|
|
Post by kjs on May 17, 2019 14:09:29 GMT -6
No, Jesus was NOT alive during the "49 years" --- He was alive during Herod's expansion of the Temple (which had been going on for 46 years).....
From Wikipedia
The Second Temple was originally a rather modest structure constructed by a number of Jewish exile groups returning to the Levant from Babylon under the Achaemenid-appointed governor Zerubbabel. However, during the reign of Herod the Great, the Second Temple was completely refurbished, and the original structure was totally overhauled into the large and magnificent edifices and facades that are more recognizable.
Basically, started around 559 BCE and dedicated 515 BCE (this was version 1 of the second temple)
Herod the Great would substantially refurbish the Temple starting in 20/19 B.C.E. -- so 20AD would be 40 Years making 26AD to 27AD -- the start of Jesus Ministry which make the quote you mention apply to Herod's refurbish rather than Zerubbabel building effort. [books of Ezra and Nehemiah and 2 Chronicles -- cover this history of Zerubbabel which is version 1 of Temple 2]
Also - please note be careful trying to apply the "years" here -- since all we have are best estimates -- of when things happen. So when they first started returning to Jerusalem and rebuilding could be earlier (560's -- with the temple rebuilding starting later)
Just trying to show the "46" years you "found" are not part of the first part of the prophecy years.
If you take Sir Robert Anderson "The Coming Prince" theory -- the 69th week ended on Palm Sunday of the Week Jesus was crucified. But I did not cover that because as I said I was only doing Counting ... and the Counting says AFTER 69 weeks the Anointed One will be "cut off"...
Yeah, I meant the refurb. I guess I should've said the re-rebuild. Check out this link from Daniel Matson with chart and video (audio is a little weird). Kinda what I was getting at. I didn't say it very well. Curious of your take on this. watchfortheday.org/4of7.htmlInteresting Link....
Is it true -- I have no way of knowing.... however I notice the site owner has reversed the text.
25 Know therefore and discern, that from the going out of the commandment to restore and to build Jerusalem to the Anointed One,[c] the prince, shall be seven weeks, and sixty-two weeks: it shall be built again, with street and moat, even in troubled times.
Notice verse 25 clearly spells out the "time period" is shall be "seven weeks (49 years)" and "sixty-two weeks (434 years)" ... this website has them reversed .....
Does it actually matter -- after all they both reach 483 years ... BUT it seems to me that the first 49 was "set aside for a purpose" .... Daniel was written approximately 606 BCE. If we assume the rebuilding of temple and city started around 564 and completed in 515 -- there you have 49 years... but this is all guesses .... The website owner raises a interesting point with "the 46 year quote" and for all I know it may be true...
I do believe that 69 weeks had past before Jesus Christ was Crucified (four days past) and it was the crucifixion event that froze the 70 week prophecy -- leaving this entire "pause" going on for 2k years......
As far as the websites theory ... I would say it is pushing things ...
In 1535, when Jerusalem was part of the Ottoman Empire, Sultan Suleiman I ordered the ruined city walls to be rebuilt.
but the actual verse says ... "with street and moat" -- in other words the city itself (with streets) would be rebuild -- and presumably with temple (and note temple was never rebuilt).
I believe it is simply wishful thinking ... try to force it to apply again. But if you re-read the history books of Ezra and Nehemiah and 2 Chronicles -- you will see the Temple and the city being rebuilt.
Then again that is my opinion ......
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 17, 2019 18:46:35 GMT -6
Venge, I may have misunderstood you, and if so, my apologies! My understanding is that you believe the rapture is after the 6th seal, prior to the 7th seal.....but also at the 7th trumpet, or am I mistaken? I also replied in messages...
|
|
|
|
Post by boraddict on May 17, 2019 23:42:29 GMT -6
boraddict , you had my attention until you said this: "Notice that Christianity is accepted in Israel today" um, from my point of view, and little is discussed about this, the die-hard jew despises Christ and the Christians. Even from Israeli articles from the past year and commentary, the orthodox jewish representative is NOT open to Christianity. Yes, maybe the ally aspect of the USA. so maybe you are referring to the Israeli/American alliance politically, but in the form of tolerance of the Faith of the Cross? no, do not see it. EVen according to some well-intentioned watchers, the educated jew will not even consider Isaiah 53! not only blindness but a hardened heart and a pride of their forefathers, legends, traditions, and purposes. Yes I know that proselyting is illegal in Israel but the other beliefs including Christianity are tolerated. So while Judah still has blinders on, the followers of Christ are not hated but considered friends (by most?, I hope). |
|
|
|
Post by barbiosheepgirl on May 18, 2019 8:32:25 GMT -6
amen, brother, on that one!
