Results 501 - 517 of 517
|
||||||
Results from: Notes Author: Beja Ordered by Verse |
||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
501 | torment in hell annihilation in the lake | Rev 19:20 | Beja | 241209 | ||
EdB, You said: "To do it you need a way to explain extra-Bibically why the beast and false prophet were mentioned in a present after being thrown in the lake of fire." I took the "in a present" part to be referring to a present tense, and in the context of your post it sounded to me like you were trying to refer to Rev 20:10. I'm not sure where else you would be referring to. If I misread you I apologize. I'm not suggesting in any way that Rev 20:10 teaches anihilation. I personally believe scripture teaches eternal torment. As for my motive it was as I said, "just to be fair." I thought you were saying he needed to explain a present tense verb there, when there isn't actually one to be explained. In Christ, Beja |
||||||
502 | torment in hell annihilation in the lake | Rev 19:20 | Beja | 241214 | ||
allisraelsaved, I think you are mistaken about it meaning until the end of the age. The greek behind "forever and ever" assuming we are referring to Rev 20:10 says literally unto the age of ages. It was the way the new testament says what you and I would mean by forever. Contrast that with the end of Matthew where Jesus literally says until the close of the age. So they could very specifically state until the end of the age with biblical greek, the phrase unto the age of ages is something quite different meaning extending throughout them all. In Christ, Beja |
||||||
503 | Rapture | Rev 20:1 | Beja | 214114 | ||
crk, There might be more to think about than just rev 3:9-10. In fact, I find pretrib rapture very hard to argue in light of a couple passages. 1 Thess 4:13-18 make it plainly clear that the dead in Christ will rise(the ressurection) before the rapture. Second when we turn to Revelations 20:4,5 we see that in the FIRST ressurection are those who died for refusing to take the mark of the beast. Now, I feel confident that you yourself believe the mark of the beast happens during the tribulation. So lets put this together, the rapture will not happen until after the first ressurection. The first ressurection will not happen until after the mark of the beast, and the mark of the beast will not happen until during the tribulation. As for Revelations 3:9-10, I'd like to suggest to you that a ratpure is not God's only way of keeping people from evil. Check out Isaiah 57:1 as an example. You just might be misunderstanding God's intentions. In Love, Beja |
||||||
504 | Rapture | Rev 20:1 | Beja | 214116 | ||
Val, I'll certainly try to visit that link soon, probably won't be today with all the church things. However, I have heard the arguement before about the first ressurection being in phases, and right now all I can say is it seems completely ad hoc. Meaning that there is no reason anybody would believe this from scripture except for the fact that the pre trib view is sunk without it. Therefore if you want to believe pretrib you must buy into this idea also. But perhaps this link will provide a better arguement for it than I've heard in the past. I'll look at it and let you know. As I've always said, if the pre-trib stance could provide a good arguement I'd certainly like to believe them! Who would want to believe we'd be here for that? But I will go look at it with as much of an open mind as possible as soon as I have oportunity. In Love, Beja |
||||||
505 | First resurrection happens twice | Rev 20:5 | Beja | 239243 | ||
Ed.O. Well articulated. Its good to see you have scriptures in mind rather than popular fictions, sir! You also have illustrated my point very well. You come to the passage already certain that my particular interpretation can not be correct based on how you have previously interpreted these other verses. I also come to this passage having already determined that some interpretations aren't possible due to my take on other scriptures. Though I do hope we both would be willing to change our view should the passage be plain enough, it is apocalyptic literature which is rarely plain. This is why I said that the answer would not be able to be a simple one, when we ask what Rev 20 means we necessarily press upon ourselves a great many passages concerning end times. Let me give you some examples of where we disagree before we ever come to that passage. 1.) Do a search on the greek word for "keep" in Rev 3:10 and see the only other place where John uses the word. Does it mean that he will remove them from the problem or keep them through the midst of it? 2.) You say that it could not be at the end of 7 years because then we would know just when to expect him. But that would only allow believers to know when to expect him and doesn't Paul plainly say, contrasting believers to unbelievers, "But you are not in darkness, brothers, for that day to surprise you like a theif. For you are all children of the light, children of the day." 1 Thessalonians 5:4,5. 3. I disagree with a 7 year period of tribulation at the end. In this we have most likely interpreted Daniel chapter 9 differently. This again would make it such that Christ could come post tribulation and yet still surprise us. And these are all me simply responding to the verses you put forward, we then must look at the verses that a post-trib rapture thinks prove their point. I'm not actually trying to sway you to my view at this point, I'm simply attempting to persuade you that the answer to what Revelation 20 means is going to necessarily be tied to a discussion of the entirety of your end-times framework. But on the other hand as I said in my first post: Given all your assumptions a double first resurrection is one way to see it. If I'm not mistaken my father-in-law- holds that view. Your brother in Christ, Beja |
