Bible Topics -- easy vs hard

[Brother Bob]

I took an old brother in the church squirrels that had already been cleaned for he like squirrel and I liked to hunt.
He said one day, "Brother Bob, where you getting all these squirrels and I replied that they just come up to my back door and say Meow, I knock them in the head and clean them and bring them up to you."

 

[BobRyan]

Well, first of all lets see if we can take the scriptures and get a "second resurrection", after you listed five and then told me the scripture does now speak of a second, of which it does not same as it does not speak of a 2, a 3, a 4, or a 5.

Revelation, chapter 20
6": Blessed and holy is he that hath part in the first resurrection: on such the second death hath no power[/b]

Now if there was a First Resurrection and blessed is he that hath a part in it, the second death hath no power.
If a man come to the second death he must of already had one and if he is now at the second death he must of been resurrected again being this is the second death and if there is a second death the common sense teaches us that there must of been another resurrection rather than the first.

Rev. 20:
"12": And I saw the dead, small and great, stand before God; and the books were opened: and another book was opened, which is the book of life: and the dead were judged out of those things which were written in the books, according to their works.

"13": And the sea gave up the dead which were in it; and death and hell delivered up the dead which were in them: and they were judged every man according to their works.

"14": And death and hell were cast into the lake of fire. This is the second death.

The point is already very very clear Brother Bob. Well done.

The only way to reject that clear thinking is to "already be convinced against it" before coming to the text and then eisegeting whatever-pleases man's traditions instead.

This was my point in the OP - that even the most clear and obvious statements can and ARE blatantly refuted and denied even by some of the best of Christians.

If that what is done with the EASY parts - what of the more difficult sections like Dan 8 or Rev 14? Or what of the REALLY hard stuff like Dan 11 and Rev 8,9.10?

What is worse - if Christians are willing EVEN to doubt the words of God spoken BY HIM in Exodus 20 and even His OWN Creative work in Gen 1-2:3 then they truly have "no limit" to what they will reject.

Thankfully most Christians posting here DO accept the literal truth of Gen 1-2:3 -- but still you get the point.

In Christ,

Bob

 

[Ed Edwards]

BobRyan: //This was my point in the OP - that even the most
clear and obvious statements can and ARE blatantly refutedand denied even by some of the best of Christians.//

And my point is that simple words like AND, FIRST, LAST, and DAY,
are misunderstood limiting the blessing possible to the best of
Christians.

 

[BobRyan]

John lives in the first century A.D.

obviously.

When John looks into the future he SEES the great hope of the church (Peter says to fix our hope COMPLETELY on that great event as do Paul in 1Thess 4) and so John describes the FIRST resurrection even to the point of going out of his way to tell us "THIS IS the FIRST resurrection".

That is the one that starts the 1000 years because the "REST of the dead did not come to life UNTIL the 1000 years were completed".

The bottom line is that ALL must agree to the obvious and simple truth that a direct reading of the text shows us the FIRST resurrection happening 1000 years before the 2nd -- and the FIRST resurrection being that of the "holy and blessed" those over whom the second death has NO POWER.

These are points that all must agree with -- but then "not all" would leave these obvious points - but some would try to find a way around them.

And that is where I stop. I prefer to accept the text as it reads - just as I do with the sequence given in Matt 24.

I admit that not every is content to do that.

In Christ,

Bob

 

[Ed Edwards]

BobRyan: //The bottom line is that ALL must agree to the obvious
and simple truth that a direct reading of the text shows us
the FIRST resurrection happening 1000 years before
the 2nd -- and the FIRST resurrection being that of the
"holy and blessed" those over whom the second death has NO POWER.//

Amen, Brother BobRyan -- Preach it!

Except, of course, there are some who say it already happend.
And others say it all has a deep spiritual meaning that
you and I who are literalists can't really understand.

 

[BobRyan]

Amen!

But it gets to the point of sola scriptura. Even though many/most here agree to that Bible teaching from Acts 17:11 what is very very HARD in practice is to hold some cherished tradition subject to a fair and balanced reading of Scripture.

Everyone is confronted by the problem and the vast majority of those here and those out there in all other Christian domains simply choose tradition over scripture -- "its according to what your used to" as they say.

In Christ,

Bob

 

[hillclimber1]

To be honest, Bob, for 25 years as I taught at the local university, I wrestled with every conceivable biblical and theological question. I enjoyed those years, and the youngsters who attended in training for ministry.

Now in my 80th year, I am not so interested in debate as much as I am with fellowship in the word. This is what I miss on a lot of the forums and I lose more and more interest in the forums.

You may understand this in a few years.

I can read both Greek and Hebrew as well as Latin, French, and of course, proper English, but I get upset when I see some demonstrating, on these type forums, how much they know about Greek and Hebrew, when the majority haven't a clue what Greek and Hebrew are. Do you follow what I am thinking?

At any rate, I will leave the debates for the youngsters. In the final analyses, it is, "What think ye of Christ, and whose Son is He...?" that concerns me the most.

Cheers, and God bless,

Jim

Ah, in spiritual maturity, we focus on Christ. Wow, isn't that simple and wonderful.

 

[Amy.G]

Ah, in spiritual maturity, we focus on Christ. Wow, isn't that simple and wonderful.

Amen!!! :applause:

 

[Alcott]

Thankfully most Christians posting here DO accept the literal truth of Gen 1-2:3 -- but still you get the point.

And some posting here [guess who] reject the literal truth of Luke 16.

 

[BobRyan]

Hey wait a minute - I SHOW Bible scholars who ADMIT to the DETAILS of Luke 16 being pure PARABLE!

You know the details of praying to the dead on behalf of the living.

The Details of Abraham being in sovereign control of all dead saints.

The details of Abraham's authority ALONE being appealed to in a request for the resurrection from the dead for the righteous

The details of Abraham having all saints in his lap --

In other words - each time we expose some difficult section of the Bible that conflicts with man-made tradition - the EASY thing is to simply ignore it and pretend that man's traditions "work anyway".

Why do that instead of holding to a faithful rendering of scripture.

In Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

To be honest, Bob, for 25 years as I taught at the local university, I wrestled with every conceivable biblical and theological question. I enjoyed those years, and the youngsters who attended in training for ministry.

Now in my 80th year, I am not so interested in debate as much as I am with fellowship in the word. This is what I miss on a lot of the forums and I lose more and more interest in the forums.

Good to have you posting here sir.

But the point of the OP should become more apparent as the years roll by. Seeing varied groups, varied opinions (not all of which can possibly be right) and the instinctive human reaction to having the flaws of a cherished view result in instant villification and ad hominem against whoever has found the flaw --- how "human" -- how "consistent" -- how fully expected time after time.

The challenge then remains for Christians to confront this tendancy in their own sinful nature KNOWING that they WILL want to simply twist facts and villify whenever a cherished view is 'seriously' challenged.

I claim that this is basic human nature - not the domain of any one group.

In Christ,

bob

 

[BobRyan]

from the OP

IF all this debate over the really simple stuff is a sign of satan's success inside the church - then what about those silly false messiah's like the one in Fla? Doesn't this mean they are going to have a field day with a LOT of Christians?

Christians SHOULD be foremost in dealing with "inconvenient facts" instead of blindly clinging to man-made tradition OVER Bible fact. And yet we find as the OP points out that on so many easy points - Christians fall on their swords instaed of embracing the Bible facts on the case.

What then of the really HARD questions?

In Christ,

Bob