The Beast of Revelation 13

[teresaq]

If the function of the Holy Spirit began at Penticost then what was the purpose of the Jesus giving the Holy Spirit to His disciples in the following verses:

Jesus said to them again, “Peace be with you. As the Father has sent me, even so I am sending you.”  And when he had said this, he breathed on them and said to them, “Receive the Holy Spirit. If you forgive the sins of anyone, they are forgiven; if you withhold forgiveness from anyone, it is withheld.” John 20:21-23.

If He gave the Holy Spirit to His disciples before He ascended to His Father the 2nd time (until His coming in the clouds) why would He need to give the Holy Spirit to them again on Penticost?

receiving the Holy Spirit isnt a one -time deal, unless one believes in once saved always saved.

and i guess it depends on what one thinks the Holy Spirit is for.

[Musicman1228]

If you have the correct understanding, why would it change? Time dosn't change truth into lies.

And visa-versa; time doesn't change lies into truth. What I am suggesting, Richard, is that some of the things we BELIEVED to be true all along have been from the beginning untrue. It is these things that cannot be changed from lies to truth no matter how long the time. Are you willing to bet your life that every single thing the SDA church has believed to be true from the beginning has in fact been true? Has there been nothing worth taking a second or third look at?

EGW initially believed the 'shut door principle' (Lovetts grove vision). Later she changed her mind (thankfully). Are you now saying that it is your opinion that she was wrong to have changed her mind on this issue because a new view of an already previously decided issue goes against the principle that no new truth will replace or change any established truth?

[Musicman1228]

Jesus answered him, “If anyone loves me, he will keep my word, and my Father will love him, and we will come to him and make our home with him. Whoever does not love me does not keep my words. And the word that you hear is not mine but the Father's who sent me. “These things I have spoken to you while I am still with you. But the Helper, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, he will teach you all things and bring to your remembrance all that I have said to you. John14:23-26.

And Jesus answered them, “See that no one leads you astray.   (5) For many will come in my name, saying, ‘I am the Christ,’ and they will lead many astray. Matt.24:4.

There are many places in the gospels where Jesus speaks of the values of HIS words. Jesus told His disciples that through the Holy Spirit THEY would remember everything that He spoke to them, so that they would be able to accurately reproduce those words for others to follow.

He also speaks of people who would use His words to twist their meanings and deceive many into believing that He said something He really didn't say. He warns against false prophets and apostles that will teach lies as if they are truth, claiming that this comes from Him.

We are sanctified by HIS words, not the words of ANYONE else. There are lots of people that would love for you to believe that they are speaking for Jesus Christ; the test is to compare what they say with what Jesus Christ said and if there is ANY difference at all you must reject the lie and the liar.

Yes, Ted, my understanding is that when Jesus spoke of His words being truth and life He meant HIS words and the words of no one else, because He knew that Satan would send other apostles and prophets as wolves in sheep's clothing to diminish His words and try to make them of non-effect. Satan has succeeded beyond measure in accomplishing that task because believers do not see the false shepherd leading them astray BECAUSE THEIR EYES ARE SHUT TIGHT. As Jesus said 'they are asleep'.

His disciples heard HIS words and accurately wrote them down because He said they would through the power of the Holy Spirit. He did not give this instruction to anyone else. He gave prophecy to Daniel and to John, so those are HIS words in those prophecies. He (Jesus) spoke words relating to the Kingdom of Heaven that He clearly meant to be understood as prophecy not just parable, and it is clear through His instructions to John in Rev.1:1-3 that these words were meant only for His Bondservants at the end of time.

The art of equivocation is taking something meant to be literal and making it philosophical or metaphorical. If you state that what Jesus said and/or what the prophets Daniel or John wrote has merely spiritual meaning and is not meant for any particular time in future/history then you are declaring God to be a God of disorder and confusion rather than a God or order and clarity.

Any person living or dead that through their words brings confusion and discord to what Jesus spoke is revealing their true nature, and that is not the nature of Jesus Christ.

