Ask Me Anything About Christianity

[Starise]

On 10/18/2022 at 2:24 PM, DeighAnn said:

Is that what THE SPIRIT of the WORD speaks forth?  Is that where the SPIRIT OF TRUTH is truly leading?   Doesn't the wisdom and knowledge of God tell us to KEEP ON SEEKING FOR THE RIGHTEOUS ANSWER when such unrighteousness is facing us? 

I had some issue focusing on the main topic of your post, but I will do my best to answer this.

That was the whole point of the thread, aside from it being a copycat to " Ask Me Anything About Judaism". "I" don't have all the answers to everything in the bible. No one here does, but I think we can get pretty close through more thoughtful study.

I recently heard a person in my Sunday school class, when referring to the Lord and His personage, she said that in the book of Revelation the bible mentions Christ coming on a white horse. For the longest time I thought the same thing about that passage. Only recently have I come to realize that the person in the first seal is, I believe, the anti Christ. How do I know that? He comes before the Lord returns, He is all about conquering through warfare and force and he comes before all the other seals.

I never said a word in that class to dispute her because it wasn't the main subject of our study that day. I just sat there thinking to myself how many times we are unknowingly led to believe certain things that simply aren't true, and how maybe many of us once thought one thing, but have changed our minds through further study.

If you gave me a reason to think otherwise, I would change my views back again, because to me there is nothing worse than accepting an error through ignorance if we have the ability to understand it better.

Edited October 24, 2022 by Starise

[Dave-regenerated]

Taking apocalyptic literature literally is obviously not a wise thing to do.  The book of Revelation contains veiled symbolism and imagery that is obviously not literal.  So Jesus coming on a "white horse" would not constitute a normal reading of the text.  The trouble is that even scholars cannot decipher it.  Somebody without any education in the Jewish religious history and cultures through time that reads Revelation in modern English is obviously not going to be reading it with anything near to a comprehensive understanding in laymen's terms.  But there are so many cults and sects that do just that.  It's very stupid in my opinion.

[Starise]

9 minutes ago, Dave-regenerated said:

Taking apocalyptic literature literally is obviously not a wise thing to do.  The book of Revelation contains veiled symbolism and imagery that is obviously not literal.  So Jesus coming on a "white horse" would not constitute a normal reading of the text. 

Taking the white horse of the first seal in a symbolic way.

Rev. 6:1-2

I watched as the Lamb opened the first of the seven seals. Then I heard one of the four living creatures say in a voice like thunder, “Come!” 2 I looked, and there before me was a white horse! Its rider held a bow, and he was given a crown, and he rode out as a conqueror bent on conquest.1

The seals do have an ORDER here. This is the first in a series of successive events.

- 1st seal opened by the lamb

- Combining horses with weapons of war with a mind to conquest and conquer.

Jesus will conquer from heaven with ten thousands of His saints, but He does not need them since He single handedly overtakes the enemy. This conqueror however goes forth to conquer the earth preceding the other events which would place it before the Lord's return.

This is the false Messiah.

[Dan Knight]

2 hours ago, Dave-regenerated said:

Taking apocalyptic literature literally is obviously not a wise thing to do.  The book of Revelation contains veiled symbolism and imagery that is obviously not literal.  So Jesus coming on a "white horse" would not constitute a normal reading of the text.  The trouble is that even scholars cannot decipher it.  Somebody without any education in the Jewish religious history and cultures through time that reads Revelation in modern English is obviously not going to be reading it with anything near to a comprehensive understanding in laymen's terms.  But there are so many cults and sects that do just that.  It's very stupid in my opinion.

 

Matthew 11:25

At that time Jesus said, “I praise you, Father, Lord of heaven and earth, because you have hidden these things from the wise and learned, and revealed them to little children.

to little children.
νηπίοις (nēpiois)
Adjective - Dative Masculine Plural
Strong's Greek 3516: From an obsolete particle ne- and epos; not speaking, i.e. An infant; figuratively, a simple-minded person, an immature Christian.

thank you for the opportunity to testify for the Lord!

