Jump to content

thilipsis

Advanced Member
  • Posts

    253
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by thilipsis

  1. A couple of things can help, first; seals at the beginning, trumpets in the middle and vials of wrath towards the end. Like many things in Revelations they come in sevens. The imagery is straight out of the Levitical law so the appearance of the Son of Man resembles the High Priest for example. The seven golden lamps is actually the Menorah, a hallow seven peonged lamp filled with oil. Getting acquainted with the prophets is helpfull but if your patient, well worth tge time to learn.
  2. First of all evolution is the change of alleles (traits) in populations over time, it's an obvious fact that it happens. What your calling evolution is a philosophy of natural history know as Darwinism, his famous tree of life diagram goes all the way back to a single common ancestor. At every node of the tree of life you have unexplained giant leaps in adaptive evolution, the human brain is a prime example. You brain is nearly 3 times bigger then the chimpanzee and nearly twice as dense. The only way this happens is literally thousands of changes in hundreds if not thousands of highly conserved brain related genes. Ok, so the Darwinian likes to retort, that was over a period of 5-7 million years, they accumulate slowly over time. So looking at the fossil record we have skulls from apes dated right around 2 million years ago and guess what, they are about 20% bigger then the modern chimpanzee. Lucy and the Taung Child are both just over 400cc, the average cranial capacity of the modern human is 1,300 and some change. Well that gives the Darwinian at least a million years until our mythical ancestors started their migration out of Africa, no problem right? Except Turkana Boy is the famous fossil found by Richard Leaky, the cranial capacity is nearly 1000 cc and Homo erectus follows very closely. The Homo erectus fossils are often so close to modern humans some creationists consider them to be human ancestors. What we now know from comparisons of human and chimpanzee DNA is that the brain related genes would have had to undergo an impossible, massive overhaul including 60 de novo (brand new) brain related genes. But wait, it gets better, Paranthropos is an obvious transitional that has a mohawk looking thing going down the middle of the skull, called the sagittal crest. A distinctive feature prominent in the gorilla skull. Representing a million years, from 3 mya to 2 mya it has been conclusively determined that this is definitely not one of our ancestors and they are the only fossils from that time period. Then for reasons that remain unexplained the Neanderthals appear in the fossil record, usually found in grave sites not just random fossil beds with a cranial capacity 20% larger then our own from Iraq to Spain. From years of reading the scientific literature and careful consideration I think I have the explanation. These fossils represent a migration pattern of humans and apes with no indication of a common ancestor. The early humans and primates start from modern Turkey and start spanning outward, the primates taking a more southern route, some going into Asia becoming the orangutans while the common ancestor for chimpanzees and gorillas moves into equatorial Africa, paranthropos being a transitional. The Neanderthals make their way across the Middle East, Turkey and Europe and since they buried their dead, in some places the conditions were right for them to be fossilized. This isn't really all that complicated when you finally get to the bottom of it, they are putting us on and I honestly believe they know it. If you've ever heard of the Piltdown hoax it is an obvious fraud. Someone finds a human skull in a mass grave site from the time of the Black Plague and puts an orangutan jawbone with it. After a while people are figuring out that jawbone doesn't belong with that skull so it becomes necessary to find another transitional. Louis Leaky was the son of missionaries in Africa and studied at Cambridge. Dart was the guy who found the Taung Child which was dismissed as a chimpanzee for decades, with the decline of the Piltdown fraud him and Dart came up with a much more believable contrivance. The Stone Age apeman, otherwise known as Homo habilis (handy man), but there was a problem called the Cerebral Rubicon, they had to be over 600cc to be considered human ancestors (hominids). Leaky writes a famous paper called, 'The Latest New from Oldovia Gorge', and uses every feature to argue around the cranial capacity and presto, the stone age ape man myth was born. We can kind of dismiss if not abandon probability arguments for the genetic comparisons, they are simply off the charts. I don't believe there is any way of calculating the probability because as we have seen for decades with abiogenesis the likelyhood is vanishingly small. It's all over the scientific literature from the RNA world hypothesis to the genomic comparisons of Chimpanzees and Humans, they simply have a presupposed common ancestry with no conceivable cause. Natural Selection is an effect without a cause and this is readily discernible from their venerated peer reviewed scientific literature. In all pagan mythology, creation does not go back to pagan gods, it goes back to the primordial elementals, earth, air, fire or water and the first cause was thought to be one of those four. Or there is only one alternative, God created Adam and Eve in his image which Genesis 1 emphasizes in absolute terms. The Stone Age apeman myth is so prominent now in secular academics that it's not even questioned, even in our seminaries and it's all based on a thinly veiled fraud designed to appeal to a naturalistic worldview. It's nothing new, pagans did it in the ancient world and secular clerics do it now in formal education. Grace and peace, Mark
