Could the disciples have lost their salvation?

[ScottA]

I'm sorry, color me obtuse, but what in these words speaks of a spirit of God given for unholiness?

Joel 2:29-31
And also upon the servants and upon the handmaids in those days will I pour out my spirit. And I will shew wonders in the heavens and in the earth, blood, and fire, and pillars of smoke. The sun shall be turned into darkness, and the moon into blood, before the great and terrible day of the Lord come.

God will show wonders in the heavens and in the earth. Those wonders, seen before the Day of the Lord, will include blood, and fire, and pillars of smoke, the sun turned to darkness, and the moon into blood.

Firstly, why would we not think of this as something we see? Revelation and Ezekiel and others speak of these things as well. No need to re-interpret them into something that's not being said. Do you have a special spiritual understanding of this place in Joel that tells you to take it as more than just what it says?

I truly do not understand how you get the one from the other no matter how many times you state that it is so.

Quoting the verse, and telling me it means something else just doesn't work for me.

Okay, but I am now quoting for the third time (above in red). And I say again...your comeback has been that the prophecy of Joel is only of the Holy Spirit. But here it is clearly not only holy, but also of blood, fire, and darkness. You can't just ignore it or argue that it does not exist.

I would suggest that you have not seen it, simply because you have not acknowledged these things and therefore have not looked for them. But do not suggest that I am misinterpreting, I simply quoted to you what you did not see...and explained it according to the revelations given to me via the Holy Spirit. This is the proper and promised way of things according to Christ. And, no, I have not said anything more that the scriptures already say. Regardless, do you mean to argue that we have not witnessed "blood", and "fire", and "darkness", in our time?

As for you not understanding and me stating it as it is...shall I again post the words in red? Okay, I will (above). But, seriously...you cannot explain the whole passage from Joel by limiting it all to the good and holy acts of the Holy Spirit - that is admitted selective denial.

...I will reply to the rest of you post later.

 

[marks]

but also of blood, fire, and darkness.

These are signs, not spirits. That's what the passage says.

You are repeating over and over as it were, blood, and fire, and smoke, this is the spirit of God unto evil . . .

But these are signs. So I still do not see where you are getting a spirit of God making men more evil. That still is to me blasphemous.

I'm finding here what I find frequently.

The part I disagree with you over is where the Bible says God will show signs, and you take it to mean He will send His spirit, in this case, as the signs seem to you something bad, you take it to mean a spirit given to cause evil men to flourish.

Though it says this, it means that. I can't begin to say how much I hear that. But I need specific proof, not just one man's say so. And particularly when you want to credit God with the depravity of men.

Much love!

 

[ScottA]

These are signs, not spirits.

Much love!

If they are no signs of something, they are not signs. If they are signs of something, they are something.

So...are you saying that no signs have been given, no "blood", no "fire", no "darkness?" Because if you are, you have contradicted the promise of God, via Joel, Jesus, Peter, and now me.

 

[CoreIssue]

Okay, but I am now quoting for the third time (above in red). And I say again...your comeback has been that the prophecy of Joel is only of the Holy Spirit. But here it is clearly not only holy, but also of blood, fire, and darkness. You can't just ignore it or argue that it does not exist.

I would suggest that you have not seen it, simply because you have not acknowledged these things and therefore have not looked for them. But do not suggest that I am misinterpreting, I simply quoted to you what you did not see...and explained it according to the revelations given to me via the Holy Spirit. This is the proper and promised way of things according to Christ. And, no, I have not said anything more that the scriptures already say. Regardless, do you mean to argue that we have not witnessed "blood", and "fire", and "darkness", in our time?

As for you not understanding and me stating it as it is...shall I again post the words in red? Okay, I will (above). But, seriously...you cannot explain the whole passage from Joel by limiting it all to the good and holy acts of the Holy Spirit - that is admitted selective denial.

...I will reply to the rest of you post later.

Your argument is flawed.

At Pentecost there was no blood, fire and darkness descending from the sky.

You might try to argue they occur later in history, but sure not at the time of Peter.

This is about the tribulation period. All of those are prophesied in Revelation.

Peter mentioned Joel to help the Jews understand what was happening at their time. He never said it was being fulfilled then.

You are the one contradicting Joel, Jesus and Peter.

Contradicting you? Who do you think you are?

 

[marks]

If they are no signs of something, they are not signs. If they are signs of something, they are something.

So...are you saying that no signs have been given, no "blood", no "fire", no "darkness?" Because if you are, you have contradicted the promise of God, via Joel, Jesus, Peter, and now me.

No. What I am saying is that your support for a "spirit of God" being given on Pentecost for the flourishment of evil in evil men is that the prophet foretold these signs, and I am saying this does not support such an assertion.

Let there be blood, let there be fire, let there be darkness, these signs will be according as God has foretold, just the same, this passage does not speak of a "spirit of God" unto evil as you have claimed.

And saying over and over and over again will not make it so.

I can from this passage show that God will show signs in the heavens and the earth, because this is what it says. You attempt to show another spirit from God, but it does not say that.

