The Beast of Revelation 13

[John317]

... who wrote Hebrews? Do we know?

Do we know who wrote Deut. 34: 5-12?

How about Joshua, Judges, and Ruth?

Esther?

Do we know who wrote 2 Samuel?

How about who wrote 1 and 2 Kings and 1 and 2 Chronicles?

Can you show proof of who wrote them? But does it matter?

Can you show proof of who wrote Revelation? Not all scholars believe it was written by John the Beloved. Same with 2 John and 3 John.

[Guest]

My point excactly.

[John317]

Why would God need a 'new' Covenant that has the same requirements and stipulations as the 'old' Covenant? ...

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.

What was the Old Covenant, and when and how was it ratified?

Can a covenant be changed or added to after its ratification?

[Musicman1228]

Of course it matters, unless you are in the habit of believing anything that anyone says: if that is the case I have a bridge I'd like to sell you in the desert, cheap. The Old Testament has been established as having the authority of God by Jesus Christ Himself because He used the Old Testament (The Law, the Prophets and the Psalms) to counterattack directly against Satan and the his henchmen, the leadership of the Jews.

He gave His own disciples the authority to tell His story as His representatives on the earth for not only their time but for all time.

Jesus did not give that authority to anyone else, possibly including the writer of Hebrews, who remains unidentified to this day.

There is a story about a witness who's credibility was being challenged in court. The challenging attorney asked the witness, "What color was the building?" The witness answered, "The side I could see was light blue." That statement authenticated the witness because he didn't say the whole building was light blue, only the side he could see.

You can choose to say that the whole building (the Bible) is the same color by faith, but unless you can see the entire building you will never know for sure. Maybe Hebrews was written by an authentic apostle and maybe not, right now I just don't know. I am not going to assume that it was and risk the consequences if it was not. If it can be proven that it was written by one of the eyewitnesses of Jesus then that will be a different story.

[Guest]

Jesus did not give that authority to anyone else,

According to you he didn't. That and 55 cents will still get you a pepsi in some places. I don't see where he said: This is only for you guys. God can show anything he wants to, to whomever he will. The exclusivness belongs only to the gospel according to musicman. Thank God I don't have to find my way by that.

[Michaeneu]

Originally Posted By: Michaeneu

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' date=' 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. [/quote']

I think it is fairly evident of why there was a need of a better covenant and why the old one was imperfect: the bases of the old one was the promises of the Messiah to come and its ministration was limited in scope, which limited the ingathering of the Gentiles. The new one is based upon the better promises, upon the risen Messiah and that there is no more need of a limited ministration in an appointed place of worship, which facilitates the gathering the Gentiles and/or Ephraim.

The covenants were advanced by a family tribe and then stepped up to a nation and in this age furthered by universal ecclesiastical entity that knows no bounds. Of course the latter is also being sifted by the nations and that has its advantages also. Can you tell me what they are?

Michael

[Michaeneu]

Of course it matters, unless you are in the habit of believing anything that anyone says: if that is the case I have a bridge I'd like to sell you in the desert, cheap. The Old Testament has been established as having the authority of God by Jesus Christ Himself because He used the Old Testament (The Law, the Prophets and the Psalms) to counterattack directly against Satan and the his henchmen, the leadership of the Jews.

He gave His own disciples the authority to tell His story as His representatives on the earth for not only their time but for all time.

Jesus did not give that authority to anyone else, possibly including the writer of Hebrews, who remains unidentified to this day.

There is a story about a witness who's credibility was being challenged in court. The challenging attorney asked the witness, "What color was the building?" The witness answered, "The side I could see was light blue." That statement authenticated the witness because he didn't say the whole building was light blue, only the side he could see.

You can choose to say that the whole building (the Bible) is the same color by faith, but unless you can see the entire building you will never know for sure. Maybe Hebrews was written by an authentic apostle and maybe not, right now I just don't know. I am not going to assume that it was and risk the consequences if it was not. If it can be proven that it was written by one of the eyewitnesses of Jesus then that will be a different story.

