The Two Witnesses

[jerry kelso]

Can't agree fully with all of those. I actually don't understand any of the others except for #4, #7, and #3 which seems a bit narrow in scope. I find the number three to be a broader, more comprehensive version of the number seven. But then I'm not an expert in the field. I don't have a specific definition of "divinely inspired," because over the years I've had to revise my narrow understanding of it so many times.

Socrates is believed to have said: "I am the wisest man alive, for I know one thing, and that is that I know nothing." (Of course he was most likely speaking from an existentialist perspective and not from a sense of humility and awe toward God.)

d.a.wright,

1. Socrates wasn’t a Christian so I wouldn’t use him as an authority for the context of the Bible.
He was a humanist though I don’t disagree with his major point.
As Christians we will not always agree on every jot and tittle and there are passages that don’t necessarily have a concrete plain statement and that is why correct context is important even in scriptures that seemingly have a paradox that can’t be solved.

3. The problem with much of doctrines is not that there is not any truth in certain areas but the extremes that take scriptures out of context.
There is a proper perspective to allegorical interpretation and literal interpretation and both can be taken to the extreme and be wrong.
The problem with allegorical interpretation as a hermeuntical method is that one cannot be consistent across the board.
In Revelation the symbol of wolves in sheep clothing is symbolic but it is literal truth of standing for cloaked deceivers
who were real people.
In Revelation is the 1000 years. Scriptures in the Old Testament in Psalms agree with 2 Peters that 1000 years is as a day and vice versa.
At the same time the immediate context proves that it is speaking a literal 1000 years so both apply.
Context wise the liberal 1000 can stand by itself.
The 1000 years as Lord looks at it cannot stand without the literal 1000 years and that is why the Catholic view of the millennium is wrong. They even use this millennium idea for the present church age.

4. The Ephesian passage was plain about unity. It doesn’t mean that it is the only scripture etc.
Even the scriptures I gave that says all scriptures are divinely inspired is irrefutable even though at face value may be too general for what one may think.
But until you have a definite definition it is a little confusing and hard to answer
your objection.
That is fine.

5. It would be helpful to understand why you don’t agree fully or at all.
Agnostics are not sure except for the one they disagree with.
I am sure you are not an agnostic but I am always interested in hearing different views. If you feel led I’m all ears. Thank you Jerry Kelso

 

[jerry kelso]

You know and assume much, don't you?

d.a. Wright,

1. I believe in proper scriptural exegesis and fair debate according to rightly dividing the word.

2. There was nothing wrong with my assuming and most likely she believes like I said about most who do not agree with Dispensationalism.
She left the dispensational view and said she did when she took off the lens.
She told me I should take off the lens and she never said why.
It is her pregotative if she don’t want to continue the dialogue and that is fine.
Do you really think I believe I know everything?
Your perception is that you know much of nothing except that you disagree with my position.
I have friends that I know that are agnostic that say they don’t know for sure except that I am not right.
The subject was about the existence of God.
So I’m a little confused why you should question me about knowing and assuming too much.
I can deduce what people say about many different positions because I have studied them but it doesn’t mean I am right about it all the time but both Maria and you was obvious by what you said.
But listen, I am not bothered by your perception that I believe is not correct.
All I ask is to be fair in exegesis and characterization. Jerry Kelso

 

[D.A. Wright]

Your focus seems to be wandering a bit too much for me to follow well enough to engage in a meaningful discussion. And you seem to be reading an awful lot into very little expression from others, which comes off as very defensive which, to me, makes for unpleasant conversation. I may be misunderstanding you completely, and I'll be happy to take the blame for it, but I think I'd prefer to bow out at least for now.

 

[jerry kelso]

Your focus seems to be wandering a bit too much for me to follow well enough to engage in a meaningful discussion. And you seem to be reading an awful lot into very little expression from others, which comes off as very defensive which, to me, makes for unpleasant conversation. I may be misunderstanding you completely, and I'll be happy to take the blame for it, but I think I'd prefer to bow out at least for now.

d.a.wright,

1. I am sorry you misunderstand and I am sorry you are uncomfortable.

2. I was trying to engage, but you weren’t helping me very much.
If you don’t have an answer or do not like fair debate and discussion then you could have said so at the first.

