Results 41 - 60 of 77
|
||||||
Results from: Notes Author: gbennett76 Ordered by Date |
||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
41 | Where is a 1,260 year apostasy taught? | NT general Archive 1 | gbennett76 | 94761 | ||
Amen |
||||||
42 | Where is a 1,260 year apostasy taught? | NT general Archive 1 | gbennett76 | 94755 | ||
Dare we apply the same to professed protestants "in good standing" with their church. Using quotes to mormon bash doesnt prove any thing.. Heres an anti jewish quote from Billy Graham(I'm sure he's in good standing)... "the Jewish stranglehold has got to be broken or the country's going down the drain" and went on, "A lot of the Jews are great friends of mine, they swarm around me and are friendly to me because they know that I'm friendly with Israel. But they don't know how I really feel about what they are doing to this country. And I have no power, no way to handle them, but I would stand up if under proper circumstances." |
||||||
43 | Pre-Tribulation Rapture | NT general Archive 1 | gbennett76 | 94720 | ||
Trib Trash Part 3 It is worth quoting the key verses in several Bible translations, to drive home the point: Matthew 24:29 is the Link Between the Tribulation and the Rapture: King James: "Immediately after the tribulation of those days..." New King James: "Immediately after the tribulation of those days..." American Standard: "But immediately after the tribulation of those days..." Living Bible: "Immediately after the persecution of those days..." New International: "Immediately after the distress of those days..." Revised Standard: "Immediately after the tribulation of those days..." Simple English: "Soon after the trouble of those times..." Mark 13:24 Contains the Same Teaching: King James: "But in those days, after that tribulation..." New King James: "But in those days, after that tribulation..." American Standard: "But in those days, after that tribulation..." Living Bible: "After the tribulation ends..." New International: "But in those days, following that distress..." Revised Standard: "But in those days, after that tribulation..." Simple English: "After the trouble of those times..." So, the rapture and Second Coming come AFTER the tribulation. The pre-trib rapture theory is therefore false, or on very shaky ground indeed. The alternatives – the 'mid-trib' and 'post trib' raptures – contradict the "no-one knows the day or the hour" statement. Conclusion: none of the Protestant 'Great Tribulation' theories are biblical. The 'Great Tribulation' scriptures actually refer to the Great Apostasy, when the Christian church was "in the hand of" the little horn for 1260 years.This ended in 1830 |
||||||
44 | Pre-Tribulation Rapture | NT general Archive 1 | gbennett76 | 94719 | ||
Tribulation Trash Part 2 So: is there to be a 'Great Tribulation' lasting seven years (or three and a half years, 1260 days) immediately before Jesus returns? The 'Great Tribulation' – True or False? The Problem for Protestants: The term 'Great Tribulation' is used by Protestants to refer to a period that ends when Christ comes again (it ends when He appears in Jerusalem to put an end to the battle of Armageddon). But here we have a problem. The 'Great Tribulation' is a certain fixed period – e.g. seven years. Since the Great Trib is so much worse than anything that has gone before, and so distinct that we can measure its length precisely, any informed Christian should be able to spot when it begins. Then, since it has a fixed length, the informed Christian would be able to predict the date of its end, and thus predict the date of the Second Coming. Yet Jesus told us (Matthew 24:36) that no-one will know this time. So the 'Great Tribulation' cannot end at the Second Coming, as Protestants teach, because it would allow us to know something even Jesus did not know – the date of the Second Coming. The Solution? A Pre-trib Rapture: BUT WAIT! There is a way round this problem. Evangelical Protestants now teach that we cannot predict the date of the Second Coming, because all faithful Christians will be raptured into heaven BEFORE the 'Great Tribulation.' This is known as the 'Pre-Trib Rapture.' (Actually, this does not solve the problem, because many of the lukewarm Christians who are not raptured will nevertheless know about the prophecies, and they will then be able to predict the Second Coming. But let us look at the scriptures anyway.) Is the Pre-trib Rapture Biblical? What do we know about the rapture? 1 Thessalonians 4:16-17 is the key text: "For the Lord himself shall descend from heaven with a shout, with the voice of the archangel, and with the trump of God: and the dead in Christ shall rise first: 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." So: what can we expect at the rapture? Jesus comes in the clouds There is the sound of a trumpet Jesus descends from heaven Everyone knows about it (if a trumpet sounds and all the faithful Christians rise into the air and disappear, someone is going to notice! – see also Revelation 1:7, "Behold, he cometh with clouds; and every eye shall see him." ) The elect are gathered through the air. There is only one other place in the Bible that we read of this event in such detail: in Matthew chapter 24 (and in its parallel passages in Mark and Luke). Matthew 24:30-31 states: "And