So this is the first instance of a man performing miracles and these are the lessons that we learn:

1. The Lord enabled him to perform sign miracles
2. A "sign" is a message
3. The "message" is that the person performing the sign miracles is genuinely sent by God with new revelation

The Israelites became trained to expect sign miracles from all of their prophets. See Psalm 74.9a

"We see not our signs: there is no more any prophet...."

Why do you suppose the scribes and pharisees demanded a sign of Christ?

Matthew 12:38 Then certain of the scribes and of the Pharisees answered, saying, Master, we would see a sign from thee.

Or Why do you suppose that Christ is recorded to have performed so many miracles?

Turn now to Heb 2. The writer is speaking of the great salvation which was first spoken of by the Lord and which was confirmed by the apostles who heard him and then verse 4 reads:

God also BEARING THEM WITNESS, both with SIGNS AND WONDERS, and with DIVERS MIRACLES, and GIFTS OF THE HOLY GHOST, according to his own will

Did you catch that? It's about GOD authenticating his messengers!

That is what the sign miracles have always been about in the bible, unless you read the Bible with your eyes closed.

Shane wrote:
...
I just find it presumptuous to say that these things no longer exist without the scripture to back it.

Ok, Shane let's start looking at the whole issue from scratch. The law of first mention is extremely important. Who was the first recorded person to perform miracles? Why were they able to perform these miracles?

Let's look, shall we?

The answer is Moses, and the precise reason why he was enabled to perform miracles is plainly stated. Turn with me to Exodus 4 verse 1, where Moses expresses his concern that the Israelites may not believe him or that it was God who had really appeared to him and sent him. It is only at this point that the Lord tells him to cast the rod onto the ground etc and shows him what He is capable of and then verses 8, 9 reads "..8 And it shall come to pass, if they will not believe thee, neither hearken to the voice of the first sign, that they will believe the voice of of the latter sign 9 And it shall come to pass, if they will not believe also these two signs, neither hearken unto thy voice...."

Chase wrote:
Although most manuscripts do have this portion of Scripture, our most reliable manuscripts do not.

No one said that Mark 16 was the only place which is contorted and used to teach something that it does not support.

MS wrote:
Hmmm..."we should refrain from using this section of Scripture for doctrine"?
Says who? Magesterium White, McArthur,or Chase from Az?...

Chase wrote:
..
Mark 16, specifically the longer ending of Mark, is a highly disputed text anyhow and many textual critics see it as not being written by Mark at all. Because of this we should refrain from using this section of Scripture for doctrine. ...

Your otherwise good post was ruined by this ginormous fly in the ointment.

Lurker wrote:
....
Prophesy, not stammer.

Bro James

I know what you mean, but you appear to have missed the gist of my post and I can't agree about the equivalence between OT prophets and the apostles. Apostles were those who were eye-witnesses of the Lord's life, death and resurrection, and were commissioned by the Lord - Paul only being excepted in terms of witnessing the Lord's life and death because he was as one born out of due time. They had full gospel light and were promised that they would be led into all the truth, whereas the OT prophets saw vaguely, dimly and desired to know more 1 Peter 1.10,11. The apostles were the foundation of the NT, not the OT prophets. They have privileges in the kingdom not given to other. And finally even by our Lord's reckoning the greatest OT prophet viz John the Baptist was nothing compared to the least in the kingdom of heaven Matt 11.11

I agree that they all spoke God's word, but I dare not discount the huge differences otherwise.

Blessings bro.

Sister MS

Alice wrote:
...
“Jesus Christ the same yesterday, today & forever.�
It’s Biblical.

Well where were the apostles in the OT? Where is the gift of tongues in the OT? Why were these things introduced in the NT if Jesus Christ is the same all the time? Nothing should change, right?

Nete wrote:
Stop buying into this folly. He is not the only player praying to win.
This is what Russia has done to change the minds of weak minded,unlearned people. It only causes confusion while the enemy takes many captive. Why the article made its way onto this board only shows how Satan attempts to keep our minds on real issues that impact souls for eternity.

"It answer in the nature of the thing itself"

Should have read

Shane wrote:
Scripture and verse, please, that shows that the gift pf tongues is know longer present.

We don't need a specific verse telling us that tongues have ceased, any more than we do to tell us that there are no more apostles.

It answer in the nature of the thing itself. Tongues and the other sign gifts had a specific purpose and we are told what this was in the NT. That purpose is no longer valid and therefore of necessity the thing has ceased.

Same with the "apostles" who were foundational to the church. How many foundations can a building have?

Bro Lurker

Thanks. I'm glad you agree.

Bro James

I know that there is a dispute over verse 21 - whether it should read within you, or among you. But I believe the AV translators got it right, and so the point you make is perfectly valid.

