The Identity of the Two Witnesses of Revelation

[bbyrd009]

the bible tells us plainly the names of the two witness.

hmm, imo what is actually happening is that the Bible is telling us plainly who 101G is, wadr

 

[Helen]

Surely they only think that the old wine is better? As Jesus is pointed out as 'having saved the best till last '....any thoughts ?

I've always thought that that which has aged is best.
A bottle of aged wine?
Chateau Margaux 1787 goes for $500,000 a bottle. Known as the most expensive wine never to be sold!!
Aged cheese is better. Aged beef is better.
Aged people are better

 

[bbyrd009]

Surely they only think that the old wine is better? As Jesus is pointed out as 'having saved the best till last '....any thoughts ?

I've always thought that that which has aged is best.
A bottle of aged wine?
Chateau Margaux 1787 goes for $500,000 a bottle. Known as the most expensive wine never to be sold!!
Aged cheese is better. Aged beef is better.
Aged people are better

obviously wine is being used as a metaphor here, and the fact that "they say" is always added to the discussion is a qualifier; or rather a kind of disqualifier, iow meaning that the "old wine" may not really be any better after all. The implications are profound imo, depending upon how one defines the metaphor.

 

[Richard_oti]

who needs proof, but lawyers and judges?

Yet the evidentiary is better than that of blind faith.

As Bruce Springsteen said in '85, just before doing a cover of Edwin Starr's "War":

" ... the next time, their gonna be lookin' at you, and you're gonna need a lot of information to know, what you're, gonna wanna do, because ... blind faith in your leaders, or in anything,
will get you killed".

 

[bbyrd009]

Yet the evidentiary is better than that of blind faith.

At least where matter is concerned, sure. There are laws that govern matter. Not sure how we could square that with "faith is the evidence..." though.

 

[Richard_oti]

At least where matter is concerned, sure. There are laws that govern matter. Not sure how we could square that with "faith is the evidence..." though.

Your point was understood even before I posted that. It still is understood. However, for the sake of fun and entertainment:

Heb 11:1 And faith is of things hoped for a confidence, of matters not seen a conviction,

Heb 11:3 by faith we understand the ages to have been prepared by a saying of God, in regard to the things seen not having come out of things appearing;

As Paul writes:

Rom 1:20 For the invisible things of him since the creation of the world are clearly seen, being perceived through the things that are made, even his everlasting power and divinity; that they may be without excuse:


So IF we believe in the "God" of the Bible, do we believe that which has come down to us by the oracles. Do we search out a matter, or simple accept what we are told.


And of course, we could always fall back to:

"If there is a God, he must better approve of the homage of reason, than that of blind faith"
- Thomas Jefferson


PS: Like your Nehushtan thread.

 

[bbyrd009]

PS: Like your Nehushtan thread.

ty, but i dunno. As you say, oracles are not what we make them out to be.

 

[Richard_oti]

ty, but i dunno. As you say, oracles are not what we make them out to be.

So perhaps, it is a catch 22. Or in this case, a catch 33.

As there is also the further inherent danger, like the Dwarves of Moria who dug too deep, and unleashed Durin's Bain, the Balrog.

This is why I find the simple and unsophisticated faith of some so beautiful to behold. It is a rare quality that is not found in many.

 

[bbyrd009]

who needs proof, but lawyers and judges?

Yet the evidentiary is better than that of blind faith.

ah, this reads diff to me now, hmm

i agree completely, but they are two diff subjects, too.
if evidence is fruit--which seems acceptable to me--then of course we should be guided by that; but there is a diff in that and "proof," or at least there was when i started this post lol, now i'm not sure what i am saying. It is proof of that particular situation, but not proof necessarily transferable to a diff situation? something like that

 

[bbyrd009]

So perhaps, it is a catch 22. Or in this case, a catch 33.

As there is also the further inherent danger, like the Dwarves of Moria who dug too deep, and unleashed Durin's Bain, the Balrog.

This is why I find the simple and unsophisticated faith of some so beautiful to behold. It is a rare quality that is not found in many.

the old wine is better, they say?

 

[bbyrd009]

Or in this case, a catch 33.

ah, i didn't recollect the victims of the snakes being numbered. I'll hafta go reread i guess

 

[Richard_oti]

ah, i didn't recollect the victims of the snakes being numbered. I'll hafta go reread i guess

Not numbered. I was playing upon a "catch 22" in that from my perspective, there was a third so called "alternative" that also poses a conflict, that can open doors that are better left closed. A Pandora's box if you will.