[Guest]

There are many places in the gospels where Jesus speaks of the values of HIS words. Jesus told His disciples that through the Holy Spirit THEY would remember everything that He spoke to them, so that they would be able to accurately reproduce those words for others to follow.

[teresaq]

There are many places in the gospels where Jesus speaks of the values of HIS words. Jesus told His disciples that through the Holy Spirit THEY would remember everything that He spoke to them, so that they would be able to accurately reproduce those words for others to follow.

of which english translation?

sorry, couldnt resist. :smile:

[Ted Oplinger]

Originally Posted By: musicman

We are sanctified by HIS words, not the words of ANYONE else.

That's not what he said. If that were true, you may as well throw out the Old Testament also. You've already thrown out most of the New.

[Guest]

You're right Ted. Especially the part about setting themselves up as superior to all the Biblical scholars, and wise men of centuries past. If you ever see how they interpret the book of Revelation, you'll really see that to be true.

They say the woman of Revelation is the Holy Spirit, and not the church, and that the 2nd coming is a secret. (thief in the night) But the 3rd coming is the one every eye shall see.

[skyblue888]

And yet Jesus once said, "For all the law is fulfilled in one word, even in this, 'You shall love your neighbor as yourself.'" Galatians 5:14.

"Therefore, whatever you want men to do to you, do also to them, for this is the law and the prophets." Matt.7:12.

"His commandment is exceedingly broad." Psalm 119:96.

And "I know that His commandment is life everlasting." John 12:50.

So all that the law and the prohets are saying is summed up in one word. And that word is a promise for "That law of ten precepts of the greatest love that can be presented to man (summed up in one word) is the voice of God from Heaven speaking to the soul in promise." E.G.White, Bible Commentary, Vol.7a, p.37.

"And this is the promise that He has promised us--even eternal life." 1 John 1:25. "And now I plead with you lady, not as though I wrote a new commandment to you, but that which we have heard from the beginning: that we love one another." 2 John 1:5,6.

sky

[Musicman1228]

Richard said, "That's not what he said. If that were true, you may as well throw out the Old Testament also. You've already thrown out most of the New."

The O.T. contains the words of God just as does the N.T. Jesus is the God of the O.T. as well as being the God of the N.T. Where ever did you get the idea that I have or would throw out the O.T. I have NEVER said that.

As to the capability of words to sanctify, would you please tell me of anyone other than the words of God, the words of Jesus Christ, that CAN sanctify? I do not understand your obstinacy against acknowledging the supremacy of the words of Jesus Christ over the words of anyone else? I am a follower of Jesus Christ and as such He is my only source for truth. I am sorry this bothers you so much; in that you must truly be a Christian, because Christians often take the words from other sources as having scriptural authority even to the extent of saying that they supercede the words of Jesus if they were spoken by someone revered as much as Jesus.

The words in red are those that the editor believe that Jesus said. There are words in red in the writings of Paul that I know that Jesus never said, because Paul never heard them from Jesus in the flesh, and He did not say them to His own disciples. I acknowledge that the standard that I have set for myself with respect to what words I use as the standard for truth is quite high compared with what most Christians are willing to put up with. Most of them use whatever sounds good, whatever feels right, never bothering to find out if Jesus really in fact taught what those words are saying.

I am honest with myself and others when I say this, I am not making excuses for my understanding because I am sure from where my understanding comes - directly from the words of Jesus Christ through His own disciples. I refuse to accept the words of a counterfeit.

Richard said, "He was praying to the Father when he said that and referring to the word of God, which would be the whole Bible and himself."

Richard, this is a downright lie, and you should know better. Shame on you, because you have said this before and you still don't get it. I'm sorry but this makes me very angry. When Jesus quoted from the Scripture He was NOT QUOTING FROM THE WHOLE BIBLE as you have said. The whole Bible did not exist when Jesus was on earth. You had better get this right or you will be held accountable for blaspheme.

