Sundries

 Just a bunch of different topics I need to expand on in the future.

Nations fight Jesus

What could the circumstances be that cause the nations of the earth to seek to fight Jesus and his army when he returns? For we read that the nations will fight the one who comes on a white horse in Revelation.

Could it be that the nations are mostly under Islamic control, and they have a belief that it is the antichrist, whom they anticipate to come in the last days, will eek to do battle with them at Jerusalem? The Islamic view of Christ is wrong, and they will identify as antichrist the true Christ, whom they will seek to do battle with at Jerusalem. This is why we see the future battle at the end of the age taking place near or in Jerusalem, where God will bring the nations together. We see this in different prophecies.

This attempt of the nations to fight Christ at his coming could be explained as a result of the Islamic belief in a future coming antichrist—believing Jesus is that antichrist at his second coming. In reality, the Antichrist is he who has led many of these nations for 3 ½ years before the second coming of Christ.

World View

I could say that my world view began to change nearly 50 years ago when I became a believer in Jesus as the son of God and Savior from sin. That change of world view involved an acceptance of the Bible as the word of God, and it would become the grid through which I would discern right and wrong. My world view would evolve from judging things in light of Scripture, which I had accepted as having divine authority.

Freedom involves risk

The freedom of speech involves the risk of someone saying something that you find offensive or false, but it is necessary part of freedom. Depending on the apparent misinformation, it must be allowed, unless everyone is censored until the absolute truth can be ascertained—but who determines that? Freedom includes the risk of someone harming another, but the freedom ends where another's freedom begins. Freedom of religion does not mean you can practice your religion to the extent that it limits my freedom of religion or any freedoms to which I have a right. Because people misuse their freedoms does not justify taking away that freedom from those who do not misuse that freedom—such as have a gun. God create mankind with a certain measure of freedom, and such freedom has led to evil, but that is the risk of freedom.

Right to Property

The right to have private property can find sanction in Scripture. It is not necessarily more spiritual to have no property or to have all things in common to the point that there is no private ownership. It could be more spiritual to share what you own with those in need than to have common ownership. Scripture reveals that in the age to come, each will sit under his own fig tree and not be afraid. Having ones own fig tree is a characteristic of the coming kingdom. Personal property gives one a sense of significance and identity and security. If one has property that produces, it becomes a means of personally providing for others who do not have. The Old Testament Law directed farmers of the land to not reap the corner of their fields completely so that the poor of the land could find themselves something to eat. If a person had to sell their property due to debt, they would receive the property back in the year of Jubilee, because that property was theirs forever—unlike the situation today when a person can't afford their property tax and lose their property. I believe property tax should be abolished, and pay for local services with the local income tax. Property should not be lost because of a tax. The right to Property forever was the promise to Israel in the land of Canaan. The only way one should lose their property is through selling it or giving it away.

Welfare

I believe welfare, helping the poor, should be done privately and by private organizations. Not the Government. Local governments could have places for food banks that people could donate food and those in need can come to get food. The Old testament Law did not tax people to feed and give money to the poor, though there was a 3^rd year tithe for the poor. The Law said to not glean the corner of the fields 100%, so that the poor could find food. There was a tithe every 3 years for the poor. There needs to be accountability and some consequence for making poor choices in life. I know some are poor or without due to circumstances beyond their control, but often it is due to bad choices. I would agree the government needs to step in if something like the Irish potato famine struck.

Abraham's friend

There are 2 references in the OT where God is called Abraham's friend—as in the book of James such is recognized because of Abe's works consistent with his faith.

One Tax only

Why couldn't there be only one kind of tax to pay for all the government's needs? An income tax for local, State, and federal that covered all things, a low flat net income tax to pay for everything?

Status, State, Standing

Understanding Scripture would help if we could distinguish between what is a standing or a state. All believers are children of God and Children of light, that is their standing, but they are to walk as such, which is their state. Standing doesn't automatically result is the appropriate state.

Temporal or Eternal

In Scripture, we need to distinguish between what is temporal and what is eternal. Some times, a consequence can be temporal and other times eternal. There is temporal wrath and eternal wrath. Believers are not appointed to eternal wrath, but they could experience temporal wrath.

Legislate morality

We can legislate morality, because we already do. It's not about thoughts of lust or covetousness, but acts of immorality like murder, rape, theft, certain false claims that hurts another. Freedom of speech is essential unless it is a lie that hurts another in reputation.

1 John says we Love others by keeping God's commandments

First John says we love others by keeping God's commandments.

Illumination

How is it that if the Holy Spirit illuminates to the truth, people disagree so much? Because I believe the illumination is bound up in the special revelation as recorded in Scripture. We are only as illuminated as we are in alignment with what God has revealed. There are several factors that influence our understanding of Scripture, and some of those are upbringing and fear of ostracism. It takes, honesty, humility, and objectivity to understand things. It takes willingness to engage others and to listen. Illumination comes through comparing Scripture with Scripture; it is a process of here a little, and there a little.

Salvation in Romans

Romans 1:16 “Salvation” is a word that in Romans could mean more than “justification,” just as “Gospel” in vs15 is broader than Christ died for you sins and rose again. The gospel could include all that the believer has in Christ, and salvation is not just justification but sanctification for God's purposes--”Salvation came to the Gentiles” (Romans 9-11) could speak of not only their justification by faith, but their sanctification and inclusion into the people and purpose of God, apart from the nation of Israel—who were the people for God's purposes.