[Your closest friendnt]

53 minutes ago, Dan Knight said:

 

Matthew 11:25

At that time Jesus said, “I praise you, Father, Lord of heaven and earth, because you have hidden these things from the wise and learned, and revealed them to little children.

to little children.
νηπίοις (nēpiois)
Adjective - Dative Masculine Plural
Strong's Greek 3516: From an obsolete particle ne- and epos; not speaking, i.e. An infant; figuratively, a simple-minded person, an immature Christian.

thank you for the opportunity to testify for the Lord!

Hi Dan knight, I would like to asked you the following because it seems English is well spoken and understood by you. 

From Psalm 16:10 

New King James Version
For You will not leave my soul in Sheol, Nor will You allow Your Holy One to see corruption.

* there are two parts in this verse separated by a coma and following by the negative "NOR"...which means that both sub-sentences are in the negative...

in the first part the writer is speaking of himself...he said as if he is talking to someone else about his soul " that you will not leave my soul in Sheol", 

and then he continues to say,"Nor you will let (addressing the same one as before in the first part of the verse when he said "that you will not leave my soul in Sheol, but in the second part he says" Neither you will let the Holy one to see decay". Or allowed Your Holy One to see decay, or corruption. 

the wrighter is not referring to himself, it cannot be when he said "neither YOU will allowed YOUR Holy One to see decay" . 

If you can make some comment about that it will be appreciated. 

in the first part the writer is speaking about himself, but in the second part he is speaking about someone else. 

 

[Starise]

I am unsure what the humor is in a few of these concerning the smiley faces????? as I did not intend humor here.

Please explain. Thanks.

[Dan Knight]

39 minutes ago, Your closest friendnt said:

Hi Dan knight, I would like to asked you the following because it seems English is well spoken and understood by you. 

From Psalm 16:10 

New King James Version
For You will not leave my soul in Sheol, Nor will You allow Your Holy One to see corruption.

* there are two parts in this verse separated by a coma and following by the negative "NOR"...which means that both sub-sentences are in the negative...

in the first part the writer is speaking of himself...he said as if he is talking to someone else about his soul " that you will not leave my soul in Sheol", 

and then he continues to say,"Nor you will let (addressing the same one as before in the first part of the verse when he said "that you will not leave my soul in Sheol, but in the second part he says" Neither you will let the Holy one to see decay". Or allowed Your Holy One to see decay, or corruption. 

the wrighter is not referring to himself, it cannot be when he said "neither YOU will allowed YOUR Holy One to see decay" . 

If you can make some comment about that it will be appreciated. 

in the first part the writer is speaking about himself, but in the second part he is speaking about someone else. 

 

Ps 16:8-11

I have set the Lord always before me;
Because He is at my right hand I shall not be moved.

⁹ Therefore my heart is glad, and my glory rejoices;
My flesh also will ^[d]rest in hope.
¹⁰ For You will not leave my soul in ^[e]Sheol,
Nor will You allow Your Holy One to ^[f]see corruption.

in this ps David is glorifying God for His deeds. Your Holy One is more correctly translated as pious. (

Strong's Concordance chasid: kind, pious Original Word: חָסִיד Part of Speech: Adjective Transliteration: chasid Phonetic Spelling: (khaw-seed') Definition: kind, pious )

 

David is referring to himself as a pious man. That is ok because he gave God the credit. 

:2 O my soul, you have said to the Lord,
“You are my Lord,
My goodness is nothing apart from You.”

:1-8 David acknowledges God's faithfulness in keeping His Word. He states that because of that, (vs:1-8), or how it begins at :vs 9..

Therefore....(...:9 my flesh will rest in hope, :10 for You will not leave my soul in Sheol..) David does not fear being abandoned in the grave. David acknowledges the resurrection and firmly believes God will bring him back from death.

...Nor will You allow Your Holy One,  (referring to himself as a pious man by God's Grace) to see corruption.  David is referring to his pious life to decay away from Godliness. He acknowledges God as being not only responsible for his goodness, but also as the Maintainer of his life. 