then shall appear the sign of the Son of man in heaven: and then shall all the tribes of the earth mourn, and they shall see the Son of man coming in the clouds of heaven with power and great glory. And he shall send his angels with a great sound of a trumpet, and they shall gather together his elect from the four winds, from one end of heaven to the other." Once again we have all the elements: Jesus comes in the clouds There is the sound of a trumpet Jesus descends from heaven Everyone knows about it. The elect are gathered through the air. (Some would argue that "four winds" does not mean the air, but if you look at every other time the word "wind" – "anemosis" – is used in the New Testament, it always refers to wind in the sense of air.) Why go to the trouble of showing that these passages refer to the same event? Because it destroys the whole pre-trib rapture theory. The previous verses in Matthew make it clear that the rapture happens AFTER all the events that Protestants lump together as 'The Great Tribulation.' Matthew 24:29-31 states: "Immediately after the tribulation of those days shall the sun be darkened, and the moon shall not give her light, and the stars shall fall from heaven, and the powers of the heavens shall be shaken: And then shall appear the sign of the Son of man in heaven: and then shall all the tribes of the earth mourn, and they shall see the Son of man coming in the clouds of heaven with power and great glory. And he shall send his angels with a great sound of a trumpet, and they shall gather together his elect from the four winds, from one end of heaven to the other." |
||||||
45 | Pre-Tribulation Rapture | NT general Archive 1 | gbennett76 | 94718 | ||
Tribulation Trah Part 1 Many Protestants have copied a medieval Catholic idea, and decided that there is a big gap between the rapture and the coming of Christ. They call this gap "The Great Tribulation" and use it as a dumping site for all the "Great Apostasy" scriptures they do not like. It is true that there will be terrible tribulations before the Second Coming. But this should not be confused with the 1260 year period spoken of in Daniel and Revelation, during which the church would be "in the hand of" Satan. The Rapture and the Second Coming: When Christ comes again, the faithful will raise in the air to meet him, and then He will descend to earth, fulfilling all the various prophecies. This rising into the air, where surviving believers meet with resurrected saints, is called the "rapture." Sounds Simple – Why make it complicated? The common Protestant view adds something called "The Great Tribulation." What is it, and why was it added? The Origins of the Theory: The idea of a Great Tribulation, lasting either seven or three and a half years, can be traced to the Spanish Jesuit, Ribera. He was writing in the year 1591. This was when the Protestants had begun to realise that the 1260 "days" of prophecy referred to the church in the dark ages. The Catholic church did not like this being pointed out. So Ribera invented the idea of a final tribulation yet to come. But as the centuries have passed, it became clear that the Protestants were no better than the Catholics, and the rise of Protestantism did not usher in the Second Coming. So gradually Protestants have adopted the convenient Catholic fiction of "the tribulation" being in the future. Fairbairn's Bible Dictionary (London: Blackie and Son, 1866), under the topic "Revelation", notes the two major advantages of this theory to any false church: First, it is "holding that the whole interval of historic time between the ascension of Christ and the appearance of antichrist is passed over in prophecy." In other words, God has ignored the first 2000 years of church history! Second, "It has the convenient advantage of not admitting of being tested in actual history." The whole purpose of the false "last days tribulation" doctrine is to make us ignore a) the prophecies of the great Apostasy, and b) the last 2000 years, which fulfilled those prophecies. The finishing touches to the "last days tribulation" theory, concerning a separate rapture and a seven year duration (with the 1260 "days" as half of that), were added by Darby in or around the year 1830. What is the Alleged Sequence of Events? A friend (a pre-tribulation rapture believer) described the popular Protestant approach to this as follows: "According to pre-trib belief, the sequence of events is: 1) rapture 2) Antichrist signs seven year peace covenant 3) 3 1/2 years into the seven year period, the Antichrist is killed and comes back to life, admittedly this is a counterfeit resurrection 4) at the end of the seven years Jesus returns to planet earth – known as His second coming, defeats the Antichrist and armies of the world" The truth is alot more simpler: 1) rapture and Second Coming. The phrase "antichrist" and "tribulation" are more general descriptions. These things have already started – and had started in some degree even in New Testament times. These trials will eventually build up to the battle of Armageddon and the fall of Babylon. They are completed by the Second Coming – with the rapture happening at pretty much the same time. It All Hinges on the Great Tribulation Theory: If the 'Great Tribulation' theory is correct, then all the apostasy scriptures have not yet been fulfilled. So the traditional Christians would be right. There was no apostasy, and no need for a restoration. But if the 'Great Tribulation' theory is false, then the scriptures clearly teach that there was a Great Apostasy, lasting 1260 years, which ended in the year 1830. |
