Results 541 - 558 of 558
|
||||||
Results from: Answered Bible Questions, Answers, Unanswered Bible Questions, Notes Author: retxar Ordered by Verse |
||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
541 | Resurrection of 2 witnesses and Rapture? | Revelation | retxar | 13897 | ||
Hi Tim! I too "lean" toward the mid-trib, pre-wrath view, tho pre-trib seems posible to me also. The strongest evidence for me for mid-trib being correct is because the rapture of the church and the resurrection of God's 2 witnesses (Rev 11:12) would occur at the same time (the way I see it). If the 2 witnesses that God raises up are believers that are on earth at the time the antichrist begins his stuff, pre-trib does not work, because the 2 witnesses would be raptured with the church. I also know soverign God could leave 2 believers behind to do His work if He chose. The question this raises in my mind tho, is how this works out with Jesus coming as a "thief in the night" (Mat24:42-44, Mar 13:32-37, 1Th 4-5, etc.) Does this confirm mid-trib or put more weight toward pre-trib? Jesus Lives! |
||||||
542 | Can i be forgiven for fallen from grace? | Rev 2:5 | retxar | 59759 | ||
Rev 2:5 is a warning to the Ephesians church (also us). It is not a sentence, but a warning. The Ephesians church had made a concise choice to leave the first love they had originally had for Jesus. Notice the WORD says they LEFT their first love, not LOST it. Jesus also gives them instructions on how to regain it. Jesus warns that their “lampstand will be removed” if they continue in the way they are going. This means they are in danger of losing their influence and the light of His presence, not their salvation. This is the same application as Jesus used in Mat 5:13-16 when He spoke of us being salt and light and His warning that salt that has lost its flavor (influence) is good for nothing. The application for us today? Doctrinally pure: yes. Unloving: no. retxar P.S. Here is a quote from Charles Spurgeon that might help: “The Ephesians church was a doctrinally pure church. Sometimes a focus on doctrinal purity will make a congregation cold, suspicious, and intolerant of diversity. "When love dies orthodox doctrine becomes a corpse, a powerless formalism. Adhesion to the truth sours into bigotry when the sweetness and light of love to Jesus depart." |
||||||
543 | Spirit of Samuel? | Rev 2:15 | retxar | 11413 | ||
Nolan has given a good, thorough answer here. Let me share a few additional thoughts on why I think view #2 (demon impersonation) is correct. 1 Sam 28:6 Saul had already inquired of the LORD, and the LORD did not answer. If God refused to answer thru the Holy Spirit, I don’t think He would answer thru demonic means. 1Sam 28:19. I feel the demon actually gives away its identity when it says “tomorrow you will be with me.” If Saul hooked up the next day with the one speaking, I am sure it was a demon, not Samuel. Deu_13:1-2 says all predictions that come to pass are not always from God. So the fact that the prophecy in 1Sa 28:19 came true, does not prove it was from God. Saul actually died by committing suicide (1Sa 31:4). The prediction of Saul’s death here could have been a seed planted by satan to convince Saul to kill himself. |
||||||
544 | Will we go thru the tribulation | Rev 3:10 | retxar | 28315 | ||
The word "these" in Rev 11:4 is referring to the previous verse, which speaks of the two prophets God will raise up, not churches. This was 1st prophesied in Zec 4. This corresponds with the two men God raised up in Zechariah’s day: Joshua and Zerubbabel. retxar |
||||||
545 | Will we go thru the tribulation | Rev 3:10 | retxar | 28352 | ||
Hi Serenetime, The lampstands (candlesticks KJV) are the 2 witnesses (2 individuals Rev_11:8). The olive trees suppling the never ending supply of olive oil to the lampstand (the light of the world) is symbolic of the Holy Spirit from whence their power to be witnesses will come (Act_1:8). Even if one were to believe the two witnesses were churches instead of individuals (can’t see it myself), Rev_11:4 would be before the rapture of the church as those with a pre-wrath/mid-trib view of scripture see it. In other words, the rapture of the church would occur at the same time or about the same time as the resurrection of the 2 witnesses (Rev_11:3 1260 days is 3.5 years minus 17 days). retxar |
||||||
546 | Will we go thru the tribulation | Rev 3:10 | retxar | 28354 | ||
Hello again, Serenetime In order for you to see a greater truth, let’s say the candlesticks in Rev 11:4 are churches. I think you originally presented this as proof that the church would not be spared the wrath of the great tribulation. Well if you read down to verse 12 you will see that the candlesticks (whether witnesses or churches) are called up to heaven. If you continue reading verse 13 and beyond, you will see that the wrath of the tribulation is just beginning and the “candlesticks” are spared from going thru it! Neat, huh? The Word is Light! retxar |
||||||
