Hey guys, join Truth Be Told!!! See you there soon!😄😁😆😃😀
Lol, that's ok 😅😂 I could be wrong, but it's just my little hypothesis/opinion 🙃
I’m not sure I agree with that.🤔😅 The second on I agree.
Also, I think the mark of the beast will be something that is forced, in essence, since no one will be able to buy or sell without it, so it will make life basically impossible for those who don't get it, and they will also most likely be killed as well. But I don't think it will be forced in a way where someone could accidentally end up with the mark, since those who get it will make a conscience decision to do so, and likewise with those who refuse it.
Lol I'll try to explain my point a little better 😅 So before the rapture and tribulation occur, I believe there will still be judgements of God on the earth. At that time, the seal of God is placed on the saints, and they are shielded from those judgements. Finally, those saints with the seal are raptured, and now the believers in the tribulation will need to resist the mark of the beast in order to be saved by God.
I don’t think from reading the passages that the mark of the beast is something you could be forced to get. Persuaded or deceived perhaps, but not forced
Not saying this is gonna happen.😅
🤔, no exactly… so, your saying if believers a raptured during the tribulation, than these people will have the marks(and it will protect them from judgements before the rapture). But, if believers are raptured before the tribulation than they won’t be sealed and there choice to get the mark or not will determine wether there saints? I’m not really seeing how you’re getting this. Also, another interesting thing, also in the left behind series there’s a dilemma where a tribulation believer has the Mark of the beast. He (in some certain way) was forced to get it. What do you think about this?
Oh, just for clarification, I wasn't saying the seal of God would protect tribulation saints, but that it protects the saints that will be raptured, from the earlier judgements (Since Rev 7:3 indicates that). Also, about that same question of Will's, if those who are sealed by God are raptured before the tribulation, that may imply that the tribulation saints don't get that seal, but instead must resist taking the mark of the beast, which will in essence, mark them as saints, since they don't have the mark of the beast. Does that make any sense? 😅
I think your answers make sense. I’ll have to look at it again, I haven’t studied it a lot
I don’t think that Gods mark will protect the tribulation believers from the judgements. Also, to Wills question about those marked will Gods mark not getting the Mark of the Beast… These people are now Christians (if you believe what Roger and I mentioned), so they would resist the mark and wouldn’t get it. Since they would need it to do the common things of life and be seen in public they would suffer much persecution (if not death). Does this make sense? I didn’t word this very well.😅
Well, the mark of the beast is Satan's counterfeit of the seal of God, obviously. But, just another interesting thing I've noticed is that in Rev 9:4, they're told to only harm those who do not have the seal of God on their foreheads, so that's like the separating factor. But once you get to like Rev 16:2, it refers to the separating factor as whether they have the mark of the beast or not. So it almost seems like those who have the seal of God are already taken from the earth, so it's now just a matter of who has the mark of the beast and who doesn't. 🤔 Idk whether there will be a seal of God on saints that end up in the tribulation, but it almost seems like (and again, I'm not completely sure) that the seal of God, earlier in Revelation, marks those who will be raptured 🤷♂️ And that it also protects them from the earlier judgements, like the trumpets.
I don’t know much about it, but I do know that in the left behind series this is the mark is a mark given by the Lord to tribulation believers. However, I don’t know how correct this is biblically. Roger might be able to give a better answer.
Question for whoever sees this: what is the mark of the Lamb? And is it true that those with the mark of the Lamb won’t get the mark of the beast? (looking at Revelation 7:3, 9:4, 13:16-17, 14:1, 14:9-11, 16:2, 19:20, 20:4, and 22:4)
Alright,👍🏼 there are lots of theories.😁
Oh ok. 😅 I definitely believe that America is Babylon, for so many reasons. If you look at the description of Babylon in the Bible, there's no other country today that fits that like the US does. Also, I still do tend to think that Obama is the antichrist, although I'm not dogmatic on that, and I could be wrong 🙃
I haven’t done much study, but I don’t think so.😅 If you still believe Obama is the antichrist than do you think that? I don’t have much of a stance on those things cuz I’m not expecting to be there.😁
Btw, do you believe that America is modern day Babylon?
