| T.R | Title | User | Personal
Name | Date | Lines |
|---|
| 266.1 | Expanded Discussion | ISLNDS::COX | Ed Cox: II Cor 10:3-5 | Wed Aug 30 1989 14:07 | 66 |
|
This is a follow-up to the issue (in the base Note) of the
existence of prophets during the early NT Church as clearly seen in
the book of Acts.
I believe there are two ways to view this which are not
mutually exlusive of each other. The first is the view I mentioned
in the base note. I see no problem with the possibility that those
prophets who were already alive would live the remainder of their
lives in the calling they had already received. This would fit in
the same way that those over 120 years old were not immediately
killed when God shortened man's life span to 120 years. When we
look at Zechariah's use of the phrase "on that day" it is plain
that it is connected with the time frame of Christ. Whether it is
refering to the EXACT day or merely establishing a cause and effect
relationship is not determinable. We know that all scripture must
fit together and we know that some prophets ARE mentioned in the
NT. Taking a hint from the use of the same phrase in Deut
31:17-18, it becomes much more likely that "on that day" is a
reference to a descrete period of time INITIATED by the sacrifice
of Christ that would usher in a new period in which there would no
longer be any prophets. The existing ones would simply die off!
Another view also holds much credibility. The words that we
have translated as prophet from the Greek and Hebrew are not exact
equivalents. The prophets of the OT are relatively few in number
and held a very special type of authority and enjoyed a special
relationship with God. Even when the Jews rebelled against them
(or actually God) the impact they had was profound. At any given
time there were at most one or two "major" prophets and a few
"minor" prophets around. The messages they brought the people were
simply God's messgges, some of which also happened to deal with
future events. By contrast the prophets mentioned in Acts are
relatively numerous compared to the OT. Also, they do not appear
to be people with anything like the impact produced by the OT
prophets. For example we don't have a book of Agabus in the NT!
There seems to be a definitive difference in the nature of the
prophets mentioned in the NT verses the OT. None seemed to enjoy
the special direct relationship with God that was so prominent in
the OT. There is a very definite POSSIBILITY that when someone was
called a prophet during the time of the early Church that it did
not really mean the same thing that we read about in the OT. Since
a major portion of what an OT prophet did was simply speak God's
Word, the term could have been loosely applied to anyone who did
that regardless of whether the source was direct revelation or
reading scripture or quoting an Apostle. In this context, almost
anyone who boldly preaches the Word could be called a 'prophet',
but it is not the same as an OT prophet. I will admit there are
some problems with this view and I do not totally ascribe to it,
but there are some elements which can not be dismissed.
The bottom line is that all scripture MUST correlate together.
The OT pophecies are very plain and can not be dismissed. I have
yet to find a scripture which points the other way and promises
the presence of prophets for all time. I believe that a case could
also be made that since under the New Covenant Christians have
God's word written on their hearts, that there is no longer a NEED
for OT type prophets. That would be a topic for another note so
please don't start a rat hole on that one. I personally ascribe to
the first view and have no problem reconciling the existance of NT
prophets during the earliest years of the Church, but fully believe
that 2000 years is well beyond the point where Zechariah and Daniel
indicated where such prohecy and prophets would cease.
- Ed Cox
|
| 266.2 | Do not be deceived | CSCOA3::ROLLINS_R | | Wed Aug 30 1989 15:06 | 152 |
| This topic is being discussed quite thoroughly in the CHRISTIAN
notes file, 246.*
It is interesting to note that (IMO) most people responding to
Ed's note in the CHRISTIAN notes file are not in agreement with
his position.
One of they key points Ed tries to make is that the phrase
"on that day" must refer to the same day throughout both Zechariah 11
and Zechariah 12-13.
> The definitive authority on this subject is Zechariah and the
> key passage is 13:2-3. First, let's get a feel for the context. A
> key phrase that we must understand form his text is "ON THAT DAY".
> This is a phrase that repeatedly occurs throughout the book. We
> must know what he means by this. Look in 11:10-13:
> "Then I took my staff called Favor and broke it, REVOKING THE
> COVENANT I had made with all nations. It was revoked ON THAT DAY,
> and so the afflicted of the flock who were watching me knew it was
> the word of the Lord. I told them,'If you think it best, give me
> my pay; but if not, keep it.' So the paid me THIRTY PIECES OF
> SILVER. And the Lord said to me, 'Throw it to the POTTER' - the
> handsome price at which they priced me! So I took the THIRTY
> PIECES OF SILVER AND THREW THEM INTO THE HOUSE OF THE LORD TO THE
> POTTER."
> This is very easy to reference because it is obviously the
> prophesy of Christ being betrayed for thirty pieces of silver. It
> also refers to the revoking of a covenant. We know that the Old
> covenant was revoked when the New covenant came. It plainly states
> that the covenant was revoked "ON THAT DAY". Therefore the term
> "on that day" is refering to the time of Christ's sacrifice.
I don't think there is any question that this does refer to the time
of the atonement of Jesus Christ. However, Ed then tries to persuade
you that becuase the phrase "on that day" refers to that time during
the Zechariah 11 passage, it must also be the same time in Zechariah
12-13.
> Look also at 12:9-10:
> "ON THAT DAY I will set out to destroy all nations that attack
> Jerusalem. And I will pour out on the HOUSE OF DAVID and the
> inhabitants of Jerusalem a spirit of grace and supplication. They
> will look on me, the ONE THEY HAVE PIERCED, and mourn for him as
> one mourns for an ONLY CHILD, and grieve bitterly for him as one
> grieves for a FIRSTBORN SON."
