|
|
Post by ranger007 on Feb 28, 2019 6:55:11 GMT -6
Thanks for your input. My doctrinal beliefs are primarily Pentecostal. I try to write to all audiences, not just Christianity. We are trying to put out information that shows folks what the Bible really says, not what many have been taught to believe. As far as the information you requested, it is all in a simple google search. I will try to document my source in a clear way in the future. Thanks for checking out my blog, I hope you come back. I also pray you find a place where you are comfortable.
|
|
|
|
Post by ranger007 on Feb 28, 2019 7:06:11 GMT -6
|
|
|
|
Post by Natalie on Feb 28, 2019 8:46:38 GMT -6
Thanks for your input. My doctrinal beliefs are primarily Pentecostal. I try to write to all audiences, not just Christianity. We are trying to put out information that shows folks what the Bible really says, not what many have been taught to believe. As far as the information you requested, it is all in a simple google search. I will try to document my source in a clear way in the future. Thanks for checking out my blog, I hope you come back. I also pray you find a place where you are comfortable. But googling stuff is not as fun as having a discussion among brothers and sisters. It's kind of why we are here.  |
|
|
|
Post by Natalie on Feb 28, 2019 9:19:22 GMT -6
How do you conclude that the blood was the sign of the cross? Are you saying that only the righteous were covered? 5) I do like your point that we are "covered by the blood of Jesus, and our sins washed away, we are passed over for judgement." Ranger, I did look at your blog site and it seems to me that your information is tailored to a group that might be associated with your doctrinal belief. What belief is that? I would guess Calvary, Non-Denominational, or something like that. You know, I can see that your belief is not LDS (Mormon), nor is it Jehovah Witness. My point is that I need supporting evidence because I am not Calvary, Non-Denominational, etc. but am way way out in left field. I hold the honor (in my eyes) of not conforming to any doctrinal belief. So can you provide supporting evidence to your narrative? Thanks. The blood can be seen as a foreshadowing. Even consider how they spread it across the top of the door and then down the sides. Put the two together and you get the shape of a cross. But, I think it's more that those who trusted in Moses (a foreshadow of Christ) and believed his word applied the blood to their doors and were saved. Just as we believe Jesus and His words, we trust that His blood has covered us. Rev 1:5 "To Him who loved us and washed us from our sins in His own blood" Only those who trusted and did as God asked were saved. Anyone in that household was covered. I suppose in that way they were made righteous, it's not that they were saved because they were righteous, they were saved by faith. Exodus 12:13 The blood shall be a sign for you, on the houses where you are. And when I see the blood, I will pass over you, and no plague will befall you to destroy you, when I strike the land of Egypt. This Passover would point to a future Passover when the blood of Christ could be applied to our hearts for salvation. |
|
|
|
Post by boraddict on Feb 28, 2019 12:51:17 GMT -6
Thanks for your input. My doctrinal beliefs are primarily Pentecostal. I try to write to all audiences, not just Christianity. We are trying to put out information that shows folks what the Bible really says, not what many have been taught to believe. As far as the information you requested, it is all in a simple google search. I will try to document my source in a clear way in the future. Thanks for checking out my blog, I hope you come back. I also pray you find a place where you are comfortable. My sister is Pentecostal. She and I had a conversation about God in which she said "God can do anything." To which I responded "then God can lie." Kathy: "No, God can not lie." Boraddict: "then God can not do everything." Kathy: "God can do everything but lie." Boraddict: "then God can not do everything." Kathy: "No, God can do anything he wishes