Was reading the book of Revelations today and came across a good verse. There ARE NO COINCIDENCES.
(media.greatawakening.win)
Comments (83)
sorted by:
True story. Went to a Saturday night service tonight and this was what the sermon was about.
Context is key. Who was this written to and when? Don't turn the Bible into a bumper sticker.
Correct. Revelation was written to 7 churches that existed at that time. John was speaking directly to them as they were experiencing persecution in THEIR day. Sad it’s taken out of context and it’s historical setting. Are you a preterist?
No, I would say pre-trib dispensationalist but I do think that John was speaking to the 7 churches that existed during that time.
A dispensationalist talking about not taking scripture out of context?
There irony is thick.
You only fuck up that hard when you take scripture out of context.
Not that I disagree with your original premise. Context IS everything. However, dispensationalists are part of the "took the scriptures way out of context" family.
Carry on.
Hagee is a hack that writes a new "JESUS IS COMING BACK IN THE NEXT XXXX BECAUSE XXXXX" book every few years and is wrong time and time again.
Jesus is seated at the right hand of the Father while He makes all His enemies His footstool.
Dispensationalism is the greatest lie the devil has ever injected into the church. It makes Christians just give up and wish for rapture instead of building and fighting.
Which part do you disagree with?
And it says Jews are still God's chosen people.
lol when you find out you have the same "religion" as Hagee
Hagee isn't a proper representation or authority on dispensationalism?
Okay, so who is then?
Also, that is the funny thing, no one in the Protestant sects has any authority to say anything! None. No Apostolic authority whatsoever. Zero!
That is not an assumption. That is the position of the Catholic church.
In Catholic Answers’ seminars we try to emphasize the point that you should always demand that a missionary who comes to your door first establish his authority for what he is going to tell you, and only then proceed to discuss the particular issues he has in mind.
By “authority,” we don’t mean his personal or academic credentials. We mean his authority to claim he can rightly interpret the Bible. The missionary (unless he is a Mormon, of course, in which case his authority is the Book of Mormon) will always claim to fall back on the authority of Scripture. “Scripture says this” or “Scripture proves that,” he will tell you.
So before you turn to the verses he brings up, and thus to the topic he brings up, demand that he demonstrate a few things.
First, ask him to prove from the Bible that the Bible is the only rule of faith (if he’s an Evangelical or Fundamentalist Protestant he holds to the Reformation theory of sola scriptura—the Bible alone).
Second, have him tell you how he knows which books belong in the Bible in the first place.
And third, require that he prove to you both that he has the authority to interpret the Bible for you (remember that his doctrines will almost always be drawn from interpretations of the sacred text rather than the words themselves) and that his interpretations will always be accurate.
Imagine the conversation goes something like this:
“Good afternoon, neighbor. May I share a few words of Christian truth with you?”
“Sure,” you say. “Where do you get this truth?”
“From the Bible, of course.”
“That’s your authority? The Bible?”
“Yes, it’s the only authority for Christians.”
“Can you prove that from the Bible?”
“What do you mean?”
“I mean I don’t believe the Bible claims to be the sole rule of faith. I mean the doctrine of sola scriptura is itself unbiblical. Please show me where the Bible claims such a status for itself.”
A Sufficient Rule of Faith? At this point the missionary probably will bring up one of several verses. The passage most commonly brought up by Evangelicals and Fundamentalists is 2 Timothy 3:16–17. In the King James Version, the verse reads this way: “All Scripture is given by inspiration of God and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness; That the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works.”
Many claim that 2 Timothy 3:16–17 claims Scripture is sufficient as a rule of faith. But an examination of the verse in context shows that it doesn’t claim that at all; it only claims Scripture is “profitable” (Greek: ophelimos), that is, helpful. Notice that the passage nowhere even hints that Scripture is “sufficient”—which is, of course, exactly what Protestants think the passage means.
Point out that the context of 2 Timothy 3:16–17 is Paul laying down a guideline for Timothy to make use of Scripture and tradition in his ministry as a bishop. Paul says, “But continue thou in the things which thou hast learned and hast been assured of, knowing of whom thou hast learned them; and that from a child thou hast known the holy scriptures, which are able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus. All Scripture is given by inspiration of God (Greek: theopneustos = “God-breathed”), and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: That the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works” (2 Tim. 3:14–17).
