bible-truths.com/forums
=> General Discussions => Topic started by: Gina on December 02, 2012, 11:20:06 PM
-
26 As it happened in the days of Noah, even so will it be also in the days of the Son of Man.
27 They ate, they drank, they married, they were given in marriage, until the day that Noah entered into the ship, and the flood came, and destroyed them all.
28 Likewise, even as it happened in the days of Lot: they ate, they drank, they bought, they sold, they planted, they built;
29 but in the day that Lot went out from Sodom, it rained fire and sulfur from the sky, and destroyed them all.
Well, this is weighing on my mind. Someone on the forum (I will not name names) pointed the bolded part out to me by PM. I then discussed this with an attorney at my work (because he is an member/elder in the Mormon church - and he's super cool and easy to talk to). I said, Dan, you know, someone told me on my bible study forum what "they were given in marriage" means. Gay marriage, since it is well established that only a woman can be given in marriage, but now with the passage of the gay marriage laws men are also given in marriage.
He goes, yeah, and smiled. I said, soooo you've known about this -- you heard about this before I mentioned it to you just now? And he goes, yeah, for about 5 years now.
I was blown away. Again, I know this isn't something that Ray specifically taught or mentioned but it has been weighing on my mind a lot lately --- that while we can't know the exact day or the hour, Jesus gave signs of the times so we can be watching. I know that Christ's words are spirit, but it must mean that in the days of Naoh in the land of Sodom, men were marrying each other and therefore being given in marriage. (Not to harp on the gay marriage thing.)
What are your thoughts, BT family?
-
Hi Gina,
Perhaps I'm not following your point. Couldn't "they" refer to women being given to men in Sodom? Where does it imply that only men were living in Sodom at that time?
Inquiring minds want to know? Bob
-
I agree with you in that both men and women were living in Sodom. I think it's worth remarking that it says they were marrying and they were being given in marriage, meaning men were marrying men and women marrying women, as we have today with the passing of the gay marriage laws.
At what other time in history, other than in the days of Noah, were women AND men given in marriage? None other than this present age we're living in right now -- at least that all that I know of personally. For sure in every other point in history women have been given in marriage to men and have married, they've ate and drank, made merry.
But Jesus is giving a sign of the times. He's telling us what will be happening at the time of His appearing, and goes on to single out Noah, Lot and Sodom: as it was in the "days of Lot and in the days of Noah" so shall it be in the days of the Son of Man. And I guess the reason He singled them out is because the TIMES were markedly different from any other time in history in that men were apparently marrying men and women were marrying women.
Thanks for responding. :)
-
I agree with you in that both men and women were living in Sodom. I think it's worth remarking that it says they were marrying and they were being given in marriage, meaning both men and women, as we have today with the passing of the gay marriage laws. At what other time in history, other than in the days of Noah, were women AND men given in marriage? None other than this present age we're living in right now -- at least that all that I know of personally. For sure in every other point in history women have been given in marriage to men and have married, they've ate and drank, made merry. Jesus is giving a sign of the times. He's telling us what will be happening at that point in history at His appearing, just as it was in the "days of Lot and in the days of Noah" so shall it be in the days of the Son of Man. The days of Lot and Noah were markedly different from any other time in history in that men were apparently marrying men and women were marrying women.
The greeks.
Homosexuality in ancient Greece
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Young man and teenager engaging in intercrural sex, fragment of a black-figure Attic cup, 550 BC–525 BC, Louvre
In classical antiquity, writers such as Herodotus,[1] Plato,[2] Xenophon,[3] Athenaeus[4] and many others explored aspects of same-sex love in ancient Greece. The most widespread and socially significant form of same-sex sexual relations in ancient Greece was between adult men and pubescent or adolescent boys, known as pederasty (marriages in Ancient Greece between men and women were also age structured, with men in their 30s commonly taking wives in their early teens). Though homosexual relationships between adult men did exist, at least one member of each of these relationships flouted social conventions by assuming a passive sexual role. It is unclear how such relations between women were regarded in the general society, but examples do exist as far back as the time of Sappho.[5]
The ancient Greeks did not conceive of sexual orientation as a social identifier as Western societies have done for the past century. Greek society did not distinguish sexual desire or behavior by the gender of the participants, but rather by the role that each participant played in the sex act, that of active penetrator or passive penetrated.[5] This active/passive polarization corresponded with dominant and submissive social roles: the active (penetrative) role was associated with masculinity, higher social status, and adulthood, while the passive role was associated with femininity, lower social status, and youth.[5]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexuality_in_ancient_Greece
Here is something else interesting;
http://www.randomhistory.com/history-of-gay-marriage.html
Apparently in egypt their is evidence of same sex marriage.
