Bible PROPHECY for the ENDtime

[wayfinder]

John317, Paul is most definatly speaking in the first person and he is using Gnostic imagery.

Romans 7:24 Wretched man that I am! Who will set me free from the body of this death ?

25 Thanks be to God through Jesus Christ our Lord ! So then, on the one hand I myself with my mind am serving the law of God, but on the other, with my flesh the law of sin

[John317]

(quoting):

But if I am doing the very thing I do not want, I am no longer the one doing it, but sin which dwells in me. Rom. 7:20.

In addition to what Wayfinder said I want to point out that Paul admitted that he had no control over the sin that was causing him to be arrogant because he believed that it was no longer him that was doing this sin but that which dwelled within him.

Where did he admit this? Where do you believe Paul is being arrogant? You're taking something that Paul said in Romans 7 as if he is describing himself as he is when he wrote 2 Cor.

In 2 Cor. 12: 7, Paul said that God allowed him to deal with "a thorn in the flesh, a messenger of Satan" in order for Paul not to become arrogant. He's not saying he was arrogant. He is saying that He could become arrogant if God hadn't made him suffer "a thorn in the flesh." That's quite different from what you're claiming Paul is saying.

Romans 7 is an illustration Paul is making of the spiritual struggle that goes on within people before they totally surrender to Jesus Christ as their Savior and Lord. I think it is likely that Paul himself experienced this struggle. As I said earlier, it is also a struggle that anyone will recognize they've gone through when they've attempted to live rightously apart from the Holy Spirit guiding and leading them.

Originally Posted By: Musicman

He even clearly states what this 'thing' is (if you take him at his word):

Therefore, so that I would not become arrogant, a thorn in the flesh was given to me, a messenger of Satan to trouble me - so that I would not become arrogant.  2 Cor. 12:7.

You are making it appear that there's a connection between what Paul said in Romans 7 and what Paul says in 2 Cor. 12: 7. But there is no connection.

In Cor. 12: 7, Paul is saying that God allowed Paul to suffer in order to keep him from being too proud about the revelations he was given. Paul had prayed to God that He would take away his sufferings, but God told Paul that He would not take away the suffering but God would give him sufficient grace so that Paul would be able to endure and suffering. That is what God often does with us. He doesn't take away the hardships and the sufferings we go through, but God is with us while we suffer and He provides us strength to remain loyal to Him even as we suffer.

[John317]

Paul was a gnostic and in his mind separated his soul/spirit from his body (The spirit is willing but the flesh is weak).

Paul was opposed to gnosticism. The entire book of Colossians was written to oppose the proto-gnostics.

Do you know what the gnostics believed and taught? If you believe Paul was a gnostic, can you show where Paul teaches gnostic beliefs?

You appear not to understand what Paul is saying when he speaks of the conflict of the spirit vs. flesh. The "spirit" is the spiritual aspect of our nature, the part of us that yearns after God and righteousness. The "flesh" is our fallen, sinful nature. These two aspects of our nature often are at war, which creates a struggle that on in each one of us. But this struggle has nothing whatsoever to do with gnosticim or proto-gnosticism. The gnostic beliefs were something completely different from what Paul is teaching.

See this link regarding Gnosticism:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gnosticism

[Guest]

You appear not to understand what Paul is saying when he speaks of the conflict of the spirit vs. flesh.

He appears not to understand anything at all about Paul. How many times have you seen him say something about Paul that was true?

[Musicman1228]

Originally Posted By: John317

You appear not to understand what Paul is saying when he speaks of the conflict of the spirit vs. flesh.

He appears not to understand anything at all about Paul. How many times have you seen him say something about Paul that was true?

Oh, Richard, I understand just about everything about Paul because I have taken the blinders off and now see him for what he really is. I have studied his writings extensively and have read a myriad of texts written by recognized scholars that detail his life and teachings and how the early church related to him. So please don't be condescending to me or wayfinder, just assume we actually believe what we are saying about Paul and deal with us on that basis.