547 | Will we go thru the tribulation | Rev 3:10 | retxar | 28395 | ||
Serenetime, Please carefully consider all, in light of reason, and the scriptural evidence presented. Rev 1:10a I was in the Spirit on the Lord's Day: "in the Sprit" means John was in a state where God could supernaturally reveal things to him in order for him to write the book of Revelation; "on the Lord's day" simple means it was Sunday, the 1st day of the week, the day Jesus arose (Mar 16:9). Could the two witnesses be Philadelphia and Smyrna? No, not the waty I see it, but if you see it that way, there is no way you can cling to the belief that the church will go thru the wrath of the great tribulation! If you see the two witnesses as churches, surely you can see that scripture is very clear in the fact that the witnesses are resurrected prior to the wrath of the GT (Rev 11:12). In light of that fact (you believing the witnesses are churches), would you consider changing you view to one that the church will NOT go thru the wrath of the great tribulation, considering there is no other conclusion, based on what you have told me you believe? Going on the 1st load! retxar |
||||||
548 | what does rev6.6 refer to | Rev 6:6 | retxar | 17012 | ||
This is referring to the hard times of famine for those who are left to endure the great tribulation. The ingredients needed for a loaf of bread will cost them a day's wages. Jesus is coming soon! retxar |
||||||
549 | Are those drawn 2 Christ raised to life? | Rev 13:8 | retxar | 88493 | ||
John 6:44 simply says that all who come to Jesus are drawn to Him by God. It should be easy to see that the one who was drawn, the one who came, and the one who will be raised up, is all talking about the same person. Jesus saves! retxar |
||||||
550 | Are those drawn 2 Christ raised to life? | Rev 13:8 | retxar | 88544 | ||
"Assume" and "say differently" what ever works best for you, bro. I would prefer you just read and believe what I said without the slant tho. I don't read into this verse that all who are drawn, come to Jesus, simply because that is NOT what it says. I believe it means simply what it says and that is that all who come to Jesus are drawn to Him. Turn that around and you have turned around the Gospel. Jesus saves! retxar P.S. All who read this post are invited to respond. So we can know that all who do respond, were invited. So, by your reasoning, I guess all who are invited will respond? If that happens you will have convinced me that John 6:44 means something different than what it reads and I guess I will just need to learn a new way to talk, write, and read. |
||||||
551 | Are those drawn 2 Christ raised to life? | Rev 13:8 | retxar | 88628 | ||
The only way I could come to another conclusion is if the text actually said what you are saying it says. I will need to see John 6:44 turned around to say what you conclude it means, instead of what it actually says in every translation I know of. Then I would not need an interpretation, I could just read what it says. That’s what I do now, and most of the time it works well. What translation are you reading from that says "All who are drawn are raised up to eternal life"? All I have checked has it the other way around; All who are raised up are drawn. Are you trying to say that's the same thing? How come the rich young ruler, who was indeed drawn to Jesus, did not come to Him? Why did Jesus offer eternal life and forgiveness to someone who it was not available for? Why did Jesus make forgiveness available to those who crucified Him, when He knew all would not accept that forgiveness? |
||||||
552 | Are those drawn 2 Christ raised to life? | Rev 13:8 | retxar | 88958 | ||
This will be my last response to you on this subject. I don’t have a lot of time to spend here, especially if what I say is not being read anyway. You keep insisting that I have not stated what John 6:44 says. From my 2 previous post to you I will repeat what I have already said (and I really mean it this time!). From Post 1: “I believe it means simply what it says and that is that all who come to Jesus are drawn to Him.” From Post 2: “All who are raised up are drawn.” Or just read it from the WORD: Joh 6:44 No man can come to me, except the Father which hath sent me draw him: and I will raise him up at the last day. Coming to Jesus requires one to first be drawn to Him, but being drawn to Him does not necessitate that one come to Him. Don’t take my word for it, read a true life example of this phenomenon in Luke 10! What else are you wanting me to say, bro? P.S. Your have took a couple of jabs at me accusing me of being “defensive” and “disrespectful” toward you. I have pretty much ignored them as your have not qualified any of those accusations with any specifics. Most of the time generalities such as this are just attacks and condemnation from the enemy to just create strife, so I try not to be drawn into that. I am still ignoring them, but I apologize to you anyway if there has been some misunderstandings between us (neither one of us knows the other). If you have any specifics you want me to address, I will be glad to do so. God bless you bro, retxar Rom 10:13 For whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved. |
