Results 6661 - 6680 of 6770
|
||||||
Results from: Answered Bible Questions, Answers, Unanswered Bible Questions, Notes Author: Morant61 Ordered by Verse |
||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
6661 | "Two witnesses." When? Who? | Rev 11:3 | Morant61 | 54945 | ||
Greetings Stokeyhk! Thanks for the response my friend! Our posts illustrate the difficulty of trying to pin down ancient dates! :-) MacArthur lists three possible starting dates for the seven 'sevens'. 1) The decree of Cyrus (Ezra 1:1-4 at about 536 B.C.) 2) The first decree of Artaxerxes (Ezra 7:11-26 about 458 B.C.) and 3) The second decree of Artaxerxes (Neh. 2:1 about 445 B.C. Of course, it all depends on whose dates one goes by! :-) Apparently we differ on the identity of the ruler in Dan. 9:27. I found a quote in a commentary that seems to touch on some of your positions, though I don't know if you are amillenial or not. I just included this for information, not accustation! :-) ************************************ "This covenant could not have been made or confirmed by Christ at His First Advent, as amillenarians teach, because: (a) His ministry did not last seven years, (b) His death did not stop sacrifices and offerings, (c) He did not set up “the abomination that causes desolation” (Matt. 24:15). Amillenarians suggest that Christ confirmed (in the sense of fulfilling) the Abrahamic Covenant but the Gospels give no indication He did that in His First Advent. As stated, the Antichrist will break his covenant with Israel at the beginning of the second half of the 70th “seven,” that is, it will be broken for three and one-half years. This is called “a time, times, and half a time” (Dan. 7:25; 12:7; Rev. 12:14). The fact that this is the same as the three and one-half years, which in turn are equated with 1,260 days (Rev. 11:3; 12:6) and with 42 months (Rev. 11:2; 13:5), means that in Jewish reckoning each month has 30 days and each year 360 days. This confirms the 360-day Jewish year used in the calculations in the chart, “The 483 Years in the Jewish and Gregorian Calendars” (near Dan. 9:26a). Since the events in the 69 sevens (vv. 24-26) were fulfilled literally, the 70th “seven,” yet unfulfilled, must likewise be fulfilled literally." Source: The Bible Knowledge Commentary on Dan. 9:27. **********************************************\ This quote does raise some interesting questions about your position. 1) Christ did not minister for seven years, so how could His ministry be the covenant referred to in Dan. 9:27? 2) Sacrifices did not cease at the death of Christ, but almost 40 years later. So, how could the death of Christ fit the middle of the week? 3) The destruction of the temple and abomination did not occur at the same time as the death of Christ, but almost 40 years later. So, how could the death of Christ be the middle of the 70th week? Just some questions for dicussion my friend! Your Brother in Christ, Tim Moran |
||||||
6662 | Two witnesses Jehovah's Witnesses? | Rev 11:3 | Morant61 | 54946 | ||
Greetings Stokeyhk! Do I have a grude against them? No! Are they a cult? Yes! They: 1) Deny the Deity of Jesus Christ! 2) Deny the doctrine of the Trinity! 3) Deny the personality of the Holy Spirit! 4) Deny the incarnation of Christ! 5) Deny salvation by Grace alone! 6) Deny the physical resurrection of Christ! 7) Deny the physical return of Christ! 8) Deny the existence of Hell and eternal punishment! 9) Deny the immortality of the soul! 10) Believe that only 144,000 people will enter the Kingdom of Heaven. 11) Finally, have produced one of the most fradulent 'translations' of the Bible ever produced (The New World Translation). I am a witness of Jehovah as well because I am a Christian, but I am not a member of the cult of Jehovah's Witnesses. In Jesus' own words, "And the Father who sent me has himself testified concerning me. You have never heard his voice nor seen his form, 38 nor does his word dwell in you, for you do not believe the one he sent." - John 8:37-38 Any group which denies Christ cannot be witnesses to Jehovah since they have rejected Jehovah incarnate. Your Brother in Christ, Tim Moran |
||||||
6663 | "Two witnesses." When? Who? | Rev 11:3 | Morant61 | 54967 | ||
Greetings Stokeyhk! Sorry about that, I meant to say the city, but I said the Temple! :-) Let me touch briefly on your numbered points! 1) Dan. 9:27 says that he will confirm a covenant for one 'seven', but from Dan. 9:26 it would appear that the Annointed on had already been cut off prior to the last 'seven'. 2) But, Dan. 9:26 says that this ruler will destroy the city and the temple, then he will make a covenant, and then he will cause the sacrifices to cease. If the "he" here is Christ, then He died, by dying He cause the sacrifices to cease, and then the city was destroyed 40 years later. That seems to mix up the sequence quite a bit. However, if the 'he' of Dan. 9:27 is the anti-christ, then the city is destroyed, later rebuilt, he makes a covenant with Israel for 7 years, and then in the middle sets up the Abomination. This would seem to fit the sequence of Dan. 9 better (IMHO)! :-) 3) This one seems pretty clear. Here are some representative translations of Dan. 9:27: "And he shall confirm the covenant with many for one week: and in the midst of the week he shall cause the sacrifice and the oblation to cease, and for the overspreading of abominations he shall make it desolate, even until the consummation, and that determined shall be poured upon the desolate." KJV "And he will make a firm covenant with the many for one week, but in the middle of the week he will put a stop to sacrifice and grain offering; and on the wing of abominations will come one who makes desolate, even until a complete destruction, one that is decreed, is poured out on the one who makes desolate." NASB "He will confirm a covenant with many for one ‘seven.’ In the middle of the ‘seven’ he will put an end to sacrifice and offering. And on a wing of the temple he will set up an abomination that causes desolation, until the end that is decreed is poured out on him.” NIV All of these seem to indicate that the Abmonination is part of the events which occur in the middle of the week. 4) Luke 1 and Gal. 3 never say that the Abrahamic covenant was fufilled by Christ during His first advent, but they say that God remembered His covenant. 5) I'm not sure what you were trying to say with your last paragraph my friend. To which philosphical argument were you referring? And, which Bible verse provides us with the B.C. date of Artaxerses rule? ;-) The dates that historians have guessed at our not Scripture! :-) This is an interesting discussion! Your Brother in Christ, Tim Moran |
||||||
6664 | Why translationed "who are and who were? | Rev 11:17 | Morant61 | 154646 | ||
Greetings Ray! A quick correction if I may! :-) The Hebrew word for God is plural in form, not the Greek. The Greek word for God is singular. Your Brother in Christ, Tim Moran |
||||||
6665 | Why translationed "who are and who were? | Rev 11:17 | Morant61 | 154678 | ||
Greetings Ray! I only capitalize 'Revelation' is I am refering to the book by that name. :) A literal translation of Rev. 11:17 would be: "saying, 'We give thanks to You, Lord the God the Almighty, He who is (plural) and He who was (singular)...'" From the little research I have done on this verse, it appears that these unusual structure is a deliberate attempt to imitate the Hebrew name 'YHWH'. Your Brother in Christ, Tim Moran |
||||||
6666 | Scriptural Support? | Rev 12:9 | Morant61 | 159662 | ||
Greetings BibleAnswer! You wrote: "Notice after the war with Michael (Jesus angelic name)..." Where exactly does the Bible say that Jesus is an angel or that His name is Michael? Your Brother in Christ, Tim Moran |
||||||
6667 | Scriptural Support? | Rev 12:9 | Morant61 | 159680 | ||
Greetings David! 1 Thess. 4:16 does not say that Jesus has the voice of an archangel. It says that He will return 'with the voice of an archangel". It also says that He will return with a trumpet call. Does that mean that He is a trumpet? ;-) Further, Jesus is never called 'prince of princes' in the Bible. He is called the 'King of Kings' though. Your Brother in Christ, Tim Moran |
||||||
6668 | Scriptural Support? | Rev 12:9 | Morant61 | 159686 | ||
Greetings Doc! Excellent point my friend! I forgot all about that verse! :-) Your Brother in Christ, Tim Moran |
||||||
6669 | description of the remnant church? | Rev 12:17 | Morant61 | 18943 | ||
Greetings Christianki! It is definitely possible! Depending on which view of the rapture you take, it could also be a reference to the Church in general (before the rapture). Your Brother in Christ, Tim Moran |
||||||
6670 | Our name erased or added to Book of Life | Rev 13:8 | Morant61 | 87774 | ||
Greetings John! Hey! I'm a stubborn arminian! ;-) Not to redebate the issue, but there is another way of understanding Romans 9! You view it as an expression that God has limited His grace to certain people. I view it as an expression of God's opening His grace up to all people. In my reading of Rom. 9-11, the complaint against God is not that He doesn't show mercy, but that He does! :-) Your Brother in Christ, Tim Moran |
||||||
6671 | Our name erased or added to Book of Life | Rev 13:8 | Morant61 | 87784 | ||
Greetings John! We both agree that the Potter has the right to do what He wants. However, the question we differ on is what does Scripture say He wants to do with the clay? ;-) Your Brother in Christ, Tim Moran |
||||||
6672 | Our name erased or added to Book of Life | Rev 13:8 | Morant61 | 87791 | ||
Greetings John! You wrote: "I dont't see where losing glorifys God." But, Is. 55:9 says, "As the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways and my thoughts than your thoughts." ;-) Rom. 9 explains God's right to work out His purpose of election, but 10-11 defines His purpose of election. In particular, Rom. 11:25-32 shows that the Potter has been sovereignly working so that He might show mercy to all men, not just some. That is the point at which we differ my friend. I asked someone earlier, where is the verse which says that Christ died only for some? I can show you plenty that say He died for all, or the world. I know that you will then say that 'all' only means' some, and 'world' only means certain kinds of people. But, where is the verse which specifically states that Christ died only for some? Just curious! :-) Your Brother in Christ, Tim Moran |
||||||
