The Beast of Revelation 13

[Michaeneu]

Paul's conversion served Satan's purpose, if he readily and willingly proclaimed something which looked spiritual, sounded truthful and was wrapped in love, why would anyone want to argue with that. What I find interesting is the fact that every time I say something about Paul that you disagree with you confirm you position with a text from Paul or Luke. And my compliment was not intended to be backhanded. I know you are inteligent and studied, I appreciate that (not backhanded).

If your complement was not backhanded then you should of held your peace and not say you wished I could always be unbiased. Actually I gave you and your company the opportunity to convict me of your paradigm strictly with the scriptures that you find acceptable but you simple weren’t able to overcome some basic testimony of Christ. So it simply is not true that I need Paul’s work to sustain my position, but my work proves Paul’s work is from Yahweh and not from Satan.

Michael

[wayfinder]

Michael, you are correct that the sins were placed upon the sacrifices, but not on the Passover lamb; therefore Yahweh either was the Passover lamb or the sacrificial lamb, but He could not be both. The Passover lamb was without spot or blemish (sinless) the sacrificial lamb was slain for the confessed sins of the nation. My understanding of this is that Yahweh, out High Priest, removes our confessed sins (1 John 1:9) and places them on the horns of the golden altar in the temple in heaven. He does this because He was found worthy to open the book with seven seals.

[Michaeneu]

Michael, you are correct that the sins were placed upon the sacrifices, but not on the Passover lamb; therefore Yahweh either was the Passover lamb or the sacrificial lamb, but He could not be both. The Passover lamb was without spot or blemish (sinless) the sacrificial lamb was slain for the confessed sins of the nation. My understanding of this is that Yahweh, out High Priest, removes our confessed sins (1 John 1:9) and places them on the horns of the golden altar in the temple in heaven. He does this because He was found worthy to open the book with seven seals.

Did you read Leviticus 4:27-28? The "sin offering" was to be without blemish. How do you interpret that?

Anyway it's time for a break; see ya tomorrow.

Michael

[wayfinder]

If it had a blemish it would not qualify to have any confessed sin placed on it before it was sacrificed, but before it was sacrificed it had the confessed sins on it, the Passover Lamb never did have any sin on it, it was sinless before, during and after execution. Christ is able to use His blood to move the confessed sins to the horns of the golden altar because he has purchased a kingdom with his blood.

Revelation 12:11 "And they overcame him because of the blood of the Lamb and because of the word of their testimony, and they did not love their life even when faced with death.

[Michaeneu]

If it had a blemish it would not qualify to have any confessed sin placed on it before it was sacrificed, but before it was sacrificed it had the confessed sins on it, the Passover Lamb never did have any sin on it, it was sinless before, during and after execution. Christ is able to use His blood to move the confessed sins to the horns of the golden altar because he has purchased a kingdom with his blood.

Revelation 12:11 "And they overcame him because of the blood of the Lamb and because of the word of their testimony, and they did not love their life even when faced with death.

You are either not explaining yourself very well or you are withholding something you feel hesitant to reveal. In your assertion, which was symbolic of Christ, the sacrificial lamb or the Passover lamb? And the one that wasn’t symbolic of Christ, who or what was it prefiguring?

Michael

[Guest]

Good question Michael

[Musicman1228]

The purpose of the Passover Lamb in Egypt was to purchase the firstborn FOR God. This was not limited to only the children of Abraham, but also for anyone from Egypt (or anywhere else for that matter) that demonstrated obedience to the command of God to put the blood of the Passover lamb on the door posts and lintel of the house. Also, this command did not include any 2nd son (or below), or any of the women and girls.

This delineates a specific group of people in the hierarchy of the redeemed - The Firstborn of the Kingdom. It is ONLY for this group that the blood of the Passover was shed.

This is separate and distinct from the sacrifice of the bull on the Day of Atonement, the blood of which was shed for the High Priest and his family. This is separate and distinct from the the Ram on the Day of Atonement, the blood of which was shed for the Priests. shown by the example of Abraham and Issac on Mr. Moria. This is not the same as the 'goat of the Lord', whose blood was shed for the camp of Israel. It is not the same as the 'goat of removal' that was released ALIVE into the wilderness, carrying the forgiven sins of the nation of Israel; as signified by the blood removed from the horns of the Alter of Incence.