Ancient greece allowed it as described by plato.
The roman empire as well.
etc.. etc..
So same sex union is not limited to Sodom or modern day america. It's existed throughout history. There is nothing new under the sun.
-
I was at my favorite restaurant here (AnQi! I love that place!) and I was eating dinner with my friend Gail and telling her everything I'm telling you and I could see this man out of the corner of my eye who was seated at the table next us with his female friend or wife--he was trying to pretend like he wasn't listening in on my conversation, but it was apparent he was enthralled. After I finished the story, I went to pull my lipstick out of my purse and it slipped out of my hand and fell on the floor at my feet, and the guy (who was listening to my conversation) saw it, gets up, immediately grabs it and hands it back to me with this really warm smile -- "here you are, miss." It was as if he was saying thank you to me, as if he was relieved to know that Jesus' appearing would be soon.
-
Well, Alex, thanks for that. I imagine Jesus singled out Lot and Noah and Sodom for a reason. I imagined that was the reason. Oh well! I guess there must be another reason that Jesus singled them out.
-
perhaps Jesus singled out noah and lot (who came out of sodom), because God destroyed the peoples in those areas, due to their over abundant sins and lack of repentance. not necessarily because of any kind of sexual sin per se, but because of the condition of the hearts of mankind at those times, which were evil experiences for His ultimate plan and purpose.
claudia
-
Yes, but just as Alex pointed out, there is nothing new under the sun. There are other countries and places where they have had abundant sins (Egypt) and lack of repentance (Egypt). I'm sure there sins were not worse then Egypt's sins. Even Jesus said that as bad as they were, they would have repented if the works He did in one certain place were done there. So that's not it.
-
perhaps Jesus referred back to noah and lot/sodom, showing again the parable of the many (peoples concerned chiefly with the every day things of life) and the few (noah/lot concerned with the things of God). and the phenomenal physical destruction by God of the areas where noah and lot lived, once noah and lot had been removed from those areas, showing God's righteous judgment. and, just like in the days of noah and lot when people were busy, busy, busy getting married or being given in marriage, buying, selling, planting, eating, drinking, etc, etc, that mankind as a whole, will be caught by surprise when the Son of Man returns.
just perhaps.
claudia
p.s. i just don't see the Scriptures referenced as meaning gay/lesbian marrying or being given in marriage, as opposed to man/woman marriages.
-
Thanks Claudia. Thing is people have been busy throughout other times in history, and being busy isn't a sin -- that's not why Sodom was destroyed. There was something going on in those days that was a total abomination and unique to any other time in history (is the conclusion that I personally come to) in the eyes of God such that God had to literally wipe them off the face of the earth. It may not be the gay marriage issue but more that the people were mixing with those outside their faith? I don't know. Still searching for clues.
Thanks for your responses though! :)
-
Hello Gina,
do you know if the Greek word for they here has a defined gender? For example, in English they can mean male or female but in Portuguese we can use Eles (they, usually all male or at least one male among many females) or Elas (they, all females). Maybe that answer can help finding the truth on the matter.
-
they were given in marriage
Ray discussed this with me and he was not entirely sure but he seemed to draw the same conclusions Gina has drawn.
-
I'd always figured the 'signs of the times' would be that there are no 'signs of the times' for the world at large. Everything is 'normal' and the appearance is unexpected for those not expecting such as Noah and Lot.
-
A PERSON gets married or is given in marriage.
A person is a living HUMAN. Transcripts of Ray's Audio's and More Teachings / Re: Mobile Conference 2009
God is forming man into the very image of Himself. LOF3
God is not human! He’s not a person. The Hebrews didn’t even have a word for person. I looked up person in my E-Sword and there’s only half a dozen times that you find the word person (it’s always in italics), it was added by the translators. There’s no word in the Hebrew that should be translated Person. Transcripts of Ray's Audio's and More Teachings / Re: Mobile Conference 2009
Christ's BODY IS SPIRITUAL, not physical. LOF4
People die.
