Unprofitable Servant wrote: 1. how does the belief that there is, as you call it a 2500 gap in the fulfillment of prophecy, some how impugns God?
2. Revelation 1:19...Â Whether seen as literal or figurative, these things are said to be future.
Hey brother. All is well here and I trust with you and yours as well.
1) The most obvious example that comes to mind is Daniels 70 weeks. I think we can agree that the 70 commence immediately after the Babylonian captivity but, by most interpretations, the end of the 70 is yet future. The duration of the first 69 weeks seems to be interpreted with a consistent formula (1 week = X) but somewhere near the end of the 69th or early 70th week that formula is paused for 2,000 years and counting. Why pause a formula if the formula was correct to begin with?
That very same pause or gap is transferred all over the prophets where the gathering of Israel back to their land is interpreted as an event which began in 1948 when in fact it happened after the Babylonian captivity. How does that honor God? Evidence? Didn't Paul mention the 12 tribes of Israel?
2) I didn't say they weren't future. My point was it is profitable to consult the prophets as much of the picture language is sourced from there with context.
Watchmanremo wrote: What sort artical is this? How many christians are wearing then? Especially if its not mandatory, and even if it is. The religious medical gods have lied to us. a virus is the end product not the start the end product is its dead not living.
Not exactly so, brother.
A virus is akin to a parasite. It can only live with a living host. Yet it can reproduce if attached to a host. Were it not able to reproduce there would be no spread of the virus.
John UK wrote: Lurker, you could well be right. But not necessarily. If a future event was foretold to a prophet, God could just as easily foretell the event to a later prophet without him referencing the first. However, the fact that we have the same thing prophesied twice does assist us.
Quite right, John. I'd guess we can agree that the Revelation is a mysterious book and with all the interpretations out there, the one and only infallible interpretation still eludes us. If and when we will ever understand it aright only God knows.
Watchmanremo wrote: 1) as you have posted is that an interpretation?
2) Notice the red horse peace from the earth zac 1.8 by night not day
3) Look up Job 1 verse 7 this language to and fro in the earth and from walking up and down in it
4) Can i ask you Luker will you take a vaccine with a biometric mark can i ask that of you my friend.
1) It's my interpretation. I try to identify what is common across scripture. That and God would be a poor Author if He spoke of a white horse and horseman three times in different places and they were all different. Would make interpretation near impossible.
2) A day of the Lord is darkness, not light (Amos 5:20).
3) Typical language across scripture for a day of the Lord.
4) I won't. Not that I fear it may have something to do with the so called mark of the beast. The closest eschatological view I can relate to is Amill which means the beast and false prophet who imposed the mark has already been cast into the lake of fire (Rev 19:20). Can't profess to be Amill and not recognize what is already past.
Watchmanremo wrote: Rev 6.2 white horse one Crown and a bow rev 19 white horse many crowns, blood and two edge sword who says its the same person?
Hey W-remo, I assume you are new to the comment board so welcome. You also seem to be zealous about this particular discussion and would enjoy some interaction. Sorry, it won't be with me. Nothing personal but I've done my time here as a contributor and now prefer to just look in and see what others have to say. However, I will say this about the white horseman of Rev 6:2.
A horse is a weapon of war, not peace. A bow is a weapon of war, not peace. A sword is a weapon of war, not peace.
There are two states of existence in the bible.... war (wrath of God) or peace with God. War comes during a judgment, after a captivity (tribulation) when the Decalogue is imposed so all will know their sin, also known as a day of the Lord's vengeance. What you see in Rev 6 and 19 are two different versions of the same judgment in the same timeline. The seven seals are nothing. What is being unsealed is what matters; the Decalogue. When all the seals are broken the day of judgment has ended. An age (aion) has ended and a new age begins. All God's enemies have been judged and consigned to the lake of fire.
John UK wrote: I take it that you mean the prophecies are assumed by some to be fulfilled after AD96 which if I remember right was when the aged apostle died, shortly after completing his book. I've always thought that was a given, unless you are thinking that much of the Revelation is not prophecy but statement.
The thing about the Revelation is it frequently draws on visual images found in the OT prophets. For example: Rev 1:13-14 is drawn from Daniel 10:5-6 and Ezek 43:2. And Rev 1:15 draws from Ezek 1:7 and Ezek 43:2. The two witnesses are spoken of in Zech 4. The white horseman of Rev 19 is also mentioned in Rev 6:2 (though many wrongly say this is a false prophet) and Zech 1:8, 6:1-8. And the head with the deadly wound which healed..... when and by whom did he receive the deadly wound? It's not found in the Revelation but may be found in the prophets. There are many, many more examples but this will suffice.
There are too many references to the prophets to attempt to interpret the Revelation stand alone (post 96AD) without the context of the referenced prophets. God inspired John to write what he did and had a purpose in drawing on the prophets. It is for us to learn that purpose if we hope to properly interpret the Revelation.
John UK wrote: by definition, all biblical prophecy has to be future, if you take it from when the prophecy was given.
Absolutely correct, John. The problem and resulting diversity of interpretations comes from the varied methods of determining exactly when the prophecies have/will come to pass and are/will be fulfilled. Some interpretations fill the bible with gaps of up to 2500 years which should be an indication that something is amiss. Either that or the Author of the bible is not that great an Author.
Regarding the interpretation of the Revelation which some on this site are speculating about in light of the pandemic; such speculation begins with the assumption that the book must be interpreted post 96AD. How are we to know if this assumption is correct? And what if it isn't?
Jim Lincoln wrote: Everybody said that Obama blamed Bush for the problems he was having? So why blame Obama for actions that Trump either should take or not take, Lurker? Trump is responsible for his own actions. So, Andrew you made a good comment.
Really? If I wanted your input I would have addressed my post to you.
Andrew wrote: God ahead pray and act like you are innocent but I tell you that God came for the lost not 99 self righteous people that do not believe they have no sin.
No disrespect intended but this is what happens when you get a constant diet of the liberal main stream media. Those "cages" were actually initiated and used for children during the Obama administration.
As for those "cruel laws" against illegal immigration..... They've been the law of the land for a long time. They just were not vigorously enforced until Trump took office. If illegal immigration is now the right thing to do then the laws should be removed from the books rather than ignored. Even the bible says where there is no law there is no sin (reckoned).
Mike wrote: If Cuomo becomes president, we will truly know we are under judgment. Just think, he will do for the country what he has done for NY. People and businesses here are leaving in droves. With him in the White House, there would be nowhere to go.
Wayfarer pilgrim wrote: And for all the bailout money, was there any if not a wink towards roads and highways? No, well thatâ€™s how you build and economy long term. Not by giving money to Harvard , not the NBA or gambling dens ( one in the same), whereâ€™s the money for rural roads and bridges? The demonrats in congress doesnâ€™t want a bridge or farm road built with a chance itâ€™s called the Donald Trump highway or bridge. Yes we got our stimulus check, but Iâ€™d give it up if a farm road in Lubbock county could be paved and smoothed out.
John UK wrote: Lurker, the great thing about the simplicity that is in Christ is its great simplicity. What more can be said? I have nothing. So we may end on a historic high note, praising the Lord for his great grace, his redemptive purposes, and his great achievements at the cross (or whatever else you care to call it).
I'll leave you with a few texts to think about and encourage you to consider if there is a common denominator:
Ezek 36:25 Then will I sprinkle clean water upon you, and ye shall be clean: from all your filthiness, and from all your idols, will I cleanse you.
Deut 32:2-3 My doctrine shall drop as the rain, my speech shall distil as the dew, as the small rain upon the tender herb, and as the showers upon the grass: Because I will publish the name of the LORD: ascribe ye greatness unto our God.
Joel 2:28 And it shall come to pass afterward, that I will pour out my spirit upon all flesh; and your sons and your daughters shall prophesy, your old men shall dream dreams, your young men shall see visions:
Acts 2:38 Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost.
John UK wrote: Lurker, the passage you put up is a most wonderful passage for any believer to behold, for it shows him that the law now has no more power to condemn, for it has been satisfied by the Lamb of God, it has done its work, it has killed, it has sent to the grave, on behalf of all those for whom Christ died. The handwriting is all blotted out and can no longer be read. The law of commandments is scratched out, the believer is brought out from under them; he is no more under the law as a means of justification. He never was, never will be. Rather, all the work is done by the Lord Jesus. He has fulfilled the law by keeping it, and imputes to the believer his own righteousness. He has paid the debt of the broken law, by paying the price himself, as he became the sacrificial Lamb of God.
Excellent commentary, John. He took the curse of the law, the letter of the law, death itself out of the way nailing it to His cross.
Unless you have something else to add regarding the blood shed at Calvary, I think we're done here.
John UK wrote: One thing that puzzles me, Lurker. Are you claiming that there is not one scripture which shows that the shedding of blood on the cross is the solution to our great need of forgiveness and redemption?
John, here is what Paul had to say about what happened on the cross:
Col 2:11-15 In whom also ye are circumcised with the circumcision made without hands, in putting off the body of the sins of the flesh by the circumcision of Christ: Buried with him in baptism, wherein also ye are risen with him through the faith of the operation of God, who hath raised him from the dead. And you, being dead in your sins and the uncircumcision of your flesh, hath he quickened together with him, having forgiven you all trespasses;
**Blotting out the handwriting of ordinances that was against us, which was contrary to us, and took it out of the way, nailing it to his cross;**
And having spoiled principalities and powers, he made a shew of them openly, triumphing over them in it.
Now if the shedding of His blood on the cross was the definite article for the remission of sin, it seems Paul missed an excellent opportunity to wax eloquent right here.
That said, I'll leave it to you to make a case if you choose and know that I am not above correction.
B. McCausland wrote: Lurker, the harrasing tone of your remarks does not merit trust for further dialogue.
If pressing someone to defend their assertions from scripture is harassing then I plead guilty. If it generates heat under your collar then that's on you. My best guess is you are unable to answer the hard questions I pose so you chose to attack me, my motives and my salvation instead.
It is strange, though, how you and John have been going on for days, patting each other on the back, about the virtues of thinking outside of the box of tradition but when someone else does it and it doesn't fit in your box it's heresy. Strange indeed.
Well, sister B, our previous brief exchange ended with a pleasant tone but this one..... not so much. But thanks for your time anyway.
B. McCausland wrote: 1) Lurker, which blood is this mentioned in this text? "And they sung a new song, saying, Thou art worthy to take the book, and to open the seals thereof: For thou wast slain, and hast **redeemed us to God by thy blood** Out of every kindred, and tongue, and people, and nation" 2) The blood proceeded from a lamb that had been *slain*. The type and the actual article are as vital. It is not the blood perse that makes the magical trick, but the *shedding* of this blood which makes it that by its meaning the shedding needed to be literal.
1) I assume you mean is it literal blood or figurative. Whichever you or I would assert would be subjective so nothing to be gained there. We must be able to demonstrate from scripture that something literal has a spiritual figurative meaning consistent across scripture. I offered one example from Paul's writings and you ignored it.
2) Ah, you just contradicted the text you quoted as well as others which say life is in the blood. But that aside, if the shedding of Christ's blood is the definite article and not His actual blood; in what way is this definite article applied to redeemed converts in time to effect remission of sin? Is the remission of sin and justification different or the same?
B. McCausland wrote: Lurker, your insight is ingenious, however Scripture tells us that life is in the blood, not in the breath, and in the case of Christ his blood shed avails for sins, not his breath.
Actually scripture says life is in both breath and blood.
Job 33:4 The Spirit of God hath made me, and the breath of the Almighty hath given me life.
Why you choose to deny breath is a mystery especially since my comment had to do with the spiritual significance of crucifixion on a cross. I do not deny that life is also in blood..... whether that life be good or evil and forbidden. Care to explain?
Edit: One more thing. Can you cite one verse which tells us that Christ's blood shed specifically while on the cross is what has redeemed us from sin?
B. McCausland wrote: Personally, nevertheless, to me there seems to be more meaning or blessing derived from the concept of a biblical cursed execution by 'hanging' or impaling, than from a sentimental/tradition-based, steriotyped 'crucifixion'.
I looked in on the earlier discussion but remained silent. But I believe there is a spiritual consideration missing in the conversation regarding Christ's crucifixion so will speak now.
The cause of death from crucifixion is exhaustion (continually raising up to draw a breath) leading to asphyxiation. What did Jesus say as He drew His last breath? "Father, receive my Spirit." Upon death the Spirit returns to God who gave it (Eccl 12:7). Breath and spiritual life are always connected in the bible. When God breathed life into Adam He breathed His Spirit into him and he had spiritual life. When Adam ate the forbidden fruit the Spirit departed and he immediately died spiritually but lived many more years physically.
To dwell on the physical aspect of the crucifixion at the expense of the spiritual seems to leave the weightier part of the story on the table. But I digress.