In verse 14, Timothy is initially exhorted to hold to the oral teachings—the traditions—that he received from the apostle Paul. This echoes Paul’s reminder of the value of oral tradition in 1:13–14, “Follow the pattern of the sound words which you have heard from me, in the faith and love which are in Christ Jesus; guard the truth that has been entrusted to you by the Holy Spirit who dwells within us” (RSV), and “what you have heard from me before many witnesses entrust to faithful men who will be able to teach others also” (2:2). Here Paul refers exclusively to oral teaching and reminds Timothy to follow that as the “pattern” for his own teaching (1:13). Only after this is Scripture mentioned as “profitable” for Timothy’s ministry.
The few other verses that might be brought up to “prove” the sufficiency of Scripture can be handled the same way. Not one uses the word “sufficient”—each one implies profitability or usefulness, and many are given at the same time as an exhortation to hold fast to the oral teaching of our Lord and the apostles. The thing to keep in mind is that nowhere does the Bible say, “Scripture alone is sufficient,” and nowhere does the Bible imply it.
Understanding the Bible’s Role After you have demonstrated that the verses the missionary brings up simply don’t prove this point, continue the discussion this way:
“If you recognize Scripture for what it is, you’ll see it wasn’t intended to be an instructional tool for converts. In fact, not one book of the Bible was written for non-believers. The Old Testament books were written for Jews, the New Testament books for people who already were Christians.
“Just look at the 27 books of the New Testament. You won’t find one that spells out the elements of the faith the way catechisms do or even the way the ancient creeds did. Those 27 books were written for the most part as provisional documents addressed to particular audiences for particular purposes.
“Most of the epistles,” you continue, “were written to local churches that were experiencing moral and/or doctrinal problems. Paul and most of the other New Testament writers sent letters to these local churches (e.g., 1 and 2 Corinthians and Galatians) in order to rectify these problems. There was no attempt on the part of the writers to impart a vast body of basic doctrinal instruction to non-believers nor even to simply summarize everything for the believers who received the letters.”
“I don’t agree with any of that,” replies the missionary. “The New Testament is the basis of the Christian faith.”
“But how can it be,” you respond, “since the Christian faith existed and flourished for years before the first book of the New Testament was written? The books of the New Testament were composed decades after Christ ascended into heaven, and it took centuries for there to be general agreement among Christians as to which books composed the New Testament.
“And that brings up another point. How do you know what constitutes the New Testament canon? How do you know for certain that these 27 books here in your New Testament are in fact inspired and should be in the New Testament?”
Who Decided? “Well, the early Christians agreed on the 27 books,” answers the missionary. “The Holy Spirit led them to this agreement.”
“Sure the Holy Spirit did, but only over a pretty long period of time, and a study of early Christian history shows that there was a considerable disagreement among Christians until the issue of the canon was finally settled. Some early Christians said the book of Revelation didn’t belong in the canon. Others said Pope Clement’s Letter to the Corinthians (written circa A.D. 80) and The Shepherd, an early second-century allegory written by a Christian writer named Hermas did belong in the New Testament. How do you handle that?”
“We know by examining the contents of the books. Some books—like 1 Corinthians and Revelation—obviously belong. Others—like Clement’s Letter to the Corinthians—obviously don’t.”
“But is it really so obvious? Tell me, what is so obvious in Philemon to indicate that it is inspired? And what is so obviously unorthodox in The Shepherd or the Didache or Clement’s letter or any of the other first- and second-century Christian writings? You’ve never even seen the autographs (originals) of the 27 books in the New Testament. Nobody today has. The earliest copies of those books we possess are centuries newer than the originals. Like it or not, you have to take the say-so of the Catholic Church that in fact those copies are accurate, as well as her decision that those 27 books are the inspired canonical New Testament Scriptures. You do accept her testimony as trustworthy, or else your Protestant Bible would not have those 27 books.”