ALL of this applies ONLY to the Kingdom of Heaven. The nations around Israel were not involved in this process at all. Given this; how are the nations saved? Nowhere in the description of the way in which the Kingdom is first established via the Passover lamb, or the way in which the sins of the Kingdom of Heaven are removed is there any mention of how the sins of the world are dealt with.

This was one of the big issues that Jesus Christ came to clarify for Israel. Israel have virtually shut off all contact with the outside world with respect to bringing other nations into the fold (so to speak). The leadership of Israel had settled on the policy of 'keeping the riff-raff out. One of the reasons they hated Jesus enough to want to kill Him was that Jesus was showing the other nations a way to become members of that very Kingdom that Israel was making exclusive.

To be saved, to enter the Kingdom your must first realize the significance of the the Passover lamb (which makes you a member). Then you must acknowledge the sacrifice that first cleanses you from sin, then removes that sin from you. For this to happen you must be in the Kingdom of Heaven (John 3:3,5). This is the gospel that Jesus spoke of in Matt. 24:14 - this is the gospel of the Kingdom.

[Michaeneu]

The purpose of the Passover Lamb in Egypt was to purchase the firstborn FOR God. This was not limited to only the children of Abraham, but also for anyone from Egypt (or anywhere else for that matter) that demonstrated obedience to the command of God to put the blood of the Passover lamb on the door posts and lintel of the house. Also, this command did not include any 2nd son (or below), or any of the women and girls.

This delineates a specific group of people in the hierarchy of the redeemed - The Firstborn of the Kingdom. It is ONLY for this group that the blood of the Passover was shed.

This is separate and distinct from the sacrifice of the bull on the Day of Atonement, the blood of which was shed for the High Priest and his family. This is separate and distinct from the the Ram on the Day of Atonement, the blood of which was shed for the Priests. shown by the example of Abraham and Issac on Mr. Moria. This is not the same as the 'goat of the Lord', whose blood was shed for the camp of Israel. It is not the same as the 'goat of removal' that was released ALIVE into the wilderness, carrying the forgiven sins of the nation of Israel; as signified by the blood removed from the horns of the Alter of Incence.

ALL of this applies ONLY to the Kingdom of Heaven. The nations around Israel were not involved in this process at all. Given this; how are the nations saved? Nowhere in the description of the way in which the Kingdom is first established via the Passover lamb, or the way in which the sins of the Kingdom of Heaven are removed is there any mention of how the sins of the world are dealt with.

This was one of the big issues that Jesus Christ came to clarify for Israel. Israel have virtually shut off all contact with the outside world with respect to bringing other nations into the fold (so to speak). The leadership of Israel had settled on the policy of 'keeping the riff-raff out. One of the reasons they hated Jesus enough to want to kill Him was that Jesus was showing the other nations a way to become members of that very Kingdom that Israel was making exclusive.

To be saved, to enter the Kingdom your must first realize the significance of the the Passover lamb (which makes you a member). Then you must acknowledge the sacrifice that first cleanses you from sin, then removes that sin from you. For this to happen you must be in the Kingdom of Heaven (John 3:3,5). This is the gospel that Jesus spoke of in Matt. 24:14 - this is the gospel of the Kingdom.

MM, you are not gifted in self expression. It is hard to grasp what you are saying. I’m not insulting you merely pointing out a fact. It doesn’t mean you are wrong or right only that you did not come across with anything easily comprehensible.

I don’t see how you expressed anything that covenant theology hasn’t expressed before. Under the OC Gentiles could be fully converted as Israelites, His church, sanctioned to keep all provision of the covenant. As obedient members they shall inherit the kingdom at Christ’s return.

“He that overcometh shall inherit all things; and I will be his God, and he shall be my son.” Rev. 21:7

Likewise under the NC Gentiles can be fully converted members of the church/Israel sanctioned to keep all provision of the covenant. The only thing that has changed was abolishment of the ceremonial laws that provoked enmity between the church/Israel and the Gentiles.

Regeneration was just as much a part of the OC; it was called circumcision of the heart and they were called to this regeneration. The NC expedites this with the coming of the Comforter, but no one enters the kingdom in either case without regeneration.

Where I see another facet of Christ’s atonement in the sacrificial Passover Lamb, I don’t see that Christ is not prefigured in the sin offerings that you mentioned. If you speak of another facet you need to explain yourself with greater clarity because you certainly have not made your point clear on your post.

