Jump to content
Online Baptist Community

John Young

Independent Fundamental Baptist
  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Everything posted by John Young

  1. Most here know that the Textus Receptus and Nestle-Aland Greek text are not from just one Greek Bible manuscript but rather composed of many different ones and then compared with each other in order to come up with one Greek text (along with minor variations and notes sometimes placed in the margins). The problem with N-A is in it's composition Philosophy. This philosophy believes older, shorter, readings are better regardless of the origin of the script. It also teaches that what has been historically handed down to us has been manipulated and changed and added to from its original form. As a result their composition is ever changing to fit with "new manuscript discoveries" and the latest "modern research practices". It also ignores older Latin, and other languages script when considering how authoritative a Greek reading is. Additionally N-A holds several corrupt text in high regard such as the Vaticanus, Sinaiticus, and Alexandrea manuscripts. Non of these have ever been historically used yet for the N-A they are considered the "best" manuscripts. All modern bibles, regardless quality use the N-A in translation. The TR on the other hand is pretty much the opposite in collection philosophy and has been the standar for all English bibles up to the King James. It also derives its collection philosophy from scripture rather then "modern research practices". It believes what has been handed down by and used faithfully in the church community is better. (2 Timothy 2:2 And the things that thou hast heard of me among many witnesses, the same commit thou to faithful men, who shall be able to teach others also. 2 Peter 1:20 knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation.) It also believes that origins of the manuscript matters, that text cannot contradict itself and has to be verifiable across many scripts to be considered authoritative. It also considers all manuscript languages to determine the correct Greek text. The KJV translators also used the same philosophy in considering the word that would go into their English bible. They not only checked the TR but also conferred with Latin, French, German and other English bibles. The KJV was the perfection of all the bible that came before it and today is the final English product of the TR bible translating Philosophy. No other bible in common use today other then the KJV uses the biblical translation method. Today they all use secular research methods which tend to ignore what the Bible itself has to say about transmitting the Word of God. That is the main reason I cannot accept the N-A and the modern English bible which use it. 2 Corinthians 2:17 For we are not as many, which corrupt the word of God: but as of sincerity, but as of God, in the sight of God speak we in Christ. To me, seeking for a better bible then the KJV is a waste of my time. It is already considered one of the best and accurate English bibles even by the modern bible crowd. It is much more profitable to the believer if they stick to the best and then learn it. Modern bibles main goal is a bible that conforms to the reader's level but the KJV seeks to conform the reader to God. So while many new bibles claim to be easier and simpler to read then the ones which came before it, the KJV will challenge, expand and grown the reader, not only in bible knowledge but also in their reading, writing, comprehension and composition skills. It not only is the best Bible in English but it also is considered the best literature in English that any one can read.
  2. Never said I was voting FOR Hillary. I also already have heard all the arguments about needing to vote AGAINST her. However I am exploring other options. I want to know why I as a Christian, with no party affiliation, should vote FOR Trump (regardless of the anti-Hillary arguments). Or IF a Third party vote (Constitution/Libertarian) or a write in for Cruz as protest AGAINST BOTH Trump and Hilary had viability. Obviously not voting for Trump means Hilary may get in this cycle but frankly I don't want to ride the Trump/Republican train slowly to the same Hilary destination. The more who get off now the better it will be for Constitutional Conservatives later. Otherwise in four years there will be the same call to vote AGAINST and the same bad options, just as it has been for the last several cycles.
  3. Now that Trump is the presumptive nominee of the republican party, I would like to ask and reword the OP question in light of that. Why should a Christian vote FOR Trump? I know why Republicans will vote for Him mainly AGAINST Hilary but I would like to know specifically why for a Christian. (I've always registered as an Independent so party loyalty answers really do not work for me). What Christian values or accommodations can we see under Him that we cannot also get with Her (I realize she is a murderer, socialist light, etc.) If we chose "the lesser evil this cycle like we have every cycle will it simply perpetuate the problem we have had? Should a Christian write in Cruz or vote third party this election cycle as a protest even if it means Hillary gets the presidency? If all Christians voted constitution or libertarian in large numbers this cycle would it encourage more next cycle and put the parties "on notice" to change? Just some thoughts. Trying to decide.....