When Jesus was on earth the New Testament was not yet written. Jesus NEVER quoted from Paul, Luke, Peter John, or any other contemporary theologian. Jesus Christ IS GOD, and needs no other source other than Himself to teach the truth. He is the way, the truth, and the life. He is both the God of the O.T. and God in the New Testament. By making the claim that while He was here on earth He endorsed the New Testament as being the word of God is saying that He is responsible for everything in the N.T. whether it is true or not.

My friend, the N.T. is not the word of God. It contains the words of Jesus Christ who is God, but it never was and never will have the authority or Scriptural standing that is the Old Testament, no matter that it is held in that regard today by most Christians. Please go back and study the origins of the New Testament, who put it together and why. Find out who really wrote the books and who didn't. Read up on textual criticism and it's value in determining the accuracy and validity of the various versions that have been compiled into what we have today. If you will send me a PM with your address I will send you a copy of "The Spirit of the Church" which explains in detail the history of how the Bible was compiled.

The actual disciples of Jesus Christ are the only reliable witnesses to what Jesus said and taught. No one else has their perspective and their understanding of who Jesus is and what He taught. To use anyone other than Jesus Christ's words and teachings and the true writings of His eyewitnesses as the source for truth is to accuse Jesus of changing His message from the O.T. to the N.T. This He never did because He never authorized the New Testament, only human beings have done that. He also didn't forget to teach His disciples something that He then had to teach them later on after He left the earth for Heaven, and using an evil man to accomplish this. He is God and knew exactly what they needed to know, and He caused them to remember everything He said to them by the Power of His Holy Spirit. Jesus NEVER made a single mistake while He was here on earth, so why would He give a special message to someone who never knew Him, who's message was that Jesus Christ made a mistake in explaining salvation to His own disciples and had to tell this other person to explain it in a better way in order to correct the mistake.

When you say that Jesus needs someone else to explain what He really meant actually means you don't really believe Jesus meant to say what He said in the first place. Does this sound right to you? Everyone has the right to believe what they will, but no one has the right to tell Jesus that He didn't mean what He said while here on earth. To find the truth we MUST compare everything that anyone says against what Jesus Christ said, and be able then to judge what is true according to the extent of the difference.

By the way, happy Sabbath.

[Musicman1228]

Ted and Richard,

I just read your responses right after I posted mine, and I must say you both have a fine little self congratulatory club going. I guess this is why they call this site Club Adventist. Yep, I must be wrong because, by George, you must always be right. Wow, do I feel stupid.

It seems to me that even though you study your Bibles often, maybe even as much as you study EGW, you never come up with anything different than you already know. How is this possible? Nearly every time I open the Scriptures I see something different, something that I have never noticed before. But you guys must really have it nail down tight because you apparently don't find much if anything different than you have been taught to believe by the church. You study to confirm what you already know, you do not study to try to find out something that you don't yet know.

I don't know why this surprises me. After all both of you have written extensively that there will be no new truth that in any way does away with truth you already know. Tell me, isn't this a touch limiting in your ability to see outside the box that the church has created for you, into which you have put your God?

I guess I just don't understand the concept of self-delusion over self-honesty.

[Guest]

All those words just to sidestep the truth. You could have just not commented and had the same effect.

When I said Jesus was referring to the whole Bible, I meant the whole Bible as it existed at that time. That's why I said you may as well throw out the OT if you're saying nothing but the words of Jesus counts.

Jesus never wrote any words. And the accounts given of them are no more reliable than the ones you have thrown out, as Ted so succinctly pointed out.

I've already shown the flaws of such a position through addressing the same held by Dr. Rich, when he was frequenting these forums. This position, Richard, is fundamentally flawed. While such want dearly to cling to the Words of Christ, their treatment of Scripture won't allow it.

Christ Jesus never once left a transcript of His own writing, nor does He appear without fail to every generation to recount what He has spoken before. Every single Gospel is written decades after the fact, by the same method of inspiration as was the prophets and the apostle Paul: inspiration by the Holy Spirit.