and he chooses not to lie." Boraddict: "then God can not do everything." My sister was not able to concede that God is limited by the fact that he can not lie. This concept that God is limited was so foreign to her that even today she believes on one hand that God is limited and can not lie, but on the other hand God is not limited and can do everything. I have often wondered if my sister's lack of logic in which she could not reconcile that God can not do everything as defined by this simple dichotomy was in fact a Pentecostal doctrine. I do not know. Therefore, my question to ranger concerning the Pentecostal doctrine is, Can God do everything? Secondly, Can God lie? The logical answer is that God can not do everything. Sorry about being so candid but I am forcing the hand that the Pentecostal belief allows for logic and must accept that God can not do everything evidenced by the fact that he can not lie. Anything other than that appears to be an irreconcilable doctrine. Thank you ranger for documenting your sources because it makes you a much better writer. I will continue to check out your blog; however, this forum is the best place for me to respond. I am wondering if you want critical responses? Are you suggesting that a place exists were I would be comfortable; I mean other than here at Unsealed? Perhaps in the future but not now; because, I believe that John the Beloved is the Davidic King and that it was he that the Jews unknowingly wanted as their temporal Savior when they got Lord Jesus the eternal Savior. Secondly, Lord John did not die and will now fulfill that role as the Son of David to conquer all of Judah's enemies on behalf of Lord Jesus. Does any church teach this doctrine? I don't think so. So I am at home here at Unsealed watching the last days events unfold. A place for the watchers to congregate. "Blessed is he that watcheth and keep his garments least he walk naked and they see his shame" (Rev. 16:15). We are here watching and keeping our garments. "For wheresoever the carcase is there will the eagles be gathered together" (Matt. 24:28). We are here. We are the eagles watching and gathering together. This site is where we are gathering together. |
|
|
|
Post by Natalie on Feb 28, 2019 13:11:49 GMT -6
God cannot go against His character. Therefore, He cannot do anything that is not holy. Therefore, God cannot lie.
So, I suppose you could say that God is limited. But He's God. So, I think that may be what your sister is stuck on. Should I ask my daughter, she would probably say that God could do anything. But what kind of things is she thinking of? Things that don't go against His character.
It's kind of like that question, "Could God make a rock that He couldn't lift?" If He could, then He's not all powerful. If He can't, then He's not all powerful.
We have to consider our questions and we have to consider His character.
|
|
|
|
Post by Natalie on Feb 28, 2019 13:28:49 GMT -6
boraddict I've asked this before...If you are the only one you know of that holds to a certain belief, doesn't that make you wonder why? Doesn't it make you question whether your understanding just might not be correct? (I'm asking this about your idea that John is the Son of David)
Edit: I feel I came across wrong with my questions. It's not that I, or we here at Unsealed, hold all the answers and correct interpretations, but your interpretations are often far from traditional. I've also seen people close to me be mislead by what they thought was truth.
|
|
|
|
Post by boraddict on Feb 28, 2019 20:36:59 GMT -6
boraddict I've asked this before...If you are the only one you know of that holds to a certain belief, doesn't that make you wonder why? Doesn't it make you question whether your understanding just might not be correct? (I'm asking this about your idea that John is the Son of David)
Edit: I feel I came across wrong with my questions. It's not that I, or we here at Unsealed, hold all the answers and correct interpretations, but your interpretations are often far from traditional. I've also seen people close to me be mislead by what they thought was truth.