  4. It is clear to me that Luke is alluding and contrasting the Resurrection in Acts 12. By this time, the Passover is no longer about OT Passover for the Christian. It would be quite silly of them to simply celebrate the Passover and just ignore all of the Easter events of the week or to keep quiet about the fact this was the time of year the Christ was crucified and rose again. Acts 12 is about Herod, the Jewish leader, trying to vex the church and please the Jews during a time very important to everyone. The best way to please the Jews that is to stifle the church's resurrection event and to keep the events limited strictly to those of the OT Passover. Acts 4:1-2 And as they spake unto the people, the priests, and the captain of the temple, and the Sadducees, came upon them, 2 being grieved that they taught the people, and preached through Jesus the resurrection from the dead. I've taken the liberty of copying Acts 12 below and noted in red how I think the passage events compare to the events of Christ's resurrection. Note the intents of Herod's actions at the beginning then notice how God turned it around. Acts12: Now about that time Herod the king stretched forth his hands to vex certain of the church. 2 And he killed James the brother of John with the sword. 3 And because he saw it pleased the Jews, he proceeded further to take Peter also. (Then were the days of unleavened bread.) Jesus also was taken during this time. Pilate found no fault in Jesus but because he wanted to pacify the Jews he allowed Jesus to be taken and killed. Herod captured James during the days of bread and killed him. Rather than kill Peter whom he captured, soon after, he decides to keep him until "after Easter". Not to be put to death, but to be brought forth to the people. Matthew 27:16-20 And they had then a notable prisoner, called Barabbas. 17 Therefore when they were gathered together, Pilate said unto them, Whom will ye that I release unto you? Barabbas, or Jesus which is called Christ? 18 For he knew that for envy they had delivered him.19 When he was set down on the judgment seat, his wife sent unto him, saying, Have thou nothing to do with that just man: for I have suffered many things this day in a dream because of him. 20 But the chief priests and elders persuaded the multitude that they should ask Barabbas, and destroy Jesus. 4 And when he had apprehended him, he put him in prison, and delivered him to four quaternions of soldiers to keep him; intending after Easter to bring him forth to the people. Jesus was put in a tomb guarded by soldiers with the command to guard the tomb until AFTER the third day. Matthew 27:62-66 Now the next day, that followed the day of the preparation, the chief priests and Pharisees came together unto Pilate, 63 saying, Sir, we remember that that deceiver said, while he was yet alive, After three days I will rise again. 64 Command therefore that the sepulchre be made sure until the third day, lest his disciples come by night, and steal him away, and say unto the people, He is risen from the dead: so the last error shall be worse than the first. 65 Pilate said unto them, Ye have a watch: go your way, make it as sure as ye can. 66 So they went, and made the sepulchre sure, sealing the stone, and setting a watch. 5 Peter therefore was kept in prison: Up to this point Herod thought he was in control of everything happening to Peter..... but prayer was made without ceasing of the church unto God for him. 6 And when Herod would have brought him forth, the same night Peter was sleeping between two soldiers, bound with two chains: and the keepers before the door kept the prison. 7 And, behold, the angel of the Lord came upon him, and a light shined in the prison: and he smote Peter on the side, and raised him up, saying, Arise up quickly. And his chains fell off from his hands. 8 And the angel said unto him, Gird thyself, and bind on thy sandals. And so he did. And he saith unto him, Cast thy garment about thee, and follow me. 9 And he went out, and followed him; and wist not that it was true which was done by the angel; but thought he saw a vision. 10 When they were past the first and the second ward, they came unto the iron gate that leadeth unto the city; which opened to them of his own accord: and they went out, and passed on through one street; and forthwith the angel departed from him.11 And when Peter was come to himself, he said, Now I know of a surety, that the Lord hath sent his angel, and hath delivered me out of the hand of Herod, and from all the expectation of the people of the Jews. The Angel of the lord rolled the stone away from the tomb of Jesus and the Angel of the Lord freed Peter by opening the doors. Peter rose while it was dark the same day he was to have been brought forth and Jesus also rose before the dawning of the day. 12 And when he had considered the thing, he came to the house of Mary the mother of John, whose surname was Mark; where many were gathered together praying. 