What really matters is does what the author wrote conform to the prophets and what Christ pronounced. Unfortunately you have not been able to prove the contrary, MM, for Hebrews or Romans. Your failure to grasp the truth about Israel’s covenant has tainted your outlook of Paul, Luke and etc. With such a foundation it is impossible to rely upon your opinion of the matters.

Michael

[John317]

Of course it matters, unless you are in the habit of believing anything that anyone says...

You seem to be implying that virtually all Christians since the first century have been in the habit of believing anything anyone says. The books of the NT are writings that the early church generally accepted as authoritative. That includes the book of Hebrews. See: http://www.ligonier.org/blog/2009/04/top-5-commentaries-on-the-book-of-hebrews.html

Are you saying that you would believe the book of Hebrews if it had a name attached to it? Would you accept it if the author was determined to be Apollos or Barnabas?

The examples in the Old Testament show us that it's not essential for Scripture to have the name of the human author attached to it. The authority of those books-- either in the Old or the New Testaments-- does not derive primarily from our certainty as to the name of the authors.

If you really want to go down the road of textual criticism, you would be hard pressed to prove that many of Jesus' words as recorded in the Gospels are genuine sayings. A great many modern scholars have cut the gospels up into small pieces and believe that very little in the Gospels are truly the words of Christ. Are you familiar with the "Jesus Seminar"? It reduces the legitimate sayings of Jesus to a small portion. I do not believe their conclusions but that is what happens when people today start using their "independent," critical human reasoning to decide what is inspired and what isn't.

[Musicman1228]

John said, "The books of the NT are writings that the early church generally accepted as authoritative."

What does 'generally accepted" mean? We know that time does not change human nature, or change lies into truth. Does the fact that a 'book of the NT' is 1900 odd years old make that book more certainly truthful just because of it's age? Are we not to be discerning people, comparing these books or writings against some recognizable standard? And what should that standard be? From my viewpoint that most authoritative standard is the words of Jesus as recorded by the eyewitnesses to the speaking of those words; the disciples of Jesus Christ. And the reason that I KNOW without a doubt that those words are true is because Jesus said they were true. There are key sentences (signature sayings) that Jesus Christ spoke that can only have come from the mind and mouth of God; earthly humans could not have said those things, only God could.

Example; In Matt 24 the disciples asked Jesus about what was going to happen in what they thought would be the near future vis a vis the details of the end of time. A human would have begun speaking about the things that would happen in the order in which they would occur. On the other hand Jesus did not begin by doing this; He said, "See to it that no one deceive you." Now why would anyone say that. It doesn't make sense given the questions that they asked Jesus. But Jesus proves that He is God by making the above statement because He KNEW that they would be deceived. He then told them how that would occur; false Christ's and false apostles would come claiming that He sent them and they would fool many. This is a prophecy that has come true, so this not only proves Jesus is God, but that He is also a prophet. Only God could do this, only God would say these things.

Therefore, Jesus is God. So when Jesus says something and someone else says something different then I am going with what Jesus said. If this happens too often I am going to question the validity of the person claiming to be 'of Christ' and put them aside. Jesus gave me personally the instruction to 'not be deceived'. If making Jesus my all in all in so far as truth is concerned means leaving behind some that desire to claim His prerogatives the that is exactly what I must do. To do less would mean denying Jesus Christ, which I cannot do.

Why is it so uncomfortable for you to allow me to believe in Jesus Christ in this manner?

[Guest]

I wonder who MM could possibly be throwing off on? What a mystery, who can figure it out?

[John317]

And the reason that I KNOW without a doubt that those words are true is because Jesus said they were true.

How can you be certain that the historical Jesus said those words? What proof do you have that He actually said that they were true? Do you believe it just because they are in the Gospel of Matthew?

Quote:

There are key sentences (signature sayings) that Jesus Christ spoke that can only have come from the mind and mouth of God; earthly humans could not have said those things, only God could.