Your post put a smile on my face; thank you. While it is true that the doctrine you and I believe is correct, there is more. For instance the principles of our belief are: 1) "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God" (John 1:1). 2) "All things were made by him and without him was not anything made that was made" (John 1:3). We know and understand these principles that Christ is the Word and he is God. 3) "In him was life and the life was the light of men" (John 1:4, 8:12). 4) "As many as received him to them he gave power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name, which were born not of blood nor of the will of the flesh nor of the will of man but of God" (John 1:, 12-13). It is all quite simple. We believe on his name and we are born of God and that is salvation; to be sons and daughters of God. However, we as in you, I, and others like to dig into scripture to uncover technical attributes of the gospel message. The one that I like most is Matt. 22:41-45. "While the Pharisees were gathered together, Jesus asked them, saying What think ye of Christ? whose son is he? They say unto him, The Son of David. He saith unto them, How then doth David in spirit call him LORD, saying, The Lord said unto my LORD, Sit thou on my right hand, till I make thine enemies thy footstool? If David then call him LORD, how is he his Son?" The answer is that he ( LORD Jesus) is not David's son but Davids LORD; the Christ. Therefore, if Christ is not David's son but his LORD, then who is David's son. Thus, the verse reads " The Lord (the Son of David) said unto my LORD (the Christ), sit thou on my right hand till I make thine enemies thy footstool." That is, David's LORD is the Christ and the warrior Lord is the Son of David that the Jews were looking for. That is, the Jews thought that the Christ was the warrior Lord. However, Lord Jesus in Matt. 22:41-45 was pointing out that David's Lord was the Christ, not the warrior Lord; the Son of David. Thus who is this Son of David that makes war upon Christ's enemies? The answer is John the Beloved. I do not know why no one else has found this information. It is like, How many were looking for the eternal Savior when Christ was born? Very few. Yet, hundreds of thousands were looking for the Son of David. Now, during our time millions are looking for the Savior and few are looking for the warrior Lord; the Son of David. Yet it is he, the Son of David that defends Israel and destroys Christ's enemies as stated in Psalms 110 and 118. |
|
|
|
Post by Natalie on Feb 28, 2019 21:11:43 GMT -6
Thank you Bora for your explanations. I completely agree with the first half of your post.  However, on the rest, I think you are mistaken. The verse reads "The LORD (YHWH) says to my Lord" You cannot interpret LORD any other way but as being God. (See Psalm 118:27) It is always YHWH throughout the Old Testamant. By your interpretation, you are equating John with YHWH. |
|
|
|
Post by ranger007 on Mar 1, 2019 5:40:23 GMT -6
|
|
|
|
Post by ranger007 on Mar 1, 2019 6:00:00 GMT -6
Sorry I have not responded to your questions. I need to find a way to load the last post first. I don’t usually post from a mobile device, I will be back on my laptop soon. Yes, I do want positive interaction. As to your question about what Pentecostal’s believe, first you must understand there are different ends of the spectrum. Some of us are conservative in our beliefs, ( I am ASSEMBLY of God). There are some factions of the Pentecostal denomination that don’t believe in the Trinity, while others are OK with handling snakes. I don’t know where your sister fits in the mix. I am of the persuasion the God can’t LIE, FAIL, or GO AGAINST HIS WORD. But to say this limits His Omnipresent or Omnipotent power, is not comparing apples to apples. I will have to get back with you in a further discussion. Got to go. Thanks for visiting my blog. There are over 170 posts to choose from.
|
|
|
|
Post by boraddict on Mar 1, 2019 6:47:54 GMT -6
Thank you Bora for your explanations. I completely agree with the first half of your post. However, on the rest, I think you are mistaken. The verse reads "The LORD (YHWH) says to my Lord" You cannot interpret LORD any other way but as being God. (See Psalm 118:27) It is always YHWH throughout the Old Testamant. By your interpretation, you are equating John with YHWH. A few years ago I also held the same interpretation as you concerning this point of doctrine. However, Lord Jesus' point to the Jews in Matt. 22:41-45 was that they misunderstood who the Christ was when they answered that the Christ was "The Son of David." Therefore, the Christ is not the Son of David. We know that the Christ is the Son of God. We also know that the Son of God is our Savior and our Lord. This same condition exists for David, that his Lord is his Savior. So, Paslms 110:1 must be read as follows: "The Lord said unto my Lord (Lord Jesus), Sit thou at my right hand, until I make thine enemies thy footstool." Thus, the question to the Jews in Matt. 22:41-45 pertained to