However, to depend "solely on the words of Christ", while eliminating Paul's input into the NT, one must necessarily treat the Scriptures, and the Gospels in particular, outside the auspices of the inspiration by the Holy Spirit. Logically and consistently, the Gospels become this:

Matthew cannot be regarded as authentic with regard to Christ's words, as Matthew appears nine chapters into the Gospel bearing his own name. Hence, Matthew's account of the Sermon of the Mount, Christ's cleansing of the leper, and Christ's healing of the centurion's slave all are not even first hand thoughts. Cooroboration may be found in Mark and Luke, but these are worse sources.

Mark cannot be regarded as authentic, as John Mark was not an eyewitness to the events, neither was he a direct disciple. At best, John Mark was but a young child during Christ's walk among us. At best, one may try to support Mark by saying (correctly) that John Mark wrote as Peter's penman - but the directness of Christ's words is still separated by at leat 2 people and 2 decades of time.

Luke cannot be regarded as authentic, as he was a Gentile, and also not one of the original disciples. All his references to Christ's words are at the very best third hand, just like John Mark's. Furthemore, it would appear he falsified Pentecost as the appearance to the Holy Spirit, in contrast to a reading (held by Musicman) in John's Gospel. Thus, Luke cannot be trusted as a source for Christ's Words.

John must be regarded as suspect, as he is found fundamentally supporting much of Paul's theology. What true apostle would be found supporting the theology of a false apostle? Further, he wrote his Gospel ~50+ yrs after the events of Christ's life, death, and resurrection/ascension. Humanly speaking, there is the distinct possibility of false memories and forgotten memories in such a case.

In trying to go solely by the Words of Christ, one is left without the Words of Christ by matter of consistent and logical deduction based upon how one handles the rest of Scripture, which is declared to be given by inspiration by the Holy Spirit.

In every case, the words of Christ come as written through the filter of other men. Logically, they are not Christ's direct Words. Being the words of men taught to be the Words of Christ, it is disingenous to say they are the direct words of Christ, as there is conveniently no record of Christ's writings to compare to.

If we, on the other hand, put inspiration via the Holy Spirit back into the process, then even today, Christ's promise of the Holy Spirit to guide us into all truth becomes real, and Christ can speak His words directly to us, whether through the Scriptures (99.99% of the time), or through dreams, visions, and plain-speaking. But doing so means to accept the prophets and Paul as authentic inspiration from the Holy Spirit.

However, extending this process to only a limited few Bible personalities is Scripturally untenable. One then begins the process of treating the Scriptures as one would a bufffet line - picking and choosing only those sections agreeable to one's tastes. One cannot choose to accept the Holy Spirit for the apostles, but not for Paul, who also bore the apostolic gift, according the the agreement of both Peter and church leaders coming in the centuries after.

Finally, such a treatment of the Scriptures in such a manner(especially with respect to Paul), means one must set their mind up as superior to all the Biblical scholars, and wise men of centuries past, who saw to the Canonization and support process as to the tenor of the various books as a whole. All were much closer to the histories of the New Testament than the recent student could ever hope to be.

It's only a recent phenomena (within the last 300 years) that there's been a concerted effort to destroy Paul's ministry and contributions in the Bible.

Paul's writings to our justification, sanctification, and righteousness of Christ as being in Christ would carry the Reformation of God's church to its conclusion.

A certain denomination in the lands of Italy has a very vested interest in keeping those thoughts suppressed, to further its own works + faith method of salvation and justification. Furthermore, that entity has a decide history in picking and choosing what it will of Scripture. Could this be the source of such a school of thought?

For this thought process against Paul as a true apostle did not appear until after Martin Luther used Paul's writings as Sola Scriptura evidence one is justified solely by faith...

Later,

_________________________

The one and only Iron Deacon

[Ted Oplinger]

Ted and Richard,

I just read your responses right after I posted mine, and I must say you both have a fine little self congratulatory club going. I guess this is why they call this site Club Adventist. Yep, I must be wrong because, by George, you must always be right. Wow, do I feel stupid.

[Guest]

I must be wrong because, by George, you must always be right. Wow, do I feel stupid.