Three "R"s

The historically agreed upon views of the Church from the beginning concerning eschatology (Last Things) can be represented by the three "R"s:  return, resurrection, and restoration.

The “return” is the physical second coming of Christ; historically, the Church has held to a literal, physical return of Christ to the earth as judge and king.

The “resurrection” is the physical resurrection of the body of all who have died; the righteous will be resurrected to eternal life and the unrighteous will be resurrected to eternal judgment.

The “restoration” is the future restoration of all creation; there will be a new heaven and a new earth in which righteousness dwells, no longer under the corruption due to the original sin of Adam.

Of course, there have been dissenters down through the centuries, and even to this day, but they are outside the historically held views of the Christianity.

Of course, within and related to these three views, there are a lot of details Christians can disagree about, but they are the historically held views.

Jesus will return to the earth literally and physically, the dead shall be raised to physical life, and the creation will be delivered from corruption and restored.

If you reject these things, you are not only rejecting what Scripture teaches, but what the Church has historically held down through the centuries.

Why Eve?

Why did Satan temp Eve instead of Adam?

Satan will look for weakness to exploit to bring about failure.

It could be that Eve was questioning why they could not eat of the tree, and Satan took advantage of that. Maybe Adam chose to leave it alone—because God said so--until Eve took the plunge.

It could be that God allowed Eve but not Adam to be tempted, because if Eve made the fatal choice, maybe Adam could have negated it. I know that sounds questionable, but there is the authority that a husband has over his wife or a father over his daughter. We read about that in Numbers chapter 30. If a daughter makes a vow to God, and the father hears it, he can choose to overrule it, but if he hears it and says nothing, then the vow stands. The same with a wife and her husband. Adam could have refused to eat the fruit, and maybe God would have removed the consequence.

We read in Genesis that it wasn't until Adam ate of the fruit that their eyes were opened. We are told in Scripture that the head of woman is man, and so it may have been that the consequence of disobeying God did not result until Adam ate of the fruit. We are told that sin entered through Adam. When their eyes were opened, there was an awareness that they did not have before. Something changed within their consciousness that I believe amounts to a new inclination of inordinate desire, and they saw things differently than before.

It could be that Satan just chose Eve first because he saw opportunity, and she was more vulnerable. But the idea that Adam could have negated it is an interesting possibility. We just don't have enough revelation to explain all that was going on.  

Scripture references:

“...if a woman makes a vow to the LORD, and binds herself by some agreement while in her father's house in her youth, ⁴ and her father hears her vow and the agreement by which she has bound herself, and her father holds his peace, then all her vows shall stand, and every agreement with which she has bound herself shall stand. ⁵ But if her father overrules her on the day that he hears, then none of her vows nor her agreements by which she has bound herself shall stand; and the LORD will release her, because her father overruled her. ⁶ "If indeed she takes a husband, while bound by her vows or by a rash utterance from her lips by which she bound herself, ⁷ and her husband hears it, and makes no response to her on the day that he hears, then her vows shall stand, and her agreements by which she bound herself shall stand. ⁸ But if her husband overrules her on the day that he hears it, he shall make void her vow which she took and what she uttered with her lips, by which she bound herself, and the LORD will release her.” Numbers 30:3-8

^“3 But I want you to know that the head of every man is Christ, the head of woman is man, and the head of Christ is God.” 1 Corinthians 11:3

^“6 So when the woman saw that the tree was good for food, that it was pleasant to the eyes, and a tree desirable to make one wise, she took of its fruit and ate. She also gave to her husband with her, and he ate. ⁷ Then the eyes of both of them were opened, and they knew that they were naked; and they sewed fig leaves together and made themselves coverings.” Genesis 3:6-7

^“12 Therefore, just as through one man sin entered the world, and death through sin, and thus death spread to all men, because all sinned—“ Romans 5:12

Holy Spirit Blasphemed

 Jesus said blaspheme of the Holy Spirit would never be forgiven, and this seems comparable to taking the mark of the beast, if the non-forgiveness is a salvation issue, for those who take the mark are destined for forever torment: “⁹ Then a third angel followed them, saying with a loud voice, "If anyone worships the beast and his image, and receives his mark on his forehead or on his hand, ¹⁰ he himself shall also drink of the wine of the wrath of God, which is poured out full strength into the cup of His indignation. He shall be tormented with fire and brimstone in the presence of the holy angels and in the presence of the Lamb. ¹¹ And the smoke of their torment ascends forever and ever; and they have no rest day or night, who worship the beast and his image, and whoever receives the mark of his name." Revelation 14:9-11

This would suggest that the blaspheme, like the Mark, involves a “point of no return.” If one has opportunity to come to saving faith in Christ until death, how could one's fate be sealed like this? It would seem that they have reached a certain degree of hardness of heart that nothing will change their mind or turn them around.

If we say that the blaspheme is unbelief, we can only say it is a certain degree of unbelief, because non-believers can have a change of mind later.

One other option is that the blaspheme of the Holy Spirit could result in a consequence that one is not forgiven. This does not have to be about that kind of forgiveness that keeps one out of hell. Forgiveness involves being released from consequence. The consequence of this blaspheme may not be about going to hell. If the blaspheme is about resisting what the Holy Spirit reveals or convicts you about, it could be that the non-forgiveness of this particular resistance involves a consequence that is not about going to Hell. It could be like Moses who was not forgiven of his disobedience to speak to the rock, and so he was not allowed to enter Canaan—God would not forgive him. Ananias and Sapphira lied to the Holy Spirit and God killed them—this doesn't mean they went to Hell, but they lost their lives early.