> Here again we have a very plain prophecy about Christ and again
> it is tied very plainly to the term "on that day".
It is definately true that this is a prophecy about Christ; however,
it refers to the SECOND coming of Christ. Zechariah 12:3-10 discusses
a time when all the earth will gather against Jerusalem, but when the
Lord will shield Jerusalem, and "on that day" the Lord will seek to
destroy all who come against Jerusalem. At that point, Jerusalem
will recognize Christ as their Messiah, and there shall be great
mourning in the Land. On that day, when Judah recognizes their
Messaiah, shall cleansing be made available to them.
> In other words, the phrase "on that day" is nailed down as to
> its meaning. It is talking about either a specific day or period
> of time which is to be associated with the coming Christ when the
> New Covenant is established. There is nothing here that indicates
> that it is an extended age, or that it is talking about the end of
> time when Jesus is to return again. The phrase "on that day" is
> used as a litterary device to tie together several passages to
> identify them all with the same period of time.
There is really nothing to indicate that the term "on that day" is
any sort of a literary device such as what Ed tries to convince us
is the case. To determine if orthodox Christianity believed it to
be such, I went to a couple of libraries here in the Atlanta area,
to read Christian commentaries on Zechariah. Not one agreed with
Ed's conclusion that Zechariah 11 and Zechariah 12-13 are in any way
connected to each other. In fact, it appears that some of the texts
from which these passages have been translated actually have a heading
at the beginning of Zechariah 12, translated as "An Oracle," indicating
that Zechariah 12 is the beginning of a different oracle.
Only if one believes that Zechariah 11 and Zechariah 12-13 refer to the
same time period, would one have reason to think that prophecy after
the time of Christ should cease. In my opinion, Ed really has failed
to provide a substantive basis for his beliefs.
> As if this were not sufficient, there is a supporting verse in Daniel
> 9:24-26:
> "Seventy sevens are decreed for your people and your holy city to
> finish transgression, TO PUT AN END TO SIN, TO ATONE FOR
> WICKEDNESS, to bring in everlasting righteousness, to SEAL UP
> VISION AND PROPHECY and to ANOINT the most holy. Know and
> understand this: From the issuing of the decree to restore and
> rebuild Jeruslaem until the Anointed One, the ruler, comes, there
> will be seven sevens, and sixty-two sevens. It will be rebuilt
> with streets and a trench, but in times of trouble. After the
> sixty-two sevens, the Anointed One will be cut off and will have
> nothing. The people of the ruler who will come will destroy the
> city and the sanctuary."
> This prophecy is the clencher. Without need to know exactly
> what the seven sevens means, it plainly says that this period of
> time will transpire between the restoration of Jerusalem until the
> Anointed One comes. That is a distinct prophecy about Christ. It
> also associates that SAME period of time to be when sin will be
> atoned for - again pointing toward Christ. Then it says that
> VISION AND PROPHECY will be SEALED up at the same time. It is all
> in the same sentence. There is NO way to get around it here. At
> the time of Christ, vision and prophecy will come to an end! To
> finish the prophecy it even establishes that Christ would be killed
> and predicts the destruction of Jerusalem and the temple.
First of all, there is a need to know what the "seventy sevens" means;
in fact, it has been shown by most of the scholars whose commentaries
I read that the phrase thus translated was a common Hebrew phrase,
which refers to a period of 490 years. A key point to establish would
be when the 490 years would begin, which point is widely disputed in
Christendom. A substantial portion of the commentaries placed this at
the time of Jeremiah, which would indicate that this prophecy refers
to a time much prior to the time of Christ. Even Eusebius, who wrote
his commentaries in the very early days of the Christian church, and
who presumably would be more aware of the concensus of the feelings of
the church in those days, argued that this passage did not refer to
the Messiah, according to these commentaries.
However, it could refer to Christ, even though we might not be able
to prove it to everyone's agreement. I am even inclined to agree that
it does refer to Christ. However, Ed's interpretation of the word
"SEAL" in this prophecy is also questionable. The term used in the
Daniel prophecy is derived from the common practice in ancient days
that documents were "sealed" to document their authority; i.e., a king
would have his seal affixed to a document in order to demonstrate its
genuineness. The term seal is therefore often translated as "confirm,"
not "stop," as Ed would have you believe it MUST mean. In fact, at
least some of the modern translations I have seen have used the word
"confirm" in its translation of the phrase.
What a difference this makes in the understanding ! Vision and prophecy
is not being stopped, but being confirmed, by the coming of Christ !
> It is important for us to be well founded in scripture lest
> anyone deceive us with eloquent words for if we accept a false
> prophet we may be found guilty of participating in their ungodly
> deception. If anyone should approach you with eloquent words,
> wondrous experiences, or even a 'miracle' or two, then what should
> you accept - God's Word or man's word? Remember, God may be
> testing you!
I could not agree more. We must be very well founded in scripture,
lest men arise from among us speaking perverse things, to draw away
disciples after them (per Acts 20:30).
|
| 266.3 | What does "Seal" mean? | ISLNDS::COX | Ed Cox: II Cor 10:3-5 | Wed Aug 30 1989 15:23 | 48 |
|
In reference to the Daniel 9 passage and the use of the word
"seal", let us take a look at a few other passages to see how the
word is used. In Rev 10:4 it refers to not revealing something:
"Seal up what the seven thunders have said and do not write it
down."
Some people try to make the case that to seal means to confirm.
In Rev 22:10 this can not be the case or else the meaning would be
totally absurd!:
"Then he told me, "Do not seal up the words of the prophecy of this
book, because the ime is near."
