Search results

How is it that it is only the saved that are being addressed here. (Rev. 22:11) says, " He that is unjust, let him be unjust still: and he which is filthy, let him be filthy still: and he that is righteous, let him be righteous still; and he that is holy, let him be holy still. " And, in...

Such a statement as this does nothing to take away from the 'rapture'. To identify the rapture of the Church with this passage simply because the word 'fly' is used shows the extent those will go to reject the 'rapture'. Stranger

Well, as I said, (Rev. 22:17-19) pertains to anyone, everyone, and whosoever. That means, at the least, not just the saved. So, how can those that are not saved have their part taken out of the 'book of life', if he didn't have a part. And we are never told that our names are added to...

Concerning the 144,000, God places a seal upon them and they are miraculously protected by Him during the Tribulation period. (Rev. 7:3-8) But there will be others who become believers at that time and they will be martyred for their faith. This is the price one pays for being a believer...

No, what I said was that is a possibility. But what is sure is that those that are addressed are not the saved but anyone, everyone, and whosoever. Actually it never says our names are added to the 'Book of Life'. It does say they are found written in the 'book of life'. (Rev. 13:8...

Think on this. Was anyone ever saved by the Law? No. So, even though those of Israel were under Law, that Law never saved them. It would still be by grace and through faith that they were saved also. Stranger

As I said, the term 'tree of life' should be rendered 'book of life'. Concerning the book of life it may well be that everyones name is written in it, both the saved and unsaved, until God blots it out. So, just because one loses his part in the book of life doesn't mean he was saved and then...

I don't follow. Stranger

That's fine. Go with what the Lord has taught you. I don't understand your question. Why would God want what? Stranger

The gathering of Christians unto Christ is the rapture, 'not the day of the Lord'. The 'day of the Lord' is not just one 24 hr. period. It is a time period that involves both the tribulation period and the millennium. Paul had told the Thessalonicans that the church would be raptured out...

Actually I was in the process of speaking to another about it when you entered in with your comment of my question being stupid. Stranger

Please pay attention.In (Rev.3:5) God said to the overcomer he would not "blot out his name" He didn't say he would. And who is the overcomer? (1John 5:5) "....he that believeth that Jesus is the Son of God?" And, the overcomer is not being addressed in (Rev. 22:17-19). It is 'whosoever'...

I honestly believe that some believers just want to go to hell. (Ex. 32) is not a picture of a loss of salvation, of being blotted out of the book. It is a picture of eternal security due to intersecession. God didn't come to Moses and say He was going to blot out this people. God offered...

It shows that the day in (2:3) is speaking not our gathering unto Him, but of the day of the Lord, or the day of Christ. (2:3) says "that day shall not come". What day. The day of Christ he just spoke of in (2:2). Stranger

Much easier to dismiss a question than to answer it. You're on a roll with three. So, is there any substance to what you have to say? Or is it just talk? If you don't know how to answer it is better to be quiet. Stranger

I don't know what McArtuher teaches as I am not a big fan of his. But I do believe the terms first and second pertaining to the resurrections are ordinal and not cardinal. In other words it doesn't matter when or how many of the resurrections take place they are either of the first or second...

When you say Jesus always taught in parables you're saying whenever Jesus taught it was in parables. If that is not what you are saying fine. Then say that. Say, Jesus did not always teach in parables. Which of course means you don't interpret everything Jesus said as a parable. Stranger

Peanut No they don't. Jesus did use a parabel prior to (Matt. 13), but not of the kingdom. And, when a parable is so used it is identified as such. In other words, you don't get to interpret the Bible as a 'parable'. And who is denying miracles? I'm not. Stranger

Exactly right. What God calls Holy is Holy. We worship Jesus Christ because He alone is worthy of worship. All else are idols and lies, and cults. Stranger

No it doesn't as I explained in post #75. See (Matt. 13:10-11). The only reason the disciples asked is becuase Jesus hadn't been teaching in parables. Stranger