Try this link, I think you will find it very interesting: Vision of Paul http://www.gnosis.org/library/visionpaul.htm

[John317]

I'm going to give you and Wayfinder a few more posts on this topic and then we need to get it back to the main subject of this thread.

As Moderator:

I feel that I have bent over backwards to accomidate you and Wayfinder and Dr. Rich as regards your favorite theme of Paul vs Jesus, but I cannot keep doing it. I hope you understand. Such a constant discussion ruins the theology threads and discourages further dialogue. So from now on, you will need to limit this topic to threads devoted to that topic. When posts that attempt to discuss it appear on other threads, they will be immediately deleted, no questions asked and no warning. It is necessary.

[John317]

I understand just about everything about Paul because I have taken the blinders off and now see him for what he really is. I have studied his writings extensively and have read a myriad of texts written by recognized scholars that detail his life and teachings and how the early church related to him.

OK, this is obviously your permenant opinion. You've made up your mind, based not on the Bible itself but on the basis of what certain scholars are telling you, including non-Christian scholars. This is your decison and it seems obvious to me that you won't listen to what anyone who disagrees with you says.

So we will now leave that topic and go on to study and discuss the end-time prophecies based on the WHOLE BIBLE, including Paul's letters.

[Musicman1228]

Originally Posted By: Musicman1228

I understand just about everything about Paul because I have taken the blinders off and now see him for what he really is. I have studied his writings extensively and have read a myriad of texts written by recognized scholars that detail his life and teachings and how the early church related to him.

OK, this is obviously your permenant opinion. You've made up your mind, based not on the Bible itself but on the basis of what certain scholars are telling you, including non-Christian scholars. This is your decison and it seems obvious to me that you won't listen to what anyone who disagrees with you says.

So we will now leave that topic and go on to study and discuss the end-time prophecies based on the WHOLE BIBLE, including Paul's letters.

Great. What topic is next? How about the Two Witnesses, or the Trumpets.

[John317]

I'd have to check what the exact topic was earlier, but I think you could chose any one of those sub-topics.

[Musicman1228]

I received another interesting question the other day that I think all of us should be able to answer, so maybe this one would be a good sub-topic: Is the Rapture a real event? If not why not.

I will, however, defer to your wishes on this.

[John317]

That sounds like a great topic, MM.

[Musicman1228]

The idea of the Rapture is based in the thought that the Coming of Christ is divided into two separate events as described in Matt. 24:29-31; one happens before the Tribulation, the other at Armageddon at the end of the Tribulation, which is the coming in the clouds. The timing of those events is based in prophecy; those that subscribe to the Rapture do so because they move the final week of the 70 week of Dan. 9: 24 to the end of time, which is where the 7 year Time of Trouble comes from.

(25) Know therefore and understand that from the going out of the word to restore and build Jerusalem to the coming of an anointed one, a prince, there shall be seven weeks. Then for sixty-two weeks it shall be built again with squares and moat, but in a troubled time. Dan. 9:25.

When you add the 7 weeks to the 62 weeks you get 69 weeks, leaving one (1) week to account for. Evangelicals move this week to the end of time as the time of Trouble, or the Tribulation.

The principle text used by Premillennial Dispensationalists (Evangelicals) to 'prove' the Rapture is found in the writings of Paul:

For this we declare to you by a word from the Lord, that we who are alive, who are left until the coming of the Lord, will not precede those who have fallen asleep.   (16) For the Lord himself will descend from heaven with a cry of command, with the voice of an archangel, and with the sound of the trumpet of God. And the dead in Christ will rise first.   (17) Then we who are alive, who are left, will be caught up together with them in the clouds to meet the Lord in the air, and so we will always be with the Lord.  1 Thess. 4:15-17.

This event is unseen by those who are 'left behind'. This is a private event, experience by those that have faith in that belief. The Coming in the Clouds is the public event that everyone left on earth will experience.

Then they say that during that time every Christian that BELIEVES in the Rapture will be taken to heaven, leaving literal Israel (still the Chosen People) to finally get their act together and recognize that Jesus Christ is the Messiah. Out of literal Israel come not only the 144,000 but also the Two Witnesses, who finally become 'Christians' and lead the world through the Tribulation.