As to being “in the kingdom of heaven” do you mean that practicing sinners can enter the KOH?

“If we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us. If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins, and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness. If we say that we have not sinned, we make him a liar, and his word is not in us.” 1 John. 1:8-10

“My little children, these things write I unto you, that ye sin not. And if any man sin, we have an advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous…” 1John 2:1

The object of overcoming is sin—in this age. Sanctification is a process of helping us to overcome sin, but that is a life time process, not a one time event and then we enter the kingdom of Yahweh. The latter happens only after we overcome the temptation to sin in this age and then when Christ returns the overcomers must put on the incorruptible bodies and then inherit the KOH.

Michael

[Guest]

Amen

[Musicman1228]

Michael,

Your inability to understand what I am saying may not be because I am not 'gifted' in self expression, but because what I am saying is so far out of you ken that it just doesn't make sense. I have written a book that is considered by many to be well written and very understandable, so go figure.

I have two questions for you related to your well done response:

Do you consider the Covenant/10 Commandments to be part of the ceremonial law?

and;

When did the OC officially become the NC?

I eagerly await your answers.

Now for a pun;

What was Boaz before he got married?

"Ruthless".

[Michaeneu]

Michael,

Your inability to understand what I am saying may not be because I am not 'gifted' in self expression, but because what I am saying is so far out of you ken that it just doesn't make sense. I have written a book that is considered by many to be well written and very understandable, so go figure.

I have two questions for you related to your well done response:

Do you consider the Covenant/10 Commandments to be part of the ceremonial law?

and;

When did the OC officially become the NC?

I eagerly await your answers.

Now for a pun;

What was Boaz before he got married?

"Ruthless".

I suppose your “two path theology” is out of my ken also? If that is in your well written book and easily understood it is only because its readers are blind about Israel’s unconditional covenant.

And this still doesn’t address your reluctance to confirm that the sin offerings prefigured Christ as well as the Passover lamb.

The Ten Commandments were not ceremonial.

And the OC didn’t become the NC. The Old Covenant lost its standing at the ratification of the New Covenant. The ratification was a process of seven years.

Michael

[Musicman1228]

Are the 10 Commandments included in the NC?

[John317]

And you don't believe what Paul wrote, that flesh and blood can't inherit the KOH?

"Flesh and blood" was a common term for sinful, mortal human beings. Paul is saying that humans must undergo a change-- the mortal must put on immortality-- before they can inherit the Kingdom of God. The JWs understand it to mean that physical beings can't go to heaven. They don't realize that at the Second Coming, humans are changed and given glorified, immortal bodies such as Christ has. Because of their understanding of this issue, they don't believe humans will go to heaven. For them the 144,000 alone go to heaven but as spirit beings. The JWs believe that after their deaths, the 144,000 are immediately resurrected as spirits and go right to heaven. Consequently they believe that Christ didn't have flesh after His resurrection as He said He did in Luke 24: 39. According to them, Jesus really was a spirit although He said He wasn't. This belief is the underlying reason they believe that Christ came invisibly in 1914 as spirit creature.

[John317]

Paul's conversion served Satan's purpose, if he readily and willingly proclaimed something which looked spiritual, sounded truthful and was wrapped in love, why would anyone want to argue with that. What I find interesting is the fact that every time I say something about Paul that you disagree with you confirm you position with a text from Paul or Luke. And my compliment was not intended to be backhanded. I know you are inteligent and studied, I appreciate that (not backhanded).

Speaking as moderator:

This subject belongs on the private thread. PLEASE.

If it keeps occurring and hijacks this and other threads, the posts that bring it up will be deleted without further comment.

A serious discussion of the relationship between Paul's theology and the teaching of Christ is fine but the association of Paul with Satan is getting old and tiresome.

[Musicman1228]

Originally Posted By: Michaeneu

And you don't believe what Paul wrote, that flesh and blood can't inherit the KOH?

"Flesh and blood" was a common term for sinful, mortal human beings. Paul is saying that humans must undergo a change-- the mortal must put on immortality-- before they can inherit the Kingdom of God. The JWs understand it to mean that physical beings can't go to heaven. They don't realize that at the Second Coming, humans are changed and given glorified, immortal bodies such as Christ has. Because of their understanding of this issue, they don't believe humans will go to heaven. For them the 144,000 alone go to heaven but as spirit beings. The JWs believe that after their deaths, the 144,000 are immediately resurrected as spirits and go right to heaven. Consequently they believe that Christ didn't have flesh after His resurrection as He said He did in Luke 24: 39. According to them, Jesus really was a spirit although He said He wasn't. This belief is the underlying reason they believe that Christ came invisibly in 1914 as spirit creature.