“Look, the fact is, the only reason you and I have the New Testament canon is because of the trustworthy teaching authority of the Catholic Church. As Augustine put it, ‘I would not believe in the Gospels were it not for the authority of the Catholic Church’ (Against the Letter of Mani Called “The Foundation” 5:6). Any Christian accepting the authority of the New Testament does so, whether or not he admits it, because he has implicit trust that the Catholic Church made the right decision in determining the canon.
“The fact is that the Holy Spirit guided the Catholic Church over time to recognize and determine the canon of the New and Old Testaments in the year 382 at the synod of Rome, under Pope Damasus I. This decision was ratified again at the councils of Hippo (393) and Carthage (397 and 419). You, my friend, accept exactly the same books of the New Testament that Pope Damasus decreed were canonical, and no others.
“Furthermore, the reason you accept the books you do is that they were in the Bible someone gave you when you first became a Christian. You accept them because they were handed on to you. This means you accept the canon of the New Testament that you do because of tradition, because tradition is simply what is handed on to us from those who were in the faith before us. So your knowledge of the exact books that belong in the Bible, such as Philemon and 3 John, rests on tradition rather than on Scripture itself!
“The question you have to ask yourself is this: ‘Where did we get the Bible?’ Until you can give a satisfactory answer, you aren’t in much of a position to rely on the authority of Scripture or to claim that you can be certain that you know how to accurately interpret it.
“After you answer that question—and there’s really only one answer that can be given—you have some other important questions to ask: ‘If the Bible, which we received from the Catholic Church, is our sole rule of faith, who’s to do the interpreting?’ And ‘Why are there so many conflicting understandings among Evangelicals and Fundamentalists even on central doctrines that pertain to salvation?’”
“We Agree on the Essentials” “Well, that I can answer easily enough,” responds the missionary. “Evangelicals and Fundamentalists agree on the essentials, but we disagree on secondary matters.”
“Is that so? Where in Scripture do we find some doctrines listed as essential, others as ‘secondary’? The answer is: ‘nowhere’. Evangelicals and Fundamentalists disagree on central issues such as baptismal regeneration and the necessity of baptism (is it merely a sign to other Christians, or does it have a real role in the process of justification?), whether or not one can forfeit salvation (some Protestants say that’s impossible to do, others say it is possible). You all claim to be ‘Bible-only Christians,’ but which group is right?”
lol the irony of being bedfellows with Hagee
Dispensationalism is a Jewish trick. You fell for ANOTHER Jewish trick. Silly goy!
That's a fact.
The more you reply, the more I share Catholic dogma, THE TRUE FAITH.
Not an assumption, that is is history. You going to call me a meaniehead next?
Is this your definition of a dispensationalists?
Do you not believe that God gave out different dispensations to different groups of people throughout time?
Can you give me an example of what dispensationalist took out of context. I don't align myself to any religion or group but I do believe the Bible is the word of God. Always happy to learn.
Dispensationalism stands in contrast to the traditional system of covenant theology used in biblical interpretation.
For Covenantal theology in the Roman Catholic perspective, see Covenantal theology (Roman Catholic).
Dispensationalism posits that ethnic Jews remain God’s chosen people distinct and apart from Christians.
It's a heresy brought to the world by crypto-Jews who infiltrated the Catholic church.
You ever heard of Christian Zionism?
http://shamelesspopery.com/dispensationalism-and-the-jews/
I hope this was enough of a jumping off point.
Also, I forgot to answer your first question.
No, that is not a definition. That is an example of dispensationalists taking scripture out of context to meet the Zionist NWO goals.
You asked for an example and you didn't see the one I put right in your face.
Funny how history repeats itself.
We must put our faith in Jesus, not in man. That said, Trump is God’s man.
powerful
Crazy. Hey, which chapter is that?
MASSIVE SIGNIFICANCE
https://www.gematrix.org/?word=church%20of%20smyrna
You may find this commentary on the Book of Revelation text interesting:
https://plan4told.wordpress.com/2020/05/12/revelation-chapter-19/
Appendix: Why Vaccines? https://plan4told.wordpress.com/2020/05/12/appendix-why-vaccines/
Appendix: Hidden in Plain Sight https://plan4told.wordpress.com/2020/10/16/appendix-hidden-in-plain-sight/
A Virus from Hell https://plan4told.wordpress.com/2020/11/09/a-virus-from-hell/
Not studying it will mean suffer foretold events because people will not able to recognize them in their time and in their form.
