Jump to content
Online Baptist Community

LindaR

Independent Fundamental Baptist
  • Posts

    2,027
  • Joined

  • Days Won

    12

Reputation Activity

  1. Thanks
    LindaR got a reaction from HappyChristian in Happy 68th Israel!   
    This is beautiful!  Please turn the sound slider down to about half way....it starts out way too loud.
  2. Thanks
    LindaR got a reaction from Ronda in Happy 68th Israel!   
    This is beautiful!  Please turn the sound slider down to about half way....it starts out way too loud.
  3. Thanks
    LindaR got a reaction from No Nicolaitans in Happy 68th Israel!   
    This is beautiful!  Please turn the sound slider down to about half way....it starts out way too loud.
  4. Thanks
    LindaR reacted to Ronda in Revelation Bible Study.   

    Brother Eric, I respectfully yet strongly disagree. A quick study in Revelation 20 dispels that statement.
    v. 7 "And when the thousand years are expired, Satan shall be loosed out of his prison" 
    We then read that God destroys the devil and those who revolted with him at the end of the millennium, THEN we see the great white throne judgment
    v. 11 "And I saw a great white throne, and him that sat on it, from whose face the earth and the heaven fled away; and there was found no place for them."
    The heaven and earth flee from God's face THEN, and that's AFTER the millennium. 
    We next see the judgment of the rest of the dead v. 15 "And whosoever was not found written in the book of life was cast into the lake of fire."
    What happens then? Rev. 21 starts out with verse 1-2
    1 "And I saw a new heaven and a new earth: for the first heaven and the first earth were passed away; and there was no more sea."2  "And I John saw the holy city, new Jerusalem, coming down from God out of heaven, prepared as a bride adorned for her husband."
    The rest of chapter 21 goes into detail about the New Jerusalem. This cannot happen until after the millennium because the heaven and earth don't flee from God's face until Rev. 20:11, AFTER the millennium, after the final revolt of the devil, and after the devil is cast into the lake of fire in Rev. 20:10 "And the devil that deceived them was cast into the lake of fire and brimstone, where the beast and the false prophet are, and shall be tormented day and night for ever and ever."
    There will still be sin on earth during the millennium. Christ will be there to rule and reign in righteousness, but even though conditions are wonderful, mankind still will have sin in his heart. That's why many will willfully CHOOSE to follow the devil after he is loosed from the bottomless pit at the end of the thousand years to deceive the nations.  The new heaven and new earth cannot be created while he yet has sway over mankind. He is defeated once and for all, cast into the lake of fire, the rest of dead are all judged accordingly, and THEN the new heavens and new earth according to Rev. 20-21.
  5. Thanks
    LindaR reacted to Ronda in The current US President / The UN / Israel   
    They will, brother Invicta, they will. They will.
    Zech 12:10 "And I will pour upon the house of David, and upon the inhabitants of Jerusalem, the spirit of grace and of supplications: and they shall look upon me whom they have pierced, and they shall mourn for him, as one mourneth for his only son, and shall be in bitterness for him, as one that is in bitterness for his firstborn."  
    Zech 13:9 "And I will bring the third part through the fire, and will refine them as silver is refined, and will try them as gold is tried: they shall call on my name, and I will hear them: I will say, It is my people: and they shall say, The Lord is my God."
    Zech 14:4 "And his feet shall stand in that day upon the mount ofOlives, which is before Jerusalem on the east, and themount of Olives shall cleave in the midst thereof toward the east and toward the west, and there shall be a very great valley; and half of the mountain shall remove toward the north, and half of it toward the south."
    v.8-9 "And it shall be in that day, that living waters shall go out from Jerusalem; half of them toward the former sea, and half of them toward the hinder sea: in summer and in winter shall it be. And the Lord shall be king over all the earth: in that day shall there be one Lord, and his name one."
     
  6. Thanks
    LindaR reacted to John81 in Will Calvary Chapel Lock Arms With a Dominionist Agenda?   
    To a great extent many have already gone that route. Whether outright or by strong influence, many "conservative" evangelical, politically active Christians already espouse Dominionism. This has been a growing problem for over three decades now.
    Unfortunately, certain teachings of Dominionism have so infiltrated the more conservative churches, including IFBs, most no longer recognize it as such but accept it as actual conservative Bible teaching.
  7. Thanks
    LindaR got a reaction from John81 in Why are Christians voting for Donald Trump?   
    Dominionism is not new....it was around in the late 70s and early 80s and had its beginnings in the Charismatic movement.
     
    A WORKING DEFINITION of DOMINIONISM

    The belief that we (mankind) have a mandate to build the “kingdom of God” on earth, restoring paradise, by progressively and supernaturally transforming ourselves and all societal institutions, through subduing and ruling the earth by whatever means possible, including using technology, science and psycho-social engineering; and then and only then will a “Christ” manifest his presence on earth.


    What is Dominionism? by Sarah Leslie

    Read the links I posted on the 7 Mountain Politics and Theology and Will Christians Replace Commitment to the Gospel for Commitment to a Unified Dominionist Agenda to "Save the Country?