||||||
46 | Pre-Tribulation Rapture | NT general Archive 1 | gbennett76 | 94712 | ||
The rapture theory is contradicted by the following biblical facts: Christ’s return will not be invisible; rather, it will be universally manifest. For as the lightning cometh forth from the east, and is seen from phaino, to shine even unto the west; so houtos, in this manner shall be the coming parousia of the Son of Man Mt. 24:27. As those early disciples beheld theaomai, to see, look at Christ’s departure to heaven, so in like manner tropos, in the same way will he come again (Acts 1:11). The Lord’s coming will involve a revelation apokalupsis, to uncover of his being (2 Thes. 1:7), because at that time Christ will be “manifested” phaneroo .. a term which, when employed in the passive voice (as in 1 Jn. 2:28), means to show or reveal oneself, be revealed, appear to someone (Arndt Gingrich, Greek Lexicon, Chicago: University of Chicago, 1967, p. 860). Moreover, as Jesus was visible during his first “appearing” epiphaneia on earth (2 Tim. 1:10), so will he be visible when he appears at his second coming (1 Tim. 6:14; 2 Tim. 4:1, 8; Tit. 2:13). Finally, of his coming it is said that Jesus shall “appear” horao, “become visible” a second time (Heb. 9:28). If the advocates of the rapture theory are correct, the Lord will not appear until his third coming! Christ’s coming will not be inaudible; rather, scripture indicates that the Second Advent will be accompanied by considerable sound phenomena. The Lord will descend from heaven with a “a shout, with the voice of the archangel, and with the trump of God” (1 Thes. 4:16). This has been called the noisiest verse in the Bible. Too, when Jesus comes again, “the heavens shall pass away with a great noise” (2 Pet. 3:10). That hardly accords with the notion that the return of the Lord will be a silent, secret event. The truth of the matter is, the rapture theory is relatively recent. The idea appears to be traceable to a Pentecostal movement of the early 1800’s .. founded by Edward Irving (1792-1834). A recent writer says: “The idea of a two-stage coming of Christ first came to a Scottish lass, Miss Margaret Macdonald of Port Glasgow, Scotland, while she was in a prophetic’ trance” (Robert Brinsmead, Present Truth, September, 1974, p. 28). Brinsmead quotes from a book, published in 1861, by Dr. Robert Norton, a member of the Irvingite group. This volume, titled The Restoration of Apostles and Prophets: In the Catholic Apostolic Church (p. 15), as quoted by Brinsmead, reads as follows: Marvelous light was shed upon Scripture, and especially on the doctrine of the second Advent, by the revived spirit of prophecy. In the following account by Miss M.M..., of an evening during which the power of the Holy Ghost rested upon her for several successive hours, in mingled prophecy and vision, we have an instance; for here we first see the distinction between that final stage of the Lord’s coming, when every eye shall see Him, and His prior appearing in glory to them that look for Him. George Murray, in his excellent volume, Millennial Studies, has also quoted the renown Greek scholar, S.P. Tregelles, who, in 1864, wrote: “I am not aware that there was any definite teaching that there should be a Secret Rapture of the Church at a secret coming until this was given forth as an utterance in Mr. Irving’s church from what was then received as being the voice of the Spirit” (op. cit., p. 138). The rapture theory thus rests upon the same sort of bogus “revelations” as Shakerism (founder Ann Lee had visions and claimed to speak in seventy-two languages), Seventh-Day Adventistism (Ellen White thought she took a trip to heaven), and Christian Science (Mary Baker Eddy’s revelations told her there is no death). The dispensational dogma, with all its peculiar elements (including the notion of a secret rapture), is at variance with the teaching of the Bible, and careful students of Holy Writ will reject it. |
||||||
47 | Where are today's visions? | Prov 29:18 | gbennett76 | 94503 | ||
Wow you got all that out of one verse! Seems to me the Bible speaks for itself....No visions equals No restraint... Now who is usurping the authority of the bible? | ||||||
48 | let him ask of God, who gives to all | James 1:5 | gbennett76 | 94497 | ||