Sign does not equal spirit. That is a word substitution, which I do not make myself. I am subordinate to the Word.

Round and round we go.

Much love!
mark

 

[ScottA]

No. What I am saying is that your support for a "spirit of God" being given on Pentecost for the flourishment of evil in evil men is that the prophet foretold these signs, and I am saying this does not support such an assertion.

Let there be blood, let there be fire, let there be darkness, these signs will be according as God has foretold, just the same, this passage does not speak of a "spirit of God" unto evil as you have claimed.

And saying over and over and over again will not make it so.

I can from this passage show that God will show signs in the heavens and the earth, because this is what it says. You attempt to show another spirit from God, but it does not say that.

Sign does not equal spirit. That is a word substitution, which I do not make myself. I am subordinate to the Word.

Round and round we go.

Much love!
mark

You deceive yourself.

The signs given are here, they are signs of something, and that something is not good, but is promised by God - from God, whom is spirit.

You are not doing the math. Can't help you there.

 

[ScottA]

Your argument is flawed.

At Pentecost there was no blood, fire and darkness descending from the sky.

You might try to argue they occur later in history, but sure not at the time of Peter.

This is about the tribulation period. All of those are prophesied in Revelation.

Peter mentioned Joel to help the Jews understand what was happening at their time. He never said it was being fulfilled then.

You are the one contradicting Joel, Jesus and Peter.

Contradicting you? Who do you think you are?

• No blood? No blood of Christ?
• No fire? No Holy fire?
• No darkness? No darkness from the sixth hour until the ninth hour?

Go back and read the gospels

 

[marks]

You deceive yourself.

The signs given are here, they are signs of something, and that something is not good, but is promised by God - from God, whom is spirit.

You are not doing the math. Can't help you there.

That must be the "new math".

The fact is, the passage doesn't say what you say it says.

Yes, they are signs, yes, they are signs of something. But it's just a leap across a chasm to say that they are signs of a Holy God giving His Spirit to unholy men to make them more unholy still.

God does not empower men to sin by His Spirit.

Blasphemy!

In Christ,
Mark

 

[ScottA]

That must be the "new math".

The fact is, the passage doesn't say what you say it says.

Yes, they are signs, yes, they are signs of something. But it's just a leap across a chasm to say that they are signs of a Holy God giving His Spirit to unholy men to make them more unholy still.

God does not empower men to sin by His Spirit.

Blasphemy!

In Christ,
Mark

Yes, there is a chasm and it is a leap...which is spiritual discernment. The words are spirit, and otherwise confounded by God. The same God who that you do not believe has created both light and darkness, has also confounded all language and put it under guard of the Spirit, making the words alone nonsensical to the natural man. But you, like the twelve at the time of the cross, cannot bear it all now. And here you are doing the predictable, just as Israel killed the prophets, and even Christ.

At least you might try to see that you have entered into the same fatal pattern of those who have gone before. You know it's a pattern, because it is written. You just have not figured out that you are doing the same.

 

[marks]

Yes, there is a chasm and it is a leap...which is spiritual discernment.

And which, if you cannot show where the Bible says this, then it is only what you are saying.

The words are spirit, and otherwise confounded by God.

Not a license to mold them into something they are not.

The same God who that you do not believe has created both light and darkness,

Misrepresentation. Do you actually think that I think there is something that was made that God did not make? Seriously? This is your argument?

has also confounded all language and put it under guard of the Spirit, making the words alone nonsensical to the natural man.

Partly agreed. The Bible needs the Holy Spirit to show us what it means. But that Does Not mean that the words suddenly say what they don't say.

But you, like the twelve at the time of the cross, cannot bear it all now. And here you are doing the predictable, just as Israel killed the prophets, and even Christ.

And once again, so monotonously, you have to go and make it personal.

So far, nothing here is in support of your assertion.

At least you might try to see that you have entered into the same fatal pattern of those who have gone before. You know it's a pattern, because it is written. You just have not figured out that you are doing the same.

Perhaps you may try to see that you should take the Word for what It says, instead of re-wording it into something else.

Do you see how comments like that do not advance the discussion?

But then, how could this discussion possibly advance?

Much love!
Mark

 

[CoreIssue]

• No blood? No blood of Christ?
• No fire? No Holy fire?
• No darkness? No darkness from the sixth hour until the ninth hour?

Go back and read the gospels

And there you go changing the words again.

No fire rains down from heaven and no darkness engulfs the earth.

You need to read Revelation.

 

[VictoryinJesus]

And there you go changing the words again.

No fire rains down from heaven and no darkness engulfs the earth.

You need to read Revelation.

Are you looking for literal darkness? Literal blood and literal fire? I’m trying to understand...

 

[CoreIssue]

Are you looking for literal darkness? Literal blood and literal fire? I’m trying to understand...

Literally became dark when Christ was on the cross. But only in the area of the cross.

Lateral blood poured from his side.

There was no literal fire from heaven.

But in Revelation during the tribulation period there are literally all three. Meteors fall from the sky and turn seas blood red. And Armageddon one literally runs. The sun and the moon or darken as is the earth.