This is why Evangelicals believe the Rapture. So how do we combat this with Scripture and prophecy.

[Musicman1228]

There is another potential topic for this thread that encompasses both end time events and the Sanctuary. This article is long but I think you will find the premise fascinating: Two Atonements. http://web.me.com/spiritoftruth/STM/Must_Read/Entries/2010/6/15_Two_Atonements.html

[John317]

Quote:

Jesus said to Simon Peter, "Simon, son of Jonah, do you love Me?" He said to Him, "Yes, Lord; You know that I love You." He said to him, "Feed My lambs." John 21: 15

Three times this question was asked and answered. Each time Jesus ended with "Feed My lambs." The word in Greek for lambs is Arnion, the diminutive form of the word Arnon (or Aren), which can be literally translated ‘lambkin’ or ‘kin (brother or sister) of the male lamb.’ This is very important to confirming the role of the Kingdom of Heaven as sacrifices.

In Revelation John uses two Greek words that have both been translated Lamb. The words are Arnon, meaning ‘male lamb at least a year old’; and Arnion, the diminutive form of Arnon, which means ‘lambkin’, or lamb less than a year old. Now why would John use two different words to mean the same thing, as is found in all Bible translations. Why didn’t he just use the word ‘Arnon’? The reason is that he meant to use these words exactly where he did to convey a specific meaning.

These (the ten kings v.12-13) will make war with the Lamb, and the Lamb will overcome them, for He is Lord of lords and King of kings; and those who are with Him are called, chosen, and faithful. Rev. 17: 14

The first use of the word ‘Lamb’ is actually the word Arnion or lambkin, meaning the kin of the Lamb. The second use of Lamb is the word Arnon meaning ‘a lamb at least a year old.’ This Lamb is Christ. The first lamb indicates his brothers and sisters.

Let's talk about these Greek words. Where did you get the idea that these Greek words in Rev. 17: 14 are diffferent? They are actually different forms of the same Greek word. Their form, or spelling, is different because the first one is genitive and the second one is nominative.

Quote:

In Greek the nominative of the word used to indicate singular or plural and gender follows the context of the noun for which it applies. The same word is used for him, her, them and they, depending on the noun used.

This makes no sense. Could you explain it? For instance, what do you mean by "the nominative of the word" and "follows the context of the noun"?

What is the same word that is used for "him, her, them and they"?

Quote:

Therefore, the correct translation would need to be:

Let us be glad and rejoice and give them glory, for the marriage of the lambkin has come, and their wife (bride) has made herself ready. And to her it was granted to be arrayed in fine linen, clean and bright, for the fine linen is the righteous acts of the saints. Then he said to me, "Write: Blessed are those who are called to the marriage supper of the lambkin. Rev. 19: 7-9

Rev. 19: 7 can only be translated as "his bride," not "their bride." The pronoun is "autou" which is third person singular masculne.

In order for it to be transalted "their bride," the pronoun would need to be plural: "auton".

Do you know why all translations of this verse read "his bride" or "his wife"? For the simple reason that it is the only correct way to translate it. No publishers who has an interest in truth would publish a translation that reads "their bride" because it would be an obvious mistranslation.

[John317]

MM, a great part of your thesis in this article depends on two mistaken understandings of the Greek text. See the post just before this one.

You would be better off depending on the standard translations of these texts and not trying to translate the verses yourself since you've never studied the language. As I said earlier in regard to a similar error that you made in Acts 2: 3, you should at least get a Greek scholar to verify those parts of your book or articles where you discuss the Greek language. This is vital to any book that advertizes itself as trustworthy.

[Musicman1228]

MM, a great part of your thesis in this article depends on two mistaken understandings of the Greek text. See the post just before this one.

You would be better off depending on the standard translations of these texts and not trying to translate the verses yourself since you've never studied the language. As I said earlier in regard to a similar error that you made in Acts 2: 3, you should at least get a Greek scholar to verify those parts of your book or articles where you discuss the Greek language. This is vital to any book that advertizes itself as trustworthy.

Good for you, John, you read the article. Wow, I'm impressed.

