What are we really dealing with here?

[APAK]

Continued from previous post addressed to APAK

VERSE 36 “Nor can they die anymore, for they are equal to the angels and are sons of God, being sons of the resurrection.”

Here is where your difficulty comes in you erroneously assume that when the Lord said they would be equal to the angels that this implied equal in substance or quality of life, your assumption being that they are immortal and thus this will likewise be the same for those counted worthy to attain that age. But this is not what was meant at all.

Not only will mankind not marry in the age beyond the Millennium (the “world to come”), but they will not die anymore. Reason: The proved human race will be “equal unto [or like] the [holy] angels” who did not sin (and thus withstood a severe test at the time of the Flood). These are the worthy, proven (tested) angels. Great credit goes to the angels who passed that test. Mankind will be tested likewise in the Little Season. Those who pass this test will no longer die because they will not sin anymore. Millions unfortunately will deflect in the Little Season when the test is on each individual, and the unworthy will be weeded out as the “goats” from the “sheep”.

Tried and proven humanity will be “the children of God.” Rev 21:7 is a proof text: “He that overcomes shall inherit all things; and I will be his God, and he shall be MY SON.” The Greek word anastasis signifies not just perfect human beings but perfect loyal and tried human beings. These are “children of the resurrection [anastasis].” Second Death will always operate as a principle, but those who are tried and prove loyal will not disobey. There will be no more sin on the earth after the Little Season.” (Extracts were taken from The Book of Luke, by Brother Frank Shallieu)

We likewise mention: "Despite what is commonly taught not all believers are going to receive immortality, only those who make their calling and election sure, who are proven faith even unto death will receive the crown of life. (Rev 2:10)."

This statement was made so as make clear that not all believers are going to receive the “crown of life” (immortality) despite what they have erroneously been taught by the “blind guides”, such reward is reserved only to those believers who have heeded the Apostles injunction in Rom 12:1, viz. “I beseech you therefore, brethren (fellow believers), by the mercies of God, that you present your bodies a living sacrifice, holy, acceptable unto God, which is your reasonable service.”

Only those who have taken this (second step) of a full consecration to the Lord, who have entered into covenant relationship with the Father, a “covenant by sacrifice” (Psa 50:5) are considered prospective members of the body of Christ, the true church or ecclesia (meaning: "the called out assembly”), but even here though many are called (to this special calling, the “high calling which is in Christ Jesus”) few are chosen (Matt 22:14), few make their calling and election sure, few are proven faithful even unto death.

You state: Are you a hit-and-run poster? I can do without your replies if that is your intention. Your types of replies usually are not conducive to edifying discussions because all that you have written are one-way cryptic messages.

Did you really attempt to respond to my statements with a discussion in mind, or just show me what you know about the subject and as superfluous information? I learned nothing from your reply.

In Reply, first of all this was not, as you say a “hit and run” post, I was scanning through the various posts when I came upon yours, it was late and I wished simply to make a short reply, one which I suspected would bring a response and lead to further discussion (which it did). I do find it rather amusing on this forum that if you make a long post, more in-depth and explanatory you’re accuse of being to verbose, but now it seems if you make to short a comment you’re accused of not being attentive and respectful of someone elses thoughts or opinions. So which would you prefer?

You state: And what’s your definition of mortal/immortal all about?

I will attempt to address this in a subsequent post.

I really did not ask you the to perform an EXPANSIVE reply on the few comments I initially made. It is overwhelming and not required. It is great you wanted to take the time to lecture although this subject although it was was not my intention only yours.

It is overkill and then I lose your points completely in your reply.

Thanks anyway.

And you don’t have to justify why you added the immortal/immortal definitions in a subsequent reply. I’m not interested anymore.

I would like to know though whose is ‘we’ in your writings. Why do you write in this plural form? Are you part of a team of writers or something? Just an odd thing to write and read in your post as you are not representing your own views it seems.

Can you reply in two paragraphs or less…thanks

Bless you,

APAK

 

[Naomi25]

Naomi:

you said "...I'm not sure the direct path matters. Because what you've just written accuses us "Trinity" believers of doing nothing but believing what's been pushed at us...and yet you clearly admit you've done the same thing, just on the different side of the coin. You grew up believing one thing, and when confronted with the notion of something new, you abhorred it and have spent the next 'x' years avoiding or opposing teachings for it."

