Bible Questions & Discussion PAGE 902

My second answer to this question about suffering is the original sin. Adam and Eve broke the covenant with God, violating His rules, and as a result of the consequences, life on earth is no longer a paradise it originally was. The curse of childbirth, curse of struggle and toil to make ends meet, the curse of death and declining health. It's a result of sin that life is hard, and I believe that this scenario is also used as a test of character which I think character will stay with us into the afterlife.

Good answers here.

My only input is when people have freewill they complain about people using it to choose evil, but if we were forced into being obedient robots, people would then complain about how they don't have freewill. You can't have both.

Which is more meaningful to a parent: a child willingly saying I love you when the child doesn't have to, or a child being required and forced to say it? Of course the first, and I believe it's likewise more meaningful to God when we willingly choose to follow and obey Him. God loved us enough to allow us to choose, knowing that many sadly would choose to deny and disobey Him.

SolaScrip,

You are missing the 144,000 resurrected saints who will be ministering to Jesus Messiah during the 1,000 years. Apparently the earth needs repair before it's able to transform itself.

You are also not taking into account the "other beasts" that were allowed to continue ( Daniel 7:12) after the beast and false prophet were placed in the lake of fire. So, the beast's surviving allies continued with the saints into the millennia. Note: it takes the house of Israel 7 months to bury Gog's bones. Symbolic as it may be, a earthly version will unfold here on earth: God is multi-dimensional and awesome, so you never know.

There's something mystical going on here. Albeit, God wants us to focus on this life, not the afterlife. That's why so little is given.

John 12:32

And I, if I be lifted up from the earth, will draw all men unto me.

See Numbers 21:8 and 21:9

I don't need to defend this. I just remembered something from 30 years ago. That's all. Even Wesley agrees:

Numbers 21:8

A fiery serpent - That is, the figure of a serpent in brass, which is of a fiery colour. This would require some time: God would not speedily take off the judgment, because he saw they were not throughly humbled. Upon a pole - That the people might see it from all parts of the camp, and therefore the pole must be high, and the serpent large. When he looketh - This method of cure was prescribed, that it might appear to be God's own work, and not the effect of nature or art: and that it might be an eminent type of our salvation by Christ. The serpent signified Christ, who was in the likeness of sinful flesh, though without sin, as this brazen serpent had the outward shape, but not the inward poison, of the other serpents: the pole resembled the cross upon which Christ was lifted up for our salvation: and looking up to it designed our believing in Christ.

James 1:5-8, John 16:23, John 14:13,14, John 16:24,

James 4:3,

Hopefully these are helpful

Hello again, Sola Scrip

I guess we will just have to differ on this because I do not wish to "x" out commands of Christ to fit a specific narrative about practices in the church we do not know about. Just because the book of Acts has a handful of examples of baptisms being done in Jesus name, we do not know the EXACT words the apostles used in these baptism, nor the practice of the other 12 apostles and hundreds of disciples from the Upper Room Pentecost, nor the leaders of the churches that were planted by the apostles. However, baptismal practices are reflected in the writings of the bishops the apostles appointed over these churches, so I will base my position on the words of Jesus in Matthew 28:19, the silence of the epistle writers as to the exact words used in baptisms, and the witness of the writings of the bishops appointed by Paul and John and others. You can think what you wish. I do not wish to comnend on this matter any longer. Have a good day.

Acts 2:38 seems to be the most compelling verse. While I can't go so far as to say it's 'required' for salvation with no exceptions, baptism is emphasized and encouraged so much in the Bible that at bare minimum it's extremely important. So, why a Christ follower would want to follow Christ on everything else, but this, I cannot understand, and in my opinion is risky to disobey Jesus. A Christian or Christ follower puts Christ first and shouldn't be ashamed to follow Christ. I think verses like this are scary: Matthew 10:33. Also: John 14:15, Matthew 10:28. One can presume if we don't obey Jesus then we don't love Jesus, and if we don't love Jesus, should we expect benefits from Him? Matthew 7:21. Some don't fear God, but should. Fearing God is mentioned many times in the Bible, so I believe it, and think that we should really fear his judgment if we are not following Jesus. If we have a pure and clean heart and are genuinely following Jesus I believe we can have confidence and assurance of salvation, but that doesn't give us a license to go out sinning and violating God's moral laws. A lot of people falsely assume they get to cut corners and earn a get out of hell free card while enjoying all the benefits of a worldly, sinful, anti-Christian life, but the Bible already addressed those false assumptions.