which Lord was the Christ; the first or the second. They believed that the 1st Lord was the Christ and Lord Jesus was pointing out that it was the 2nd Lord that was the Christ; David's Lord. Once Lord Jesus pointed this out to the Jews then they could not answer any further. They could see the error in their doctrinal analysis; that David's Lord was the Christ and not the 1st Lord as they had believed. So who is this 1st Lord in Psalms 110:1? The traditionally held belief by the Jews is that this first Lord is the Son of David, and the traditionally held belief by Christians is that this first Lord is God the Father. However, consider Psalms 118:10-13 as follows: "All nations compassed me about: but in the name of the LORD (?) will I destroy them. They compassed me about; yea, they compassed me about: but in the name of the LORD (?) I will destroy them. They compassed me about like bees; they are quenched as the fire of thorns: for in the name of the LORD (?) I will destroy them. Thou hast thrust sore at me that I might fall: but the LORD (?) helped me." The question in the above verses is Who is the LORD; The Father or The Son. The answer is given in the following verse, 118:14 as follows: "The LORD is my strength and song, and is become my salvation." There is only one Lord who is the Lord of Salvation and that is Lord Jesus. Thus, Psalms 118:10-13 read as follows: "All nations compassed me about: but in the name of the LORD (Lord Jesus) will I destroy them. They compassed me about; yea, they compassed me about: but in the name of the LORD (Lord Jesus) I will destroy them. They compassed me about like bees; they are quenched as the fire of thorns: for in the name of the LORD (Lord Jesus) I will destroy them. Thou hast thrust sore at me that I might fall: but the LORD (Lord Jesus) helped me." This means that someone destroys enemies via the name of Lord Jesus. This someone can not be God the Father because Lord Jesus helped this someone. Therefore, Psalms 110:1 reads as follows: "The LORD (not God the Father) said unto my Lord (Lord Jesus the Christ), Sit thou at my right hand, until I make thine enemies thy footstool." And, Psalms 118:26-29 reads" "Blessed be he (?) that cometh in the name of the LORD (Lord Jesus): we have blessed you out of the house of the LORD. God is the LORD (Lord Jesus), which hath shewed us light (John 1:1-4): bind the sacrifice (Lord Jesus) with cords, even unto the horns of the altar. Thou art my God (Lord Jesus), and I will praise thee: thou art my God (Lord Jesus), I will exalt thee. O give thanks unto the LORD (Lord Jesus); for he is good: for his mercy endureth for ever." My sweet sister, I have already told you the answer. |
|
|
|
Post by stormyknight on Mar 1, 2019 7:19:13 GMT -6
I hold the honor (in my eyes) of not conforming to any doctrinal belief. So can you provide supporting evidence to your narrative? Thanks. This is me as well, boraddict. When the WWCG fell apart I withdrew back to doing my own reading/learning, which was my own undoing, becoming lazy and sliding back into the world. But I told myself I would not gravitate toward any more church "organizations". I was skeptical if someone said, "well this is what our group believes...". No, I want to know what YOU believe. Where do you stand, personally. If you tell me you are a follower of Jesus Christ, then, yes, I will be more open to you. Loving God with all your heart, soul, strength and mind and loving your neighbor as yourself should be first and foremost. |
|
|
|
Post by boraddict on Mar 1, 2019 8:11:46 GMT -6
I hold the honor (in my eyes) of not conforming to any doctrinal belief. So can you provide supporting evidence to your narrative? Thanks. This is me as well, boraddict . When the WWCG fell apart I withdrew back to doing my own reading/learning, which was my own undoing, becoming lazy and sliding back into the world. But I told myself I would not gravitate toward any more church "organizations". I was skeptical if someone said, "well this is what our group believes...". No, I want to know what YOU believe. Where do you stand, personally. If you tell me you are a follower of Jesus Christ, then, yes, I will be more open to you. Loving God with all your heart, soul, strength and mind and loving your neighbor as yourself should be first and foremost. I think that a new group has been established that are the watchers. Prior to the internet there were undoubtedly many who watched but having no place to congregate they were islands unto themselves. Now however, we seek each other and bring nuggets of truth to the fold. We are watching and befriending other watcher. We are the new group that in scripture are called the eagles (Matt. 24:28). Upon this realization I was able to understand that the great eagle (Rev. 12:14) is the Savior. We are not necessarily all congregating here at Unsealed, but the drive to gather is given to us by the Father so that we can teach each other. When I found JD Farag via this site I was so happy. He as well as so many others are driven with a testimony that we are at the right place at the right time. It is for this reason that we are compelled to write and bring others to the knowledge of Christ as ranger is doing with his blog. |