Naomi, I grew up believing One God and One Jesus Christ that was 'pushed' at me and I believed it. I still believe this way today because it is scriptural and I believe of my free that the spirit within agrees with as well. This is a big difference from was you proposed I meant or even said. So there was nothing 'new' I encountered as I grew up, besides more recently knowing others believe as I do. That was the 'new' thing.

But don't you see? This is exactly the same as what we do, only when it is us, you accuse us of being biblically illiterate and having far too much "life baggage" influencing us to be able to see straight. It's hypocrisy plain and simple.
And the 'new' thing? Friend...you outright said: "When I heard God of God etc. I stopped and said that’s not right and never went to that establishment again. I did the same for everyone I found with the same Trinity theory"
You said this. You came up against something new, something different from what you had heard or thought your whole life, and you wouldn't entertain it.

Yes, I believe with all my heart that the Trinity belief model is pagan made, through and through, and it is hateful to God. The spirit of Truth that guides and leads me tells me so.

You would think there would be at least a Chapter each devoted to Jesus = God and Jesus’ pre-existent life before time began. There is none for good reasons. We do see God Almighty as Jesus’ Father sprinkled all throughout scripture. We also see Jesus as the son of God and the Messiah. They are there for good reasons.

Oh, my goodness! You didn't hear a single thing I said in our previous conversation, did you? Okay...let's just sweep to the side, for a moment, I that...a Trinity believer, also believe, in my heart of hearts, with the Spirit's leading, that the Trinity is biblical.
Let's just focus in on your notion of the fact that you believe that if Jesus = God, there should be a Chapter devoted to that. Does the bible actually work like that?? You know why theologians have two types of 'book', right, Biblical Theology, and Systematic Theology. Biblical Theology works through the bible, from front to back, tackling it that way. Systematic theology looks that the themes throughout. Things like Salvation, that we find scattered from front to back. Systematic theologians gather all the verses together so we can comprehensively look at that topic. The bible doesn't just lump "Salvation" under a single chapter. It's not that sort of book.
And this was my point. You take each and every individual verse about Jesus' divinity and do little twisty, hand brushing excuses on them, so they don't mean what they very well do, and ta da! Jesus is not God. But when you systematically go through the bible and pull out all the verses that talk about Jesus being God...well, then you do have your chapter, and your explaining away trick doesn't work.

I guess the devil and the demons also are Trinitarians, although it’s funny that they never caught on to the trick that Jesus preexisted and incarnated himself into a human being, and they never called Jesus God, only the son of God. You would think if anyone would know Jesus, the devil would know him more precisely than any human being? The devil never knew or practiced any Trinitarian concept.

Here are some basic reasons why Jesus cannot be God.

1. God Almighty cannot be tempted to sin. Jesus was tempted as a regular human being, as you and me.

You forget. Jesus was also fully man, while he was fully God. To be a suitable and true 'substitutionary' sacrifice for all of mankind. To be the true "second Adam", Jesus had to be fully man as well. He had to be able to relate to our struggles. This doesn't change the fact this his 'human' nature existed along side his divine one. The bible is quite clear he was both. If you cannot see how the two can be, that's your human limitation, not the bible's lack of telling us it is so.

2. Why did the Devil attempt to tempt Jesus to sin if he was God?

Why did the devil think he could take God's place in heaven in the first place? Hope springs eternal? An insane, evil, power hungry mind and soul is always trying to best his enemy?
And I would say that the devil probably thought that while Christ was incarnated as human, he might stand a better chance of winning. Indeed, he probably thought he had when he had Christ crucified. Boy, I bet he was surprised....

3. It would be impossible for Jesus to be part god and part human as a demi-god. Just not happening, no matter was added rationale that one can muster to continue this nonsense theory. Again, the devil would have noticed this and spoke of it.

Okay...again, you're trying to tell God what is, and is not possible. If Jesus was to be all God and all man...then don't you think our God can make that happen? Or don't you believe he is all powerful? Or is it that you think his plan was stupid? It doesn't fit what you think is right? Ought to have happened??
And...I have to ask. Are you seriously hanging a point on whether the devil said something or not? Because we can trust him, and rely on his testimony? And you have to discount all the other passages telling us something because the devil didn't say it?