Sola Scrip

I know that the church was considered catholic during the apostolic times and in the early centuries such as the writing you indicated. This is a term that just meant universal in referring to the church of Christ. This was not the Roman Catholic Church. It was just a term used to describe the oneness of the church in Christ. The roman Catholic Church did not come into existence until the 5th or 6th century. In the time of the apostles and shortly thereafter, (which your writing of 110.A.D. falls into) the apostles appointed bishops to head churches throughout the region as churches were planted by the apostles. There were many bishops and these bishops wrote many letters and documents to churches and other bishops. So many of these bishops were contemporaries of the apostles and appointed by the apostles. I really doubt the apostles would appoint someone who was not sound in doctrine, as that is a requirement mentioned in several Scriptures. They practiced what the apostles and disciples of Jesus (who followed Jesus in His lifetime) taught them.

I understand that there are some who are unwilling to accept anything that rings of "Catholic". There is so much that can be said about the errors and abuses of the Roman Catholic Church (500 A.D. to present) and it is important for people to know of them. However, we must differentiate between the Roman Catholic Church and the church of the preceding centuries that was referred to as "catholic". The two are not the same. In the early church centuries before the Roman Catholic Church came to be, bishops were all equal and they would meet together to consider teachings that were thought to be heretical and make statements concerning these teachings along with other matters that arose from the persecution of Christians and divergence of practices among churches. They did not demand that all church fellowships be the same during this time period. There was not a central government of the church at that time.

Hey GiGi,

Yep, Jesus has been reigning since God placed His name above all and put all under Him, and will reign here on earth after His second coming until all enemies are under His feet, "The last enemy that shall be destroyed is death", Revelation 20:14. Some say it will not be on earth because when Jesus first came He told Pilate His kingdom is not of this world, John 18:36. And He is now sitting on His throne and we are in the kingdom now, Colossians 1:13.

When Jesus first came it was spiritual, for those who entered the kingdom their names were written in the book. When Jesus comes again, His second coming will be physical, it says we will ever be with the Lord 1 Thessalonians 4:17. We see in Revelation when Satan is released, they surround the camp of the saints and the beloved city, we should understand Jesus would also be there Revelation 20:9. When Jesus returns, He does not go back up He stays until all is fulfilled.

God bless,

RLW

Hello, those 2 references to a 'pole' aren't referring to the cross of Jesus, but something Moses made as a remedy for Israelites who were bitten by snakes, it seems.

The cross of Jesus might have been a literal tree and one theory is that Jesus had to lug the cross beam around which was then nailed to the tree. Apparently that was common in that time to use an existing tree rather than doing the work of digging a hole and putting a log in the ground- this is just an unconfirmed theory.

Tree:

1 Peter 2:24

Acts 5:30

Galatians 3:13

Looks like you received good answers. The only verse I may add is love thy neighbor as yourself, which can be quite challenge to follow: Mark 12:31

There is actually a reference to the Catholic Church by St. Ignatius of Antioch in a letter to the Smyrnaeans around 110 A.D. Acts was written around 70-90 A.D. by St. Luke. We can't know for certain if Matt. 28:19 was written differently at that time or not, but what we do know is all of the other scripture related to the subject of baptismal formula, and all examples of baptisms in the Bible, contradict the trinity formula.

I replied to your other comment on this further down for more details.

What we know, and can prove with scripture, is that there are zero examples of anybody being baptized into the trinity formula of father, son and holy ghost. And there are multiple examples of people being baptized into the Name of Jesus Christ.

On top of THAT, we have this:

"Be it known unto you all, and to all people of Israel, that by the Name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth, whom ye crucified, whom God raised from the dead, even by Him doth this man stand before you whole. ... Neither is there salvation in any other: for there is none other name under heaven given among men, whereby we must be saved."

Acts 4:10, 12

Pretty strong words there by St. Luke on the subject. I refuse to believe that Luke, or any of the other disciples of Christ, completely ignored a command from Jesus' mouth about how to baptize. And they all baptized in the name of Jesus Christ.

Do you wish to be right in the eyes of men, ... or do you want to be right in the eyes of God?

"... let God be true, but every man a liar; ..."

Romans 3:4

'father, son and holy ghost' isn't even a proper NAME. It's a general TITLE, and multiple titles at that. Matthew 28:19 does not follow logic, reason NOR scripture as a whole. We are to judge all teachers, as well as scripture itself, BY scripture. The Bible defines, confirms and justifies ITSELF.

In a court of law, the trinity doctrine for baptism would not be found legitimate at all.

Wait what? For an evolutionist theory?

We do not know who it is for the Bible doesn't state.