Bro Christopher

Since I don't use a phone to post I cannot tell which threads are dropping off from view. So sadly I'm not in a position to determine which would be the best one. Any help would be gratefully received

Sister penned

Bro Kev

Good to see you posting again!

The question to ask is, do the Scriptures tell us what this other nation is that will be given the kingdom because it brings forth fruits thereof?

The answer is yes, the NT tells us precisely what this nation is. But those who don't raise the question and expect an answer will in all likelihood never see the answer and will be left to their carnal conjectures.

So, what is this nation?

Turn to 1 Peter 2.9

But ye are a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, an holy nation, a peculiar people; that ye should shew forth the praises of him who hath called you out of darkness into his marvellous light;

Who is Peter addressing? Why, its believers!! And what specifically does he tell them ... they are an HOLY NATION!! Believers are the nation to whom the kingdom is given.

Are there other places in the NT which can confirm this?

Sure!

We considered Col 1.13 yesterday ... but think on that verse again...all the citizens of this kingdom are there by being translated spiritually from the kingdom of darkness. The same thought is echoed in John 3.5 ...Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.

There are many more places but I'll stop here.

Jim Lincoln wrote:
...Frank, worldly agenda? You mean the racist GOP agenda that I detest�

Considering you support the party that promoted slavery, segregation, jim crow laws etc it's a bit rich for you to stand on your high horse looking down at the party that opposed all those things.

Maybe a "History of the Dem party" 101 course would be a good place for your re-education?

On second thoughts scrap that idea. I really do believe you are beyond being educated.

Dave wrote:
..don't think I'm ignoring you ..

Something more for you to consider. Here are the words the Lord addressed to the chief priests and elders in the temple:

Matthew 21

42 Jesus saith unto them, Did ye never read in the scriptures, The stone which the builders rejected, the same is become the head of the corner: this is the Lord's doing, and it is marvellous in our eyes?

43 Therefore say I unto you, The kingdom of God shall be taken from you, and given to a nation bringing forth the fruits thereof

In these verses we have the final rejection of the nation of Israel as the kingdom of God and the announcement that it would be given to another "nation" bringing forth the fruits thereof. Now immediately the literalist with a carnal understanding will look at which nation this represents on the earth. Since it is no longer Israel, the British Israelites might suggest that it is Britain. But is that what the Lord had in mind?

Because the Bible is a spiritual book and we are looking to understand the mind of God, we are taught to compare scripture with scripture because God sheds light on one passage with another and so the more we know of the Bible the more we can understand.

Dave wrote:
..questions and reply will take about a year to come ..

Rather than pile too much on your plate, I just want to address one other issue. Some suggest that Christ will establish an earthly kingdom when he returns and that his throne will then be in Jerusalem.

But what saith the Scriptures?

Look at 1 Cor 15.20-28

The passage teaches clearly that our Savior when he returns ends his mediatorial duties. Having subdued all other rule, authority and power, and having destroyed death he delivers the Kingdom to his Father and becomes subject to the Father. Remember that in Matt 28 he told his disciples that all power had been given him in heaven and in earth and by virtue of this he issued the great commission. He had to reign to achieve his mediatorial aims by conquering all spiritual foes, but now his people are all safe, the end has come and he must deliver up the kingdom.

There is no hint anywhere in the NT of any intervening years whereby he would set up an earthly kingdom. His return marks the end of time and ushers in eternity!

MS wrote:
Bro. Observer have you ever heard of Jenny Geddes?
She was a Scottish market trader who lived in the 1600's who threw her wooden stool at the head of a minister who started to read out of the 'book of common prayer' and shouted at him "will ye be whispering a mass in my ear next?"
My husband who is a carpenter made me a tiny stool to sit next to my Bible and calls me Jenny because of our detestation of satanic Romanism and its many, many, harlot daughters, and those who creep in to promagate her filth...as we are witness to on these very threads.

I'm surprised that your computer has survived the wooden stooling, given the number of Romanist propagandists here!

You are henceforth dubbed sister Jenny!

Dr. Tim wrote:
If any man speak in an unknown tongue, let it be by two, or at the most by three, and that by course; and let one interpret. (1 Corinthians 14:27) If anyone has a clue what RL just said, please interpret.

MS wrote:
Annual mass??

Here is an article that I discovered on the internet in connection with this order and allegations of sexual abuses. Quelle surprise!

John Yurich USA wrote:
...
Nobody can decide when they will become Born Again. It is the mighty work of the Holy Spirit prompting one to embrace Jesus as their Lord and Savior. And thus a sinner does not have the executive power to decide when to become Born Again. Nothing can be done to effect the new birth.