Now can we understand that? Is that too difficult to know what a person is? The Bible has no such word, nowhere does it call God a person. I don’t see any definition where God is called a person. Re: Mobile Conference 2009
In the resurrection after death, we don't marry because we become as the Angels of Heaven.
Can two individuals be one individual? No. Can two individuals be one God? Yes .http://bible-truths.com/audio/INHERITTHEKINGDOM.mp3
Can seven billion individuals be one God? Yes! With God, all things ARE possible!
....six hundred sixty-six." The number of the wild beast is not the number of "a" man, but rather the number of "man" or "mankind." LOFX111
Arc
-
they married, they were given in marriage
Should have added it was both these sentences that made Ray suspect something. The first sentence should be enough to make a simple point.
-
Mat 22:30 For in the resurrection they neither marry, nor are given in marriage, but are as the angels of God in heaven.
Mark 12:25 For when they shall rise from the dead, they neither marry, nor are given in marriage; but are as the angels which are in heaven.
God refers to the angels as male only, something to think about....
-
Hi everyone,
I liked Levy's thought about checking the Greek, so I did.
I don't claim any knowledge, but it seems to be correct how it's rendered in the King James (3rd person plural in the Greek) THEY WERE GIVEN...
gamisko: I give in marriage
Original Word: γαμίσκω
Part of Speech: Verb
Transliteration: gamisko
Phonetic Spelling: (gam-is'-ko)
Short Definition: I give in marriage
Definition: I give in marriage.
Other translations have something like this:
Matthew 24:38 For as in the days that were before the flood they were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, until the day that Noe entered into the ark,
So, not GIVEN in marriage, but GIVING.
Luke 17:28 gives us more information, but non of these things are sins, are they? The verse mentions nothing about "given in marriage":
"Likewise also as it was in the days of Lot; they did eat, they drank, they bought, they sold, they planted, they builded;"
This, in my opinion, supports what Dave said: "Business as usual".
Matthew 22:30 speaks of both men and women:
For in the resurrection they neither marry, nor are given in marriage, but are as the angels of God in heaven.
My guess is that in Matthew 22:30 "neither marry" refers to men, and "nor are given in marriage" refers to women. Would the same be possible in Luke 17:28?
God bless you,
Eirik
-
So, not GIVEN in marriage, but GIVING.
Luke 17:28 gives us more information, but non of these things are sins, are they? The verse mentions nothing about "given in marriage":
"Likewise also as it was in the days of Lot; they did eat, they drank, they bought, they sold, they planted, they builded;"
This, in my opinion, supports what Dave said: "Business as usual".
but if this is just "Business as usual", simply saying "they married" is good enough to make the point, no need to say "given/giving in marriage", right?
-
Hi everyone,
I liked Levy's thought about checking the Greek, so I did.
I don't claim any knowledge, but it seems to be correct how it's rendered in the King James (3rd person plural in the Greek) THEY WERE GIVEN...
gamisko: I give in marriage
Original Word: γαμίσκω
Part of Speech: Verb
Transliteration: gamisko
Phonetic Spelling: (gam-is'-ko)
Short Definition: I give in marriage
Definition: I give in marriage.
Other translations have something like this:
Matthew 24:38 For as in the days that were before the flood they were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, until the day that Noe entered into the ark,
So, not GIVEN in marriage, but GIVING.
Luke 17:28 gives us more information, but non of these things are sins, are they? The verse mentions nothing about "given in marriage":
"Likewise also as it was in the days of Lot; they did eat, they drank, they bought, they sold, they planted, they builded;"
This, in my opinion, supports what Dave said: "Business as usual".
Matthew 22:30 speaks of both men and women:
For in the resurrection they neither marry, nor are given in marriage, but are as the angels of God in heaven.
My guess is that in Matthew 22:30 "neither marry" refers to men, and "nor are given in marriage" refers to women. Would the same be possible in Luke 17:28?
God bless you,
Eirik
Nice, thanks Eirik. But I meant if the Greek word/suffix/etc used for they has any gender conotation.