Yup 😆 Gotta be ready for the Lord's return, but also ready to hang in there for the long haul if we're here for longer than expected 😅😂
Yeah, things are bad, things are happening in the Middle East (with the countries it talks about in the Bible). However, you never know.😉😆
Yup, I agree 👍🙃 Well, given the present condition of the world and just kinda projecting into the future the steep downward decline that it's on, I can't really see things continuing on for a very long time before the great tribulation begins 🤔 Wbu?
Interesting. Makes sense. Looked at the passages you mentioned but can’t say anything against what you said that I can see so far.😁 I agree, we can’t necessarily know everything for sure, but God will show what he intends us to know. We shat see.🙃 Another question,(that is unknowable as well😆) how soon do you think the tribulation is and why.(if you have a strong answer)
So in other words, I believe that we who are raptured will not still be around when the final wrath of God comes upon the earth, bc we know that "God did not appoint us to suffer wrath but to receive salvation through our Lord Jesus Christ." (1 Thess 5:9). So that's just what I've seen from the Word, and again, I still don't know everything about the end times. But what are your thoughts on all that? (Sorry it was so long 😅😂)
So now, if we go and look at Rev 11, where the seventh trumpet is sounded, you'll notice something interesting if you look closely at vs 17: "saying: 'We give thanks to you, Lord God Almighty, the One WHO IS AND WHO WAS, because you have taken your great power and have begun to reign.'" Notice how it says "who is and who was". That is the FIRST TIME in Revelation where they do not also include the phrase "and who is to come", which implies that at this point, Jesus has come! Now, you of course have to remember that the events in Revelation are not all in sequential order. However, I do believe that the seventh trumpet happens before the bowls of God's wrath come, in Rev 16 (see Rev 16:5, where again it only says "who are and who were").
Essentially, I tend to believe that the time of the rapture is around the seventh trumpet in Revelation, and here's why: 1) Compare Rev 10:7 with 1 Cor 15:51-52. First, Revelation says: "But in the days when the SEVENTH ANGEL is about to sound his TRUMPET, the MYSTERY of God will be accomplished, just as he announced to his servants the prophets.” Then, look at 1 Cor, speaking of the rapture: "Listen, I tell you a MYSTERY: We will not all sleep, but we will all be changed–in a flash, in the twinkling of an eye, AT THE LAST TRUMPET. For the trumpet will sound, the dead will be raised imperishable, and we will be changed." Notice the correlations there: mystery of God at the seventh/last trumpet?
So, I'll just preface it to say that I'm not too dogmatic when it comes to eschatological subjects, since no one person has everything figured out. But here's just something I've noticed in reading the Bible that seems to draw a pattern.
I avoided thinking about pink elephants until now... because I just read it now haha.
Never mind, I defeated my own point already 🤣
Did you think about pink elephants?
DON’T THINK ABOUT PINK ELEPHANTS!!!
Ok we can stop the discussion, thank you for your input!
John 3:16 "For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life." The term "begotten" indicates that there is a beginning but we know that there is not one who was created after God or the Father, so the term cannot mean another person but a role or when He came as a man. If we look at the 2 perspectives can we see the difference we get in our view of love? If it's One God who comes down to earth Himself to die for us, vs. one person sending another person to die for us.
Luke 1:31-35 "And, behold, thou shalt conceive in thy womb, and bring forth a son, and shalt call his name JESUS. He shall be great, and shall be called the Son of the Highest: and the Lord God shall give unto him the throne of his father David: And he shall reign over the house of Jacob for ever; and of his kingdom there shall be no end. Then said Mary unto the angel, How shall this be, seeing I know not a man? And the angel answered and said unto her, The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the power of the Highest shall overshadow thee: therefore also that holy thing which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God." I think the term Son of God is indicating that Jesus is not just a man but God in a human body, not conceived by man but by a miracle from God.
Understanding that, what I'm referring to is that we should read for ourselves otherwise we may be mislead if we just take what we hear as truth. While maybe this isn't a salvation issue/topic, it affects how we understand the Bible. If you read it like that then Son of God sounds like someone different from God. I don't think He is showing three.