The Prophet Joseph Smith’s own words about the coming forth of the Book of Mormon are: “On the evening of the . . . twenty-first of September [1823] . . . I betook myself to prayer and supplication to Almighty God . . . . “While I was thus in the act of calling upon God, I discovered a light appearing in my room, which continued to increase until the room was lighter than at noonday, when immediately a personage appeared at my bedside, standing in the air, for his feet did not touch the floor. “He had on a loose robe of most exquisite whiteness. It was a whiteness beyond anything earthly I had ever seen; nor do I believe that any earthly thing could be made to appear so exceedingly white and brilliant. His hands were naked, and his arms also, a little above the wrists; so, also, were his feet naked, as were his legs, a little above the ankles. His head and neck were also bare. I could discover that he had no other clothing on but this robe, as it was open, so that I could see into his bosom. “Not only was his robe exceedingly white, but his whole person was glorious beyond description, and his countenance truly like lightning. The room was exceedingly light, but not so very bright as immediately around his person. When I first looked upon him, I was afraid; but the fear soon left me. “He called me by name, and said unto me that he was a messenger sent from the presence of God to me, and that his name was Moroni; that God had a work for me to do; and that my name should be had for good and evil among all nations, kindreds, and tongues, or that it should be both good and evil spoken of among all people. “He said there was a book deposited, written upon gold plates, giving an account of the former inhabitants of this continent, and the source from whence they sprang. He also said that the fulness of the everlasting Gospel was contained in it, as delivered by the Savior to the ancient inhabitants; “Also, that there were two stones in silver bows—and these stones, fastened to a breastplate, constituted what is called the Urim and Thummim—deposited with the plates; and the possession and use of these stones were what constituted Seers in ancient or former times; and that God had prepared them for the purpose of translating the book. “Again, he told me, that when I got those plates of which he had spoken—for the time that they should be obtained was not yet fulfilled—I should not show them to any person; neither the breastplate with the Urim and Thummim; only to those to whom I should be commanded to show them; if I did I should be destroyed. While he was conversing with me about the plates, the vision was opened to my mind that I could see the place where the plates were deposited, and that so clearly and distinctly that I knew the place again when I visited it. “After this communication, I saw the light in the room begin to gather immediately around the person of him who had been speaking to me, and it continued to do so, until the room was again left dark, except just around him, when instantly I saw, as it were, a conduit open right up into heaven, and he ascended until he entirely disappeared, and the room was left as it had been before this heavenly light had made its appearance. “I lay musing on the singularity of the scene, and marveling greatly at what had been told to me by this extraordinary messenger; when, in the midst of my meditation, I suddenly discovered that my room was again beginning to get lighted, and in an instant, as it were, the same heavenly messenger was again by my bedside. “He commenced, and again related the very same things which he had done at his first visit, without the least variation; which having done, he informed me of great judgments which were coming upon the earth, with great desolations by famine, sword, and pestilence; and that these grievous judgments would come on the earth in this generation. Having related these things, he again ascended as he had done before. |
||||||
49 | Sola Scriptura-A False teaching | 2 Tim 3:16 | gbennett76 | 94491 | ||
Even More Fuel: Ten Reasons Why "Sola Scriptura" is Impossible, Illogical and Foolish: 1)If the Bible is complete, why does it not say so? Sometimes people point to verses that say "all scripture is given" – a very forced and unnatural interpretation. The first such passage is in Deuteronomy 4:3, which says (in effect) "do not add to this." So why don't believers in "sola scriptura" throw out the whole New Testament and all the Old Testament that was written after Deuteronomy? 2)Bible interpretation depends on the words of prophets. 3)Bible interpretation depends on having an accurate copy of the original texts. No such copy exists: All we have are copies of copies. The earliest copies show that whole passages – e.g. the last 12 verses of Mark – could be in doubt. 4)The current Bible canon was decided by Catholic theologians: So Protestants base their faith on uninspired men from a church they reject as apostate! 5)Scripture has to be interpreted: In practice, "sola scriptura" means that everyone interprets the scriptures for himself. So we have scriptural chaos. At the very least, the individual becomes the final judge of exactly what the scripture means, which places man above God. 6)Even the greatest thinkers will disagree over how to be saved: For example, "Luther thought Zwingli was "damned" because he denied the Real Presence in the Eucharist. If Luther didn't even regard him as a brother in Christ due to doctrinal disputes, then obviously they didn't agree on how one is saved! Clearly, Luther thought that the Eucharist was crucial to salvation. In this he would differ from Calvin as well, and the same thing applies to baptism, because Luther believed in baptismal regeneration, whereas Calvin (and, I believe, Zwingli) denied it." 7)There are many different ways of harmonising the Scripture. ALL can be defended indefinitely: So it is not enough to use one scripture to explain another. Calvinists have one way of doing this. Arminians have another way. Baptists have another way. They