     




  8. Thanks
    LindaR reacted to Ukulelemike in Why are Christians voting for Donald Trump?   
    And this has concerned me, as well. Cruz, as a Christian, has been welcoming of the endorsements of Catholics, Dominionists and Mormons, and it really doesn't matter whom. Of course, as a southern Baptist, it isn't a surprise he might not be very discerning. But see, THIS is exactly why I have wondered if a constitutionalist atheist would be better as President than a Christian, because most vocal "Christians" who go into politics and want the presidency tend to be of the Dominionist stripe, which is dangerous and unbiblical. 
    I don't really expect, in this day and age, our president to be a believer, at least not an heavily active one. I know that sounds crazy, but just what KIND of 'Christian" do we want in? It is enough they say they are, like Obama did? Like Jimmy Carter? Cruz has clearly been corrupted by the political process the same as any other candidate or politician. What I like about Trump is he is who he is-while he sort of pretends to be Christian, I suspect it is more of the "Christian because I'm an American" sort. he doesn't play it up much. But he IS making constitutional stands, at least in his campaign. And he was correct when he declared that the bathroom issue should be a state issue, not a federal issue.
    It also seems to me that he will probably be very pro-business in his stances, since it will behoove him, and the free market will benefit from it. Maybe he will get rid of some of the heavy taxation that has driven so many businesses out of the country, get off the back of the oil and coal and steel industries and bring some manufacturing back. Again, as a businessman, it is in HIS interest-it is also in ours.
    Christians ought to be preaching the gospel, teaching the lost and the saved, exhorting the word of God. Swath mentioned not yoking with unbelievers-I believe taking up political positions to be exactly that: the country would be better served by believers praying for their leaders, not trying to be them. Be not many masters. If we prayed for them, and for our country, and kept otherwise to the work of Christ, our country would benefit far more than having a 'Christian' of some sort in office.
  9. Thanks
    LindaR reacted to No Nicolaitans in Commonly Misquoted verses   
    As Christ said, "When he is come..."
    That's the time-frame.
    What did Christ say the Spirit will do "when he is come"?
    Those are the circumstances.
    The Spirit was already present; after all, he is God and shares the same attribute of omnipresence. However, the Spirit would have a new and specific set of functions after Christ ascended.
    What do those functions consist of? Who are the included partakers of those functions other than the Spirit? He has certain functions in regard to the lost, and he has certain functions in regard to the saved. One of those functions for the saved is to glorify Jesus Christ. What? Where did that come from? I don't have a "line of argument". I'm not debating or arguing anything. However, to answer your question...no, I wouldn't contend that. 
    There are many things that the scriptures don't say. Such as, the scriptures don't say that the Holy Spirit will glorify himself. However, the scriptures DO say that in the lives of believers, the Spirit will glorify the Son.
    So do I.
    No, I could be wrong, but I think people are more scared of what other people will think of them if they talk about the Holy Spirit...thanks to the circus performer that Pentecostals and Charismatics have made him out to be. People are scared to be identified with that. I'm not saying I'm right or it's right...just giving my perspective.
    What? Where did that come from? 
    No, some of us are not. I'm just showing one of the errors of Pentecostalism as evidenced by a clear passage of scripture. In the life of a believer, the Holy Spirit will glorify Jesus Christ. It doesn't say anything other than that...so that's what I have to go on. If you want to believe that the Holy Spirit will ever glorify and exalt himself over Jesus Christ, you're free to do so.
    What? Where did that come from? However, to answer your question...no.
    Now...I think I've answered all of your questions, and I've tried to do it humbly. I answered because you quoted me, and I felt that I should at least honor that. However, I no longer get involved in debates or arguments Jordan. If you want to respond to anything that I've said here, I understand. However, I feel it's only fair to let you know that I won't respond back again.
     
  10. Thanks
    LindaR reacted to Ronda in Four Blood Moons on God’s Feast Days   
    Dear Invicta, thank you, but please don't bother. It shouldn't take finding a backup of notes to describe what " no, nor ever shall be " means to you. To me, it means what it says. Literally.
    Dear Genievanpreacher,  The "time of Jacob's trouble" noted in Jer. 30:7 has at least one prerequisite given.
    Jer. 30:3 "For, lo, the days come, saith the Lord, that I will bring again the captivity of my people Israel and Judah, saith the Lord: and I will cause them to return to the land that I gave to their fathers, and they shall possess it."
    Reason #1. The Jews are back in the land, the time of Jacob's trouble could not have occurred prior to this event (the Jew's regathered back into Israel). Since this event did not happen until 1948, it is sure "the time of Jacob's trouble" could not happen until at least that precondition was met.