Understanding the blaspheme of the Holy Spirit must not mean that salvation from hell depends on our perfect obedience to the work of the Holy Spirit. A person can resist the Holy Spirit at one point in their life but obey him later in life. It could be about reaching a point of no return by the hardness of the heart, or it could be that there is a consequence that is not about going to hell, but there is no escaping the consequence.

Image of God

I believe that being created in the image of God means that God gave man dominion over the earth. The text in Genesis puts the dominion over the earth by man in the same reference to being created in the image of God. This sets man apart from the animals.

A while back, I was reading a book by Michael Heiser called “The Unseen Realm” that made the same claim. He would refer to man as God's Imagers.

I am presently reading a book by Michael Svigel called “The Fathers on the Future,” and he says that same thing. He says that to be created in the image of God means we have dominion over the earth.

After the flood, God said that whoever sheds man's blood shall have his blood shed because man is created in the image of God. This is capital punishment—the death penalty—for someone who takes the life of another unjustly. The reason is because man is created in the image of God: to take one's life is to violate his dominion.

^“26 Then God said, "Let Us make man in Our image, according to Our likeness; let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, over the birds of the air, and over the cattle, over all the earth and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth." ²⁷ So God created man in His own image; in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them.” Genesis 1:26-27

⁶ "Whoever sheds man's blood, By man his blood shall be shed; For in the image of God He made man.” Genesis 9:6

star light problem

 I recently finished reading the book, “The Created Cosmos: What the Bible Reveals About Astronomy,” by Dr. Danny Faulkner. Faulkner is a professor with degrees in Physics and Astronomy. He is a young earth creationist.

What led me to read this book was a video on YouTube in which he discussed the light-travel-time problem. He did not take the view that was theorized by Dr. D. Russell Humphreys, a view that I have held to for about 30 years in explaining how we can see starlight from stars more than 6000 light years from earth—believing the earth/ universe is around 6000 years old (though maybe up to 10,000 years old).

There's the additional problem of the timing of seeing something like a supernova in a young universe. The simple explanation of God creating the universe mature would seem deceptive with respect to a supernova, because that would mean the star didn't really exist, just the supernova of the star placed at some point to appear thousands of years later.

Humphreys got his PH.D. in Physics and worked in things like nuclear physics and geophysics. I read his book many years ago, titled, “Starlight and Time: Solving the Puzzle of distant Starlight in a Young Universe.”

I don't know if I fully understood Humphreys' view, but it presented a theory of how God created the earth and universe that made it possible to see star light on earth from the beginning from stars more than 6000 light years from earth.

How I understood it was that the processes at work on earth relative to the processes at work in the universe were like one day (on earth) to billions of years (in the universe). Humphreys theory as to how this worked was that God created through using a white hole, which is a black hole running in reverse. But you would have to read his book to understand what that all means.

Faulkner did not agree with Humphreys' white hole cosmology in explaining the star-light-time problem in connection with a young earth. He also said that Humphreys abandoned his view for a view closer to his own. This surprised me, and it's why I got Faulkner's book.

Faulkner's view is that God did not simply create a mature universe, but that he matured the universe so that Adam could see star light from the very beginning. The difference is between mature and matured. It seems similar to what I said earlier about the processes at work, but I think Faulkner is saying it was just God directly speeding up the process to get the universe to the point that the stars would serve their purpose to be seen on earth (like watching those time-lapse films of a plant growing, from seed to mature plant in seconds), as opposed to making it immediately mature or using some mechanical means like Humphreys' white hole cosmology.

I'm sure many are not concerned in understanding these things, but I do see a problem--if you take a young earth view--with explaining something like a supernova being seen in recent times from a star more than 6000 light years away. Did the star really ever exist?

Besides all that stuff, Faulkner's book discusses some interesting topics like Astrology, extraterrestrial life, flat-earth cosmology, the gospel in the stars (constellations) claim, unusual astronomical events in the Bible (as in the manipulated days of Joshua and Hezekiah, and the Christmas star of the Magi), and astronomical aspects of Good Friday, Resurrection Sunday and prophetic literature and the end times.

Faulkner writes that the heavens and the stars do not give us special revelation in order to know God, but it gives us general revelation about God.

Faulkner quotes Romans 1:20 (see below) and says that there are two things that general revelation tells us, being, “his eternal power and Godhead.” “That is, God exists and is very powerful.” “Romans 1 also tells us that men are without excuse for their condition, but there is nothing in general revelation that tells us that God sent his Son into the world to pay that penalty for our sins. To learn these and other things related to salvation, we must turn to special revelation, the Bible. In other words, general revelation can lead us to conclude that there is a Creator and what at least some of His attributes are, but general revelation alone is insufficient to lead us to Christ. Furthermore, this proscription from Romans 1:20 would seem to rule out the entire gospel message being found in the stars and constellations (general revelation) as supporters of the gospel in the stars require.”

^“For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead, so that they are without excuse,” Romans 1:20

Futuristic Fathers

There is a claim that futuristic views of end-time events are a modern invention. Such views as a coming “antichrist” who will rule for 3 1/2 years during a time of “great tribulation,” persecuting Christians, are said to have developed in the 1800s.   This is not true, for there was an early belief in the Church in a future antichrist who would rule during the great tribulation. 