Hos 4:6 My people are destroyed for lack of knowledge:
All of this part has been fulfilled. It was about the coming destruction of Jerusalem and the temple by Rome in 70 AD
You are correct! Revelation written prior to 70 AD and the destruction of the Temple.
The bible is about lessons, more so than the facts of history.
Yet history repeats itself.
Great blessings on those that read the book of Revelation from beginning to end. Says so right at the beginning. John wrote it while in prison on the island of Patmos.
It's "Revelation" not "RevelationS"
This is a huge pet-peeve for alot of theologians.
P.S. All of this part has been fulfilled. It was about the coming destruction of Jerusalem and the temple by Rome in 70 AD
Yep - Matthew 24; Luke 21; Mark 13 - all point to the (then) destruction of the Temple and city of Jerusalem. It was a prophecy for their day NOT ours. It’s not in our future but our past.
Now that's just messed up. If this is his plan. Well fine. It better have a happy ending. Now that there are people being forced into quarantine by the state well now I'm just waiting for my turn.
You’re just going to go along with it? No fight?
Time for a Christian red pill:
https://www.thepathoftruth.com/teachings/state-and-fate-of-hell.htm
What is the second death?
The final death.
Revelation 20:11-15 NLT And I saw a great white throne and the one sitting on it. The earth and sky fled from his presence, but they found no place to hide. [12] I saw the dead, both great and small, standing before God's throne. And the books were opened, including the Book of Life. And the dead were judged according to what they had done, as recorded in the books. [13] The sea gave up its dead, and death and the grave gave up their dead. And all were judged according to their deeds. [14] Then death and the grave were thrown into the lake of fire. This lake of fire is the second death. [15] And anyone whose name was not found recorded in the Book of Life was thrown into the lake of fire.
From Revelation 20:
26} And death and hell were cast into the lake of fire. This is the second death.
(26) The last enemy which is death shall be abolished by Christ
Spiritual death I believe
Holy fucking #SHIT
????????
GREAT REWARDS FOR DIEING FOR THE CAUSE OF CHRIST. God Bless Pedes!! We win the war in the last chapter!
Get a King James bible!!!!!! Anything else is not the Word of God (in English) it is a corrupted perversion.
Check out the documentary New World Order Bible Versions, these new versions of the bible are literally put out by Satan himself.
Along with the Scofield Reference Bible.
Scolfield is where dispensationalism really got its start in the church.
It should have been called "How to neuter the church - Bible"
Oh jeeze not a KJV onlyest.
Please PLEASE go educate yourself on this subject by someone that knows what they're talking about. Dr. James White is one of the worlds leading scholars on the translation and transmission of the texts and wrote the leading book on this subject as well as done multiple debates on this.
Don't parrot this false narrative.
You're not wrong, not sure why you got hammered by shills there. Oh yeah, that happens in clown world.
Because people are deceived, and it's hard for them to come to grips with that. I actually go soul winning door to door, and probably 9/10 people who claim the name of Christ, aren't actually saved. And most people don't even want to take ten minutes to have the Gospel clearly explained to them. And for the dozens of people I have seen saved, who have been in church for years, not one has actually started attending our church after we got them saved.
People who have been in church for years, and never were saved. Yet they continue to go to a church that didn't preach them the doctrine of Salvation through faith alone. Why in the world would people keep attending a church that gives no salvation? Because people are stubborn. Thankfully we don't go soul winning to fill the church, we do it to spread the Gospel. Which is why so many churches don't go soul winning. It doesnt fill the church and bring in tithes.
The KJV isn't the authoritative translation. ALL translations have been corrupted by men.
Do you automatically assume that those who translated the texts were believers under the direction of the Holy Spirit?
What about Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek being converted to English (a language with punctuation)?
Do you honestly think mistakes weren't made (intentional or otherwise)?
We have original greek, hebrew, and aramaic documents and fragments that we can clearly see God's word hasn't been corrupted.