||||||
506 | First resurrection happens twice | Rev 20:5 | Beja | 239270 | ||
Ed.O. Know that I have no intention of belittling your views on this. Most of those I hold most dear in life would agree with your posts. My intentions are not at all to convince you of a post tribulation rapture. In order to do that we would have to begin with a very systematic review of relevant texts in order that I might try to persuade you. My single point with regards your original question can be stated in these two notions: 1.) To just answer your original question only, you will need somebody who first agrees with you on all other points of eschatology. 2.) Absent that, you will necessarily have to discuss all the other texts which you do not agree upon in order to explain how your are reading Rev 20. With a certainty you disagree with my post-trib view, but you amply illustrate the point I am trying to make. I'm not sure how well suited this venue would be for carefully discussing all the places where you and I would disagree. On this forum it is sometimes very hard to flesh out one thought before one of the people in the conversation rushes of to a point they would prefer to be discussing. The effect can sometimes be that rather get one idea across well we only skim many ideas poorly. However, I would not want you to think that I am playing with words. With regards to the apostle John attributing to Jesus the statement, "I will keep you from..." We need to think clearly. Hear is my thought process there. 1.) The assertion is that the phrase, "I will keep you from" the hour of trial necessarily means that they will be taken away from this hour of trial so that they will not have to face it. 2.) The only other place John uses this word, indeed the very phrase "keep them from" the evil one, he specifically states that what he does not mean is to take them away from it so that they don't have to endure it. In that context it can not possibly mean what you suggest it to mean in Rev. 3) Therefore it is error to say it 'must' mean that in Revelations. It could mean that, but it is no fancy playing with words to suggest that in Rev the phrase means what it clearly means in the gospel of John. I don't think that argument is playing with words. I leave you to decide whether the argument is valid. Again, I do not say this to persuade you of post-trib, I merely say this to clear myself of the notion of exegetical malpractice. When all has been weighed all I am saying is this: Your original question begs a lot of other questions. Your brother in Christ, Beja |
||||||
507 | First resurrection happens twice | Rev 20:5 | Beja | 239283 | ||
Ed.O. That was Searcher who said that. In Christ, Beja |
||||||
508 | First resurrection happens twice | Rev 20:5 | Beja | 239285 | ||
Ed.O. You needed to read point 2 and 3. I was disproving number 1. The way you quoted me makes it sound like I was suggesting it. My logic was as follows. 1. Your Assertion:In Rev 20 phrase X must mean A. 2. My Counter Evidence: In John phrase X can not possibly mean A. 3. Therefore: Phrase X might not mean A in Rev 20. Statement 1 is false. In Christ, Beja |
||||||
509 | psalms... judgement chapter 1 verse 5 | Rev 20:15 | Beja | 225647 | ||
Let me respond to two points from this thread. First, the original post is missunderstanding Psalm 1:5. When it says the wicked will not stand in the judgment, it does not mean they won't be present. It means they will perish. It would be like saying, "I was unable to stand before his onslaught." It means you were overcome by it. Second, Revelations 20 does indeed say that they are judged. Revelations 20:12,13 And I saw the dead, the great and the small, standing before the throne, and books were opened; and another book was opened, which is the book of life; and the dead were JUDGED from the things which were written in the books, according to their deeds. And the sea gave up the dead which were in it, and death and Hades gave up the dead which were in them; and they were JUDGED, every one of them according to their deeds. (caps mine of course.) It specifically says they were judged and it specifically says that the judgment was according to their deeds. Not simply on the basis that they rejected Christ. In Christ, Beja |
||||||
510 | psalms... judgement chapter 1 verse 5 | Rev 20:15 | Beja | 225681 | ||
EdB, When our "thought process" contradicts plain scripture it would be wisdom for us to throw our reasoning in the trash. In Christ, Beja |
||||||
511 | psalms... judgement chapter 1 verse 5 | Rev 20:15 | Beja | 225684 | ||
EdB, I suppose it would be good for me to give an example of the clearly stated scripture. Acts 17:30,31 The times of ignorance God overlooked, but now he commands all people everywhere to repent, because he has fixed a day on which he will judge the world in righteousness by a man whom he has appointed; and of this he has given assurance to all by raising him from the dead. A clear statement that there is a FUTURE specific date of judgement for the whole world. Here is another from Paul teaching Felix about the Christian Faith. Acts 24:25 And as he reasoned about righteousness and self-control and the coming judgement, Felix was alarmed and said... Do you see that Paul taught a COMING day of judgement? Your thought process is in error. The root of your error is that you are failing to see that the judgement has a both now and yet to come aspect just as our salvation has a now and yet to come aspect. If you do a search on the word "salvation" sodzo in the greek. Then you will find it is sometimes spoken of past, sometimes ongoing, and sometimes as a future event. The judgement upon us is in much the same way. God has judged the world, is pouring out restrained judgement on the world now, and will one day finally judge it. In Christ, Beja |
