Search the Scriptures...

[Danoh]

A person reads a book or hears a message asserting what it is asserting. If what it is asserting, together with its basis appears sound to that reader or hearer; they embrace it.

But how many pause during that process, to ask ‘does this make sense, or does it only because it is similar to how I reason through a thing? For that matter, how do I know that what makes sense is actually what I think I have understood?’

Such questions, far and away obviously too often left unasked by most, and thus, unexamined, such persons adopt an assertion’s reasoning as their own; begin to reason from within its perspective.

All the while unaware the above is the case. Bringing that to their reading of Scripture; the passages appear to support said reasoning.

Once that is entrenched, challenging it is not met well.

In short; it is not enough to believe a thing true, or sound, simply because one believes it is.

One must instead ever strive to examine how one is examining or studying out what one is.

To me, that is what being a Berean too, is, Acts 17:11.

Receiving an assertion with all readiness of mind; only then searching the Scriptures daily whether those things are so… including the examination of the above assertion.

 

[ron4shua]

Greetings Brother , yes I can say , HalleluYAH to that .

 

[vinsight4u]

/

 

[vinsight4u]

/

 

[ron4shua]

Greetings Sister vinsigh4u , I was saying " HalleluYAH to that " in a general way to a , as I perceive that post , a statement .

Acts 17:11 and these were more noble than those in Thessalonica, they received the word with all readiness of mind, every day examining the Writings whether those things were so;
Great advice .

Hasn't a thing to do with or espousing a tittle tattle of or for Daniel .
Either I'm on the wrong page or someone else is !

I read the book of Daniel from chapter One & after reading a dozen versions have never seen a need to read AGAIN fast Chapter TWO !
Here is the USDA CHOICE PRIME CUT .
28 but there is a God in the heavens, a revealer of secrets, and He hath made known to king Nebuchadnezzar that which [is] to be in the latter end of the days. `Thy dream and the visions of thy head on thy bed are these:
29 Thou, O king, thy thoughts on thy bed have come up [concerning] that which [is] to be after this, and the Revealer of secrets hath caused thee to know that which [is] to be.
30 As to me -- not for [any] wisdom that is in me above any living hath this secret been revealed to me; but for the intent that the interpretation to the king they make known, and the thoughts of thy heart thou dost know.
31 `Thou, O king, wast looking, and lo, a certain great image. This image [is] mighty, and its brightness excellent; it is standing over-against thee, and its appearance [is] terrible.
32 This image! its head [is] of good gold, its breasts and its arms of silver, its belly and its thighs of brass;
33 its legs of iron, its feet, part of them of iron, and part of them of clay.
34 Thou wast looking till that a stone hath been cut out without hands, and it hath smitten the image on its feet, that [are] of iron and of clay, and it hath broken them small;
35 then broken small together have been the iron, the clay, the brass, the silver, and the gold, and they have been as chaff from the summer threshing-floor, and carried them away hath the wind, and no place hath been found for them: and the stone that smote the image hath become a great mountain, and hath filled all the land.
36 This [is] the dream, and its interpretation we do tell before the king.
37 `Thou, O king, art a king of kings, for the God of the heavens a kingdom, strength, and might, and glory, hath given to thee;
38 and whithersoever sons of men are dwelling, the beast of the field, and the fowl of the heavens, He hath given into thy hand, and hath caused thee to rule over them all; thou [art] this head of gold.
39 And after thee doth rise up another kingdom lower than those, and another third kingdom of brass, that doth rule overall the earth.
40 And the fourth kingdom is strong as iron, because that iron is breaking small, and making feeble, all [things], even as iron that is breaking all these, it beateth small and breaketh.
41 As to that which thou hast seen: the feet and toes, part of them potter's clay, and part of them iron, the kingdom is divided: and some of the standing of the iron [is] to be in it, because that thou hast seen the iron mixed with miry clay.
42 As to the toes of the feet, part of them iron, and part of them clay: some part of the kingdom is strong, and some part of it is brittle.
43 Because thou hast seen iron mixed with miry clay, they are mixing themselves with the seed of men: and they are not adhering one with another, even as iron is not mixed with clay.
44 the days of these kings raise up doth the God of the heavens a kingdom that is not destroyed -- to the age, and its kingdom to another` in people is not lefAndt: it beateth small and endeth all these kingdoms, and it standeth to the age.
45 Because that thou hast seen that out of the mountain cut hath been a stone without hands, and it hath beaten small the iron, the brass, the clay, the silver, and the gold; the great God hath made known to the king that which [is] to be after this; and the dream [is] true, and its interpretation stedfast.
46 Then hath king Nebuchadnezzar fallen on his face, and to Daniel he hath done obeisance, and present, and sweet things, he hath said to pour out to him.
47 The king hath answered Daniel and said, `Of a truth [it is] that your God is a God of gods, and a Lord of kings, and a revealer of secrets, since thou hast been able to reveal this secret.'