I am also sure you believe yourself to be the expert in Greek that you think you are, which is why you ignored everything else in the piece that shows that there are two atonements (both in the OT and the NT) and concentrated on that part of the article that you are sure is wrong. And obviously if any part of the article is wrong then the whole thing is wrong; is this not correct?

If this is so and if any part of what anyone says is incorrect making everything they say about anything incorrect then why do you get angry with me for believing that both Paul and EGW are mistaken in their theology. Certainly you must recognize their fallibility as human beings as you certainly recognize and continually point out my fallibility when it comes to writing about spiritual things.

[John317]

..Good for you, John, you read the article. Wow, I'm impressed.

I enjoy studying other people's viewpoints of religion in general and of the Bible in particular.

Originally Posted By: Musicman1228

I am also sure you believe yourself to be the expert in Greek that you think you are, which is why you ignored everything else in the piece that shows that there are two atonements (both in the OT and the NT) and concentrated on that part of the article that you are sure is wrong. And obviously if any part of the article is wrong then the whole thing is wrong; is this not correct?

The reason I am writing about those points is that they are so critical to your thesis. It is not because I am ignoring the rest of your article.

But before we get to the topic of the two atonements, we need to talk about the biblical evidence & the premises upon which your understanding of the two atonements is largely based. If your understanding of the biblical evidence for the two atonements is in error, I'm sure you can see that your conclusions must also be in error.

Or do you believe you could support your thesis regarding the two atonements, without discussing the Greek of Rev. 17:14 and 19: 7?

[John317]

What dismays and astonishes me is your apparent indifference concerning the mistakes you make in your book and in your article. At least that is the impression I'm getting from you-- that you don't care or even believe they are mistakes. I hope I'm wrong about your reactions to these things. I would think that at the very least you would take this information and your writings to a Greek scholar in whom you have confidence and ask him to check out your ideas regarding the Greek translations of those verses.

[John317]

...Certainly you must recognize their fallibility as human beings as you certainly recognize and continually point out my fallibility when it comes to writing about spiritual things.

But this is not about fallibility. It seems to me that if writers are concerned for the truth, they will do what they can to make sure it's correct before they have it's published. There are excuses for misprints and typos but not for mistakes of the kind we're discussing. Those are deliberate and can be avoided easily simply by verifying and correcting the information.

[Musicman1228]

Originally Posted By: Musicman1228

...Certainly you must recognize their fallibility as human beings as you certainly recognize and continually point out my fallibility when it comes to writing about spiritual things.

But this is not about fallibility. It seems to me that if writers are concerned for the truth, they will do what they can to make sure it's correct before they have it's published. There are excuses for misprints and typos but not for mistakes of the kind we're discussing. Those are deliberate and can be avoided easily simply by verifying and correcting the information.

Oh, but John, it is about fallibility in this regard, that you make blanket statements as to what is fact in all sorts of matters related to the content of this forum that you assert are absolutely true base solely on your word. You do this without a complete knowledge of what is being said. In other words you give your opinion. Your opinion is just as valid as the opinion of anyone else here on the forum, but so is mine. Neither your or my opinion is informed fully by fact, no one's opinion is. Yet you complain that my opinion is not as valid as yours because of your knowledge base and your method of discovery.

You asked if my opinion as to my belief in Two Atonements had any basis in Scripture, yet if you had read the entire piece you would have seen the Scriptural citations (whether you agree with my conclusions not-with-standing). This means that you didn't actually read the entire article, or if you did your thought process stopped dead when you got to something you disagreed with, thereby causing you to be unable to realize the logic stream. That is sad because there might just be something in the article that could benefit you in your understanding, yet you missed it because you could not get by a single point of conflict.

Secondarily, I find it interesting that the professional editors at my publisher did not call my attention to the issues of Greek usage that you feel are so important that they supercede everything else in the book in your mind. There were a myriad of things that they had me deal with not only in construction but implementation of the ideas that Rick and I present. At no time during the long, arduous process of editing The Spirit of the Church (approx. 6 months) did anyone at the publisher mention any problem with that part of the premise, or the content derived from that premise; this even though we had to fight tooth and toe nail for lots of other major area of content in showing where, how and from whom we came up with those ideas.