4. How could Jesus die (his entire being, total nature) for our sins if he was ‘part’ god- immortal. Immortals cannot die, human beings can. You do believe that Jesus actually died?

Again, what is impossible for man (or inconceivable to him) is possible for God. You're still trying to use you're logic agains the weight of scripture. Which is God-breathed. Jesus died on the cross because he was human. He was God...he could have smote every single one of them, or called down millions of angels to rescue him. But he was human...he felt those nails like you or I would. He got tired, cold, blisters on his feet. He probably got headaches and sniffles. He was human. But...also God. The bible simply tells us this. Again...not my problem...or the bible's problem, if you cannot grasp this. He is both. The bible says he is both.

5. How can Jesus be god (immortal) and also have a Father who is also God Almighty (immortal). So, Jesus was like a Greek or Roman mythological creature that was immortal with immortal parents (God Almighty and Mary), and decided to become a demi-god, part human? This is where the thinking started, with Greek and Roman secular influential writers – wove pagan god ideas for the new upcoming Political-State form of Christianity.

You're still trying to think about it in 'human' terms...trying to bind it within what you already know, or have experienced or can explain. God becoming flesh is like nothing that has happened before or will happen again! Trying to equate with the Greek gods? They are mythological! Think of it like this. Jesus put aside...didn't relinquish...his divine nature while incarnated. When on the Mount of Transfiguration he again briefly touched that nature, showing it to Peter, James and John. It's not that his divinity was gone while he was completely human, he just chose not to use it for the purpose his Father had sent him for.
As for the names within the Trinity. I don't know. Did they chose those names because we can relate to them, as God is our heavenly Father as well? We know that the Son, while being equal to God, is yet subservient to him, just as the Spirit is subservient to both the Son and the Father...yet also not less. The unity and harmony they show means there is never any 'less than' involved, just one lovingly submitting to the other, like a good marriage should be. And in a way, the Trinity is a picture to us of what our marriages should be, and what our relationships will be like in heaven.

 

[Naomi25]

Naomi:
6. If Jesus was/is God why did Jesus at the right hand of God, still refer to his Father and his God in the Book of Revelation, well after his ascension? The reason why most folks will never figure out the Book of Revelation is because they think and read as a pagan Trinitarian.

7. If Jesus was God why did he have to pray to his Father, God Almighty? And the answer cannot be the humans side of his was weak etc., that is pure kaka.

8. If Jesus was God, why did he need to pray at all to, and for anyone? And the answer cannot be as in #7.

Again, this is because of the relationship within the Trinity. Look...if you have a good marriage, you and your wife will be equal...as in, you won't see each other as any better, or less, than the other. But as the bible lays out, there are different roles for each of you. The man is to the head, the wife the helper. Being the head doesn't necessarily mean being 'better'...being the helper doesn't mean being 'inferior'...they both work in harmony to achieve a working goal, a successful marriage and family life. The Trinity is like that. The Father sends in his power, The Son dies and is resurrected, and the Spirit is the helper. None less than, all have their roles, working together for salvation and the glory of God. Why would Jesus, after his ascension, then change in his relationship to the Father? No matter what the name (does it matter the name, it's theirs to chose) the relationship stays the same.

Why wouldn't Jesus pray to his Father? Praying is just talking. Shouldn't there be communication between them? Even when Jesus was human? Especially when he was human. It's got nothing to do with being weak, but everything to do with why we pray. Communicating with God, which brings us comfort. And I'd imagine that after an eternity of being directly in the Father's presence, Jesus missed that.

See that part where Jesus sat aside his divine nature while he was human, for question 8. But also...it's just a nit-picky question. There could have been hundreds of reasons why Jesus prayed, and none of them to do with his divinity. Like...he was modelling it for his disciples.

9. If Jesus was God why did he tell the disciples to trust in God and also in himself? Why would he do that……a mystery of faith I guess.

Okay...Imagine he put it like this: "Trust the Father, but also the Son". Both trustworthy...both God. But, as I keep reminding you...separate persons, separate rolls. The Father sent...we trust in him ultimately. But in the Son we have our freedom through blood sacrifice. We trust in both.

10. If Jesus and God are co-equal how can God Almighty, his Father be greater that Jesus. It’s another mystery of faith I guess…or is this modalism in disguise.

He's not greater. They are equal, just different roles, and in his role Jesus serves.

