Jump to content

JoeChan82

Junior Member
  • Content count

    167
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by JoeChan82

  1. JoeChan82

    The context of 1 Thess 5:1

    Hey, I found it! 1Th 4:15 For this we say unto you by the word of the Lord, that we which are alive and remain unto the coming of the Lord shall not prevent them which are asleep.
  2. I cannot argue with that, nor do I want to. If there are limits in our reasoning, they are our limits. Keep up the good work.
  3. Let me take a second bite at the apple. Here is the Bible as understood by pure logic: Jesus is God. Mary is the mother of Jesus. Therefore Mary is the mother of God. That is logical, but not true. Example two: God can do anything. God is good. Why does God not stop evil? That is also logical, but incorrect. My only point is that the Bible cannot be understood by logic alone. I was not attempting to discredit your OP. In fact, I am in agreement with the OP. Did that clear up my intentions for you any?
  4. That was deep! Your scripture references were spot on. I especially liked what you said about truth being in place first, before a lie can exist. What a thought!
  5. JoeChan82

    Roman verses disputed

    I know a guy who thinks Paul and Jesus are at odds. WHAT!? He is real serious and very smart. Of course he redefines words, quotes Greek, plays semantics, and has his own religion. There are a lot of kooks out there who think they are smarter than God. I don't think the Bible contradicts itself anywhere. I called on the Lord and he heard me. Romans to the Jews only? Absurd.
  6. This really boils down to the sovereignty of God vs the free will of man, doesn't it? Is God completely sovereign? Yes. Does man have a free will? Yes. Both of these are equally true. Did God create sin? No. Sounds illogical, doesn't it? That's because it is illogical. The truths of the Bible are spiritually discerned. We believe it, because our Bibles say it. We are foolish to the Greeks. 1Co 1:22-24 For the Jews require a sign, and the Greeks seek after wisdom: 23 But we preach Christ crucified, unto the Jews a stumblingblock, and unto the Greeks foolishness; 24 But unto them which are called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God, and the wisdom of God. 1Co 1:26-29 For ye see your calling, brethren, how that not many wise men after the flesh, not many mighty, not many noble, are called: 27 But God hath chosen the foolish things of the world to confound the wise; and God hath chosen the weak things of the world to confound the things which are mighty; 28 And base things of the world, and things which are despised, hath God chosen, yea, and things which are not, to bring to nought things that are: 29 That no flesh should glory in his presence.
  7. JoeChan82

    Christian Imperialism and State Churches

    Our founders were aware of the dangers of the state and church marriage. It goes without saying that when Jesus does it, it will be done to perfection. Whether the protestants or the catholics held power, the results were the same; namely persecution of the nonconformists. It is ironic that the Puritans, who themselves fled before persecution, set up the same system and became persecutors. The argument in favor of establishing a state church is to prevent cults. For some reason, it never does that. Enforcing church doctrine by the sword of government leads inevitably to tyranny. When you missed church in Massachusetts during the 1600's it wasn't the minister that visited your door, it was the sheriff. To conclude that the U.S. Constitution was somehow anti religion is to ignore our own history. Ben Franklin praised Christianity as the only means to morality and encouraged it. The hue and cry of the ungodly is, "Separation of church and state". Nope. Religion was to flourish without interference from the state. Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.
  8. JoeChan82

    Major Christian Approaches to Science and Faith

    In my view, the idea of 'time' is accounted for by God Himself in the Genesis account. We cannot fathom God's perspective of time other than to know that God lives outside of it. However, we live inside of time and God knows this. Therefore He explains things in out terms. So the evening and the morning was the first day is abundantly clear. No need to muddy the waters.
  9. JoeChan82

    Major Christian Approaches to Science and Faith

    I agree with you. Sin before Adam is critical. I was trying to accommodate the OP instead of standing firm. I appreciate you pointing this out.
  10. JoeChan82

