Timothy
Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
Michael,
There is no indication that the men of Nineveh were promised immortality in the resurrection. Their repentance was because the king of Nineveh passed a law requiring it. Their “repentance” resulted in God sparing the city, not in eternal salvation and the resurrection to immortality.
Revelation 20 indicates that “the rest of the dead” (those not included as “Christ’s” in the 1st resurrection (cf. 1 Cor. 15:23 & Rev. 20:4) will be raised and judged at the end of the 7th Millennium. It also indicates that they will be judged individually according to their works. The statement “those not found written in the Book of Life will be cast into the lake of fire” implies that many WILL be found written in that book. Also, that “wicked generation” of Israelites will also be raised at the same time at the same judgement.
Grace & Peace, Tim
Michael,
1 John 5:7 is not found in any ancient Greek copies. It is found only in a very few late Greek copies dating after the 14th century. It was also not included in Jerome’s Latin Vulgate (4th cent). While it is claimed that Tertullian sort-of “quoted” it, it is more likely that these were Tertullian’s own words. Tertullian was the first to use the term “trinity” and the first to refer to the Spirit as an independent being, a third person. Tertullian also wrote in Latin, so the statement almost certainly originated in Latin, and it was added very late to a few Greek copies due to the Latin influence. In any case, virtually all textual scholars agree that it is not original to John.
Another point that carries a lot of weight IMO is that this verse was never used in the Trinitarian vs. Arian controversies in the 4th century to help support Trinitarianism. If it had been known, it certainly would have been used and have been a game-changer.
Grace & Peace, Tim
Sorry I missed this, John. Yes, the 24th was Passover based on the visual observation method of the new moon. The modern calendar uses the NASA data to calculate the new moon which is usually a day or sometimes two days before the new moon would be visible to the eye at sunset.
Sorry, I missed this. I don’t get notifications when someone posts on the forum, and I have been busy and haven’t checked for a while.
If you compare the following from Luke’s account I think the answer to your question will be apparent.
Luke 10:1 After these things the Lord appointed seventy others also, and sent them two by two before His face into every city and place where He Himself was about to go.
No doubt the same was true when He sent out the 12. That is, He was sending them ahead to preach in the towns and villages where He was planning to go personally behind them. So when He said: “You will not have gone through the cities of Israel before the Son of Man comes,” He meant that they would not finish their assignment before Jesus would catch up to them. It does not refer either to AD 70 or the 2nd coming, IMO.
God is “King of kings” and “Lord of lords” now. When God gives the Kingdom to the Son, then He will fill that role.
God is “King of kings” and “Lord of lords” now. When God gives the Kingdom to the Son, then He will fill that role.
Anders,
It is important to consider all statements within their contexts, and not to extrapolate beyond them into areas that the writer never intended. The “God is love” statements in 1 John 4 are clearly referring to God’s love for US. They have nothing whatever to do with “love” shared between alleged members of a Trinity.
1 John 4 (NKJV)
7 Beloved, let us love one another, for love is of God; and everyone who loves is born of God and knows God.
8 He who does not love does not know God, for God is love.
9 In this the love of God was manifested toward us, that God has sent His only begotten Son into the world, that we might live through Him.
10 In this is love, not that we loved God, but that He loved us and sent His Son to be the propitiation for our sins.
11 Beloved, if God so loved us, we also ought to love one another.“God is love” in this context means that God’s love for us, as demonstrated by giving His Son, provides the epitome of the standard for “love.” So to define “love,” we are to look at what He did for us, and we are to emulate it in our interactions with fellow Christians. “God IS love” means that God defined “love” by demonstration.
Making the kind of leap outlined above in that Trinitarian argument would be like saying that God did not exist before Day one of creation, because James says “God is light” and “light” was created on day 1.
The key point is in vs. 15, WHO is the one who will be “showing” Christ at His appearing (the one performing the action of the verb). From a purely a grammatical viewpoint, it could be either “God” in vs.13 or Jesus Himself in vs. 14. There is no way to prove either way from the grammar since there are a couple of different was to punctuate the sentence. However, the clause “whom no man has seen nor is capable of seeing” proves the referent is God since Jesus has been seen by many. Also, the clause, “who ALONE holds immortality” cannot refer to Jesus since the word “alone” would rule out God Himself as not having immortality.
Anders,
God made a series of promises to Abraham, all of which are part of the Abrahamic Covenant. But those specific promises are not fulfilled at the same time. These include:
1. A son through Sarah
2. This son would become a great nation
3. persecution and subjugation of Abraham’s descendants
4. through Abraham’s seed all nations would be blessed
5. permanent inheritance of the land by Abraham himself and his ‘Seed’NONE of these promises occurred or will occur at the same time. They are each fulfilled progressively. The statement in Acts 7:5 concerning the land is specifically, “he would give it to him in possession, and to his seed after him.”
The fact is, God gave the land temporarily to Abraham’s descendants but not to Abraham himself. So, the latter part of this statement was fulfilled in a limited sense after the exodus, but definitely not the first part.
I think you are making a mistake by supposing that verse 17 must refer to everything in verse 5. It is clear in v. 17 that the context refers to when a specified time had been fulfilled which was a very specific part of the promises to Abraham. That specified time is recorded in Gen. 15.