This certainly could not mean, "Do not confirm the words of this
prophecy"! It has to mean do not reveal. The same meaning has to
be conveyed in all of Rev 6 where it speaks of the seven seals. In
this case each seal inhibits the occurance of something being
revealed until the time of it's removal.
It is most important to look at how Daniel himself uses the
word "seal". Look in Daniel 8:26:
"The vision of the evenings and mornings that has been given you is
true, but seal up the vision, for it concerns the distant future."
Here it would be redundant to tell Daniel to confirm the vision,
because he had just been TOLD IT WAS TRUE! Here to seal plainly
means to not reveal the vision. Now look at Daniel 12:4 & 9:
"But you, Daniel, close up and seal the words of the scroll until
the time of the end. Many will go here and there to increase
knowledge."
"He replied, 'Go your way, Daniel, because the words are closed up
and sealed until the time of the end."
This really leaves not doubt as to what "seal" means. In 12:4 it
even says that many go 'here and there to increase knowledge',
meaning that people will try to figure out what the sealed up
vision means.
As can be seen clearly from scripture, the word "seal" means to
not reveal, not to show, or not to give something. When applied to
sealing vision and prophecy it can only mean that vision and
prophecy will not be revealed, not shown, and not given.
- Ed Cox
|
| 266.4 | Who do you believe, scripture or comentaries? | ISLNDS::COX | Ed Cox: II Cor 10:3-5 | Wed Aug 30 1989 15:45 | 67 |
| RE:< Note 266.2 by CSCOA3::ROLLINS_R >
> One of they key points Ed tries to make is that the phrase
> "on that day" must refer to the same day throughout both Zechariah 11
> and Zechariah 12-13.
If you care to go through scripture, there are many such uses
of phrases such as this. A notable case in point is Deut 31:17-18
where there is no question as to its use.
> I don't think there is any question that this does refer to the time
> of the atonement of Jesus Christ. However, Ed then tries to persuade
> you that becuase the phrase "on that day" refers to that time during
> the Zechariah 11 passage, it must also be the same time in Zechariah
> 12-13.
I find nothing in scripture to tell me it is not. God gave me
the scripture to go by, not man's comentaries.
> It is definately true that this is a prophecy about Christ; however,
> it refers to the SECOND coming of Christ. Zechariah 12:3-10 discusses
> a time when all the earth will gather against Jerusalem, but when the
> Lord will shield Jerusalem, and "on that day" the Lord will seek to
> destroy all who come against Jerusalem. At that point, Jerusalem
> will recognize Christ as their Messiah, and there shall be great
> mourning in the Land. On that day, when Judah recognizes their
> Messaiah, shall cleansing be made available to them.
I'm sorry, but the prophetic evidence connects Zech 12-14 with
the first coming of Christ as was shown in the base note. To
connect the discussion of Jerusalem to the second coming of Christ
is to totally miss the meaning of the passage that is speaking in
figurative language about the coming Kingdom (Dan 2:44). Jersualem
refers to spiritual Israel, the Church. The battle refers to the
spiritual battle between God's kingdom and the nations of the
world - the raging of the nations against God's kingdom and his
judgement on them.
> There is really nothing to indicate that the term "on that day" is
> any sort of a literary device such as what Ed tries to convince us
> is the case. To determine if orthodox Christianity believed it to
> be such, I went to a couple of libraries here in the Atlanta area,
> to read Christian commentaries on Zechariah. Not one agreed with
> Ed's conclusion that Zechariah 11 and Zechariah 12-13 are in any way
> connected to each other. In fact, it appears that some of the texts
> from which these passages have been translated actually have a heading
> at the beginning of Zechariah 12, translated as "An Oracle," indicating
> that Zechariah 12 is the beginning of a different oracle.
Once again I refer you to Deut 31:17-18 for another example of
the use of such a litterary device.
> Only if one believes that Zechariah 11 and Zechariah 12-13 refer to the
> same time period, would one have reason to think that prophecy after
> the time of Christ should cease. In my opinion, Ed really has failed
> to provide a substantive basis for his beliefs.
Even if Zech 11 were shown to be separate from the remaining
chapters, there is sufficient prophetic evidence in chapters 12-14
to conclude that that they refer to the Messianic age and thus the
cessation of prophecy. Taken as a whole, the three passages from
Zechariah, Daniel, and Micah support each other in this conclusion.
In regards to the issue of the word "seal", I think that was
adequately dealt with in the preceding reply.
- Ed
|
| 266.5 | A famine of hearing the words of the Lord | RIPPLE::KOTTERRI | Rich Kotter | Wed Aug 30 1989 16:00 | 29 |
| Actually, Latter-day Saints believe that there *was* a time when the
prophets and revelation were stopped. We refer to it as the Apostasy,
and it occurred subsequent to the death of the New Testament apostles
and prophets, which the Holy Bible says were to be the foundation of
the church (Eph 2:19-20). We believe that many of those who wrote the
Holy Bible understood that such a time would come, and prophecied of
it. (For example, see notes 4.11 and 4.12 in this conference.)
We also believe that the Holy Bible prophesies that there would be a
restitution of all things, including living apostles and prophets, in
the latter days (also discussed in topic 4). The Book of Revelation
clearly talks about two prophets, for example, that would prophesy in
latter-day Jerusalem. How could this be if prophets had permanently
ended?
I think the solution to the dilemma that Ed has posed is that the
prophets *were* removed, for a time, but that there was to be a
restitution of prophets again in the latter-days. Amos prophesied that
there would be a famine in the land "of hearing the words of the Lord"
(Amos 8:11). He also said "Surely the Lord God will do nothing, but he
revealeth his secret unto his servants the prophets." (Amos 3:7).