Bless or curse Israel

Just as there are Christians who are supportive of the Jewish State, there are those Christians who are not supportive of the Jewish State. Those who are supportive believe that God has a future purpose for the nation of Israel, and the promise to Abraham still applies: “³ I will bless those who bless you, And I will curse him who curses you.” Genesis 12:3 The non-supportive Christians may reject both of these things.

I've seen the non-supportive Christians to be more visible and vocal. It seems to be the spirit of the age to be anti-Israel.

One of the claims I've seen is that the promise to Abraham was to Abraham only and not to his descendants through his grandson Jacob. But even if that were true, or even if the promise doesn't specifically apply at this time, does that mean we shouldn't be supportive of the Jewish State? Should we curse Israel?

Balak, the king of Moab, sought to employ the prophet Balaam to curse Israel as they settled near them, and Moab was afraid of them. The mysterious Balaam said that he could only speak the words that God “puts in his mouth.”

⁵ Then the LORD put a word in Balaam's mouth (Numbers 23:5)...

⁷ And he took up his oracle and said: "Balak the king of Moab has brought me from Aram, From the mountains of the east. 'Come, curse Jacob for me, And come, denounce Israel!' ⁸ "How shall I curse whom God has not cursed? And how shall I denounce whom the LORD has not denounced? (Numbers 23:7-8)...

​¹ Now when Balaam saw that it pleased the LORD to bless Israel, (Numbers 24:1)...

Balaam raised his eyes, and saw Israel encamped according to their tribes; and the Spirit of God came upon him.

³ Then he took up his oracle and said: "The utterance of Balaam the son of Beor, The utterance of the man whose eyes are opened, ⁴ The utterance of him who hears the words of God, Who sees the vision of the Almighty, Who falls down, with eyes wide open: ⁵ "How lovely are your tents, O Jacob! Your dwellings, O Israel! (Numbers 24:2-5)...

"Blessed is he who blesses you, And cursed is he who curses you." (Numbers 24:9)

This last part of Balaam's prophecy speaks of a blessing and cursing, just as in the promise to Abraham. So the application goes beyond Abraham to his descendants.

But even if you say it doesn't apply at this present time, due to Israel still suffering the consequences of God's wrath for the rejection of Jesus, should we not be supportive of the Jewish State?

Standing & State

I believe it's important to distinguish between standing and state when reading scripture.

 Probably a lot of Christians don't know what I'm talking about, but there is a difference between your standing in relationship to God and your state with reference to your experience. 

Being justified and turning from sin are two different things. We are justified by the blood of Christ through faith in him, but we are saved from the wrath or discipline of God through turning from sin. The farmer has to do with our standing, but the latter has to do with our state. The latter being our state is affected by the former our standing. 

Standing and state can be distinguished between that which is eternal, and that which is temporal. Eternally you can be released from the penalty of your sins, but temporarily you can suffer the consequences of sin. 

You can stand justified before God by faith alone, but there are consequences for committing sin in this life and a loss of reward in the next life because of sin. 

One can be right with God eternally and yet because of sin suffer consequences in this life just like Moses was right with God eternally and yet, because of his sin, he experienced a premature death and did not enter into the promised land. 

Interestingly, you can see standing and state with reference to the nation of Israel and the new covenant because of the forgiveness of sins through the new covenant. God will turn Israel away from their iniquities. The one has to do with their standing the other their state. 

We read this in Romans, chapter 11:26-27, where it says "the Deliverer will come out of Zion and He will turn ungodliness from Jacob; and this is my covenant with them, when I take away their sins." We see this also in the book of Acts where Peter talks about Israel, being blessed by the coming of Jesus, "in turning every one of you away from your iniquities," Acts 3:26. This was the intended state for Israel, but they rejected Jesus, and did not receive the righteousness of God through faith. 

We see standing and state in Titus 2:11 that says "for the grace of God that brings salvation has appeared to all men teaching us that denying ungodliness and worldly less we should live sober, righteously, and godly in this present age, looking for the blessed hope, and glorious appearing of our great God and Savior Jesus Christ." By the grace of God, we are saved, and that salvation teaches us to deny ungodliness and worldly lusts and to live soberly righteously and godly in this present age, as we look for the blessed Hope and glorious appearing of our great God and Savior Jesus Christ. 

To fail to distinguish standing and state will result in confusing justification, our standing, with sanctification, our state; It will confuse the terms of our standing with the terms of our state.

This is why some people think we are not saved by faith alone because they confused the two. We are justified by faith alone, but sanctification has to do with our conduct. 

Though the book of James addresses the issue of standing with God, a lot of it is about one's state. James says that God brought us forth by the word of truth, and that speaks of our standing; it speaks of our being born of God, but most of the book is about how we should live, how we should be doers of the word and not hearers only; it's about the state of the believer: how he lives his life.

Standing is who we are, while state is about our behavior.  The one does not guarantee the other, but our standing makes our state potential.

Christ is King

You may be hearing the statement lately that "Christ is king!"

It would be better to say, "Jesus is the Son of God!" 

"Christ" is just the English transliteration of the Greek word for the Hebrew word (transliterated as "messiah") for "anointed one" which was usually a king.  "Christ" is not a name for "Jesus." 

But if some are saying it as a political statement or to create division or to be offensive to non-Christian Jews who are religious—because Christian Jews and non-religious Jews wouldn't be offended, then they should say “Jesus is Son of God,” because non-Christian Jews who are religious believe that Christ is King; they just don't believe Jesus is the Christ.  Also, you can kill 2 birds with one stone by saying “Jesus is the Son of God,” since Muslims believe Jesus is the Christ, but not the Son of God—which they don't realize their error, because the Christ is the Son of God.