||||||
553 | "...these necessary things: ..."??? | Rev 17:5 | retxar | 64561 | ||
I'm not sure this is an answer to the question you asked, but here are some words I have wrote in the past concerning Acts 15. The letter sent to the Gentiles said they would “do well” (commanded?) if they abstained from things offered to idols, from blood, from things strangled and from sexual immorality (Act_15:29). Three of these were addressing the eating habits of Gentile Christians. The Gentiles were not bound to the ceremonial Levitical Law (1Co_8:8), but they were not to use their liberty to be a stumbling block to there Jewish neighbors either (1Co_8:9). If they abused their liberty they would be sinning against their brethren, and thus, would be sinning against Jesus (1Co_8:12). I think the instruction for the Gentile Christians to abstain from sexual immorality here does not mean the common acts of fornication, as this was recognized as wrong by all Christians. This was instructions for the Gentiles to observe certain marriage regulations spelled out in the Levitical Law which prohibited marriages between relatives. This was something most Gentiles of that time thought little of. The Gentile believers here were simply asked to give up some of their "rights" as a display of their love for their Jewish brethren. Read 1Co_8:1-13, that will help put this in perspective. My conclusion would be that this scripture (Acts 15) has nothing to do with some special ceremonial laws that God wanted NT believers to keep, but rather instructions for the Gentile Christians that received the letter to get along with their Jewish brethren better. The application for us today would be that any “right” we think we might have as a believer is never gonna be “right” if we exercise it with no regard for our brothers. retxar |
||||||
554 | What is the difference bet Hades Hell? | Rev 20:13 | retxar | 17832 | ||
Rev 20:14 Then death and Hades were thrown into the lake of fire. This is the second death, the lake of fire. The “lake of fire” is Hell, so we can see here that Hades is not the same thing as Hell. However, they are not that much different. Think of Hades as the local jail where its residents stay until judgment comes to pass, waiting to be sentenced to Hell, which, in contrast, would be the State Penitentiary. retxar |
||||||
555 | Will we grieve for those not in heaven | Rev 21:4 | retxar | 68241 | ||
Rev 21:4 "And God will wipe away every tear from their eyes; there shall be no more death, nor sorrow, nor crying. There shall be no more pain, for the former things have passed away." I heard the powerful testimony of a dear sweet lady once that had lost her father. She had the assurance from the pastor, family, and friends, that he had given his life to Christ. However, she knew that her father was not as fired up for Jesus as she was. To her, anyone who had received what she had received form the Lord should be as anxious to tell others about Him as she was, but she knew that this was just not the way it was with her father. She said she was not going to worry about anything and she was going to accept the assurance of the pastor and others testimony that her dad was saved. She said that when the devil tried to give her the fearful thoughts that she may get to heaven one day and her father not be there, she knew that Jesus WOULD be there and everything would be alright anyway! There shall be no sorrow there! retxar |
||||||
556 | Rev 22:15....Knocking on Heaven's door? | Rev 22:15 | retxar | 68356 | ||
Is the eternal state of the wicked really going to be just outside of the walls of the Heavenly city constantly trying to get in? retxar |
||||||
557 | Rev 22:15....Knocking on Heaven's door? | Rev 22:15 | retxar | 68357 | ||
Is the eternal state of the wicked really going to be just outside of the walls of the Heavenly city constantly trying to get in? retxar |
||||||
558 | Playing with the NT Greek text? | Rev 22:19 | retxar | 55764 | ||
Kalos, I’m really going out on a limb here, as I don’t have a NWT to look at because of the JW’s fear that distribution to the free would expose its lies and this would be used against them. However, I am assuming, knowing their “pick and choose” scheming ways, that the NWT changes the word "Lord" to read “Jehovah” only in the places where it is obviously referring to the Father. Is this correct? If it is, why does it not also change the word “Lord” to read “Jehovah” where it obviously refers to the Son? Would this not be the normal thing that a non-biased translator would do? Why would he do anything else unless he was promoting his own doctrinal slant? retxar P.S. If I made the wrong assumption, never mind! |
||||||
Result pages: << First < Prev [ 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 ] |