-
Mat 22:30 For in the resurrection they neither marry, nor are given in marriage, but are as the angels of God in heaven.
Mark 12:25 For when they shall rise from the dead, they neither marry, nor are given in marriage; but are as the angels which are in heaven.
God refers to the angels as male only, something to think about....
How do you know God only refers to them as male only?
-
So, not GIVEN in marriage, but GIVING.
Luke 17:28 gives us more information, but non of these things are sins, are they? The verse mentions nothing about "given in marriage":
"Likewise also as it was in the days of Lot; they did eat, they drank, they bought, they sold, they planted, they builded;"
This, in my opinion, supports what Dave said: "Business as usual".
but if this is just "Business as usual", simply saying "they married" is good enough to make the point, no need to say "given/giving in marriage", right?
Hi zvezda,
I was referring to Luke 17:28, although you are right; it IS connected to verse 27. :) But verse 28 is referring to the days of Lot and it doesn't mention anything about being given in marriage. That was my point, there is nothing in that verse that hasn't been done throughout history. Or am I wrong?
God bless you,
Eirik
-
Nice, thanks Eirik. But I meant if the Greek word/suffix/etc used for they has any gender conotation.
Hi Levy,
Yeah, I know that's what you meant. I wasn't able to find any information on the gender of it. It seems that Greek doesn't have the gender in the plural, but I've been wrong before, and I could be wrong about this too! :)
This is from the Concordant Interlinear:
exegamizonto
exegamizonto
G1547
vi Impf Pas 3 Pl
THEY-OUT-MARRYizED
they-gave-in-marriage
I think what makes it more complicated here is that this is a verb... and the fact that this is Greek to me...! :P
God bless you,
Eirik
-
Mat 22:30 For in the resurrection they neither marry, nor are given in marriage, but are as the angels of God in heaven.
Mark 12:25 For when they shall rise from the dead, they neither marry, nor are given in marriage; but are as the angels which are in heaven.
God refers to the angels as male only, something to think about....
How do you know God only refers to them as male only?
it was briefly discussed before, see http://forums.bible-truths.com/index.php?topic=3899.20
-
So, not GIVEN in marriage, but GIVING.
Luke 17:28 gives us more information, but non of these things are sins, are they? The verse mentions nothing about "given in marriage":
"Likewise also as it was in the days of Lot; they did eat, they drank, they bought, they sold, they planted, they builded;"
This, in my opinion, supports what Dave said: "Business as usual".
but if this is just "Business as usual", simply saying "they married" is good enough to make the point, no need to say "given/giving in marriage", right?
Hi zvezda,
I was referring to Luke 17:28, although you are right; it IS connected to verse 27. :) But verse 28 is referring to the days of Lot and it doesn't mention anything about being given in marriage. That was my point, there is nothing in that verse that hasn't been done throughout history. Or am I wrong?
God bless you,
Eirik
Hi Erik, no, you are not wrong, I think I misquoted your post, sorry :P
I was just trying to say that it doesn't matter if the translation should be GIVEN or GIVING in marriage, simply saying they married should be good enough. :)
-
Hi Erik, no, you are not wrong, I think I misquoted your post, sorry :P
I was just trying to say that it doesn't matter if the translation should be GIVEN or GIVING in marriage, simply saying they married should be good enough. :)
Hi again zvezda,
It should be enough if you want to be saying: "They" (men and women) married." But can we rule out the possibility that it's referring to men first, and then women? "They (the men) married, and they (the women) were given in marriage."
The same wording appears in Matthew 22:30, Mark 12:25 and Luke 20:34-35. In those verses it seems to refer to men first and then women. Or does it say that the standard is that both women and men are marrying and being giving in marriage? What then about what Jesus says in Luke 20:34?:
And Jesus answering said to them, 'The sons of this age do marry and are given in marriage...[]
The sons refer only to men? Or to men and women? Who marries and who are given in marriage?
I'm not sure, just trying to think out loud, since this subject caught my attention for some reason. Well I'm out of ideas. :)
God bless you,
Eirik
-
Mat 22:30 For in the resurrection they neither marry, nor are given in marriage, but are as the angels of God in heaven.
