Posted on 01/01/2008 2:01:51 AM PST by Maelstorm
All of us have become like one who is unclean, and all our righteous acts are like filthy rags;
Filthy rags! That is just about as bad as it gets. I think filthy rags, (referenced in the Bible), pertains to the cloth the Leper’s used to wipe their sores ?
For it is by “Grace” are ye saved, and, not of works, least any man should boast!!!
“Jesus Christ taught that baptism is essential to the salvation of all who have lived on earth (see John 3:5”
John 3:5 doesn’t mean that at all. It means that all who are born (when the water breaks) of woman in this world must also be born of God (the second birth or “born again”.
Baptism isn’t necessary to salvation as Jesus demonstrated to the thief on the cross whom he promised would be with Him this day in paradise (he wouldn’t have to go through a fictional “purgatory”, either).
Lets get it right by God’s word, folks.
Thats right, because it is!
But a candid look at the evidence requires a date shortly prior to A.D. 70 when Jerusalem and the temple were utterly destroyed, as Jesus prophesied would happen in the “Little Apocalypse,” Matthew chapter twenty-four.
No, the events of Matthew 24 do not describe what happened in 70AD, those events were described in Lk.21.
No abomination of desolation was set up in Matthew 24, nor did Christ return and save the city as He promised in Zech.13.
First, Jerusalem is spoken of as still standing. Revelation 1-11 alludes frequently to the fall of Jerusalem. John is called to measure the temple, without any suggestion that it is destroyed (11:1).
John is measuring a future temple, not the one that was destroyed in 70AD.
Everything after Rev.4 is future, not present.
No two prophets appealed in 70AD warning of impending judgement and were killed and resurrected into heaven (Rev.11:11-12)
Jesus told His disciples that within their generation, not one stone of the temple would be left on top another (Mt. 24:2). The temple was destroyed in A.D. 70 and never rebuilt. Thus, it is evident that Revelation was written before that judgment.
That Temple was destroyed, but another will be rebuilt, one that the Anti-Christ will sit in (2Thess.2) and that will be the 'abomination of desolation' that Christ warned about in Matthew 24.
Furthermore, the emperor Nero is mentioned as still being alive: “There are seven kings: five are fallen, and one is, and the other is not yet come; and when he cometh, he must continue a short space” (17:10). Julius was the first Caesar (48-44 B.C.); he was followed by Augustus (27 B.C.-A.D. 14), Tiberius (A.D. 14-37), Caligula (37-41), Claudius (41-54), Nero (54-68), Galba (who ascended the throne upon Nero’s suicide on June 9, A.D. 68 and reigned only briefly until he was assassinated on January 15, A.D. 69) and Vespasian (A.D. 69-79). The first five Caesars—Julius, Augustus, Tiberius, Caligula and Claudius—had already died (“fallen”) at the time of the writing of the book of Revelation. Nero was on the throne. After him arose another Caesar, Galba, who only continued a short space—just a little over six months. How exactly was Bible prophecy fulfilled!
Really?
And when was Nero wounded and recovered from the wound so all of the world marveled? (Rev.13:3)
Rev.13 is speaking of a confederated ten-kingdom empire, as described in Dan.7, not the Roman Empire of Nero.
Moreover, Revelation 13:8 identifies the emperor with the number equivalent of Nero’s name: 666. In Hebrew the name is “nrwn qsr”: n (50) r (200) w (6) n (50) q (100) s (60) r (200), which totals exactly 666.(1) The numerical values of the Hebrew alphabet are well established.(2) How totally contrived and arbitrary are naive and misguided efforts to force this historic number on twentieth-century English names such as Henry Kissinger or Ronald Wilson Reagan!
And how contrived to make Nero have the number 666 as well.
What does Hebrew have to do with anything?
Revelation was written in Greek.
There is also the a priori teaching of Scripture itself that all special revelation ended by A.D. 70. The angel Gabriel told Daniel that the 70 weeks were to end with the destruction of Jerusalem (Dan. 9:24-27); that period would also serve to “seal up the vision and prophecy.” In other words, special revelation would stop by the time Jerusalem was destroyed.
Yes, but Daniels 70th week hasn't happened yet, that is yet future.
A 'gap' has occured between the 69th and 70th week, the mystery of the church, which has stopped that fulment of that final prophetic 'week', but the prophetic week will be fulfilled once the church is removed (raptured) and the Tribulation takes place. (Rom.11:25, 1Thess.4:16-18)
Finally, John repeatedly makes the point that the great tribulation he describes “must shortly come to pass” (Rev. 1:1). This was a comfort for persecuted Christians: deliverance was at hand! “Shortly” does not mean a quarter of a century later—let alone 1900-plus years later! God’s word says: “shortly,” and there is no reason for not taking it literally. Further, there are at least 24 verses in Revelation (e.g., 1:3; 2:16; 3:10-11; 10:6-7; 12:12; 22:3, 7, 10, 12, 20) which speak of the imminence of the fulfillment of the prophecies of the book (not imminent now but imminent in the first century).