all come to different conclusions on significant questions. So do Lutherans, Anglicans, Nazarenes, Presbyterians, Methodists, Plymouth Brethren, Seventh-Day Adventists, Mennonites, etc., etc. 8)Believers in "sola scriptura" rely on outside evidences: The idea is that the believer listens to churches, pastors, books, professors, commentaries spiritual experiences, traditions, creeds, hymns, etc., and then makes up their own mind. But this implies that these outside influences suggest possibilities that the believer would not have come up with on their own. In other words, he relies on them. 9)Believers in "sola scriptura" place their own subjective beliefs above the authority of the Bible: Luther recognised that some key teachings could not be reconciled from the Bible alone. For example, Paul seems to teach salvation by grace, and James appears to teach salvation by works. So Luther developed a concept known as the "analogy of faith." In other words, if Paul seemed to contradict James, Luther looked at his overall beliefs regarding Christ. But where do these overall beliefs come from, except from these same texts? Luther liked Paul better than James, so he (Luther) decided that Paul was more important. He wrote: "To sum it all up ... St. John's Gospel [not the synoptics], and his first epistle, St. Paul's epistles, especially those to the Romans, to the Galatians, and to the Ephesians, and St. Peter's first epistle – these are the books which show you Christ and teach everything which is needful and blessed for you to know even if you don't see or even hear any other book. ... Wherefore St. James epistle is a true epistle of straw compared with them, for it contains nothing of an evangelical nature." See Biblical Theology and the Analogy of Faith for references and further discussion. 10)"Sola scriptura" was the attitude of the scribes and Pharisees: Jesus and his apostles were different. They spoke with authority. They could back up their words for scripture, but the churches of the day did not accept their interpretations. Many years ago I was reading the Bible and came across the following verse: 1 John 2:15: "Love not the world, neither the things that are in the world. If any man love the world, the love of the Father is not in him." This struck me as odd, because I had been brought up with another well known verse by the same author (the apostle John): John 3:16: "For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life." Is it good to love the world? Yes? No? At that point, I began to realise that the Bible has to be interpreted. There is no getting away from that fact. The End |
||||||
50 | Sola Scriptura-A False teaching | 2 Tim 3:16 | gbennett76 | 94490 | ||
More Fuel Misconceptions held by the majority of this forum: 1)The Bible is so plain that what it means is "obvious." 2)Simply by quoting scriptures, everything will become clear. In doing so, they show very little knowledge of the Bible, or ability to think clearly. This is why: -If every Bible verse can be taken at face value, then the Bible is a mess of contradictions and mistakes. -If the meaning is so clear, then every thinking person would agree with them. But they do not. The truth is that the Bible has to be interpreted. So the great question is, why is one interpretation any better than another? Using the Bible to Test the Bible Circular Arguments: A critic wrote, "If I am shown interpretations other than those I already hold to, which make more sense than mine do in light of the whole of Scripture, I will listen." This belief is comforting but false. What "makes sense" when interpreting scripture will depend on our existing methods and assumptions. What if our view of "the whole of scripture" is faulty (for example, if we think that the Bible is all there is)? Then every other scripture will be judged according to this false standard. The Usual Protestant Rule of Biblical Interpretation: "If we are to believe that God gave us the Bible for a purpose, then it follows that... His purpose is for us to understand it, with His help" Exactly. "With his help." Since internal help would be circular, he must provide external help (the Holy Spirit, prophets, etc.) "Take the Bible literally where it is at all possible" I agree this is a good general rule, but it must not be relied on completely, because: This was the rule the ancient Pharisees used – e.g. they expected a Messiah who would literally be a "king." Consequently they missed Jesus when he came. It is just not practical. It is possible to take almost everything literally, an still be internally consistent. But who does? How many Christians only have one coat? How many give to everyone who asks? It goes against the examples in the New Testament. Right from Matthew chapters 1 and 2, we see prophecies that are not interpreted according to any literal rule, or by looking at the original context. For example, "out of Egypt I have called my son," by this method, must refer to the nation of Israel being led by Moses. "A virgin shall conceive" must have referred to an ordinary young woman in Isaiah's day. I am highly doubtful that most evangelical Protestants do follow this rule anyway. The last time I discussed this matter in any depth with a "Born Again Christian," he sent me a number of audio tapes from his church. One of them was about the Book of Revelation. His minister started by stating that it was practically all symbolic. "If God cannot author confusion, then any interpretative problems invariably arise from the human end (1 Cor 2:14; 2 Pet 3:16), not from the Scriptures themselves" I agree. But humans are sinful. We invariably get it wrong without divine help. This method of interpretation just about guarantees a false understanding of scripture. The verses quoted make clear that the final test of scripture is NOT more scripture. 