Mark 12:25 For when they shall rise from the dead, they neither marry, nor are given in marriage; but are as the angels which are in heaven.
God refers to the angels as male only, something to think about....
How do you know God only refers to them as male only?
it was briefly discussed before, see http://forums.bible-truths.com/index.php?topic=3899.20
Hey, thanks! I will check it out.
God bless
-
Nice, thanks Eirik. But I meant if the Greek word/suffix/etc used for they has any gender conotation.
Hi Levy,
Yeah, I know that's what you meant. I wasn't able to find any information on the gender of it. It seems that Greek doesn't have the gender in the plural, but I've been wrong before, and I could be wrong about this too! :)
This is from the Concordant Interlinear:
exegamizonto
exegamizonto
G1547
vi Impf Pas 3 Pl
THEY-OUT-MARRYizED
they-gave-in-marriage
I think what makes it more complicated here is that this is a verb... and the fact that this is Greek to me...! :P
God bless you,
Eirik
Hehe thanks man
-
Hi again zvezda,
It should be enough if you want to be saying: "They" (men and women) married." But can we rule out the possibility that it's referring to men first, and then women? "They (the men) married, and they (the women) were given in marriage."
Hi Erik, both are possible, just that if this verse is trying to say "business as usual", why did God choose the cumbersome way to describe it while He could simply say "they married"? I guess we just don't know for sure. :P
The same wording appears in Matthew 22:30, Mark 12:25 and Luke 20:34-35. In those verses it seems to refer to men first and then women. Or does it say that the standard is that both women and men are marrying and being giving in marriage?
see my previous post, God refers to the angels as male only, just something to think about.
What then about what Jesus says in Luke 20:34?:
And Jesus answering said to them, 'The sons of this age do marry and are given in marriage...[]
The sons refer only to men? Or to men and women? Who marries and who are given in marriage?
the word "sons" (huios) does refer to men:
huios: a son
Original Word: υἱός, οῦ, ὁ
Part of Speech: Noun, Masculine
Transliteration: huios
Phonetic Spelling: (hwee-os')
Short Definition: a son, descendent
Definition: a son, descendent.
Well I'm out of ideas. :)
me too :P ;D
-
Hi folks,
Couple of small points to consider;
1. They were marrying: young persons were being officially joined together as couples.
2. and giving in marriage: parents were giving, giving permission or giving their blessings or making long term or property contracts between families involving their children etc. all according to the existing culture.
All these normal things were being done in normal fashion with no thought by the people of any type of catastrophe coming upon the society because there was no warning.
Now contrast this with what God did in Nineveh where He sent Jonah to warn the leaders and the people to repent and they did repent out of fear of God's wrath.
Who is to say that Sodom was worse than Nineveh? What is the overarching lesson?
Aren't these just examples for the benefit of those upon whom the end times shall come?
As well as lessons for the Israelites concerning how God deals with sin?
A main point may be that this all happened in the area where God's chosen people were living. Doesn't Bible history necessarily relate to God dealing with His chosen and aren't there multiple other events that take place in history that are not recorded in scripture expressly because they do not relate to God's chosen?
I think it reasonable to believe that there were other natural catastrophes such as earthquakes and floods that didn't directly affect God's people or provide a lesson to them.
Hope this helps a little, Indiana bob
-
As I recall our conversation was about the tribulations in the end time and also what seems to be a normal lifestyle with getting married, etc. How can both be true at the same time? Ray never told me if he figured it out.
But it could be that these normal lifestyles continue up until the tribulations begin?
Or it could be that "given in marriage" describes the lifestyles in the end time?
Don't know.
-
The use of language may seem a little odd for an English speaker, but for my language it is not a problem at all. In Chinese, we have different words for man getting married, and woman getting married. Not saying this was the case with the original language Jesus used though because I don't know.
Ray: TRUTH NUMBER 8
(A) "Now ALL these things happened unto them for examples: and they are written for OUR ADMONITION [to reprove, caution, warn, remind of obligation or duty, etc.], upon whom the ends of the world [‘eons—ages’] are come" (I Cor. 10:11).
(B) "Now these things were OUR EXAMPLES, to the intent we should not lust after evil things, as they also lusted" (I Cor. 10:6).
