God Clearly Defined Who Could Speak For Him

[JustTheFacts]

I am simply wondering if you believe Christians will be raptured off the planet prior to either a great tribulation or Jesus' physical return to earth to establish a kingdom here on earth. I am wondering whether or not you think the nation of Israel is relevant to Christian views of the end times.

Thanks for clarifying @Josheb. Acts 8:1 says the great tribulation started at the time of Stephen's death. Daniel and Revelation prophecy support that timing. Also, I just posted on the eschatology site a summary of Daniel 9:24-27. It has nothing to do with a seven year tribulation. I find no support from the word of God for the future antichrist, rapture and tribulation (ART).

I am wondering if you know why I ask and what relevance the answers have to this op.

Go ahead and explain if you'd like. I don't have a lot of patience trying to follow theology through.

How do you know the Bible is God's words?

The words of Jesus and the OT prophets who prophesied Jesus are the word of God if Jesus is proven to be the Messiah. I found three eyewitness testimonies proving Jesus as the Messiah and this meets Deuteronomy 17:6 and 19:15 therefore the Bible does have the word of God presented in it.

"if"???
So you're not sure?

I've been through the resurrection accounts and found it to be validated.

Oh, so you trust your analysis. Did that analysis include the viewpoints of others, the reading of opinions of others, or was the analysis done solely on scripture without consideration of any outside source

This is actually a very good question. I did upfront work and found that the only valid evidence for Jesus is in the Bible so that was my foundation. I do not seek out the opinions of others because I don't want to taint my independent and unbiased view. I can get a consensus of meaning of scripture from a review of numerous interpretations, but they are amazingly consistent so it hasn't been an issue.

I was. I want to know how you kow everything you have posted about the Bible is correct, and I want you to be specific explaining yuor posted views.

I don't know everything is correct. I do know that I do my homework and don't go out for comments until I have checked all the boxes. I've checked all the boxes and rechecked the data and conclusions and it sure seems like I'm right. But I am always open to the thoughts of others to shed light.

If that is correct, then do you also discard portions of Acts? He was the author of that book, too, but he was not present for all of the events described therein. Tell me how it is the second-hand account of an investigator cannot possibly be inspired by the Spirit of God?

That's again a great question and I was wondering when someone would get to that. This answer will be a little longer because it isn't an easy one to address. First, there is a resurrection account in the Gospel of Luke that was moved from the Gospel of Matthew--the two men on the road. How do I know? Because one of the two men on the road wrote the Gospel of Matthew. I haven't found any other information in Luke that might have been taken from the other Gospels but I haven't done a forensic analysis on that aspect.

In addition, there is a key verse in Acts connecting it to Revelation and Daniel -- Acts 1:3. This verse helps solve the prophecy math problem connecting Daniel 9:24-27, Revelation chapter 12, and Daniel 12:11-12. In other words, there are two sections in books that cannot be called the word of God because they are not validated testimony, that are certainly the word of God. Yes, Luke and Acts are not in general the word of God, but they are valuable for finding the truth.

If you've looked into the history of the Gospel authors you will find what I did--obvious cover-up and indications of fraud. There is no evidence trail for any of them. I did an analysis on Luke and Acts to find the author and I concluded it was Silas. But either way, Silas is not an eyewitness so his words are not testimony--but there is testimony embedded in the books and the information is valuable--such as telling us when the great tribulation started--Acts 8:1. Are Paul's words worthless because they aren't the word of God? No, he wrote some great summaries that are very useful.

 

[JustTheFacts]

Did you read my last few Posts @JustTheFacts ?

Sorry, I'm having a hard time keeping up and I'm not getting notified all the time. I'll see if I can find them.

 

[ReverendRV]

Sorry, I'm having a hard time keeping up and I'm not getting notified all the time. I'll see if I can find them.

They are; poignant...