13 And as Peter knocked at the door of the gate, a damsel came to hearken, named Rhoda. 14 And when she knew Peter’s voice, she opened not the gate for gladness, but ran in, and told how Peter stood before the gate. 15 And they said unto her, Thou art mad. But she constantly affirmed that it was even so. Then said they, It is his angel. 16 But Peter continued knocking: and when they had opened the door, and saw him, they were astonished. 17 But he, beckoning unto them with the hand to hold their peace, declared unto them how the Lord had brought him out of the prison. And he said, Go shew these things unto James, and to the brethren. And he departed, and went into another place. Jesus too had women bare the message after the resurrection. At first they thought Jesus was a spirit as well. Luke 24:39 Behold my hands and my feet, that it is I myself: handle me, and see; for a spirit hath not flesh and bones, as ye see me have. Luke 24:21-23 But we trusted that it had been he which should have redeemed Israel: and beside all this, to day is the third day since these things were done. 22 Yea, and certain women also of our company made us astonished, which were early at the sepulchre; 23 and when they found not his body, they came, saying, that they had also seen a vision of angels, which said that he was alive. 18 Now as soon as it was day, there was no small stir among the soldiers, what was become of Peter. 19 And when Herod had sought for him, and found him not, he examined the keepers, and commanded that they should be put to death. The Roman soldiers could not keep Jesus as well and were paid off. It seems that Herod did not feel like paying these soldiers...... Matthew 28:11-15 Now when they were going, behold, some of the watch came into the city, and shewed unto the chief priests all the things that were done.12 And when they were assembled with the elders, and had taken counsel, they gave large money unto the soldiers, 13 saying, Say ye, His disciples came by night, and stole him away while we slept. 14 And if this come to the governor’s ears, we will persuade him, and secure you.15 So they took the money, and did as they were taught: and this saying is commonly reported among the Jews until this day. And he went down from Judæa to Cæsarea, and there abode. 20 And Herod was highly displeased with them of Tyre and Sidon: but they came with one accord to him, and, having made Blastus the king’s chamberlain their friend, desired peace; because their country was nourished by the king’s country. 21 And upon a set day Herod, arrayed in royal apparel, sat upon his throne, and made an oration unto them.22 And the people gave a shout, saying, It is the voice of a god, and not of a man. 23 And immediately the angel of the Lord smote him, because he gave not God the glory: and he was eaten of worms, and gave up the ghost. Here we see Herod is struck down....24 But the word of God grew and multiplied. This shows that the Word of God, Jesus Christ, prevailed over Herod. In this battle for the people. 25 And Barnabas and Saul returned from Jerusalem, when they had fulfilled their ministry, and took with them John, whose surname was Mark.
  5. Hi, Heir of Salvation. I fixed your post for you...... It must have been something of an issue if the translators found it fitting to change every Pascha to Passover EXCEPT for Acts 12:4. Its clear they knew the meaning of all three words and chose to use the English Chrsitain Pascha, Easter, rather than use the Jew's Pascha, Passover. Simply put, none of the other Paschas in the bible meant Easter except for Acts 12:4.
  6. Basically, to simplify, before the NT the Greek/Hebrew Pascha meant the time when the lamb was slain, blood was posted, and the children left Egypt. In today, in English, this is our word Passover. AFTER the resurrection Pascha was no longer about the Passover lamb but the risen Christ and Acts 12:4 shows the tipping point, if you will, between the Church and the Jewish concepts and emphasis of Pascha. Pascha in all languages NOW does not mean OT Passover but it means NT Easter. It is now a Christian word for a christian event. In Greek they had to say "the Jews Pascha" in order to distinguish Passover from Easter. (type "Passover" into the English to Greek translator and the Greek words "jewwish pascha" is what you will get.) Today, if the Greeks want to speak of OT Pascha they can say "pass over" and it would be more accurate then just using Pascha but that would have to be up to the Greeks to figure out. As for English speakers we already have our two words to differentiate between the OT and NT events.