Are they purposely using that statement at this present time to cause division among those who hold similar conservative social views who are not Christians, such as certain Jews?

What's their intent here? 

Every Christian should know that Jesus is the Christ. It should not be a political statement with an ulterior motive to alienate certain social conservative Jews. But if that is their aim, then say “Jesus is the Son of God!”

3/17/2025 – 4/15/2026

differences division

The differences between Christians are ever growing.

Are the differences enough to alienate us from one another?

It is hard for two to walk together, if they are not in agreement (Amos 3:3).

It depends on the disagreements, and how they are handled.

God seems to use these disagreements for a purpose:

For first of all,

when you come together as a church,

I hear that there are divisions among you,

and in part I believe it.

For there must also be factions among you,

that those who are approved

may be recognized among you.

(1 Corinthians 11:18-19)

accountable faith

 In the context of doubtful things and Christian liberty, we read in the book of Romans, “whatever is not of faith is sin” (Romans 14:23). Christians in good conscience can disagree over what is acceptable to do. This can go beyond just what we can eat and drink—even though that is the main issue but involve social philosophy and the role of government. There are things that the Bible clearly identify as sin—even though those can be debated too.

We need to be true to our conscience and go with what we believe until otherwise persuaded differently. If you think someone is wrong or misinformed, then be willing to discuss the issue(s). The problem is whether we can follow Jame's directive: “let every man be swift to hear, slow to speak, slow to wrath; ²⁰ for the wrath of man does not produce the righteousness of God” (the book of James 1:19-20). Usually, no one wants to discuss the issues, or they only want their view heard or they get mad-which shuts the conversation down.

There is the fact that we are all ultimately accountable to God. The context of Romans 14 concerning doubtful things makes that point (14:7-12). That is what I say to those who ask me as to how someone can be a Christian and believe certain things that they (the one to asks me) find disagreeable or unacceptable. I say they are accountable to God just as you (the one asking) and I are. In the end, we are both accountable to God for what we believe and do.

Jame's Directive

If everyone could all live by these words, they could have more productive dialogue: “let every man be swift to hear, slow to speak, slow to wrath; for the wrath of man does not produce the righteousness of God” (the book of James 1:19-20). Unfortunately, people fail to respond in conversation according to this directive, and the conversation fails.

James also talks about asking for wisdom—if you lack it—and God will give it (James 1:5). This directive on how to respond is wisdom in itself, but there are a lot of tough issues--especially today-- of which we are faced, and it is hard to know how to respond to them.

We should pray for wisdom on how to respond to the issues. You should seek to be the person God wants you to be. That directive from the book of James is definitely wisdom on how God wants us to be. It's especially tough today with so much change in society and how people think about and respond to things.

Christ makes war

"What would Jesus do?"

The second coming of Christ will not be as the first coming of Christ, for Jesus will come to wage war against the beast and the false prophet and their kingdom and the nations of the earth.

This is what He will do at His coming: make war ...

11 Now I saw heaven opened, and behold, a white horse. And He who sat on him was called Faithful and True, and in righteousness He judges and makes war. 12 His eyes were like a flame of fire, and on His head were many crowns. He had a name written that no one knew except Himself. 13 He was clothed with a robe dipped in blood, and His name is called The Word of God. 14 And the armies in heaven, clothed in fine linen, white and clean, followed Him on white horses. 15 Now out of His mouth goes a sharp sword, that with it He should strike the nations. And He Himself will rule them with a rod of iron. He Himself treads the winepress of the fierceness and wrath of Almighty God. 16 And He has on His robe and on His thigh a name written:

KING OF KINGS AND
LORD OF LORDS.

Revelation 19:11-16

17 Then I saw an angel standing in the sun; and he cried with a loud voice, saying to all the birds that fly in the midst of heaven, 'Come and gather together for the supper of the great God, 18 that you may eat the flesh of kings, the flesh of captains, the flesh of mighty men, the flesh of horses and of those who sit on them, and the flesh of all people, free and slave, both small and great.'

Revelation 19:17-18

19 And I saw the beast, the kings of the earth, and their armies, gathered together to make war against Him who sat on the horse and against His army. 20 Then the beast was captured, and with him the false prophet who worked signs in his presence, by which he deceived those who received the mark of the beast and those who worshiped his image. These two were cast alive into the lake of fire burning with brimstone. 21 And the rest were killed with the sword which proceeded from the mouth of Him who sat on the horse. And all the birds were filled with their flesh.

Revelation 19:19-21

click to enlarge 

3rd day

 

Some believe the resurrection was on Wednesday or Thursday.

The main support is Matthew 12:40 saying “3 days and 3 nights.”

Mat 27:3 says “after three days” he would rise (they secure the grave for 3 days not 4). This view, Wednesday, puts the resurrection on Saturday,  after 72 hours in the grave, being Thurs, Fri, and Sat.

Jesus said he would rise on the third day.

Lk 9:22; 13:32-33 (notice the inclusive language of today, tomorrow, and third day), 18:33.

Luke 24 is especially a problem, since it is clearly Sunday, and it is said to be the third day. Luke 24:1, 6-7, 18-21: third day since “these things.”

So you have a resurrection on the third day, Sunday, yet a reference to 3 days and nights.

There is the Old Testament account of Joseph putting his brothers in prison for 3 days, and bringing them out of prison on the third day:  "¹⁷ So he put them all together in prison three days.