If human beings are made immortal at the Coming of Jesus Christ in the Clouds (commonly called the 2nd coming) then why is the Tree of Life in Heaven and on the New Earth, put there by God for the healing of the nations. Why does it produce fruit every month that people will eat regularly?

[John317]

If human beings are made immortal at the Coming of Jesus Christ in the Clouds (commonly called the 2nd coming) then why is the Tree of Life in Heaven and on the New Earth, put there by God for the healing of the nations. Why does it produce fruit every month that people will eat regularly?

Very good question.

While the gift of immortality keeps the saints from dying, it doesn't mean that instantly there will be no more effects of sin on the saints' minds and perhaps to some extent even on their bodies. We can't rightly estimate how damaging and devastating the experience of sin has been on us. People will need time and the tree of life to heal completely from the "sickness" of sin and of the experiences of this rebellious world. Even in heaven there will be room for growth, especially spiritually and mentally.

I'd be interested to know your beliefs about the timing of the saints receiving their immortality and the Bible evidence you base your belief on.

[Michaeneu]

Are the 10 Commandments included in the NC?

Yuppers

[Michaeneu]

Originally Posted By: Michaeneu

And you don't believe what Paul wrote, that flesh and blood can't inherit the KOH?

"Flesh and blood" was a common term for sinful, mortal human beings. Paul is saying that humans must undergo a change-- the mortal must put on immortality-- before they can inherit the Kingdom of God. The JWs understand it to mean that physical beings can't go to heaven. They don't realize that at the Second Coming, humans are changed and given glorified, immortal bodies such as Christ has. Because of their understanding of this issue, they don't believe humans will go to heaven. For them the 144,000 alone go to heaven but as spirit beings. The JWs believe that after their deaths, the 144,000 are immediately resurrected as spirits and go right to heaven. Consequently they believe that Christ didn't have flesh after His resurrection as He said He did in Luke 24: 39. According to them, Jesus really was a spirit although He said He wasn't. This belief is the underlying reason they believe that Christ came invisibly in 1914 as spirit creature.

John, I know you’re very busy and you’re probably not aware that we’ve moved past this in the sense that what the JW’s believe doesn’t preclude that Enoch is included in those who have died not receiving the promises and must wait until the rest of us receive the incorruptible reward: Hebrews 11.

“By faith Enoch was translated that he should not see death; and was not found, because God had translated him… These all died in faith, not having received the promises, but having seen them afar off, and were persuaded of them, and embraced them, and confessed that they were strangers and pilgrims on the earth…. 35Women received their dead raised to life again: and others were tortured, not accepting deliverance; that they might obtain a better resurrection, …. And these all, having obtained a good report through faith, received not the promise: God having provided some better thing for us, that they without us should not be made perfect.” Heb. 11: 5, 13, 39-40

The only thing that need be addressed, which I did, was how to interpret the phrase connected to Enoch, “that he should not see death”, in relation to “these all died in faith, not having received the promises.” (And of course I highlighted “a better resurrection” to verify the context includes the resurrection in those promises.) The only proper resolution is that the former phrase means the second death such as in the texts below.

“Verily, verily, I say unto you, If a man keep my saying, he shall never see death.” Jn. 8:51

“And whosoever liveth and believeth in me shall never die. Believest thou this?” Jn. 11:26

It is untenable to uphold that the former phrase means that Enoch never saw death and hold to the latter phrase that “these all died in faith, not having received the promises.” Enoch should not have been included in the list of these patriarchs if that latter phrase did not pertain to him also. And Moses is also included as one of the patriarchs that died in faith, not having received the promise also. Consequently, it becomes untenable to interpret the vision in Matthew 17 as anything but a preview of the future event after the return of Christ because Moses, Elijah and Enoch are not in paradise at this time but in the grave awaiting the promises when we all put on immortality.

And again, the JW’s are not the only ones that view Hebrews eviscerating any notion that Enoch was translated to paradise, the Church of God also interprets Hebrews the same way.