Don't be so hard on yourself musicman, we've all been wrong at some time or another.

[Musicman1228]

Richard said, "He was praying to the Father when he said that and referring to the word of God, which would be the whole Bible and himself."

Then Richard said,"When I said Jesus was referring to the whole Bible, I meant the whole Bible as it existed at that time. That's why I said you may as well throw out the OT if you're saying nothing but the words of Jesus counts."

What you said the first time IS NOT what you said the second time. You did not qualify the phrase 'whole Bible' in your first statement, and when I called you on it you then backtracked and changed your comment in the second statement. So, which is it? If it is the first statement then you obviously disagreed with my statement that the OT was the only Scripture Jesus used while He was here on earth. If it is the second then you do agree with me about the OT, which then makes the second part of your statement meaningless.

Richard said, "Jesus never wrote any words. And the accounts given of them are no more reliable than the ones you have thrown out, as Ted so succinctly pointed out."

This indicates to me that either you have not read the words of Jesus sufficient to know what He actually said about this to His disciples, or you have read what He said and you just don't believe Him. The fact that Jesus never wrote any of His own words down is absolutely immaterial to the validity of what He said to those who were His eyewitnesses. He guaranteed the accuracy of His words to us through the Holy Spirit, through the eyewitness disciples-and NO ONE else. Let me refresh you memory:

These things I have spoken to you while I am still with you. But the Helper, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, he will teach you all things and bring to your remembrance all that I have said to you. John 14:25-26.

You have just stated that the accounts of the words of Jesus Christ as written by the disciples that He said would remember everything that He said to them (by the power of the Holy Spirit) are of no greater value than the words that non eyewitnesses that also quoted Jesus said. By doing this you have called the Holy Spirit incapable of giving the disciples accurate memories of His words, and you have thus called Jesus a liar for saying that the words these disciples remembered were not His exact words.

You must come to grips with this dualism. Either Jesus meant what He said or He didn't. If He didn't mean it then He lied in saying that His disciples would remember everything accurately. If He did mean it then you have said that you just don't care if His disciples did exactly remember His words, you will still hold the words of the non eyewitnesses as equal too (having the same theological value as) the words of the eyewitnesses. Are you sure this is what you really want to do? If Jesus trusted His own disciples to write His words accurately in their gospels (Matthew, Mark for Peter, and John) then why won't you trust them?

[Guest]

He guaranteed the accuracy of His words to us through the Holy Spirit, through the eyewitness disciples-and NO ONE else.

I'm sorry, I must have skipped right over the part of that text in Jn 14 where it says: and NO ONE else. Let me go back and look.........Wait a minute, it's not there. Those are your words. You are putting your words in Jesus' mouth. Isn't that blasphemus?

Could it be that Jesus knew there would come a time when we would need to remember his words, along with other words of scripture? Could it be that he was talking not only for the benifit of the twelve disciples, but also for his disciples all the way down to the end of the age?

That would make a lot more sense.

Now all these things happened to them as examples, and they were written for our admonition, upon whom the ends of the ages have come. 1Cr 10:11

[Musicman1228]

Originally Posted By: musicman

He guaranteed the accuracy of His words to us through the Holy Spirit, through the eyewitness disciples-and NO ONE else.

I'm sorry, I must have skipped right over the part of that text in Jn 14 where it says: and NO ONE else. Let me go back and look.........Wait a minute, it's not there. Those are your words. You are putting your words in Jesus' mouth. Isn't that blasphemus?

Could it be that Jesus knew there would come a time when we would need to remember his words, along with other words of scripture? Could it be that he was talking not only for the benifit of the twelve disciples, but also for his disciples all the way down to the end of the age?

That would make a lot more sense.

Now all these things happened to them as examples, and they were written for our admonition, upon whom the ends of the ages have come. 1Cr 10:11

Take a look at the passage again:

These things I have spoken to you while I am still with you. But the Helper, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, he will teach you all things and bring to your remembrance all that I have said to you. John 14:25-26.