I will agree with Ed that true prophets of God will not contradict that
which God has previously revealed, and that we must be careful who we
accept as a prophet. But I cannot agree with his assertion that God
will not call prophets in these the latter days.
In Christ's Love,
Rich
|
| 266.6 | Maybe there are no more secrets to reveal | ISLNDS::COX | Ed Cox: II Cor 10:3-5 | Wed Aug 30 1989 16:28 | 45 |
| RE:< Note 266.5 by RIPPLE::KOTTERRI "Rich Kotter" >
Rich,
Good to hear from you again! Just a though concerning one of
the verses you point out:
> He also said "Surely the Lord God will do nothing, but he
> revealeth his secret unto his servants the prophets." (Amos 3:7).
I can not seem to recall any passages that speak of God's
secrets as still needing to be revealed. One verse that comes to
mind is Rom 16:25-27:
"Now to him who is able to establish you by my gospel and the
proclamation of Jesus Christ, according to the revelation of the
mystery hidden for long ages past, but NOW REVEALED and made known
through the prophetic writtings by the command of the eternal God,
so that all nations might believe and obey him-".
Also I Peter 1:10-12:
"Concerning this salvation, the prophets, who spoke of the grace
that was to come to you, searched intentely and with the greatest
care, trying to find out the time and circumstances to which the
Spirit of Christ in them was pointing when he predicted the
sufferings of Christ and the glories that would follow. It was
revealed to them that they were not serving themselves but you,
when they spoke of the tings that HAVE NOW BEEN TOLD YOU by the
Holy Spirit sent from heaven."
Maybe it is that there are no more mysteries and secrets to
reveal and therefore no more need for the prophets. This would
seem to be supported by II Peter 1:3:
"His divine power has given us EVERYTHING WE NEED for life and
godliness through our knowledge of him who called us by his own
glory and goodness."
If indeed we have everything that we need, then there would no
longer be any mysteries needing revealing, and thus no need for the
prophets. Yes Amos is right, the secrets of God are revealed by
his prophets, but not if there is no more to reveal.
- Ed
|
| 266.7 | I respect your opinion, but I feel it's just that | CSCOA3::ROLLINS_R | | Wed Aug 30 1989 16:49 | 82 |
| Regarding the term "seal" :
I didn't claim that the word translated as "seal" couldn't mean
"stop" but that it does not always mean stop. I then pointed out
that at least some of the modern translators have used the word
"confirm" in their translation. I'll try to spend some time in
the next couple of weeks looking at translations to see what has
been written and said regarding the translation of this passage.
Nevertheless, I think there is reasonable evidence to suggest that
your interpretation isn't the only reasonable interpetation of it.
Balanced with the rest of scripture, I am willing to say that Daniel
was not saying what you suggest.
Regarding your Zechariah commentary:
>> One of they key points Ed tries to make is that the phrase
>> "on that day" must refer to the same day throughout both Zechariah 11
>> and Zechariah 12-13.
> If you care to go through scripture, there are many such uses
> of phrases such as this. A notable case in point is Deut 31:17-18
> where there is no question as to its use.
I don't doubt that there are many times when it is used as you suggest.
I even believe that is how it is used in Zechariah 11. There is no
reason to believe it ALWAYS means that.
>> I don't think there is any question that this does refer to the time
>> of the atonement of Jesus Christ. However, Ed then tries to persuade
>> you that becuase the phrase "on that day" refers to that time during
>> the Zechariah 11 passage, it must also be the same time in Zechariah
>> 12-13.
> I find nothing in scripture to tell me it is not. God gave me
> the scripture to go by, not man's comentaries.
I didn't say that scripture said it is not. However, scripture doesn't
say that it does, either. I see no scripture that says that the term
"on that day" refers exclusively to the time of the atonement of Christ,
nor have I found any reputable scholar who makes such a claim.
>> It is definately true that this is a prophecy about Christ; however,
>> it refers to the SECOND coming of Christ. Zechariah 12:3-10 discusses
>> a time when all the earth will gather against Jerusalem, but when the
>> Lord will shield Jerusalem, and "on that day" the Lord will seek to
>> destroy all who come against Jerusalem. At that point, Jerusalem
>> will recognize Christ as their Messiah, and there shall be great
>> mourning in the Land. On that day, when Judah recognizes their
>> Messaiah, shall cleansing be made available to them.
> I'm sorry, but the prophetic evidence connects Zech 12-14 with
> the first coming of Christ as was shown in the base note. To
> connect the discussion of Jerusalem to the second coming of Christ
> is to totally miss the meaning of the passage that is speaking in
> figurative language about the coming Kingdom (Dan 2:44). Jersualem
> refers to spiritual Israel, the Church. The battle refers to the
> spiritual battle between God's kingdom and the nations of the
> world - the raging of the nations against God's kingdom and his
> judgement on them.
In my opinion, to ignore the connection of Jerusalem in this passage
is to totally miss the meaning of the passage. I don't think there
is reason to assume this is figurative language when it correlates
well with other scripture which discusses the second coming of Christ.
I don't agree that this refers to a spiritual battle; I feel that
it is a vision of the final days. While you don't agree, the evidence
that I have read indicates to me that most of orthodox Christianity
sees it in the same light as I have suggested. I know that the LDS
church regards it in that light.
> Even if Zech 11 were shown to be separate from the remaining
> chapters, there is sufficient prophetic evidence in chapters 12-14
> to conclude that that they refer to the Messianic age and thus the
> cessation of prophecy.