I will reply this weekend. It will have a historical perspective of dates, captivities, decrees et al. But for me, it is not so much that dates line up, for history will line up on the decree if the dates are on the right track. I don't have to fudge the dates or assume x, y, or z. My reasoning is based on God's patterns and the lessons for what atonement is, and all the other things that Christ "fulfilled" in the 70th week of His ministry.
The point is, a pattern (God's Timeclock) is the basis for my position, not modern time, not Rev 12 Sign or anything like that, as I can look at this as if I am living on an island off Africa in the 1300's or anytime after 73AD, or even living in Gaza right now. My understanding of it does not take the historical apart on its own, then considering the patterns of God then adjusting for where it doesn't fit by putting in a gap. It doesn't do that.
My overall stance about the entire 70 week decree has a broader reason. It has to do with considering the decree 'count' (meaning, the use of the number 7 and the number 49, etc. God's patterns of judgements, promises, what is a complete number, etc). That will get more clear when I post again.
I believe that Jesus was born at the period ending the 62. His ministry was in the final Week. For one thing it says : 26“Then after the sixty-two weeks the Messiah will be cut off
So, to me this says plainly that Messiah was cut off in the 70th week. We was not cut off in the 62 but after.
I will address the meaning of the phrase "cut off" too. It may not be what people have been thinking, nor I even a few months ago, but I was in a discussion with others and there was an interesting viewpoint I would like to share.
|
|
|
|
Post by venge on May 19, 2019 8:17:46 GMT -6
Venge, I may have misunderstood you, and if so, my apologies! My understanding is that you believe the rapture is after the 6th seal, prior to the 7th seal.....but also at the 7th trumpet, or am I mistaken? I also replied in messages... I place the Rapture coming after the 6th seal which the 7th trumpet is. The 3rd paragraph in Rev 7, I identify with the rapture as you do. The difference is this: You take ch. 7 as an space between the 6 and 7th seal. I don’t. The end of ch. 7 shows rapture but not “when”. You take it all following a chronological path and I don’t see the chapters working Like that. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 19, 2019 13:01:18 GMT -6
Thanks Venge! You are correct.....the classic pre-wrath view takes the seals, trumpets, and bowls in sequential order with increasing severity....but, I also agree that the structure of Revelation is not completely sequential, with interludes like Rev 12-14. The pre-wrath view does not nest trumpets and bowls within the seals....as is commonly found in some post-trib views.
In the end the practical outcome of the difference is maybe months of difference between the events near the end of the 70th week.....
Shalom Brother Venge!
|
|
|
|
Post by kjs on May 20, 2019 8:23:40 GMT -6
I believe that Jesus was born at the period ending the 62. His ministry was in the final Week. For one thing it says : 26“Then after the sixty-two weeks the Messiah will be cut off
So, to me this says plainly that Messiah was cut off in the 70th week. We was not cut off in the 62 but after.
Thank you for spelling that out for me. Now, please explain verse 27....
27 He shall make a firm covenant with many for one week: and in the middle of the week he shall cause the sacrifice and the offering to cease; and on the wing of abominations shall come one who makes desolate; and even to the full end, and that determined, shall wrath be poured out on the desolate.
The 70th week is clearly spelled out -- with starting with a covenant -- having some type of break with the covenant in the middle of the week -- and ends with God's wrath being poured out upon the one who makes desolate.
The weeks are clearly SPELLED OUT -- the 70th week starts with a covenant
============
Now, the portion Chuck Missler always points out (and I agree with him) -- is the prophecy has a "BUILD IN DELAY"
meaning -- AFTER 69 weeks (clearly spelled out) several events must take place and THEN the 70th week starts.