Example; In Matt 24 the disciples asked Jesus about what was going to happen in what they thought would be the near future vis a vis the details of the end of time. A human would have begun speaking about the things that would happen in the order in which they would occur. On the other hand Jesus did not begin by doing this; He said, "See to it that no one deceive you." Now why would anyone say that. It doesn't make sense given the questions that they asked Jesus. But Jesus proves that He is God by making the above statement because He KNEW that they would be deceived. He then told them how that would occur; false Christ's and false apostles would come claiming that He sent them and they would fool many. This is a prophecy that has come true, so this not only proves Jesus is God, but that He is also a prophet. Only God could do this, only God would say these things.

Therefore, Jesus is God. ....

I believe He is God but not because he spoke those words. I believe it on the basis of all the prophetic and historical evidence contained in the entire Bible.

[Musicman1228]

Good for you, John. You have your requirements for your understanding and I have mine. Mine may be a little bit more strict than yours, but so what. What matters is that you know why you believe what you believe, and so do I, and so does everyone else on the forum. In doing this we less than 1% of all believers. The purpose of these discussions is to clarify and solidify OUR OWN understanding of truth; and in this the forum is fulfilling it's designed purpose. The more we interact the more opportunity we have for finding the truth God wants us to know. Is this not true?

[Musicman1228]

I wonder who MM could possibly be throwing off on? What a mystery, who can figure it out?

I'm not 'throwing off' on anyone (what ever that means), but I am trying to figure out why you are so hardened into your position regarding the authority Jesus gave to His disciples. I would like you to show me where Jesus said that He was going to commission other apostles outside of the 12 disciples that God picked for Him. Please show me the chapter and verse from His words that said that apostles and/or prophets claiming to be from Him were coming to do anything other than deceive His own disciples (and the people they would testify to) and lead people away from the truth. Show me where Jesus did ANYTHING but warn His disciples of the dangers of believing that just because someone says they are 'of Christ' or 'from Christ' that we should believe them on the strength of their words.

If I were to claim authority from Jesus Christ to preach a gospel of my own making, claiming it came from God, would you believe me? I certainly hope not. And even if I did preach exactly the same gospel as Jesus Christ would you not compare what I was saying to that which Jesus Himself said to see if I was who I claimed to be? I certainly hope so.

Your attitude toward this seems overly casual and even cavalier to me, but I am not in a position to criticize you for this; that is entirely your own look out. Neither are you in a position to criticize me for my strict adherence to the truth generated by the words of Jesus Christ as given by the testimony of the eyewitnesses to His ministry on earth.

You can choose your own authorities in your quest for truth. Just remember the risk in seeking and accepting authority outside of the rock solid authority of the King of the Kingdom of Heaven. That is quite frankly a risk I am loath to take. Maybe I am just not as brave as your are.

[Twilight]

Originally Posted By: Richard Holbrook

I wonder who MM could possibly be throwing off on? What a mystery, who can figure it out?

I'm not 'throwing off' on anyone (what ever that means), but I am trying to figure out why you are so hardened into your position regarding the authority Jesus gave to His disciples. I would like you to show me where Jesus said that He was going to commission other apostles outside of the 12 disciples that God picked for Him. Please show me the chapter and verse from His words that said that apostles and/or prophets claiming to be from Him were coming to do anything other than deceive His own disciples (and the people they would testify to) and lead people away from the truth. Show me where Jesus did ANYTHING but warn His disciples of the dangers of believing that just because someone says they are 'of Christ' or 'from Christ' that we should believe them on the strength of their words.

If I were to claim authority from Jesus Christ to preach a gospel of my own making, claiming it came from God, would you believe me? I certainly hope not. And even if I did preach exactly the same gospel as Jesus Christ would you not compare what I was saying to that which Jesus Himself said to see if I was who I claimed to be? I certainly hope so.

Your attitude toward this seems overly casual and even cavalier to me, but I am not in a position to criticize you for this; that is entirely your own look out. Neither are you in a position to criticize me for my strict adherence to the truth generated by the words of Jesus Christ as given by the testimony of the eyewitnesses to His ministry on earth.