¹⁸ Then Joseph said to them the third day," Genesis 42:17-18.   It says they were in prison 3 days, yet he brought them out on the third day.

If you take a Wednesday view, why did they wait till Sunday to go to the tomb?   Why didn't they go Friday, if Thursday was a sabbath day for Passover week?  Some say they used Friday to prepare spices, but we are told that the women did that on the same day Jesus was crucified:  ⁵⁵ "And the women who had come with Him from Galilee followed after, and they observed the tomb and how His body was laid. ⁵⁶ Then they returned and prepared spices and fragrant oils. And they rested on the Sabbath according to the commandment." Luke 23:55-56

UFO demons

 In my teenage years, I was into the UFO stuff, and one of my favorite books was by Erich Von Daniken. titled “Chariots of the Gods.”

I wanted to believe.

I don't recall the exact timing of things, but I believe I was either 18 or 19 (1976-77) when I watched an episode of the Science program “NOVA” on PBS when they did a critique of Von Daniken's claims that we humans have been visited by Aliens.

NOVA demonstrated that he misrepresented the evidence for things like landing sites for UFOs. They demonstrated that he was a liar. I don't remember exactly how I felt about that, but I think I accepted their conclusions.

About that time, I think I was becoming more positive towards Christianity, and my views about UFOs and such were changing. I remember that it just dawned on me one day that the UFO phenomenon was a deception. I kind of remember the moment a thought entered my mind: “it's

I think if a person goes looking for a UFO encounter, they will eventually have one.

I remember a coworker told me they were reading a book called “Communion” by Whitley Strieber, which was claimed to be a true story involving the author of his encounter with an alien. The coworker told me that the book was so disturbing, that he had to physically remove the book from his bedroom at night before he could go to sleep.

I went to the local Library to find the book. I read through a major portion of it. It's been many years since I read the book, and going off memory, I recall how the author says he was staying at a remote residence of his. He says that while he was sleeping, he was awakened by something, and when he looked towards his door, he saw someone peeking at him through the bedroom door. I remember something about him floating out of his bed and along the floor and outside. Outside, this creature or creatures did some physically invasive things to him. I seem to recall that as days went on, he was experiencing agitation, and I think his wife did the same. I think he said there was some sort of UFO sighting or activity claimed in the area. You'd have to read the book to get the details. Like I said, it was many years ago that I read it.

I thought the title “Communion” made sense. It was a paranormal encounter.  I thought of the Scripture that says we are not to have fellowship with demons: “I do not want you to have fellowship with demons.” 1 Corinthians 10:20

Government intervention

 

I know this oversimplifies things, but the difference between social liberals and social conservatives is what they believe government intervention should be.

What one side believes should require more government intervention, the other side believes less, and vice-versa.

I believe this is true whether the issue is about abortion, immigration, gender issues, law and order, or making life fair. There can be exceptions from individual to individual, but groups usually stick together on an issue, especially those in government when it comes to voting.

Sometimes, it seems, that the opposition of a certain view of government intervention just depends on who is in political office. If someone like Trump is for something, those who oppose him are against it, even if they align with or voted for someone in the past who was for it. You can find YouTube videos of those who took the same stance on an issue as the opposing person that the opposition rejects.

People will disagree on the role of government as they do everything else. The division seems to be getting greater and more violent. It's hard to discuss the issues because people get so upset and angry. God give us wisdom on how to respond to this.

“² My brethren, count it all joy when you fall into various trials, ³ knowing that the testing of your faith produces patience. ⁴ But let patience have its perfect work, that you may be perfect and complete, lacking nothing. ⁵ If any of you lacks wisdom, let him ask of God, who gives to all liberally and without reproach, and it will be given to him.” James 1:2-5

^“18 For first of all, when you come together as a church, I hear that there are divisions among you, and in part I believe it. ¹⁹ For there must also be factions among you, that those who are approved may be recognized among you.” 1 Corinthians 11:18-19

^'17 Repay no one evil for evil. Have regard for good things in the sight of all men. ¹⁸ If it is possible, as much as depends on you, live peaceably with all men. ¹⁹ Beloved, do not avenge yourselves, but rather give place to wrath; for it is written, "Vengeance is Mine, I will repay," says the Lord. ²⁰ Therefore "If your enemy is hungry, feed him; If he is thirsty, give him a drink; For in so doing you will heap coals of fire on his head." ²¹ Do not be overcome by evil, but overcome evil with good.' Romans 12:17-21

“Do you have faith? Have it to yourself before God. Happy is he who does not condemn himself in what he approves. ²³ But he who doubts is condemned if he eats, because he does not eat from faith; for whatever is not from faith is sin.” Romans 14:22-23

^“10 For we must all appear before the judgment seat of Christ, that each one may receive the things done in the body, according to what he has done, whether good or bad.” 2 Corinthians 5:10-11

Apostles' Creed

 

I've been thinking about the “Apostles' Creed.” 

I think a few things could be reworded or shortened, 

and a few things should have been included...

click image to enlarge

NT Reliability

 

The Historical Reliability of the New Testament
by Craig L. Blomberg

I recently made it through this book of 725 pages.
I suppose it at least briefly dealt with
about every criticism of the New Testament.
I doubt few would want to read it,
but it could be a resource for answers
to questions about apparent inconsistencies
of a given text.

There is a subject index and a Scripture index.
Skeptics will never be satisfied,
for every answer has an argument against it.
I will give Scripture the benefit of the doubt.