Three things (events) must happen (four IF you count the dispersion) 1) Messiah Cut Off 2) Jerusalem Destroyed 3) Temple Destroyed 4) People of Israel dispersed)
No, matter how you "slice the times" -- those four events do not fit within any seven week period. Making Daniel and Angel Gabriel -- Lairs. (OR - some pause button cam into affect and that pause is shown within the prophecy).
|
|
|
|
Post by davewatchman on May 20, 2019 9:08:54 GMT -6
Pump the brakes here brother! Civil discussion always please. That sounds good. That's a good one. Pump the brakes. William - There were a few comments between both of you that can be considered insulting. At the time of my note here you have 20 posts to your credit, not 20 years. Please understand that part of the role of a moderator is to ensure that conversations can remain civil but also to help guide a conversation that may seem doctrinaly incorrect or unclear. Another good one. 20 posts, not 20 years. KJS has earned the respect of many members, other moderators and the owner of the site. With that we trust that he is very capable of having productive conversations without anyone intervening as you suggest should have been done. When trying to make points there are occasions where dialogue can appear accusatory or inflammatory. That's what i was thinking. Age before beauty. Seniority rules. For the Lord is at hand. "Submit yourselves for the Lord’s sake to every human authority: whether to the emperor, as the supreme authority, or to governors, who are sent by him to punish those who do wrong and to commend those who do right.You make the statement that there has not been a peep from other moderators, however you are mistaken and make incorrect assumptions. We moderators discuss things off-line in addition to content in threads. The result of our discussion off-thread was posted in an attempt to bring the thread back to topic. Wouldn't i have liked to have been a fly on the wall, instead of one in the ointment. Especially during those madcap rant and dent and dennis days. This is not a life or death matter, That's what i was thinking too. This isn't the thing to start an arm wrestle over. I felt lucky to get my note on page 3 put up and still avoid time in the penalty box. The only reason that i think this is important is that some people think we might be headed into a big long seven year stretch of time. The 70th week in the penalty box. I'm very sure that the 70th week began in 27 AD when Jesus was reading from that scroll in Luke 4. And all eyes were on Him. I would have liked to have been a fly on the wall for that. |
|
|
|
Post by davewatchman on May 20, 2019 10:06:33 GMT -6
I will reply this weekend. Take your time. No rush. It will have a historical perspective of dates, captivities, decrees et al. But for me, it is not so much that dates line up, for history will line up on the decree if the dates are on the right track. I don't have to fudge the dates or assume x, y, or z. My reasoning is based on God's patterns and the lessons for what atonement is, and all the other things that Christ "fulfilled" in the 70th week of His ministry. Sounds pretty good. The point is, a pattern (God's Timeclock) is the basis for my position, not modern time, not Rev 12 Sign or anything like that, as I can look at this as if I am living on an island off Africa in the 1300's or anytime after 73AD, or even living in Gaza right now. My understanding of it does not take the historical apart on its own, then considering the patterns of God then adjusting for where it doesn't fit by putting in a gap. It doesn't do that. Sounds good. Time marches on. You can't hold back TIME. Time is slipping away. My overall stance about the entire 70 week decree has a broader reason. It has to do with considering the decree 'count' (meaning, the use of the number 7 and the number 49, etc. God's patterns of judgements, promises, what is a complete number, etc). That will get more clear when I post again. Jesus nailed the timing of the Jubilee Calendar by dying in the middle of the 70th week. I tend to be on the 30 AD team because of the full moon that happened that year. I believe that Jesus was born at the period ending the 62. His ministry was in the final Week. For one thing it says : 26“Then after the sixty-two weeks the Messiah will be cut off
So, to me this says plainly that Messiah was cut off in the 70th week. We was not cut off in the 62 but after.Sounds good. I will address the meaning of the phrase "cut off" too. It may not be what people have been thinking, nor I even a few months ago, but I was in a discussion with others and there was an interesting viewpoint I would like to share. Take your time. No rush. But the preamble, the suspense, is killing me. So while we wait, i'll do my version of the "cut off". How the 490 years were "cut off" from the 2300 erab and bogers. That made me laugh, but it's not funny. But there's all kinds of ideas. Some think that it's to do with A4E. Antiochus the 4th Epiphanes. That sounds reasonable to me as the Antiochus Epiphanes view has been around for a long long time. I'm sure that the Old Time Jews hated his guts and this may have allowed some bias to enter into the writings of Josephus. But I don't think that the little horn will come out from one of the 4 Greek kingdoms. "there came up four conspicuous horns toward:--->the four winds of heaven. "Out of one of them --->(the four winds of heaven) "came a little horn,The little horn comes from one of "the four winds of heaven" because we're no longer talking about earthly kingdoms, we're talking about direction. The angels can talk tricky here, you've got to keep your eye on them. "which grew exceedingly great toward the south,