The fact that the conclusions that we have drawn in any number of areas of Scriptural understanding are diametrically opposed to commonly held belief does not mean that we are automatically wrong, yet in your mind it does. Breaking away from the common is never easy but not always a bad thing.

[Musicman1228]

By the way, I will be taking a few days off from the forum for Christmas. See you all after the 28th, which is my 29th wedding anniversary.

I wish for all of you the most blessed of days on Christmas, with family and friends.

[John317]

Thank you, Dr. Rich. And I wish you also a very blessed Christmas and a very happy New Year. And also a very happy wedding anniversary. Ours will be coming up at the end of January-- our 24th.

[John317]

Oh, but John, it is about fallibility in this regard, that you make blanket statements as to what is fact in all sorts of matters related to the content of this forum that you assert are absolutely true base solely on your word. You do this without a complete knowledge of what is being said. In other words you give your opinion.

In regards to the translation of Rev. 17: 14 and 19: 7, those things are facts and are not matters of opinion, any more than it is a matter of opinion that the word, "eyes," is a plural noun.

The fact that you would argue about this is, to say the least, very strange.

It would be like my arguing against your view that "beautiful" is an adjective. What if I told you that's just your opinion and that my own opinion that "beautiful" is pronoun or a noun or verb is just as valid as yours?

When you read "his wife" in Rev. 19: 7 in every single translation that you find, do you really think it's merely someone's opinion as to whether the pronoun is masculine or feminite or plural?

And in Rev. 17: 14, do you have a right to say the words for "lamb" are two different Greek words merely on the basis of your desire that this be so? Or shouldn't you need to be able to show valid evidence supporting your viewpoint?

You speak of "opinions" on these matters, but I have been giving you what you would find in every book on Greek grammar and translation, and also what every translation of Revelation will tell you.

[John317]

...You asked if my opinion as to my belief in Two Atonements had any basis in Scripture, yet if you had read the entire piece you would have seen the Scriptural citations (whether you agree with my conclusions not-with-standing). This means that you didn't actually read the entire article, or if you did your thought process stopped dead when you got to something you disagreed with, thereby causing you to be unable to realize the logic stream..

I asked you if you could make your thesis about two atonements without those two texts. I didn't suggest you didn't use more than those two texts. Of course I saw the other Scriptural citations, but those are meaningless if your view of Rev. 19: 7 and 17: 14 are completely wrong. Your entire thesis relies on Rev. 19: 7 and 17: 14. Try making your points in that article without those two critical texts. I doubt you would be able to.

[John317]

...Secondarily, I find it interesting that the professional editors at my publisher did not call my attention to the issues of Greek usage that you feel are so important that they supercede everything else in the book in your mind. There were a myriad of things that they had me deal with not only in construction but implementation of the ideas that Rick and I present. At no time during the long, arduous process of editing The Spirit of the Church (approx. 6 months) did anyone at the publisher mention any problem with that part of the premise, or the content derived from that premise; this even though we had to fight tooth and toe nail for lots of other major area of content in showing where, how and from whom we came up with those ideas.

It's not their responsibility to tell you to get someone to verify the material in your book that discusses Greek grammar. Were the book editors Greek scholars? If not, they wouldn't have any reason to question those aspects. They would assume you would have done that already.

Are you telling me that you submitted your book for publication without ever having those things examined by a Greek scholar?!!

If you don't believe me, let me suggest that you take your material and have it studied by a teacher of Greek. I would think you'd want to do that just out of a desire to be sure your book is accurate.

I never said those things "supersede everything else in your book." But those things do certainly tell the reader something about the reliability of the scholarship that went into the book. They also tend to show the lack of support for your conclusions, since your conclusions rely a great deal on your translations of verses such as Acts 2: 3, Rev. 14: 12 and REv. 19: 7. Those three verse are only a few examples of the kinds of errors that exist in your book.

I can hardly believe that a writer would have the attitude that such errors are of no importance.