Bible PROPHECY for the ENDtime

[Musicman1228]

I just had another thought: could these 7 things be the 7 Thunders? Probably not, but one never knows.

[Dr. Rich]

John wrote: "All of them teach lessons but not all of them are prophecies in the sense of predicting what or when things will happen.

For instance, the parable of Lazarus and the Rich Man is not a prediction of particular events. The same may be said of the parable of the Good Samaritan. Parables are illustrations, not prophecies or predictions. Therefore Christ's primary work as a prophet is not found in the parables. In those, Jesus is seen mainly as a teacher rather than a prophet."

Hey John, while there is no question you are correct, the examples you gave were stories that I believe were made up by Luke (or by Paul) as you can't find them in Matthew, Mark or John. Why? Because they would fit the theology of Paul but not of Jesus. Same with the Prodigal Son.

[Johnnboy]

"The teachers of Israel were not sowing the seed of the word of God. Christ's work as a teacher of truth was in marked contrast to that of the rabbis of His time. They dwelt upon traditions, upon human theories and speculations. Often that which man had taught and written about

the word, they put in place of the word itself. Their teaching had no power to quicken the soul. The subject of Christ's teaching and preaching was the word of God. He met questioners with a plain, "It is written." "What saith the Scriptures?" "How readest thou?" At every opportunity, when an interest was awakened by either friend or foe, He sowed the seed of the word. He who is the Way, the Truth, and the Life, Himself the living Word, points to the Scriptures, saying, "They are they which testify of Me." And "beginning at Moses and all the prophets," He opened to His disciples "in all the Scriptures the things concerning Himself." John 5:39; Luke 24:27.

Christ's servants are to do the same work. In our day, as of old, the vital truths of God's word are set aside for human theories and speculations. Many professed ministers of the gospel do not accept the whole Bible as the inspired word. One wise man rejects one portion; another questions another part. They set up their judgment as superior to the word; and the Scripture which they do teach rests upon their own authority. Its divine authenticity is destroyed. Thus the seeds of infidelity are sown broadcast; for the people become confused and know not what to believe. There are many beliefs that the mind has no right to entertain. In the days of Christ the rabbis put a forced, mystical construction upon many portions of Scripture. Because the plain teaching of God's word condemned their practices, they tried to destroy its force. The same thing is done today. The word of God is made to appear mysterious and obscure in order to excuse transgression of His law. Christ rebuked these practices in His day. He taught that the word of God was to be understood by all. He pointed to the Scriptures as of unquestionable authority, and we should do the same. The Bible is to be presented as the word of the infinite God, as the end of all controversy and the foundation of all faith." {COL 38-40}

[Johnnboy]

I just read these pages this morning, and I was really struck with the comparison between Christ's day and the present time.

"One wise person rejects one portion; another questions another part. They set up their judgment as superior to the Word;" COL 38-40

I pray that none of us would be guilty of this deplorable action.

[Guest]

I see the parallel also. She could have been talking about the church today, because it is the same way now.

In our day, as of old, the vital truths of God's word are set aside for human theories and speculations. Many professed ministers of the gospel do not accept the whole Bible as the inspired word. {COL 39}

[skyblue888]

I just read these pages this morning, and I was really struck with the comparison between Christ's day and the present time.

"One wise person rejects one portion; another questions another part. They set up their judgment as superior to the Word;" COL 38-40

I pray that none of us would be guilty of this deplorable action.

JOHNNBOY

__________________

Amen!

sky

[John317]

...Hey John, while there is no question you are correct, the examples you gave were stories that I believe were made up by Luke (or by Paul) as you can't find them in Matthew, Mark or John. Why? Because they would fit the theology of Paul but not of Jesus. Same with the Prodigal Son.

These are the kinds of statements that probably help keep serious theologians and Bible students from deciding to take part on your radio program. Who would want to be associated with a radio program where you just might hear such nonsense?

It doesn't make sense to assume that something didn't happen or wasn't said simply because it doesn't occur in another Gospel. If that was the case, we would certainly have a lot of doubt about the varacity of the Gospel of John. Have you noticed how different the Gospel of Matthew is from the Gospel of John? Does that prove that one of them is not true? Of course not. So why would you conclude that the Gospel of Luke and Mark are "made up" just because they contain some things not found in Matthew and John? They were all written by men who had a specific viewpoint of Jesus and a different audience in mind when they wrote. So of course they are going to be different from the others. That's to be expected. The same thing would happen if four people sat down to write a biography of President Kennedy or any other president. You wouldn't expect all four writers to say the same thing or even to think about Kennedy in precisely the same way.