     
  11. Thanks
    LindaR reacted to John81 in Dr. Peter S. Ruckman past away today.   
    Ruckman went down an odd trail but it would seem there is far more chance of meeting him in heaven than Prince. As usual, every time a "star" dies it seems the masses are busy trying to convince themselves their "star" is in heaven. Not a shred of Bible-based evidence to support such a claim; as is also most often the case, but on and on goes the chatter of how they are now in heaven.
    Both deaths should serve as a lesson for everyone that if a person wants to go to heaven they need to be born again in Christ...if they want others in heaven, they need to share the Gospel of salvation...and if we want to leave a clearly Christ-honouring legacy behind, we need to be sure the road we travel is based upon the Word and we are walking in His will.
  12. Thanks
    LindaR reacted to No Nicolaitans in Creation/Evolution ministry   
  13. Thanks
    LindaR got a reaction from MountainChristian in Easter is the Correct word in Acts 12:4   
    I received this in my email from Jewish Awareness Ministries.  It was in response to my question about the origin of word Easter.       
    The De-Judification of Pascha in the Early Church
    (Author Unknown)
    At least as late as the fourth century A.D., the holiday known as Easter was called Pascha. That Greek name came from the Hebrew Pesach ("Passover" in English). Easter, however, appears to be derived from Eastre, the name or festival of the Teutonic goddess of spring, to whom sacrifices were offered in the month of April. The word is Germanic, not Greek or Hebrew. We can surmise that when Christianity began to make inroads among the Teutonic (Germanic) tribes, the name Easter was transferred to the Christian celebration, inasmuch as both occurred at the same time of year.1
    'The earliest observances of Pascha took place at the same time as Passover, on the 14th day of the Jewish month Nisan. This celebration is referred to as the "Quartodeciman  Passover" from the Latin word for "fourteenth."
    Moves toward changing the date of Pascha began early in the second century. The motivation behind this change was fear of the authorities coupled with anti-Jewish sentiment. The actual course of events appears to have been as follows.2
    Bishop Sixtus of Rome, who presided from A.D. 116-126, may have been the first to observe a Sunday date rather than the 14th of Nisan. Three reasons support this idea.
    1. According to the church historian Eusebius, a later Roman bishop named Victor sought to impose a Sunday observance on the entire Church and to break ties with those Christians who observed the 14th of Nisan. He was opposed by Irenaeus, who discouraged such a break and argued that peace should be kept among Christians who celebrated the day on different dates. He contended that even earlier church leaders who did not observe the Quartodeciman date were at peace with those who did. In mentioning the names of one church leader after another, Irenaeus used reverse chronological order, stopping at Bishop Sixtus. This seems to imply that the practice first began with Sixtus.
    2. The rule of Bishop Sixtus coincided with the measures of the Roman Emperor Hadrian that were aimed at repressing anything Jewish. (Hadrian's reign was A.D. 117-138.) It would have made sense if the church had been pressured at that time not to observe the 14th of Nisan. Any anti-Jewish feeling would certainly have, been catalyzed by Hadrian's prohibition of Jewish customs and festivals. This culminated in the expulsion of the Jews, including the Jewish Christian church leaders, from Jerusalem, circa A.D. 135. (After that, the Jerusalem Church was composed of Gentiles.).
    3. According to the fourth century Bishop Epiphanius, the Sunday observance of Pascha was first introduced in Jerusalem after A.D. 135 when the Jews were forced out of Jerusalem by Hadrian. If the new Sunday observance began with Sixtus in his tenure of A.D. 116-126, this would have allowed time for the practice to have spread to Jerusalem by A.D. 135.
    The next significant step on record comes from the late second century, the time of Bishop Victor of Rome. As already mentioned, Victor attempted to make the Sunday observance of Pascha uniform. A primary motivating factor for Victor would have been the presence in Rome of many Christians from Asia Minor who observed the Quartodeciman Passover. Their presence alongside the Roman believers would have meant that Christians were observing two different dates for the same occasion. Perhaps Victor's only motive was his desire to ensure uniformity of worship within the Church.      
    In any case, by the middle of the third century, blatant anti-Semitic statements are found in various Christian sources. In a work called De pascha computus, the author, known as Pseudo-Cyprian, wrote contemptuously of following the Jewish practice, expressing the desire for Christians not to "walk in blindness and stupidity behind the Jews as though they did not know what was the day of Passover."3
    Finally, in the fourth century; Pascha became decisively separated from Passover and restricted to a Sunday observance. Not only individuals but church councils contributed to the change of date. In 314, the Council of Arles recommended a single date for the uniform observance of Pascha, but it was the Council of Nicaea in 325 that was the watershed that solidified this motion. The date of Pascha was fixed as the Sunday following the full moon that falls on or after the vernal equinox.4 The edict of the Council of Nicaea proclaimed:
    "All the brethren in the East who formerly celebrated Easter with the Jews, will henceforth keep it at the same time as the Romans, with us and with all those who from ancient times have celebrated the feast at the same time with us."5
    Ultimate official support came from Emperor Constantine, whose conciliar letter to all bishops of the same time period announced it "unworthy" to celebrate Pascha on Passover.6
    Nevertheless, complications arose because some churches followed the Jewish or lunar calendar. Full uniformity in calculating the date was not secured until as late as the eighth century.7 The Eastern Orthodox Church still calculates Easter differently than the Western churches by as much as five weeks.8
    1. See J. D. Douglas, Walter A. Elwell and Peter Toon, eds., The Concise Dictionary of Christian Tradition: Worship, Liturgy, and History (London: Marshall Pickering, 1989), "Easter"; John C. . McCollister, The Christian Book of Why (Middle Village, NY: Jonathan David, 1983), pp. 230-231; International Standard Bible Encyclopedia, see "Easter."
    2. As described by Samuele Bacchiocchi, From Sabbath to Sunday: A Historical Investigation of the Rise of Sunday Observance in Early Christianity (Rome: Pontifical Gregorian University Press, 1977), pp. 159-163, 199-206. See also 1. Jeremias, "pa,sca [Pascha]," Theological Dictionary of the New Testament V:901-903; Jean Danielou, The Theology of Jewish Christianity (London: Darton, Longman & Todd; Philadelphia: The Westminster Press, 1964), pp. 343-344; Kenneth Scott Latourette, A History of Christianity, Vol. I: Beginnings to 1500 (New York: Harper & Row, 1975, 1953), p. 137.
    3. Bacchiocchi, p. 206 n. 115.
    4. On this point see The New International Dictionary of the Christian Church, rev. ed., (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1978), "Easter," "Paschal Controversies," "Quartodecimanism."
    5. The word Easter appears in the English translation of this text but actually was not a term in use at this point in time. The holiday was still called Pascha. Quotation is from Bacchiocchi, p. 203 n. 104.
    6. Ibid., p. 206.
    7. The Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, Second Series. Volume XIV, The Seven Ecumenical Councils (Eerdmans, 1991 [reprint]), pp. 55-56.
    8. See the articles referred to in note 4.
     