    Peter or Peter's confession

    I am looking for a review on my position on Matthew 16:13-23. I am dealing with a guy who thinks that Peter is the rock upon which the church is built. I think it is Peter's confession. (The guy claims not to be Catholic.) Please review this and point out any flaws in my arguments or logic or exegesis. Many thanks. Matt 16:13-23 When Jesus came into the coasts of Caesarea Philippi, he asked his disciples, saying, Whom do men say that I the Son of man am? 14 And they said, Some say that thou art John the Baptist: some, Elias; and others, Jeremias, or one of the prophets. 15 He saith unto them, But whom say ye that I am? 16 And Simon Peter answered and said, Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God. 17 And Jesus answered and said unto him, Blessed art thou, Simon Barjona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven. 18 And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. 19 And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven. 20 Then charged he his disciples that they should tell no man that he was Jesus the Christ. 21 From that time forth began Jesus to shew unto his disciples, how that he must go unto Jerusalem, and suffer many things of the elders and chief priests and scribes, and be killed, and be raised again the third day. 22 Then Peter took him, and began to rebuke him, saying, Be it far from thee, Lord: this shall not be unto thee. 23 But he turned, and said unto Peter, Get thee behind me, Satan: thou art an offence unto me: for thou savourest not the things that be of God, but those that be of men. First look at the context of this conversation. In verse 13, “Whom do men say that I the Son of man am?” That is the question put to the disciples. Then verse 15 says, “But whom say ye that I am?” Same conversation and the same context are in view, namely who is Jesus Christ. Peter answers, “Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God.” Good answer. The correct answer. Jesus Himself confirms this. We're all good so far. Verses 17-19 are where debate is. When Jesus said, “Upon this rock I will build this church” what is He talking about? Does this mean that Peter is the rock as some insist? The context would seem to dictate that it the confession itself. Look at verse 20. Jesus is staying with His original topic, namely His identity. Then look at verse 23. Jesus said unto Peter, “ Get thee behind me, Satan”. So is Peter the rock or is he Satan. Neither. What changed in Peter? His confession changed. Christ builds His church on Peter's first confession, but when Peter is appalled by the cross and says, “Be it far from thee, Lord: this shall not be unto thee.”, Jesus rebukes it as coming from Satan. So what about the keys and the church and the remittance of sins? In verse 17, Jesus said, “for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven.” So God the Father gave the first confession to Peter. We know that later in this very gospel, Jesus gives the great commission to the disciples and at Pentecost, Jesus delegates the power to accomplish the great commission to these disciples. That is the key to the kingdom of heaven. So what about binding and loosing? Verse says 19 says, “and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.” Notice the word 'whatsoever'. 'Whatsoever' is not 'whosoever' is it? No, we cannot forgive all sin against God and pronounce salvation. Only God can do that. John 1:12-13 But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name: 13 Which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God.
  11. JoeChan82

    When did the Church begin

    I think that the church began with Jesus and His disciples. That seems to fit the definition of a called out assembly with Jesus Christ as the head. I have seen posts in other threads where it is stated that the church began on the day of Pentecost. I think that the church existed before Pentecost and was empowered by the Holy Spirit and members added. Acts 2:41 Then they that gladly received his word were baptized: and the same day there were added unto them about three thousand souls. I am not dogmatic about my position on this and really want to hear from others. There must be some ramifications to which position one holds, but I don't know what they are. I wrote a Statement of Faith once in view of a call and was corrected on this and the man correcting me was very insistent. I don't understand why this is so important, but I want to know.
  12. I was reading some of the prophecy debates on this forum. Diaste asked the question, that if we are not appointed to wrath, and all of Daniel's 70th week is wrath, then why are the people saved after the pretribulation rapture appointed to wrath? No matter how many times Diaste clarified or rephrased this question, he could not get an answer. In this club at least, I believe that we know that Daniel's 70th week contains both tribulation and wrath and not wrath exclusively. During the course of the discussion, someone pointed out that the wrath of God begins at the sixth seal. Here is the proof text used: Revelation 6:15-17 And the kings of the earth, and the great men, and the rich men, and the chief captains, and the mighty men, and every bondman, and every free man, hid themselves in the dens and in the rocks of the mountains; 16 And said to the mountains and rocks, Fall on us, and hide us from the face of him that sitteth on the throne, and from the wrath of the Lamb: 17 For the great day of his wrath is come; and who shall be able to stand? My question is this, are we all settled on the 6th seal as the beginning of wrath? I am not, for the following reasons: 1.) It is the group in these verses declaring the wrath. The enemies of God know they are facing the wrath of the Lamb. They see it coming, like people stuck in a car stuck on the railroad tracks when they hear the see the train coming. The train has not hit them yet, but they know it is inevitable. This isn't a perfect analogy, but you get my point I'm sure. 2.) Revelation 11:14-19 when the 7th angel sounded, the 24 elders declare "because thou hast taken to thee thy great power, and hast reigned. 18 And the nations were angry, and thy wrath is come, and the time of the dead, that they should be judged, and that thou shouldest give reward unto thy servants the prophets, and to the saints, and them that fear thy name, small and great; and shouldest destroy them which destroy the earth." I see heaven making the declaration of God's wrath here, not in chapter 6. 3.) For me 1Cor 15:51-52 seems to naturally fit in with the 7th trumpet. 1 Corinthians 15:51-52 ¶ Behold, I shew you a mystery; We shall not all sleep, but we shall all be changed, 52 In a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trump: for the trumpet shall sound, and the dead shall be raised incorruptible, and we shall be changed. Revelation 10:7 But in the days of the voice of the seventh angel, when he shall begin to sound, the mystery of God should be finished, as he hath declared to his servants the prophets. I would love to get some input from you guys on this. I can guess what some of your answers will be based on what I've seen in the prophecy discussions, but here I won't have to filter out the pre-trib replies that always muddy the waters. Thank you in advance.
  13. JoeChan82

