Leaderboard

Concerning prophecy of future events - no. Paul tells us that satan didn't even understand that Christ's death was His victory. "Truth" in prophetic events will become that when the prophecies unfold. Until, then, interpretations are just educated opinions.

IMO "TRUTH" or, in this case, the "trueness" of a statement, fact, or claim, falls on a continuum. On the one end is the solid empirical "facts" such as gravity and the temperature at which water freezes, and at the other end is the "Opinion" end, such as "There is a God" and "Billy only likes me because he wants to date my sister." Where any particular assertion falls on the continuum depends on the discussion, the context, history, empirical aspects, and, literally, mood and time of day.

We search and search for just the right words to explain the nature of Jesus. Can't say that I've read a perfect explanation - yet. While doing a study recently into Paul's phrase "under the law", I read the verse in Galatians where Paul wrote that God's Son was "born of a woman, born under the law". I had progressed in my study to the point where I now understand "under the law" to mean: subject to "the law of sin and death". Essentially that law said, "you sin - you die". This was the law for Adam/Eve. "If you eat of that forbidden tree - you will die." Paul says, "the law of the spirit of life in Jesus Christ has set us free from the law of sin and death". If we are "set from from" that law, we are NOT "under" it. That would be my conclusion. Anyway - if JESUS was "born under" that "law of sin and death" - that means IF He had sinned, He would have died eternally. Does it also mean that He could have sinned. I believe so. There's no point in saying that Jesus was "born under the law (of sin and death)", if He was really not capable of sinning or dying. He did die. He died BECAUSE He was "made" "to be sin". ALL of Him - not just the human part. 2 Corinthians 5:21 "God made him who had no sin to be sin for us, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God." (NIV) I can agree with Gustave, that the nature of Jesus was not "drawn" to sin. I believe that such will be our nature, once we are fully indwelt by God's Spirit in the kingdom to come. And by then we also have new "spiritual bodies". Without the tired, hungry, sexually stimulated physical bodies we now occupy, a whopping LOT of temptations would have no pulling power. Jesus was born with the spiritual nature of Adam before the Fall, and the physical nature of Abraham/Mary - 4000 years after the Fall. Adam was fully indwelt. So was Christ. Adam sinned. Christ did not. Jesus was "tempted in every way, just as we are" (Heb 4:15 NIV). His temptations were not of a different KIND, they were of a different intensity, and they were suited to fit His identity, nature, and situation. Jesus was tempted to prove Himself - to Satan. A really dumb temptation - unless the human had gone without food for 40 days, and was starving. He was tempted to use His position/status as "commander" of angels, or perhaps also His divine power - to benefit only Himself, by turning stones to bread for His own consumption, something that His covenant with His Father had strictly forbidden. He was tempted to put Himself (His flesh) in harm's way, presuming that His Father would rescue Him - again just to prove (to Satan and his angels) that He was indeed the Sonof God. He was tempted to avoid all the suffering - to take the easy way to power - by bowing down to Satan -- To give up His mission to save mankind. Satan's implication was "they're not worth it."

The Senate has stripped language from a House spending bill that would have stopped the Internal Revenue Service from revoking the tax-exempt status of non-profit organizations that engage in campaigning for political candidates. The post US Senate strikes Johnson Amendment repeal from spending bill appeared first on ReligiousLiberty.TV - Celebrating Liberty of Conscience. View the full article

I agree; so I'm on a level playing field with church "doctrine".