     
  14. Thanks
    LindaR reacted to No Nicolaitans in Guinea Pigs   
    Speaking of...I heard a song today that I've always enjoyed..."I've Got More to go to Heaven For than I Had Yesterday".
    Part of it says...
    There's a golden street to walk upon,
    A bell I'm gonna ring.
    Does anyone know where this reference to ringing a bell in heaven comes from? 
  15. Thanks
    LindaR got a reaction from Standing Firm In Christ in The Tithe, for the Church or not?   
    What Are The Three Tithes? What Is The Storehouse and the First Fruits?  (Ron Robey)
    Discussion on the three tithes, the storehouse, and the first fruits. 
    NOTE: Biblical tithes never were, and never will be monetary.  Biblical tithes are defined in Leviticus 27:30-33 and Deuteronomy 14:22-29.  Tithes and first fruits are not the same. (Nehemiah 10:37-38)  The storehouse is not the church house.
  16. Thanks
    LindaR reacted to John81 in Four Blood Moons on God’s Feast Days   
    This blood moon stuff is more about hype and stirring emotions for the sake of selling books, drawing crowds and gathering donations. This is typical of end-times hustlers who go from one end-times fad to the next in order to reap fame and fortune.
    Cahn has come out with a new book to explain why he really wasn't wrong in his previous shemitah/blood moon books weren't wrong and how it's all still coming together. John Hagee continues in this line as several others do too.
    A simple internet search provides an abundance of proof as to why these claims are not only false, but in most cases don't even make sense. Even so, these end-times hustlers continue to rake in the dollars with their books, special appearances and sermon series and calls for offerings.
    In light of the end-times what does Scripture actually call us to do? We are called to be found living in Christ and being about the Father's business.
  17. Thanks
    LindaR got a reaction from Ronda in Easter is the Correct word in Acts 12:4   
    I received this in my email from Jewish Awareness Ministries.  It was in response to my question about the origin of word Easter.       
    The De-Judification of Pascha in the Early Church
    (Author Unknown)
    At least as late as the fourth century A.D., the holiday known as Easter was called Pascha. That Greek name came from the Hebrew Pesach ("Passover" in English). Easter, however, appears to be derived from Eastre, the name or festival of the Teutonic goddess of spring, to whom sacrifices were offered in the month of April. The word is Germanic, not Greek or Hebrew. We can surmise that when Christianity began to make inroads among the Teutonic (Germanic) tribes, the name Easter was transferred to the Christian celebration, inasmuch as both occurred at the same time of year.1
    'The earliest observances of Pascha took place at the same time as Passover, on the 14th day of the Jewish month Nisan. This celebration is referred to as the "Quartodeciman  Passover" from the Latin word for "fourteenth."
    Moves toward changing the date of Pascha began early in the second century. The motivation behind this change was fear of the authorities coupled with anti-Jewish sentiment. The actual course of events appears to have been as follows.2
    Bishop Sixtus of Rome, who presided from A.D. 116-126, may have been the first to observe a Sunday date rather than the 14th of Nisan. Three reasons support this idea.
    1. According to the church historian Eusebius, a later Roman bishop named Victor sought to impose a Sunday observance on the entire Church and to break ties with those Christians who observed the 14th of Nisan. He was opposed by Irenaeus, who discouraged such a break and argued that peace should be kept among Christians who celebrated the day on different dates. He contended that even earlier church leaders who did not observe the Quartodeciman date were at peace with those who did. In mentioning the names of one church leader after another, Irenaeus used reverse chronological order, stopping at Bishop Sixtus. This seems to imply that the practice first began with Sixtus.
    2. The rule of Bishop Sixtus coincided with the measures of the Roman Emperor Hadrian that were aimed at repressing anything Jewish. (Hadrian's reign was A.D. 117-138.) It would have made sense if the church had been pressured at that time not to observe the 14th of Nisan. Any anti-Jewish feeling would certainly have, been catalyzed by Hadrian's prohibition of Jewish customs and festivals. This culminated in the expulsion of the Jews, including the Jewish Christian church leaders, from Jerusalem, circa A.D. 135. (After that, the Jerusalem Church was composed of Gentiles.).