Michael

[Musicman1228]

Originally Posted By: Musicman1228

If human beings are made immortal at the Coming of Jesus Christ in the Clouds (commonly called the 2nd coming) then why is the Tree of Life in Heaven and on the New Earth, put there by God for the healing of the nations. Why does it produce fruit every month that people will eat regularly?

Very good question.

While the gift of immortality keeps the saints from dying, it doesn't mean that instantly there will be no more effects of sin on the saints' minds and perhaps to some extent even on their bodies. We can't rightly estimate how damaging and devastating the experience of sin has been on us. People will need time and the tree of life to heal completely from the "sickness" of sin and of the experiences of this rebellious world. Even in heaven there will be room for growth, especially spiritually and mentally.

I'd be interested to know your beliefs about the timing of the saints receiving their immortality and the Bible evidence you base your belief on.

So, John, sin is SOOO powerful that not even the awesome creative and restorative power of God cannot overcome it in an instant, in the blink of an eye, when the dead in Christ are raised incorruptible, and we join them in the air on our way to Heaven? I don't believe you actually mean that.

God has the power to create all of His beings as immortal, so why would He then need the Tree of Life in Heaven or the earth made new? The only reason that I can see is that some who attain to Heaven will need to eat of the Tree of Life in order to remain immortal. God created Adam and Eve as mortal beings because, again, they needed to eat of the Tree of Life to remain so. When they were ejected from the Garden and barred from the Tree of Life they eventually died.

It is my understanding that those that enter the Kingdom of Heaven PRIOR to the start of the Great Tribulation will become actual brothers and sisters of Jesus Christ and join the family of God. These are they that will live in the New Jerusalem when it comes down to earth permanently, and will have immortality in and of themselves. Those that live outside the City are identified as the 'Nations', those that need to eat of the Tree of Life.

By its light will the nations walk, and the kings of the earth will bring their glory into it, and its gates will never be shut by day—and there will be no night there. They will bring into it the glory and the honor of the nations. Rev.21:24-26.

Could be.

[Musicman1228]

Originally Posted By: Musicman1228

Are the 10 Commandments included in the NC?

Yuppers

Why would God need a 'new' Covenant that has the same requirements and stipulations as the 'old' Covenant? The implication that I have often seen expressed is that the Old Covenant was somehow faulty so God had to come up with a 'New and improved' Covenant to make it easier to be saved. If this is true then that means that God made a mistake because He didn't know from the foundation of the 'old' Covenant that it was faulty, thereby needing a 'new' Covenant later on to fix the problems with the 'old' one.

In computer parlance: Covenant 1.0 had some glitches which were repaired in Covenant 2.0, the better, updated version.

If God made a mistake like this can He be the true God?

The term 'new' in New Covenant means a renewed Covenant in a new location; in the heart and mind, not on tablets of stone. It does not mean a different Covenant than that of the original.

[oldsailor29]

Why would God need a 'new' Covenant that has the same requirements and stipulations as the 'old' Covenant? The implication that I have often seen expressed is that the Old Covenant was somehow faulty so God had to come up with a 'New and improved' Covenant to make it easier to be saved. If this is true then that means that God made a mistake because He didn't know from the foundation of the 'old' Covenant that it was faulty, thereby needing a 'new' Covenant later on to fix the problems with the 'old' one.

In computer parlance: Covenant 1.0 had some glitches which were repaired in Covenant 2.0, the better, updated version.

If God made a mistake like this can He be the true God?

The term 'new' in New Covenant means a renewed Covenant in a new location; in the heart and mind, not on tablets of stone. It does not mean a different Covenant than that of the original.

I think it is actually a new interpretation of the old covenant.

[Guest]

Heb 8:6 But now has he obtained a more excellent ministry, by how much also he is the mediator of a better covenant, which was established upon better promises.

Heb 8:7 For if that first covenant had been faultless, then should no place have been sought for the second.

[Twilight]

Heb 8:6 But now has he obtained a more excellent ministry, by how much also he is the mediator of a better covenant, which was established upon better promises.

Heb 8:7 For if that first covenant had been faultless, then should no place have been sought for the second.

This highlights the fact that a new covenant was given because man had broken the old covenant.

So the Lord made a new covenant that was not based on the promises of Man and God.

But on the promises of God alone.

Mark

[Musicman1228]

Richard, who wrote Hebrews? Do we know?

[Guest]

Does it matter?