Would not this first sentence which Jesus spoke be a direct indication to whom and about whom He was speaking? So when He says that the Holy Spirit will cause YOU to remember everything, and will teach YOU all things, would that not be specifically addressed to His own disciples, and would that not be about what He taught them while He was still with them? If that is not what that passage says then I must be missing something.

The "no one else" specifically addresses this issue. My understanding is that Jesus was making a guarantee through the Holy Spirit that the things His own disciples wrote concerning what Jesus said would be protected words and information. Jesus knew then that His disciples would write gospels that would relate what it was He said to them (and taught them), and would faithfully, truthfully and accurately give His direct witness and testimony.

Jesus went to a lot of trouble to guarantee that His words and teachings would be truthfully remembered by His disciples and carefully written down through the power of the Holy Spirit. So in order to protect that testimony Jesus saw to it that Satan would not be able to change or replace that testimony with lies of his own. Jesus maintained complete control over the content of His own message down through the ages; from when He said it, to when the disciples wrote it, to when it was included in the NT, and through all of the translations and copies that brought it to us in it's present form. If this didn't happen, if we cannot rely on those words of Jesus Christ as brought to us by that chain of evidence, then we truly might just give up and go out and do our own thing, because all would be for nothing.

However, I am not saying for a minute the Satan did not have the opportunity to respond to this issue. While he could not touch the words of Jesus Christ because of the protections put in place by God this does not mean that Satan did not use all of his power of deception to put lies in the same place wherein was the truth of Christ. This is the meaning of the prophecy of the Wheat and the Tares.

The NT was put together by the Catholic church in 325 CE. And while Satan could to nothing about the testimony of Jesus Christ as given in the gospels of His own disciples he could and did put into this new document his own gospel of lies through his own writers that if believed would negate and make of non-effect the testimony of the Spirit of Truth. That is exactly what he did and that is exactly what the result was. Today most Christians believe the lie brought by Satan over the truth brought by Jesus Christ. And if you tell them about it they rail against you as being anti-Christ, this being the result that Satan was looking for-diluting the words of Jesus Christ and convincing believers that white is black and black is white.

You may certainly go your own way in this, as is your prerogative. But I cannot and will not allow Satan to replace the actual words of Jesus Christ with words that bear no resemblance to that truth in my life. If this seems a little harsh to you then so-be-it. I will base my salvation only on the words and teachings of Jesus Christ.

[Guest]

You're free to do whatever. But don't tell me that when Jesus said that, that he was saying to exclude all other prophets and apostles. That's not what he said.

I'm not saying he didn't speak the words, I'm saying he knew his words would be used by me and others also. So he was not speaking exclusively to the twelve.

[Musicman1228]

Were you with Jesus when He said them? If not then they were not addressed to you, or to anyone that was not actually with Him. If what He said was meant for everyone then how would He be able to be sure everyone would say exactly the same thing He said?

[Dr. Rich]

First-Ted, I read a few posts ago you mentioned me and I will now respond to what you wrote in a wonderful way.

As you went through the books of the NT, when you got to John you failed to see in Chapters 14, 15, 16 & 17 that Jesus was only talking to His own disciples--the ones that were eyewitnesses to His ministry. In John 14:26 Jesus told THEM that the Holy Spirit would cause them to REMEMBER everything that He told them.

The word "Remember" should be looked up in a dictionary to understand what was said. Lawyers use the words: "do you recall" for the word 'remember'. It means that you have heard it once already from Jesus personally, and now the Holy Spirit is causing you to recall the EXACT words that Jesus said.

Personally, I find or found that this verse may be one of the most important verses in the entire New Testament! It certainly lays a solid foundation for everything that was written down later by the eyewitnesses.

John 17 is also one of my favorite chapters in the NT. Again, Jesus was only with His disciples. He gave credit to His Father for giving them to Him in verse 11. As you read here, He prays to His Father for them. But, in verse 20 we see another very important verse, equal to John 14:26 perhaps on how to understand the value of eyewitness testimony. We see that Jesus is now praying for those who believe in Jesus and His word FROM reading the words that these eyewitnesses wrote.