[Musicman1228]

Originally Posted By: Dr. Rich

...Hey John, while there is no question you are correct, the examples you gave were stories that I believe were made up by Luke (or by Paul) as you can't find them in Matthew, Mark or John. Why? Because they would fit the theology of Paul but not of Jesus. Same with the Prodigal Son.

These are the kinds of statements that probably help keep serious theologians and Bible students from deciding to take part on your radio program. Who would want to be associated with a radio program where you just might hear such nonsense?

It doesn't make sense to assume that something didn't happen or wasn't said simply because it doesn't occur in another Gospel. If that was the case, we would certainly have a lot of doubt about the varacity of the Gospel of John. Have you noticed how different the Gospel of Matthew is from the Gospel of John? Does that prove that one of them is not true? Of course not. So why would you conclude that the Gospel of Luke and Mark are "made up" just because they contain some things not found in Matthew and John? They were all written by men who had a specific viewpoint of Jesus and a different audience in mind when they wrote. So of course they are going to be different from the others. That's to be expected. The same thing would happen if four people sat down to write a biography of President Kennedy or any other president. You wouldn't expect all four writers to say the same thing or even to think about Kennedy in precisely the same way.

John,

I don't believe that Dr. Rich was including Mark the above scenario, because Mark was the penman for Peter, and Peter was an eyewitness. I personally don't throw Luke out just because some of the stories don't match up with those in Matthew, Mark and John. Yet there are instances where Luke makes a statement about something Jesus was supposed to have said that changes His theology that is not confirmed in the other three Gospels.

One example of that is when Luke has Jesus using the word 'new' in front of the word 'covenant' at the Last Supper event. The Last Supper is not seen in the gospel of John, but it is recounted in Matthew and Mark. In both of those gospels neither of the eyewitnesses have Jesus saying the word 'new'. What Jesus says in those two gospels is "This is my blood of the covenant . . ." This is a very important distinction that changes the theology of Jesus from a theology that supports Paul's gospel to one in which Jesus does not change the function of the covenant. The account in Luke supports Paul's idea that the Law no longer applies to those that fall under God's grace, which is exactly the purpose of the use of the word 'new', and is completely understandable given that Luke got most of his material for his gospel from his mentor, Paul. Yet the eyewitnesses do not have Jesus saying 'new', which confirms to me that the covenant is still in force.

For me this is a very important distinction in theology. So whom should we believe? Should we believe the two eyewitnesses (Matthew and Peter) who were actually at the Last Supper, or a disciple of Paul who wants to write his gospel in support of the theology of Paul, at the behest of Paul. Neither Paul nor Luke were eyewitnesses to the events of the life and teachings of Jesus, therefore it is incumbent upon those that are seeking the truth of Jesus to use the information supplied by the eyewitnesses over those that were not there.

I don't throw Luke out completely, but I will only use those parts of his gospel that do not disagree with the other gospel writers accounts. This seem prudent to me as I search for truth.

[Dr. Rich]

John, I agree with MM as I don't throw anything away, I look at all of it BUT as I said before and will say it again, I choose to build my belief upon the words of Jesus from eyewitness' because of John 14:26.

John's 'gospel' if you call it that, is much different because John first wrote the book of Revelation and did not have to provide things that he already wrote about. I am aware of the differences.

Luke also has one of the thieves asking Jesus to remember him but Matthew and Mark have both theives insulting Jesus up until He died.

Luke has many 'nice' stories that tend to confirm Paul's gospel of grace, while Matthew, Mark and John do not have these same stories. Why?

Our weekly show called "The Bible On Trial" is an attempt to get people to study for themselves--as is the Sabbath Study. NEVER have we said that we know it all--for all of us are just truth seekers and if you or anyone else out there can point out what the real truth is and can confirm it by using words of Jesus that are not hearsay, then go for it!

[Rewell]

Quote:

Our weekly show called "The Bible On Trial" is an attempt to get people to study for themselves--as is the Sabbath Study. NEVER have we said that we know it all--for all of us are just truth seekers and if you or anyone else out there can point out what the real truth is and can confirm it by using words of Jesus that are not hearsay, then go for it!

I admire your statement Dr. Rich. I believe that we are all searching for the truth, the assurance to be saved. This is the ultimate reason why we are here on earth to prepare to return to the kingdom of God.

[Dr. Rich]

Thanks for the post/reply Rewell. I will be looking forward to reading more of your posts.

[Johnnboy]

When the Messiah met the arch enemy in the wilderness, He left no doubt about which words of God are truth and which are not, by saying, It is written, Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God." Matthew 4:4. Every means every word in the Scriptures.