||||||
512 | psalms... judgement chapter 1 verse 5 | Rev 20:15 | Beja | 225686 | ||
EdB, Be very careful of what you are doing. You say "what would be the point?" But because you can not see the point shall we ignore them? I think I will let God be God and if He sees fit to have a judgement at the end in order to place that judgement on display in a some clear final sense, I will not critique his choice with my ability to see whether or not it is fitting. I see, and have shown, that scripture very very clearly states that he has chosen to do so. At that point it is no longer my roll as sitting underneath scripture to argue whether or not it is, but to only understand that God has seen fit, and then to apply my mind to understanding perhaps why. If you wish to not hear or see these exceedingly clear scriptures, then I intend to spend no further effort trying to show you. Only take care with how your handle and read the word of God. For if we are to give an account of every idle word we speak, how much more so will we give an account for how we handle His words? Let us always be ready to let scripture correct us. In Christ, Beja |
||||||
513 | psalms... judgement chapter 1 verse 5 | Rev 20:15 | Beja | 225688 | ||
EdB, While I was taking my daughter to dance class tonight I had some thought on how we might get very specific and have therefore some hope for our conversation. Let me step by step go through a few points in the passage that sparked our original discussion, Revelations 20. Let me quote again verses 12 and 13. "And I saw the dead, grea and small, standing before the throne, and books were opened. Then another book was opened, which is the book of life. And the dead were judged by what was written in the books, according to what they had done. And the sea gave up the dead who were in it, Death and Hades gave up the dead who were in them, and they were judged, each one of them, according to what they had done." Now let you and I, just for a few posts, agree to restrict ourselves to discussing this passage. This is the only way we are going to get anywhere is if we actually focus on the passages. Now, I will lay out some points and you let me know specifically at what point in my reasoning that you and I part ways. Let me begin with my Thesis, then my points. Thesis: There is a future judgement. 1.) I take this scene to be something happening in the future. Whatever that "something" may be which is being described in Rev 20:11-15, its at a future date to our current moment in history. 2.) Whatever that "something" is, scripture describes it in these particular two verses as saying "they were judged." It uses these specific words more than once. This is not some word that I have randomly chosen to describe but but whatever is taking place, SCRIPTURE has chosen to descibe this future even with these words. 3.) Now, assuming we are in agreement that there is "some future event" and in these two verses scripture refers to it as "they were judged" I have a question. How do you say that I am in error when I say there will be a future time when people will be judged? How can you at the same time say that scripture is correct when it says it, yet I am wrong when I say it? I can think of only two ways you could possibly argue this. a.) You assume that what I mean, and what scripture means when we say this are two very different thigns. So that when scripture says there will be an event in the future when individuals will be judged, it means one thing and is correct, yet when I say that in the future there is an event in which individuals will be judged I mean something very different from what scripture is saying and therefore I am wrong. b.) You consider both I and scripture both to be wrong in asserting this. Assuming you didn't disagree with points 1 and 2, I ask you on which of these grounds do you disagree with my Thesis? Please, I ask you again, let us restrain ourselves for the moment to this one passage. Show me where I am missunderstanding THIS particular scripture. In Christ, Beja |
||||||
514 | psalms... judgement chapter 1 verse 5 | Rev 20:15 | Beja | 225695 | ||
EdB, I do understand what you are saying. This is not the first time I've heard people speaking what you are saying. However, showing you your error requires not long thought process, but the discipline to actually stop and look at individual passages to see if they support or condemn your theological statements. I admit I am a bit saddened that you are unwilling to actually buckle down and discuss a given passage of scripture. You continue to cry "proof texting!" each time I try to direct our attention to actual passages, and with this one phrase you quickly hurry on to your own theological stances. No discussion concerning scripture can be settled without the hard work and discipline of exegeting passages. Unless you are willing to do that we will keep just spouting our own rhetoric. I suppose part of me is happy and welcomes the end of the discussion, the other part of me regrets that so few are willing to really discuss the Bible rather than simply state their views repeatedly. May God bless you. In Christ, Beja |
||||||
515 | psalms... judgement chapter 1 verse 5 | Rev 20:15 | Beja | 225709 | ||