The word shortly has the connatation of certanily.
For God, all time is 'shortly', since a thousand years is as a day.
None of the events described in Rev. happened in 70AD, they have yet to happen.
While part of the concluding portion of Revelation is about end-time events, the primary thrust of the book is about the destruction of Israel by Nero and Christ’s victory over Rome. Only one event can possibly match the tribulation and the details of the book of Revelation: the destruction of Jerusalem in A.D. 70, vividly chronicled by the Jewish historian Josephus. This is what “must shortly come to pass,” according to John; and therefore, he was writing the book of Revelation prior to A.D. 70.
No, nothing occured that would give any indication that Jerusalem was the city that was suppose to be destroyed, since Christ is suppose to rescue the city, not destroy it (Zech.13, Rev.19).
The people of the world did not see Christ returning in His glory as is stated in Matthew 24:30.
This is simply preterist nonsense.
Don’t you shudder when you read the direct address in Matthew 25? “As long as YOU did it for these the least of My Brethren YOU did it to me.” We live in the shadow of that Judgement and like it or not we have to seek Him in the poor. If you know you are Loved you have to Love in return. Grace is first here but Love is it’s completion.
Why doesn’t Huck discuss hus view of the trinity?
Be sure to keep all in context - if we could become worthy by our own works, then Jesus did not need to walk the Earth as God and Man or die to pay our death penalty.
I believe that the "Faith without works . . ." is referring to how you can believe, but not act as if you believed, thereby making yourself useless in the carrying of the Word. It is similar in principle to knowing abortion is evil, but voting for someone who condones abortion because it is the convenient path for you to follow - your belief against abortion becomes useless.
While we cannot save ourselves through works, it is still our duty, as Christians, to display our faith in the way we act.
My kids are a bit young for that so I told them "Used TP".
Maybe YOU should stick with the course on this thread and stop attacking Evangelicals. FYI, Baptists drank real wine at communion services before Prohibition. When alcohol became illegal, Baptists followed the law. Once they switched to grape juice, they stuck with it. Also, as far as not sinning by not even getting close, it was Paul who tells Christians to avoid even the appearance of evil.
Someone says something you don't agree with? Call him a "newbie", even if he's been here 3 years. That's pathetic.
The whole rip-off, big lie on the book of Mormon is why I WOULD NOT vote for someone who is a devout Mormon, since if they base their faith on something that started out as ONE BIG GIANT LIE/DECEIT, it shows they have incredibly poor judgment or love lies. Do I really want that type of person leading me? NO!
Baptism is a response to salvation, not a cause of it. All though NT scripture, belief comes first, baptism second. It always proceeds a profession of faith - which is why baptisimg infants (who cannot profess faith), and the dead (who cannot profess faith) are useless exercises and frankly unbiblical.
It's easier to attack the fact stater than attack the actual facts being stated.
(I'm a newbie too because I have been here for a shorter period than the person who called you a newbie.)
The facts you presented have been around a lot longer than any F.R. member
that’s “all thRough NT scripture”
works are in response to salvation not the reason you are saved.
If you do not live your faith out in your life, and it does not influence your actions and the way you treat others, it is dead. But faith and salvation come first, works are in response.
If works were required for salvation, God would leave us a list, not make us guess
the only list I can find is believe with your heart and confess with your mouth.
How about using your OWN brain for once. It's obvious to anyone with two functioning brain cells that Smith ripped off a lot of the King James Bible and lied about doing so.
A classic symptom of being in a cult is having control over the cult member's thining, i.e. don't let them think for themselves.
which biblical scholars?
most of the apostles who wrote the new testament were dead long before John wrote Revelation as a very old man. No way those books could have been written after revelation
which scholars? (there are multiple scholars who are downright hostile to religion who claim all the prophetic books were written after the events they predict thats the only way they could be that accurate, etc)
Our unrighteousness is called filthy rags, worms, dogs, vomit, menstrual cloth, leperous sores, and death.
No question about it; Scripture calls sin a disgusting and vile thing thing. A far cry from the contemporary preachers who reduce it to “mistakes” or “mis-steps”.
Only Grace can cleanse us, and praise God for that!
of course you are if you repent and lay your sin at Jesus feet. I have been saved for many years, and while I wish I could say I do not sin, of course I still do and will continue to do so until I am taken home
“If we say we have no sin, the truth is not in is. But if we confess our sin, God who is faithful and just, will forgive our sin and cleanse us from all unrighteousness”
(Its in 1John, dont have time to look up the exact reference”
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.