Learn more: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LuiayuxWwuI
http://jesusiscreator.org/?p=39
I've seen the ramblings of White before. He's a man who enjoys putting his name in lights, calling himself "Dr."
You see, all false teachers peddle truth. It's all about the application/misapplication. The gospel of Luke corrupted:
https://www.thepathoftruth.com/teachings/book-of-luke-corrupted-deathbed-conversion-tale.htm
You apparently haven't seen much. That's a ad hominem attack and not a examination of evidence. He could call himself anything he wants and it wouldn't effect the argument but he does not have an accredited Doctorate to go with the unaccredited ones he had before not that it matters.
Then you link an article calling the separate testimonies of different witnesses (that were written in different languages years later in different locations) "corruption" ? You've obviously never talked to multiple witnesses before describing the same event. If their accounts were identical you could dismiss them as collusion. That's an argument FOR the accuracy of the accounts as a whole, not against them.
Corruption would be charging of texts AFTER the fact not slightly different original accounts.
Suggesting that Dr. White is a false teacher is both laughable and slander. He's very well respected and an expert in the fields of historical transmission and translation of the texts as well as Church history. He has done HUNDREDS of debates on these subjects and more, many AGAINST false teachers. The people that attack him are typically KJV onliests and people that can't attack his positions / arguments so instead resort to ad hominem attacks without evidence.
Make an argument or make an exit, just don't make up bullshit.
"Suggesting that Dr. White is a false teacher is both laughable and slander. He's very well respected and an expert in the fields of historical transmission and translation of the texts as well as Church history. He has done HUNDREDS of debates on these subjects and more, many AGAINST false teachers."
As if that means a damn thing? Men can be fooled and manipulated by other well-educated and influential men like White. Most false teachers are business men and showmen who know little of the actual scriptures outside of their pet verses. Not a difficult task debating most of them.
I bet he is well-respected but by whom? I know that the world reviles the things and people of God. I took a second look and I'm still not impressed. But what are we going to do? Sling scripture and links at each other? Agree to disagree?
We'll all be held accountable for what we buy and sell. I'm good where I'm at and so are you. Let's leave it at that.
Revelation 20:4-6 NLT Then I saw thrones, and the people sitting on them had been given the authority to judge. And I saw the souls of those who had been beheaded for their testimony about Jesus and for proclaiming the word of God. They had not worshiped the beast or his statue, nor accepted his mark on their foreheads or their hands. They all came to life again, and they reigned with Christ for a thousand years. [5] This is the first resurrection. (The rest of the dead did not come back to life until the thousand years had ended.) [6] Blessed and holy are those who share in the first resurrection. For them the second death holds no power, but they will be priests of God and of Christ and will reign with him a thousand years.
I got down voted also and all I did was to provide the correct verses of Revelations.
There is no "RevelationS" in the Bible.
Yes we all know that the title of the book is "The Revelation of John". It is colloquially referred to as "Revelations" because it flows better in English. Don't be a pedantic ass who attacks a message just because of a misspelled word or terminology you don't like. That's what lost leftists do. Some of use do not have skill with language. Some of us don't even think in language and even using the language of our culture is like using a foreign tongue.
I stated a simple fact (that can be verified by looking at the top of the page of last book of almost any Bible) where you made a common mistake about the title of a book and you chose to write a paragraph of assumptions and insults instead of recognizing that you mad a simple mistake and received a simple correction.
That's not an "attack" of any kind. It's a fact. If you call facts "attacks" then you're aligning yourself for closer to the left than I.
The only "ass" here is you at the moment but the good news is you can turn it around at any time you wish. It only takes a spoonfull of humility.
I assumed that you were the one who had down voted me. I apologize if I jumped the gun. I'm very autistic and do not use language very well. The only reason that I am able to write so that others can understand is by the Grace of GOD and the help of the Holy Spirit. And the only things of any complexity that I write effectively are on matters dealing with GOD and my prayers.
I am a bit oversensitive to having what I write disregarded or worse because of a misspelled word, strange terminology, or sentence structure. It sometimes takes me hours to write what a normal person would write in 10 minutes.