    3. According to the fourth century Bishop Epiphanius, the Sunday observance of Pascha was first introduced in Jerusalem after A.D. 135 when the Jews were forced out of Jerusalem by Hadrian. If the new Sunday observance began with Sixtus in his tenure of A.D. 116-126, this would have allowed time for the practice to have spread to Jerusalem by A.D. 135.
    The next significant step on record comes from the late second century, the time of Bishop Victor of Rome. As already mentioned, Victor attempted to make the Sunday observance of Pascha uniform. A primary motivating factor for Victor would have been the presence in Rome of many Christians from Asia Minor who observed the Quartodeciman Passover. Their presence alongside the Roman believers would have meant that Christians were observing two different dates for the same occasion. Perhaps Victor's only motive was his desire to ensure uniformity of worship within the Church.      
    In any case, by the middle of the third century, blatant anti-Semitic statements are found in various Christian sources. In a work called De pascha computus, the author, known as Pseudo-Cyprian, wrote contemptuously of following the Jewish practice, expressing the desire for Christians not to "walk in blindness and stupidity behind the Jews as though they did not know what was the day of Passover."3
    Finally, in the fourth century; Pascha became decisively separated from Passover and restricted to a Sunday observance. Not only individuals but church councils contributed to the change of date. In 314, the Council of Arles recommended a single date for the uniform observance of Pascha, but it was the Council of Nicaea in 325 that was the watershed that solidified this motion. The date of Pascha was fixed as the Sunday following the full moon that falls on or after the vernal equinox.4 The edict of the Council of Nicaea proclaimed:
    "All the brethren in the East who formerly celebrated Easter with the Jews, will henceforth keep it at the same time as the Romans, with us and with all those who from ancient times have celebrated the feast at the same time with us."5
    Ultimate official support came from Emperor Constantine, whose conciliar letter to all bishops of the same time period announced it "unworthy" to celebrate Pascha on Passover.6
    Nevertheless, complications arose because some churches followed the Jewish or lunar calendar. Full uniformity in calculating the date was not secured until as late as the eighth century.7 The Eastern Orthodox Church still calculates Easter differently than the Western churches by as much as five weeks.8
    1. See J. D. Douglas, Walter A. Elwell and Peter Toon, eds., The Concise Dictionary of Christian Tradition: Worship, Liturgy, and History (London: Marshall Pickering, 1989), "Easter"; John C. . McCollister, The Christian Book of Why (Middle Village, NY: Jonathan David, 1983), pp. 230-231; International Standard Bible Encyclopedia, see "Easter."
    2. As described by Samuele Bacchiocchi, From Sabbath to Sunday: A Historical Investigation of the Rise of Sunday Observance in Early Christianity (Rome: Pontifical Gregorian University Press, 1977), pp. 159-163, 199-206. See also 1. Jeremias, "pa,sca [Pascha]," Theological Dictionary of the New Testament V:901-903; Jean Danielou, The Theology of Jewish Christianity (London: Darton, Longman & Todd; Philadelphia: The Westminster Press, 1964), pp. 343-344; Kenneth Scott Latourette, A History of Christianity, Vol. I: Beginnings to 1500 (New York: Harper & Row, 1975, 1953), p. 137.
    3. Bacchiocchi, p. 206 n. 115.
    4. On this point see The New International Dictionary of the Christian Church, rev. ed., (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1978), "Easter," "Paschal Controversies," "Quartodecimanism."
    5. The word Easter appears in the English translation of this text but actually was not a term in use at this point in time. The holiday was still called Pascha. Quotation is from Bacchiocchi, p. 203 n. 104.
    6. Ibid., p. 206.
    7. The Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, Second Series. Volume XIV, The Seven Ecumenical Councils (Eerdmans, 1991 [reprint]), pp. 55-56.
    8. See the articles referred to in note 4.
     