 

[JustTheFacts]

Bump

Interesting summary and spot on. There is no evidence supporting Luke as the author. There is no chain of custody and John said not to believe the ones that took over the Church--and they were the ones that named Luke.

BTW, how could the names of the authors be lost? Those men were certainly legends and everyone would have their names imbedded in their brains. The names weren't lost--they were purposely replaced to support the fraud validated through Daniel and 'Revelation prophecy.

 

[ReverendRV]

Interesting summary and spot on. There is no evidence supporting Luke as the author. There is no chain of custody and John said not to believe the ones that took over the Church--and they were the ones that named Luke.

BTW, how could the names of the authors be lost? Those men were certainly legends and everyone would have their names imbedded in their brains. The names weren't lost--they were purposely replaced to support the fraud validated through Daniel and 'Revelation prophecy.

Did you read my other Post about the Church recognizing the Word of God?

Luke wrote his Gospel, right?

 

[Arial]

Other sources unless they are named is not evidence and Jesus ensured the evidence would prove him.

Is there contradiction of crucial truths in what was said? You yourself are the one who named them. You said Matthew copied from Mark.

I don't know where you heard that nonsense. There is no specific purpose other than to provide eyewitness testimony that proves Jesus to the world.

They are historical and theological accounts of his life. And each author was aiming at a different aspect. For example we see Mark emphasizing the miracles over Matt and Luke's connect Jesus to the line of David. Luke and Matt give attention to his teaching. John contains much that is not in the other three because he has a different purpose and is a different person. The writers are individuals, writing as individuals. The gospels are complimentary.

Are you giving me expert advice on conducting an investigation?

One does not have to be an expert to know that if you are going to investigate something you need all the information available.

How do you know how it affects those that are skeptic. I once was skeptic and pray I had this information in the past.

Only someone skeptical that the Bible is all the word of God, would use the fact that Matthew copied from Mark as proof that it wasn't the word of God. Someone who knows that either all of the Bible is the word of God or it is useless for what it claims it is useful for, is not a skeptic. 2 Tim 3:16-17 ALL scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness that the man of God may be complete, equipped for every good work.

You are still a skeptic when it comes to the doctrinal Christian belief that the entire Bible is the word of God and not just parts of it. And if you say that you do believe it is all the word of God, but some of the writers did not have authority to speak for God, you contradict yourself in one sentence. Being inspired by God as to what to write that will go in his word, is authorizing them to speak his word. It is giving them his word.

 

[Arial]

John said ALL the ones they chose were false teachers

Where does it say that?

Do you have any names of apostles that they chose? You have the book of Acts with a bunch of names in it, was John referring to them or others?

Jesus chose Simon Peter,Andrew, James (son of Zebedee) John, Phillip,Bartholomew, Thomas, Matthew, James (son of Alphaeus). Thaddeus, Simon the Zealot, and Judas Iscariot.

They chose by lot according to the will of God Matthias. (Acts 1:15-26) Note that in that discourse, they gave the requirements of apostleship. One who accompanied Jesus from the time of the baptism of John until the day of his ascension, and a witness to the resurrection.

Jesus chose Paul for the particular ministry of the apostle to the Gentiles. See his encounter with Jesus (and encounter occurring after the resurrection and ascension, making him a witness to the resurrection having taken place) on the road to Damascus. Does the book of Acts call any other apostles appointed by the apostles?

Not sure what you are after. The OT pointed to the Messiah and Jesus fulfilled it. Spell it out because I don't know traditional Christian orthodoxy.

It would help a great deal in your investigation if you did know traditional Christian orthodoxy. So here are some questions for you to answer that will guide you to what it is I am "after" as you put it. The way I would put it is "That I am trying to get you to see."

Why did Jesus come as the incarnate Son?
What did he do?
How did he do it?
What does that mean for humanity? This one I will answer for you and you can expand on it or ask questions. What Jesus accomplished is a two edged sword for humanity. Cursing or blessing. SO----
What is the curse?
What is the blessing and how is it attained?

