John Lee wrote: Actually brother I am not saying anything directly. I am asking a question as to the whereabouts of the exhortation of Jesus which, in modern English, reads: âSo donât worry about tomorrow, for tomorrow will bring its own worries. Todayâs trouble is enough for today." Matthew 6:34 NLT Therefore, if you find that a future event is causing you much anguish or stress, Jesus tells you to stop worrying about it. You have quite enough on your plate to worry about today, never mind tomorrow. Or do you have a different interpretation of the text, brother? If so, let me hear it. Thank you.
Nope, that is how I see, just wanted clarification thanks for your answer.
Jim Lincoln wrote: "Australian media playing into China's grand strategy" https://tinyurl.com/y63b2jmp An article that is on the Australian Broadcasting Corporation site, and is over 6 years old, and is still interesting âđ The United States and England aren't the only countries that China is interested in. So I get to miss a lot of Chinese propaganda because most of these sites mentioned in the SA article say that I have to subscribe before I can read much stuff on them. "Every cloud has a silver lining?"
That is good news. You spread enough propaganda on this site as it is.
James Thomas wrote: No one said they were not real churches. No one is opposing anythin US, I'm simply pointing out some cross references from different Scripture which all speak of the same event of which I referenced rev 3:12. Here's another Jer 31:33 But this shall be the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel; After those days, saith the LORD, I will put my law in their inward parts, and write it in their hearts; and will be their God, and they shall be my people And another Isa 62:2 And the Gentiles shall see thy righteousness, and all kings thy glory: and thou shalt be called by a new name, which the mouth of the LORD shall name. If you don't think the Rev 3:12 is the same event in all of the other references I've given, why is that? Thanks Thanks for the good thought Mike. I'm still pondering it so I haven't been able to reply as of yet. Not looking for 12 rounds either but healthy sparring is a good thing.
Just because some of the words are similar does not mean it refers to the same thing. Revelation 3:12 is a future promise to those who overcome not a past reference to the new covenant.
You asked my thinking, that would be it, if you don't see it that way, then you don't.
John Yurich USA wrote: Naturally I only accept the Baptist doctrine of salvation that states salvation only comes by embracing Jesus as Lord and Savior and trusting in Jesus alone for salvation.
Been in Baptist churches for over four decades and the only place I heard the terms "embrace Jesus as Lord and Savior" came from you.
Pure and simple Catholics teach, as our sisters MS and ladybug often point out, a false gospel. One of works and doctrines of men. One cannot be a truly born again Christian and stay a Catholic. Paul puts an Anathema on those who teach a gospel of works or as the RCC calls it sacraments . Salvation is of the Lord and when He imparts spiritual life into His children they learn to have no fellowship with the unfruitful works of darkness but rather reprove them.
1. The tribe of Judah is represented in Revelation 7 as one of the tribes who has faithful witnesses
2. The whore in Revelation is said to be drunken with the blood of the martyrs of JesusâJudah went out with the rest of Israel as a corporate entity in 70 A.D. and the nation (donât know if Jews currently identify by tribes) didnât make a come back until nearly 1900 years later. Lot of martyrs during that time period. Also no nations or kings could have committed fornication with her, she wasnât around as a group of people identifying as Israel or Judah .
3. I am not disagreeing with you, the verses you quote refer to Israel/Judah except I donât see that being transferred to the book of Revelation
Thereâs an entire book about the children of Israel playing the harlot. The thread runs all the way to Malachi. So while I agree there is much Scripture to support that Israel was not a faithful group of people, I donât see the jump to applying it to the great whore of Revelation.
We obviously wonât agree here but I donât want to come across as saying you are not a student of the Word.
James Thomas wrote: Out of the prophets bro, not out of the blue. What the prophets spoke are the witness, not my thoughts. Rev 17:1 I will shew unto thee the judgment of the great whore that sitteth upon many waters: Jer 51:13 O thou that dwellest upon many waters, abundant in treasures, thine end is come, and the measure of thy covetousness. Rev 17:2 With whom the kings of the earth have committed fornication, and the inhabitants of the earth have been made drunk with the wine of her fornication. Jer 51:7 Babylon hath been a golden cup in the LORD'S hand, that made all the earth drunken: the nations have drunken of her wine; therefore the nations are mad.
I stand corrected. The tie between the two Scriptures is what is out of the blue. Thanks for your time brother James
No I am saying to say that out of the blue that the it refers to Israel because of the word whore or harlot is a stretch. Your entitled to your thinking I simply donât see as anything but your thoughts being impressed into the text.
Thank you sister MS for sharing that verse. I believe that it speaks of the contrast to the lap of luxury and destitution of poverty. She was bragging she lived live a queen and not a widow who struggles in poverty. I donât see it as referring to her position (as queen) or her marital status.
Without addressing the verse in 2 Peter 1 I would say that for you to say the whore in Revelation in the same as Godâs description of Israel is your own private interpretation. I would say if any O.T. passage fits what is in Revelation it would be Isaiah 47 (which you have cited) which talks about the Chaldeans. Much of the language is similar.
the Bible is one revelation from God and is of necessity intertwined in many parts but that does not mean the mention of certain words or phrases, unless specifically specified, must relate to the New Testament from the Old or vise-versa. For instance I believe it would out of place for me to say the whore in Revelation must refer to Tamar because she played the harlot. They are unrelated.
I read all the references in context in Revelation and did not find anything that would allow it to be a parallel with references to a whore in the Okd Testament. No mention in Revelation of marriage or being a wife (a mother but nothing about a spouse).
I have no interest in speculating as to whom the great whore in Revelation is but I find no reason to dogmatically tie it any references to the whoredoms of Israel in he Old Testament I respect James as a student of the Word but cannot see that his interpretation is unquestionably accurate.
There is a difference between positional and personal holiness. Any gins in holiness by the believer is done through the work of God. (I Cor 15:20. Phil. 2:12,13). If youâre not more holy in life than when you got saved, I would question the genuineness of your conversion. I John 1 says we walk in the light and confess sin and fellowship with Christ. Walking implies progress. I John 2 tells us the goal of not sinning. Paul said he pressed toward the mark and had not obtained.
Christianity is not a let go and let God. We are commanded to strive, to fight, to mortify, to put off, to put on, to war against the flesh, to not make provision for it, to lay aside, to pray, to study, to meditate, to draw nigh to God, etc. These are all actions. We are what we by the grace of God, so there should be no self glorying
Godâs Word commands you to pursue holiness if you have a problem with that I am not the one to whom you should speak