Messages

1

General Discussion / Re: The hypocrisy of those speaking in tongues!!

« on: August 24, 2018, 06:31:54 AM »

@ minute 6:59-7:07

"You don't really care what anybody else thinks"
"We don't care if it's validated or not"

These were less noble than those in Thessalonica, in that they received false doctrine with all readiness of mind, and refused to search the scriptures ever, whether those things were so.

2

Bible Discussion / Re: 1 Timothy qualifications

« on: August 24, 2018, 02:35:30 AM »

Chris, was it Eddie Long you were referring to?

3

Bible Discussion / Re: King James Translators to the Reader

« on: August 24, 2018, 12:52:48 AM »

I can agree with that;

The Preface certainly gives a glimpse into the heart of the Translators and from the sense of the Preface, you can conclude the humility and privilege they felt to be a part of the Authorized Version. I did not gather that they would imply "their" translation is perfect. They likened the Translation to a piece of polished gold, as opposed to the previous versions and translative works that were by comparison dirty and unrefined, and yet were still held as the "Word of God."

Regarding the modern translations, developed from the Wescott and Hort Greek text, that did not arise until almost 300 years after the King James Translators had completed their translation.  The modern Greek perversion was produced and presented in 1881, so therefore Christians up until that time did not use it and that's where the issue arises. If we accept Wescott and Hort's Greek as the pure Word, then Christians did not have the pure Word of God (in the New Testament) for nearly 1900 years.

By calling the Greek Text they used (Textus Receptus) as the golden pipes, no doubt they (KJV Translators) would reject modern bibles because of the source.

Matthew 7:17
Even so every good tree bringeth forth good fruit; but a corrupt tree bringeth forth evil fruit.

Not withstanding, I hold the position as I believe most of you do, that The King James Version is the simplest, purest, most undefiled translation for the English speaker. If your native tongue is English, and your goal is to sanctify yourself from leaven, then you need to be reading the King James Version.

Where we may differ, I believe if other languages, ie. Filipino, Chinese, Russian, etc. are to also have the simplest, purest, most undefiled translation for their tongue, they should be translating their Bibles from the Textus Receptus (golden pipes) identified by the King James Translators.

I included this site in the link, but here is is again, this is a very interesting website, to learn more about how we hold our King James Bible today:
http://textusreceptusbibles.com
There is a link called "The Alexandrian Text" where you can read "How Wescott and Hort rewrote history to fool the scholars" and other great reads.

4

Bible Discussion / Re: What is the Church?

« on: August 22, 2018, 03:11:48 AM »

Timothy and Kevin,

So I owe you both an apology, and so I just want to say sorry for my responses. To Kevin for presenting materials loosely and with arrogance. And to Timothy for being ignorant or stubborn, not sure which was more prevalent but I feel guilty of both sorry in both cases.

The transparency here is good to have so there can be no respecter of persons. If Timothy had been wrong in his comments, certainly others would have said something so I am willing to admit that I was both ignorant of my actions, and stubborn in that I refused to go back and read every post with proper discernment.

Timothy, take your time on the article. If there are areas that need to be corrected, I am for it. As I mentioned on the Revelation 1:1 post, I only wrote the article because I could find no proper teaching on the subject. And to be honest, everything that all Christians understand about the future hinges on Daniel 9.

Understand I do not think the matter of future events is nearly as important as living holy lives now and preaching the gospel. But clearly, the interpretation of those 4 verses is the source of the 7-years unfulfilled, whether you are Pre-Trib or Post-Trib. Both adhere to a 7-years future and that time comes because the prophecy in Daniel is somehow not fulfilled.  I would love to know how it is not fulfilled when God says He will fulfill it in 490 years. To me, Daniel 9:24 it is a clear verse of Scripture. Everything under verse 24 is under the umbrella of time required to fulfill. Now those verses (25-27) present problems because they are not so clear. So my approach was this: Scripture is clear in verse 24 and God does not lie. How can we (man) reconcile the other verses when the top verse is fulfilled. This is what the whole issue boils down to. Is verse 24 fulfilled or not? And if not, why not?