I would prefer you to read the whole book of Luke. The book of Luke talks about Jesus' life. Then, you can read the book of Revelation. It is really important to read that book.You may not have to read all of it as it is pretty confusing, but at least read the Revelations from God.

Was that supposed to correct or contradict anything that I said? Because it did not in any way.

I mentioned Millennium AND 1,000 years. Clearly I had that already.

I also mentioned that Rev. 20:1-6 is the only place in scripture that mentions any 1,000 yr period of time. Yes, I forgot the 7th verse. Forgive me. My point still stands.

You may not be very familiar with the Millennium doctrine, but it has about a handful of necessities for it to be legitimate within scripture. One of those is that the physical earth must remain throughout that 1,000 years. It does not. Isaiah 65:17-25 is often used to refute the 'No Millennium' position, but ironically the 1st verse there, verse 17 contradicts the Millennium immediately.

"For, behold, I create a New Heaven and a New Earth: and the former shall not be remembered, nor come to mind."

Isa. 65:17

That completely nullifies a Millennial time period upon the physical earth. There are plenty more verses in scripture, many within Revelation itself, that undeniably eliminate the possibility of a Millennium doctrine. Jesus comes, gathers His saints, destroys all wickedness (devil, beast, false prophet, sinners, etc.) as well as the earth and then rebuilds it and His "Heavenly ETERNAL reign" ensues. NOT a physical earthly 1,000 year reign upon the existing earth where the devil is released at the end to again torment all that have ALREADY endured until the end. Matthew 24:13; Rev. 14:12 Would it make any sense at all for God to have us endure and obey throughout this physical lifetime, only to have to endure another 1,000 years and be tested and tormented all over again by the devil?

It would make ZERO sense and it would throw God's entire character into question - it would not follow scripture as a whole in the least.

Happy to answer questions and address any other verses you may like to present.

God bless.

Hi Mishael.

The Millennium doctrine is based only upon 7 verses in Rev. 20:1-7, but that is a symbolic, visionary, spiritual prophecy that is not to be taken literally or in a linear understanding. Rev. 10 speaks of all time coming to an end while Rev. 19 speaks of the beast and false prophet being destroyed along with all sinners left in the world. By the time Rev. 20:1-7 begins, it has already been contradicted multiple times in Revelation itself. It is not to be taken literally. Matthew 24:29-31 and Isaiah 13:9-11 coincide perfectly showing Christ's return AFTER the Great Tribulation (there is NO Pre-Trib Rapture) and He gathers His people immediately before the Wrath of God destruction of the earth and all sinners.

There is no reconciling all those verses without taking the Millennium event of Rev. 20 out of literal interpretation.

The end times will include a Great Tribulation which all Christians will have to endure. Some will be converted to the antichrist faith out of fear and desperation. Some will be killed for their faith and refusal to denounce Christ and some will live throughout that time until the very end ( Matthew 24:29-31) when Jesus will come in an unimaginably dramatic fashion and every eye will see Him. ( Rev. 1:7) He will gather the remnant of His people and then God's Wrath will destroy the earth and all sinners therein as well as the devil, the beast and the false prophet. Then the New Heaven and New Earth will come about and Jesus' "Heavenly"(not physical earthly) reign will ensue.

Happy to discuss further if you'd like to address specific verses. It is very important for Christians to understand this information. Some would argue it is not salvific (does not concern salvation), but it very much does. Please review the verses I presented and respond with any questions.

Thank you and God bless.

Not a theologian, but in the new year 29-32 was just what I needed to set the tone for a global hope for a brighter future. There are no interpretations wanted, just clearly it speaks volumes. With this being an ancient text it is what's so compelling, that to apply these scriptures daily is each Human's opportunity to do a Great contribution to adhereing to the, Words, and successfully adding a declaration to leave the next generation Hope, for them to look back in 1000 years at us as their Ancestors and marvel at how these scriptures can still be applied, and implemented to carry out their obligation to leave the world better than they found it.

Thank you Ronald,

Good explanation. I went and re-read the Rev. passages and it says Jesus will reign on earth 1000 years.

And I believe that, since He reigns eternally with the Father and Spirit, so this verse is not speaking about a 1000 year reign in heaven.