I guess we'll agree to disagree that chapters 12-14 bear any relation
to the first coming of our Lord. I am willing to let the Spirit bear
witness to the meaning of these scriptures to those who read them,
whatever that truth might be.
|
| 266.8 | Revelation | RIPPLE::KOTTERRI | Rich Kotter | Wed Aug 30 1989 20:12 | 57 |
| Re: Note 266.6 by ISLNDS::COX
Hi Ed,
> Maybe it is that there are no more mysteries and secrets to
> reveal and therefore no more need for the prophets.
How do you explain the prophecy that there would be two prophets
who would prophesy in Jerusalem before the coming of the Lord, as
found in Revelation?
> This would
> seem to be supported by II Peter 1:3:
>
> "His divine power has given us EVERYTHING WE NEED for life and
> godliness through our knowledge of him who called us by his own
> glory and goodness."
The KJV has this passage as follows:
According as his divine power hath given unto us all things
that pertain unto life and godliness, through the knowledge
of him that hath called us to glory and virtue
The meaning here is a bit different. It doesn't necessarily say that we
have been given all that we need. I could also mean that all the things
that pertain unto life and godliness that we have been given have been
given by his divine power. In any case, I do not argue with Peter's
basic premise that those things which do pertain to life and godliness
do come to us by his divine power. This is consistent with LDS
doctrine.
If we take Peter's passage to mean that they had been given all that
they need at that time, I would agree also. But it does not necessarily
mean that God would not deem that we, in our day, do not need
additional revelation. For example, a prophet in our time received a
revelation that tobacco is not good for the body, and its use should be
avoided. This was not needed in Peter's day, but is applicable in our
day. Prophets in our day have given the word of the Lord regarding the
evil of abortion, a subject that was not a problem in Peter's day, but
very much applicable in our day, and very much debated by even those
who call themselves Christians.
God gives revelations to meet the needs of the people to whom they are
given. This is the reason why prophets are needed and why God has
called them also in our day.
> Yes Amos is right, the secrets of God are revealed by
> his prophets, but not if there is no more to reveal.
Perhaps, but that is for God to decide, and not for man. I bear witness
that God has revealed many important things pertaining to the kingdom
of God in our day to living prophets, and that He will yet reveal many
things.
In Christ's Love,
Rich
|
| 266.9 | Don't obscure the clear with the unclear | ISLNDS::COX | Ed Cox: II Cor 10:3-5 | Thu Aug 31 1989 10:35 | 57 |
| RE:< Note 266.8 by RIPPLE::KOTTERRI "Rich Kotter" >
Rich,
> How do you explain the prophecy that there would be two prophets
> who would prophesy in Jerusalem before the coming of the Lord, as
> found in Revelation?
First off, that passage never says anything about being before
the coming of the Lord. Secondly, the exact timeframe and meaning
of that passage (Rev 11) is anything but certain. I can see
several different ways of understanding it. First, it is not at
all certain that it is speaking of two literal men at all. If it
is, then it could be a reference to Peter and Paul and provides a
glimpse of the victory those men gained at their death. It could
be a figurative reference to the two covenants, both old and new
and symbolizes their collective victory in God's eye.
Nevertheless, there is strong evidence that this passage does NOT
refer to the future at all.
Notice ths passage occurs between the sixth and seventh
trumpets. At the seventh trumpet, this is said:
"The kingdom of the earth has become the kingdom of our Lord and of
his Christ, and he will reign for ever and ever."
Despite the usual tendency to automatically assgin this to mean the
end of time and the entrance of the saved into heaven, it is
necessary that we interpret it based on scriptural precedents.
When the Bible speaks of God's kingdom, more often than not it is
refering to the Church. In the OT, the word church did not exist
yet. When the church was prophecied about, it was refered to as a
kingdom. This is why Jesus introduced most of his parable with the
phrase, "The kingdom of heaven is like...". See Daniel 2:44-45.
This is a direct prophecy about the establishment of the Church.
Likewise, when Jesus prayed in the Lord's Prayer for "thy Kingdom
come...on earth as it is in heaven", that is what he is praying for
- for the coming of the kingdom on earth, the Church. The passage
concerning the seventh trumpet is most likely a reference to the
establishment of that kingdom. If that is correct, then the
chronology of Chapter 12 works out very nicely telling of the birth
of Christ. The portion about the war in heaven and Satan being
hurled out is a flach-back recounting the pre-history fall of
Satan. That it is a flash-back is clear from the fact that the
narative picks back up with the persecution of the woman and the
child by Satan.
Thus, all this points to the probable conclusion that the two
witnesses (not prophets in the NIV) are a direct or figurative
reference within the timeframe of the Old Testament. If this is
the case then there is no conflict with the passages dealing with
the cessation of prophecy. Indeed, the passages dealing with the
cessation of prophecy are far more clear and understandable than
the passage in Revelation and thus should take precedence in
interpretation!
- Ed
|
| 266.10 | Thanks | RIPPLE::KOTTERRI | Rich Kotter | Thu Aug 31 1989 20:32 | 5 |
| Thanks, Ed, for explaining how you view the reference to the two
prophets in the book of Revelation.
In Christ's Love,
Rich
|
| 266.11 | "IT IS WRITTEN" means just that! | RIPPLE::SHUBINGE | | Thu Nov 02 1989 20:40 | 166 |
| Rich, I must disagree with you about your statement regarding the
need of a "revelation" from God condemning abortion. You inferred
that it wasn't a problem in those days. In fact, it was very much
a problem. The early church didn't need special "revelators" to
tell them right from wrong. They already had the Scriptures in
what we call the Old Testament, in what Paul told Timothy could
lead him unto salvation. They also had the Holy Spirit living within
them, bringing into remembrance the teachings of Christ, guiding
them unto all truth.