5

Bible Discussion / Re: What is the Church?

« on: August 21, 2018, 09:09:20 AM »

Chris,

Thanks for helping me to see the issue where I lied about teaching. I was ignorant to the definition of what teaching was. My perception was that I was sharing. I was under the understanding that unless you "published" an article or did an audio teaching or in the event of a church building: taught a Sunday school class, or had a bible study, then it was not teaching. When you say, using Scripture and giving explanations with direct statements behind them, is teaching. Then I have to admit that is what I was doing. So I am sorry for misleading that it was not teachings. I'll seek to glorify Christ in future posts knowing that we have the greater condemnation.

I did not notice Timothy correct me when I said he accused me of being a false teacher, so perhaps he still holds that view. If he disagrees with the Daniel 9 article, that is absolutely fine, I have no issues with a disagreement. But if there are false teachings, I would appreciate the specifics on what exactly is not accurate or opposed to the Word of God with regards to that teaching so I can amend it to reflect the truth.

Thanks again, understand I was very stressed out earlier from the brethren, I don't have A/C in my house during the day(thats no excuse) But it's a bit miserable sometimes with the humidity and then not understanding where I was wrong compounded the issue. Thanks to all for highlighting my error.

6

Bible Discussion / Re: What is the Church?

« on: August 21, 2018, 08:05:24 AM »

From the onset, my intro informed that this was just something on my mind that bothered me, the conversation I had with the fellow.
So if I say this is not an official article, and then later say the things in THIS POST are speculative. NOT the things in the Daniel Article and not the Future article, But THIS POST.

Not only do I then become a false teacher because Timothy accused the entire Daniel Article of being false teaching.
Not only that, but all future articles are false teachings.
And not only that, but now I am liar because when I say from post #1 this is not an official article, then later reaffirm that THIS POST is speculative.

Timothy, you are too much.
Matthew 5:44 But I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you;

I would hate to be your enemy 

7

Bible Discussion / Re: What is the Church?

« on: August 21, 2018, 07:41:33 AM »

If people are not allowed to just have conversation, just say so. There are no rules posted as to proper etiquette for Web Ministry.

8

Bible Discussion / Re: What is the Church?

« on: August 21, 2018, 07:40:13 AM »

Now I am a false teacher and a liar... WOW!

From the very first posting: "Just had some things on my mind and wanted to vent so I stopped working on other things to share. Sorry if there are grammatical errors. This is not an official article or anything"

Do you people read?

9

Bible Discussion / Re: What is the Church?

« on: August 21, 2018, 07:37:34 AM »

did I say that? I said THIS POST. and I received secret rebuke, not open.

10

Bible Discussion / Re: Barabbas

« on: August 21, 2018, 06:24:14 AM »

Matthew 16:17
And Jesus answered and said unto him, Blessed art thou, Simon Barjona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven.

11

Bible Discussion / Re: What is the Church?

« on: August 21, 2018, 06:10:19 AM »

Jeanne,

That is nice to know. I'm not sure if I missed the directions on how to be part of an online church or if they are not available to be read. Currently, my understanding is, whatever is posted is susceptible to heavy scrutiny and possible screams of false teacher. So, I will not let my personality come out again. It will be just the facts from now on to avoid accusations. I went from a CCM church in year one, to a Fundamental Baptist Church, years two and three.

I chalk this up to the growing pains of learning a unique form of fellowship.

12

Bible Discussion / King James Translators to the Reader

« on: August 21, 2018, 05:56:26 AM »

In an effort to sanctify myself from my false teachings, please allow me to present this unedited copy of the Preface included with the 1611 King James Version.

And in accordance with CLE protocol of refraining from including interpretative explanations or personal observations along with subject matter being presented, I would just like to highlight a few points raised by the King James Version Translators:
http://www.bibleprotector.com/The_Translators_to_the_Reader.pdf

I posted something, but it continued to get cutoff, here's the source:
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1zM-M09e9dLRT97sLVaECEanB1ZYqyZtvv5DnWjowJCE/edit?usp=sharing

13

Bible Discussion / Re: What is the Church?

