24:3-31), outlines the sequence of events in the last days relative to the church. Verses 3-14 parallel Revelation chapter 6 and depict those events from the beginning of the 70th week to the rapture. Then, in verses 15-28, He focuses on the middle time period of that future week (the final 7 years) and emphasizes two key events: (a) a time of great persecution, and (b) the "cut[ting] short" of "those days" of persecution for "the sake of the elect". Finally, in verses 29-31, He highlights what it is that will "cut short" that persecution, the rescue of the elect (the rapture). 'Paul echoes this same teaching in his 2nd letter to the Thessalonians 2:1-12: (a) the apostasy comes first, (b) the revealing of the man of lawlessness, (c) the "challenge" to all who will not bow down to him and worship him "as being God", and (d) the coming of the Lord to "gather together" believers unto Himself. 'In Revelation 6-8, we have the same sequence repeated: (a) the 70th week begins, (b) the pressure builds [seals 1-3], (c) the midpoint [seals 4-5] and apex of the persecution (against the "saints") arrives, (d) the "cut[ting] short" of that persecution with the same cosmic announcement [seal 6] as Jesus spoke of in Matthew 24:29-31 followed by the rapture of the saints (Revelation 7:9ff). There is absolutely no teaching either by hint or by direct instruction that the church will not be present during the 70th week of Daniel. (...) '5. The argument from silence. It is maintained that since the word "church" isn't used again from 3:22 until 22:6, she is absent from the events unfolding during that time period. That's an argument from silence. If we apply that same argument to the gospel of John, we have to conclude that the gospel of John isn't for the church because the word church isn't even mentioned in all of its chapters. Can that be true? 'The overwhelming evidence is that the church is indeed present during the 70th week of Daniel regardless of whether the word is used or not. What one believes must be squarely built on what the Bible clearly says, not on what we might like it to say for whatever reason. What we believe about the last days will have tremendous implications for our lives should we enter those days. Let us be Bereans, searching to see if these things are so. (Acts 17:11)' (http://www.solagroup.org/articles/faqs/faq_0027.html) |
||||||
132 | Pre-Tribulation Rapture | NT general Archive 1 | Radioman2 | 94656 | ||
'The misrepresentation of John being the church. 'It is said that the church is not present during the events of Revelation because in chapter 4:1, John is called to "come up here". John is said to be a picture of the church, and therefore it (the church) is in heaven during the days of the 70th week of Daniel. But is that a valid inference? Nowhere in all of the New Testament is there warrant to apply the understanding that John represents the church in Rev. 4:1. The context clearly implies that "John" refers to... John, and no one else. He is simply given a heavenly perspective of what is going on behind the visible world and what will take place during the last days. Nothing else. To say otherwise is to grasp at straws to try to support a hollow argument." (http://www.solagroup.org/articles/faqs/faq_0027.html) --Radioman2 |
||||||
133 | Pre-Tribulation Rapture | NT general Archive 1 | Radioman2 | 94669 | ||
WHAT IS PRETRIB'S ORIGIN? 'First of all, pretribulationism didn't exist before 1830 and there is considerable documentary proof that it was initially introduced in England by Edward Irving, the father of the charismatic Apostolic Church and not John Darby. Edward Irving probably picked up the idea of an "any moment rapture" from his work on the translation of Emanuel Lucunza's book, The Coming of the Messiah in Glory and Majesty, a Catholic priest who initially wrote the book in Spanish under the pen name of Rabbi Ben Ezra. In reality, with whom the pretribulationism position originated really does not make that much difference other than the fact that it contradicts the first 1800 years of prophetic thought and contradicts the plain teaching of the New Testament. 'On the other had, the basic tenant of prewrath (that the Church will undergo the persecution of Antichrist before the return of Christ) was taught clearly and consistently by early Church fathers. Among the evangelicals, what other basic doctrine of Scripture, other than pretribulationism, has been "discovered" in the past 160 years and directly contradicts the basic, accepted teachings (as a whole) of the early church fathers? There is none. Some will tell you that pretribulationism is a result of "progressive revelation," but look out. There is a lot of baggage when you take that position. Where do you stop and who decides where? The revelation of God ceased with the completion of Scriptures.' To read more go to:(http://www.solagroup.org/articles/endtimes/et_0006.html) |
||||||
134 | Pre-Tribulation Rapture | NT general Archive 1 | Radioman2 | 94671 | ||
DOES PRETRIB HAVE SOLID SCRIPTURAL BASIS? 'Second, pretribulationism has no clear biblical basis of support, only problem passages such as 2 Thessalonians 2:1-8 (which is ignored) and Matthew 24:15-31 (which is ascribed to unsaved Israel). By comparison, the prewrath position can be clearly argued from the books of Matthew, Mark, Luke, 1 Thessalonians, 2 Thessalonians, 1 Peter, 2 Peter, and the Book of Revelation, with absolute consistency and no contradictions, letting the student of God's Word compare Scripture with Scripture without fear of contradiction, finding instead perfect harmony in all that is recorded in the New Testament.' To read more go to: (http://www.solagroup.org/articles/endtimes/et_0006.html) |
||||||