Gen. 15 (LXX)
13 And it was said to Abram, Thou shalt surely know that thy seed shall be a sojourner in a land not their won, and they shall enslave them, and afflict them, and humble them four hundred years.
14 And the nation whomsoever they shall serve I will judge; and after this, they shall come forth hither with much property.
15 But thou shalt depart to thy fathers in peace, nourished in a good old age.
16 And in the fourth generation they shall return hither, for the sins of the Amorites are not yet filled up, even until now.This is precisely, and exclusively, what Acts references in v. 17:
Acts 7:17-20 (NASB)
17 “But as the time of the promise was approaching which God had assured to Abraham, the people increased and multiplied in Egypt,
18 until there arose another king over Egypt who knew nothing about Joseph.
19 “It was he who took shrewd advantage of our race, and mistreated our fathers so that they would expose their infants and they would not survive.
20 “And it was at this time that Moses was born; and he was lovely in the sight of God; and he was nurtured three months in his father’s home.Moses was the “fourth generation” from Levi, Abraham’s great-grandson who was taken into Egypt with his father and brothers. (Levi, Kohath, Amram, Moses {1 Chron. 6:1-2).
Obviously when Moses was born it was not the TIME for Israel to inherit the land, either temporarily (under the Law) or permanently (in the Kingdom). Moses was 120 years old when he died and Joshua took the Israelites into the land. The statement, “the promise was approaching which God had assured to Abraham”, the ONLY “promise” in view was their deliverance from slavery through Moses — the exodus. That is pretty plain in Steven’s speech as he went on to describe it in detail through all of verses 17-44. The entrance into the promised land is not even mentioned by Steven until v. 45 where it is only mentioned in passing that Joshua brought the tabernacle into the land. But nothing is said of inheriting the land, or the Abrahamic Covenant.
The whole point of Steven’s sermon was that God fulfilled a promise to Abraham regarding the deliverance from Egypt, gave them His Law, but even so they refused to obey Him.
Anders,
Acts 7:5 does indeed refer to the permanent inheritance of the Land, because it refers to Abraham HIMSELF inheriting the land along with His ‘Seed’ who is Christ (Gal. 3:16). God said He would give the Land “to YOU and to your seed.” This can only occur after the resurrection since Abraham died long before the exodus. The ONLY promise of the Land inheritance given specifically to Abraham is the permanent possession. The only part of God’s promises to Abraham that were fulfilled already are the promise that he would have a Son (Isaac) through Sarah, and that his descendants would be abused for 4000 years, then enslaved for a time but delivered in the “fourth generation.” Gen. 15:13-16.
Anders,
The land that God promised to Abraham as a permanent inheritance includes the land of seven nations (Gen. 15:18-20; Deut. 7:1; Acts 13:19) and extended from the Nile to the Euphrates. However, under the Mosaic Covenant, God only gave Israel a temporary residence (within the borders of the whole land He would eventually give to Abraham), as long as they kept His Law. “The land, moreover, shall not be sold permanently, for the land is Mine; for you are but aliens and sojourners with Me” (Lev. 25:23 NASB). The ultimate penalty for Israel was exile from the Land.
Regarding Acts 7:17, the “promise” referenced concerned the APPOINTED TIME when their slavery would end, as stated in the Abrahamic Covenant:
Gen. 15:13-16 (NKJV)
13 Then He said to Abram: “Know certainly that your descendants will be strangers in a land that is not theirs, and will serve them, and they will afflict them four hundred years.
14 “And also the nation whom they serve I will judge; afterward they shall come out with great possessions.
15 “Now as for you, you shall go to your fathers in peace; you shall be buried at a good old age.
16 “But in the fourth generation they shall return here, for the iniquity of the Amorites is not yet complete.”This is NOT the permanent inheritance promised to Abraham personally and his “Seed” who is Christ (Gal. 3:16). It is the temporary inheritance under the Law of Moses. Note that Abraham would be dead (v. 15) when this temporary inheritance of his descendants would take place. It is THIS promise specifically that Steven referenced in Acts 7:17.
In Galatians 3, Paul made this very clear distinction between the permanent inheritance promised to Abraham and His ‘Seed’ (Christ), vs. the arrangement under the Law of Moses which was temporary. Yes, it involved the same land, but under two different covenants.
Thar sounds very much like Gnosticism, which was a significant heresy in the 2nd century. The Nicolaitans, Cerinthus, and Marcion held that heresy.
In the LXX, “the Most High” is translated as ὁ ὕψιστος lit. “the highest.” That is, there is none higher. So IMO that must refer to the Father. In vs. 9, “Yahweh” is also the Father, his proper name. The LXX translators did not attempt to transliterate the personal name “Yahweh” as they did with other names. This was out of reverence for God’s name. Even today Jews will not pronounce God’s name out of fear of demoting it. The LXX translators used the common word κύριος “master” in the place of Yahweh in the same way that many English translations use LORD (in all caps) for the sacred name.
Anders,
Yes, you are correct, that was a contradiction. The note 132 was an older version. I had previously corrected the note for John 1:1 after exploring the comments regarding Jn. 1:1c of Wallace in “Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics”. But I somehow missed correcting the note for John 5:18. I have corrected it. Thanks for catching that.
Tim