3. It is important to know what we believe and why we believe it and should be based on the scriptures.
I was fair to you in for a reply of your questioning of knowing and assuming and used Socrates not knowing anything. I didn’t get mad and you never really explained.
I am not offended by accusations through questions but you should explain, otherwise you are not trying to have a dialogue.
It is your right to bow out and so I have no problem with that.
Food for thought. you shouldn’t take things so personal or be afraid because it is a view that is different or that you disagree with. Be blessed on studying and learning to rightly divide the word. Jerry Kelso

 

[D.A. Wright]

Okay, I'll bite.

1. I am sorry you misunderstand and I am sorry you are uncomfortable.

I misunderstand many things. Having lived 55 years thus far, I've had occasion to make peace with this common, human foible. And I'm perfectly comfortable, generally speaking. I simply find confusing conversation unpleasant, tending to steer me toward other pursuits.

2. I was trying to engage, but you weren’t helping me very much.
If you don’t have an answer or do not like fair debate and discussion then you could have said so at the first.

To answer a question I find I must first be able to understand it.

If you don’t have an answer or do not like fair debate and discussion then you could have said so at the first.

It seems unlikely that anyone would plainly admit to being averse to fair debate/discussion. That would be giving away a decided advantage, I think.

3. It is important to know what we believe and why we believe it and should be based on the scriptures.

Honestly, "preaching to the choir" is the very first thing that comes to mind here. And not relevant at all to the "knowing and assuming" question.

I was fair to you in for a reply of your questioning of knowing and assuming and used Socrates not knowing anything.

The question was rhetorical, not meant to be accusatory, but reflective, suggesting, perhaps, the benefit of a bit of self-examination on your part.

The reference to Socrates was of a similar purpose, and although I was careful to point out his probable difference in perspective, respective to Christianity, you seemed quite ready to remind me of what I already knew and had stated. The principle expressed in the quote is quite clearly taught in scripture, by the way.

Food for thought. you shouldn’t take things so personal or be afraid because it is a view that is different or that you disagree with.

I am not afraid to engage with those who take positions different than my own. This should be plain to anyone who elects to view my other posts.

Be blessed on studying and learning to rightly divide the word. Jerry Kelso

I suppose this is meant to be a salutation of some sort, but it actually comes off as a back-handed rebuke for being scripturally illiterate. It doesn't offend me, personally, because although we could all do better in our study and devotional habits, this is not an area in which I struggle especially. But I think it's safe to say that there might be better ways "to win friends and influence people."

(Disclaimer: Not sure of Dale Carnegie's religious preference.)

 

[jerry kelso]

Okay, I'll bite.

I misunderstand many things. Having lived 55 years thus far, I've had occasion to make peace with this common, human foible. And I'm perfectly comfortable, generally speaking. I simply find confusing conversation unpleasant, tending to steer me toward other pursuits.

To answer a question I find I must first be able to understand it.

It seems unlikely that anyone would plainly admit to being averse to fair debate/discussion. That would be giving away a decided advantage, I think.

Honestly, "preaching to the choir" is the very first thing that comes to mind here. And not relevant at all to the "knowing and assuming" question.

The question was rhetorical, not meant to be accusatory, but reflective, suggesting, perhaps, the benefit of a bit of self-examination on your part.

The reference to Socrates was of a similar purpose, and although I was careful to point out his probable difference in perspective, respective to Christianity, you seemed quite ready to remind me of what I already knew and had stated. The principle expressed in the quote is quite clearly taught in scripture, by the way.

I am not afraid to engage with those who take positions different than my own. This should be plain to anyone who elects to view my other posts.

I suppose this is meant to be a salutation of some sort, but it actually comes off as a back-handed rebuke for being scripturally illiterate. It doesn't offend me, personally, because although we could all do better in our study and devotional habits, this is not an area in which I struggle especially. But I think it's safe to say that there might be better ways "to win friends and influence people."