Some quotes from the book...

“Growing up in a preInternet, pre-desktop-publishing world,
I never dreamed that if I ever got to write
real-live, peer-reviewed published books,
some of the perspectives I would have to rebut
would be those introduced in fictitious novels
or by self-published authors.

No one had conceived of the notion of a blog,
much less imagined that some people would think
that reading it was necessarily a means
of gaining accurate information.

Today, however, thanks to all these developments,
countless people around the world,
including some university professors,
believe that Constantine's calling
for the Council of Nicea in AD 325
led to the establishment of the canon of the New Testament.

That was a piece of fiction Dan Brown made up
in The Da Vinci Code and duped millions into believing.

The Council of Nicea was actually a gathering
of Christian bishops to debate Trinitarian doctrine;
its outgrowth, the Nicene Creed, is still recited regularly
in Eastern Orthodox, Roman Catholic,
and more liturgically minded Protestant churches,
enunciating what the vast majority of all Christians
through the centuries have believed
about the roles of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.

Constantine did commission Eusebius
to produce fifty new copies of the New Testament
to be distributed around the empire,
but that had nothing to do with any discussion
about which books should be included.
Eusebius, in fact, had already come to agree
with the twenty-seven that have remained
a part of the canon.

The councils that formally ratified these twenty-seven
were held in North Africa at Hippo (393) and Carthage (397)
at the end of the fourth century.

But Athanasius, bishop of Alexandria,
in 367 in his Easter-time encyclical
already compiled the same list of twenty-seven books,
officially endorsing them as uniquely worthy
of inclusion in the New Testament.”


“Despite frequent claims to the contrary,
the books of the New Testament
were copied with extraordinary care.

Because of the sheer volume of manuscripts,
both in Greek and in various other ancient languages
into which the Scriptures were translated,
there are an enormous number of textual variants.

But the vast majority of these are extremely minor,
and the size of the manuscript tradition
also makes it possible to determine
beyond any reasonable doubt
what the original reading would have been
in upwards of 99 percent of the text of the New Testament.

Where there still is uncertainty,
we can at least know that the original text
is represented by one of the variant readings
of a given passage.

We do not have to worry that some new discovery
could overthrow the testimony
of so many thousands of manuscripts
and their consistent usage
throughout the history of the church.

Certainly no theological doctrine
or ethical practice of the Christian faith
relies solely or even primarily
on any textually disputed passage or passages.”

Israel's distress

Click to enlarge 

AntiDispy

I’m in a Facebook discussion group called “I left dispensationalism behind.”

Dispensationalists—I’ll call them “Dispys”—understand certain prophecies to be unfulfilled while those who are called “Preterists” and “Historicists”--two major anti-Dispys in the group--believe have been fulfilled in the past or through history.

The Group gives criticisms of and answers for their anti-Dispy views.

Some of the big differences between Dispys and anti-Dispys (primarily the 2 major anti-Dispys) are the belief about the “70th Week of Daniel” (Daniel 9:24-27) and the future salvation of Israel as a people and nation of God for the 1000 year reign of Christ—the “Millenium”—after his Second Coming to earth.

Dispys believe the 70th Week of Daniel—a 7 year period—is the last 7 years before Christ returns during which the Antichrist will appear and reign, while anti-Dispys believe it was fulfilled during the ministry and death of Christ and the early advance of the gospel. The one group believe the 70^th Week is about Antichrist, while the other says it is about Christ.

Anti-Dispys don’t believe Israel as a nation will be saved and restored as the people of God at the coming of Christ, for the “Church” is the Israel of God.

Preterists believe most prophecy was fulfilled in the events of AD 70 with the destruction of Jerusalem, while Historicists would believe, in addition to the AD70 destruction of Jerusalem, that some prophecies were fulfilled later, such as the “lawless one” in Second Thessalonians 2:1-12, being the office of the pope—Preterists would say the lawless one was the Roman Emperor Nero. Dispys believe he is the final Antichrist.

Interestingly, Historicists believe that both Dispensationalism and Preterism was created by Jesuit Priests to take attention off the Pope as the “Lawless One” in Second Thessalonians 2:1-12.

The text of Second Thessalonians 2: 1-12 speaks of the revealing of the Lawless One when the Restrainer is removed. The revealing results in the Lawless One sitting in the Temple of God and showing himself as God. Historicists say it was the Roman Empire that restrained such an act of the papacy, but after the fall of the Western Roman Empire, the Pope could openly make such a claim in the Church (which they believe is the “Temple of God” in the text). Preterists believe the Lawless One was the Roman Emperor Nero, but the “abomination of desolation” spoken by Daniel and Jesus was the destruction of the temple by the Romans. Dispys say the Lawless One is the future Antichrist, and he is the same person as the “little horn” of Daniel 7 and “Beast” of Revelation 13 and 17. The act is in a future 3^rd Jewish Temple and is that abomination of desolation. After the act in the temple, in the middle of the 7 years, great tribulation will follow for 3 ½ years.

Dispys believe that the things Jesus spoke concerning—in the Olivet Discourse, being the time of the end of the age--were descriptive of how bad things will get on earth leading up to the Second Coming of Christ. Jesus said there would be wars and rumors of wars, famines, earthquakes, pestilence, persecution, and deception. Preterists and Historicists would identify these things with the period of AD70 and the destruction of Jerusalem.

Anti-Dispys would label Dispys as being doom and gloom, because Dispys see things getting worse as the age comes to a close, particularly those last 7 years.