 

[Richard_oti]

ah, this reads diff to me now, hmm

i agree completely, but they are two diff subjects, too.
if evidence is fruit--which seems acceptable to me--then of course we should be guided by that; but there is a diff in that and "proof," or at least there was when i started this post lol, now i'm not sure what i am saying. It is proof of that particular situation, but not proof necessarily transferable to a diff situation? something like that

You're initial reply was regarding my statement that we can't prove the witnesses. With which I agree. However in a broader context, there are many things we can't prove. From my perspective, the evidentiary is better than that of blind faith. Which I concur, is a different thing. I also concur, they do not necessarily transfer from one situation to another.

With regard to your statement regarding the oracles: We have a catch 22 so to speak. I took that a step further, for there is another option with regard to the evidentiary, by which, like the Dwarves of Moria, one can unleash the Balrog, which I made a rather poor play on words with the phrase catch 22 in saying catch 33.

 

[bbyrd009]

Not numbered. I was playing upon a "catch 22" in that from my perspective, there was a third so called "alternative" that also poses a conflict, that can open doors that are better left closed. A Pandora's box if you will.

and i'm trying to tease it out of you right now lol, yeh

for there is another option with regard to the evidentiary, by which, like the Dwarves of Moria, one can unleash the Balrog

ah, regarding evidence then ok.

 

[blessedhope]

Michael had to struggle or dispute with Satan about the body of Moses, but what that entailed is not described, So God must of wanted the body>>> MMM Why??Just then there appeared before them Moses and Elijah, talking with Jesus.
I think Moses will be one of the two!

 

[christiang]

Michael had to struggle or dispute with Satan about the body of Moses, but what that entailed is not described, So God must of wanted the body>>> MMM Why??Just then there appeared before them Moses and Elijah, talking with Jesus.
I think Moses will be one of the two!

Did you not stop to think if there was indeed a "body" of Moses, that he was indeed dead? And if he was indeed dead, then how could he be alive if the resurrection of the dead has not happened? And how could he die a second time since the two witnesses are killed in Jerusalem, which contradicts that those who partake in the resurrection of the just do not die again? Do not be stupid, for just as Elijah was said to come before the first coming of Jesus Christ, and he didn't, but rather, that prophecy was speaking of John the Baptist, so it will be in the time right before the second coming, we will receive two prophets from among our generation.

 

[bbyrd009]

I've always thought that that which has aged is best.
A bottle of aged wine?
Chateau Margaux 1787 goes for $500,000 a bottle. Known as the most expensive wine never to be sold!!
Aged cheese is better. Aged beef is better.
Aged people are better

 

[bbyrd009]

Michael had to struggle or dispute with Satan about the body of Moses, but what that entailed is not described, So God must of wanted the body

Michael had to struggle or dispute with Satan about the body of Moses - Google Search

"but what that entailed is not described," interesting you put it that way, as clicking the link reveals in the first link of the search, hmm.
Yet Michael the archangel, when he was disputing with the Devil in a debate about Moses' body you take to mean that Moses had died at that point, right. I suggest that that is not the only way to read that

 

[bbyrd009]

so it will be in the time right before the second coming, we will receive two prophets from among our generation.

so it will be in the time right before Christ is revealed in you, that the passages in the Revelation will be understood to spiritually apply to your personal revelation, just as the two witnesses were slain and then came back to life for anyone in whom Christ was being revealed a thousand years ago; or ten thousand, for that matter.

iow a spiritual thing that previously was not making sense to someone, no matter how much it was explained...ha ya, that's plenty for now i guess

 

[101G]

Did you not stop to think if there was indeed a "body" of Moses, that he was indeed dead? And if he was indeed dead, then how could he be alive if the resurrection of the dead has not happened? And how could he die a second time since the two witnesses are killed in Jerusalem, which contradicts that those who partake in the resurrection of the just do not die again? Do not be stupid, for just as Elijah was said to come before the first coming of Jesus Christ, and he didn't, but rather, that prophecy was speaking of John the Baptist, so it will be in the time right before the second coming, we will receive two prophets from among our generation.

excellent point on Moses.