1 Cor 2:14 suggests the final test is the Holy Spirit. The context of 2 Peter 3:16 (e.g. see verse 2) suggests the final test is the living apostles. (At the time, there was no cannoned New Testament.) The Myth of Context If you ask someone why a passage means one thing and not another, the usual answer is "context." In other words, they look at the surrounding verses and chapters. But this does not help – it is another circular argument. If the verse in question is open to different interpretations, so are the surrounding verses. Context IS important, but it does not give certainty. Which context do we look at? The previous verse? All the surrounding verses? The whole chapter? The message of the whole book? The speaker? The audience? Other similar scriptures? The historical context? The political context? The expected level of understanding? All of these things can potentially lead to different interpretations. Combining them in different ways just multiplies the potential confusion. Conclusion: Can or Should Scripture be Interpreted by Scripture? Scripture should be interpreted in the light of scripture, but this should not be the "first and foremost" way: It contradicts itself. The first thing we discover when we read scripture is that it is written by prophets and apostles. So it follows that prophets and apostles (since they create scripture) must be the preferred source. So the first task of a Bible believer must be to identify the true apostles. (This of course eliminates mainstream Protestantism as a potential source of truth.) |
||||||
51 | Sola Scriptura-A False teaching | 2 Tim 3:16 | gbennett76 | 94489 | ||
A Little Mormon Thought And because my words shall hiss forth—many of the Gentiles shall say: A Bible! A Bible! We have got a Bible, and there cannot be any more Bible. 4 But thus saith the Lord God: O fools, they shall have a Bible•; and it shall proceed forth from the Jews•, mine ancient covenant people. And what thank they the Jews for the Bible which they receive from them? Yea, what do the Gentiles mean? Do they remember the travails, and the labors, and the pains of the Jews, and their diligence unto me, in bringing forth salvation unto the Gentiles? 5 O ye Gentiles, have ye remembered the Jews, mine ancient covenant people? Nay; but ye have acursed them, and have hated them, and have not sought to recover them. But behold, I will return all these things upon your own heads; for I the Lord have not forgotten my people. 6 Thou fool, that shall say: A Bible, we have got a Bible, and we need no more Bible. Have ye obtained a Bible save it were by the Jews? 7 Know ye not that there are more nations than one? Know ye not that I, the Lord your God, have created all men, and that I remember those who are upon the isles of the sea; and that I rule in the heavens above and in the earth beneath; and I bring forth my word unto the children of men, yea, even upon all the nations of the earth? 8 Wherefore murmur ye, because that ye shall receive more of my word? Know ye not that the testimony of two• nations is a witness unto you that I am God, that I remember one nation like unto another? Wherefore, I speak the same words unto one nation like unto another. And when the two nations shall run together the testimony of the two nations shall run together also. 9 And I do this that I may prove unto many that I am the same yesterday, today, and forever; and that I speak forth my bwords according to mine own pleasure. And because that I have spoken one word ye need not suppose that I cannot speak another; for my work is not yet finished; neither shall it be until the end of man, neither from that time henceforth and forever. 10 Wherefore, because that ye have a Bible ye need not suppose that it contains all my words; neither need ye suppose that I have not caused more to be written. 11 For I command all men, both in the east and in the west, and in the north, and in the south, and in the islands of the sea, that they shall write the words which I speak unto them; for out of the books which shall be written I will judge the world, every man according to their works, according to that which is written. 12 For behold, I shall speak unto the Jews and they shall bwrite it; and I shall also speak unto the other tribes of the house of Israel, which I have led away, and they shall write it; and I shall also speak unto all nations of the earth and they shall write it. |
||||||
52 | Where are today's visions? | Prov 29:18 | gbennett76 | 94488 | ||
Where are today's visions? If they have ceased as some have claimed than are we unrestrained and full of lawlessness. Perhaps if we had a prophet to guide us with visions and revelations(2Cor. 12:1) the church would surely have more unity. |
||||||
53 | Sola Scriptura-A False teaching | 2 Tim 3:16 | gbennett76 | 94486 | ||