You can choose your own authorities in your quest for truth. Just remember the risk in seeking and accepting authority outside of the rock solid authority of the King of the Kingdom of Heaven. That is quite frankly a risk I am loath to take. Maybe I am just not as brave as your are.

Did not Jesus originally appoint 70?

That would show that the 12 were not the only ones ever to be appointed.

Mark

[Guest]

Did not Jesus originally appoint 70?

That would show that the 12 were not the only ones ever to be appointed.

Mark

Excellent point Mark. That refutes the idea that Jesus was more exclusive than need be. That idea comes from man and not from God, and is used as an excuse to do away with whole books of the Bible, which happen to be inconvenient for those teaching certain heresies.

One of those heresies is the de-emphasis on faith, which brings up another point.

John317 said to MM:

"How can you be certain that the historical Jesus said those words? What proof do you have that He actually said that they were true? Do you believe it just because they are in the Gospel of Matthew?"

The fact is you don't have any proof MM, other than faith. It requires just as much faith to believe that those are Jesus' words, as it does for me to believe the parts of the Bible that you have thrown away.

So you should never speak ill of faith again, because it takes lots of it to beleive what you do. It is misdirected faith, but faith never the less.

[Musicman1228]

Sure, Jesus appointed 70 other than the 12 disciples, but they were not the inner group, and we have no record of them writing anything that came down to us today. I am, right now, only talking about those that made it past the vetting process of the Council of Leodicea and are now in the Bible.

As to extra-biblical sources, there are lots; and some are usable. Writings such as the Clemintine homilies and the book of Enoch come to mind. Yet these, while interesting and potentially valid, are still not recognized as cannonic.

What writings in the NT give us the greatest assurance that they are valid? As far as I am concerned only those that contain the Words of God as spoken by the Son of God, Jesus Christ-as related to us through the testimony of Matthew, John and Peter (Mark). These are the only eyewitness disciples that are present in what has come to be known as the New Testament. There are other writings in the New Testament that may or may not have valid spiritual content, yet either their authorship or their content has come into question or has been impeached by direct contradictory testimony from the words of Jesus.

What this does is give each individual reader of the Bible the opportunity to decide for themselves what content they wish to use as verified truth. Why should this not be the case? None should be questioned as to the motivation for their decision in this regard. Some will decide that the entire New Testament or Bible as a whole is the very words of God, and this decision must be respected. Some may decide that certain parts are valid and others are not, and this too should be respected. There are compelling reasons for these beliefs on both sides of this issue, the honest discussion of which can lead either side to a more full and complete understanding of the other.

My respect for you as a fellow student of Scripture should not be based on whether and to what extent you agree with me (as nice as that would be), but on our mutual desire to find the truth of God to which ONLY the Holy Spirit can lead us. To deny that this is possible is to deny the power of the Holy Spirit to work in each of our lives to lead us into all truth. That would be a grave error in judgment.

[John317]

Why would God need a 'new' Covenant that has the same requirements and stipulations as the 'old' Covenant?

...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.

What was the Old Covenant, and when and how was it ratified?

Can a covenant be changed or added to after its ratification?

[Musicman1228]

Q #1 answer: The Covenant was brought down from Sinai by Moses shorty after Israel reached the foot of the mountain. Israel ratified it right after Moses read it to the people. They said, "All that the Lord commands we will do."

Moses then went back up the mountain for further instructions.

3 weeks later when Moses came back down the mountain Israel (with the help of Aaron) had already broken the Covenant by worshiping the golden calf.

Q #2 answer: Yes, the stipulations in a covenant can be changed after it is ratified, by agreement between both sides. In the case of the Covenant/10 Commandments of God this was never going to happen because GOD DOES NOT CHANGE. If God changed the Covenant then that would indicate that He made a mistake, and God cannot make a mistake and still be God.