(Disclaimer: Not sure of Dale Carnegie's religious preference.)

d.a.wright,

1. Thank you for your reply.

2. Post #176. I just answered to the subject of numbers and your statement about not believing there was a system of numbers that are divinely inspired according to the scripture and I gave 2 Timothy 3:16; 1 Peter 1:21.
And I said it depends on your definition of being divinely inspired.
You disagreed but didn’t really explain in more detail.
Now to be fair I read it again and it sounded as you didn’t think numbers were not divinely inspired.
At the same time you did say you believed that there was strong evidence for Biblical numerology.
Then you said offhand you couldn’t think of any specific texts to show a system of numbers that was divinely inspired.
You were being honest and didn’t know so I apologize if I jumped the gun about focusing more on the not being divinely inspired.
Obviously, if all scripture is inspired then biblical numbers would be inspired was my thought process.
Since that was not the case I believe it is fair to think about a system of numbers in the scriptures.
You could have pointed that out to me and I would not have been offended.
I don’t claim to know everything.
Scriptures I gave are true about numbers was not confusing but didn’t answer to a system of numbers according to scripture. That is why I wanted to know what that meant about a system.

3. I appreciate your explanations about not accusatory and being reflective etc.
I don’t know you so I can only go by what you say which was not being clear because not clarifying enough which can be confusing such as the knowing and assuming statement which had no real qualifier.
At the same time you said self examination, which gives the perception
that I am being a little high minded and I ought to be more humble.
That was spoken in reference to another persons post. I gave scriptural context.
Nothing confusing about that.
She knew dispensationalism and said I should take off the lens like her to see the truth in post #173 and #175.
I didn’t take offense. I just said that I know what they say about Dispensationalism that are outright false.

4. The statement about Socrates we both agree in the basics of his gnostic life.
Not knowing anything I understand is metaphorical though it not true literal. So again I apologize for missing your actual point.

5. I am glad you are not afraid to engage with people with different views. It didn’t seem like you were engaging.

6. The food for thought was not a rebuke of any kind.
You appeared accusatory in some of your statements which usually means one takes it personal.

7. I am glad you are not offended personally.
I wasn’t insinuating you didn’t study or didn’t have devotional habits. That is good, but people go through all their life sometimes and get tunnel vision because of wrong hermeneutics.

8. I have read some of Dale Carnegie and I traveled for 30 years being in front of thousands upon thousands and have quite of bit experience in that.
Some said he was a Christian including himself. He said his principals ere based much on Jesus teachings.
Motivational speakers usually rely on the power of themselves and leave God out.
It doesn’t mean that they cannot achieve good communication skills etc.


9. Debate and rebuttal is about reasoning and challenging and contending for the faith and rightfully dividing the word in proper perspective 2 Timothy 2:15; 3:16.
Iron sharpens iron Proverbs 27:17.

10. We don’t know each other and so we have to go off what one says.
I believe we both misunderstood each other in different ways.
Speaking for myself, I am interested in what the word says and means and fair debate and rebuttal.
This process and studying different views and understanding hermeneutics that are used can understand what a person believes and why.
I am interested in learning truth and yet contend for truth in proper perspective of the word.
I am not too proud to say where I may go wrong, but I am not afraid to stand up for what I believe to be the truth of the word.
Sorry we misunderstood each other.
I will think on the system of numbers in the Bible. To better communication in the future. Jerry Kelso

 

[throughfiierytrial]

Hi there,

If the gifts have ceased - and the word no longer needs to be confirmed with signs - Will we assume that the two witnesses are fraudulent?

Getting back on this...I have already replied that the two witnesses are Christ and the Church, but here's the foundation for why the one witness is the Church (the Church being the One body in Christ)...
See Revelation 11:4:
They are “the two olive trees” and the two lampstands that stand before the Lord of the earth.
If one looks up the instructions for making the lampstand in Exodus 37:17-24 we see it had 6 branches and not 12 as one might expect because so there are so many representations of the 12 tribes of Israel. The lampstand here is plural and that would be 12 tribes of Israel. If your faith, as mine, states that Israel is "all true believers...known only to God Himself" then you understand my point here.
Olive oil was used to anoint the Kings of Israel I believe and it was also used for healing with prayer. I am not certain how the olive trees pertain to the two witnesses just yet however.