  3. The phrase, 'heaven and the earth', is a Hebrew expression meaning the universe. All we really get from this passage is that the cosmos and earth were created, 'in the beginning'. The perspective of creation week is from the surface of the earth, starting with the Spirit of God hovering over the deep (Gen. 1:2). In the chapter there are three words used for God's work in creation. The first is 'created' ('bara' H1254) a very precise term used only of God. Create ‘bara’ (H1254) - 'This verb has profound theological significance, since it has only God as it’s subject. Only God can create in the sense implied by bara. The verb expresses the idea of creation out of nothing...(Vines Expository Dictionary) It is used once to describe the creation of the universe (Gen 1:1), then again to describe the creation of life (Gen 1:21). Finally, in the closing verses, it is used three times for the creation of Adam and Eve (Gen. 1:27). The word translated, 'made' (asah 6213) , has a much broader range of meaning and is used to speak of the creation of the 'firmament' (Gen 1:7), the sun, moon and stars (Gen 1:16), procreation where offspring are made 'after his/their kind' (Gen 1:25) and as a general reference to creation in it's vast array (Gen 1:31). Made ‘asah’(H6213) "A primitive root; to do or make, in the broadest sense and widest application" (Gen 1:7, Gen 1:16, Gen 1:25, Gen 1:31, Isa. 41:20, 43:7, 45:7, 12, Amos 4:13). (Strong’s Dictionary). "The verb, which occurs over 2600 times in the Old Testament, is used as a synonym for “create” only about 60 times…only when asah is parallel to bara…can we be sure that it implies creation." (Vine 52). Then there is a third term when God 'set' (nathan H2414), the lights of the sun, moon and stars so that their light is regularly visible from the surface of the earth. In this way the narrative shifts from the very precise word for 'created' to the more general 'made', and then the much broader use of 'set'. Set (nathan H5414) A primitive root; to give, used with greatest latitude of application (Gen 1:17, Gen 9:13, Gen 18:8, Gen 30:40, Gen 41:41). Elsewhere translated ‘put’, ‘make’, ‘cause’, etc. The creation account has great significance for the rest of Scripture and how these terms are used in the original and their natural context is essential to really following the text as it was intended to be understood.
  4. All I can tell you is what I have come to discern as the distinction of the Holy Spirit. It's something you have to develop over time, which is the best way I can describe it: Therefore, as the Holy Spirit says: “Today, if you will hear His voice, Do not harden your hearts as in the rebellion, In the day of trial in the wilderness, Where your fathers tested Me, tried Me, And saw My works forty years. Therefore I was angry with that generation, And said, ‘They always go astray in their heart, And they have not known My ways.’ So I swore in My wrath, ‘They shall not enter My rest. (Heb. 3: 7-11) My problem was the incarnation, God becoming man was too much for me. Over time I came to think about the voice of the Holy Spirit as something indicating personality and I can only express this as a personal conviction. I heard his voice so real in the Psalms, distinct and at the same time in harmony with the Father and Son. There is the personal pronoun 'he' which is often cited but for me it was more about something like a sound. The Father is more authoritative, the Son more conciliatory, both saying the same thing but in ways that were discernibly distinctive. The Holy Spirit I have long thought is more personable, I hear it clearly in the Psalms, not so much in the Law. I realize this is my perception in a lot of ways but it's important. You can take the verse a lot of ways I suppose but consider this: But to the Son He says: “Your throne, O God, is forever and ever; A scepter of righteousness is the scepter of Your kingdom. 9 You have loved righteousness and hated lawlessness; Therefore God, Your God, has anointed You With the oil of gladness more than Your companions. (Heb. 1:8-9) The Father says this of the Son, later the Spirit speaks. I don't have a road map here nor I pretend to have the proof text. But what I am seeing is a conversation between the members of the Trinity, sometimes with one another and sometimes concerning you. This is my take on this and I realize we all have things we work out over time. Sure, at the baptism of Christ the Father is speaking from heaven, Christ is on earth and the Holy Spirit descending like a dove. The Father isn't saying listen to him as you would me, or listen to me period, he is saying you must hear and head the words of my Son. Jesus was all the time saying he did the will of the Father and if he spoke from his authority it meant nothing. So how does that work if God incarnate isn't using the same authority as God speaking from heaven? In John 1:1 where it says the Word was with God and was God it actually means, literally, face to face. You see, for me it came down to the incarnation and the distinction between Father and Son was a very big deal. The Upper Room Discourse is an important point to consider. Look at the distinction Jesus makes between himself and the Holy Spirit. I didn't write it and I can't tell you what to make of it but it's very clear. Jesus is telling them, I am leaving and the Holy Spirit will come, but I will return. In addition he promised them the Holy Spirit would be with them forever, even though he would soon be leaving. It's simply not an easy doctrine to wrap your mind around. I can tell you what I think and how I came to believe the way I did but I think it will come down to you doing the work of learning the Scriptures. The Upper Room Discourse is a very key place to start. May God guide you in your understanding and I'm happy to discuss this at any length. Grace and peace, Mark
  5. At baptism the Holy Spirit descended in the bodily form of a dove, the Father spoke from heaven. The Holy Spirit was with them because the Holy Spirit was with him. At Pentecost the Holy Spirit took charge of the church and one day Christ will return. The Apostles were upset that Jesus was leaving but he was telling them the Holy Spirit will come, if I don't leave he wont, but he will and be with you forever. Then sometime later I will return. It makes sense if you can juggle some of the confusing overlap.