I have to discontinue the discussion. May Jesus bless you
Why do you think God keeps showing showing three?
it seems like a plain reading too me
yes, Son of of God sounds like a different person. they have that a lot in the ot, “Joshua son of Nun” for example
I don’t understand why you used 2 Corinthians 13:5 since it is talking about making sure you are saved, but I do agree with you that we should not simply justify out beliefs. They need to line up with scripture first and foremost.
When you read the term "Son of God" is this referring to a different person to you? (Son referring to Jesus and God referring to the Father.)
I think it's similar to what you're saying with John 12:28-30, it was for people to know that Jesus was the Messiah.
I think the reason for this happening is recorded in John 1:32-34. "And John bare record, saying, I saw the Spirit descending from heaven like a dove, and it abode upon him. And I knew him not: but he that sent me to baptize with water, the same said unto me, Upon whom thou shalt see the Spirit descending, and remaining on him, the same is he which baptizeth with the Holy Ghost. And I saw, and bare record that this is the Son of God." So it looks to me like the purpose of this was for John to know who the Messiah was.
Yes I only use KJV, I'm not 100% against using other versions but there are some spots where words are changed in other versions that make a big difference. I also try to use Strong's concordance to get better ideas of what some words mean if I don't understand.
Why else did it happen? Trying to think biblically, I thought of this: John 12:28-30 (KJV) 28 Father, glorify thy name. Then came there a voice from heaven, [saying], I have both glorified [it], and will glorify [it] again. 29 The people therefore, that stood by, and heard [it], said that it thundered: others said, An angel spake to him. 30 Jesus answered and said, This voice came not because of me, but for your sakes.
2 Cor. 13:5 tells us to "examine yourselves, whether we be in the faith; prove your own selves." I think it's important to look at what we believe to see if it's correct and not to just justify our own beliefs, so that when we find things we have understood incorrectly, we can have a better understanding. After all, we are not God and don't know everything there is to know, yet we don't know one specific thing that we are wrong about, otherwise we wouldn't think it that way.
I agree, I don't see anything in the text to suggest that God is trying to communicate that He is everywhere at once but only 3. But the principle of God being omnipresent can help us understand Him more. I understand what you are saying but realize that you are saying if from the bias of God being 3 separate persons. If we take an outside view for a minute, and understand that God (whoever He is) has all power and can do anything, what is He trying to convey by this happening? Understanding from a trinity perspective one might say He is trying to convey 3 persons, but from an outside perspective, what else do we know about why this happened?
That’s an interesting question. This is where the believe like a child would come into play, i think. To say it simply: that is what those verses show. God is showing three. Why? If you didn’t have the bias you have, you would think three. If you didn’t know about God’s omnipresence, you would think three. i don’t see anything in the text to suggest that God is trying to communicate He is everywhere at once but only three. Do you?
If I am coming across as prideful then then "killing the discussion" is a good thing, so I'm sorry if that's how I was coming across. I agree that we don't understand everything, but my question is, why is the trinity something we are supposed to accept as a true base to build off of? I do not see anywhere in the Bible where God is three persons. If I take one of the examples you used (Matt. 3:16-17), to say that because Jesus is in the water while the Spirit is in the sky, and a voice came from heaven means there must be 3 different people would make perfect sense IF God isn't omnipresent. But if He is omnipresent then He isn't bound by our laws of nature, and why then would a voice from heaven as the spirit comes from heaven, mean that there must be 3 separate people?
We know that Jesus is the messiah because He fulfilled all the many prophesies, about the messiah, as you said. Idk how many there are, but there are a lot!—Something like a hundred or so. I heard this example once of the mathematical possibility for Jesus to have fulfilled something like eight of them: if we filled the state of Texas two feet deep with silver dollar coins and then marked one of them, mixed the coins all together thoroughly, then blindfolded someone and sent them to go anywhere in the state and choose the marked coin on the first try, that’s the same possibility of Jesus fulfilling just those few. (Basically zero). So if He fulfilled a hundred prophesies, but only ninety-nine are understandable to you but one doesn’t make sense to you, just set the one aside for now. Don’t make up stuff to make it fit better into your understanding. God says plenty we don’t understand. There are plenty of scriptures to show that there are more than one person of God, (and plenty to show there is only one God.)
I’m sorry, I did not mean to kill the discussion! I just wanted to remind us to take things in a sober-minded and reverent way, remembering who we’re talking about.