 

[jerry kelso]

Getting back on this...I have already replied that the two witnesses are Christ and the Church, but here's the foundation for why the one witness is the Church (the Church being the One body in Christ)...
See Revelation 11:4:
They are “the two olive trees” and the two lampstands that stand before the Lord of the earth.
If one looks up the instructions for making the lampstand in Exodus 37:17-24 we see it had 6 branches and not 12 as one might expect because so there are so many representations of the 12 tribes of Israel. The lampstand here is plural and that would be 12 tribes of Israel. If your faith, as mine, states that Israel is "all true believers...known only to God Himself" then you understand my point here.
Olive oil was used to anoint the Kings of Israel I believe and it was also used for healing with prayer. I am not certain how the olive trees pertain to the two witnesses just yet however.

through fiery trial,

1. Christ and the church being the two witnesses makes no sense.
Why?
1 Thessalonians 4:15-17 shows the rapture of the church.
The dead in Christ come from Heaven with Christ and meets the living believers who come from the earth in the air.

2. These Two witnesses are killed on the earth and are raised from the dead in the streets on earth.
There are no living believers being raptured here.
The remnant are left on the earth and giving God the glory.
Also, the enemies beheld them and there is nothing in scripture that says this will happen at the rapture. Jerry Kelso

 

[throughfiierytrial]

through fiery trial,

1. Christ and the church being the two witnesses makes no sense.
Why?
1 Thessalonians 4:15-17 shows the rapture of the church.
The dead in Christ come from Heaven with Christ and meets the living believers who come from the earth in the air.

2. These Two witnesses are killed on the earth and are raised from the dead in the streets on earth.
There are no living believers being raptured here.
The remnant are left on the earth and giving God the glory.
Also, the enemies beheld them and there is nothing in scripture that says this will happen at the rapture. Jerry Kelso

Hello Jerry,
We have very different perspectives on Revelation in general...judging by your interpretation here.
The two witnesses are somewhat figurative...we all as Christians witness on the earth, as you already know...by Word and deed which is the power of God within us...His indwelling...Philippians 2:13.
The Word is both Law and Gospel (the sharp double-edged sword...Hebrews 4:12) and it wounds (in Revelation read *tortures* which is the working of the Law edge of the sword and brings repentance, but only those appointed to salvation...the predestined...repent) The Gospel does the finishing work of binding up or healing the those wounds with the knowledge of forgiveness and salvation, again, to those who repent. Only true believers are healed while those remaining in unbelief are spoken of as tortured.
Revelation uses figurative language...it is not literal, at least not in the sense that you'll come to an understanding of the overall message it teaches if you read it literally...yet God can still make any of His Word have a double meaning (or more) to fit a situation as He pleases for He is our Almighty Creator and Redeemer and we will never fully comprehend Him.
Therefore I *offer*, offer only...that the death of 31/2 days is figuratively a Christian death as Christ's death for 3 days...the 1/2 extra day indicating *perhaps* that their death...those deaths due to testimony of Christians (death by persecutions) stem from the power of Satan. God will at the Great and Terrible Day of the Lord raise them up and all unbelievers will be horrified while those who are convinced by the Sword of the Law earlier received survived and gave glory to God and were saved. The earthquake or any catastrophe can be seen as the working of the Law in the hearts of all mankind...can be an actual earthquake which gives the unbeliever the feeling of impending death and doom or it can be the feeling of doom and *eternal* death as an individual experience...similar to the feeling an earthquake will soon strike them.
We must all guard our hearts and minds and our precious salvation that the doom and disaster of being eternally lost will not come upon us as we *sleep*.
May the Lord Bless us with great wisdom and faith as we share in our discussions here.