 

[Josheb]

Thanks for clarifying @Josheb. Acts 8:1 says the great tribulation started at the time of Stephen's death. Daniel and Revelation prophecy support that timing. Also, I just posted on the eschatology site a summary of Daniel 9:24-27. It has nothing to do with a seven year tribulation. I find no support from the word of God for the future antichrist, rapture and tribulation (ART).

Thank you. I wanted only to know if you subscribed to Dispensational Premillennialism and the reason, I wanted to know that is because Dispensational Premillennial leaders are chronically implying, they speak form God, and some of them do so explicitly. Had you been a DPer I would then have asked how there could be dissent about modern-day preachers claiming to speak for God and an adherence to the school of theology that do so the most. Since you're not DP, I will move on to other matters. Because it proves difficult to get timely answers to any inquiries and I read other posters fielding my other concerns, I think it best if I lurk a little. Thank you for your time.

 

[Hazelelponi]

t has nothing to do with a seven year tribulation. I find no support from the word of God for the future antichrist, rapture and tribulation (ART).

It's not an Orthodox eschatological position. It's new, relatively speaking, and it's a common view from people who don't know and/or accept the Word of GOD, or the testimony of the Holy Spirit to the Church.

I hold the classic amillennial view, an enlightening read on the topic is written by Kim Riddlebarger 'A Case for Amillennialism: Understanding the End Times' he's an excellent scholar.

You can pick it up and read it for a look at the main views of the day compared to the historical amillennial view.

We interpret Daniel's prophecy to be fulfilled in Christ through the death and resurrection through to the 70ad destruction of the Temple.

Between Christ's Death and Resurrection and the destruction of the Temple was 40 years, the opposite of the wilderness, in which to accept Christ before their full exclusion from the Covenant and judgement for sin.

 

[JustTheFacts]

Is there contradiction of crucial truths in what was said? You yourself are the one who named them. You said Matthew copied from Mark.

Yes Matthew's author copied from Mark, but the reason he did so helped prove his identity as the author who provided his eyewitness testimony--God certainly was in charge.

They are historical and theological accounts of his life. And each author was aiming at a different aspect. For example we see Mark emphasizing the miracles over Matt and Luke's connect Jesus to the line of David. Luke and Matt give attention to his teaching. John contains much that is not in the other three because he has a different purpose and is a different person. The writers are individuals, writing as individuals. The gospels are complimentary.

That's not it at all. You have been told theology by early church fathers who want you to believe the authors are who they stated they are. There is no evidence proving any of the authors to be who they stated. John is easily proven through contents, but research the historical records and study the Gospels and you will realize that they authors cannot be who they claimed to be. The eyewitness who documented Matthew copied what he didn't see and wrote about what he observed. If you consider this and follow the trail you will be able to identify the true author of the Gospel of Matthew. I'll give you a hint--it's a religious leader who knew the Pharisees and was there when Judas threw the coins. He witnessed the guards provide their testimony about what happened, and he listened intently while Jesus provided the sermon on the mount.

One does not have to be an expert to know that if you are going to investigate something you need all the information available.

One doesn't have to be an expert in the field being evaluated, but like you say, one needs to be able to identify what they need to investigate and sort the nonsense from the evidence. I was not an expert fraud investigator when I took over LANL's investigations group. I was called an expert analyst and my skills transferred over to fix the mess I walked into, but I had to understand what I needed and what was critical. Excellent comment.

Only someone skeptical that the Bible is all the word of God, would use the fact that Matthew copied from Mark as proof that it wasn't the word of God. Someone who knows that either all of the Bible is the word of God or it is useless for what it claims it is useful for, is not a skeptic. 2 Tim 3:16-17 ALL scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness that the man of God may be complete, equipped for every good work.

