Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
You just quoted from the sermon on the mount. Look at what was said right after He was done speaking.
No, of course not I’m defining who the word “them” is referring to in that verse.
I apologize that is something I had not realized before. The way it’s worded it almost seems like Jesus was speaking thru the angel because the angel is never actually quoted as speaking. I’m not saying that the angel didn’t speak the message because as you’ve clearly shown that does seem to be the case. What I mean is I don’t see anywhere where the angel said anything at all that is not Jesus speaking in the first person and I don’t see the angel saying anything like “the Lord has said” or “God has said”. There’s no dialog from the angel that isn’t in red letters. So what it looks like to me is that the angel was relaying the message as Jesus was speaking thru him. Like Jesus was using the angel as a direct speaking device, like He put His angel on speakerphone lol. What do you think?
Ok after reading it again I just noticed something else.
Jumping in here...hope it's ok...there are a lot of posts preceding this page I know. The second death is hell...the lake of fire. I agree. Wondering what you are saying the first death is? My belief is that it pertains to the one who refuses to believe and therefore is not born again. Stated another way: the first resurrection is being born again and the second resurrection is Judgement Day.
Jesus was referred to, is the Angel of the LORD...this is from OT times. However, I'd have to reread if this is The Angel of the LORD, or another heavenly angel. (If this helps your searching....
lol actually I think the angel spoke in the beginning of chapter 1 before John began to have his vision. During the vision it was actually Christ doing the speaking and John narrating and this continues all the way to the end of the book.
Jesus talks about this in the story of The Rich Man and Lazarus. He went to Abrahams side where he was comforted. The rich man went to a place of torment where he wanted just one drop of living water.
I suppose you are trying to be helpful, which is a good thing. but there is no need for you to do that, when it is done for us by those with more authority, trustworthiness, and reliance, than us.
Based on Matthew's and Mark's words, "them" refers to anyone else besides Jesus' disciples, and Jesus did use illustrations in the Sermon on the Mount, as I quoted previously.
Thank you.
I'm happy to hear that.
Thanks for asking.
Going by what scripture actually says, I'm glad to know you actually see Jesus as an angelic messenger, and possibly the spokesman used to convey messages to the patriarchs.
No. It's not okay to jump in.
I agree but I didn’t say that it was Jesus speaking because it’s in red letters I said the portions in red letters are spoken in the first person. Here’s an example of what I was talking about.
It’s definitely tough to say for sure. Sometimes it’s hard to tell when John heard a voice speaking if that voice was from within the vision or if it was from the angel who was with him.
I’m a nondenominational and I absolutely refuse to read or listen to commentaries for that exact reason. So many people rely on commentaries to teach them what the Bible says instead of just relying on the source itself. You can find commentaries for every heresy ever taught and there are scholars and seminary’s for every denomination there is. So just because someone attended a seminary and has a degree doesn’t necessarily mean their interpretation is correct. If that were the case we wouldn’t have seminaries for every denomination teaching all sorts of different doctrines. I typically refer to myself as a nondenominational who has a tendency to lean towards the Eastern Orthodox teachings pertaining to salvation.
CoreyD said:I suppose you are trying to be helpful, which is a good thing. but there is no need for you to do that, when it is done for us by those with more authority, trustworthiness, and reliance, than us.
Mark 4:11, 33, 34; Matthew 13:11, 34, 35
We can trust their words. We tend to lean a bit towards our ideas.
Based on Matthew's and Mark's words, "them" refers to anyone else besides Jesus' disciples, and Jesus did use illustrations in the Sermon on the Mount, as I quoted previously.
Matthew 5:13, 14; Matthew 7:3-19, 24-27
Perhaps you missed these?
Thank you.
So, we agree Jesus spoke to the crowds, and he used illustrations, even in this sermon?
I'm happy to hear that.
Thanks for asking.
I see you are using a translation which we need to be careful we do not forget that the original writings did not have "red letters".
We want to remember that translator do make mistakes, in their understanding, and in some cases, as we know, they insert their own ideas, and thoughts, which are not accurate.
With that in mind, not all places you see "red" is Jesus speaking.
Revelation 1:1
King James Bible
The Revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave unto him, to shew unto his servants things which must shortly come to pass; and he sent and signified it by his angel unto his servant John:
The angel is speaking to John from the time he arrives, in obedience to his commander and chief.
Some key points to remember:
- The vision begins from Revelation 1:10
- The vision contains many things - the son of man; heaven; the father; angels; ... wild beasts, dragons... you name it.