 

[jerry kelso]

Hello Jerry,
We have very different perspectives on Revelation in general...judging by your interpretation here.
The two witnesses are somewhat figurative...we all as Christians witness on the earth, as you already know...by Word and deed which is the power of God within us...His indwelling...Philippians 2:13.
The Word is both Law and Gospel (the sharp double-edged sword...Hebrews 4:12) and it wounds (in Revelation read *tortures* which is the working of the Law edge of the sword and brings repentance, but only those appointed to salvation...the predestined...repent) The Gospel does the finishing work of binding up or healing the those wounds with the knowledge of forgiveness and salvation, again, to those who repent. Only true believers are healed while those remaining in unbelief are spoken of as tortured.
Revelation uses figurative language...it is not literal, at least not in the sense that you'll come to an understanding of the overall message it teaches if you read it literally...yet God can still make any of His Word have a double meaning (or more) to fit a situation as He pleases for He is our Almighty Creator and Redeemer and we will never fully comprehend Him.
Therefore I *offer*, offer only...that the death of 31/2 days is figuratively a Christian death as Christ's death for 3 days...the 1/2 extra day indicating *perhaps* that their death...those deaths due to testimony of Christians (death by persecutions) stem from the power of Satan. God will at the Great and Terrible Day of the Lord raise them up and all unbelievers will be horrified while those who are convinced by the Sword of the Law earlier received survived and gave glory to God and were saved. The earthquake or any catastrophe can be seen as the working of the Law in the hearts of all mankind...can be an actual earthquake which gives the unbeliever the feeling of impending death and doom or it can be the feeling of doom and *eternal* death as an individual experience...similar to the feeling an earthquake will soon strike them.
We must all guard our hearts and minds and our precious salvation that the doom and disaster of being eternally lost will not come upon us as we *sleep*.
May the Lord Bless us with great wisdom and faith as we share in our discussions here.

through fiery trial,

1. Revelation has symbols of figurative speech.
This doesn’t do away with the literalness in Revelation.

2. Allegorical interpretation leads to inconsistency and cause different interpretations and incorrect understanding.
The foundation of Revelation is more than the great confrontation between God and Satan or the spiritual conflict between good and evil.

3. Yes we are witnesses for Christ but that has nothing to do with this context.
It is not proper hermeneutics to exclude the context.

4. The tribulation as a whole is the time of Jacob’s trouble Jeremiah 30:7. This pertains to the Jews having to be purified Daniel 9:24;12:1;Matthew 24:22.

5. God will give his power to his two witnesses. These are two people not a group of people.
These two persons are the two olive trees and two candlesticks standing before the God of the earth Revelation 11:4.
They will prophecy for 3.5 years and clothed in sackcloth.
This is because Israel is backslidden. Verse 4 is the same as Zechariah 4:14.
Zerubbabel asked who these were in his days.
The only 2 that fit this is Enoch and Elijah.
Elijah was taken to Heaven by a chariot
of fire in a whirlwind. 2 Kings 2:11.
Malachi 4:5 shows Elijah the prophet will appear before the great and dreadful day of the Lord.
Luke 11:17 shows that Elias truly shall come first.
Elijah has not died and neither has Enoch who was translated to Heaven Genesis 5:24. He prophesied about Christ second coming and judgement on the ungodly Jude 1:14-15.
They literally will die and be resurrected.
The 3.5 years Christian death scenario compared to Christ is more comparable to water baptism Romans 6:4 in the spiritual aspect.
But this is an actual literal happening.

6. Revelation 11:13 is a real earthquake in which a death 1/10 of a real city falls verse 13. Revelation 16:19 seems to be the same earthquake.

7. So the point is that whatever part of a spiritual explanation may be right or possible does not explain away with the literal aspect. Context proves this.
A text without a context is just a pretext.
Food for thought. Jerry Kelso

 

[Yahkov]

I don't believe the gifts have ceased. I cannot say I have personally witnessed miraculous gifts in the sense I think is being implied, but I believe them anyway. I want to be cautious on thinking in such ways as, "well where are they then?" I'd imagine the Pharisees and Sadducees were asking the same question.

My bet is the two witnesses will be Enoch and Elijah. Not a dogmatic position, but I find it to be the best guess.