In my early years the fact that Gospel authors copied from each other was a negative that had me doubting. However, now that I know the truth, Matthew's author copying from Mark's author proved that he was an eyewitness so it sealed my belief in Jesus. The Gospel of Matthew is eyewitness testimony.

Please don't quote the words of Paul to try to validate himself as speaking for God--that's a silly argument. That being said, I could give Paul the benefit of the doubt since he was an OT expert and claim he was speaking about what he know--OT documentation.

You are still a skeptic when it comes to the doctrinal Christian belief that the entire Bible is the word of God and not just parts of it. And if you say that you do believe it is all the word of God, but some of the writers did not have authority to speak for God, you contradict yourself in one sentence. Being inspired by God as to what to write that will go in his word, is authorizing them to speak his word. It is giving them his word.

Like I've said numerous times already, to believe what you say I have to reject the word of God--Deuteronomy 18:20-22, and the words of Jesus that claimed he spoke for God and that he validated Moses and the OT prophets as speaking for God. I won't reject them.

 

[JustTheFacts]

Did you read my other Post about the Church recognizing the Word of God?

I searched for your posts and not sure I came up with them. I'm still getting used to this system and I'm not getting consistent notifications of comments.

Luke wrote his Gospel, right?

There is no evidence supporting Luke as the author. I believe it was Silas from the change to him being an eyewitness in Acts about midway through.

 

[Hazelelponi]

I'm not getting consistent notifications of comments.

If you post too close to someone else you might not get a notification since your in the thread already. Also, if you're taking a break to do stuff, you need to fully exist the thread or you might miss getting a notification since you're already in the thread.

 

[JustTheFacts]

Where does it say that?

1 John 2:18-19

Jesus chose Simon Peter,Andrew, James (son of Zebedee) John, Phillip,Bartholomew, Thomas, Matthew, James (son of Alphaeus). Thaddeus, Simon the Zealot, and Judas Iscariot.

They chose by lot according to the will of God Matthias. (Acts 1:15-26) Note that in that discourse, they gave the requirements of apostleship. One who accompanied Jesus from the time of the baptism of John until the day of his ascension, and a witness to the resurrection.

My professional opinion is that the term "apostle" is part of the early church fraud. They wanted to claim they spoke for God so they created "apostles" who could. Apostle was never mentioned by Jesus, and it is introduced a few times in the Gospels of Matthew and Mark. Then it is liberally used in Acts and the letters to normalize it. If apostles can speak for God then so can the leaders of the Catholic Church. It was normalized.

The selection of the replacement is a historical record of happened that we don't know who wrote or who was the resource. Did Jesus confirm their selection? Did Jesus maybe choose somebody else? Is there a motive for selecting a replacement?

Jesus chose Paul for the particular ministry of the apostle to the Gentiles. See his encounter with Jesus (and encounter occurring after the resurrection and ascension, making him a witness to the resurrection having taken place) on the road to Damascus. Does the book of Acts call any other apostles appointed by the apostles?

The author of Acts spent time with Paul and was his companion. There is no independent information that we have addressing Paul and that is a difficult situation. BTW, Paul never witnessed Jesus resurrected and how would he know because he had never met Jesus?

It would help a great deal in your investigation if you did know traditional Christian orthodoxy. So here are some questions for you to answer that will guide you to what it is I am "after" as you put it. The way I would put it is "That I am trying to get you to see."

Why did Jesus come as the incarnate Son?

Theology? Jesus is the Messiah and God, what more matters?

What did he do?

Jesus takes away our sin so we will have eternal life with him and the father. Do I need to understand any more?

How did he do it?

Easy- the sacrifice.

What does that mean for humanity? This one I will answer for you and you can expand on it or ask questions. What Jesus accomplished is a two edged sword for humanity. Cursing or blessing. SO----
What is the curse?
What is the blessing and how is it attained?