Thanks LacyGene. We don't have to keep discussing it, I just want to point out that the reason it matters to me personally is because Jesus is my God because I believe that Jesus is the Messiah. And whoever the Messiah was going to be, that one had to fulfill all the prophecies of the Messiah (for example must be the seed of David), and if all the prophecies of the Messiah were not fulfilled by Jesus then He was an impostor and not the Messiah. But I believe He was the Messiah, and one of the prophecies was that He would be called the Everlasting Father.
Yeah, definitely don’t take the “read it like a child idea” too far for sure!
Thanks! I ran across this verse and thought you guys would appreciate it: Hosea 6:6 (CSB) For I desire faithful love and not sacrifice, the knowledge of God rather than burnt offerings.
The reason I think Dec. 25 is incorporating Roman religion is because of a lot of the similarities in the way it's celebrated and how pegan religions celebrated. But I'll leave that up to you if you want to hear my reasons for thinking that some time.
LacyGene, Yes I understand that, but one of the things to consider is that if the writers didn't believe that God was three persons then that's not what would have thought by the way it's written. A child reading Isaiah 9:6 is also going to think that the Son is going to be called the Father is that Jesus was the same one as the Father. I think it's more trying to understand what they were talking about when they were writing what they wrote because as you said, the Bible must all match.
Will, I'm not 100% familiar with the creeds either, and I'm not saying they must be wrong. All I'm saying is that I don't view them as determining and think that it's possible that they are wrong if it's not what the Bible is saying (which in this case it looks like to me.) With the Bible not saying that God is 3 separate persons it looks to me like the trinity is a theory about who the Jehovah God is based on what people find in the Bible, and same with the oneness theory. A theory can be true or not true, and I'm just saying that I disagree with that theory of who God is or how He worked/works.
Thanks Roger, we don't have to agree or think the same things but it gives us more to think about and consider when we read the Bible. It's not us that can open each other's eyes but only God can help us see more clearly one way or the other.
The reason I place emphasis on the historical acceptance of doctrine is because of verses like Hebrews 13:9a, “Be not carried about with divers and strange doctrines.” If a doctrine is Biblical, I’ll accept it. But say two contrary doctrines are biblical with one having been historically accepted and the other being “strange.” I’ll go with the historically accepted doctrine.
@Stephen, thanks for reading the articles. About the creeds: I’m not familiar with the Constantinople creed, but I do accept the Nicene creed. I know it’s not the Bible, I just don’t see anything in it that contradicts scripture. I also would be careful about discrediting the Nicene Council. While they didn’t do everything right, they did clarify that Jesus was God and unified the church on that principle. They also are the reason we have the biblical cannon that we have, and they separated the cannon from the apocrypha (not separated enough, but they did separate them). Basically, my point is that if you discount the Council of Nicea too much, you might have a hard time accepting our current biblical canon. As far as December 25, I can never understand why people think it’s incorporating Roman paganism because the intended and actual effect was the total eradication of Roman paganism. We can discuss it later if you want.
“The fear of the LORD is the beginning of knowledge: But fools despise wisdom and instruction.” Proverbs 1:7. So out of a fear of the Lord, we carefully examine scripture to make sure we say what is true about Him
“Come now, and let us reason together, saith the LORD: though your sins be as scarlet, they shall be as white as snow; though they be red like crimson, they shall be as wool.” Isaiah 1:18. “Get wisdom, get understanding: Forget it not; neither decline from the words of my mouth. Forsake her not, and she shall preserve thee: Love her, and she shall keep thee. Wisdom is the principal thing; therefore get wisdom: And with all thy getting get understanding.” Proverbs 4:5-7
@LacyGene, thank you for your warning. I agree that we are called to have faith like a child. I would add that we are to be careful with the doctrine we choose to accept; that’s why we are examining scripture closely. “Now the Berean Jews were of more noble character than those in Thessalonica, for they received the message with great eagerness and examined the Scriptures every day to see if what Paul said was true.” Acts 17:11. “So he reasoned in the synagogue with both Jews and God-fearing Greeks, as well as in the marketplace day by day with those who happened to be there. A group of Epicurean and Stoic philosophers began to debate with him.” Acts 17:17-18a
Jesus in the water. Spirit in the sky. Father in heaven.
