The Beast of Revelation 13

[Dr. Rich]

First, where do you see any 'presumption'?

Second, the word 'nonsense' means that someone does NOT understand. Prophecy found in Daniel 12 and Revelation 1 provide ample evidence that NONE of the wicked will understand and will also think the truth is nonsense. (I couldn't agree more! The truth to the wicked is nonsense to them!)

[Guest]

Everything, everyone or anyone other than these cause confusion and misinformation

Presumption and falsehood = Nonsense

[Dr. Rich]

WHAT? Are you saying that there is NO confusion in the world today?

Are you saying that Muslims and Christians and Jews all agree with spiritual issues and they way people are saved? Now I find what YOU believe to be nonsense!

[Guest]

They are not confused because of listening to God's true prophets, and apostles like your cohort implied here.

[Musicman1228]

Why are you so against the words and teachings of Jesus Christ? This is one of the proofs that Christians are not necessarily followers of Jesus Christ. Christianity was invented by a human being not by Jesus Christ. Jesus did not come to begin a church, He came to establish His Kingdom. The Kingdom that He began in 1437 BCE at Sinai rejected Him in 30 CE.

[Dr. Rich]

But Musicman, don't you remember that the Jews were not the ones that were confused? Didn't they say that Jesus was the one that was confused? Even Peter thought that Jesus was confused at one time--right?

So why is it so hard to understand why Richard believes that the words of Jesus are confusing? After all, didn't he say that he needs the words from others to understand what Jesus said?

[Musicman1228]

I guess.

[Guest]

No I didn't say that Rich, those are your words. What was that you said about having a lie in your mouth?

Jesus did not come to begin a church,

[Dr. Rich]

RH, I was asking a question in my last post. I will go back, but if I recall it was you who said that the writer of Romans and the writer of the GC were given to us to help us understand more clearer the words of Jesus. Didn't you write something like this earlier? (Got you on the stand now so be careful)

[Guest]

So why is it so hard to understand why Richard believes that the words of Jesus are confusing? After all, didn't he say that he needs the words from others to understand what Jesus said?

I never said anything even similar to that, go wash your mouth out Rich.

However EGW's writings do cast light on the scriptures, but I never said I needed her words to understand anything.

[Musicman1228]

Originally Posted By: Dr. Rich

So why is it so hard to understand why Richard believes that the words of Jesus are confusing? After all, didn't he say that he needs the words from others to understand what Jesus said?

I never said anything even similar to that, go wash your mouth out Rich.

However EGW's writings do cast light on the scriptures, but I never said I needed her words to understand anything.

So Richard, are you actually agreeing with me that all we need are the words of Jesus Christ to find the Truth?

[Guest]

I believe we need the whole Bible. Why would I limit myself like you have.

[Musicman1228]

So, you are saying that the words of Jesus are secondary to the words of other writers in the Bible?

[Guest]

No, not at all. I'm saying there is no need for me to throw away part of my Bible.

[Dr. Rich]

So Richard, Who did Jesus die for? The UN-Godly or the Righteous? One writer has Jesus saying that He died for the Righteous and another writer has Jesus dying for the UN-Godly.

So tell me, which of these writers would have more authority? Or would you say they are both equal in value?

Also, one writer has sin entering this world by one man and another writer has sin entering by Satan, the father of all lies. Which writer would you give more authority to?

[Guest]

Give the verse where sin entered by Satan.

[Dr. Rich]

Answer the question(s) first.

[Guest]

There is no verse.

Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned:

Rom 5:12

[Dr. Rich]

You still didn't answer the question(s). But I will give you a hint--who was it that deceived Eve and got Adam to sin? This being was the one who brought sin to this world. You can find this in the OT and in the words of Jesus. Now go search.

[Musicman1228]

You are of your father the devil, and your will is to do your father's desires. He was a murderer from the beginning, and has nothing to do with the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he lies, he speaks out of his own character, for he is a liar and the father of lies. John 8:44.

How you are fallen from heaven, O Day Star, son of Dawn! How you are cut down to the ground, you who laid the nations low! You said in your heart, ‘I will ascend to heaven; above the stars of God I will set my throne on high; I will sit on the mount of assembly in the far reaches of the north; I will ascend above the heights of the clouds; I will make myself like the Most High.’ But you are brought down to Sheol, to the far reaches of the pit. Isa.14:12-15.

In Hebrew the word 'chalash' (Strong's 2522) means to prostrate; by implication, to overthrow, decay:--discomfit, waste away, weaken.

How would Satan have done that to the nations? (Notice; this word IS NOT used in Gen. 2 account when the fall of Adam and Eve is described. My understanding is that the fall of the nations occurred before the fall of Adam and Eve.)

Satan brought sin to the world, and the nations and Adam and Eve fell (Chalash) for it.

[Guest]

Does that mean you don't don't use Gen 2 then?

[Musicman1228]

Richard, if you are going to comment then say something worthwhile. You don't need to try so hard to shoot holes in my understanding of Scripture. Everyone on the forum is already aware of your feelings about my theology, so just ease off. A question was asked about who brought sin into the world; I answered it from my understanding. I issued proofs from Scripture and drew my conclusion. That's it. If you disagree with those conclusions then respond to that, don't pull us into a direction into which we no longer need to go. (In other words; you can throw the bait but I won't bite. I know it is kind of a 'fishy' reply, but I am just trying to keep it 'reel'.)

[Guest]

I asked you a simple question. A simple yes or no would have sufficed. It is a valid, logical, question since I know that you already disregard large portions of scripture. I'm trying to find out just where you stand on this. So I will ask again. Do you disregard Gen 2???

[Dr. Rich]

Richard, I see that MM 'bailed' you out because you couldn't find the verses. So tell me now--answer the question. Which writer do you give a higher value--the writer of Romans or the eyewitness of Jesus? If you can't answer this perhaps it is confusing. Either Jesus died for the UN-Godly (those that don't believe in God) or for the Righteous.

Either one man brought sin to the world or Satan brought sin to the world. Now make your choice.

[Guest]

It's not an either or question. Satan had it with him when he got here, but by one man it entered into the human race. Had he not sinned, we wouldn't have a sin problem, and Jesus wouldn't have had to die. But he died for all.

For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God; Rom 3:23

As it is written, There is none righteous, no, not one: Rom 3:10

Every one of them is gone back: they are altogether become filthy; there is none that doeth good, no, not one. Psa 53:3