You either believe and have eternal peace, or reject and go to eternal punishment. Did you know that there is a path to heaven if you don't know Jesus? Consider all those who live lives for God that never heard of Jesus. Do they go to hell? Read Chapter twenty and study the books--there are two sets the books of Acts and the book of life.

Blessings Arial and thanks for your polite and thoughtful comments.

 

[JustTheFacts]

Thank you. I wanted only to know if you subscribed to Dispensational Premillennialism and the reason, I wanted to know that is because Dispensational Premillennial leaders are chronically implying, they speak form God, and some of them do so explicitly. Had you been a DPer I would then have asked how there could be dissent about modern-day preachers claiming to speak for God and an adherence to the school of theology that do so the most. Since you're not DP, I will move on to other matters. Because it proves difficult to get timely answers to any inquiries and I read other posters fielding my other concerns, I think it best if I lurk a little. Thank you for your time.

Thanks @Josheb. Anyone who claims to speak for God is off in my book, because I don't see any path for that in the Bible. John the disciple was able to write letters that spoke for God because Jesus gave him prophecy that has come true. John as far as I have found, is the only New Covenant person who met the criterial for speaking for God-- Sorry Muslims, Mormons, Catholics, etc. The Gospel authors who were witnesses of Jesus spoke for God, but through Deuteronomy 17:6 and 19:15 that is expected.

 

[JustTheFacts]

It's not an Orthodox eschatological position. It's new, relatively speaking, and it's a common view from people who don't know and/or accept the Word of GOD, or the testimony of the Holy Spirit to the Church.

I hold the classic amillennial view, an enlightening read on the topic is written by Kim Riddlebarger 'A Case for Amillennialism: Understanding the End Times' he's an excellent scholar.

Sorry @Hazelelponi but I don't believe in all that end time theology--it isn't supported by the word of God. I started another thread in Eschatology that will likely address it--if I can keep up.

You can pick it up and read it for a look at the main views of the day compared to the historical amillennial view.

We interpret Daniel's prophecy to be fulfilled in Christ through the death and resurrection through to the 70ad destruction of the Temple.

Daniel 9:24-27 has nothing to do with that temple. It is fully about Jesus as the temple replacement.

Between Christ's Death and Resurrection and the destruction of the Temple was 40 years, the opposite of the wilderness, in which to accept Christ before their full exclusion from the Covenant and judgement for sin.

The wilderness comment takes me to Revelation chapter 12 that addresses the wilderness for the protection of Jesus and his disciples.

 

[JustTheFacts]

If you post too close to someone else you might not get a notification since your in the thread already. Also, if you're taking a break to do stuff, you need to fully exist the thread or you might miss getting a notification since you're already in the thread.

Thanks!! Very much appreciated. And I truly enjoy this exchange with y'all. I know I ramble a lot because it's all pent up inside, but I truly examine every comment to see if I can learn from it.

 

[Hazelelponi]

Sorry @Hazelelponi but I don't believe in all that end time theology--it isn't supported by the word of God. I

Because you don't believe in the Word so you blaspheme instead and teach against the Gospel of Christ.

You don't even know what He came to do, or what His work means for the people of God because you reject His witnesses. 1 John 3:14 says, "We know that we have passed from death to life, because we love the brethren. He who does not love his brother abides in death."

If you are in Christ the disciples and apostlez are our brothers too.

 

[Arial]

You have been told theology by early church fathers who want you to believe the authors are who they stated they are.

I have no idea what the ECFs wanted me to believe or what they said about it. That is not the source of my information on the subject. I have various sources, most of them internal to the Bible.

There is no evidence proving any of the authors to be who they stated.

And no proof that they aren't. It is not a big issue. It changes no truth. It does not change the inerrancy of the Bible.

The eyewitness who documented Matthew copied what he didn't see and wrote about what he observed.

What does that even mean? "The eyewitness who documented Matthew"?