Matthew 3:16-17 (KJV) 16 And Jesus, when he was baptized, went up straightway out of the water: and, lo, the heavens were opened unto him, and he saw the Spirit of God descending like a dove, and lighting upon him: 17 And lo a voice from heaven, saying, This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased.
Comforter is come, whom I will send unto you from the Father
John 15:26 (KJV) But when the Comforter is come, whom I will send unto you from the Father, [even] the Spirit of truth, which proceedeth from the Father, he shall testify of me:
…GOD, and his Spirit, hath sent me…
Isaiah 48:16-17 (KJV) 16 Come ye near unto me, hear ye this; I have not spoken in secret from the beginning; from the time that it was, there [am] I: and now the Lord GOD, and his Spirit, hath sent me. 17 Thus saith the LORD, thy Redeemer, the Holy One of Israel; I [am] the LORD thy God which teacheth thee to profit, which leadeth thee by the way [that] thou shouldest go.
I just happened to decide to listen to Hebrews 1 and even tho it wasn’t what I was thinking of posting, it fits with reading it like a child. If you read it like a child, what is the child going to think? One person speaking to and of himself, or one speaking to and of another person?
As I was praying about responding to this thread, it seemed like it would be good to give a warning. The conversation here seems like it has become a fleshly exercise rather than an honest seeking to know The God of all the earth. Don’t be prideful in your “knowledge”. I do believe this is an important issue because if you don’t have the true God, you can’t have salvation. However, examine your heart carefully with the fear of God before you that you are not just trying to reinforce your view rather than looking at scripture plainly for what it says. Believe like a child. It doesn’t have to make sense to you to be the truth.
So, I think at this point, I'm just going to share a couple more excellent articles for you to check out, and then close out my part in the debate 😉 https://tinyurl.com/2d9ve8sr This first one explains the biblical nature of the Trinity very thoroughly, and has the answers to some of your questions (including about Isaiah 9:6). I think it will help you understand our viewpoint even better 😁 https://tinyurl.com/3emvxd5d Also, this second one contrasts the doctrine of the Trinity with polytheism, as you were asking what's the difference. But it was good discussing this with you Stephen, and I pray that God will reveal the truth to you about it 😄👍
*no one’s arguing for three God’s
Yes, basically if the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost are separate persons or the same. Either way agreeing that He/they are all God.
Sorry I didn't get to everything in order. Going back to what you said Roger about what Jesus said when He was dying on the cross. I think Jesus was saying that out of fleshly nature (same as when He cried out that He felt forsaken). So His subjectivity to the fleshly nature was over as He was fulfilling being the ultimate sacrificial lamb.
@LacyGene - no one is arguing for the Gods. We’re discussing whether to believe the Trinity or not
Roger: In verse 16 & 18 Jesus says the Father sent Him, and that's why they ask Him where His Father is. By their question it leads me to think that they knew He was telling them that His father sent Him. This is why it looks to me like John is not just referring to verse 26 but to the whole conversation that Jesus had with them, especially verse 25. If He was claiming to be the Father then we'd expect them to try to stone Him for it, but John specifies that they didn't know that's what He was talking about.
Reminder: All scripture is true. When it doesn’t seem to go together, it still has to. We may not understand, but God knows who He Himself is.
when was the last time you read thru the entire Bible?
I I have not been reading everything, but is the question whether there are three but one God?
Thank you Will, I read the articles and think I have a bit better understanding of your belief of the trinity. I'm not sure what you think/believe about the early ecumenical creeds mentioned in the second article, as obviously if one believes that everything at the council of nicaea has to be correct then they must believe the trinity as that's where it was decided on. From what I've found, Pope Julius I (337ad - 352ad) declared December 25 as the birthdate of Jesus. Knowing that the Roman gods had their birthdays around the winter solstice and that Jesus was declared to be born then, (I'm assuming you don't think that's when He was born? That would be a whole other study) leads me to believe that Roman peganism had already been trying to incorporate Christianity into it. So for me, I don't look at them as fact or must be truths.