« on: August 21, 2018, 01:28:08 AM »

Timothy,
I clearly misunderstood, or still do misunderstand what these Forums are. It's evident that anybody who speculates on a passage of Scripture or shares an idea will be met with swift rebuke and criticism. I do not have all knowledge, nobody does, I came here to learn. Free and open communication is frowned upon, which appears to be the case, as I stated in the Masha debacle, one must proofread, analyze and check all references before posting on one of these Forum pages. This greatly hinders the possibility of bringing one to a proper understanding, because of fear of attack, it's best to remain silent.

I specifically stated, "Any feedback is welcome" when the Daniel article was posted. Interesting, you never mentioned a single word regarding the so-called "false doctrine" between 19 July and today. I welcome you to show me why Daniel 9:24 is not fulfilled. Show me how that prince is "The Antichrist"? Show me that the last week of Daniel has a gap of undetermined amount of time separating the 69th and 70th? Show me why verse 26 is not regarding the destruction of the temple in 70AD? Explain to me why these 4 verses in Daniel are concerning the 7-year "Great Tribulation." Understand the 7-years of the future "Great Tribulation" comes from Daniel 9:24-27. But then if the 7-years are not fulfilled, understand that means that Christ was unable to fulfill the things God determined He would fulfill in 70 weeks (which includes those things mentioned in verse 24) and you and I are still dead in our sins and trespasses. Show me how that is wrong because I spent many months looking and searching the Scriptures daily to understand.
I stated in the article that I would love to be "raptured" if it were a true biblical principle as an example of my willingness to grow. Not that you believe in rapture, but show me because that article is how I interpret Daniel and if you have nothing to say over 66 pages besides to swoop in today and profess the blanket statement that cover to cover its false doctrine and everything I say is false doctrine... I may need to consider if this is a place that seeks to edify a brother or bring them down. How can I grow in understanding without being shown the error?

Death and life are in the power of the tongue: and they that love it shall eat the fruit thereof. Proverbs 18:21

Clearly, since you hold that article as a false teaching but will not address the specifics, as to where I am mistaken in my interpretation, then you have falsely accused me of teaching false doctrine.

14

Bible Discussion / Re: What is the Church?

« on: August 20, 2018, 09:39:27 PM »

All,

If this post seems to indicate that I am doing any teachings, please understand it is not.
It was speculative, as I haven't even began my study on Revelation. I anticipate beginning that sometime in September and I will be in Study until January 2019. I stated loosely the thesis, but I haven't even started so please do not read things here as validated proofs from Scripture. These last few comments since the subject matter changed from antichrist to the beast have been fun conversation for me, but I do not want to mislead anybody so until I present this information in a properly formatted article, take all comments at face value.

Thanks.

15

Bible Discussion / Re: What is the Church?

« on: August 20, 2018, 09:19:18 PM »

To your specific point I agree:
All who are not in the book of life since the foundation worship the dragon and beast.
But those who have not been sealed "YET" would also worship the dragon and beast until such time as God in His mercy redeems us from our iniquity and seals us that holy Spirit.

I'm using myself as a case and point: I worshipped the dragon and beast for most of my adult life: I did much wickedness in the sight of the Lord and had no regard for Him. I did not seek Him or obey him, I was lost and blindly worshipped the false idols of the world until that day I was sealed with that holy Spirit of promise.

Of course God in not trapped in time as you understand, and He knows those who are His outside of time.

16

Bible Discussion / Re: What is the Church?

« on: August 20, 2018, 09:06:57 PM »

Firm is good,

Eph 1:13
In whom ye also trusted, after that ye heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation: in whom also after that ye believed, ye were sealed with that holy Spirit of promise,

You can be predestined before the creation of the world and yet, be in condemnation in this world until the day you are sealed in the Spirit.