  7. In Greek, Pascha refers to all the events which surround the holiday, regardless of wither the events are OT or NT, Jewish or Christian. However, in English we make a distinction between the OT events, calling those "Passover events" and the NT events calling those "Easter events". This is why the book of John, the oldest gospel, would sometimes say "the Jew's Pascha" (in reference to Passover) to make sure the readers did not confuse it with the Christian's Pascha, which we in English now call Easter. Luke is writing to Theophilus about the Christian events of Pascha in Acts 12 so the English word Easter has to be used to make that distinction clear in English. Herod and the Jews wanted to destroy the people's faith in the Christian events of Pasha. That is why they wanted to wait until "after Easter" because of the main event of the Christian Pascha, the resurrection, occurred the first day after the week and was considered the main part of pascha by the church. So if Herod (and by default, the Jewish leadership) still had Peter "after Easter" then it would be a sever blow to the people's faith in the Christian church. If Herod was simply waiting until "after Passover" (only after the Jewish feast events) there would really be no real reason to show Peter to the people.
  8. I suppose Easter in Acts 12:4 is important to me personally for a few reasons. Whither or not it is important to others I suppose is up to others. Below are some of my reasons for spending time on the issue. It may seem rehashed but I figured I would post anyway. (It can't hurt right?) I. The word Easter shows the accuracy, precision, care and consideration of all the scriptures the translators took when they translated a word into English from the other languages. The English word Easter used to be how they always translated Pascha/Pesach into English but it was not an accurate translation because it did not mean Passover of the OT. Historically, originally the weeks events were defined by the Passover and had OT perspective on events, but by the time English people needed a bible, that same week in Christianity had a NT perspective and was defined by the resurrection and christian events and was called Easter week. Same week but with a different focus. Tyndale's creation of the English word "Passover" was more accurate and restored the focus of Pascha back to the OT event. So the translators switched to the more accurate Passover except for Acts 12:4 because the context of scripture demanded "pascha" have a more Christian meaning then OT Passover could give it. Easter is a closely related event in the Passover week but was an event that did not exist until the resurrection. After resurrection it became part of Passover for the Christian Jew. The "People" in Acts 12 knew very well that Christ rose the first day after Passover and the context demanded that this Pascha included the resurrection event. The translators could not translate Pascha to "resurrection of Christ" because that is not what Pascha meant. Nor could they simply have the "Passover of the Jews" but they could use Easter, which is "Passover of the Christian" and which had its focus on Christ's resurrection. II. The Pagan Myth compromises the integrity of Christian scholarship and research practices. The myth states that "Pascha is translated Easter instead of Passover in Acts 12:4 because it is a reference to Herod's worship of the pagan goddess Ishtar." This statement is wrong on many levels. A. It uses vague connections prove its claims on the text: 1. It links Easter to Ishtar by the way of the anglo-saxon goddess Eostre. The problem here is that there is only one source for the existence of Eostre. The 8th century historian St. Bede was researching the etymology of the April month "Ēosturmōnaþ" and stated there used to be a goddess Eostre of the dawn by which the Saxons used to worship in April but that could not be confirmed because the practice had died out before the 8th century and no one worshiped her anymore. Many scholars think Bede made her up in order to justify the name of the month. The month may not have been named after a goddess at all but simply met "dawn month" to signify the end of winter. The only link Easter has with the goddess here is the root word meaning of "dawn" which in is self has no religious meaning. By the time they started translating greek and latin into other bibles the word Easter practically had no connection in the mind of any translator or reader to a supposed goddess. 2. It claims pascha here was pagan and did not have anything to do with Passover. The idea that Pascha can be used to refer to pagan worship is just plain wrong. Biblicly it always refers to anything dealing with the Passover time. Not once has it been used in reference to a pagan event. If the translators meant it in this way we could safely say that they were wrong and stupid about the context of scripture, or just plain lying. Practically all professonal translators today agree this Pascha must be translated in light of the Passover. 