|
|
|
Post by mike on Mar 1, 2019 15:14:59 GMT -6
Thank you Bora for your explanations. I completely agree with the first half of your post. However, on the rest, I think you are mistaken. The verse reads "The LORD (YHWH) says to my Lord" You cannot interpret LORD any other way but as being God. (See Psalm 118:27) It is always YHWH throughout the Old Testamant. By your interpretation, you are equating John with YHWH. A few years ago I also held the same interpretation as you concerning this point of doctrine. However, Lord Jesus' point to the Jews in Matt. 22:41-45 was that they misunderstood who the Christ was when they answered that the Christ was "The Son of David." Therefore, the Christ is not the Son of David. We know that the Christ is the Son of God. We also know that the Son of God is our Savior and our Lord. This same condition exists for David, that his Lord is his Savior. So, Paslms 110:1 must be read as follows: "The Lord said unto my Lord (Lord Jesus), Sit thou at my right hand, until I make thine enemies thy footstool." Thus, the question to the Jews in Matt. 22:41-45 pertained to which Lord was the Christ; the first or the second. They believed that the 1st Lord was the Christ and Lord Jesus was pointing out that it was the 2nd Lord that was the Christ; David's Lord. Once Lord Jesus pointed this out to the Jews then they could not answer any further. They could see the error in their doctrinal analysis; that David's Lord was the Christ and not the 1st Lord as they had believed. So who is this 1st Lord in Psalms 110:1? The traditionally held belief by the Jews is that this first Lord is the Son of David, and the traditionally held belief by Christians is that this first Lord is God the Father. However, consider Psalms 118:10-13 as follows: "All nations compassed me about: but in the name of the LORD (?) will I destroy them. They compassed me about; yea, they compassed me about: but in the name of the LORD (?) I will destroy them. They compassed me about like bees; they are quenched as the fire of thorns: for in the name of the LORD (?) I will destroy them. Thou hast thrust sore at me that I might fall: but the LORD (?) helped me." The question in the above verses is Who is the LORD; The Father or The Son. The answer is given in the following verse, 118:14 as follows: "The LORD is my strength and song, and is become my salvation." There is only one Lord who is the Lord of Salvation and that is Lord Jesus. Thus, Psalms 118:10-13 read as follows: "All nations compassed me about: but in the name of the LORD (Lord Jesus) will I destroy them. They compassed me about; yea, they compassed me about: but in the name of the LORD (Lord Jesus) I will destroy them. They compassed me about like bees; they are quenched as the fire of thorns: for in the name of the LORD (Lord Jesus) I will destroy them. Thou hast thrust sore at me that I might fall: but the LORD (Lord Jesus) helped me." This means that someone destroys enemies via the name of Lord Jesus. This someone can not be God the Father because Lord Jesus helped this someone. Therefore, Psalms 110:1 reads as follows: "The LORD (not God the Father) said unto my Lord (Lord Jesus the Christ), Sit thou at my right hand, until I make thine enemies thy footstool." And, Psalms 118:26-29 reads" "Blessed be he (?) that cometh in the name of the LORD (Lord Jesus): we have blessed you out of the house of the LORD. God is the LORD (Lord Jesus), which hath shewed us light (John 1:1-4): bind the sacrifice (Lord Jesus) with cords, even unto the horns of the altar. Thou art my God (Lord Jesus), and I will praise thee: thou art my God (Lord Jesus), I will exalt thee. O give thanks unto the LORD (Lord Jesus); for he is good: for his mercy endureth for ever." My sweet sister, I have already told you the answer. BORA - I do believe you are interjecting something not written. We can use the bible to interpret the bible. That is always the best commentary. Context of the commentary is imperative when studying anything, especially scripture. We cant/shouldnt insert things that aren't stated. From reading what you have surmised I think you are doing that. Two of the three gospel accounts are shown below. In both the Pharisees are discussing this in response the Jesus question he asked. He wanted to know what they thought about who He was. I do not think the traditional view of the 1st Lord being the Father is incorrect. Luke 20:41 And he said unto them, How say they that Christ is David's son? 42 For David himself says in the book of Psalms: ‘The Lord said to my Lord, “Sit at My right hand 43 until I make Your enemies a footstool for Your feet.”’ 44 So if David calls Him Lord, how can He be David’s son?”…
Matt 22:42 What think ye of Christ? whose son is he? 43 They say unto him, [The Son] of David.He saith unto them, How then doth David in spirit call him Lord, saying,