28 I give them eternal life, and they will never perish, and no one will snatch them out of my hand. 29 My Father, who has given them to me, is greater than all, and no one is able to snatch them out of the Father's hand. 30 I and the Father are one.” - John 10:28-30

11. Jesus as God is alien to the OT. It should harmonize with the OT. One of the major reasons why some people that practice a form (reformed) of Judaism and consider Jesus as the Messiah today, find Christianity cock-eyed is basically because of the Trinity pagan idea. I share their view, there is just One God and One Son of God as the Messiah.

I will continue to walk in the spirit within me, I guess you have your walk with your spirit that possesses you.

Gook luck with your beliefs

Bless you,
APAK

The OT is huge. And you'd be wrong. Really wrong, actually. But I'm having a hard enough time pointing out the obvious in the NT to you, so I'm not even going there.
And thanks for the implication of my demon spirit. That's swell. My day is never complete until I've been accused of being demon possessed.

 

[Naomi25]

A Supreme Court without Protestants? - CNN.com

Goodness! Sound the alarm! Because every single one of them not only attend mass every Sunday, I'm sure...but they are all part of a secret society run by the RCC bent on bending the USA to do her dirty will!
Next....

 

[brakelite]

would like to know though whose is ‘we’ in your writings. Why do you write in this plural form? Are you part of a team of writers or something? Just an odd thing to write and read in your post as you are not representing your own views it seems.

I was wondering the same thing. Trying to work out what denomination is inspiring his thinking. Here says not JWs, yet he quoted Russell. Shades of Christadelphian, except he holds to a pre-existent Christ. Shades of Adventism t he holds to an earthly millennium and a created Christ, not begotten. Curiouser and curiouser. Can agree with much of what"they"are saying, particularly the immortality issue, but not everything, certainly i would not agree with a created Christ. Never.

 

[Naomi25]

then you should have no probs Quoting some i guess, right.
Should be able to pump out Scriptural "truth" for the rest of the day i guess huh.
be my guest, give it your best shot
k i'll be waiting then

For what? Me to spout bible verses? For what situation? This one? Well, didn't we already do the "God-breathed" one, and also bring up the whole "Berean" thing, about how important scripture is for checking what we are hearing?
If you want to snort and laugh at me and ignore those...fine. Like I care. Do what you like, think what you like. Answer in pithy one sentence zingers and rest in moral superiority and vagueness. I'll somehow find the strength to continue my day and get up in the morning.

 

[Naomi25]

bc we live in first century Rome? An empire in decline/decadence?

And....that has what to do with how Church habits were or were not formed....?

 

[Naomi25]

God says "come out of (Babylon) MY PEOPLE, that ye be not partakers of her sins and receive not of her plagues." The wonderful truth is that God refers to those who are yet trapped in the Babylonian captivity of false religion as "MY PEOPLE" that have His Spirit ("he that hath not the Spirit of God, he is none of His") and love Him, but He is calling them out before He lays Babylon to waste. That's why it is so unfair to accuse those who criticize the RCC as "Catholic bashers" instead of "Catholic doctrine bashers" for all the horrible fallout that Catholicism has caused in the lives of disenchanted Catholics who aren't taught the truth of God's mercy and don't know Jesus as their friend.

Well...it gets a bit muddy. They say, as Protestant denominations....'daughter' religions under Rome, we are actually part of the Beast...the Antichrist. And if you read Revelation, there is no "coming out" of that. Pretty much, we're doomed.
But Babylon seems to refer to the 'great city that has dominion over the kings of the earth'. Now...does that mean (in their scenario) Vatican City? And people living there/working there but who are, perhaps, not really Catholic, have a chance to 'get out'? I don't know.
All I do know is that if we follow the logic of those I've been talking to...we are part of the beast...not just being deceived, an actual, willing, part. And according to Revelation, there's no coming back from that. Rosey, huh?

 

[brakelite]

Well...it gets a bit muddy. They say, as Protestant denominations....'daughter' religions under Rome, we are actually part of the Beast...the Antichrist. And if you read Revelation, there is no "coming out" of that. Pretty much, we're doomed.
But Babylon seems to refer to the 'great city that has dominion over the kings of the earth'. Now...does that mean (in their scenario) Vatican City? And people living there/working there but who are, perhaps, not really Catholic, have a chance to 'get out'? I don't know.
All I do know is that if we follow the logic of those I've been talking to...we are part of the beast...not just being deceived, an actual, willing, part. And according to Revelation, there's no coming back from that. Rosey, huh?