3. It claims Herod was pagan and worshiped Ishtar. There is no evidence anywhere that Herod was pagan. This connection is made simply by the claim that "Herod was an Edomite and the Edomits worshiped Ishtar." This claim goes directly against known History. The fact is that Herod was a third generation proselyte to the Jewish faith and his ruling family always tried not to appear as foreign rulers. Herod Agrippa was actually loved by the Jews and went to great lengths to take part in all Jewish activities and particularly avoided anything that might offend them. The whole reason for his actions in Acts 12 was to please the Jews, to prove the new Christian church to be wrong, and to restore faith in the Jewish religion in the eyes of the people. There is no way he would compromise all that, particularly in the middle of Passover, in order to worship a highly unpopular pagan goddess of the hated pagan neighboring nations. B. The main purpose of the Myth was created to cause doubt: 1. In the Roman Catholic church. The main purpose of the Babylon books was to show how Satan is perpetuating a counterfeit human religion which existed from the start of Babylon even until now in the RCC. In the process of they endeavor they touched on many things including Easter in which they linked to this Babylon religion. In order to make the link they started with the English word and automatically linked it with Eostre and the RCC without even considering its etymology or history. (http://www.biblebelievers.com/babylon/sect32.htm). They did this to create doubt in the False practices of the RCC but what the myth actually does is create doubt in their main body of work. 2. It created doubt in the work of the KJV translators. Hislop states "Every one knows that the name "Easter," used in our translation of Acts 12:4, refers not to any Christian festival, but to the Jewish Passover. This is one of the few places in our version where the translators show an undue bias." Implying that the translators deliberately mistranslated the word and that they were trying to promote a Pagan holiday of the RCC. Today many KJV activist ignorantly repeat and modify the Myth in order to say the translators were correct in translating pascha as Easter because it actually was referring to pagan Herod's holiday! Rather then creating confidence in the KJV or the KJVO people who use this argument it actually creates doubt in their overall efforts. 3. It gives fodder to atheist and conspiracy theorist to mock Christianity. Easter is the time to focus on the resurrection and is often the only time many will darken the doors of any church. Rather then create confidence in the resurrection the Myth switched the focus every Easter onto how Christianity is deceptively causing their adherents to ignorantly worship the pagan goddess Ishtar. The Myth does not prove or create confidence in anything. Its only purpose is to doubt in the mind of the reader. as to the verasity of Easter and of the resurrection itself. I could go on but I won't. Needless to say its important to me because I love truth and do not want to be propagating false information and bad research. Even if it seems to (at first) support my cause. Romans 6:1-2a What shall we say then? Shall we continue in sin, that grace may abound? God forbid.
  9. Pascha in no way could possibly mean a pagan holiday in Acts 12:4 or anywhere else because it is the same word used for the Passover week in the NT. So wither it was translated Passover or to Easter in the English it is connected with the Jewish and the Christian events and in no way pagan. The people who make a pagan connection to Pascha are mistaken and need to take the time to properly study the etymology and history. Contextually Easter of Acts 12:4 can only be referring to a Passover event. It cannot at all support the pagan myth. This AIG article is pretty good at showing the origins of the pagan myth and I highly recommend reading it: https://answersingenesis.org/holidays/easter/is-the-name-easter-of-pagan-origin/ Easter here was not referring to the feast itself but to the Christian observance at the end of the feast. Easter is the English word which was originally used for translating all instances of Greek and Hebrew words in the bible regardless of what it referred contextually, but after Tyndale created the specialized English word Passover, the Greek and Hebrew were changed to more accuratly translate the word into english. It was translated to Passover for the feast and Easter was retained in Acts 12:4 For the Christian observance which occurred just after the end of the Passover week. Matthew 26:2 Ye know that after two days is the feast of the passover, and the Son of man is betrayed to be crucified. Mark 14:1 After two days was the feast of the passover, and of unleavened bread: and the chief priests and the scribes sought how they might take him by craft, and put him to death. Luke 22:1 Now the feast of unleavened bread drew nigh, which is called the Passover. Luke 22:7 Then came the day of unleavened bread, when the passover must be killed. Acts 12:3 And because he saw it pleased the Jews, he proceeded further to take Peter also. (Then were the days of unleavened bread.) 4 And when he had apprehended him, he put him in prison, and delivered him to four quaternions of soldiers to keep him; intending after Easter [after Pascha] to bring him forth to the people.