I agree with you that there is a difference or distinction between flesh and spirit. But Jesus Himself said that the Father was inside Him, and God is a spirit. I agree that the flesh aspect of Him is different than the spiritual. But the one living inside that body was the Jehovah God of the old testament. Similar to how we are more than just flesh but have a spiritual man on the inside but are yet only one person.
I think He was meaning the same one because of the response from the Jews. Jesus calling Himself and His Father one caused them to pick up stones to stone Him because they said that made Him God. I think that if it wasn't saying He was the same that they would have no reason to stone Him because He could be talking about His earthly Father.
It's also the same word used to say there is one God in James 2:19, yet we don't say that it's a different one.
I understand how one would naturally think that because when I hear that there are 3 separate persons with extra human powers that all exist, I naturally think that each one fits the definition of a God, but obviously you aren't saying that they are 3 Gods. But what if the word "and" isn't meaning an additional separate person? Why can't it be giving/saying that Jesus/God has the attributes of a Father? 2 Corinthians 6:16-18 says, "And what agreement hath the temple of God with idols? for ye are the temple of the living God; as God hath said, I will dwell in them, and walk in them; and I will be their God, and they shall be my people.
Wherefore come out from among them, and be ye separate, saith the Lord, and touch not the unclean thing; and I will receive you,
And will be a Father unto you, and ye shall be my sons and daughters, saith the Lord Almighty."
It looks to me like He is both dwelling in us and being a Father to us.
Secondly, when it says "one", it doesn't mean "the same". In that context, according to Mounce Interlinear, the Greek word for "one" means "one virtually by union"; so essentially, "united". And there are several examples of more than one individual being called "one". For example, it says a man will become ONE with his wife. That doesn't mean that now they are the same person, does it? In 1 Cor 6:17, it says "But the one who joins himself to the Lord is ONE SPIRIT with Him." Does that now mean that we ourselves ARE the Lord? No... And that uses the same Greek word for "one" as in John 10:30. Third example is from John 17:22: "I have given them the glory that you gave me, that they may be ONE AS WE ARE ONE:" Again, same Greek word. And here's a quote from an article that's very well said: "The oneness of believers in this text is oneness involving distinct persons. Christ uses this same concept of oneness dealing with individual believers when He speaks of Himself and His Father ("as You Father, are in Me, and I in You"). The only way Christ's statement makes any sense at all is if He and His Father are truly two distinct persons, who are yet one nonetheless as well. How else could believers be one as Christ and the Father are one? Might they mesh into a blob of humanity that become one person and are no longer distinct persons? Of course not! Scripture teaches no such thing. Believers are one indeed in the Spirit (Ephesians 4:3-6; 1 John 4:6), and are one body (Ephesians 4:4), but they are nonetheless, at the same time, distinct persons in the body of Christ (1 Corinthians 12:11-12)."
Verse 27 doesn't say that Jesus was claiming to be the Father. You have to look at the context in v 26, which clearly says: "But HE WHO SENT ME is reliable, and what I have heard from him I tell the world.' They did not understand that he was telling them about his Father." So he was talking about his Father when he spoke of Him who sent him, not when he was speaking of who he claimed to be.
Roger, the reason I think He was talking about the Father is because John specifically says in verse 27 "They understood not that he spake to them of the Father." If John 10:30 doesn't mean they are the same then what does it mean?
I interpret Jesus saying that only the Father knows is referring to God's Spirit and that there is no way humanity (including the humanity He took on) is going to find the day of His return (such as people claiming Jesus is coming back a certain day). How is it possible that the Son doesn't know if He is omniscient? I don't see how both of these can be true unless He is referring to the flesh of Him. Is there another explanation for how these could both be true?
One other question on your 4th point, if the Father is the head of the trinity then do you believe they are all equal or do you believe different on that?
I'm a little confused on your 4th point. When you say Isaiah 9:6 is referring to God who is our father, are you saying that it's not referring specifically to the son? Because if Jesus and the Father are 2 separate persons and they are each our Father, wouldn't that mean we have 2 Fathers? Or are you saying that Jesus is our Father and the Father is Jesus' Father but not our Father? or am I misunderstanding what you are saying?
I will read articles you sent and reply to your 3rd point when I get a chance.
Load More Wall Posts