44 The LORD said unto my Lord, Sit thou on my right hand, till I make thine enemies thy footstool?
45 If David then call him Lord, how is he his son? Whose son is the Christ - the tradition, the Jews, the religious were expecting a Moses type figure, combined with the OT prophecies of the triumphant King reigning over and raining down on the enemies of the Jews. And although they were speaking with Him, He was not what they expected as He was not defeating their physical enemies. (However He was about to defeat the enemy.) WE are expecting this King to return to us, just as the Jews today are expecting Him, but not in the same manner as we who believe are. The Pharisees were perplexed as they expected a son from lineage of David, but when He pointed out that the Son of David was also called Lord by David they couldnt reconcile the two. Heres a few items that I ask that you consider in your analysis and apply a few other areas to expand the context for further understanding. The letter to the Hebrews starts out defining who the Son of God truly is and explains His position as deity, by comparing Him to the angels. When we come to verse 13 we see this same exact verse from Psalm 110 quoted. Heb 1:12 And as a vesture shalt thou fold them up, and they shall be changed: but thou art the same, and thy years shall not fail.
13 But to which of the angels said he at any time, Sit on my right hand, until I make thine enemies thy footstool?
Again the verses prior to this are demonstrating that Jesus was the image of the Father. Here's a portion for context:
Heb 1:1 God, who at sundry times and in divers manners spake in time past unto the fathers by the prophets, 2 Hath in these last days spoken unto us by [his] Son, whom he hath appointed heir of all things, by whom also he made the worlds; 3 Who being the brightness of [his] glory, and the express image of his person, and upholding all things by the word of his power, when he had by himself purged our sins, sat down on the right hand of the Majesty on high;
Our Lord is seated in His rightful position, awaiting for all His enemies to become His footstool as we see in 1 Cor that death is still to be destroyed.
1 Cor 15:24 Then [cometh] the end, when he shall have delivered up the kingdom to God, even the Father; when he shall have put down all rule and all authority and power. 25 For he must reign, till he hath put all enemies under his feet. 26 The last enemy [that] shall be destroyed [is] death. 27 For he hath put all things under his feet. But when he saith all things are put under [him, it is] manifest that he is excepted, which did put all things under him. 28 And when all things shall be subdued unto him, then shall the Son also himself be subject unto him that put all things under him, that God may be all in all.
Again the context of the above is exclusively between the Father and the Son. I believe you may have conflated Psalm 118 with 110 where 118 is not in the same context as 110, causing some confusion here. You have studied the word very much and have learned a great deal. In the year or so I have had the pleasure of conversing with you we have dialogued about your style which is admittedly in "silo's" at times (Revelation without Ezekiel). I think this may be a case where you didnt consider other areas for greater context. I may not have explained what I intended to very well with my above as writing isnt really my strength. I hope it makes sense to you. Either way please let me know your thoughts, either here or in PM |
|