  10. "So I am going to go off the Bible, KJV, period, and make my arguments based therein." Brother, little if anything which you stated about Easter is based on the context of Scripture, history, or etymology. The sources your position comes from was based on shoddy research, questionable sources, and connections made mostly on feelings of the authors who were overzealous to find anything disparaging the Pagan Roman Catholic church that they were willing to sacrifice a Perfectly good Christian word coined by the Early Christians to describe the most important event in human history.
  11. Easter in Acts 12 is not a reference to Herod's Holy day. It was a reference to the Resurrection of Christ which the church was going to celebrate after Passover. Harod was going to hold Peter until the Christian celebration of Christ's resurrection because he wanted to vex the church and please the Jews. On the day of Christ's resurrection, Easter, he was going to bring him forth probably as a mockery. A sort of Anti-resurrection.But instead the guards lost Peter just as they lost Christ. Also on Easter day Harod dies and "the word of God grew and multiplied." Easter is an English Saxon word which means "the sun rise in the East" and is from an older Christian church word "Pesach" (hebrew p "esach") which was always used to refer to the morning Christ arose. The confusion over the word is from when the bible writers transliterated the Hebrew concept "Passover" into Greek. The Greeks did not have a word for Passover so the christian writers transliterated the Hebrew word "pesach" into "pascha" to refer both to the Hebrew Passover and to the Christian resurrection as it was the closet equivalent concept and occurred ruffly at the same time. The concept for the resurrection came first to Greek then the concept for Passover came second and for the Christian the Passover culminated with the Resurrection of Christ our Passover Lamb so in time the Passover became simnomenus with the Easter event. Where as the word "pesach" (east dawn/morning) originally only referred to the resurrection event commonly today became the word for the whole Passover holiday week. Both concepts Passover and Easter were introduced in Greek writing by Christians who taught Christ resurrection as being the main event and the Passover that was merely the starting of that event. Later Wycliffe created the word "Passover" to distinguish it from Easter so that he could use "Passover" instead of the Easter which had not yet happened in the OT. That's essentially what the article bares out but in more detail.
  12. I think most of us agree that Easter is the correct word in Acts 12:4 but for different reasons. Take a look at the myths that people present and also see what I believe is the correct view in the article in the link: Easter has always been a Christian word for the Resurrection of Christ; http://www.kjvtoday.com/home/easter-or-passover-in-acts-124
  13. Truth be told it has mostly been people like Trump who have been the "power behind the curtain". The only reason he and people like him do anything is to bluster their business. In the past he has supported whomever was good for him. Presently that is himself as the contestant of the ultimate reality show and Trump advertising/propaganda campaign. If people were voting their Christian principles they would not be voting for Trump in the primaries. Don't vote for Trump as if he was already the nominee but vote for a righteous principled constitutionalist like Cruz instead. Afterwards, when the true nominee of the people is selected, (be it Cruz or Trump) then we can worry about "beating Hilary".
  14. Not a problem Ronda. I agree with you. Kasich is not the best option but in comparison with the candidates that is just my personal ranking if I had to vote for some one other then Cruz. I personally liked Huckabee but now that he is out I'll settle for Cruz.
  15. I may eventually. but as it stands now my choice is Cruz. Second would be Kasich mainly because he knows how to run a state. Third would be Rubio. If they all drop out I may look into a third party candidate as a protest vote even though I know they will not win. I doubt I can in good conscience vote Trump even though he would be a better choice over Hilary or Sanders for our country.
  16. John Kasich seems to have composed himself fairly well. At least the few times I have noticed him anyway.
  17. I'm pretty sure Trump will do well with the democrat voters in the overall election. I think the only reason Hillary is doing so well is because she is going up against a socialist whom many democrats won't vote for and on the flip side Bernie seems to be doing well only because many democrats don't want Hillary. There was a token third democrat candidate, O' something or another that may have had a chance but the media ignored him to the point of censor. I'm not surprised most people in both parties will vote for him. The only thing I was really surprised with was how well he did with "men of God" early on and even now. I thought Cruz or Huckabee would do much better with them even though they would do much worse with democrats then Trump would. I would argue that Cruz and Rubio are constitutionally qualified but its not really a point I care to argue.