I posted my "creed" as I was asked to. All of these questions are pointless. I merely did as I was asked. This was not intended to persuade, convert or debate. Now you see the very reasons I find it unneccesary to state articles of individual faith in this forum. I do agree that alot of my creeds are controversial to say the least. However, that is my concern and not yours. I am not claiming that my path is the only way; I only claim that my path has a way. Therefore I find Pastor Gleen to be out of Line and Morant61 devisive stance beneath me. | ||||||
54 | Sola Scriptura-A False teaching | 2 Tim 3:16 | gbennett76 | 94470 | ||
It doesnt. These are oral traditions of the early gnostic church. | ||||||
55 | Sola Scriptura-A False teaching | 2 Tim 3:16 | gbennett76 | 94468 | ||
Answers two your questions: 1)Where does Scripture teach that there is a Heavenly Mother? "The children gather wood, and the fathers kindle the fire, and the women knead their dough, to make cakes to the queen of heaven, and to pour out drink offerings unto other gods, that they may provoke me to anger." (Jeremiah 7:18) "Thus saith the Lord of Hosts, the God of Israel, saying: Ye and your wives have both spoken with your mouths, and fulfilled with your hand, saying, We will surely perform our vows that we have vowed, to burn incense to the queen of heaven, and to pour out drink offerings unto her: ye will surely accomplish your vows, and surely perform your vows. Therefore hear ye the word of the LORD, all Judah that dwell in the land of Egypt; Behold, I will watch over them for evil, and not for good: and all the men of Judah that are in the land of Egypt shall be consumed by the sword and by the famine, until there be an end of them."Jeremiah 44: 25-27: Wisdom 8:2, 16, 18 tells us that Solomon was seen as married to Sophia. One of the many layers of symbolism attributed to the Song of Songs (also known as Song of Solomon or Canticle of Canticles) is that it speaks of Solomon's marriage to Holy Sophia. Wisdom 9:8-11 even tells us that Sophia instructed Solomon in building the Temple! The Jews revered Sophia. King Solomon even put Her right in the Temple, in the form of the Goddess Asherah. However, after the "reforms" of King Josiah, there was a threat that the veneration of Sophia would come to a halt - there was even more of a threat when patriarchal Christianity took over the world. Even still, thanks to Her continuing presence in the world and Her presence in the Bible, veneration of Sophia continued in the Eastern tradition with the construction of the Hagia Sophia and the Russian Catholic liturgical service to Sophia combined with the assumption of Mary on May 15. The Russian Orthodox Church has also begun a school of "Sophiology" to explore the thealogy of Sophia without contradicting the Russian Orthodox theology. 2)Where is Jesus declared to be 'second' to the Father? For example, the three members of the Godhead were separately manifested at the baptism of Jesus (Matt. 3:16-17) and at the stoning of Stephen (Acts 7:55-56). Peter and Stephen testify that they saw the Son of Man standing on the right hand of God. Any person that had seen the heavens opened knows that there are three personages in the heavens who hold the keys of power, and one presides over all. |
||||||
56 | Sola Scriptura-A False teaching | 2 Tim 3:16 | gbennett76 | 94460 | ||
My Creed Part 7-Scripture and Tradition Scripture Simply stated, the Protestant doctrine of sola scriptura ("Scripture alone") teaches that every teaching in Christian theology (everything pertaining to "faith and practice") must be able to be derived from Scripture alone.An essential part of this doctrine, as it has been historically articulated by Protestants, is that theology must be done without allowing Tradition or a Magisterium (teaching authority) any binding authority. If Tradition or a Magisterium could bind the conscience of the believer as to what he was to believe then the believer would not be looking to Scripture alone as his authority. Thus, according to sola scriptura, any role Tradition, a Magisterium, Bible commentaries, or anything else may play in theology is simply to suggest interpretations and evidence to the believer as he makes his decision. Each individual Christian is thus put in the position of being his own theologian. Not only is the average Christian totally disinclined to fulfill the role of theologian, but if they try to do so, and if they arrive at conclusions different than those of the church they belong to-an easy task considering the number of different theological issues-then they will quickly discover that their right to private judgment amounts to a right to shut up or leave the congregation. Protestant pastors have long realized (in fact, Luther and Calvin realized it) that, although they must preach the doctrine of private judgment to ensure their own right to preach, they must prohibit the exercise of this right in practice for others, lest the group be torn apart by strife and finally break up. It is the failure of the prohibition of the right of private judgment that has resulted in the over 20,000 Christian Protestant denominations listed in the Oxford University Press's World Christian Encyclopedia. Apostolic Tradition I believe that a man must be called of God, by prophecy, and by the laying on of hands by those who are in authority, to preach the Gospel and administer in the ordinances thereof.I believe in the same organization that existed in the Primitive Church, namely, apostles, prophets, pastors, teachers, evangelists, and so forth.I believe all that God has revealed, all that He does now reveal, and I believe that He will yet reveal many great and important things pertaining to the Kingdom of God through his prophets and apostles. |