"All scripture [is] given by inspiration of God, and [is] profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: That the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works." 1 Timothy 3:16, 17.

"All" does not leave any gospel out, not even one word, or the crossing of a "t" or the dotting of an "i".

"O LORD, I know that the way of man [is] not in himself: [it is] not in man that walketh to direct his steps." Jeremiah 10:23.

The search for truth does not mean to critically assess the Scriptures to determine which of them are true and which are not. The search for truth always begins with distrust of ourselves and complete trust in every word of the Scriptures.

[Guest]

The search for truth does not mean to critically assess the Scriptures to determine which of them are true and which are not. The search for truth always begins with distrust of ourselves and complete trust in every word of the Scriptures.

Amen...

[Musicman1228]

When the Messiah met the arch enemy in the wilderness, He left no doubt about which words of God are truth and which are not, by saying, It is written, Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God." Matthew 4:4. Every means every word in the Scriptures.

"All scripture [is] given by inspiration of God, and [is] profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: That the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works." 1 Timothy 3:16, 17.

"All" does not leave any gospel out, not even one word, or the crossing of a "t" or the dotting of an "i".

"O LORD, I know that the way of man [is] not in himself: [it is] not in man that walketh to direct his steps." Jeremiah 10:23.

The search for truth does not mean to critically assess the Scriptures to determine which of them are true and which are not. The search for truth always begins with distrust of ourselves and complete trust in every word of the Scriptures.

So just because 'it is written' in the Bible makes it absolute truth? Jesus said that His Words were truth, He did not say everyone's words were truth. Your faith in this has led to your deception, because you will believe anyone that says they are 'of Christ'. To me this is 'blind' faith, because hard evidence is of no importance to people of great faith.

[Johnnboy]

So just because 'it is written' in the Bible makes it absolute truth? Jesus said that His Words were truth, He did not say everyone's words were truth. Your faith in this has led to your deception, because you will believe anyone that says they are 'of Christ'. To me this is 'blind' faith, because hard evidence is of no importance to people of great faith.

In answer to your question, I would give a resounding "YES".

The Bible is absolute truth! When it says, "All Scripture", it means ALL.

Musicman said, "He did not say everyone's words were truth."

And that would be correct. But the Bible is not everyone's words. It is the Holy Word of God.

1 Timothy 3:16, 17 "All scripture [is] given by inspiration of God, and [is] profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: That the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works."

[skyblue888]

When the Messiah met the arch enemy in the wilderness, He left no doubt about which words of God are truth and which are not, by saying, It is written, Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God." Matthew 4:4. Every means every word in the Scriptures.

"All scripture [is] given by inspiration of God, and [is] profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: That the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works." 1 Timothy 3:16, 17.

"All" does not leave any gospel out, not even one word, or the crossing of a "t" or the dotting of an "i".

"O LORD, I know that the way of man [is] not in himself: [it is] not in man that walketh to direct his steps." Jeremiah 10:23.

The search for truth does not mean to critically assess the Scriptures to determine which of them are true and which are not. The search for truth always begins with distrust of ourselves and complete trust in every word of the Scriptures.

Amen!

"One wise person rejects one portion; another questions another part. They set up their judgment as superior to the Word;" COL 38-40

Thanks for sharing that quote JOHNNBOY

[skyblue888]

Originally Posted By: Musicman1228

So just because 'it is written' in the Bible makes it absolute truth? Jesus said that His Words were truth, He did not say everyone's words were truth. Your faith in this has led to your deception, because you will believe anyone that says they are 'of Christ'. To me this is 'blind' faith, because hard evidence is of no importance to people of great faith.

In answer to your question, I would give a resounding "YES".

The Bible is absolute truth! When it says, "All Scripture", it means ALL.

Musicman said, "He did not say everyone's words were truth."

And that would be correct. But the Bible is not everyone's words. It is the Holy Word of God.

1 Timothy 3:16, 17 "All scripture [is] given by inspiration of God, and [is] profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: That the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works."

Amen again.

[Musicman1228]

I have no idea how anyone can say that 1 Tim.3:16-17 applies to the entire Bible when the Bible as we know it was not compiled at the time Paul made this statement-and his writings were not considered 'scripture' because no one had yet agreed that they were scripture as yet.

I guess logic and reason must go out the window when 'faith' is applied to an idea or concept.

[Johnnboy]

I have no idea how anyone can say that 1 Tim.3:16-17 applies to the entire Bible when the Bible as we know it was not compiled at the time Paul made this statement-and his writings were not considered 'scripture' because no one had yet agreed that they were scripture as yet.