     
  18. Thanks
    LindaR got a reaction from Standing Firm In Christ in Three Days and Three Nights   
    My understanding is that the entire Bible (all 66 books) was penned by Jewish "holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost." (2 Peter 1:21b).
    So don't knock "Jewish understanding" when it comes to understanding "what the Bible says".
    Romans 3:1 What advantage then hath the Jew? or what profit is there of circumcision?
    Romans 3:2 Much every way: chiefly, because that unto them were committed the oracles of God.
  19. Thanks
    LindaR got a reaction from Standing Firm In Christ in Three Days and Three Nights   
    Brother Markle,
    I have been corresponding via email with a Jewish brother in Christ , Mark Robinson, executive director of Jewish Awareness Ministries concerning the three days and three nights, and the "high" day in John 19:31.  Here is his response to my question concerning the Sabbath and the Sabbath being called a "high day" in John 19:31:
     
    Hi Linda,

    Sabbath is always Saturday.  The “high” or “floating” sabbath crowd is wrong. Judaism only recognizes one sabbath day – Saturday. Here is additional info on the “High” or “”Great” Sabbath.


    (The Great Sabbath) commemorates the 10th day of Nissan, when the Hebrew slaves took the lambs that they were going to offer for Pesach and tied them up outside their homes, to keep until they offered it on the 14th (Ex. 12:3-6). According to tradition, this was a dangerous thing to do, because Egyptians worshipped sheep, but miraculously, instead of slaughtering the Hebrews, the Egyptians instead fought with each other over whether the Hebrews should be sent away already.Shabbat Ha-Gadol is the Shabbat before Pesach (Passover). Traditionally, this was one of the few times of the year that a rabbi gave a lengthy sermon (in modern times, we get one every week). The sermon was usually about preparations for Pesach, and this special Shabbat commemorates a preparation for the original Pesach in Egypt. Shabbat Ha-Gadol“ 


     The special haftarah reading for this Shabbat is Malachi 3:4-24. This messianic prophecy regarding the end of days and the return of the prophet Elijah is read at this time because it is believed that Elijah will return at Pesach. This is why we include a cup for him in our seder rituals.”  

                Judaism 101, http://www.jewfaq.org/special.htm#HaGadol

     There is never 2 sabbath days in a row. Sabbath is ALWAYS Saturday. There are a number of “special” Sabbaths but they are always on Saturdays – see http://www.hebrew4christians.com/Holidays/Shabbat/Special/special.html

     

    Mark Robinson

    Jewish Awareness Ministries
    ***********************************************

    Shabbat HaGadol means "Great Sabbath"
    Haftarah is a reading from the Prophets along with the weekly Torah portion (read in the synagogue on the Sabbath)

    The book of Malachi in the Jewish Scriptures does not have 4 chapters as the does the book of Malachi in our KJV.....it only has 3 (chapters 3 & 4 are combined to 24 verses (18 verses in chapter 3, and 6 verses in chapter 4)
    If anyone is interested in learning more about Jewish Awareness Ministries here is the link to their website:  Jewish Awareness Ministries
     
  20. Thanks
    LindaR got a reaction from Invicta in Three Days and Three Nights   
    Invicta.....
    Daniel's 70th week is not a literal 7 day week.  The 70 weeks are "weeks of years" in Daniel 9:24-27.  You are allegorizing this passage of prophecy all out of context.
     
    Excerpt from the Way of Life Encyclopedia: DANIEL – David W. Cloud

    Daniel 9:24-27. God's timetable for restoring Israel and overthrowing the Gentile powers.

    The Seventy Weeks. The occasion of the 70 weeks was Daniel's prayer that God would have mercy on Israel. The vision of the 70 weeks is God's answer. In this vision God reveals to Daniel the time schedule and major events which will lead to the establishment of Israel's Messianic kingdom.

    The Length of Time of the 70 Weeks. The Hebrew term for weeks here (shebuah) simply means "sevens." The context must determine whether it is a week of days, or of years, etc.
    (1) The weeks which have already been fulfilled demonstrate these are weeks of years rather than of days. It was almost 500 years from the rebuilding of the temple and of Jerusalem until the coming of Christ. This fits perfectly the testimony of Daniel 9:25, which places 69 weeks of years (483 years) between the two events. It is only reasonable to believe that the 70th week shall also be a week of years, or a seven year period.
    (2) When this Hebrew term is used of weeks of days, the word "days" is added (Daniel 10:2-3).
    (3) The concept of weeks of years was familiar to Jewish thinking (Leviticus 25:3-9).
    (4) At the time of the vision, Daniel had been thinking in terms of weeks of years (Daniel 9:2 compared with 2 Chronicles 36:21).

    The Divisions of the 70 Weeks. The 70 weeks are divided into distinct groups.

    (1) During the first 7 weeks (49 years) Jerusalem was rebuilt in troublous times (compare Nehemiah).

    (2) The next 62 weeks (434 years) extends from the rebuilding of Jerusalem until the coming of the Messiah.

    (3) Between the 69th and 70th week is a period of undetermined time during which the Messiah is cut off (compare Matthew. 27), Jerusalem is destroyed by Roman armies (A.D. 70), and there are desolations until the end. The Hebrew word translated "desolation" is also translated "destruction (Hosea. 2:12). It refers to the fact that Jerusalem has been destroyed and overrun time and again throughout the interim period between the 69th and 70th weeks. Unforeseen by Daniel is the interlude of the church age, during which time the Messiah is resurrected and ascends back to Heaven to oversee the calling out of a people for His name from among the nations (Luke 19:11-27; Acts 15:14-18).

    (4) The 70th week (the final seven years). The prince of the revived Roman Empire will make a covenant with Israel. That the Antichrist arises from the revived Roman Empire is evident by the fact that he is called the prince of the people who destroyed Jerusalem after Messiah's death; this was Rome. In the middle of the seven years the Antichrist will desecrate the Jewish temple (compare Matthew 24:15; 2 Thess. 2:3-4). There will be desolations until Christ returns to overthrow the Antichrist (compare Matthew24:16-21; Revelation 11:2). The abomination that makes desolate marks the middle of the seven years. Compare Matthew 24:15 where Jesus places this event in the Tribulation period. This abomination of desolation probably refers to the occasion when the Antichrist will set himself up as god (2 Thess 2:4).