||||||
57 | Sola Scriptura-A False teaching | 2 Tim 3:16 | gbennett76 | 94459 | ||
My Creed Part 6-Exaltation Exaltation Be ye therefore perfect, even as your Father which is in heaven is perfect. (Matthew 5:48) The Greek word for "perfect" is teleios, which means full or complete. Jesus said we should become full or complete, as our Father in Heaven is full or complete. In giving us this commandment, Jesus put into proper perspective the grand purpose of our whole existence. The Plan of Salvation can be summed up in those few words: Be ye therefore perfect, even as your Father which is in heaven is perfect. The Spirit itself beareth witness with our spirit, that we are the children of God: And if children, then heirs; heirs of God, and joint-heirs with Christ; if so be that we suffer with him, that we may be also glorified together. (Romans 8:16-17) Wherefore thou art no more a servant, but a son; and if a son, then an heir of God through Christ. (Galatians 4:7) We are the children of God and then we become heirs of God and joint-heirs with Christ. One would expect that an heir of God would inherit the things of God. Whereby are given unto us exceeding great and precious promises: that by these ye might be partakers of the divine nature, having escaped the corruption that is in the world through lust. (2 Peter 1:2-4) Partaking of the divine nature of God means sharing his attributes and becoming like Him. The Apostle John taught that those who overcometh sin through Christ will inherit all things from God. And he said unto me, It is done. I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the end. I will give unto him that is thirst of the fountain of the water of life freely. He that overcometh shall inherit all things; and I will be his God, and he shall be my son. (Revelation 21:6-7) |
||||||
58 | Sola Scriptura-A False teaching | 2 Tim 3:16 | gbennett76 | 94458 | ||
My Creed Part 5-Salvation Salvation I believe that through the Atonement of Christ, all mankind may be saved, by faith and obedience to the laws and ordinances of the Gospel.All men are saved by grace alone without any act on their part, meaning they are resurrected. There will be a General Salvation for all in the sense in which that term is generally used, but salvation, meaning resurrection, is not exaltation.However powerful the saving grace of Christ, it brings exaltation to no man who does not comply with the works of the gospel. |
||||||
59 | Sola Scriptura-A False teaching | 2 Tim 3:16 | gbennett76 | 94457 | ||
My Creed Part 4-Sin Sin Sin Has No Existence Except as It Is Created by Mankind, and Man Must Pay the Penalties for His debased creations.Sin does not exist as an abstract thing, but is the result of disobedience to some law whose operations must be pursued in conformity to its creation; and men who violate it must suffer the consequences of such violation. Mortals may not fully realize that every law carries with it a penalty for its violation, and this applies to the smallest law in the material universe as well as to the greatest law in the Spiritual Kingdom. And this penalty is just as sure in its operation as is the law itself. God did not create or permit sin or error to exist, in the sense that it is an independent entity waiting to influence men to do wrong and violate his laws of perfect harmony. Rather, when men, in the exercise of their will (which God will not compel) violate one of his laws and thereby interfere with that harmony themselves, they cause the inharmony to arise, which brings with it the pains and sufferings and sins and errors which are prevalent in the world. I believe that men will be punished for their own sins, and not for Adam's transgression. |
||||||
60 | Sola Scriptura-A False teaching | 2 Tim 3:16 | gbennett76 | 94456 | ||
My Creed Part 3-Man Man Man was a pre-existent spirit. Our origin is that we are procreated children of God, born as spirits in some other realm. In that spirit world existence we progressed as far as was possible, but to become truly like our Heavenly Father we needed to obtain physical bodies. We also needed to learn the difference between good and evil. Since our Heavenly Father has progressed so far that He cannot allow evil into His presence, it was necessary for us to leave Him for some place where we could encounter and overcome evil ourselves. We would be expected to accept the grace of the cross, gain knowledge, educate ourselves, train ourselves. We were to control our urges and desires, master and control our passions, and overcome our weaknesses, small and large through prayer and faith. We were to strive eliminate sins of omission and of commission, and to follow the laws and commandments given us by our Father contained in the gospels. |
||||||
Result pages: << First < Prev [ 1 2 3 4 ] Next > Last [4] >> |