" the latter end of the days." Since the " stone cut without hands " rolled unto the FRAY .



Why would I read Daniel seven ? The word " age " in verse 44 , look it up for yourself .

 

[vinsight4u]

/

 

[ron4shua]

Dearest Sister , is there a reason you don't expound both to us all , or is reason a problem ? Blessings your Brother in Messiah .

 

[BABerean2]

If anyone tells you the text says something that is obviously not there, beware of their doctrine.

Millions of American evangelicals and their pastors have been hoodwinked by a doctrine that will not stand up to serious scrutiny.

Daniel chapter 9 has been corrupted beyond measure by many in an attempt to make their doctrine work.


Take a look at the link below to see the true "literal" version.


Who Confirmed The Covenant?
Who Confirmed The Covenant? | Christian Media Research

 

[Danoh]

If anyone tells you the text says something that is obviously not there, beware of their doctrine.

Millions of American evangelicals and their pastors have been hoodwinked by a doctrine that will not stand up to serious scrutiny.

Daniel chapter 9 has been corrupted beyond measure by many in an attempt to make their doctrine work.

Take a look at the link below to see the true "literal" version.
Who Confirmed The Covenant?

Who Confirmed The Covenant? | Christian Media Research

The exact same thing could be said about what is actually your "understanding" of any passage, and this is what you and yours fail to see.

You and yours believe that how you and yours understand the passage is "the sound way." As a result, should someone assert otherwise, they are, from where you see things, “suspect,” someone and or “a doctrine” to “beware” of.

Because, from where you and yours look at things, anyone who does not look at them from where you and yours do has been “hoodwinked by a doctrine” given your take as to “scrutiny” – “will not stand up to scrutiny.”

You and yours are unable to examine if what you are concluding as having been “corrupted” is actually the case, or is it that how you look at things and reason through them is what is actually behind this supposed “corruption” you “see.”

Take the contents of the link you posted here – it is in line with how you and yours approach looking at things and therefore with what you believe you “see.” It is therefore, in your estimate “sound.”

You are so much of the masses “what to think” habit, in contrast to how to examine how one is approaching their examining of a thing to begin with, that all you can see is your own projection.

Before you attempt to go about the business of examining a thing, what you and yours need to do first is to start from scratch – all the way back to searching out first, how to know that how you are examining a thing is itself sound.

Only then, can you and yours point fingers at anyone else.

 

[BABerean2]

The exact same thing could be said about what is actually your "understanding" of any passage, and this is what you and yours fail to see.

You and yours believe that how you and yours understand the passage is "the sound way." As a result, should someone assert otherwise, they are, from where you see things, “suspect,” someone and or “a doctrine” to “beware” of.

Because, from where you and yours look at things, anyone who does not look at them from where you and yours do has been “hoodwinked by a doctrine” given your take as to “scrutiny” – “will not stand up to scrutiny.”

You and yours are unable to examine if what you are concluding as having been “corrupted” is actually the case, or is it that how you look at things and reason through them is what is actually behind this supposed “corruption” you “see.”

Take the contents of the link you posted here – it is in line with how you and yours approach looking at things and therefore with what you believe you “see.” It is therefore, in your estimate “sound.”

You are so much of the masses “what to think” habit, in contrast to how to examine how one is approaching their examining of a thing to begin with, that all you can see is your own projection.

Before you attempt to go about the business of examining a thing, what you and yours need to do first is to start from scratch – all the way back to searching out first, how to know that how you are examining a thing is itself sound.

Only then, can you and yours point fingers at anyone else.

Why in the world would you think I was talking about your doctrine of Mid-Acts Dispensationalism?

The post above should apply to all of us, not just you and yours.

If the angel Gabriel said the 70 weeks would last for 70 weeks, and some of us believe it lasted 70 weeks, why would you and yours get upset at us for taking the most "literal interpretation" that some of you and yours are always bragging about?

Are you worried that some of us will out "literalize" you and yours ?.


Who Confirmed The Covenant?
Who Confirmed The Covenant? | Christian Media Research




.

 

[Danoh]

Why in the world would you think I was talking about your doctrine of Mid-Acts Dispensationalism?

The post above should apply to all of us, not just you and yours.

If the angel Gabriel said the 70 weeks would last for 70 weeks, and some of us believe it lasted 70 weeks, why would you and yours get upset at us for taking the most "literal interpretation" that some of you and yours are always bragging about?

Are you worried that some of us will out "literalize" you and yours ?.


Who Confirmed The Covenant?
Who Confirmed The Covenant? | Christian Media Research




.

You just proved my point once more - though that link is against Dispensationalism, I was not talking about that - had I, I would have mentioned what you assert - that I was talking about me and mine.

Note how you went into Daniel and what not. This is exactly why I have called you a fool in the past - because you read into things, you take your reading in to things to be what was meant and then stand your ground about it.

Worse, you don't even know what just said. All you see is what you believe you do and, like it or not, that is exactly what a fool does.

You just continue to prove how stuck you are in reading into things and then taking said reading as what is actually being said.

Yours is the typical "learned" believer's outlook.

Get over it, broken record...

 

[BABerean2]

You just proved my point once more - though that link is against Dispensationalism, I was not talking about that - had I, I would have mentioned what you assert - that I was talking about me and mine.

Note how you went into Daniel and what not. This is exactly why I have called you a fool in the past - because you read into things, you take your reading in to things to be what was meant and then stand your ground about it.

Worse, you don't even know what just said. All you see is what you believe you do and, like it or not, that is exactly what a fool does.

You just continue to prove how stuck you are in reading into things and then taking said reading as what is actually being said.

Yours is the typical "learned" believer's outlook.

Get over it, broken record...

Mat_5:22 But I say unto you, That whosoever is angry with his brother without a cause shall be in danger of the judgment: and whosoever shall say to his brother, Raca, shall be in danger of the council: but whosoever shall say, Thou fool, shall be in danger of hell fire.

.

 

[Danoh]

Mat_5:22 But I say unto you, That whosoever is angry with his brother without a cause shall be in danger of the judgment: and whosoever shall say to his brother, Raca, shall be in danger of the council: but whosoever shall say, Thou fool, shall be in danger of hell fire.

.

You want to take issue with me, do it as it is to be done in this Oiconomia, House Law or Dispensation - "Under Grace not under the Law" you have just once more ignorantly attempted to deal with what you mis-perceive is anger on my part towards you.

For there you go again; quoting passages out of their context that they serve what you want them to in your misunderstanding that because you're a Christian, a follower of Christ, and, since He is speaking there, it must therefore apply to Christians, and the way to that is to pick that part of the passage that seems to prove your case.

What about the fact that the passage relates a qualifier - "without a cause."

And what about that passage's Oiconomia, House Law, or Dispensation - the Law, as is obvious, not only throughout Matthew but in the passages prior to as well as after, the one you ripped out of its context?

Matthew 5:
21. Ye have heard that it was said of them of old time, Thou shalt not kill; and whosoever shall kill shall be in danger of the judgment:

That right there is the Law.

22. But I say unto you, That whosoever is angry with his brother without a cause shall be in danger of the judgment: and whosoever shall say to his brother, Raca, shall be in danger of the council: but whosoever shall say, Thou fool, shall be in danger of hell fire.

He comes along and makes the Law an even greater burden that by that their sins by made that much more obvious, that they might acknowledge same, so that they might come to Him by faith under said Law so He can heal them of same.*

23. Therefore if thou bring thy gift to the altar, and there rememberest that thy brother hath ought against thee;
24. Leave there thy gift before the altar, and go thy way; first be reconciled to thy brother, and then come and offer thy gift.

There you go - the gift - an animal sacrifice.

* Matthew 13:

14. And in them is fulfilled the prophecy of Esaias, which saith, By hearing ye shall hear, and shall not understand; and seeing ye shall see, and shall not perceive:
15. For this people's heart is waxed gross, and their ears are dull of hearing, and their eyes they have closed; lest at any time they should see with their eyes and hear with their ears, and should understand with their heart, and should be converted, and I should heal them.

Again, I have nothing against you personally. I am unable to as you and I are simply not the issue.

My difference is with your misunderstanding of what a Berean Too is - the above exegeting of passages is an example of how a Berean Too approaches the text - he asks "Okay, the passage appears to be saying this - Nevertheless, what saith the Scripture? - what's the overall context here; are their possibly other passages that might shed light on that before I even get into what the passage is talking about, who it is addressing, etc.

One key is that we are not under the Law, but under Grace - meaning - there is ever the need to run a comparison between how things work under the two systems.

Paul is constantly running such comparisons, and or contrasts, for example.

Romans 3:

19. Now we know that what things soever the law saith, it saith to them who are under the law: that every mouth may be stopped, and all the world may become guilty before God.
20. Therefore by the deeds of the law there shall no flesh be justified in his sight: for by the law is the knowledge of sin.
21. But now the righteousness of God without the law is manifested, being witnessed by the law and the prophets;
22. Even the righteousness of God which is by faith of Jesus Christ unto all and upon all them that believe: for there is no difference:

You might study out what "by faith of Jesus Christ is a reference to - by running the passages where said of is noted.

 

[Job8]

If the angel Gabriel said the 70 weeks would last for 70 weeks, and some of us believe it lasted 70 weeks, why would you and yours get upset at us for taking the most "literal interpretation" that some of you and yours are always bragging about?

All Scripture is subject to interpretation (Neh 8:8) as long as Scripture is compared with Scripture, spiritual things with spiritual (1 Cor 2:13) and the Word of Truth is "rightly divided" or "rightly interpreted" (2 Tim 2:15).

You said "angel Gabriel" but the text (KJV) says "man Gabriel". However that was a correct interpretation, because Gabriel is indeed an angel, but appeared as a man to Daniel.

When you say "70 weeks", if we were to simply take that without further examination we would concluded that this is 490 days (70 x 7) or roughly 1 1/3 rd years. But we know from Scripture as well as from history that this is incorrect because the time from the "commandment to restore and rebuild Jerusalem" to the time when "Messiah be cut off" is 483 years. This has been confirmed by careful calculations. Therefore these are "weeks of years", not "weeks of days". That is proper interpretation. If you then claim to be absolutely literal you will have an absurdity on your hands.


So the issue is: Who confirmed the covenant with the Jews for "one week" (seven years) and the answer is right there looking you in the face. Dan 9:27 speaks of "overspreading of abominations", "he shall make it desolate" and "poured upon the desolate".

So now we must turn to Mt 24:15 and see that Christ called this "the Abomination of Desolation", which is connected with Tribulation period (Mt 24:16-20) as well as the Great Tribulation (Mt 24:21).

What's the conclusion? This has nothing to do with the New Covenant, but everything to do with a deceptive covenant made with the Jews in order establish the Abomination of Desolation in the temple at Jerusalem. Who makes this covenant? The Antichrist.

 

[BABerean2]

All Scripture is subject to interpretation (Neh 8:8) as long as Scripture is compared with Scripture, spiritual things with spiritual (1 Cor 2:13) and the Word of Truth is "rightly divided" or "rightly interpreted" (2 Tim 2:15).

You said "angel Gabriel" but the text (KJV) says "man Gabriel". However that was a correct interpretation, because Gabriel is indeed an angel, but appeared as a man to Daniel.

When you say "70 weeks", if we were to simply take that without further examination we would concluded that this is 490 days (70 x 7) or roughly 1 1/3 rd years. But we know from Scripture as well as from history that this is incorrect because the time from the "commandment to restore and rebuild Jerusalem" to the time when "Messiah be cut off" is 483 years. This has been confirmed by careful calculations. Therefore these are "weeks of years", not "weeks of days". That is proper interpretation. If you then claim to be absolutely literal you will have an absurdity on your hands.


So the issue is: Who confirmed the covenant with the Jews for "one week" (seven years) and the answer is right there looking you in the face. Dan 9:27 speaks of "overspreading of abominations", "he shall make it desolate" and "poured upon the desolate".

So now we must turn to Mt 24:15 and see that Christ called this "the Abomination of Desolation", which is connected with Tribulation period (Mt 24:16-20) as well as the Great Tribulation (Mt 24:21).

What's the conclusion? This has nothing to do with the New Covenant, but everything to do with a deceptive covenant made with the Jews in order establish the Abomination of Desolation in the temple at Jerusalem. Who makes this covenant? The Antichrist.

The Abomination of Desolation Revealed in the Parallel Texts…

Mat 23:38 Behold, your house is left unto you desolate.

Mat 24:15 When ye therefore shall see the abomination of desolation, spoken of by Daniel the prophet, stand in the holy place, (whoso readeth, let him understand)
Mat 24:16 Then let them which be in Judaea flee into the mountains:

Mar 13:14 But when ye shall see the abomination of desolation, spoken of by Daniel the prophet, standing where it ought not, (let him that readeth understand,) then let them that be in Judaea flee to the mountains:

Luk 21:20 And when ye shall see Jerusalem compassed with armies, then know that the desolation thereof is nigh(near).
Luk 21:21 Then let them which are in Judaea flee to the mountains; and let them which are in the midst of it depart out; and let not them that are in the countries enter thereinto.

Luk 21:24 And they shall fall by the edge of the sword, and shall be led away captive into all nations: and Jerusalem shall be trodden down of the Gentiles, until the times of the Gentiles be fulfilled. (Occurred in 70 AD)


Luk 23:28 But Jesus turning unto them said, Daughters of Jerusalem, weep not for me, but weep for yourselves, and for your children. (Some ate their children in 70 AD.)
Luk 23:29 For, behold, the days are coming, in the which they shall say, Blessed are the barren, and the wombs that never bare, and the paps which never gave suck.
Luk 23:30 Then shall they begin to say to the mountains, Fall on us; and to the hills, Cover us.
Luk 23:31 For if they do these things in a green tree, what shall be done in the dry?


The Jewish leadership accused Stephen of saying that Christ would fulfill Daniel 9:27.

Act 6:14 For we have heard him say, that this Jesus of Nazareth shall destroy this place, and shall change the customs which Moses delivered us. (Stephen did not deny it.)


The Antiquities of the Jews by Flavius Josephus
Book 10/ Chapter 11

(275) and that from among them there should arise a certain king that should overcome our nation and their laws, and should take away our political government, and should spoil the temple, and forbid the sacrifices to be offered for three years’ time. (276) And indeed it so came to pass, that our nation suffered these things under Antiochus Epiphanes, according to Daniel’s vision, and what he wrote many years before they came to pass. In the very same manner Daniel also wrote concerning the Roman government, and that our country should be made desolate by them.


In Mark and Luke’s account of the Olivet discourse, they mentioned being persecuted in the synagogues. The Jews were the chief persecutors of the first Christians as revealed in the New Testament. Some of these events clearly happened before 70 AD.

Full-Preterism and Full-Futurism are both clearly wrong.

Christ answered two questions in the Olivet Discourse.

1. When will the temple be destroyed?

2. What will be the sign of thy Coming and the end of the World? (2nd Coming)

.

 

[Danoh]

BAB2, you appear to be both stepping over the Lord's reference to - "standing where it ought not," while at the same time concluding it is a reference to that other issue.

"...the abomination sanding where it ought not," is not the same as "Your house" [there's that plural, or corporate issue again] "is left unto you desolate."

The one refers to "the... desolation" as a desecration, as if He expects to return knowing that, upon doing so He will first have to raze said unclean house, while the other - "desolate" - refers to His departure from said house.

In other words, as even some ECF seemed to have understood from all that through the Scripture way back when, at some point yet future from them, given that Israel was no longer in the land, Israel would not only have to be in the land once more, but in disobedience once more. If so, it matters not who caught a glimpse of that first, or when, just that its witness is out there once more.

 

[ron4shua]

Greetings Saints , a word of caution to the zealous for truth , dear BABerean2 , I'll be the first to admit as being a novice zealot for Elohim YAH & our Brother The first born from the DEAD . Not counting my relentless study for six decades , I feel if I lived two centuries longer in study of Scripture I'd still be a novice , albeit an educated one .
If in fact our Brother John said this , which in my opinion is a great truth ; " And there are also many other things -- as many as Jesus did -- which, if they may be written one by one, not even the world itself I think to have place for the books written. Amen." the " amen " is a red flag for me , a pagan word . But that's not why I'm butting in .
I've read most of " the complete works of " Titus Flavius Josephus " THREE TIMES & some a fourth . From three different versions form three different data bases ( all biased to a degree , as ALL translations of Holy Writ are . ) Did you catch the obvious RED FLAG in your version & what I just expounded ? If the " Titus " isn't included it's most likely or good possibly an out & out dud or doctored to the nines . The first time through I was " on fire for the LORD " , taking some as , OK maybe " , than the next " version translation " errors started to leap out & kick me in my eyes & ears , abusing my previously acquired holdings .
Number one , brother Titus was NEVER converted to " fallowing The WAY " . I could go on to author several books here , but will just attempt to install some " caution " . I think all three versions started intact & were corrupted piece meal . The third was so , doctored & added to , so blatantly I easily seen at least three authors . Any version using words not in our accepted cannon early MSS , reject out of hand . Any that uses " god the son " in place of " the son of God " , ROH , start looking for "red flags " & scrutinize them to the BONE ! One example to ponder .

and Jesus said to him, `Verily I say to thee, To-day with me thou shalt be in the paradise.'

Move the comma to the right that's correct the RIGHT side of to-day . The ( - ) mark is added between to & day to make one word also .

In all four ancient scripts , punctuation is left to the bias of the power financing the translation . The originals have none .
As is the / , to-day / makes a Greetings Saints , a word of caution to the zealous for truth , dear BABerean2 , I'll be the first to admit as being a novice zealot for Elohim YAH & our Brother The first born from the DEAD . Not counting my relentless study for six decades , I feel if I lived two centuries longer in study of Scripture I'd still be a novice , albeit an educated one .
If in fact our Brother John said this , which in my opinion is a great truth ; " And there are also many other things -- as many as Jesus did -- which, if they may be written one by one, not even the world itself I think to have place for the books written. Amen." the " amen " is a red flag for me , a pagan word . But that's not why I'm butting in .
I've read most of " the complete works of " Titus Flavius Josephus " THREE TIMES & some a fourth . From three different versions form three different data bases ( all biased to a degree , as ALL translations of Holy Writ are . ) Did you catch the obvious RED FLAG in your version & what I just expounded ? If the " Titus " isn't included it's most likely or good possibly an out & out dud or doctored to the nines . The first time through I was " on fire for the LORD " , taking some as , OK maybe " , than the next " version translation " errors started to leap out & kick me in my eyes & ears , abusing my previously acquired holdings .
Number one , brother Titus was NEVER converted to " fallowing The WAY " . I could go on to author several books here , but will just attempt to install some " caution " . I think all three versions started intact & were corrupted piece meal . The third was so , doctored & added to , so blatantly I easily seen at least three authors . Any version using words not in our accepted cannon early MSS , reject out of hand . Any that uses " god the son " in place of " the son of God " , ROH , start looking for "red flags " & scrutinize them to the BONE ! One example to ponder .

and Jesus said to him, `Verily I say to thee, To-day with me thou shalt be in the paradise.'

Move the comma to the right that's correct the RIGHT side of to-day . The ( - ) mark is added between to & day to make one word also .

In all four ancient scripts , punctuation is left to the bias of the power financing the translation . The originals have none .
As is the / , to-day / makes a mockery of the three days & nights , expounded By our Master The Propitiation for our Souls with HIM in Eternity , HalleluYAH .
A novice for Jesus The Christ , ron .

 

[BABerean2]

BAB2, you appear to be both stepping over the Lord's reference to - "standing where it ought not," while at the same time concluding it is a reference to that other issue.

"...the abomination sanding where it ought not," is not the same as "Your house" [there's that plural, or corporate issue again] "is left unto you desolate."

The one refers to "the... desolation" as a desecration, as if He expects to return knowing that, upon doing so He will first have to raze said unclean house, while the other - "desolate" - refers to His departure from said house.

In other words, as even some ECF seemed to have understood from all that through the Scripture way back when, at some point yet future from them, given that Israel was no longer in the land, Israel would not only have to be in the land once more, but in disobedience once more. If so, it matters not who caught a glimpse of that first, or when, just that its witness is out there once more.

How many questions did Peter, John, James, and Andrew ask Jesus in the verses below?

You could play word games and say it is one question with two parts I guess, or you could say it is really two questions.



Mat 24:2 And Jesus said unto them, See ye not all these things? verily I say unto you, There shall not be left here one stone upon another, that shall not be thrown down.

Mat 24:3 And as he sat upon the mount of Olives, the disciples came unto him privately, saying, Tell us, when shall these things be? and what shall be the sign of thy coming, and of the end of the world?


Which verses in Matthew chapter 24 refer to the first question and which verses refer to the second question?

.

 

[BABerean2]

Greetings Saints , a word of caution to the zealous for truth , dear BABerean2 , I'll be the first to admit as being a novice zealot for Elohim YAH & our Brother The first born from the DEAD . Not counting my relentless study for six decades , I feel if I lived two centuries longer in study of Scripture I'd still be a novice , albeit an educated one .
If in fact our Brother John said this , which in my opinion is a great truth ; " And there are also many other things -- as many as Jesus did -- which, if they may be written one by one, not even the world itself I think to have place for the books written. Amen." the " amen " is a red flag for me , a pagan word . But that's not why I'm butting in .
I've read most of " the complete works of " Titus Flavius Josephus " THREE TIMES & some a fourth . From three different versions form three different data bases ( all biased to a degree , as ALL translations of Holy Writ are . ) Did you catch the obvious RED FLAG in your version & what I just expounded ? If the " Titus " isn't included it's most likely or good possibly an out & out dud or doctored to the nines . The first time through I was " on fire for the LORD " , taking some as , OK maybe " , than the next " version translation " errors started to leap out & kick me in my eyes & ears , abusing my previously acquired holdings .
Number one , brother Titus was NEVER converted to " fallowing The WAY " . I could go on to author several books here , but will just attempt to install some " caution " . I think all three versions started intact & were corrupted piece meal . The third was so , doctored & added to , so blatantly I easily seen at least three authors . Any version using words not in our accepted cannon early MSS , reject out of hand . Any that uses " god the son " in place of " the son of God " , ROH , start looking for "red flags " & scrutinize them to the BONE ! One example to ponder .

and Jesus said to him, `Verily I say to thee, To-day with me thou shalt be in the paradise.'

Move the comma to the right that's correct the RIGHT side of to-day . The ( - ) mark is added between to & day to make one word also .

In all four ancient scripts , punctuation is left to the bias of the power financing the translation . The originals have none .
As is the / , to-day / defecates on the three days & nights , expounded By our Master The Propitiation for our Souls with HIM in Eternity , HalleluYAH . A novice for Jesus The Christ , ron .

I have seen this idea before and I cannot say with any certainty which is correct.

Recently, I have noticed a pattern of scriptures which could easily have a double fulfillment if we realize that God stands outside of time and space and so does Christ.

My past interest in Einstein's theory of Special Relativity, makes it clear that as Einstein said, "Time is a stubborn illusion." There will be some who will decry that it is only a theory. Thousands of experiments have proven over and over that it is a fact. Nuclear weapons would not work unless the "theory" is correct.

This brings up an interesting point. When a human dies, time in their reality may be different from ours?

Based on John chapter 5 there will be one simultaneous resurrection of the just and unjust.


In the following verses we see a description very similar to the famous rapture passage of 1st Thess. chapter 4. Those of the Disp. persuasion say this refers to the 2nd Coming and not the rapture, however both contain Christ coming in the clouds with a trumpet and angels.


Mat 24:29 Immediately after the tribulation of those days shall the sun be darkened, and the moon shall not give her light, and the stars shall fall from heaven, and the powers of the heavens shall be shaken:
Mat 24:30 And then shall appear the sign of the Son of man in heaven: and then shall all the tribes of the earth mourn, and they shall see the Son of man coming in the clouds of heaven with power and great glory.
Mat 24:31 And he shall send his angels with a great sound of a trumpet, and they shall gather together his elect from the four winds, from one end of heaven to the other.


Based on John chapter 5, the Jewish leadership that had Jesus crucified is going to see Him again at the 2nd Coming.
Lately, I have wondered how this understanding might change our view of scripture.


If you are going to accuse me of Full-Preterism, don't bother.
It is not scriptural in my opinion.


........................................................................

Is Jesus King now? What is He king of, if He is King now?

When He said on the Cross, "It is finished.", what did that mean?

Our perspective of time past, present, and future will have an effect on our view of these questions?

Some of the comments that my Brother, Jack made in the past only make sense if we learn to deal with our frail, human viewpoint of time.





.

 

[Danoh]

Why in the world would you think I was talking about your doctrine of Mid-Acts Dispensationalism?

The post above should apply to all of us, not just you and yours.

If the angel Gabriel said the 70 weeks would last for 70 weeks, and some of us believe it lasted 70 weeks, why would you and yours get upset at us for taking the most "literal interpretation" that some of you and yours are always bragging about?

Are you worried that some of us will out "literalize" you and yours ?.


Who Confirmed The Covenant?
Who Confirmed The Covenant? | Christian Media Research




.

Why in the world you think I thought you were talking about my doctrine? I didn't; for when you have, you have said so.

You thought I thought you were. Why did you think that? Because that is what you do; read into my posts and then conclude what you read into them is what I meant.

Lol, reminds of that silly scene in the movie, Goodfellas, "I thought, I thought, I thought you, you..."

In short, take a chill pill, relax, smile, laugh a little, God loves ya, and so do I