^:11 You will show me the path of life;

[Dan Knight]

10 minutes ago, Starise said:

I am unsure what the humor is in a few of these concerning the smiley faces????? as I did not intend humor here.

Please explain. Thanks.

My smiley face reaction was directed to the fellow who said most are not educated or wise enough to comprehend scripture.  And he suggested that attempts to were, in his opinion,  stupid. THAT is funny as Christianity 101 is Matt 11:25. 

[Starise]

5 minutes ago, Dan Knight said:

My smiley face reaction was directed to the fellow who said most are not educated or wise enough to comprehend scripture.  And he suggested that attempts to were, in his opinion,  stupid. THAT is funny as Christianity 101 is Matt 11:25. 

 

 

5 hours ago, Dave-regenerated said:

Taking apocalyptic literature literally is obviously not a wise thing to do.  The book of Revelation contains veiled symbolism and imagery that is obviously not literal.  So Jesus coming on a "white horse" would not constitute a normal reading of the text.  The trouble is that even scholars cannot decipher it.  Somebody without any education in the Jewish religious history and cultures through time that reads Revelation in modern English is obviously not going to be reading it with anything near to a comprehensive understanding in laymen's terms.  But there are so many cults and sects that do just that.  It's very stupid in my opinion.

For the sake of clarification I am going to go back over it for my own benefit. 

I agree that we should not take most of Revelation literally. The first part of the book addresses existing churches. We know this is literal because the churches have locations and names. Application is often also accurately made referring to similarities in other churches.

The vision of John is similar to the vision of Daniel in that it is highly symbolic. A scholar who is not Spirit led will not understand because they will apply their template over it. Not saying most scholars are not Spirit led, I'm only saying I believe the Lord's leading is a pre requisite here.

I believe we SHOULD study with a goal to understand. I have said something similar to Dave in that I don't believe Revelation is a book to just pick up and read with a hope to understand exactly what it says. I believe we need to compare to the rest of the word through study.

Some commentaries IMHO can be potentially misleading.

[Dan Knight]

5 minutes ago, Starise said:

 

 

For the sake of clarification I am going to go back over it for my own benefit. 

I agree that we should not take most of Revelation literally. The first part of the book addresses existing churches. We know this is literal because the churches have locations and names. Application is often also accurately made referring to similarities in other churches.

The vision of John is similar to the vision of Daniel in that it is highly symbolic. A scholar who is not Spirit led will not understand because they will apply their template over it. Not saying most scholars are not Spirit led, I'm only saying I believe the Lord's leading is a pre requisite here.

I believe we SHOULD study with a goal to understand. I have said something similar to Dave in that I don't believe Revelation is a book to just pick up and read with a hope to understand exactly what it says. I believe we need to compare to the rest of the word through study.

Some commentaries IMHO can be potentially misleading.

Agreed.  Only you don't have to be a scholar,  or Jewish or any other worldly educated being.  Jewish faith of old took the law recieved by Moses and turned it into over 600 rules and laws. Jesus rebuked them because of that. Paul was a well versed scholar of the same scriptures and he firmly believed that he was doing God's will by heavily persecuting the Christians. 

  Nor do you have to be simple and/or ignorant.  

What we have to be is chosen by God Himself to understand what He will teach us. We must be like a child, eager and open to re-learning everything.  Everything. 

The hardest part of learning something new is to unlearn the old.

1 JOHN 2:27 " But the anointing which ye have received from Him abideth in you, and ye have no need that any man teach you. But as the same anointing teacheth you of all things, and is truth and is no lie, and even as it hath taught you, ye shall abide in Him."

...as it, the Holy Spirit, has taught you, that is how you dwell with Him. Remember when the boys cast lots to have God decide in Judas replacement? Who was appointed 'official bones reader'? No one. So how did they know of God's choice? 

Where do we see Jewish College there? That's what the Pharisees feared. They would lose the high positions which were defined by the ignorance of the masses.  Paul' story as he goes from important Pharisee of power to apostle of Jesus Christ,  from being served to serving,  from death to life.