"toward the east,
"and toward the glorious land. (which is west).Daniel 8's little horn is our end time Antichrist, who, like other OT destroyers, always comes from the north. The LORD said to me, "From the north disaster will be poured out on all who live in the land. The important thing to figure out here first is that the 2300 evenings and mornings are 2300 YEARS. If the 70 weeks are weeks of years, then the the 2300 must also be translated into years as well. And both these prophetic time periods share the same starting point in time which is 457 BC. Because the one holy one said to another: “For how long is the vision concerning the regular burnt offering, the transgression that makes desolate, and the giving over of the sanctuary and host to be trampled underfoot?” And he said to me, “For 2,300 evenings and mornings. Then the sanctuary shall be restored to its rightful state.”This is just like asking: when is the little horn going to appear? The best that they would tell us is that it would NOT come until AFTER 1844. And if it's after 1844, then it means that it can't be Antiochus Epiphanes. So if one would agree that the 70 weeks are 490 years, for the purpose of our discussion, it makes no difference whether a week is a heptad, a seven or a week of days equaling years. Daniel fell ill at the end of Chapter 8, so when Chapter 9 began many years latter it was the continuation of the earlier "vision". From Daniel 9:"while I was speaking in prayer, the man Gabriel, whom I had seen in the vision at the first, came to me in swift flight"And Gabriel confirms this: "At the beginning of your pleas for mercy a word went out, and I have come to tell it to you, for you are greatly loved. Therefore consider the word and understand the vision.There is no vision in Daniel 9.
So we can know therefore and understand that the "vision" that they are referring to must be the "vision" from the previous Chapter 8, the 2300 evenings and mornings.
"cut off"◄ 2852. chathak ►Strong's Concordance chathak: to divide, determine Original Word: חָתַך Part of Speech: Verb Transliteration: chathak Phonetic Spelling: (khaw-thak') Short Definition: decreed Brown-Driver-Briggs [חָתַךְ] verb divide, determine (Late Hebrew id., cut, cut off, decide, so Aramaic חתך Pa`el, Ethpa`al) — only Niph`al Perfect שָֽׁבֻעִים שִׁבְעִים נֶחְתַּךְ עַלעַֿמְּךָ Daniel 9:24 seventy weeks are determined upon thy people. Strong's Exhaustive Concordancedetermine A primitive root; properly, to cut off, i.e. (figuratively) to decree -- determine. The 1832 edition of Gesenius gives the meaning of chathak as "determine," "to destine," and in Chaldee "to cut," "decide." But the 1846 edition renders it "to cut" "to divide," also "to decree," "to determine." The Student's Hebrew and Chaldee Dictionary of 1914 gives "to cut, to decide, to determine, to decree," and Rotherham in his Emphasized Bible stresses the meaning "divide." www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?strongs=H2852&ot=KJV&t=ESV#lexSearch“Seventy weeks are decreed" “Seventy weeks are chathak" “Seventy weeks are " cut off" The 70 weeks are 490 years of TIME. Time can only be "cut off" from time. I can't cut 70 weeks off from a tree. And I can't cut 490 years off from 70 years. 70 weeks or 490 years can only be cut off from a larger portion of time. Would it make any sense for the 70 week period to be cut off from just any time in general? If this is true, where is the TIME that the 490 years are "cut off" from? Is this the TIME of the Jews that are being "cut off" from the Times of the Gentiles? In the vision from Chapter 8 the 2300 days was left out there hanging or unexplained. If Daniel 9 really is the explanation, or the continuation, of the unexplained portion of the previous vision, it doesn't surprise me that the explanation would include another time component. The only prophetic time mentioned in Daniel 9 is the 70 weeks. Would it be too big of a stretch to consider that when Gabriel deals with the 490 years, or 70 weeks, he is referring to the first part of the 2300 day prophecy? Could this period (490 years) have been "cut off" from the larger 2300 year prophetic time period to give Daniel's people one last chance: - to finish the transgression,
- to put an end to sin,
- and to atone for iniquity,
- to bring in everlasting righteousness,
- to seal both vision and prophet,
- and to anoint a most holy place.