Abortion was entirely legal within the Roman empire, and the early
church instituted severe penalties against any members involved
in this very common practice. At the same time the church dealt
with the consequences of the abortions. Since not all abortions
were successful in killing the baby, the infants were usually promptly
abandoned under bridges and other places.
The Christians made it their habit immediately to go to the places
where these babies were abandoned (to be devoured, as Tertullian
said, by wild dogs) and rescue them, parcelling them out to families
that would raise them as their own. Rome was very indignant about
this practice. As a matter of fact, they legislated against it.
This tells us something of the life of faith of those early believers,
who obeyed God from the already-revealed Scriptures, and from the
teachings of the Apostles. They had already been given "all things
pertaining to life and godliness". They didn't sit around with
a false spirituality, waiting for God to tell them which pant leg
to put on first! They went out DID what Christ asked them to do.
AND THESE WERE YOUR APOSTATES, BECAUSE THIS ALL TOOK PLACE LONG
AFTER THE APOSTLES DIED.
I don't want to get into a rathole about the fictional Great Apostasy,
but no amount of assertions or bearing witness on anyone's part
is proof that one actually happened. Yes, the Catholic Church had
its problems. Yes, there were abuses. But a total apostasy requiring
a restoration 1600 years later is not evident, given a familiarity
of Christian history. And it contradicts Christ's words, making
him sadly mistaken, or worse, a liar.
----------------------- anyway....... ------------------------
(Please excuse me for going on and on. I get agitated when the
subject comes to killing babies.)
The point is this: people who call themselves Christians but don't
trust the Bible (ie. it's corrupted, it's fallible, it doesn't address
issues for us today, etc.) need a "prophet" to give them direction.
Their distrust has cut their moorings free from the secure havens
of all those "things pretaining to life ang godliness", so all they are
left with is just their own opinions, or "interpretations" as some of
the participators like to call it. They need some distinctive,
some device to get that security back, to "know" they are right,
to "know" all other churches are wrong. A "prophet" and new
"scriptures" fit the bill and provide that platform for feeling
better than those poor souls who haven't got a chance at godhood.
On the other hand, Mr. Cox and I and other believers who clearly see
the Providential Hand of God in preserving His Word throughout history,
and have the unreserved confidence in it that Christianity has had
for almost 2000 years, believe just what it says: "we have been
given all things pertaining unto life and godliness". It's not
that God has revealed all secrets to us. Somethings He has deemed
not needful for us to know. Moses said that those things are for
God to know. We don't need them, not when He has given us "all
things" for our salvation and godly life.
But there are always people who want something more, something special,
something that will make them "better". In reality, in their chase
for that elusive new "truth", they minimize, even denigrate, that
which has already been established. Joseph Smith and the early
Mormons had to do this to establish the "validity" of a "restoration".
That tradition is still being followed today by all factions of
the "restored church", be it LDS, RLDS, Temple Lot, Bickertonites,
etc. All of them have the one and only true church on earth, and
all of them have the only true "prophet" of God, and all of them
claim the only valid succession to the original organization of
1830.
Something ain't kosher.
That something is this: when you follow "wizards who peep and mutter",
when you have "itching ears", when you "follow after doctrines of
demons", when you are never "coming unto the knowledge of truth",
then you are subject to a "strong delusion, so that [you] believe
a lie". Why is this "strong delusion" sent? "Because they loved
not the truth". What is that truth? That not one of God's words,
"not one jot nor tittle shall pass away".
The Bible was not corrupted. There was no Great Apostasy. There
was no "restoration". There were no Nephite nor Lamanite
civilizations. Men do not become Gods. (God said so!)
Joseph Smith was indeed a "wizard who peeps and mutters", although not
a very good one. But he was able to find weak and credulous people
with "itching ears", who looked for the fantastic and the unique to
raise themselves above others. Not satisfied with the teachings
of Christ and the Apostles, they had to have "more".
Such are all prophets of the latter days. (Incidentally, did you know
that the "last days" started way back in the book of Acts? Just
ask Peter.)
I have been exposed to many, many so-called prophets in my life,
from the LDS/RLDS mode, the Jehovah Witness type, the Moonie type,
the Children of God type, the faith healer type, to some that none
of the "noters" of this conference have ever hear of. I have been
exposed to prophesies, healings, spiritual manifestations, and cases
of demon-possession. I've seen it! Most of it is nonsense.
The Bible is the Christian's standard. It is our "operator's manual",
or "guide book", our "rule book". It is totally reliable and
applicable in all areas of our life. When someone "testifies" that
something is so-and-so, when someone "bears witness" that something
else is such-and-such, and when those testimonies and witness bearings
don't stand up to the light of scripture, then they are wrong.
It doesn't matter how much a "prophet" peeps and mutters, or how
many "miracles" he had performed. If it's non-Biblical, then it's
flat-out wrong. That is how I have found most of those things I have
experienced to be nonsense. They just didn't hold up to the truth
of God's Word.
That is a stance that those of the Mormon persuasion can't swallow,
except when they apply it to Christian churches, because the underlying
assumption (indeed, the necessity of the assumption) is that all
other churches are still in a state of apostasy, that Joseph Smith
was a prophet of God, that the Book of Mormon is true. Prove these
three items false, and the whole LDS/RLDS structure collapses.
Therefore, no LDS/RLDS member can afford to honestly entertain an
objective investigation into these areas. They have to keep
"asserting", "bearing witness", "proclaiming", "avowing", etc.