(C) "For whatsoever things were written aforetime were written for OUR LEARNING…" (Rom. 15:4).
To me it sounded like Jesus was saying everyone going on with business as usual, not knowing the coming of judgment and the Lord (like Lot and Noah).
1Th 5:2 For you yourselves know accurately that the day of the Lord comes like a thief in the night.
1Th 5:3 For when they shall say, Peace and safety! Then sudden destruction comes on them, as travail upon a woman with child. And they shall not escape.
1Th 5:4 But you, brothers, are not in darkness, that the Day should overtake you like a thief.
1Th 5:5 You are all the sons of light and the sons of the day. We are not of the night, or of darkness.
1Th 5:6 Therefore let us not sleep as the rest do, but let us watch and be calm.
-
Just a thought in general, those verses in Matthew. 24:37-39, in particular verse 39 seems to indicate to Me that events in general were what's perceived as "Normal" everyday affairs like Marrying & being given in Marriage, like the custom of Men giving their Daughters in Marriage, giving away the Bride, so to speak. I mention Verse 39, because it says they "knew not" UNTIL the Flood came and swept them all away. Nothing seemed to be happening out of the ordinary to most People, just like Today, that would convince them of their End, sorta like Today. Most of the "Christian" believers of the many & varied Denominations still, at least officially, would not look upon Homosexual Marriages as the Normal everyday affairs of People, so they "knew not" or one Translation uses the phrase: "They took no note," UNTIL the flood came & swept them all away, seems to indicate to Me, that a high percentage of People wouldn't be fooled by Gay Marriage, because they wouldn't consider that as being the usual or "Normal" everyday practices, so as to be fooled or "knowing not" until it was too late.
Applying this to Gay Marriage, IE- Given in Marriage is an interesting take on the passage, but only seems plausible through implication, but doesn't seem explicitly clear in examining the passages from Matt. 24 and Luke. 17.
Just My Take, Samson.
-
Hello,
I would say were there is other writings that would help clear this up.We do at times gain understanding through such things as the book of Josephus or .Fox's book of martys and etc..Of course the only truth I know comes through the Holy Scripture!!!!However I think we can deduce as Ray said some things from the Scripture that will help us understand.
1.Are men ever given in marriage?
2.What was the biblical process in the Scripture that men came to take a wife?
3.Read...Gen 19-1-11......Could it be that Lot had some understanding already about what happens when immortality and mortality break the law of the creator and produce NOT after its on seed?.
4. Could this be why God allowed only Noah seed to remain through the flood because it was the only seed not corrupted?
5.Not only do i believe this to be true Gina I also believe as it says in the Scripture..."When they say peace and safety"the time is near.IS that not what everyone is saying since 911..
6. God proclaims us to be children of light not of darkness!
-
The scriptures show that after so much evil, and wickedness is fulfilled, God will do something that makes things anew.
Before the flood the wickedness of man was great in the earth so God brought about destruction, and started fresh with the family of Noah who "found grace in the eyes of the Lord." Genesis 6:5
God made the promise to Abraham to multiply his seed in the earth just before he brought destruction upon Sodom, and Gomorrah. Genesis 18,19
In the book of Revelations after all the plagues, and destruction, God brings in a new heaven, and a new earth where God dwells with man. Revelations 21
Peter said in second Peter 3, that there would be people saying " Where is the sign of his coming? and all things continue as they were from the beginning of creation."
God shows a parallel in Ezekiel 16 that lets us know what the state of things in Sodom were, as well as Israel, and the surrounding lands. Not unlike the state of the world , the flesh, and the devil, in our day.
Ezekiel 49:Behold, this was the iniquity of thy sister Sodom, pride, fulness of bread, and abundance of idleness was in her and in her daughters, neither did she st renthen the hand of the needy.
50: And they were haughty, and committed abomination before me: therefore I took them away as I saw good.
No doubt the times of the gentiles will be fulfilled at Gods set time, and could be similar to the amount of time that God suffered with Israel before Jesus came the first time.