6673 | Our name erased or added to Book of Life | Rev 13:8 | Morant61 | 87822 | ||
Greetings Joe! 1) How would my understanding of Rom. 11 negate Rom. 9, when Romans 11 specifically states that those who were hardened can be grafted in again? 2) None of the verses you cite even use the word 'elect'! In fact, 2 Cor. 5:14-15 says that opposite, it says that He died for all! :-) This has been my point my friend. A theological construction forces us to change the meaning of words so that simple declarative statements become complex theological constructs which must be interpreted differently than the normal language of the text would normally be read. Your a Spanish teacher Joe, if you read a sentence which translated as "Love all men", would you assume that it meant "love some men"? Yet, in spite of the clear declarative statements, and the absence of any verse which specifically states that Christ did not in fact die for everyone, we are supposed to change the meaning of 'all'. I just can't accept that my friend! Your Brother in Christ, Tim Moran |
||||||
6674 | Our name erased or added to Book of Life | Rev 13:8 | Morant61 | 87824 | ||
Greetings John! So, let's compare two verses my friend: Mt. 1:21 - "She will bear a Son; and you shall call His name Jesus, for He will save His people from their sins." 1 Tim. 2:6 - "who gave himself as a ransom for all men?the testimony given in its proper time." Could 'His people' include all men? Where is 'His people' defined in the text? I looked up the phrase 'his people' and it looks like every occurance is a reference to Israel. But even if it isn't, the term is not defined. So, on the basis of the vague phrase 'His people', I am supposed to gather that 'all men' doesn't really mean 'all men'? I'm not sure which verse you are referencing about God's wrath, but my general answer would be: 2 Cor. 5:14-15 - "For Christ?s love compels us, because we are convinced that one died for all, and therefore all died. 15 And he died for all, that those who live should no longer live for themselves but for him who died for them and was raised again. " Your Brother in Christ, Tim Moran |
||||||
6675 | Our name erased or added to Book of Life | Rev 13:8 | Morant61 | 87848 | ||
Greetings Joe! I disagree my friend that individuals are not in view at all in Rom. 11, but even if you are correct inviduals are included in the groups of people. So, my point still stands that some who were hardened are said to be able to be grafted again in Rom. 11. Even if Rom. 11 is refering to a group, the group must still be composed of individuals! ;-) Your Brother in Christ, Tim Moran |
||||||
6676 | Our name erased or added to Book of Life | Rev 13:8 | Morant61 | 87850 | ||
Greetings Joe! You asked: "On whose behalf did Christ die and rise again? For all human beings past, present, and future? Or for all "those that live"?" Look at the verses in question. The phrase 'so that' begins a purpose clause explaining why He died, not identifying for whom He died. Well, we could go on and on with this! :-) So, I guess we'll have to stop for now. As always, the readers will have to decide for themselves from the positions we have advanced. On a personal note, how are your twins doing? My granddaughter is already starting to walk and she is only 8 months old! :-) Your Brother in Christ, Tim Moran |
||||||
6677 | Our name erased or added to Book of Life | Rev 13:8 | Morant61 | 87851 | ||
Greetings John! You appeal to Mt. 2:3 and Mk. 1:5 as evidence that 'all' doesn't mean 'all'. Is there some reason why all of Jerusalem could not have been troubled? Is there some reason why all of the people of Judea and Jerusalem could not have gone out to John? This is the problem I have with those whole interpretative approach. You are assuming that it can't mean 'all', but there is no valid proof that it doesn't mean 'all'. John was a major prophetic figure. Why would it be impossible for all of Judea and Jerusalem to go out to him? You also wrote: "I believe that "His people" whom He came to save are synonomous with "His sheep" who He came to save." What is the Biblical basis for this belief? Is there somewhere in the Bible where the two phrases are used together? There are several places where the phrase 'His people' clearly refers to Israel. Consider the following: Luke 1:68 - "Praise be to the Lord, the God of Israel, because he has come and has redeemed his people." The context even goes on to talk about the covenant God made with Israel. Acts 13:17 - "The God of the people of Israel chose our fathers; he made the people prosper during their stay in Egypt, with mighty power he led them out of that country, 18 he endured their conduct for about forty years in the desert, 19 he overthrew seven nations in Canaan and gave their land to his people as their inheritance." Rom. 11:1 - "I ask then: Did God reject his people? By no means! I am an Israelite myself, a descendant of Abraham, from the tribe of Benjamin. 