Dispys believe Jesus will come the second time and end the time of great tribulation. Afterwards, Jesus will set up the 1000 year reign of the Millennial Kingdom (MK). Anti-Dispys believe Jesus comes after the MK, believing it is his authority exercised now on earth through the Church and the advance of the Gospel into the world.

Dispys believe with the return of Christ and the setting up of the MK that Israel will be restored as a people and nation as the people of God under the terms of the new Covenant. Christ will rule over the nations in a manifested way with the Law of God going forth from Jerusalem. Anti-Dispys say that the Church is Israel, and that national Israel has no future purpose as the people of God: there is no future MK after the return of Christ, for the MK is the reign of Christ now, of unspecified length—the 1000 years is not literal—or for a 1000 years yet to come through the advance of the Gospel before Christ Returns.

Time will tell.

Futurist Timeline

 click image to enlarge

Israel Again

 ²⁵ For I do not desire, brethren,
that you [gentiles] should be ignorant of this mystery,
lest you [gentiles] should be wise in your own opinion,
that blindness in part has happened to Israel
until the fullness of the Gentiles
has come in.

… if they [Israelites] do not continue in unbelief,
will be grafted in,
for God is able
to graft them in **again.**

²⁴ For if you [gentiles] were cut out of the olive tree
which is wild by nature,
and were grafted contrary to nature
into a cultivated olive tree,
how much more will these,
who are natural branches [Israelites],
be grafted into their own olive tree?
Romans 11:23-25

What does he mean by “graft them in again?”

Since there were already natural branches
still attached to the tree as believing Jews,
does this only apply to Jews living at the time of Paul,
who were broken off due to unbelief,
but if they would believe later, they could be reattached?

Because how could the word “again” apply?

Unless something more than individual salvation is in view,
a salvation that involves a people or nation...

²⁶ And so all Israel will be saved,
as it is written:
"The Deliverer will come out of Zion,
And He will turn away ungodliness from Jacob;
²⁷ For this is My covenant with them [Israel],
When I take away their sins."
²⁸ Concerning the gospel they [Israel] are enemies
for your [believing gentiles] sake,
but concerning the election
they are beloved for the sake of the fathers.
²⁹ For the gifts and the calling of God are irrevocable.
Romans 11:26-29

Charles Hodge from his Romans Commentary:

"Israel here must mean the Jewish people,
and 'all Israel' the whole nation. 
The Jews, as a people, are now rejected;
as a people they are to be restored. 
As their rejection, although national,
did not include the rejection of every individual,
so their restoration though national,
need not include the salvation of every Jew. 
All Israel does not mean all the true people of God,
as Augustine, Calvin, and others explain it;
nor all the elect Jews -- i.e., all that part of the nation
which constitute 'the remnant according to the election of grace'
--but the whole nation, as a nation.”

Charles Hodge, was a Presbyterian theologian of reformed theology
and was principal of Princeton Theological Seminary 
between 1851 and 1878.

Time of gentiles

Couldn't the "time of the gentiles"

be the time of their distress,

being the "Day of the Lord”?

The DOL is the Second Coming of Christ. Read 2Peter3.

See the use in Ezekiel:

"Wail, 'Woe to the day!'
For the day is near,
Even the day of the LORD is near;
It will be a day of clouds,

the time of the Gentiles.

Ezekiel 30:2-3

...Jerusalem will be trampled by Gentiles

until the times of the Gentiles are fulfilled.

²⁵ "And there will be signs in the sun, in the moon, and in the stars;

and on the earth distress of nations,

with perplexity, the sea and the waves roaring;

²⁶ men's hearts failing them from fear

and the expectation of those things which are coming on the earth,

for the powers of the heavens will be shaken.

²⁷ Then they will see the Son of Man coming

in a cloud with power and great glory.

²⁸ Now when these things begin to happen,

look up and lift up your heads,

because your redemption draws near."

Luke 21:24-28

Evil shaping identity

 A recent question was asked: couldn't God have created us with freewill without there being evil?

My response: I can only think that God could have created angels and man with a very limited free will in which they could not have disobeyed with the resulting evils, but it is not the world he created.

Angels and man were created with the ability to know and do evil.

Whether we like it or not.

But, He has also provided for deliverance from the consequences of evil, but it won't be fully realized until the new creation.

What's interesting is how what happens in this life is what shapes our identity--who we are.

If we have the salvation that comes through Christ, we will spend eternity with people who are likewise saved and have their own unique past life experiences that had a role in shaping their identity—who they were/ are.

Carcass Eagles Idiom

 ²³ "Then if anyone says to you, 'Look, here is the Christ!' or 'There!' do not believe it.

²⁴ For false christs and false prophets will rise and show great signs and wonders to deceive, if possible, even the elect.

²⁵ See, I have told you beforehand.

²⁶ "Therefore if they say to you, 'Look, He is in the desert!' do not go out; or 'Look, He is in the inner rooms!' do not believe it.

²⁷ For as the lightning comes from the east and flashes to the west, so also will the coming of the Son of Man be.

²⁸ For wherever the carcass is, there the eagles will be gathered together.”

Matthew 24:23-28

It's an idiom like "where there is smoke there's fire."

Jesus is answering the question of his disciples as to where the Second Coming will be.

He is saying it will be obvious.

And they answered and said to Him, "Where, Lord?" Luke 17:37

So He said to them, "Wherever the body is, there the eagles will be gathered together." Luke 17:37