You are correct that in one sense, that is once you have received the mark, there is no turning back. Buy you most certainly do have a choice now, and as I said, previously, the decisions we make today... Our desire and love for truth (whatever that truth may reveal) are quickly becoming destiny decisions. Not a time to believe one can be"near enough/good enough).

 

[Helen]

But, how do we know that with having credit cards , social media , Tv, internet, that we haven’t already received “the mark” of the beast system!!
It /they , are in our hand and in our forehead (mind/thinking)

 

[Naomi25]

Okay, so what "began" in John1:1?

Biblical history...Adam and Eve, redemptive history.

Genesis 1:1: In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth.

John 1:3: In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2 He was in the beginning with God. 3 All things were made through him, and without him was not any thing made that was made.

If we follow your logic, then we have a problem with God as well, because as we see in Genesis 1:1 the same phrase is used there. "In the beginning God...."
John is not talking about something beginning, so much as who was there...already...at that beginning. How do we know? Because he WAS WITH God in the beginning. In other words...when God created the world...that 'beginning' we see in Genesis, the beginning of redemptive history, God was not alone...Jesus WAS WITH him. In fact, we are told that God MADE ALL THINGS THROUGH him.

It's quite clear. Jesus was with God, as God, in the beginning. He acted as God, in conjunction with God in light of God's plan. Harmony.

 

[Naomi25]

Really? You tell me I'm flogging a dead horse then gloat because I chose to back off and not badger you on the subject any further?

Look, I apologize if it came s off as gloating...that was not my intent. What was my intent was to show that in this very, very important issue, you are not answering the questions. You make a lot of arguments based on supposition and opinion, and when I tried to pin you down on a specific thing, you tried dodging with a history lesson. When asked again, you sighed off the conversation altogether.
Now...I happen to believe the matter of the Trinity to be important. Salvation important. This site is supposed to believe in the Trinity, but for some reason they do not keep people like you from putting your teaching about on here. They are not protecting an essential matter of the faith, one I happen to think is worth fighting for. And I felt it important to point out the fact that when backed into a corner (answer this question and this one alone...if you can)....you chose not to...or you couldn't.
I apologize for any rudeness that may have come across while doing it, but I will not...ever, apologize for standing up for my faith, or for my God. And I certainly won't be silenced or chased away because someone accuses me of 'bad behavior'. You have come here, bringing your heretic beliefs to a site who's Statement of Faith backs the Trinity. Did you expect no resistance...? Shame on us if we give you none....

 

[mjrhealth]

notice the many and desperate attempts to try and draw attention away from who actually are the beasts and anti Christ in the Bible according to Christ - twinc

ye religious people who have religion to defend.

Any one or any thing that opposes Christ is anti Christ, it not one thing or person, but there is one who will be raised up as the Anti Christ whom probably already is here considering how close things are.

 

[mjrhealth]

bc we live in first century Rome? An empire in decline/decadence?

ye the world going no where but down the sewer man has built.

 

[brakelite]