2 God did not reject his people, whom he foreknew. Don?t you know what the Scripture says in the passage about Elijah?how he appealed to God against Israel:" Rom. 15:10 - "Again, it says, 'Rejoice, O Gentiles, with his people.'" Jude 5 - "Though you already know all this, I want to remind you that the Lord delivered his people out of Egypt, but later destroyed those who did not believe." So, here are a couple of example where 'His people' clearly refers to Israel. Where are the Scripture verses where 'His people' is used as a reference for elect individuals? Finally, where in 2 Cor. 5:14 is the 'old man' mentioned? The passage simply lists who He died for, as do the following verses. Heb. 2:9 - "But we see Jesus, who was made a little lower than the angels, now crowned with glory and honor because he suffered death, so that by the grace of God he might taste death for everyone." 1 Tim. 2:6 - "who gave himself as a ransom for all men?the testimony given in its proper time." 1 John 2:2 - "He is the atoning sacrifice for our sins, and not only for ours but also for the sins of the whole world." The funny thing about this discussion is that the verses I am quoting all actually say what I am saying. I made the claim that Christ died for all men. Behold, the verses I quote say the same thing. I don't have to explain them, or add words to them, or say what they really mean. I just quote them! Where is the verse which says that Christ did not die for all men, or that He only died for some men? Your Brother in Christ, Tim Moran |
||||||
6678 | Our name erased or added to Book of Life | Rev 13:8 | Morant61 | 87884 | ||
Greetings John! So, are we now to toss out what Scripture actually says because we don't believe it is credible or likely? :-( Do you see how your argument is going my friend? You are in essence saying, "I don't believe that 'all' the people really did come out, even though the text says they did, so 'all' must only mean 'some'!" Would you buy this kind of an argument from me? ;-) As far as the 'His sheep' phrase is concerned, I don't see any relevance or tie to the verse you originally quoted. My orginal question was, 'Where is there a single verse which says that Christ either did not die for all, or that He only died for some'. Your response was to use a verse which spoke of saving 'His people' from their sins. Yet, 'His people' is used throughout the NT (and OT) as a reference to Israel. Thus, 'His people' is not synonymous with 'the elect'. I asked if you could provide Scriptural evidence to back up your contention that 'His people' is the same group as 'His sheep'. Evidence would have to be some sort of verse or passage where the two phrases are linked somehow. You have not provided any as of yet. But, I have provided you with several examples where 'His people' refers to Israel. So, I am still looking for a verse which specifically states that Christ did not die for everyone, or that He only died for some. Until such a time as a verse is brought forth, I will have to accept that Christ did in fact die for 'all men' as Scripture says! :-) As for your last question, if indeed 'His people' is a reference to Israel, then of course they would be included in 'His sheep', but the two phrases would not be synonomous. Your Brother in Christ, Tim Moran |
||||||
6679 | Our name erased or added to Book of Life | Rev 13:8 | Morant61 | 87934 | ||
Greetings Joe! Well, we are going in circles now my friend! :-) My practice is not accept what Scripture actually says! So, if it says that all the city went out to John the Baptist, I believe that all the city went out to John. If 'all' is modified by or limited by other helping words, then I modify or limit the term 'all', otherwise, it means 'all'. :-) You wrote: " I find it interesting that Arminians have a problem with God not giving all sinners (i.e. those who deserve judgment) redemption, but have no qualms about Jesus the sinless Son suffering more of God's wrath to no end whatsoever." He only died once! He didn't have to die once for each person! So, I don't understand this objection at all! His suffering wasn't needless at all. He was reconciling the world to Himself to make salvation available to all. How is that a waste? Now, I could turn the argument around and say that it is interesting that Calvinists have no problem with a God who deliberately doesn't save some, but have qualms about a God who makes an offer of salvation which isn't accept by all! :-) Your Brother in Christ, Tim Moran |
||||||
6680 | Our name erased or added to Book of Life | Rev 13:8 | Morant61 | 87935 | ||
Greetings John! So, now your saying that the historical narrative of the two verses you cited before are simply poetic expressions? Literalism simply means to take Scripture in the way in which it was intended. So, I read narrative as narrative, poetry as poetry. Concerning the single verse, it shouldn't be so hard to find such a crucial doctrine supported by Scripture! ;-) Concerning your request for a single verse, I have never made the claim that mainkind is in control of it's own eternal destiny. I have only said that Christ died for all, which I have offered many verses to support. I have claimed that salvation is a gift which must be received, which I have offered many verses to support. So, what is the problem? Salvation is totally of God. He draws us. He died for us. He saves us. We agree on these points my friend. We simply disagree on the extent of His love. Your Brother in Christ, Tim Moran |
||||||
Result pages: << First < Prev [ 330 331 332 333 334 335 336 337 338 ] Next > Last [339] >> |