This Covenant was NOT between God and Israel; it was between God and His Kingdom. God placed Israel as a nation into His Kingdom at Sinai (1437 BCE). After two tries Israel finally rejected the Covenant and as a nation they were removed from the Kingdom of God (33 CE). The Kingdom still existed, but Israel was no longer a part of the Kingdom. Much later God placed another people into this Kingdom (1844 CE), thereby giving them an opportunity to be called the Kingdom of Heaven. This Kingdom will not fail because God through Daniel (in Dan. 2) said that this Kingdom would be 'cut out of the rock, without human hands' (set up by God) and would not be given to another people. It would crush the feet and toes of the kingdoms of the world, and shatter those kingdoms to pieces. This Kingdom is in existence today, but it is sound asleep as per the prophecy of the Kingdom in Matthew 25.

[John317]

Q #1 answer: The Covenant was brought down from Sinai by Moses shorty after Israel reached the foot of the mountain. Israel ratified it right after Moses read it to the people. They said, "All that the Lord commands we will do."

How was the Old Covenant ratified? With what blood? Can you show a text that describes the ratification?

Moses brought down the Ten Commandments. The OC was concerning the Ten Commandments but it was not the Ten Commandments themselves.

Quote:

Q #2 answer: Yes, the stipulations in a covenant can be changed after it is ratified, by agreement between both sides.

Can you show a Bible reference or evidence that the covenant can be changed after it has been ratified?

[Michaeneu]

Therefore, Jesus is God. So when Jesus says something and someone else says something different then I am going with what Jesus said. If this happens too often I am going to question the validity of the person claiming to be 'of Christ' and put them aside. Jesus gave me personally the instruction to 'not be deceived'. If making Jesus my all in all in so far as truth is concerned means leaving behind some that desire to claim His prerogatives the that is exactly what I must do. To do less would mean denying Jesus Christ, which I cannot do.

Why is it so uncomfortable for you to allow me to believe in Jesus Christ in this manner?

Again, there is no conflict between what Christ pronounced and Romans, Hebrews or the rest of the NT. The conflict is in your mind because of the lack of understanding the unconditional covenant concerning Israel, which is the church. Your failure to grasp the truth about Israel’s covenant has tainted your outlook of Paul, Luke and etc. With such a foundation it is impossible to rely upon your opinion of the matters.

Michael

[Guest]

AMEN

[Musicman1228]

In my answer to Q #1 the first part of that was hypothetical, as in a contract between two parties. When God issued His Covenant with His Kingdom it was an all or nothing Covenant.

Next, God's covenants are not issued on the basis that God will not fulfill His part of it. There is, however, the stipulations/conditions that the Kingdom must fulfill. If the people of the Kingdom do not fulfill their part of the Covenant then it is broken, regardless of the wishes of God to the contrary.

Michael, you speak of the Covenants of God being unconditional, and this is just not true. If they are unconditional then there is no longer the opportunity for them to exercise 'free will'. Remember, God issued the Covenant at Sinai to a specific people, and by adhering to this Covenant they would become His Kingdom. Think of it this way: the Kingdom of Heaven on earth is like a shell corporation-it exists irrespective of what is inside it. What God decides to put inside of it must perform according to the by-laws of the corporation. In this case the by-laws are the Covenant, the 10 Commandments.

The Covenant of the Kingdom of Heaven is based on the most sacred agreement between two parties known to man; the marriage covenant. Does 'marriage' exist even if you are not? Of course. It is a shell until two parties fill it. For one to be married there must be two parties that agree to the stipulations of the marriage contract. It is a permanent, binding contract that can be broken only in two cases; the death of one of the parties, or infidelity.

God cannot die. A nation cannot die (although through genocide it has been attempted) as long as there is one person of that nation left alive. So if the marriage contract/Covenant between God and a nation is to be broken it can only be broken through infidelity, where one or the other parties to the Covenant commit adultery with a party outside of that agreement. God cannot do this. Therefore, the only party that could potentially commit adultery/infidelity against the Covenant is the nation.