    Sorry for getting off track here......back to the topic of Three Days and Three Nights

     

     

  21. Thanks
    LindaR got a reaction from Standing Firm In Christ in Three Days and Three Nights   
    Invicta.....
    Daniel's 70th week is not a literal 7 day week.  The 70 weeks are "weeks of years" in Daniel 9:24-27.  You are allegorizing this passage of prophecy all out of context.
     
    Excerpt from the Way of Life Encyclopedia: DANIEL – David W. Cloud

    Daniel 9:24-27. God's timetable for restoring Israel and overthrowing the Gentile powers.

    The Seventy Weeks. The occasion of the 70 weeks was Daniel's prayer that God would have mercy on Israel. The vision of the 70 weeks is God's answer. In this vision God reveals to Daniel the time schedule and major events which will lead to the establishment of Israel's Messianic kingdom.

    The Length of Time of the 70 Weeks. The Hebrew term for weeks here (shebuah) simply means "sevens." The context must determine whether it is a week of days, or of years, etc.
    (1) The weeks which have already been fulfilled demonstrate these are weeks of years rather than of days. It was almost 500 years from the rebuilding of the temple and of Jerusalem until the coming of Christ. This fits perfectly the testimony of Daniel 9:25, which places 69 weeks of years (483 years) between the two events. It is only reasonable to believe that the 70th week shall also be a week of years, or a seven year period.
    (2) When this Hebrew term is used of weeks of days, the word "days" is added (Daniel 10:2-3).
    (3) The concept of weeks of years was familiar to Jewish thinking (Leviticus 25:3-9).
    (4) At the time of the vision, Daniel had been thinking in terms of weeks of years (Daniel 9:2 compared with 2 Chronicles 36:21).

    The Divisions of the 70 Weeks. The 70 weeks are divided into distinct groups.

    (1) During the first 7 weeks (49 years) Jerusalem was rebuilt in troublous times (compare Nehemiah).

    (2) The next 62 weeks (434 years) extends from the rebuilding of Jerusalem until the coming of the Messiah.

    (3) Between the 69th and 70th week is a period of undetermined time during which the Messiah is cut off (compare Matthew. 27), Jerusalem is destroyed by Roman armies (A.D. 70), and there are desolations until the end. The Hebrew word translated "desolation" is also translated "destruction (Hosea. 2:12). It refers to the fact that Jerusalem has been destroyed and overrun time and again throughout the interim period between the 69th and 70th weeks. Unforeseen by Daniel is the interlude of the church age, during which time the Messiah is resurrected and ascends back to Heaven to oversee the calling out of a people for His name from among the nations (Luke 19:11-27; Acts 15:14-18).

    (4) The 70th week (the final seven years). The prince of the revived Roman Empire will make a covenant with Israel. That the Antichrist arises from the revived Roman Empire is evident by the fact that he is called the prince of the people who destroyed Jerusalem after Messiah's death; this was Rome. In the middle of the seven years the Antichrist will desecrate the Jewish temple (compare Matthew 24:15; 2 Thess. 2:3-4). There will be desolations until Christ returns to overthrow the Antichrist (compare Matthew24:16-21; Revelation 11:2). The abomination that makes desolate marks the middle of the seven years. Compare Matthew 24:15 where Jesus places this event in the Tribulation period. This abomination of desolation probably refers to the occasion when the Antichrist will set himself up as god (2 Thess 2:4).

    Sorry for getting off track here......back to the topic of Three Days and Three Nights

     

     

  22. Thanks
    LindaR got a reaction from Standing Firm In Christ in Three Days and Three Nights   
    1 Corinthians 15:1 Moreover, brethren, I declare unto you the gospel which I preached unto you, which also ye have received, and wherein ye stand;
    1 Corinthians 15:2 By which also ye are saved, if ye keep in memory what I preached unto you, unless ye have believed in vain.
    1 Corinthians 15:3 For I delivered unto you first of all that which I also received, how that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures;
    1 Corinthians 15:4 And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures:
    1 Corinthians 15:5 And that he was seen of Cephas, then of the twelve:
    1 Corinthians 15:6 After that, he was seen of above five hundred brethren at once; of whom the greater part remain unto this present, but some are fallen asleep.
    1 Corinthians 15:7 After that, he was seen of James; then of all the apostles.
    1 Corinthians 15:8 And last of all he was seen of me also, as of one born out of due time.