The Old Time Jews were given 70 weeks to, among other things, seal both the vision and the prophet. During the Babylonian exile God had three prophets in operation at the same time: Daniel, Ezekiel and Jeremiah. But these three prophets were being given two different end time schematics. The original plan was for the Jews to accept their Messiah, then Jesus would have began the Kingdom of God on earth right away because it really was "at hand" at that time, the TIME was fulfilled. John the Baptist would not have died the way that he did, "lest I come and strike the land with a decree of utter destruction". Jesus would have sent disciples out from Jerusalem to invite anyone who wanted to be saved to come and live there in the Kingdom of God in the 1st century. Jerusalem would have eventually grown to such a huge population that it's walls could no longer contain it. The 70 weeks were being "cut off" in the first century from the 2300 'erab and boger to let Daniel's people have their last chance of the Sanctuary here on earth; then the remaining period of the 2300 years would then transfer over into the Christian church period, with the Sanctuary now in Heaven where Jesus is our High Priest. You know the True Tent? The one not made with human hands? "And he shall even rise up against the Prince of princes, and he shall be broken—>but by no human hand.Prince of princes is Jesus, right? How can Antiochus Epiphanes cause the Prince of princes any trouble? He can't. Antiochus Epiphanes was just a punk, Steven Seagal could take him no problemo. “Understand, O son of man,
that the vision is for the time of the end.”I copied much of this from this guy: www.worthychristianforums.com/topic/195712-daniel-8/?do=findComment&comment=2345267And appreciate the response of this guy: www.worthychristianforums.com/topic/195712-daniel-8/?do=findComment&comment=2345890"A portion of the greater. Bless his heart.  |
|
|
|
Post by williaml on May 20, 2019 14:03:30 GMT -6
Hi william....I appreciate your viewpoint, I am only saying that the lack of grace in your comments is not helping your case.... William, it might be helpful to provide a reference for someone who is an expert in Biblical Hebrew that explains the verses in Daniel as you explain....I am not an expert, but I have other experts, Israeli Jews, messianic and non-messianic, that explain the verses as you describe differently.... For example, Emanuel Tov (non-messianic) is the preeminent world expert in the DSS, answered directly to an inquiry of mine, and explained the Hiphil perfect 3rd person of Daniel 9:27 to me as best translated "he will cause to strengthen covenant". He went on to explain that the "he" refers to the most recent reference, "the coming prince", not the Messiah as described prior. He added that "am" did the destruction, not the "coming prince". This makes an excellent case for the futurist viewpoint, which I confirmed with an Israeli believer whose ministry is to shed meaning on the Hebrew scriptures, Hannah Weiss, and from Robert Chisholm of Old Testament Studies at DTS. This is not saying you are wrong......but it is saying there are eminent experts who do not read the verse the same way as you do, and therefore I would like to review your references as well! There is no disagreement between Tov's interpretation of that section of verse 27 and my own. Nor to his calling the antecedent to "he" being the "coming in prince" of verse 26. Perhaps you misunderstood what I wrote; check it again. As to " "am" did the destruction, not the "coming prince"..." -- I too have stated that the destroying one of verse 27 is not the same as the nagyd/prince. (What the heck is "am"?) However, NEITHER of these interpretations "make an excellent case for the futurist viewpoint." They make it a possibility, but not an excellent case at all. As I have also explained in earlier posts, ones posted on April 23 and 25. |
|
|
|
Post by williaml on May 20, 2019 14:16:24 GMT -6
I believe that Jesus was born at the period ending the 62. His ministry was in the final Week. For one thing it says : 26“Then after the sixty-two weeks the Messiah will be cut off
So, to me this says plainly that Messiah was cut off in the 70th week. We was not cut off in the 62 but after.This view only holds if the 70th week immediately follows the 69th. Most people, including those who hold both historical and futurist views, believe that was not the case. I hold that there were 40 years or more between the two. |
|
|
|
Post by williaml on May 20, 2019 14:44:20 GMT -6
Venge, I maintain a pre-wrath view, in which the sign of the Son of Man coming in the clouds in Matthew 24:30 precedes the rapture in Matthew 24:31. He is not on a white horse, nor with His saints, as He is in Revelation 19 when He comes to earth to rule and reign with His saints. The sign of the Son of Man coming on the clouds never states that He sets foot on earth, and parousia is an interesting word..... If the sign of the Son of Man in the clouds mentioned a white horse, sword, and myriads of saints, I would be inclined to believe Matthew 24:30 and Revelation 19 were one and the same, however the trumpet and bowl judgments of the 7th have yet to come as they were not described as Signs of His coming in Matthew 24 Ah, a brother pre-wrather.  Try this one: www.worthychristianforums.com/blogs/entry/842-the-kingdoms-of-solomon-and-jesus-christ/And maybe this one: www.worthychristianforums.com/blogs/entry/840-the-last-shofar-the-latter-horn-of-redemption/ |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 20, 2019 17:02:05 GMT -6
Hi William, nice articles!