If you consider this and follow the trail you will be able to identify the true author of the Gospel of Matthew. I'll give you a hint--it's a religious leader who knew the Pharisees and was there when Judas threw the coins. He witnessed the guards provide their testimony about what happened, and he listened intently while Jesus provided the sermon on the mount.

Is this something the Holy Spirit showed you or a vision. Since I can find no scriptural reference to someone documenting Matthew I have no place to even start tracing back to this religious leader etc. So it is on you to do that so we can all know after all the study done on it since the first century, and the author of Matthew still not definitively known, that only you have found. I'm serious. Let me hear it. Then maybe I will be able to take your investigations seriously.

He witnessed the guards provide their testimony about what happened, and he listened intently while Jesus provided the sermon on the mount.

Is this in the Bible somewhere?

Please don't quote the words of Paul to try to validate himself as speaking for God--that's a silly argument. That being said, I could give Paul the benefit of the doubt since he was an OT expert and claim he was speaking about what he know--OT documentation.

The reason I can quote Paul as validating himself as speaking for God is because Jesus appointed him for that purpose. It was not Paul who gives the first accounting of the Damascus Rd. It was Luke. And there were witnesses when Paul had that experience. "The men who were traveling with him stood speechless, hearing the voice but seeing no one." They led him to Damascus. In Acts 9: 10-15 we have the account of Ananias being sent to Paul to open his eyes and verse 16 the angel saying to Ananias who was afraid to go anywhere near Paul (Saul) "But the Lord said to him, 'Go, for he is a chosen instrument of mine to carry my name to the Gentiles, and kings, and the children of Israel." It is likely Luke was one of the eyewitnesses traveling with Paul as he traveled with him a lot.

Like I've said numerous times already, to believe what you say I have to reject the word of God--Deuteronomy 18:20-22, and the words of Jesus that claimed he spoke for God and that he validated Moses and the OT prophets as speaking for God. I won't reject them.

Deut 18:20-22 But the prophet who presumes to speak a word in my name that I have not commanded hi to speak, or who speaks in the name of other gods, that same prophet shall die. ANd if you say in your heart, "How may we know the word that the Lord has not spoken?----what a prophet speaks in the name of the Lord, if the word does not come to pass or come true, that is a word that the Lord has not spoken; the prophet has spoken it presumptuously.

Good news. You don't have to reject those verses to believe that the writers of the NT are speaking for God-----which is the same thing as God speaking through them, both OT and NT. The scripture I gave above from Acts, the other scriptures I have been giving you to validate the apostles since first I posted in this thread, show clearly that they are speaking for God. Jesus (God) appointed them and equipped them to do that. What have they spoken that has not come to pass other than the promised consummation which awaits Christ's return? Unless you don't trust God to oversee what his word says and to oversee what goes into it as canon, there is no need to ever question the validity of them speaking for God. They were given the very same proofs of the authority of what they spoke as Jesus was.
2 Cor 12:12 The signs of a true apostle were performed among you with utmost patience, with signs and wonders and mighty works.

 

[Arial]

1 John 2:18-1

Who was John writing to in 1 John? A specific group of people who are believers.
Why is he writing it to them? The internal evidence shows that it was a warning about a particular teaching that was trying to come into the church. (4:2,3). The teaching was that Christ only appeared to be human, so that there was no real incarnation and no divine Savior who was able to die for sinners. He only appeared to die. This teaching (docetism) is known from early Christian history.

So who is it that "went out from us" in 2:19? Those false teachers and it would apply to any false teachers or teaching. Who are the "us" the true church of Christ and its teachings as given by who? the apostles with Jesus as the chief cornerstone. What does it mean that they went out from us? Either they left that particular congregation, or the false teaching itself was "out" from the foundation laid by the Apostles. I would say definitely the latter and probably both.

So where is your expert analysis and evidence of fraud in your investigation that shows John was inditing all the other apostles as false teachers?

 

[JustTheFacts]

Because you don't believe in the Word so you blaspheme instead and teach against the Gospel of Christ.

lol