I guess logic and reason must go out the window when 'faith' is applied to an idea or concept.

Musicman,

The compilation of the Bible may not have been complete at the time Paul wrote this statement, but the Apostle Peter in his writings refers to Paul's writings as "Scripture".

2 Peter 3:15 "And account [that] the longsuffering of our Lord [is] salvation; even as our beloved brother Paul also according to the wisdom given unto him hath written unto you;

3:16 As also in all [his] epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as [they do] also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction.

Logic and reason does not go out the window, BUT WE SURELY DO NEED OUR FAITH IN THE WORD OF GOD INCREASED.

Luke 17:5 "And the apostles said unto the Lord, Increase our faith.

17:6 And the Lord said, If ye had faith as a grain of mustard seed, ye might say unto this sycamine tree, Be thou plucked up by the root, and be thou planted in the sea; and it should obey you."

[skyblue888]

Originally Posted By: Musicman1228

I have no idea how anyone can say that 1 Tim.3:16-17 applies to the entire Bible when the Bible as we know it was not compiled at the time Paul made this statement-and his writings were not considered 'scripture' because no one had yet agreed that they were scripture as yet.

I guess logic and reason must go out the window when 'faith' is applied to an idea or concept.

Musicman,

The compilation of the Bible may not have been complete at the time Paul wrote this statement, but the Apostle Peter in his writings refers to Paul's writings as "Scripture".

2 Peter 3:15 "And account [that] the longsuffering of our Lord [is] salvation; even as our beloved brother Paul also according to the wisdom given unto him hath written unto you;

3:16 As also in all [his] epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as [they do] also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction.

Logic and reason does not go out the window, BUT WE SURELY DO NEED OUR FAITH IN THE WORD OF GOD INCREASED.

Luke 17:5 "And the apostles said unto the Lord, Increase our faith.

17:6 And the Lord said, If ye had faith as a grain of mustard seed, ye might say unto this sycamine tree, Be thou plucked up by the root, and be thou planted in the sea; and it should obey you."

Amen and Amen again.

sky

"One wise person rejects one portion; another questions another part. They set up their judgment as superior to the Word." COL 38-40

[Musicman1228]

Originally Posted By: Musicman1228

I have no idea how anyone can say that 1 Tim.3:16-17 applies to the entire Bible when the Bible as we know it was not compiled at the time Paul made this statement-and his writings were not considered 'scripture' because no one had yet agreed that they were scripture as yet.

I guess logic and reason must go out the window when 'faith' is applied to an idea or concept.

Musicman,

The compilation of the Bible may not have been complete at the time Paul wrote this statement, but the Apostle Peter in his writings refers to Paul's writings as "Scripture".

2 Peter 3:15 "And account [that] the longsuffering of our Lord [is] salvation; even as our beloved brother Paul also according to the wisdom given unto him hath written unto you;

3:16 As also in all [his] epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as [they do] also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction.

Logic and reason does not go out the window, BUT WE SURELY DO NEED OUR FAITH IN THE WORD OF GOD INCREASED.

Luke 17:5 "And the apostles said unto the Lord, Increase our faith.

17:6 And the Lord said, If ye had faith as a grain of mustard seed, ye might say unto this sycamine tree, Be thou plucked up by the root, and be thou planted in the sea; and it should obey you."

A word to all: before making blanket statements of 'fact' please be sure of your information and sources. Ex.: At the time 2 Peter was written (historically confirmed) Peter the apostle was already dead, so he could not have written what you (Johnboy) say he did. Therefore, Peter could not have confirmed Paul's 'apostleship' or confirmed Paul as a 'scriptural' source. PLEASE check your sources, your eternal life might depend on it.

[skyblue888]

Are you suggesting that Peter is not the author of 1 Peter and 2 Peter?

[Guest]

That's what he's saying sky.

Hey MM, what is your source that "confirms" Peter was dead when 2Peter was written?

[Musicman1228]

That's what he's saying sky.

Hey MM, what is your source that "confirms" Peter was dead when 2Peter was written?

Any number of web sites and books, including but not limited to one of my favorites - James, the Brother of Jesus by Eisenman. Also, if you have a study Bible often in the preamble to the various chapters the editors give the background on the where, when, and by whom these books were written. Many modern Bible scholars consider 2 Peter to be 'pseudononymous'. If nothing else you can go to wikipedia. A modicum of basic research will show you that the true author of 2 Peter is unknown, but was certainly NOT written by the Apostle Peter. This also calls into question 1 Peter as well, but that is less certain than the issue of 2 Peter.

[Guest]

So, the Paul haters on the internet. That's kinda what I thought...