They have to raise shadow arguments to avert attention. They have
to obfuscate clear points and muddy clear waters with illogic and
empty philosophies of how difficult it is to communicate ideas to
one another (especially how hard it is for God to talk to us in
a way we can understand. What a weak God. He must have really
meant something else!)
New "revelations" and the desire for such are only an excuse for
wanting to believe what you want in the first place. Then those
poor people who come much later, who want to follow God, and are
fooled into making a commitment to the "prophet" are brought in bondage
to false teaching and come under the delusion. They now have a
vested interest in defending the "prophet". It would hurt too much
to discover to be living in great error. So they "lean unto their
own understanding" in defending the stance they've taken, rather
than loving the "way the truth and the life" that "sets all men
free".
I stand with Luther: "SOLA SCRIPTURA", the Scriptures (Bible) only.
All other stances can only detract from the Bible. And THAT is
the effect so-called "prophets" have. That was true of the false
prophets described in the book of Acts. It has been true of all
false prophets throughout history, from year 1 through year 1830
to today. It's true with the Jehovah Witnesses, just as it's true
in the LDS/RLDS tradition. (Please don't protest that the LDS treat
the Bible on an equal footing with the BoM, the BoA, the D&C, or
even the words of the living "prophet". I've had too many LDS
missionary encounters and have read too much of the LDS literature.
I know better.)
Your's in Christ,
George Shubin
|
| 266.12 | Some thoughts | RIPPLE::KOTTERRI | Rich Kotter | Fri Nov 03 1989 00:54 | 126 |
| Re: Note 266.11 by RIPPLE::SHUBINGE
Hi George,
Nice to hear from you.
I wasn't aware that abortion was such a common practice in the days of
Rome. Thanks for the enlightenment. I don't doubt that the sincere
followers of Christ tried to resist this evil in that day, as well as
in ours. The thing that sets me off is those in our day who call
themselves Christians and yet promote, support, permit, or ignore this
evil practice. Those that Mormons sustain as prophets in our day have
soundly denounced this practice, as have many other Christians.
> The early church didn't need special "revelators" to
> tell them right from wrong. They already had the Scriptures in
> what we call the Old Testament, in what Paul told Timothy could
> lead him unto salvation. They also had the Holy Spirit living within
> them, bringing into remembrance the teachings of Christ, guiding
> them unto all truth.
If the early church did not need additional revelation, beyond the Old
Testament and the guidance of the Holy Spirit, then why did God give
the writings and revelations included in the New Testament?
The Mormon belief is that it is God's will to always have living
prophets upon the earth, through whom He guides the work of His church
in an on-going fashion. The only exceptions to this are the periods of
apostasy that have occurred from time to time when God has taken the
prophets from among the people because of disobedience. Once such
period was the period of several hundred years between the end of the
Old Testament and the beginning of the New Testament. Even the New
Testament declares that apostles and prophets are the very foundation
of the church (Ephesians 2:19-20), and that they are given for the
perfecting of the saints and for the work of the ministry and until we
all come into a unity of the faith and of the knowledge of the Son of
God. (Eph 4:11-14).
> I don't want to get into a rathole about the fictional Great Apostasy,
> but no amount of assertions or bearing witness on anyone's part
> is proof that one actually happened. Yes, the Catholic Church had
> its problems. Yes, there were abuses. But a total apostasy requiring
> a restoration 1600 years later is not evident, given a familiarity
> of Christian history.
The New Testament teaches us that Christ gave authority to his apostles
by ordaining them. It also teaches us that no man may take upon himself
God's authority, but he must be called, as was Aaron. Aaron, as you
will recall, was called by revelation to a living prophet and ordained
by one who had authority from God.
If we are to believe that this issue of authority, as taught in the
Holy Bible, is important, then we must ask what is the source of
authority in the Christian sects of today. Did it descend through the
Catholic church, as they claim? If so, then does the Catholic church
remain the repository of this authority, or did they willingly give
this authority to the other sects that since sprang up? If not
willingly, then did these other sects take God's authority to
themselves, against the counsel of the Holy Bible? Where do we see
those with God's authority who have been called as was Aaron?
You see, the apostolic authority that Christ bestowed was not found on
the earth in 1830. There were none who had been called as had Aaron or
as had Christ's ancient apostles. For this reason, God sent John the
Baptist and Peter, James and John as heavenly messengers to restore
this same authority that they had received in their mortal lives.
> The point is this: people who call themselves Christians but don't
> trust the Bible (ie. it's corrupted, it's fallible, it doesn't address
> issues for us today, etc.) need a "prophet" to give them direction.
If this is so, then why did God give prophets to the people of the New
Testament? Was it because they did not trust the scriptures that God
had given previously? No. Neither is it the case today. Mormons do
believe the Holy Bible to be the word of God AND we believe that God
has given living prophets, just as he gave them to the people of the
Holy Bible.
> But there are always people who want something more, something special,
> something that will make them "better".
I, for one, will take *anything* that God will give me that will make
me a "better" man. Not "better" than you, but "better" than I was
before.
> Therefore, no LDS/RLDS member can afford to honestly entertain an
> objective investigation into these areas. They have to keep
> "asserting", "bearing witness", "proclaiming", "avowing", etc.
On the contrary, Latter-day Saints are actively *encouraged* to
objectively and vigorously investigate all teachings of the church. For
us, the primary witness of the truth of these things is the testimony
to one's own soul from God himself that these things are true ("ask and
ye shall receive"). Shouldn't we, as did Peter and Paul and many
others, also affirm that to be true that the Holy Spirit has revealed
to us?