@Naomi25 peace sister. No need to get all apologetic... And I certainly don't expect you to back down on what you conscientiously believe to be the truth. In fact I think it far better that folks stand courageously for something than not know what they believe or why . Even if they are wrong. And any debate is far more positive when the 'protagonists' so to speak have a passion for what they believe. But what is even more important is a hunger for truth, and a humility that is willing to admit that maybe, despite all the education and study in the world, and all the sincere conviction that they've been led all their lives by the Spirit of God, they may still be wrong.
Two and half years ago someone challenged me online regarding my belief on the trinity. They simply asked me why I believed it, and what was it exactly that I believed. I've been a Christian for 40 years. Grew up a Catholic Trinitarian, was born again at age 24, and joined the AOG. Was with them 15 years. After a time back in the world, became an Adventist in 1997. They, for the most part, are a Trinitarian believing church, although the pioneers in the church were not. Today, officially are Trinitarian, but there is a growing group in the midst that have gone back to what the pioneers believed.
Anyway, I decided to study WHY I believed the trinity, and what precisely"trinity"means. It didn't take long to discover that there is actually a preponderance of evidence that when taken as a whole, (like what you were admonishing APAK about) reveal that a Trinitarian concept is not so clear cut as the church would have us believe... In fact what I found was that there are a lot of issues that simply do not add up. I made a decision that sets me at odds with everyone in my local church. Not that I've been thrown out or rebuked or anything: we've had some good discussions, but at the moment I'm on my own. My current belief isn't something I plucked out of thin air. T is what I believe the Bible reveals regarding the Godhead. Without going into speculative and unnecessary formulas that are merely finite man's attempt to explain the infinite. There is a thread on the trinity that I've explained my perspective fairly thoroughly and don't really want to elaborate here, nor on the Sabbath/Sunday issue. My point in bringing them up is that the RCC claims both doctrines as their own peculiar babies: that is that they have used their extra-biblical authority to establish them. And history reveals that this is so. So if we believe the foundational doctrines of the antichrist are correct, that is the trinity and Sunday sacredness, then how can we criticise the antichrist on any other issue if all other doctrines she clings to and teaches, such as the natural immortality of the soul, eternal torment, justification by Faith, are built on those we agree with? Like Palmer said, if we agree with her, them why the division?

 

[brakelite]

You have come here, bringing your heretic beliefs to a site who's State censurement of Faith backs the Trinity. Did you expect no resistance...? Shame on us if we give you none....

I hold no qualms regarding objections to my faith. I'm an SDA. I've been facing opposition and ridicule and censure for my choice of denomination for 20 years. Now I'm part of a minority even within my own denomination. I have no objection to being criticised. If i cannot defend myself, I'm in the wrong business. If I cannot explain my faith, I have no business having one. The Bible tells us to be ready always to explain the reason for our hope with meekness and fear. I believe this is what I do. I'm no fake. I love Jesus to bits, and for all the right reasons. Because He loved me first. Because without him I can do nothing. And when I am with him, he is everything. I am not saved by my denomination... Not by my works... Not by correct doctrine... But by the grace and mercy of a living loving Almighty God Who gave His only begotten Son to die in my place that I might live. That Sis is the bottom line. For all of us. Sadly, not everyone sees that.

 

[brakelite]

So the title of this thread is"what are we dealing with here"... Particularly in relation to the picture in the first post. A religious leader out better yet a kingdom/theocracy union of church and state, who is openly claiming to be God on earth, just as the apostle Paul warned would come about in 2 Thessalonians. The real Antichrist? If so, one would think there would be more evidence than just a picture of an old guy sitting on an ornate seat right? Okay, ponder this.
Most Bible students believe the first beast of revelation 13 to be a picture of the antichrist. Intensely descriptive, in your face symbolism, but by no means impossible to understand.
I would like to clarify a couple of things about the meaning of ‘Antichrist’.
Before we look at the antichrist, I want to look at the real Christ. Who is He? Let us go to the scriptures to find out what and Who He claimed to be.

Matthew 12:6 But I say unto you, That in this place is one greater than the temple.

The temple, the priesthood, and the religious system of the Jewish nation go hand in hand. It was the mainstay and focal point of the life of Israel. Yet Jesus claimed to be greater. Greater even than the very High priest who no doubt would take great interest in hearing a report of these words. Greater even than the very law of God enshrined within. (Or at least it used to be). Only one person can be greater than any law of God, and that is the lawgiver.

38 ¶ Then certain of the scribes and of the Pharisees answered, saying, Master, we would see a sign from thee.
39 But he answered and said unto them, An evil and adulterous generation seeketh after a sign; and there shall no sign be given to it, but the sign of the prophet Jonas:
40 For as Jonas was three days and three nights in the whale’s belly; so shall the Son of man be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth.
41 The men of Nineveh shall rise in judgment with this generation, and shall condemn it: because they repented at the preaching of Jonas; and, behold, a greater than Jonas is here.

Jonah was the most powerful and successful of all OT prophets. In all 40 odd chapters of Jeremiah, there is no record of anyone at anytime taking the slightest bit of notice of anything Jeremiah said. Yet Jonah, on the strength of just one or two sermons, converted an entire city of the children of Ishmael totaling maybe 60,000 people. Nineveh. By any standards, that has got to be recorded as a very successful evangelistic campaign. Yet Jesus claimed to be greater than Jonah.