135 | Pre-Tribulation Rapture | NT general Archive 1 | Radioman2 | 94675 | ||
DarcyA writes: "Still waiting for you to reply to my posts...Also I can settle the 2 Thess with a pretrib view as whoever you are getting your information from falsely states the pretrib view can't. But I would like my other refernces talked about before I go any farther on the pretrib view. Which hasn't been done yet." ____________________ No, it hasn't been done yet. And it isn't going to be done. Not by me -- not now and not later. I'm not here to engage in endless debate or to try to win arguments. For further information on the pretrib question, go to (www.solagroup.org/). --Radioman2 |
||||||
136 | Pre-Tribulation Rapture | NT general Archive 1 | Radioman2 | 94681 | ||
Please tell me the post ID# and the exact words I used when I allegedly said, "there is no support of someones web sight." I don't remember saying "there is no support of someones web sight." What web site are you referring to? --Radioman2 |
||||||
137 | Pre-Tribulation Rapture | NT general Archive 1 | Radioman2 | 94685 | ||
DarcyA: Thank you for clearing that up. I appreciate it. Sincerely, Radioman2 |
||||||
138 | Pre-Tribulation Rapture | NT general Archive 1 | Radioman2 | 94688 | ||
DarcyA: On most points you and I and others probably agree on the teaching of the rapture -- that it is real, it is yet future, and is defined as that event when "...the Lord himself shall descend from heaven with a shout, with the voice of the archangel, and with the trump of God: and the dead in Christ shall rise first: Then we which are alive and remain shall be caught up together with them in the clouds, to meet the Lord in the air: and so shall we ever be with the Lord" (1 Thessalonians 4:16-17 (KJV)) I think we would both agree with this definition of what the rapture is. The only point of disagreement seems to be the timing of the rapture. And as someone has said, as far as when the rapture will occur, "It's time to get off the program committee and get on the welcoming committee." :-) Grace and peace to you, Radioman2 |
||||||
139 | Pre-Tribulation Rapture | NT general Archive 1 | Radioman2 | 94730 | ||
they which came out of great tribulation 'Revelation 7:14 And I said unto him, Sir, thou knowest. And he said to me, These are they which came out of great tribulation, and have washed their robes, and made them white in the blood of the Lamb. 'tribulation 'The great tribulation is the period of unexampled trouble predicted in the passages cited under that head from Psalms 2:5 to Revelation 7:14 and described in Re 11.-18. Involving in a measure the whole earth Revelation 3:10 it is yet distinctly "the time of Jacob's trouble" Jeremiah 30:7 and its vortex Jerusalem and the Holy Land. It involves the people of God who will have returned to Palestine in unbelief. Its duration is three and a half years, or the last half of the seventieth week of Daniel. (See Scofield "Daniel 9:24") . Revelation 11:2,3 The elements of the tribulation are: '(1) The cruel reign of the "beast out of the sea" Revelation 13:1 who at the beginning of the three and a half years, will break his covenant with the Jews (by virtue of which they will have re-established the temple worship, Daniel 9:27) and show himself in the temple, demanding that he be worshipped as God ; Matthew 24:15; 2 Thessalonians 2:4. '(2) The active interposition of Satan "having great wrath" Revelation 12:12 who gives his power to the Beast Revelation 13:4,5. '(3) The unprecedented activity of demons Revelation 9:2,11 and '(4) the terrible "bowl" judgments of Re 16. 'The great tribulation will be, however, a period of salvation. An election out of Israel is seen as sealed for God Revelation 7:4-8 and, with an innumerable multitude of Gentiles Revelation 7:9 are said to have come "out of the great tribulation" Revelation 7:14. They are not of the priesthood, the church, to which they seem to stand somewhat in the relation of the Levites to the priests under the Mosaic Covenant. The great tribulation is immediately followed by the return of Christ in glory, and the events associated therewith Matthew 24:29,30.' ____________________ Note at Revelation 7:14 in the Scofield Reference Bible. Scofield, C.I. "Scofield Reference Notes on Revelation 7". "Scofield Reference Notes (1917 Edition)". (http://bible.crosswalk.com/Commentaries/ScofieldReferenceNotes) --Radioman2 |
||||||
140 | Where is a 1,260 year apostasy taught? | NT general Archive 1 | Radioman2 | 94749 | ||
whyprophets.com Tim Moran asks: Where does Scripture clearly teach a 1,260 year apostasy? gbennett76 replies to Tim's question by posting the following: "http://www.whyprophets.com/prophets/theyknew.htm" I went to the suggested website. The homepage (http://www.whyprophets.com/index.htm) contained the following sentences, which I quote here. [Note that LDS is the abbreviation for The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (the Mormon church.)] "Welcome to whyprophets (WP), a web site devoted to exploring Bible prophecy as it relates to the LDS (Mormon) church." "WP [whyprophets.com] endorses the teachings and doctrines of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints." "WhyProphets.com has received its first award from the LDS web community." "Our goal is to make WP a unique and valuable resource for LDS members and their friends world-wide." "Because we feel that the LDS church has a valuable message for the world about Jesus Christ and the Restoration of His gospel. We feel there exists a great deal of compelling evidence to show that the LDS church fulfils key Bible prophecies, particularly the dated prophecies of Daniel and Revelation." --Radioman2 |
||||||
Result pages: << First < Prev [ 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 ] Next > Last [40] >> |