Ariel, I may be wrong but I think you are mistaken. This entire thread I've argued only one thing: There is a future judgement. I've never suggested that every other individual point he has made is wrong. I simply have tried to show there is a future judgement. Now, I can't recall a single point in any of this thread where he has agreed upon that point as you suggest. If he has, I will be happty to be pointed to the post where he has done so. There is always the possibility I have simply missed it. Lets claim our own words when we engage in such discussions. Here is the quote he made in post 225643 "The wicked that didn't accept Jesus aren't judged." If it is as you say, then let us put the question to him. EdB, has this statement indeed been recanted and I just missed you saying so? In Christ, Beja |
||||||
516 | psalms... judgement chapter 1 verse 5 | Rev 20:15 | Beja | 225710 | ||
EdB, Very well, I will be happy to discuss this passage. Tell me what it is in this passage specifically that refutes that there is a future judgement? Or perhaps, as per what ariel said, you concede that point and whish to argue a different specific thesis. Make it very clear, if you don't mind, what specific point you intend to make from the passage and together we'll see if the passage sustains it. In Christ, Beja |
||||||
517 | psalms... judgement chapter 1 verse 5 | Rev 20:15 | Beja | 225719 | ||
EdB, Now we are getting somewhere. There is in fact a judgement. And yes it is good that we use that word, not because I have insisted upon it, but because it is in fact the word that scripture uses. We are not being careless or unclear or nit picking by using scriptures on words. Saying what scripture says AS scripture says it is both a good thing and a safe guard. Now, if that is admited lets push on further, if you still care to. What is judged? Is it simply that they rejected Jesus Christ as you say? Or is it the sins that are going to be judged, which is what I would assert. Let me offer a scripture reference. Colossians 1:5,6 "Put to death therefore what is earthly in you: sexual immorality, impurity, passion, evil desire, and covetousness, which is idolatry. On account of these the wrath God is coming." Clearly states that it is on the account these sins the wrath of God is soon to come upon the world. Not simply rejecting Christ. Further, look at Revelations 20:12,13 again twice in those verses it says they were judged specifically according to their deeds/what they had done. Not simply by their rejection of Christ. 1 Peter 4 contains another excellent passage on it. 1 Peter 4:3-5 "For the time that is past suffices for doing what the Gentiles want to do, living in sensualtiy, passions, drunkenness, orgies, drinking parties, and lawless idolatry. With respect to this they are surprised when you do not join them in the same flood of debauchery, and they malign you; but they will give account to him who is ready to judge the living and the dead" Look at what they are about to give account of when God judges them, namely all the listed sins and their maligning Christians for not doing likewise. We have ample scriptural testimony to the coming judgement of sins that we have commited. Let us look at one more before I address john 3. Romans 2:1-3,5 "Therefore you have no excuse, O man, every one of you who judges. For in passing judgement on another you condemn yourself, because you, the judge, practice the very same things. We know that the judgement of God rightly falls on those who practice such things. Do you suppose, O man--you who judge those who practice such things and yet do them yourself--that you will escape the judgement of God? ...But because of your hard and impenitent heart you are storing up wrath for yourself on teh day of wrath when God's righteous judgement will be revealed." How many things shall I point out in this passage? They will not escape his judgement who "practise such things." "We know that the judgement of God rightly fallson those who PRACTISE SUCH THINGS." (emphasis mine.) Now, let me address John 3:18. John 3:18 "Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe is condemned already, because he has not believed in the name of the only Son of God." (ESV) Now, you are rightly pointing out two things from this passage. I chose the english standard version because it is drawing out here that the word "judged" is being used somewhat differently. Here when it says that somebody who believes is not judged. What it means is that they will not be condemned. Now there is another sense in which we can use the word judged. For example if I judge was to stand up and declare me innocent of all charges, I was in a sense judged though I was judged to be innoccent. In another sense the word "judged" is sometimes used to refer specifically mean the condemning side of it. That is how it is used here. This passage is not meaning to say that those who believe will not be publicly judged to be righteous before God, because they will. It means they will not be condemned in the judgement because they have believed upon Christ. So they will be judged if by that we mean a public declaration of their innoccence, but they will not be judged in the sense of being condemned. The second part: you rightly point out that with regards to those who do not believe their judgement is spoken of here in a past tense. This is something I conceded much earlier in our discussion. There is without a doubt a sense in which judgement has already been given. By not believing they have already clenched their judgement as certain. Yet though that be the case, this passage is not denying that there will be a day in which that verdict is publicly declared, publicly vindicated with evidence from their sinful actions, and the penalty publically carried out. I hope this serves to benefit the discussion. In Christ, Beja |
||||||
Result pages: << First < Prev [ 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 ] |