42 The queen of the south shall rise up in the judgment with this generation, and shall condemn it: for she came from the uttermost parts of the earth to hear the wisdom of Solomon; and, behold, agreater than Solomon is here.

Solomon was the wisest and wealthiest and most successful of any ruler of the ancient world. Yet Jesus claimed to be greater even than Solomon.

In the three startling claims as shown above, we have before us the threefold ministry of Jesus. Priest, prophet, and King.

It has been said, and I think wisely, that the Bible must be understood grammatically before it can be understood theologically. Anti– as in antichrist, according to Strong’s concordance, and like other words having the prefix ‘anti’, means at it’s most basic form “in the room of”, “instead of”, or “in the place of”.
In other words, ‘antichrist’ stands as asubstitute. We all know that Satan works by deception. Yet many would claim the ‘antichrist’ will be one who will charge in on a black horse guns blazing with fury and hatred directed at all things Christian and opposing with great force the church. Pray tell me, how will the world be deceived by such a tactic as this?
In 2 Thess. 2:1 we are told that there was to be a falling away first, which will reveal the antichrist, or as Paul describes him, the man of sin or son of perdition. Now falling away in this instance is a falling into apostasy; divorce.
Any divorce necessitates a prior favourable relationship. The only other example of a ‘son of perdition’ is Judas Iscariot. Did Judas openly and with force oppose Christ? Did he attack His teachings and disagree with Jesus claims to divinity? Did he argue and debate everything Jesus stood for and seek the destruction of His followers? No. Not by any means. Judas betrayed Jesus with akiss. He betrayed Him with an act of apparent love, fellowship, and friendship. He undermined and betrayed Jesus at the same time as claiming Him to be his friend!! This squares perfectly with the meaning of antichrist. He is not an opposer, but a subtle imposter. A counterfeit. An imposter of Jesus Christ. A false copy, or forgery of the true.
Antichrist is therefore a person or power who impersonates the offices of Priesthood, the Prophet or spokesmanship, and the Kingly rule of Christ. The office that ministers for God, speaks for God, and rules for God.
Satan has many counterfeits. Now counterfeits are almost identical to the true. You do not get counterfeit 99$ notes. You get counterfeit 100$ notes. And unless you get trained and disciplined to know intimately the true 100$ note, you will not recognise the false. It has been estimated that every person in America who has regularly handled 100$ notes, has had pass through their hands a counterfeit at least 4 times a year! And not known it!!!! Unless you are intimately acquainted with the true Jesus, how will you recognise the counterfeit?
So how does Antichrist counterfeit the threefold ministry of the true Christ, as Priest, Prophet and King? Is there an entity in the world today who claims to do just this? Is there one like Judas who is betraying the Master with a kiss, all the while claiming to be a friend? Is there in the world today a religious system or religious ruler who claims to be the earthly representative of Christ as His priest, claiming to be a mediator between God and man? Claiming to forgive sin even?
Does this entity also claim the prerogatives of a prophet? Does it claim to speak for God in spiritual matters? Does it claim to stand as Gods spokesman on earth and claim that only through it’s authority can salvation be found?
And finally, does this entity also claim to be a king? Does it claim authority as a secular power? Does it exercise authority and power within the auspices of a church/state relationship?

I think you all know the answer is yes.There is an entity in the world today who claims all the above Godly prerogatives which belong only to Jesus Christ. Priest, prophet and king.Thisentity has set itself up as counterfeit and thus can be affirmatively identified as the antichrist, the impostor and impersonator of the true. And this entity can be found in the Roman Catholic church system.

In Roman Catholic theology is also the embedded principle of ‘replacement’ or ‘displacement’ of Jesus.The entire sacramental system is based on the premise that only through participation in the sacraments as administered by Rome, can anyone hope for eternal life. Rome does not recognise any path to eternity apart from that which she has ordained through the priesthood under the headship of the Roman bishop. Thus Rome has implemented a system of works that men must do, or tasks that men must accomplish, be it confession to a priest, penance, participation in mass, partaking of the Eucharist, pilgrimages to shrines or basilicas, recitation of the rosary, or prayers to Mary or the saints and many other ‘religious’ acts, all for the purpose of salvation. The Protestant principle of ‘sola fide’, faith only, is anathema to Rome.