Welcome to the family! John is a great book start with, because it talks about the life of Jesus. I like Philippians. It's a short book with a lot of meat. There are other short books before and after it that are all good with lots of wisdom to be gleaned.

where in the bible god said he will answer and promise too answer your pray

Debora,

1 Corinthians Chapter 7 would be a good chapter to go to.

Oops rats, phone sent before I finished

Anyway

These writings say they baptized in the words Jesus stated in Matthew 28:19

I am not sure why some wish to quibble about this. So, if anyone wishes to explain to me why,I would appreciate that. And, as I said, this really doesn't have anything to do with the Catholic Church as it did not exist in the early centuries as a universal authority based from Rome

Good Mornng SolaScrip

One verse containing the words of Jesus is enough for me to believe that the apostles and disciples baptized thousands and thousands. And we do not know exactly how they did from Scripture. But we do know from accounts written by those close to the apostolic times, that they be

Nih

Hey SolaScrip,

Is there scripture outside Revelation that confirms an exact 1000 years? The answer is no. Are there false teachers out there? The answer is yes, there are many, 1 John 4:1. Are there scriptures that say the Son of God will reign on earth? The answer is yes. Psalm 2:6-9 Psalm 22:27-31 Isaiah 2:1-4 Isaiah 9:6-7 Isaiah 24:21-23 Jeremiah 23:5 Ezekiel 20:33-44 Ezekiel 39:21-29 Zechariah 2:10-13 Zechariah 8:2-3 Zechariah 14:1-9 Matthew 19:28 Revelation 11:15 Revelation 20:4 and more.

Is there any scripture that says people will go to or reign in heaven? The answer is no. Are there scriptures that say the elect will reign with Jesus on earth? The answer is yes. Daniel 7:27 2 Timothy 2:11-13 Revelation 5:10. Are there scriptures that describe how things change after Jesus returns? The answer is yes. Zechariah 8:4 Isaiah 11 Isaiah 60:15 Isaiah 65:18-25. These people will be alive on the second coming of Jesus, they will have the opportunity to live longer if they choose to obey God.

Are there things that have not been revealed to us? The answer is, yes? Jesus will return and set up the kingdom here on earth and He will put all enemies under His feet, 1 Corinthians 15:25. Will death still be during the time Jesus is ruling? The answer is yes. The purpose is to fulfill the rest of the scriptures with Jesus, Israel, the Gentiles, and creation that has not yet been fulfilled.

The only scripture that gives us 1000 years is Revelation, but many scriptures tell us the kingdom will be set up on earth. We have these, Numbers 14:21 Psalms 115:16 Micah 4:1-3 Matthew 5:5 Matthew 6:10. Not to debate, with the time it will take I cannot say the 1000 years are false.

God bless,

RLW

Hi Raymond

So glad you have come to our Savior, Jesus Christ!

My suggestion is to get to know Jedus in each of the gospels first. Learn about His life, death, and resurrection. Learn about what He said and how He prayed to His Father.

God bless you today

Hi Jesse

Agreed

The Last Supper Discourse is full of amazing truths that really bless me every time I read through it. I am so glad that we have this lengthy record of what Jesus said to the disciples and prayed to His Father. Just beautiful!

Raymond,

My favorite Chapter in the New Testament is John Chapter 15. Jesus speaks about the vine and the branches, and that apart from Him, we can do nothing. In my opinion, it is a tremendous chapter and puts my walk with the Lord into proper perspective!

Theresa,

If we were to compare water baptism today with how it was done back in Jesus' day, there wouldn't be much resemblance. I am not aware of any church that performs baptisms the same way it was done back then. Baptism back then would be complete full immersion.

It is very interesting how these baptism's worked. The person who was performing the baptism (In this case, John the Baptist), they would never touch the person being baptized. So Jesus went into the water alone. John would just be there to witness it. The person being baptized would be responsible for pulling them self under the water and the witness would be there to make sure that all of you went under, hair and everything!

Everything had to be immersed and you had to be immersed three times. Even to this day the Jews immerse three times in their baptism. The Jews had no idea why they immersed 3 times for their baptism. But after Messiah came, and when He gave the believing Jews the commission to go out and preach the gospel to the Gentiles, He said, baptize them in the name of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit, three times for the Trinity. Interesting background!

As for Matthew 3:11, the fire represents judgment, and we get that from the very next verse ( Matthew 3:12) where is says "But He (Christ) will burn up the chaff with unquenchable fire. So Christ is going to baptize His people with the Holy Spirit. That is the Lord's ministry. He baptizes people with the Holy Spirit.

Paul said in 1 Corinthians 12:10 that we have been all baptized by one Spirit and all made to drink of the one Spirit, and we have been baptized into the body of Christ. When the Lord ministers His Spirit, when He gives His Spirit to people, that is called "the baptism of the Holy Spirit."

So fire is judgment! He is going to baptize people (Those who have rejected Him) with fire in the judgment. But He is going to baptize His people with the Holy Spirit. That is His ministry.