  18. I agree that if it came down to the Socialist democrats pick verses Trump then he would be the clear patriotic option but even before the earlier candidates such as Huckabee went out many "preachers" were still flocking to Trump all the while promoting their christian ties and not necessarily their Patriotic Idealism to do so. It seems that even before Trump was the clear lead and before the majority of christian statesmen were narrowed to the current selection they chose the option that was best for their business vs their moral or patriotic values.
  19. I get that we are not voting for "Pastor in Chief" but with more viable christian, moral, ethical, politically savvy, etc, candidates. Why are preachers and other Christians backing Trump? At first I could not wrap my mind around it but when you realize the majority of these "pastors and Christians" are "Business Christians" who sell christian products and build big christian buildings and run churches as a business; It makes sense that they would chose a depraved business man over the ethical, moral, christian statesman. I think their justification for this is From the Religious business 101 handbook; 2 Corporations 3:17 Where the spirit of Business practices is, then it must needs trump over religious, moral, and ethical practices. Is my assessment accurate? If you are a christian and support Trump, why?
  20. If the issue is with your browser you might try going to your settings and disabling and deleting any extensions, adons, apps, tool bars, and anything else not original to the browser. Then clear your history and data catches. Also get a program called "spybot" it is the best for this type of issue and it is free for personal use. You can get it here: https://www.safer-networking.org/
  21. Church Rapture discussions always remind me of Ezekiel (who Revelation alludes to by John eating the angel's book. Ezekiel 3, Revelation 10). At the start of Ezekiel's ministry starts the same as Revelation 4 except his ministry is to the rebellious nation of Israel where John's is to the saved in Christ (The church which includes saved Israel). He gets caught up by the spirit (against his will it seems [God stole him away like a thief! ]) and then goes to his brothers in the town Tel-abib (meaning: ruin mound-beginnings) near the river Chebar (meaning: abundant / joining) for seven days. In the next chapter God tells him each day of his prophetic demonstrations to the rebellious house of Israel will represent one year. I'm not trying to force the passage to indicate something for the Revelation rapture but the similarities are interesting and their trial was written in the bible for our admonition. Here is the passages I'm specifically thinking about: Ezekiel 3:10-16 Moreover he said unto me, Son of man, all my words that I shall speak unto thee receive in thine heart, and hear with thine ears. 11 And go, get thee to them of the captivity, unto the children of thy people, and speak unto them, and tell them, Thus saith the Lord God; whether they will hear, or whether they will forbear.12 Then the spirit took me up, and I heard behind me a voice of a great rushing, saying, Blessed be the glory of the Lord from his place. 13 I heard also the noise of the wings of the living creatures that touched one another, and the noise of the wheels over against them, and a noise of a great rushing.14 So the spirit lifted me up, and took me away, and I went in bitterness, in the heat of my spirit; but the hand of the Lord was strong upon me. 15 Then I came to them of the captivity at Tel-abib, that dwelt by the river of Chebar, and I sat where they sat, and remained there astonished among them seven days. 16 And it came to pass at the end of seven days, that the word of the Lord came unto me, saying, 17 Son of man, I have made thee a watchman unto the house of Israel: therefore hear the word at my mouth, and give them warning from me. Ezekiel 4:4-6 Lie thou also upon thy left side, and lay the iniquity of the house of Israel upon it: according to the number of the days that thou shalt lie upon it thou shalt bear their iniquity. 5 For I have laid upon thee the years of their iniquity, according to the number of the days, three hundred and ninety days: so shalt thou bear the iniquity of the house of Israel. 6 And when thou hast accomplished them, lie again on thy right side, and thou shalt bear the iniquity of the house of Judah forty days: I have appointed thee each day for a year.
  22. Because these are two events. They will lie about the rapture but they will not be able to lie about the returning.
  23. Maybe this is why God is allowing time for cars, trains, planes and other machines to become automated. Also there is the very real possibility of persecution and tribulation of the Christian before the rapture as well. Christians could one day be put in "reeducation camps" and ghettos to where if they went missing no one would notice. Similar to what happened to those persecuted under the Nazi Regime. The only reason we know about many atrocities by communist and other oppressive regimes is because people lived to tell about them only after the fact.
  • Create New...