"am" in verse 26, Strong's 5971 is translated "people", so it refers to "and the people ("am") of the coming prince will destroy the city and the sanctuary" from Daniel 9:26. It isn't the coming prince who destroys, it is his "am", or people. Two cases can be made for just who the "people" are (from a futurist viewpoint). One view is that since the Romans destroyed the city and sanctuary, the coming prince will be from the West. Another view proposed by Joel Richardson is that the Roman legions were actually recruits from Syria and the Arab world......this is why he proposed in his book an Islamic antichrist. He references historical records that confirm the legions were not Italian, but were locally recruited, with the exception of the Italian cohort referenced in scripture..
Something of interest to me is that the Jewish mystics equate Edom with Rome.....I believe this has roots in the installation of Herod, and Edomite, as king over Israel. The Jews never really accepted Herod as an Idumean convert to Judaism....he was an Edomite from Esau's line, not Jacob. These days we are seeing another peculiar alignment of Edom with the West, ie Saudi + USA vs Iran/Russia/Turkey axis
Nelson Walters, a good friend of mine and pre-wrath adherent, believes that the "he" refers back to Messiah.....and that the armies were "His" as an instrument of destruction in His hand......I respect his viewpoints greatly, but this is one I differ with him on!
|
|
|
|
Post by kjs on May 21, 2019 8:00:49 GMT -6
You make the statement that there has not been a peep from other moderators, however you are mistaken and make incorrect assumptions. We moderators discuss things off-line in addition to content in threads. The result of our discussion off-thread was posted in an attempt to bring the thread back to topic. Wouldn't i have liked to have been a fly on the wall, instead of one in the ointment. Especially during those madcap rant and dent and dennis days.
Naw -- being a "fly on the wall" would not have revealed much -- if at all -- anything.....
Contrary to "perceived" expectations we moderators are very rarely in 100% agreement.... when it comes to beliefs and interpretation of various topics that come into this website.
What we do pull together and do is regulate how things are said - including reprimands - to the offending parties. I have been "called out" a few times (and have apologized) ....
we privately warn other users of offending comments and allow them to back down (and if they wish apologize) .....
other disagreements -- such as how many warnings and how sever the warnings should be... up to the rare cases where we ban someone. (which we hate to do -- because disagreement brings good learning opportunities)
|
|
|
|
Post by mike on May 21, 2019 8:17:18 GMT -6
You make the statement that there has not been a peep from other moderators, however you are mistaken and make incorrect assumptions. We moderators discuss things off-line in addition to content in threads. The result of our discussion off-thread was posted in an attempt to bring the thread back to topic. Wouldn't i have liked to have been a fly on the wall, instead of one in the ointment. Especially during those madcap rant and dent and dennis days. Dave Rant was a character and had multiple chances here, Dent too. We tried so very hard to corral him, specially at the request of his daughter. Dennis was not really a problem, just mis-understood. In his zeal he was in error. The one you missed was DavidJayJordan - he wanted to fight. Like KJ said - we (mods) really disagree on many things similar to others here. My understanding of a certain 'non-core' doctrine is flawed, blurred, seen through a glass dimly. But someone may come along a wipe off some of the grime distorting my view. The problem most prevalent is ones willing to accept that the view they have learned, or studied for years on may not be correct, may be skewed, may be missing a detail to bring the topic into better focus. 1Cor 15:3-4 is what all must agree on. That whole chapter is enough for me, it is why we believe isnt it? 16 For if the dead rise not, then is not Christ raised: 17 And if Christ be not raised, your faith [is] vain; ye are yet in your sins. 18 Then they also which are fallen asleep in Christ are perished. 19 If in this life only we have hope in Christ, we are of all men most miserable. |
|
Try this one: