|
Post by cwood85 on Dec 23, 2018 15:52:31 GMT -6
boraddict However, Sodom and Gomorrah did reach that level of full rejection and were destroyed. So it appears a point of rejection does exist and God decides when that point has been reached. I suppose in the case of apples they are fully rotten at one point which is different for oranges, grapes, etc. So Sodom and Gomorrah persecuted the poor and were destroyed whereas Judah killed the Savior and was not destroyed. From that it appears that God is more offended by how the poor are treated than how he is treated. But we must keep in mind their destruction is not for forever. Gods love is never ending. His ways and thoughts are above us. Gods love never gives up. “53Nevertheless, I will restore their captivity, the captivity of Sodom and her daughters, the captivity of Samaria and her daughters, and along with them your own captivity, 54in order that you may bear your humiliation and feel ashamed for all that you have done when you become a consolation to them. 55“Your sisters, Sodom with her daughters and Samaria with her daughters, will return to their former state, and you with your daughters will also return to your former state.”
Ezekiel 16:53-55 EDITING TO ADD: I did not have time to type all of my response earlier in my first response, but would like to point to a different and brighter light to the outcome of Sodom and Gomorrah. It is easy to think God destroyed these two cities because He could no longer stand their sin and depravity and they were beyond any help. Majority think this is what happened and why he acted they way He did. Rotten to the core to where God rejects them. But is this what entirely happened? His destruction of these cities was because of their abominations, and as we see in Genesis when the Angels came to rescue Lot, the male citizens of the city wanted the two male angels to forcibly pass them around amongst themselves and have their ways with them. They were practically breaking down Lots door and Lot tried offering his virgin daughters in place of the Angels. Not what they wanted. These two new comers were fresh meat in their eyes. What in more cases than not, leads to this type of behavior? Sexual abuse. Usually starting at a very young age. The citizens of these cities had basically become demented and perverted from a constant cycle of abuse. Yes it is evil and disgusting and God destroyed these two cities for their evil ways. But look at how he did it. We are pretty sure these cities have been discovered, or at least what's left of them. They were burned up so hot and so fast that the remaining foundations of the structures turned into pure sulfur and brimstone. In reality majority of the people probably turned to ash before they knew what had even hit them. God wasn’t rejecting them or sick of them and figured they had just completely gone too far, no he was having mercy and pity on them. Stopping a deplorable cycle of abuses and evil instead of letting it continue on. He destroyed them so they couldn’t hurt themselves and others anymore. Their minds and souls were broken so he saved them from themselves...
|
|
|
Post by cwood85 on Dec 22, 2018 23:25:03 GMT -6
^^^Baptized in the name of Jesus, not a river, stream, sea or any body of water. Repent as in change your mind and understand that the only way sins have been forgiven is by the power of God, not something we do ourselves. Any form of thinking or reasoning that there is an ounce of something we could ever do to ensure salvation is our pride and arrogance in ourselves and not faith that God did this. All of it for all his creation and it was His plan all along.
EDITING TO ADD: When things are taken out of or added to the context, Scriptures are misunderstood. In non of these verses given does it say baptized in literal water after Jesus was crucified and resurrected and after the Holy Spirit came. Yes it was done in water as a demonstration of what Jesus was going to do with his blood shed to wash away our sins. mike makes a very valid point and poses good questions. Did Peter baptize people in water as part of their salvation process? What in the world was the Acts 8, last part of 10, and first part of 11 all about if not water baptism...? ^^^Baptized in the name of Jesus, not a river, stream, sea or any body of water. Repent as in change your mind and understand that the only way sins have been forgiven is by the power of God, not something we do ourselves. Any form of thinking or reasoning that there is an ounce of something we could ever do to ensure salvation is our pride and arrogance in ourselves and not faith that God did this. All of it for all his creation and it was His plan all along.
EDITING TO ADD: When things are taken out of or added to the context, Scriptures are misunderstood. In non of these verses given does it say baptized in literal water after Jesus was crucified and resurrected and after the Holy Spirit came. Yes it was done in water as a demonstration of what Jesus was going to do with his blood shed to wash away our sins. mike makes a very valid point and poses good questions. Did Peter baptize people in water as part of their salvation process? What in the world was the Acts 8, last part of 10, and first part of 11 all about if not water baptism...? Some received the Holy Spirit before being baptized, some after, some after hands were laid on them by a disciple. A water baptism had and has nothing to do with salvation. It was an act to symbolize the washing of their sins. A symbolic act. Baptizing does not actually wash away our sins. Jesus did that. This is no different today in regards to baptism. I have never been baptized, so what does this mean for me? Unfortunately when we start to pick and choose and try to rationalize what counts us as saved or unsaved, or multiple gospels for different groups of people and them having different things required of them to achieve salvation, things get sticky rather quickly. When we have faith that God has accomplished His will and what He has said he will do, what more can we do? Also in Acts chapter 8, 10, and 11, there is absolutely no mention baptizing leading to salvation. It is either done before someone receives the Holy Spirit or after as a symbolic act. Do we still lay on hands to receive the Holy Spirit? The eunich was reading Isaiah and was on his way to worship in Jerusalem in chapter 8. Clearly he believed. His baptism had nothing to do with his salvation. Sin was abolished at the cross. No baptizing, works, or actions lead to our salvation or forgiveness of sin. This was the plan for all generations for all of mankind. The entire purpose of the law was to show and point out to the world that we cannot save ourselves. The laws purpose was to illuminate our biggest sin, pride in ourselves and abilities and works to try and save ourselves and how much we absolutely need Him to do the impossible. 9For in him the whole fullness of deity dwells bodily, 10and you have been filled in him, who is the head of all rule and authority. 11In him also you were circumcised with a circumcision made without hands, by putting off the body of the flesh, by the circumcision of Christ, 12having been buried with him in baptism, in which you were also raised with him through faith in the powerful working of God, who raised him from the dead. 13And you, who were dead in your trespasses and the uncircumcision of your flesh, God made alive together with him, having forgiven us all our trespasses, 14by canceling the record of debt that stood against us with its legal demands. This he set aside, nailing it to the cross. 15He disarmed the rulers and authoritiesb and put them to open shame, by triumphing over them in him.
|
|
|
Post by cwood85 on Dec 22, 2018 21:43:40 GMT -6
here's an interesting list of deaths resulting from war over the centuries: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_wars_by_death_tollThis is a youtube animation of all the wars that have occured since the year 1000 AD here's a site that shows maps of where hunger and malnutrition is an issue ourworldindata.org/hunger-and-undernourishment/This site tells how many die from hunger www.statisticbrain.com/world-hunger-statistics/Power was given to them over the fourth part of the earth, TO KILL, the words "to kill" would imply that the power is granted specifically to the pale horse and riders whose mission is to bring about the death of people, however the sword and famine have to be prevalent first before people can die from their effects. I tend toward the belief that the 1/4 spoken of is related to geographic area. I think these maps may support that idea, you see that war, and hunger are most prevalent in certain geographic areas. Around the Mediterranean, Africa and East Asia. Roughly 1/4 of the earth geographically? It seems to me that war, hunger, death, conquest go hand in hand. I would say that though I see the seal horses and riders as riding throughout history, I do believe that their effects may become more intensified as the 70th week approaches. I think it should be pointed that Hell follows death here on seal 4. This tells me that those who died, then went to Hell. I’m thinking, this did not involve believers because believers don’t go to Hell. Just a thought.....what do you think? Why would he say HELL follows DEATH, if he didn’t literally mean what he said? Depending on the translation, it is not hell that follows the pale horse, but Hades which accurate in the original Greek translations. Hades is not hell, but the realm of the dead, the grave. So yes it would make sense that the grave follows death. Anyone who dies would yes according to Greek go to Hades and in our English, the grave and our casket in the grave.
|
|
|
Post by cwood85 on Dec 20, 2018 21:00:26 GMT -6
It's never faith plus works for salvation. A Jew does not need baptism for salvation. There is not a separate Gospel for Jews and a separate one for Gentiles. All are saved by faith in Jesus. John 3:16 Romans 10:9 Same Gospel Romans 10:9-13 because, if you confess with your mouth that Jesus is Lord and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved. For with the heart one believes and is justified, and with the mouth one confesses and is saved. For the Scripture says, “Everyone who believes in him will not be put to shame.” For there is no distinction between Jew and Greek; for the same Lord is Lord of all, bestowing his riches on all who call on him. For “everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved.”
Mark 16:16 He who believes and is baptized will be saved; but he who does not believe will be condemned. ^^^^Yes because the Holy Spirit had not arrived yet. This was to aid the apostles in spreading the gospel. The previous and remaining verses here:
15And He said to them, “Go into all the world and preach the gospel to all creation. 16“He who has believed and has been baptized shall be saved; but he who has disbelieved shall be condemned. ^^^ I would like to point out some details here where I have underlined. He doesn’t say baptized in water. It is being baptized in the name of Jesus. Jesus was not saying to go baptized in literal water because He is the ultimate cleansing. 17“These signs will accompany those who have believed: in My name they will cast out demons, they will speak with new tongues; 18they will pick up serpents, and if they drink any deadly poison, it will not hurt them; they will lay hands on the sick, and they will recover.”
19So then, when the Lord Jesus had spoken to them, He was received up into heaven and sat down at the right hand of God. 20And they went out and preached everywhere, while the Lord worked with them, and confirmed the word by the signs that followed.]^^^ It does not say preached and baptized, only preached the gospel. [And they promptly reported all these instructions to Peter and his companions. And after that, Jesus Himself sent out through them from east to west the sacred and imperishable proclamation of eternal salvation.]
Acts 2:38 Then Peter said to them, “Repent, and let every one of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins; and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. ^^^Baptized in the name of Jesus, not a river, stream, sea or any body of water. Repent as in change your mind and understand that the only way sins have been forgiven is by the power of God, not something we do ourselves. Any form of thinking or reasoning that there is an ounce of something we could ever do to ensure salvation is our pride and arrogance in ourselves and not faith that God did this. All of it for all his creation and it was His plan all along.
EDITING TO ADD: When things are taken out of or added to the context, Scriptures are misunderstood. In non of these verses given does it say baptized in literal water after Jesus was crucified and resurrected and after the Holy Spirit came. Yes it was done in water as a demonstration of what Jesus was going to do with his blood shed to wash away our sins. mike makes a very valid point and poses good questions.
|
|
|
Post by cwood85 on Dec 20, 2018 12:56:43 GMT -6
cwood85 Sadly, my father has fallen victim to KJV-onlyism. I thank God for my parents who taught me about Jesus! But several years ago, he remarried and ended up in a very cult-ish church and adopted their KJV Only teaching. He's become extremely legalistic and unfortunately this has caused a real strain in our relationship. I keep preaching grace to him, but I'm pretty sure he thinks I am bound for hell because I don't read the right translation (exclusively). It breaks my heart to watch him work so hard for something he can never earn. It baffles me how so many can read the stories of Jesus rebuking the Pharisees, then turn right around and do the very same things! I am sorry to hear that fitz and know this is hard to deal with and makes trying to have loving and deep conversations almost impossible. I have a family member who is KJV only and I am pretty sure he thinks I am a heretic lol. This is why it is so important to hear and listen to the HS for truth and guidance. RB and many other channels have been unsubscribed by me when they start getting narrow minded and legal or stating things very contradictory to the Bible. One channel I used to watch Pastor stayed any other version but the KJV was Satanic. Unsubscribed!
|
|
|
Post by cwood85 on Dec 20, 2018 11:54:09 GMT -6
Yea, I agree with Robert Breaker on RD. If you can provide a much better rebuttal, I'll research it. But so far, I find RD is a correct method to understand the Word of God. Jesus Himself, with the words from His very lips, proclaimed to the Gentile woman in Matthew and Mark that He was sent to the house of Israel. Jesus seemed frustrated with the woman and then only after much begging did he see her belief and heal her child. I don't see any forgiveness of sins during this event... I would be careful with Robert and this video. If I am not mistaken, this is the video where he explains by “rightly dividing” the word also means Christianity does not need to say the Lord’s Prayer as that was being told to the Jews only when the disciples asked him how to pray and not gentiles. Christianity according to him are not seeking the kingdom, but heaven. RB should listen to his own advice if that is what he really thinks. RB is a very avid KJV only Pastor and has flat out said he refuses to study the Greek and Hebrew because the KJV is the most accurate translation and he has already studied Greek/ original languages and doesn’t study them anymore. Except when it comes to the word harpazo, then he is all about the Greek. I have watched many RB videos and he contradicts himself often unfortunately. Translations are NOT the word of God, but translations of original languages. Sorry if anyone is KJV only, not trying to be offensive and apologize if it is. It’s one thing to be honestly ignorant however he makes the decision to be willingly foolish sometimes.
|
|
|
Post by cwood85 on Dec 18, 2018 18:43:23 GMT -6
This is too close to replacement theology for my taste. I disagree that Christians are Ephraim. Paul did however write that we are Jews inwardly when we believe in Christ. Anyway, I'm not trying to stir up anything. I deleted my original post. I agree with Robert Breaker and he makes a very good case. I came up to the same conclusion studying the Word with the H.S. leading me. That is funny that we are "Jews inwardly." So a person becomes a "Jew inwardly" when they believe in Christ. Really? I had always thought that a person becomes a Christian when they believe in Christ. That is, if I am to be a "Jew inwardly" when I believe in Christ then what is a Jew when he believes in Christ? A Jew outwardly and inwardly? That is to funny. No. Anyone who believes in Christ is a Christian and not a "Jew inwardly." Why would anyone want to be a Jew? It provides nothing to be a Jew. But to be a Christian, a follower of Christ, now that is eternal salvation. They become Christ inwardly; now that is something to write about. Being a Jew inwardly seems silly to me. I guess that makes a lot of the book of Romans pretty silly because that is from the mouth of Paul inspired by the Holy Spirit. Puts a whole new meaning to a lot of the scriptures regarding Jews and even Israel in the Bible. Not being combative, just making a point. I think these verses below are pretty straightforward to whom the Lord views as a Jew out of the book of Romans. Seems being a true Jew, not one physically or by genetics, but by these verses say is quite the goal to be aiming for in the eyes of God. I would suggest a study on an uncircumcised heart because this theme is all throughout the OT and NT on a continual basis. The Lord is impartial to no persons or people which includes genetics, race, nationality or even their current beliefs. 28 For no one is a Jew who is merely one outwardly, nor is circumcision outward and physical. 29 But a Jew is one inwardly, and circumcision is a matter of the heart, by the Spirit, not by the letter. His praise is not from man but from God. Romans 8-9 is a good in depth study on this topic.
|
|
|
Post by cwood85 on Dec 18, 2018 15:38:12 GMT -6
mikeI am sure there are a lot of differences between how things are taught and viewed here in the US vs. directly in Israel. Some of the rather colorful commentary has been seen on videos from this YouTube channel www.youtube.com/user/salvation7771I have only watched a few videos on the channel tbh, but his efforts are clear in talking to Jewish people about Christ. Cannot give a lot of details of what his entire theology or views are because I have not done a lot of research. But it is interesting to watch some of the reactions of those who have never seen Isaiah 53 and read it for the first time.
|
|
|
Post by cwood85 on Dec 18, 2018 12:56:15 GMT -6
mike“As I think about how the Jews have historically explained away scriptures like this or even Isaiah 53 where they arrive Israel as the suffering servant.” Isaiah 53 is forbidden scripture in Judaism. To the point that Rabbi teach that those who read it will be cursed severely by God himself 😕 It is a whole agenda of theirs to keep this underground. Those Rabbi have and have had a pretty good understanding of what Isaiah 53 is about. Just as they did 2000 years ago. There are entire missions and ministries over in Israel to hand out copies of Isaiah 53, often disguised as something else like a food menu or similar. Apparently that really works lol. But the majority response from Jews is that they have never seen that passage before and immediately know who it is about when it is read. The Rabbi try to counter these ministries by having radio broadcasts and commercials warning about “cults” trying to pass out the forbidden scriptures to curse and fool Jewish people. Israel/Judaism is being friendly towards Christianity at the moment because the USA and a lot of Christianity is helping and supporting them, particularly with their temple plans. However I have seen plenty of comments and responses from Jews who practice Judaism and they are not so nice. They believe when the Messiah (their version) comes that those who will not submit and covert to Judaism will be destroyed by God and tend to relate Christians to dogs or worse. Those who where Jews and have been lead to believing Jesus is the true Messiah are treated even worse. I long for the day when this sort of division and deceit no longer exists.
|
|
|
Post by cwood85 on Dec 17, 2018 19:28:33 GMT -6
I looked into the word seed in this verse. In all of the OT this is the only time this particular Hebrew word is used the way it is, and it literally only means seed, not offspring or sowing.
The word for seed in Hebrew is ZERA: a sowing, seed, offspring. However when used in other verses, it means: seed, a sowing or offspring, but not in Daniel. It is used in the more broad definition many many times. For example in verses like this-
Then God said, "I give you every seed-bearing plant on the face of the whole earth and every tree that has fruit with seed in it. They will be yours for food.
The they and men in the Daniel verse is also interesting. The men is pretty self explanatory, and means mankind, all men, and so on. But the THEY means: to become, come to pass, or be.
And just as you saw the iron mixed with baked clay, so the people will be a mixture and will not remain united, any more than iron mixes with clay.
Or
In the NASB translation we can read it like this:
And in that you saw the iron mixed with common clay, they (the strong and the weak kingdoms, the iron and the clay) will combine with one another in the seed of men (many nations, all of mankind, worldwide will be part of this Kingdom);but they (the weak and strong Kingdoms) will not adhere to one another, even as iron does not combine with pottery.
Just some info from the previous verses which explain what the clay and the iron are and applying it to the next verse which seems to possibly clear up who the word THEY is referring to.
|
|
|
Post by cwood85 on Dec 17, 2018 14:17:54 GMT -6
Also the two prior verses (41-42) explain what the clay and iron is:
41Just as you saw that the feet and toes were partly of baked clay and partly of iron, so this will be a divided kingdom; yet it will have some of the strength of iron in it, even as you saw iron mixed with clay. 42As the toes were partly iron and partly clay, so this kingdom will be partly strong and partly brittle.
I stuck with the NIV translation for consistency.
We are this kingdom right right now and it has been growing more and more brittle. But glory to God we see the kingdom that comes next!
44“In the time of those kings, the God of heaven will set up a kingdom that will never be destroyed, nor will it be left to another people. It will crush all those kingdoms and bring them to an end, but it will itself endure forever. 45This is the meaning of the vision of the rock cut out of a mountain, but not by human hands—a rock that broke the iron, the bronze, the clay, the silver and the gold to pieces.
|
|
|
Post by cwood85 on Dec 17, 2018 13:40:26 GMT -6
Maybe this has a lot of scholars scratching their heads because they are overthinking this verse? kjs“there are at last TWO groups being talked about here -- and only one of them are human
who-ever they are -- they are NOT Human (Chuck Missler - opinion is they are the Fallen Angels - again)
I have to agree --- the various translations always point to at least two groups -- but only one of the groups are human.”I think the NIV translates this possibly the best out of a lot of translations. And just as you saw the iron mixed with baked clay, so the people will be a mixture and will not remain united, any more than iron mixes with clay.
Is this not what is happening today? Division is worldwide and growing at a rapid rate. I paralleled this verse to several different translations and do not see two separately groups of physical people, I see and understand this to mean people will be against one another, people against governments, people against religions, people against different races or nationalities, against the law, against common sense and what is right. Currently we are seeing a deepening sense of what is wrong is right and what is right is wrong. Also I always wondered about the fallen angel theory and it is mainly because of my ignorance on the subject, but what purpose would it serve for them to return? What says they are not here now and if not why haven’t they returned in the past again? Why all of a sudden? Are they going to be super humans to super terrorize humanity? Just trying to see this topic more clearly.
|
|
|
Post by cwood85 on Dec 12, 2018 10:33:09 GMT -6
I am someone who disagrees with this word meaning departure, at least a physical one. Strong’s Definition: 646 apostasía (from 868 /aphístēmi, "leave, depart," which is derived from 575 /apó, "away from" and 2476 /histémi, "stand") – properly, departure (implying desertion); apostasy – literally, "a leaving, from a previous standing."Dictionary.com: noun, plural a·pos·ta·sies. a total desertion of or departure from one's religion, principles, party, cause, etc.Greek: a standing away, withdrawing, equivalent to apóstas(is ) ( apo- apo- + sta- stand + -sis -sis) + -ia -ia Yourdictionary.com: noun The definition of an apostasy is the act of leaving behind, or straying from, your religious or political beliefs or your principles. An example of apostasy is when someone decides to become atheist.
Apostasy is not another word for the rapture nor is it referring to it. It is a mental departure/desertion of a previous stance, belief, principles, or religion. It can also be defined as LEAVING -- as when a boat leaves port..... In that case "THE Departure" makes the most sense....... What many people (who vigorously defend the "rebellion" or "Falling away from Faith") -- keep forgetting to include "THE" hē (3588) -- means -- Usage: the, the definite article.
What ever apostasía is suppose to mean ---- it is THE apostasía ......... { hē apostasia }
So IF it is really a rebellion or falling away --- IT HAS TO BE a specific TYPE of rebellion or falling away........ SO your example -- "An example of apostasy is when someone decides to become atheist." Are you really trying to claim they (whomever) became THE ATHEIST? really do not think that works...........
So basically we have two definitions
apostasia means physical departure (i.e. moving from point A to point B). apostasia means spiritual departure (i.e. falling away or departing from the faith) BUT we know the word before apostasia is THE -- because of that only a physical departure makes sense.
The atheist example was not mine, but what was given on your dictionary.com Do you have sources or links for the physical part or meaning that this word can mean as well? I am asking because I have not come across anything yet. I very well could have missed something because there is a lot of information on this word and would be greatly appreciated. The word “the” could certainly work when describing something non physical such as The departure from or of or away from and so fourth The revolt from or of and so fourth The rebellion from or away... The defection from or away.... There were several other dictionary and word studies on websites such as Miriam Webster, biblehub, bible Gateway and so fourth that say their word is not referring to something physical. Just going by what information I have come across when researching this word.
|
|
|
Post by cwood85 on Dec 12, 2018 9:58:15 GMT -6
boraddictHow is the ark proof of Jesus giving his life for mankind? Where in the Bible is this stated or related to the ark? Why do we need physical proof of this? Isn’t the word of God enough? Isn’t that what faith and hope is supposed to be? The greatest hope and faith is in the things unseen as Paul said several times. The ark was designed to hold the original tablets with the Ten Commandments written on them by God given to Moses. God has not dwelled in any man made temple, Holy of holies or ark since the first temple. The purpose of the veil being torn at Christ Crucifixion and exposing the innermost part of the temple was to show exactly that! An empty Holy of holies. God wasn’t in the temple, He was at that moment nailed on the cross. Where in any of the Bible does it say the ark will be placed in the temple or that God will reside in a physical man made building or that the ark is considered his throne? There is theory that is what the temple referred to in Revelation is meaning and Ezekiel’s temple description. However upon close inspection of Ezekiel’s description, you might find several things different and or missing of a physical temple building. It is a good study to do and compare to the original temple requirements and design given to Moses. We are the temple of God, and His Holy Spirit dwells with us right now. Our hearts are the ark as God has placed his law in our hearts. The ark was a physical representation of what was to come later when the Holy Spirit came after Jesus ascended to Heaven and now dwells within us. We know right and wrong because God’s law is everywhere we go. We do not have to go to a temple or ark to double check a list and making sure we are getting it right. We do not nor does the rest of mankind need physical proof of Jesus dying on the cross. Not trying to give you a hard time by any means Bora, just please think about this.
|
|
|
Post by cwood85 on Dec 11, 2018 23:32:10 GMT -6
I am someone who disagrees with this word meaning departure, at least a physical one.
Strong’s Definition:
646 apostasía (from 868 /aphístēmi, "leave, depart," which is derived from 575 /apó, "away from" and 2476 /histémi, "stand") – properly, departure (implying desertion); apostasy – literally, "a leaving, from a previous standing."
Dictionary.com:
noun, plural a·pos·ta·sies. a total desertion of or departure from one's religion, principles, party, cause, etc.
Greek: a standing away, withdrawing, equivalent to apóstas(is ) ( apo- apo- + sta- stand + -sis -sis) + -ia -ia
Yourdictionary.com:
noun The definition of an apostasy is the act of leaving behind, or straying from, your religious or political beliefs or your principles. An example of apostasy is when someone decides to become atheist.
Apostasy is not another word for the rapture nor is it referring to it. It is a mental departure/desertion of a previous stance, belief, principles, or religion.
|
|