In verse 23 we see that Jesus prayed that the whole world may know that the Father sent Jesus to testify for the Father because of the words the eyewitnesses would write so that you and I could read them.

John 16: 26-27 shows that the Holy Spirit (now called the "Comforter" (a job a mother usually takes on), will cause the eyewitnesses to testify (bear witness) because they have been with Jesus from the beginning [of His ministry].

One more thing: Ted wrote that John wrote many things that agree with what Paul wrote--which I find is true. But then he misapplies this to mean that Paul's words are equal in value as John's.

Would this then mean if I could show you many things on a counterfeit 20 dollar note with the same markings as on a real 20 dollar note that they would be equal in value? Satan is not called the great deceiver for nothing!

[Dr. Rich]

I forgot something I think critical to this issue. IF we only had the words of Jesus given to us by the eyewitnesses and NOTHING else was in the New Testament--nor in words of so called 'new prophets'--what would be the difference today? You can think on that and tell me later. Would followers of Jesus have more unity?

[Guest]

Were you with Jesus when He said them? If not then they were not addressed to you, or to anyone that was not actually with Him. If what He said was meant for everyone then how would He be able to be sure everyone would say exactly the same thing He said?

I'm pretty sure he knew his words would be written in a book. Nothing in the text says: These words are exclusive. Just for you guys.

No that's only in your head musicman. The usual presumption, conjecture, and speculation that I've learned to expect from you.

[Guest]

Oh and Dr. Rich, you remember words you read too. That's why we are to study the scriptures, because if we never put it in our mind in the first place, how can the HS bring it back to our mind.

[Dr. Rich]

RH--Yep, I agree, that is why John 17:20 is so important! Problem is, Paul, Luke and the unknown writer of Hebrews didn't have the opportunity you and I now have--to read words given to us by the eyewitnesses.

As for the book of Daniel, since God said that it would not be understood by anyone until the last generation and then only by the wise--and I believe what God said is true--then IF we are in the last generation now (I believe we are), then someone out there will know things that NO ONE before knew and wrote about. Could be, this NEW information will be much different that what we all have learned from past generation writers?

As for the book of Revelation, since it too is meant to be understood at a specific time--that being the last generation too--(verses 1-3), Couldn't these WISE people found in Daniel 12:10 have NEW information that would not necessarily agree with what writers in past generations wrote who caused many to form unwavering opinions?

Please be honest with yourselves--if the above could be true, then could it be wrong (even a sin), to make fun of those who just might be the WISE who are providing NEW information? At lest, don't you think it would be wise to check out the information a little more seriously?

[Musicman1228]

Originally Posted By: Musicman1228

Were you with Jesus when He said them? If not then they were not addressed to you, or to anyone that was not actually with Him. If what He said was meant for everyone then how would He be able to be sure everyone would say exactly the same thing He said?

I'm pretty sure he knew his words would be written in a book. Nothing in the text says: These words are exclusive. Just for you guys.

No that's only in your head musicman. The usual presumption, conjecture, and speculation that I've learned to expect from you.

IF these words of Jesus Christ are exclusive to His disciples would that not change your impression as to the relative importance of their testimony and that of anyone else (hypothetically speaking, of course).

And by the way, I've seen plenty of presumption, conjecture and speculation on your part (and the part of others) concerning your pet paradigms. 'Solid proof' is an oxymoron when there are a variety of approaches used to define truth. There is only ONE approach that can always lead to the real truth, and that approach is the one Jesus Christ used; The Words of the Father as given to the Son, and the Holy Spirit. There is NO truth outside of that paradigm that can be guaranteed to be valid.

[Guest]

I know that nowhere in Jesus' words was the command to ignore or do away with his prophet and apostle Paul, who Jesus personally called and instructed on the road to damascus. He also gave a vision to Ananias and instructed him to go and help Saul/Paul since Jesus had struck him blind with his brightness.