     
  23. Thanks
    LindaR reacted to Pastor Scott Markle in Three Days and Three Nights   
    Indeed, I could have included this verse.  However, the phrase, "when it was yet dark," is veeeeery imprecise statement concerning the timing of that coming.  Whereas the phrases, "very early in the morning" and "at the rising of the sun," are much more precise statements concerning that timing.  Apparently the women went to the tomb quite early in the morning, when the sun had just begun to rise and the darkness was still more predominant, such that there was just the smallest amount of light from the sunrise upon the horizon (indeed, at approximately 6 am in the morning).
  24. Thanks
    LindaR reacted to Pastor Scott Markle in Three Days and Three Nights   
    Actually, the position that the phrase in Matthew 28:1, "as it began to dawn toward the first day of the week," means early Sunday morning (at approximately 6 am) is supported by the parallel passages in the other gospels.  In Matthew 28:1 this time element is employed in order to inform us concerning the time wherein the women went to the tomb.  In parallel with Matthew 28:1, concerning the coming of the women to the tomb, we find the following:
    Mark 16:2 -- "And very early in the morning the first day of the week, they came unto the sepulchre at the rising of the sun."
    Luke 24:1 -- "Now upon the first day of the week, very early in the morning, they came unto the sepulchre, bringing the spices which they had prepared, and certain others with them."
  25. Thanks
    LindaR reacted to Ukulelemike in Easter is the Correct word in Acts 12:4   
    Wait, so you really think Herod was celebrating the resurrection of Jesus Christ? Seriously? No, Herod celebrated the celebration of Ishtar. It was the rembrance of Tammuz and his death at the hands of a wild boar. This was a well-established Spring celebration, preceeded by 40 days of fasting for Tammuz, which the Catholic church 'christianized' and called Easter. This is where the 40 days of Lent came from, the weeping for Tammuz, one of the abominations of Israel, and why they went into captivity. And another, the worship of the sun which rises in the 'east'. Also, Easter is often held at a different time from the Passover, when Jesus died. So yes Easter WAS the correct word, it just wasn't the celebration of the resurrection of Jesus. Remember it was Herod who chose to wait until after Easter-it was in reference to Herod, not believers. There are no New Testament feasts-they have all been established by the Roman Catholics.   
     
    Okay, having now read the article, let me make what may be a sounder argument.   First, I see the author of the article goes to some length to speak on the word in the Greek. And here I thought most of us disregarded making our primary arguments based on the Greek, since the 'original Greek' doesn't exist, hence we are assuming the Greek we have today in the various Greek New testaments, (most of which were produced by theological liberals and textual critics) is questionable, and we put our faith in the Lord preserving His word in the English. So I am going to go off the Bible, KJV, period, and make my arguments based therein.
     One comment the author makes is that since the word was used by Luke, the only gentile who wrote some of the New Testament, we can assume he was not speaking of Passover, since he didn't keep Passover, not being a Jew. That would be fine, except Luke, the non-Jew, also mentions in the same context "(Then were the days of unleavened bread.)" So if there was no reference here to Passover since he was a Gentile, why is he then mentioning the days of unleavened bread, the seven-day feast the JEWS kept after the day of Passover? So this argument makes no sense.
    He also says that by Luke's writing of Acts, 'Pashcal' WAS 'Easter', ie, the Christian celebration of Jesus' resurrection, is not to be found in scripture. There is not one word anywhere that believers ever kept a special yearly feast of 'The East', to memorialize Jesus' resurrection. Context says that it was Herod who intended, after Easter, to bring Peter forth before the people. Pashcal was a term that referred to both the day of Passover and the feast of unleavened bread-here Easter is used because it was NOT Passover, but something entirely different.
    Next, as I mentioned in my first reply but I will expand upon a bit, one of the great abominable sins the Jews committed that brought about their Babylonian captivity, was  praying to the rising sun (rising in the east, sunrise service? Eze 8:16) and weeping for Tammuz (Eze 8:14). Tammuz was closely associated with Ishtar, his consort. So it would be no surprise if some of these activities continued on.
    One problem, as seen in the article, and as well, in any article you will read on Eostre or Ishtar, or Astarte, some of the idols that have been associated with pagan Easter, is that there is little clear information on any of them. That they are actual ancient worshipped idols is pretty clear, but beyond that, their characteristics, their powers, their associations, their symbols, seem to evolve and change over time and places, to the point that to give any real clear yea or nay on whether any of them were directly or indirectly associated with Easter is difficult, if not impossible to say. Thus to say that Easter is NOT influenced by any of these things is just not possible to say. And, in fact, since Eostre WAS associated with rabbits and eggs, and part of the mythology was that Eostre turned a phoenix into a rabbit to protect it, but still by nature a bird, the phoenix laid brightly colored eggs, somehow makes some connections that are hard to ignore.
    AS for Easter meaning 'east', it is interesting that there is no Greek or Hebrew word that was translated Easter, rather an old Germanic or Saxon word was used instead, for which there is apparently NO Greek version. Luke did not use any form of 'Easter' here-it was replaced with something completely foreign to the word used by Luke. It was used to show that, whatever Herod was celebrating, it had nothing to do with the Passover OR the feast of unleavened bread-if it was referencing some special celebration of Jesus' resurrection, well, he being the Passover Lamb of God, it would have been appropriate for that word to have been used, since Pashcal could refer to the entire 8 days of the two feasts, or the one day of Passover. But since Passover was over, (and thus, the time they would have celebrated Jesus' resurrection) and it was during the time of unleavened bread, it was, I believe, referring to something else, something related to Herod, and again, Herod I doubt would have been celebrating Jesus' resurrection, as I somehow doubt he believed in it.
    Anyways, that's all I got for now. FWIW
×
×
  • Create New...