Back to the shell corporation: God put the nation that He brought out of Egypt into this corporate body called the 'Kingdom of Heaven' at Sinai by introducing them to the marriage Covenant, the 10 Commandments, and having them take the marriage vow to remain faithful to their husband (God) by being obedient to that marriage covenant. As a nation they agreed to abide by the marriage covenant, to not worship other gods, and to remain faithful to the true God of the Kingdom of Heaven (their husband). God then made them His wife, and promised to take care of them as long as they remained faithful to Him.

Three weeks after the marriage ceremony they were committing adultery with another god (golden calf) right in the bedroom of the their husband. God forgave them (after weeding out some bad apples), but from then on is was Israel worshiping other gods (committing adultery) and God forgiving them. Finally, God had had enough and He divorced them and sent them away into captivity into the land of the Babylon, where they remained for 70 years.

At the end of their exile due to divorce God invited them to come back and marry Him again. He gave them 70 weeks of years (490 years) in which to make the commitment to marry Him, and demonstrate that they would not commit adultery again. No matter how many times or ways in which God asked they refused to re-marry Him. Finally, during the final week of the 70 weeks given to them to make the decision to marry Him Jesus Christ, the Bridegroom Himself, came to show them what they must do to make themselves His bride again. Not only did they refuse the Bridegroom and reject His proposal, they put Him on a cross and declared for all the world to hear, "We have no husband (king) but Caesar."

This was the last straw. Israel had run out of time and God had run out of patience. So just as Jesus said He would do He took the opportunity for Israel to become His Kingdom away from them, and He eventually gave it to another people (Dan.2:44).

The thing to remember is that God divorced Israel (because of adultery) AND SHE NEVER REMARRIED HIM. God wanted the nation of Israel to be His Kingdom but they did not want to become His Kingdom, so they remained divorced from Him. They will never again be given the opportunity to become the Kingdom because they were given two chances and they refused both times to do the will of God.

So yes, Michael, I know that the Covenant that God tried to establish with literal Israel was conditional, because THEY refused to ratify the Covenant and remarry the Bridegroom when given their final opportunity. God NEVER goes against the wishes and will of anyone that directly opposes His will.

Your stating categorically that God's covenants are unconditional shows that it is you that does not understand the true dynamic of how God works. God is not a fool. It would be foolish of God to issue unconditional agreements to people with conditional hearts.

[John317]

Your stating categorically that God's covenants are unconditional shows that it is you that does not understand the true dynamic of how God works. God is not a fool. It would be foolish of God to issue unconditional agreements to people with conditional hearts.

Humans don't promise anything under the New Covenant. We simply accept the promises of God. Salvation is conditional, but the New Covenant itself has no conditions. Mankind did nothing in order for God to ratify the New Covenant. Under it God gave Christ for the entire human race while it was in rebellion against Him. All the promises are ours as we accept Christ by faith.

Quote:

The terms of the "old covenant" were, Obey and live: "If a man do, he shall even live in them;" but "cursed be he that confirmeth not all the words of this law to do them." Ezekiel 20:11; Leviticus 18:5; Deuteronomy 27:26. The "new covenant" was established upon "better promises"--the promise of forgiveness of sins, and of the grace of God to renew the heart, and bring it into harmony with the principles of God's law. The Faith I Live By (1958), page 78, paragraph 4

[Dr. Rich]

Michael wrote: "The conflict is in your mind because of the lack of understanding the unconditional covenant concerning Israel, which is the church." WHAT? Really--unconditional?? Hmmmm??

Didn't Jesus say "IF you love me, then you will keep my commandments.."? What is it about the word "IF" that you don't understand?

[John317]

Michael wrote: "The conflict is in your mind because of the lack of understanding the unconditional covenant concerning Israel, which is the church." WHAT? Really--unconditional?? Hmmmm??

Didn't Jesus say "IF you love me, then you will keep my commandments.."? What is it about the word "IF" that you don't understand?

Yes, it's true that if we love Him, we'll keep the commandments. But notice that Jesus didn't say, "If you keep my commandments, I will ratify the agreement with you."