There's a lot of iron ore and meteorites. Enough of them fall and it will turn water red.

In ancient Egypt God turned the Nile blood red and covered Egypt in darkness.

He also sent pestilence onto the earth, just like in ancient Egypt.

So yes very literal and very future just like Joel's prophecy.

So why the problem with the prophecy being literal?

 

[ScottA]

And which, if you cannot show where the Bible says this, then it is only what you are saying.

Not a license to mold them into something they are not.

Misrepresentation. Do you actually think that I think there is something that was made that God did not make? Seriously? This is your argument?

Partly agreed. The Bible needs the Holy Spirit to show us what it means. But that Does Not mean that the words suddenly say what they don't say.

And once again, so monotonously, you have to go and make it personal.

So far, nothing here is in support of your assertion.

Perhaps you may try to see that you should take the Word for what It says, instead of re-wording it into something else.

Do you see how comments like that do not advance the discussion?

But then, how could this discussion possibly advance?

Much love!
Mark

Mark...this is personal. But it is you, not me, who has reached your limit and is holding to the the elementary principles of Christ, which Paul preached against. Now, it is I who am preaching the same to you. But it is not against the truth, and not against the promises and prophesies of God...just as it was not when Paul preached it, though he also had his critics.

You are wrong about spiritual discernment not saying what they don't otherwise say. That is the way of parables, the way of God, His method, not mine. The "object" (or words used) are never the same as the "subject" of a parable. If you were correct, Christ would be a literal lamb, a baby sheep. But you are wrong. When Jesus explained the classic parables, He explained by example just how all language that is spirit needs an explanation. And in His own actual explanations, He most definitely explained by saying "what they don't say."

"So far" I have taken the position and explained the two-edged sword or grace vs. wrath reality of God...and you have denied it. I have showed you the underbelly of the very prophecy that tells of this same reality for our time...and you are now closing down. Yes, you are correct, you doing what you are doing is personal. This is you refusing the spiritual unseen word. Very personal indeed.

The "possible advance" would mean you opening your eyes to the whole truth, instead of backing down to the Holy image that you have of our God, whom is also a God of wrath, of Holy fire - which things, in the hands of men are evil, but in His hands are not.

The question is...can you, or will you?

 

[VictoryinJesus]

Literally became dark when Christ was on the cross. But only in the area of the cross.

Lateral blood poured from his side.

There was no literal fire from heaven.

But in Revelation during the tribulation period there are literally all three. Meteors fall from the sky and turn seas blood red. And Armageddon one literally runs. The sun and the moon or darken as is the earth.

There's a lot of iron ore and meteorites. Enough of them fall and it will turn water red.

In ancient Egypt God turned the Nile blood red and covered Egypt in darkness.

He also sent pestilence onto the earth, just like in ancient Egypt.

So yes very literal and very future just like Joel's prophecy.

So why the problem with the prophecy being literal?

Thank you. wanted to understand better where you are coming from.

 

[ScottA]

And there you go changing the words again.

No fire rains down from heaven and no darkness engulfs the earth.

You need to read Revelation.

Have you learned nothing?

When Christ came, the good people of Israel said much the same thing because things did not seem to live up to their great expectations...and they too were wrong.

If you don't think (or believe) the days of of Noah live up to the great expectation of Revelation...you can apologize to Jesus when you see Him.

 

[CoreIssue]

Have you learned nothing?

When Christ came, the good people of Israel said much the same thing because things did not seem to live up to their great expectations...and they too were wrong.

If you don't think (or believe) the days of of Noah live up to the great expectation of Revelation...you can apologize to Jesus when you see Him.

I've learned you think you're some kind of profit or something. You are nowhere close.

 

[ScottA]

I've learned you think you're some kind of profit or something. You are nowhere close.

Go ahead, say it...you just hate me. Come on, it's obvious, don't hold back, just say it!

 

[ScottA]

So why the problem with the prophecy being literal?

1 Corinthians 15:46
"However, the spiritual is not first, but the natural, and afterward the spiritual."

 

[brakelite]

And any Tom. Dick, and Harry can come into any forum and proclaim they are led of th e Spirit of God and because no-one "sees" what they see, is because they don't have the spirit. They cannot discern "truth" because they are babes in Christ and are imma ture in the handing of scripture. The thing is though despite claims to the contrary, they only have their own presumed authority to stand on. The parables of Christ were explained... By Christ.
Prophetic symbolism is explained... By scripture. The word is interpreted by itself. Any " spirit" that purports to be renewing "truth' that cannot be substantiated by scripture, must be discarded... Regardless how "spiritual" it is claimed to be.
Sin found its beginning in Lucifer, not in the Creator. Isaiah explains that Lucifer was perfect "until iniquity was found in thee". This iniquity came from pride. He thought he was deserving of honour from other created beings for that which God had bestowed upon him as a gift. This pride, this sin, and the trail of heartache and woe that followed did not come from God. No more than Jobs trouble came upon him as a direct act of God. God's protection may have been removed, as it will in the last days when the four angels loose their hold on the winds O of strife, but those winds will not come from God. Never.