    144.000 Thousand and Gods focus on Israel.

    Nice dodge, but the burden of proof rests with you.
  14. JoeChan82

    144.000 Thousand and Gods focus on Israel.

    The Bible says nothing about the assumption of Mary. Nothing for it. Nothing against it. So arguing from a position of silence is pointless.
  15. JoeChan82

    144.000 Thousand and Gods focus on Israel.

    Make no mistake, I believe the trinity. What I don't believe is making Mary the Queen of Heaven by saying that Christ is God and therefore Mary is the mother of God. That is the semantics to which I referred.
  16. JoeChan82

    144.000 Thousand and Gods focus on Israel.

    Now you are playing at semantics. You cannot explain nor define the trinity. If that is your basis for defending the assumption of Mary, you will persuade no one here.
  17. JoeChan82

    144.000 Thousand and Gods focus on Israel.

    If you want to see an example of the old and the new covenants being unified by Christ, study the book of Ruth. In the book of Ruth you have a Jewish and a Gentile bride, namely Naomi and Ruth. Both are redeemed by the child born in Bethlehem Judah. That child is the kinsman redeemer. Ruth 4:13-22 ¶ So Boaz took Ruth, and she was his wife: and when he went in unto her, the LORD gave her conception, and she bare a son. 14 And the women said unto Naomi, Blessed be the LORD, which hath not left thee this day without a kinsman, that his name may be famous in Israel. 15 And he shall be unto thee a restorer of thy life, and a nourisher of thine old age: for thy daughter in law, which loveth thee, which is better to thee than seven sons, hath born him. 16 And Naomi took the child, and laid it in her bosom, and became nurse unto it.
  18. I could not have said it better myself. Especially when we see that some future events are specifically sealed. Who knows exactly what those seven thunders said and what effect they might have concerning timings and events. Revelation 10:4 And when the seven thunders had uttered their voices, I was about to write: and I heard a voice from heaven saying unto me, Seal up those things which the seven thunders uttered, and write them not.
  19. JoeChan82

    When Wrath Begins

    I have never considered using the examples you provided as an argument for a sequential unfolding of the seals/trumpets/vials, but I love it. After all, it is the literal fulfillment of past prophecies that lends credence for the literal fulfillment of future prophecies. In like fashion the three holy convocations outlined in the Law with their respective feasts (eg. Passover/Feast of unleavened bread) surely have their past fulfillments in Christ as our Passover and First fruits/Feast of Weeks was fulfilled at Pentecost. When I look at the Fall feasts; tabernacles, trumpets, Day of Atonement, Jubilee etc. I see these as still future.
  20. JoeChan82

    1260, 1290 1335 days of Daniel

    It seems that the KJV translated the same as Wycliff, except that Wycliff included the euentid (evening) and morewtid (morning) and then used the word "daies" (days). Plus it is really fun to read! Bottom line is that I am satisfied that either way it is translated, it means a day. This is important to defend against the Day/Age Theory of creation, that's why I got into the evening and the morning thing to begin with. (Not trying to open a whole new debate here with creation!) Daniel 8:14 And he seide to hym, Til to the euentid and morewtid, two thousynde daies and thre hundrid; and the seyntuarie schal be clensid.
  21. JoeChan82

    When Wrath Begins

    Excellent point. I think that the fact that this verse being written in Revelation 16 is another good argument against the pretribulation rapture theory. I used this verse in an other topic and it was explained away as only a pre-tribber can.
  22. JoeChan82

    When Wrath Begins

    So all that was overkill I guess. And here I thought I had killed the big one for you. 😁 Determining the markers is a tough but critical topic. When it comes to precise timings in Revelation it gets real foggy to me.
  23. JoeChan82

    1260, 1290 1335 days of Daniel

    בֹּקֶר bôqer, bo'-ker - properly, dawn (as the break of day); generally, morning: It's the same Hebrew word rendered "and the morning" in creation. A different word is used for "And the evening" in Gen 1:5 etc. When the phrase "and the evening and the morning" is used it means one day. The Jews count their days starting in the evening. Anyway, that's how I see it.
  24. JoeChan82

    1260, 1290 1335 days of Daniel

    Daniel heard one saint ask another saint how long the temple would be desolate. He answered 2,300 days (Daniel 8:13-14). The saints are given into the antichrist’s hand for 1,260 days (3½ years), but the desolation continues 1,040 days past that. This setting up of the image (the abomination of desolation) also starts the clock ticking for the 2,300 days (Daniel 8:14) that the temple will be desolate. That overruns the 3½-year (1,260- day) Great Tribulation by 1,040 days. I copied and pasted this from Kent Hovind's book.
  25. 1 Thessalonians 5:9 For God hath not appointed us to wrath, but to obtain salvation by our Lord Jesus Christ, How about if I phrase the question like this; Is 1Thess 4:9 only for the Church or does this verse apply to all believers regardless of the dispensation (i.e. age of law, age of grace, tribulation period, or millennium) that they were born in?
×