5 Things You Didn't Know About World War II On August 14, 1945, President Harry S. Truman announced that Japan had unconditionally surrendered to the Allies, ending World War II. You may know the major details of the war, but here are five things you probably didn't know about World War II. The Soviets and Japanese Didn't Formally Fight Until Just Before Japan Surrendered. Stalin's fight against Hitler in Europe is one of the more well-known aspects of the war, but what many people don't realize is that the Soviets didn't fight in the Pacific theater until August 8, 1945. The same month that the two atomic bombs were dropped on Japan, the Soviets finally declared war on Japan and invaded Manchuria, which had been under Japanese control. In fact, this declaration and invasion may have been the actual reasons that Japan finally surrendered. The two bombs, dropped on August 6 and August 9, devastated the cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, and the Japanese government did try to negotiate with the Allies. But the Japanese did not surrender unconditionally until August 14, and the Soviet invasion may have been the final straw. One Man Survived Both Atomic Blasts, and His Initial Exposure May Have Saved His Family. Whether Tsutomu Yamaguchi is a lucky or unlucky man is up to you, but there's no doubt he's one of the more amazing figures from the war. Yamaguchi was a naval engineer from Nagasaki who had been working in Hiroshima temporarily. Literally, on the day he was supposed to wrap up work in Hiroshima, the first atomic bomb fell. Yamaguchi survived and returned to Nagasaki but was burned so badly that his family in Nagasaki didn't recognize him. However, those burns may have saved his family. When the second bomb fell on Nagasaki—while Yamaguchi was in that city being berated by a superior who didn't believe that one bomb was responsible for what happened in Hiroshima—Yamaguchi's wife had taken their child out so they could look for burn ointment for Yamaguchi. All three survived, but part of the Yamaguchi house was destroyed. Had his wife and child been home, they might have been killed. Rationing in the U.K. and the United States Continued Well After the War. Food, clothing, and fuel were rationed heavily in the U.S. and U.K. during the war, with elaborate but useful points systems and rationing books used throughout the war. The end of the war brought a lot of relief, but it didn't end the rationing. The U.S. got relief first, with most goods coming off the rationing scheme in 1945 except for sugar. That didn't become a non-rationed good until 1947, though some areas were able to get more sugar earlier than that. The U.K. had to deal with rationing for a much longer time because much of its food stores and supplies now had to support the destroyed communities in mainland Europe. Clothes were rationed until 1949, and food rationing lasted until 1954—and in fact, it got worse after the war ended. German Troops Tried to Willingly Surrender to Allied Forces After V-E Day Instead of Evading Capture. If your side loses in a war, what do you want to do? Most likely, you want to make it home safely, but for German troops stuck behind Soviet lines after May 1945, the idea of simply heading home wasn't an option. They faced capture by the Soviets, who they knew would not be nice about it. The Soviets were likely to tear the troops apart. So, the Germans actually tried to find the Allies—the British and Americans—because surrendering to them brought a greater chance of being treated less violently. Britain and Argentina Nearly Got Into Their Own War Over Antarctic Territory. You don't hear much about Antarctica in World War II except rumors of a secret Nazi base (which were false rumors), but that continent was nearly the cause of a separate war between the U.K. and Argentina during WWII. Way back in 1904, the U.K. had let Argentina take over a station on the continent, but in WWII, the U.K. came back and asserted control over the area after Germans sent a boat to Antarctica. (However, there was later speculation that it had more to do with taking the region back from Argentina.) This angered the Argentinians, and the U.K. did not want things to escalate. But the country still sent a ship over and had the crew gradually claim more land and construct more bases. Amazingly, when the ship first encountered Argentinians, the Argentinians were in such tough conditions that they were happy to see the British.

I am not against finding out one day, that the Roman church IS the Harlot. I just believe we should consider all candidates. If we focus too narrowly on one suspect (like the RCC), we may miss the actual "harlot" of the prophecy. We will miss the true fulfillment, and worse, be deceived during the worst time in history. Those who dismiss any other suspect, because Ellen White identified the RCC as the Harlot, are saying that Ellen White was infallible - so we we need look no further. They usually make no other arguments to support their position, except to repeat EGW quotes. This is not good Bible study. Quoting EGW does not convince anyone but other SDAs. Which is why I appreciated SM's review of some history.

Daniel 12:4 "But thou, O Daniel, shut up the words, and seal the book, even to the time of the end: many shall run to and fro, and knowledge shall be increased." I personally believe "the time of the end" will be the final 42 months, during which the "two witnesses" will testify, while the trumpet judgments take place.

dgrimm60, it would seem that you fail to recognize that what you--dgrimm60--"believes" about the Bible is in fact nothing more than YOUR opinion, just like what I (Lone Ranger) and 8THDAYPRIEST and JOEMO and everyone else thinks is also OUR OPINION. The words of the Bible are just the words. What we believe those words are saying...is our opinion.

I do not agree with - your interpretation of those passages - on this point. Of course I "believe the Bible", but many prophecies did not come with ready interpretations. Thousands of years would reveal the fulfillment. END TIME prophecy may not be understood until we get there - to the "time of the end". Daniel was told to "shut up the book". Yes - I remember that Adventists believe "the time of the end" began in 1844. I don't agree I will post later concerning my own understanding, at this point.

Yes. And No. When one reads the Bible they form an opinion of what it is saying or what someone tells them it's saying. It's how we're built. We really have no other option for understanding anything, from Scripture to your microwave manual. Having formed an opinion we then act on that opinion, or understanding. So in one aspect the opinion is more important than the Bible, because the Bible is, really, words on a page, but how we understand those words is what makes a difference. This is where the Holy Spirit comes in. To "lead us into all understanding."

JoeMo, you make some very valid points. The Scriptures you quoted clearly do not fit the RCC. And very interesting info regarding the Saudi ports and cities.

from the "Chicago Declaration": Who writes up this sort of baloney? It reminds me of nonsensical writing —designed to sound virtuous and lofty to a stupefied reader, yet really making no sense at all.... Of course, the blank "five key success objectives" fit right into the nonsense... lol

I'm guilty of making an assumption.