 

[Naomi25]

@Naomi25 peace sister. No need to get all apologetic... And I certainly don't expect you to back down on what you conscientiously believe to be the truth. In fact I think it far better that folks stand courageously for something than not know what they believe or why . Even if they are wrong. And any debate is far more positive when the 'protagonists' so to speak have a passion for what they believe. But what is even more important is a hunger for truth, and a humility that is willing to admit that maybe, despite all the education and study in the world, and all the sincere conviction that they've been led all their lives by the Spirit of God, they may still be wrong.
Two and half years ago someone challenged me online regarding my belief on the trinity. They simply asked me why I believed it, and what was it exactly that I believed. I've been a Christian for 40 years. Grew up a Catholic Trinitarian, was born again at age 24, and joined the AOG. Was with them 15 years. After a time back in the world, became an Adventist in 1997. They, for the most part, are a Trinitarian believing church, although the pioneers in the church were not. Today, officially are Trinitarian, but there is a growing group in the midst that have gone back to what the pioneers believed.
Anyway, I decided to study WHY I believed the trinity, and what precisely"trinity"means. It didn't take long to discover that there is actually a preponderance of evidence that when taken as a whole, (like what you were admonishing APAK about) reveal that a Trinitarian concept is not so clear cut as the church would have us believe... In fact what I found was that there are a lot of issues that simply do not add up. I made a decision that sets me at odds with everyone in my local church. Not that I've been thrown out or rebuked or anything: we've had some good discussions, but at the moment I'm on my own. My current belief isn't something I plucked out of thin air. T is what I believe the Bible reveals regarding the Godhead. Without going into speculative and unnecessary formulas that are merely finite man's attempt to explain the infinite. There is a thread on the trinity that I've explained my perspective fairly thoroughly and don't really want to elaborate here, nor on the Sabbath/Sunday issue.

That was very interesting, thank you.
You know, even though I (obviously) believe what I do strongly, it doesn't mean I don't consider being wrong...even on the big issues. I mean...every single person out there with a religious belief holds the same conviction we have, and yet, everyone but 1, will be wrong. It does make you wonder, and it makes you sad for all those genuinely seeking, genuinely wanting a relationship with God...but missing it. All I can...and often...do, is pray that is not me, and for him to keep my heart open to his truths. I have to trust that if I do that, he will either keep me true, or lead me elsewhere. It's probably all any of us can do, is it not?

My point in bringing them up is that the RCC claims both doctrines as their own peculiar babies: that is that they have used their extra-biblical authority to establish them. And history reveals that this is so. So if we believe the foundational doctrines of the antichrist are correct, that is the trinity and Sunday sacredness, then how can we criticise the antichrist on any other issue if all other doctrines she clings to and teaches, such as the natural immortality of the soul, eternal torment, justification by Faith, are built on those we agree with? Like Palmer said, if we agree with her, them why the division?

Quite right...back to the thread, sorry to get off track and railing!
But...is it truly against what scripture teaches, that Antichrist will teach all untruths? I don't know about you, but the times I've come across people who are just...deceptive people....they are more destructive because that add large chunks of truth to what they say.
Think on it...if Antichrist is supposed to take a seat in 'the Temple of God' (which could either be the RCC as you surmise, or, perhaps, just within the body of the Church...a false believer, as the NT refers to the Church as God's Temple), then he has to first be accepted by us. To do that, he must share at least enough 'essential' doctrines to be accepted. Will he believe them? I'd say he may know them to be 'true', just as the Devil knows God's existence to be 'true'. But out of that acceptance, he will begin to twist, to distort and revile things we hold dear and know as divine truth. But by the time people realize something is very twisted about him, his power will be to strong...?
I don't know...it's all supposition, really. I'm not even sure I've decided on what the AC is going to be, or if I'm going to be here while he's around. It would be nice to say no...realistically, I think probably yes. Again...another reason to stay true to our convictions?

 

[bbyrd009]

The Law never saved anyone

not the point tho

and the books are not Law at all.

Bible Search: book of the law
i guess some of them are at least

There is no such thing as Holy Law.

Romans 7:12
So then, the law is holy, and the commandment is holy, righteous and good

The book of truth, oh boy ! and by who, the worldly ?

ah no, It's mentioned in Scripture. too.

 

[bbyrd009]

This is true, but the Holy Spirit speaks to us through the written word, the scriptures

that's not what Scripture says, wadr