  6. That really doesn't fit the Upper Room Discourse, Jesus makes a clear distinction between himself, the Father and the Holy Spirit: Do you not believe that I am in the Father, and the Father in Me? The words that I speak to you I do not speak on My own authority; but the Father who dwells in Me does the works. (John 14:10) “If you love Me, keep My commandments. And I will pray the Father, and He will give you another Helper, that He may abide with you forever— the Spirit of truth, whom the world cannot receive, because it neither sees Him nor knows Him; but you know Him, for He dwells with you and will be in you. (John 14:15-17) There are a number of examples of this and it's very consistent. Some pretty general statements, let's see where you go with this. I assume the reference to 'God' is causing some confusion. Got to be honest here, I went through something a lot like this years ago. My thing wasn't the Holy Spirit or the Father but the Incarnation. I did all the cross referencing and for the life of me I couldn't see it for quite a while, actually a year or two. Eventually the opening verses of John's Gospel and Hebrews began to sink in but what broke through was Jesus' before the High Priest convinced me. The Trinity is one of the great paradoxical doctrines of the New Testament, the Old Testament puts so much emphasis on God being one and then with the New Testament revelation emerges with all the elements of three persons all being the one eternal God. I do a lot of debate, I can understand if you find it tiresome and tedious, you'll have to work this out over time. Just a word of advice, not interested in being confrontational here because believe me I can empathize. Find a text like the Upper Room Discourse and take some time to do a careful exposition, the cross referencing will come in time. Take as much as time as you need and let me know if there is anything I can do to help. I enjoy this kind of thing, sorting through expositions is one of my favorite pass times. That's a solid point, sound Biblical support. Every now and then a point like that just needs to be allowed to sink in. “Nevertheless I tell you the truth; It is expedient for you that I go away: for if I go not away, the Comforter will not come unto you; but if I depart, I will send him unto you. And when he is come, he will reprove the world of sin, and of righteousness, and of judgment:” (John 16:7-8) Grace and peace, Mark
  7. People forget the forces that forged the scientific revolution and the rise of democracy had their roots in the Protestant Reformation. I think in the wake of the American Revolution there was a religious lateral drift into a more emotive sensibility. Our seminaries have gone to seed and after generations upon generations we got wave after wave of philosophical atheism and naturalism put in theological terms. A Christian moral consensus would be a profound force in US politics except its working in reverse. That's not on elected officials it's been far too much compromise on doctrine and moral issues and that fiasco is on professing Christians selling out to the spirit of the age.
  8. The 'day of the Lord', appears to be final judgment day. It's also called the Great White Throne. The OT tends to speak of it as a day when God destroys his enemies in one final decisive battle so one wonders if this happens at the return of Christ.
  9. According to some uncustomarly detailed references from Wikipedia: "The international community has taken a critical view of both deportations and settlements as being contrary to international law. General Assembly resolutions have condemned the deportations since 1969, and have done so by overwhelming majorities in recent years. Likewise, they have consistently deplored the establishment of settlements, and have done so by overwhelming majorities throughout the period (since the end of 1976) of the rapid expansion in their numbers. The Security Council has also been critical of deportations and settlements; and other bodies have viewed them as an obstacle to peace, and illegal under international law." (Roberts, Adam. "Prolonged Military Occupation: The Israeli-Occupied Territories Since 1967". The American Journal of International Law. American Society of International Law.) "the establishment of the Israeli settlements in the Occupied Palestinian Territory has been considered illegal by the international community and by the majority of legal scholars." (“Legal Consequences of the Construction of a Wall in the Occupied Palestinian Territory': A Missed Opportunity for International Humanitarian Law?". (In Conforti, Benedetto; Bravo, Luigi. The Italian Yearbook of International Law. 14. Martinus Nijhoff Publishers. Pertile, Marco 2005) "The real controversy hovering over all the litigation on the security barrier concerns the fate of the Israeli settlements in the occupied territories. Since 1967, Israel has allowed and even encouraged its citizens to live in the new settlements established in the territories, motivated by religious and national sentiments attached to the history of the Jewish nation in the land of Israel. This policy has also been justified in terms of security interests, taking into consideration the dangerous geographic circumstances of Israel before 1967 (where Israeli areas on the Mediterranean coast were potentially threatened by Jordanian control of the West Bank ridge). The international community, for its part, has viewed this policy as patently illegal, based on the provisions of the Fourth Geneva Convention that prohibit moving populations to or from territories under occupation." (Barak-Erez, Daphne 2006. "Israel: The security barrier—between international law, constitutional law, and domestic judicial review". International Journal of Constitutional Law. Oxford University Press.) That's a short list with quotations, for more see the references for: International law and Israeli settlements, Wikipedia. Look, I don't agree with the legal reasoning or the international consensus but it's real. Grace and peace, Mark
  10. Lyman Stewart, mobilizing a network of conservative evangelical writers into a movement in defense of the inspiration and authority of the Bible and the core doctrines of traditional Christian faith. The 12-volume series of book-length journals contained 90 essays commissioned from leading theologians and religious leaders broadly representing conservative and evangelical Protestantism. (The Untold Story of the Fundamentals, Biola University) I saw a definition of, 'evangelical', once in a Websters Dictionary it said that evangelical is an attempt to have one's thoughts begin and end with the Scriptures. At the time I thought is was a pretty apt description of a Christian but over the years I've come to realize that Christian scholarship has drifted further and further from the Scriptures as the standard for doctrine, discipline and most importantly, redemptive history. To me evangelical theology is the idea that the gospel is more then a social theory but the collective prophetic and Apostolic witness regarding God's sovereign rule in the affairs of man since the beginning. I have spent a great deal of time dealing with Liberal Theology, Darwinism and the modern bias against anything remotely supernatural. What I have learned is that modern academics demeans and deprecates the Scriptures at every turn and the final straw for me was when I learned that most Christian seminaries are soaked with a naturalistic philosophy put in theological terminology. What I intend to share here are my thoughts on the first essay in the series, 'The Fundamentals', (see BLB, Text Commentaries. R.A. Torrey). We hear all the time about Islamic Fundamentalists doing horrific things in the name of Allah and at times fundamentalist Christians can be colored in the same light. The truth is that a Fundamentalist Christian, an evangelical, treasures the testimony of Scripture and seeks the will of God. We are not suicide bombers and we are not interested in forcing people to submit to a religious code against their will. We are simply Bible believing Christians. The rise of Modernism, Liberal Theology, Post Modernism and this nebulous contrivance known as Emerging Theology has never had their roots in Biblical or traditional Christian theism. A hundred years ago there was a network of Bible believing scholars who exposed the bias behind, 'Higher Criticism', the famous JEPD theory. These are echos from that time when naturalistic philosophies were starting to pass themselves off as Christian. The strangest part for me as a Christian is that so much of our scholarship has defected to this profoundly worldly philosophy. The dominant men of the movement were men with a strong bias against the supernatural. This is not an ex-parte statement at all. It is simply a matter of fact, as we shall presently show. ( (The History of the Higher Criticism, Anti-supernaturalism) What we think of as supernatural is perfectly natural for God. The Incarnation, Resurrection, miracles of the Bible and the epic panorama of redemptive history seems little more then myth and legend to the modern mind. So how does Christian theology get inundated at the dawn of the twentieth century with the naturalistic assumptions of modern academics? Apparently the trail leads back to the French rationalist Spinoza, who was an unapologetic pantheist. Pantheism is the idea that everything is God so what does that have to do with the rise of Higher Criticism? 1670, Spinoza came out boldly and impugned the traditional date and Mosaic authorship of the Pentateuch and ascribed the origin of the Pentateuch to Ezra or to some other late compiler. (The Fundamentals, Torrey) Ezra was the scribe who returned with thousands of Jews from Babylon, during that time the Temple and the walls of Jerusalem were rebuilt and complete under the authority of Nehemiah. The Old Testament canon was closed around that time, the last books of the Protestant Old Testament were composed including the Chronicles, Ezra and Nehemiah. Malachi would be the final installment but the modern scholar goes further then that. They believe that the entire Old Testament was somehow complied at that time. Thousands of years of redemptive history is dismissed as just so stories. This did not start with Christian or Hebrew scholarship, this began with the musings of a European rationalist who was really just a philosophical atheist. This goes through stages from the French-Dutch, German and then finally British American theologies that were becoming increasingly naturalistic in their orientation. 1. They were men who denied the validity of miracle, and the validity of any miraculous narrative... 2. They were men who denied the reality of prophecy and the validity of any prophetical statement… 3. They were men who denied the reality of revelation…constructed on the assumption of the falsity of Scripture. That's the gist of it and I can tell you from personal experience that it is alive and well and passing itself off as Christian on an epic scale. I've tried to make this concise and to the point in the hope of opening a discussion on the subject of Fundamentalist and Evangelical theology as it relates to Christian apologetics. This is just a sample intended to see if there is any interest in the subject matter. Grace and peace, Mark
  11. Well with every ad designed to inspire desire it sure is easier said then done. Paul is explicit that the commandment not to covet provoke every kind of a covetous desire (Rom. 7). Don't covet other people's cars, spouses or homes. How many times do we do this just driving to work in the morning? We don't erect idols of silver and gold anymore it doesn't mean the equivalent doesn't exist in the common market place that seeks to enslave us all.
  12. Rachael in Gen. 31 stole her father Laben's gods. Jacob knew nothing about It and when Laben caught up to them in Gilead she hid them. Apparently her and Leah had concerns about an inheritance and Laben considered them foreigners because of marrying Jacob. They were probably solid gold, covetiousness has always been an integral part of idolatry. Put to death whatever belongs to your earthly nature; Sexual immorality, impurity, lust, evil desire and greed. Which is idolatry. (Col. 3:5) The tenth commandment is , thou shall not covet. I sometimes wonder if its not the key to the other nine.
  13. I remember Obama when he was President elect he said the United States will be a friend to Israel. Today Netanyahu said, 'friends don't take friends to the Security Council'. I agree. Mind you, I'm a life long Democrat who voted for Obama twice but I have never understood not just Obama but America's foreign policy regarding Israel. In what world does it make sense of Israel to return to the 1967 borders? It would be national suicide and if anyone has a vested interest in the success of Israel in the Middle East it's the U.S.. Truth is we don't have a lot of allies in the Middle East and if we have a better friend in that part of the world I don't know who it would be. I don't know if moving the capitol of Israel to Jerusalem is a good idea. I mean I think it makes a lot of sense to keep things in Tel Aviv for purely practical reasons, there just isn't that much there is Jerusalem. For all it's history and obvious significance to Christians and Jews alike I think it makes a lot more sense to keep things where all the other embassies and government facilities are. I am also deeply and profoundly concerned that such a decision could turn Jerusalem, that literally means, 'city of peace', into a war zone. To be honest I feel we have betrayed Israel in this vote, I wish I could see a silver lining but what could it possibly be? I don't think Israel is innocent in the Palestinian Israel conflict but they are clearly the best of the bad guys. Let's hope President elect Trump helps the international community elevate their thinking. I'm not overly optimistic but it's about time Israel had a real friend in the Oval Office. Grace and peace, Mark
  14. Hey Shiloh, Chicken lentils soup...that does sound good. My whole time coming up I don't think I ever meet someone Jewish. Of course I heard of the holocost but that seemed like something from a distant, remote past. In my early twenties I was working for an over the road truck driver in Wash. DC. I met this Jewish guy who fled Nazi Germany and had to leave his wife behind, he said she ended up at Auschwitz. Stunned I told him sorry for your loss but he says, I didn't lose her she'll be here later. That was the first Jew I had ever met and that some pretty disturbing casual conversation. It was also fascinating to hear him tell the story. I'm a big history buff and if there one thing I'm sure of it's that the decline of Middle Eastern influence is directly related to Arab approval of Nazi genocide. And the Germans ran off all the Jewish nucleure scientists who went to White Sands New Mexico and created the most devastating weapon in history. I could go on but I'm getting to a point here. I have always been into apologetics, as a New Christian the first thing I wanted was evidence for faith and Scripture. One of the best arguments I've ever heard was by a Rabbi, they played it on Focus on the Family. He describes how for two thousand years Israel maintains it's bloodline, religion, national identity, culture and traditions. Then they return to there homeland, he says you want to see a miracke are proof for God look at Israel. Just one more and I'll stop. John Mark is credited with writing the first gospel account and one of the earliest books of the New Testament. But did you know John Mark and Barnabas where Levites and trained Scribes? The single strongest proof for the reliability of the Scriptures are the 30,000 extant manuscripts that do not divirge significantly on any point of doctrine or history. You want to know why? Cause if you say Rome your wrong. Its our Hebrew heritage. Like I say I could go on but I just can't imagine being anti-Semitic, still be a Christian, and not be filled with self loathing. It would be like calling myself a patriot and disposing the founding fathers. All believers are spiritual descendants of Abraham, you think antisemitism is Christian you don't know your Bible. The one thing I identified with the strongest is when he said I'm not a Christian because of the kindness of Christians. I've enjoyed Christian kindness before and after conversion and that's got nothing to do with it. It was ultimately the Scriptures, the most enduring of our Jewish traditions that showed me the way back to God, clothed in the righteousness of God in Christ just like our spiritual father Abraham, David and the holy Apostles
  15. Oh he just pops in to talk about fallacies from time to time, generally doesn't stay long. Grace and peace, Mark
  16. If you notice, what Jesus is talking about here is how believers are treated, he takes that personally. In 1Cor. 11 Paul tells them, 'some of you are sick, some of you sleep', why, because they were depriving the poor at the love feasts. James 2, the famous, 'faith without works is dead', passage is talking about the exact same thing. Wealthy Christians were treating other believers as inferior, James asks is this even saving faith. In the Revelation Jesus tells the church at Ephesus, 'you have left your first love', Ephesus had planted the other six churches in Asia Minor. They were really good at defended against error and standing on gospel but there ministry was originally Pastoral, they had planted, nurtured and raised up six churches and Laodicea was involved in the starting of the church a Colossae. There was a problem, they were so focused on fending off wolves they had forgotten to take care of the flock. Jesus isn't reviewing how much they dropped in the collection plate, how they were baptized, how good they were at defending doctrine. He's saying, 'in as much as you did this to the least of my brothers you did it unto me'. What is peculiar is that the host of the rejected claimed to be ministering in Christ's name, let's bear in mind, religion never saved anyone from anything. Those accepted performed some act of kindness toward believers, the implication is ministers, not just on a church payroll but called and equipped by God to do his will in the ministry field and the road got bumpy along the way. People, who appear to have no idea before this who Jesus is, showed them mercy and kindness, Jesus takes that personally. This spans Scripture, in the eight century there were four writing prophets, Isaiah, Hosea, Amos and Micah. All four of these early warning warned of idolatry and how the rich treated the poor, in Isaiah God even says, 'my poor'. We think we are so proper and pious, stoic in our convictions, zealous for the Lord and well we should be. But you and I are not going to be friends if I find our your mistreating my children, don't you think God feels the same way about his children. Hey don't get me wrong, my Calvinist brethren are mostly living comfortable as upper middle class in comfortable suburban utopia and I spend a lot of time on Apologetics. Just a word to the wise, virtually all churches have a pantry, there's a reason for that. You never know when Jesus has fallen on hard times, only it won't actually be him, it will be someone he has empowered for service. There is a catch, you never really know who they are. Jesus is saving that for a surprise and boy, won't they be surprised, depart from me I never knew you. Grace and peace, Mark
  17. The author was clear what he intended, subjective genitive: “the revelation of Jesus Christ” (ἀποκάλυψις Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ) is understood as “what Jesus Christ reveals” (Biblical Hermeneutics). There is nothing absolute about the title and the opening sentence isn't saying the revelation is about Jesus Christ, it is, but that's not what it's saying. It's saying the revelation John received from Jesus Christ and it's only single because it was one continuous revelation as opposed to a series. Now you talk about the authors intent and the grammatical construction and then you ignore it. What John is saying is clear enough, it's only the English translation that is causing the confusion. You simply misread it. Grace and peace, Mark
  18. That's not why the word is singular, it's because it's a single revelation not several. John isn't saying he was getting multiple revelations in a series or over time, he is saying this is the revelation I received from Jesus Christ, concerning his coming. The word is subjective genitive: “the revelation of Jesus Christ” (ἀποκάλυψις Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ) is understood as “what Jesus Christ reveals” (Biblical Hermeneutics). The plural or the singular has absolutely nothing to do with the plural or singular of Jesus Christ, the point is pedantic at best. I never denied that it's literally, 'Revelation', I said I like the expression Book of Revelations because the singular is a doctrine as well as a book. I'm not telling anyone they should use the plural, I'm telling you why it doesn't bother me. The Greek word for revelation (apokalypsis ἀποκάλυψις G602) can be singular or plural depending on the context. Now in that context it's singular, but the book did not originally come with a title. In Hebrew and Christian tradition the name generally comes from the opening sentence. In that immediate context it's singular, yet, the plural changes nothing with regards to a title. The word can be translated a number of different ways, ‘lighten’, ‘revelation’, ‘manifestation’, ‘revelations’, ‘appearing’, and even the past tense, ‘revealed’. “A light to lighten (G602) the Gentiles” (Luke 2:32) "the day of wrath and revelation (G602) of the righteous judgment of God" (Rom. 2:5) "creature waiteth for the manifestation (G602) of the sons of God." (Rom. 8:19) "no gift; waiting for the coming (G602) of our Lord Jesus" (1 Cor. 1:7) "through the abundance of the revelations (G602) (2 Cor. 12:7) "and glory at the appearing (G602) of Jesus Christ:" (1 Peter 1:7) "when his glory shall be revealed (G602), ye may be glad also with exceeding joy." (1 Peter 4:13) All the same word, all depending on the context. In the context of the opening line of the text it’s best translated, ‘revelation’, but when speaking of the entire book it’s not going to change the meaning one bit to use the plural since there are obvious multiple things being revealed. The plural or the singular is not right or wrong, it’s a preference. Grace and peace, Mark
  19. Lets take this in context: 8) S-7 Silence, Trumpets sounded (T-1 thru T4) 9) T-5 Locusts, T-6 Euphrates 10) The Angel and the Little Book 11) The Two Witnesses clothed in sackcloth 12) The Woman, Child, Dragon 13) The Beast of the Land and the Beast of the Sea 14) 3 Angels proclaim: 144,000, Gospel, Wrath on 666 The Trumpets are sounded and as a result: "The kingdom of the world has become the kingdom of our Lord and of his Messiah, and he will reign for ever and ever" (Rev. 11:15). That's immediately following the seventh trumpet blast. At this point the two witnesses have prophesied 3 1/2 years in Jerusalem, while the Jews are avoiding the terrible devastation that is raging on around them. With the death, resurrection and ascension of the Two Witnesses the city faces God's judgment and there is this curious statement: And the same hour was there a great earthquake, and the tenth part of the city fell, and in the earthquake were slain of men seven thousand: and the remnant were affrighted, and gave glory to the God of heaven. (Rev. 11:13) We wouldn't say affrighted, unless we were just reading the old King James too much. We would simple say afraid but this is the kind of fear that makes one tremble. It comes from the same Greek word for phobia, defined generally as a 'morbid fear or dread', used to speak of a psychosis. Here it appears to be describing a more godly fear, that is how it's used in the New Testament. It's describing the fear of God: Affrighted (G1719 emphobos ἔμφοβος) - lit., "in fear”. From en, (G1722) meaning “in," and phobos (G5201) meaning "fear”) It’s the same word used for the reaction of the disciples finding Jesus was raised (Luke 24:5), when Peter and John had been delivered from prison thinking they were ghosts (Luke 24:37), Cornelius when confronted by an angel (Acts 10:4), the reaction of the people with Paul at his conversion (Acts 22:9) and Felix when hearing Paul reason of ‘righteousness, temperance and judgment to come’ (Acts 24:25) At some point the Antichrist enters the Temple and sets up a statue of himself demanding that all worship it. It's known as the 'abomination that causes desolation', Daniel speaks of it three times (Daniel 9:27; 11:31; 12:11), Jesus mentions it twice, or at least uses it in two separate accounts (Matt. 24:15, Mark 13:14), Luke doesn't call it that but rather there seems to be a description of the aftermath: But when you see Jerusalem surrounded by armies, then know that its desolation has come near. Then let those who are in Judea flee to the mountains, and let those who are inside the city depart, and let not those who are out in the country enter it (Luke 21:20-21) The Jews refuse to worship this thing, they went to Babylon over idols and never worshiped them again. In the time of Ezra the people had still not separated themselves from the abominations of the surrounding nations: the peoples of the lands with their abominations, from the Canaanites, the Hittites, the Perizzites, the Jebusites, the Ammonites, the Moabites, the Egyptians, and the Amorites.' (Ezra 9:1-4) They put away their pagan wives and that fall Ezra would read the Law on a platform built in the Kidron Valley, just outside Jerusalem. The same place where Jesus would deliver is first sermon, the Sermon on the Mount only Jesus would be sitting on the hillside. In the time of Ezra the number of those attending is said to be 40,000. During the time of Maccabees they had a terrible precursor to the ultimate fulfillment of the prophecies of Daniel expounded by our Lord at the Mount of Olives: Now on the fifteenth day of [the month] Chislev, in the one hundred forty-fifth year, they erected a desolating sacrilege on the altar of burnt offering. They also built altars in the surrounding towns of Judah, ... (1 Maccabees 1:54)... that they had torn down the abomination that he had erected on the altar in Jerusalem; and that they had surrounded the sanctuary with high walls as before, and also Beth-zur, his town. (1 Maccabees 6:7) Hanukkah is a remembrance of the rededication of the Temple after the Jews rebelled against the Grecian occupation. I'm telling you all of this to emphasis something crucial here, there is no way the Jews are going to worship this idol. Taken in both the historical and literary context this moment in redemptive history when the kingdoms of the earth become the kingdom of God and Israel returns to God with fear and trembling. I don't know how long before the commencement of the vials of wrath but the indication is that it's years since the vials are probably poured out at the end of the Great Tribulation. A couple of major offenses are attempted to eliminate the remnant of Israel. And the serpent cast out of his mouth water as a flood after the woman, that he might cause her to be carried away of the flood. And the earth helped the woman, and the earth opened her mouth, and swallowed up the flood which the dragon cast out of his mouth. (Rev. 12:15-16) These armies are not completely destroyed until the Valley of Armageddon: “Behold, I am coming like a thief. Blessed is the one who remains awake and clothed, so that he will not go naked and let his shame be exposed.” And they assembled the kings in the place that in Hebrew is called Armageddon. Then the seventh angel poured out his bowl into the air, and a loud voice came from the throne in the temple, saying, “It is done! (Rev. 16:15-17) At this point there is only one more battle left to fight at the return of Christ as king of kings and Lord of lords. The Tribulation begins with the Antichrist on a white horse going forth conquering and to conquer (Rev. 6:2). It ends Jesus on a white horse to make war and end the armies of the Antichrist, or at least whats left of them. (Rev. 19:11-14) And out of his mouth goeth a sharp sword, that with it he should smite the nations: and he shall rule them with a rod of iron: and he treadeth the winepress of the fierceness and wrath of Almighty God. (Rev. 19:15) This is the great and terrible day of the Lord, this is how God's kingdom comes. He which testifieth these things saith, Surely I come quickly. Amen. Even so, come, Lord Jesus. The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ be with you all. Amen. (Rev. 22:20-21) Grace and peace, Mark
  20. Christianity isn't about religion it's a relationship. If you we're raised in a Christian home without becoming a Christian it's not surprising that your devotional life is apathetic, it would actually surprising if it wasn't. You might try a little exercise, get into whatever prayer pose you accustomed to, bent knee, head bowed... Then focus on some time you can remember God got involved in your life. Thank him for the good things in your life. Then make your request, something like, God I've grown apathetic toward you how do we change this? This is the hard part, clear your mind, be still, wait and listen. Now I wouldn't expect an audible voice, a vision or an Angel appearing telling you the Lord has heard your prayer. If that happens do come back and share but what your doing is opening your heart to God with an invitation to start a spiritual discourse. It need not occupy a lot of your time, a few minutes should be enough. Just one other thing, I don't believe God hears half hearted prayers so while you are still and waiting make sure he has your undivide attention. God bless
  21. Dispensationalists do love their charts and diagrams. Grace and peace, Mark
  22. I spent a lot of time on the Creation vs Darwinism controversy. The biggest problem isn't dealing with the evidence, that's the easy part. It's the way that evolution, defined scientifically as,'the change of traits in populations over time', is equivocated with the philosophy of natural history known as Darwinism that causes the real problem. Someone mentioned presupposition, well the key presupposition is that, 'all change organic and inorganic is the result of natural law rather then miraculous interpolation'. I didn't make that up those are Darwin's words from the preface to the sixth edition of, On the Origin of Species. Key word is all. The evidence doesn't support Darwinism and Darwinism has never produced anything useful as science. The science, including two laws of inheritance, are coming from Mendelian Genetics. Bottom line when you get down to the real evidence and issues this is fish in a barrel. Its when you let them equivocate evolution and Darwinism or natural assumptions with natural science that things get confused.
×
×
  • Create New...