> Please don't protest that the LDS treat
> the Bible on an equal footing with the BoM, the BoA, the D&C, or
> even the words of the living "prophet".
Latter-day Saints believe that the Holy Bible is the word of God, so
far as it has been translated correctly. I think that you will agree
that some translations are better than others. Some are down right
wrong in places, but the original text was not wrong.
In spite of the above qualification, I am willing to assert that
Latter-day Saints take the Holy Bible, even in its present
translations, more literally and believe in and practice its teachings
more completely than any other Christian sect. In other words, some
will try to tell you that we use the above qualification as an excuse
to reject what is in the Holy Bible and to believe many things that are
in conflict with the Holy Bible. Such is not the case.
It would be more correct to say that Mormons believe that some parts of
the Holy Bible have become more difficult to understand than the
original was, than to say that we believe that the Holy Bible is
largely corrupted. In spite of this, we still claim that the teachings
found in the Holy Bible, even in its present form, are correct
teachings and that they should be adhered to. We further claim that the
other latter-day scriptures are in harmony with, and testify of, and
support the teachings of the Holy Bible.
In Christ's Love,
Rich
|
| 266.13 | Good, Better, Best | XCUSME::QUAYLE | i.e. Ann | Fri Nov 03 1989 11:38 | 27 |
| Re .13
> to "know" all other churches are wrong. A "prophet" and new
> "scriptures" fit the bill and provide that platform for feeling
> better than those poor souls who haven't got a chance at godhood.
George, who are the "souls who haven't got a chance at godhood"?
I believe that all the children of God have been given the opportunity
of eternal progression. I don't know (nor do I wish to know) who,
if any, of my brethren have halted their progression. If such
knowledge *were* mine, would I feel I was better than they? Instead,
I think I would grieve.
Rich, thank you for your beautifully expressed point in .12. I,
too, want to be better than I am and to progress toward the best I
can become - not measured against the progression of others, but
using as a measure what our Heavenly Father knows I can be.
I gratefully acknowledge that I do want "something more, something
special, something that will make [me] 'better'" than I can be of
myself. I am thankful for the atonement of our Savior, free agency,
repentance, and the miracle of forgiveness. Without these gifts
I am helpless; whereas with God, nothing is impossible.
aq
|
| 266.14 | | BSS::RONEY | Charles Roney | Fri Nov 03 1989 11:40 | 58 |
|
RE: Note 266.11 RIPPLE::SHUBINGE
George,
I am very interested in the Bible supporting God condemning abortion.
Maybe you could give us the scriptural references?
> civilizations. Men do not become Gods. (God said so!)
I would also appreciate the scripture references that specifically
say where God said men do not become Gods.
> There was no Great Apostasy. There was no "restoration".
Repent ye therefore, and be converted, that your sins may be
blotted out, when the times of refreshing shall come from the
presence of the Lord; And he shall send Jesus Christ, which
before was preached unto you; Whom the heaven must receive
until the times of restitution of all things, which God hath
spoken by the mouth of all his holy prophets since the world
began. (Acts 3:19-21)
Here I see reference to Christ's second coming, and the fact that
He must wait "until the times of restitution of all things, which
God hath spoken by the mouth of all his holy prophets since the world
began." And it seems that this event was seen by more than one of
God's prophets! However, I do have a hard time understanding WHY
he must wait for a "restitution" if nothing fell away. Now I began
to have even more trouble understanding the Bible when Paul tells us
that :
Now we beseech you, brethren, by the coming of our Lord Jesus
Christ, and by our gathering together unto him, That ye be
not soon shaken in mind, or be troubled, neither by spirit,
nor by word, nor by letter as from us, as that the day of
Christ is at hand.
Let no man deceive you by any means: for that day shall not
come, except there come a falling away first, and that man of
sin be revealed, the son of perdition; (2 Thessalonians
2:1-3)
Again is a reference to Christ's second coming, but the fact is
plainly stated (at least as far as I can read) that He will not
come "except there come a falling away first."
Would you please explain why there was no "Great Apostasy" (or falling
away) with an accompanying "restoration" (or restitution of all things).
Or are we still waiting for it?
Or had it already happened before 1830?
Charles
|
| 266.15 | Potted psychology, or what? | KERNEL::BARTLEY | | Sat Nov 04 1989 19:30 | 39 |
| .11
> need a "prophet" to give them direction.
> Their distrust has cut their moorings free
> They need some distinctive, some device to get that security back, (etc)
> But there are always people who want something more, something special,
> something that will make them "better".
> In reality, in their chase for that elusive new "truth", they minimize,
> even denigrate, that which has already been established.
> New "revelations" and the desire for such are only an excuse for
> wanting to believe what you want in the first place.
> It would hurt too much to discover to be living in great error. So they
> "lean unto their own understanding" in defending the stance they've
> taken, rather than loving the "way the truth and the life" that "sets
> all men free".
This kind of pseudo-psychology makes me shudder. It seems to me to be the
grossest arrogance for someone to tell me that "I need a prophet because..",
"I feel insecure because...", "I need some distinctive....", "I don't love
the way, the truth and the life...", etc.
Who has the right to tell me what I think and why? Who has the right to tell
me that I have not had personal revelation, that I do not love my Saviour, that
I am weak and feeble and need to invent crutches?
Now if you were to accuse me of not having quite as much patience or tolerance
as I ought, I might accede to that. :-)
I admire the responses of Rich and Ann and Charles for their restraint and
their insight.
George, I didn't like what you said in .11 one little bit, as you might expect.
Of course my best friends sometimes say things I don't like, and I sometimes
say things they don't like............. Oh well!
Regards,
Theo
|