17

Bible Discussion / Re: What is the Church?

« on: August 20, 2018, 07:42:34 PM »

Chris,

The method you have suggested I am using is both correct and incorrect in this instance.
What I am suggesting is that the Book of Revelation is a symbolic book. Written in the fashion of Daniel, as visions.

For example:
Daniel 8:
3 Then I lifted up mine eyes, and saw, and, behold, there stood before the river a ram which had two horns: and the two horns were high; but one was higher than the other, and the higher came up last.
4 I saw the ram pushing westward, and northward, and southward; so that no beasts might stand before him, neither was there any that could deliver out of his hand; but he did according to his will, and became great.
5 And as I was considering, behold, an he goat came from the west on the face of the whole earth, and touched not the ground: and the goat had a notable horn between his eyes.

Is the ram which had two horns pushing westward using a transitive verb?
Later in the chapter it is revealed that the ram is actually symbolic of something else:

Daniel 8:
20 The ram which thou sawest having two horns are the kings of Media and Persia.

This is describing something that was literally seen by Daniel and in like manner, John for the purposes of The Book of the Revelation of Jesus Christ.
So what you say is correct, John literally see's marks on people's hands or foreheads.
However, these literal marks are symbolic in that they mean something else. In this particular case, the something else I suggested is that ALL men before they are sealed by the Holy Spirit are condemned. ALL men are enslaved. ALL men are deceived. And this is the theme of Chapter 13, that we are all doomed and in need of a savior. The "things" described in Chapter 13, are suggestive of the hopeless depravity of mankind, worshipping false beasts.

John 3:
19 And this is the condemnation, that light is come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil.

Revelation 13:
16 And he causeth all, both small and great, rich and poor, free and bond, to receive a mark in their right hand, or in their foreheads:
17 And that no man might buy or sell, save he that had the mark, or the name of the beast, or the number of his name.

This is not even an option: ALL receive the mark, No man might buy or sell save he had the mark, and ALL men have the mark.

The primary issue, is that people have been supplanted with the doctrine that these verses are future, but a careful reading of Scripture will prove that presupposition to be false. My study is to show that Revelation is relevant for what has happened in the history of Christs church and what is happening in the lives of man.

And Chapter 14, verse 1 opens with our Great Hope, The True Lamb as opposed to the false lamb mentioned in Revelation 13:11, This Lamb is standing on mount Zion, with the full people of God, the elect of God, having the Fathers name "written in their foreheads."

Romans 8:1 There is therefore now no condemnation to them which are in Christ Jesus, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit.

Without getting to much into the weeds of the matter, hopefully I have made myself clear on this point.

18

Bible Discussion / Re: What is the Church?

« on: August 20, 2018, 08:16:27 AM »

Gotcha! Well, you have a keen eye! I anticipate the Matthew 24 study to be approximately 150 pages, I'd love it if you would critique it and correct me in all areas that I am in error. Have a great day Thomas. 

19

Bible Discussion / Re: What is the Church?

« on: August 20, 2018, 08:04:22 AM »

Thanks for your comment though Thomas, I'll ensure to address your AND/OR point later.

Also, I just noticed your emphasis on receive the mark in revelation.

So to address that comment:
Would you say ALL men have received condemnation?

20

Bible Discussion / Re: What is the Church?

« on: August 20, 2018, 07:51:03 AM »

I'm just trying to understand what exactly your saying.

I haven't done the study yet, i was just "food for thought"

The subject was "What is the church?"
Kevin wanted to talk about "The Antichrist"
The Bible never adds a definite article to antichrist. Rather, Scripture says "IT" is a spirit.
Kevin switched subjects from "The Antichrist" to "The Beast" implying they are the same without offering Scriptural evidence to that claim.

I provided a few notes, that I have that are not fully realized yet. That's all.
But if the question is do I think "The Revelation of Jesus Christ" is to be read literally? Then the answer is no. And when I finish my study, I will tell you all why.