- In the vision John sees and hears things - the son of man speaking to him; voices of angels; voices of Saints; etc.
So, when the son of man speaks, please remember that it is in the vision, rather than Jesus giving the vision.
In Revelation 4:1, 2 John said, the voice I had first heard speaking to me like a trumpet said, “Come up here, and I will show you what must take place after this.” At once I was in the Spirit, and there before me was a throne in heaven with someone sitting on it.
Some assume this is Jesus, but could it be that having this assumption, requires that we forget who is giving John the Revelation... which is what seems to have happened here?
If we see it as it has been stipulated at the beginning, we would not lose sight of what is really taking place.
Revelation 1:1
The Revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave unto him, to shew unto his servants things which must shortly come to pass; and he sent and signified it by his angel unto his servant John:
God
->> Jesus->> an angelThe Revelation comes from God, who gives it to Jesus, who in turn gives it to an angel, who in turn gives the message to John, by means o signs or symbolism.
So the angel is the one showing John in vision, the message that Jesus passed on to him, to show John.
The angel - a highly intelligent being - is entrusted with a responsibility, from his chief, to pass on a message, and he does so by means of symbolism in visions.
Jesus obviously had confidence in thi angel's ability to convey the message by what means he chose.
Did the angel have dialog with John? Yes. On many occasions.
Apart from those places persons assume, is Jesus, there is:
Revelation 13:9-18; Revelation 19:9, 10; Revelation 21:15-27; Revelation 22:1-10
After the angel says the words in Revelation 22:10, it seems he conveys the words of the messengers God, and Jesus, as in the first person (Revelation 22:12-19), but then ends by saying, "Amen. Come, Lord Jesus." (Revelation 22:20).
Or, is that John speaking? I am not 100% certain. It could be John's last words.
Going by what scripture actually says, I'm glad to know you actually see Jesus as an angelic messenger, and possibly the spokesman used to convey messages to the patriarchs.
However, I hope you would take a closer look at Revelation, with the little information I posted here.
I also think we ought to consider Revelation without the ideas we may have acquired through religious doctrine, as these can sort of "muddy the waters" for us.
Allowing the scriptures to guide us will lead to conclusions not found in mainstream religion, and allay the confusion we find there.
I need to hear from you though.
You didn't actually say if you agreed that the Lake of Fire is the second death.
Can you let me know if you do, please. That's very important to this discussion. Thanks.
No. It's not okay to jump in.
I would rather you join in the conversation at any point, and any time you feel to.
I know what you mean, though. That's another way we say "excuse me".
Feel free to jump in anytime.
It would help if you say what is the basis for your conclusion.
For example, was it, an idea, based on what you believe; just an opinion; the context of Revelation 20, something else?
The context surrounds literal or physical death. Revelation 20:4-6, 14
I'm happy for the dialog.
I never get spent on the word of God. Repeating actually helps, as we may see what we hadn't seen before.
I apologize I don’t recall seeing that question. I agree that the LOF is where the second death takes place but I’m undecided if spirits actually die in the LOF. when it comes to the topic of annihilationism or eternal torment I’m actually undecided because I can see evidence supporting both sides of the argument, so because it isn’t exactly clear I choose not to side one way or the other and I hold both as a possibility. I will say that I do have a slight tendency to lean towards annihilationism but for the most part I’m undecided.
Today's youth would say, "Same difference".
In the vision, all the characters John sees are either speaking, singing, or doing something.
You're right actually.
Why do you say "the LOF is where the second death takes place"?
I use the NASB for the most part but I also use a Greek interlinear Bible as well as Strong’s Concordance and Biblehub.com in my studies.Today's youth would say, "Same difference".
Do you mean you have a translation, where the type is in red, wherever Jesus is speaking, or only where he is speaking in the first person?
The latter is new to me. What translation are you using, may I ask?
Because satan, death, and Hades are all thrown into the LOF so I believe it is a place. I believe it is referring to a specific method of death or destruction.
The first and second resurrection? Revelation 20:4? Are you sure?
Ah. I see.
I understand how you are seeing it.
I haven't yet gotten past how you arrived at that, except by basing it on an idea, or opinion.
The Bible does not mention second resurrection, but yes, I think practically every believer in the scriptures, agree it refers to Matthew 5:28, 29, and Acts 24:15
Well, as you can see, not plenty.
Speaking of which... I have a thread to create, with this included.
I didn't know about that.
You believe it's a place, - even though the angel did not refer to it as a place, but rather, a state - because you think it is?