Joel
-
mmm "As in the days before the flood" is this a literal flood Jesus is speaking of ? will not the Lord Flood the world with his spirit "I will pour out my spirit on all flesh" Acts 2:7 - Joel 2: 28
Havn't gays been around forever ? perhaps this is the/a time when all eyes would be opened by the flood of Gods outpoured spirit
even worse perhaps the weepers and wailers could be us, seems our minds are looking at / to, signs in the earth and not in the word,
just thinkin aloud
-
last night i spent several hours rereading the Scriptures pertaining to noah and lot. i believe that in luke 17:27-28 "they" is speaking specifically about the peoples of the areas where noah and lot resided. when i followed the reference Scriptures given in the margins of my study bibles, it becomes apparent that the peoples were exceedingly wicked (sexual sin with others of the same gender, fornication everywhere including with animals, etc, etc.), and it is "they" whom Jesus was referring to. when you read in detail and study where it leads in the Scriptures, the statements by Jesus become pretty matter of fact. people in the generation when the Son of God is revealed to the whole world, will be going along business as usual, including marrying and being given in marriage.
i believe we might be trying to focus in on the "they were given in marriage" more than the actual situation Christ Jesus was describing. i.e. it is really more simple than we are trying to make it out to be.
yes, the men in sodom wanted to "know" (have sex) with the 2 angels that lot had taken in for the night, and i am sure that wickedness was a stinch to God's nostrils. but i don't believe that was what Jesus was referring to when He said "they" were given in marriage.
this topic had been on my mind since gina started the thread.
claudia
-
yep Claudia, you're right, this does deviate slightly from Gina's initial point [which btw im still not getting, Gina always speaks above my particular fireplace] saying that,the easy to read version states,folks are marrying and giving their children to be married.
Could it be that simple ?
-
they married, they were given in marriage
Should have added it was both these sentences that made Ray suspect something. The first sentence should be enough to make a simple point.
Maybe Scripture meant to say- males married, females were given in marriage? I think If they wanted to say homosexuals were marrying, they would have made it clear like they did many times in scriptures when talking about homosexuals? I don't think they were talking abt homosexuals specifically. We know when a marriage occurs, a female must be given away to be married to a male. You don't say, male are given in marriage but you say Mr. Smith married Ms Kathy Spelling of atlantis. another example, Ms.Kathy Spelling, from Halewind, London, were given in marriage to mr. Kenneth Smith on March 23, 2016. You get the idea?
-
We really can't say any of this for certain unless we know what that figure of speech meant 2000 years ago.
-
We really can't say any of this for certain unless we know what that figure of speech meant 2000 years ago.
after reading dennis' post above, i decided to go to the Scriptures to see if the phrase "they were given in marriage" had appeared before. the word marriage in luke 17:27 is "gamisko" in the greek. it means to espouse a daughter to a husband. that same word is used in mark 12:25 where Jesus was answering the sadducees as to what happens upon resurrection for a woman who marries her deceased husband's brothers, and whose wife she would then be. Jesus' reply in verse 25 of mark 12 was, "for when they shall rise from the dead, they neither marry, nor are given in marriage; but are as the angels which are in heaven."
in matthew 22:30 and 24:38, and 1 cor. 7:38 the word marriage is "ekgamizo" which means to marry off a daughter/to give in marriage/of giving a daughter in marriage and is in the family of "gamisko" the word for marriage in luke 17:27.
matt. 22:30 is the same story being portrayed as in mark 12:25 regarding marriage upon resurrection. matt. 24:38 is where Jesus is answering the disciples upon the mount of olives, when they asked Him to tell them what shall be the sign of His coming again.
matt. 24:38 - "for as in the days that were before the flood they were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, until the day that noah entered into the ark."
1 cor. 7:38 - "so then he that giveth her in marriage doeth well; but he that giveth her not in marriage doeth better."
i know i could be wrong on this matter, but it appears after further study of the Scriptures, that the phrase "they were given in marriage" in luke 17:27 is a phrase that was well known and used 2000 years ago, and it was referring to a woman being given in marriage to a man.
claudia
-
I was just looking into the same matter as Claudia, at how the word for 'given into marriage' is used. It doesn't seem that Christ is referring to homosexuality at all.
-
I don't see the homosexual connection in that portion of scripture.
Abraham lived some five hundred years after Noah, when it was time for Isaac to marrying, Abraham sent his servant to "take" a wife (Rebekah) from the family of his brother Nabor.
Genesis 24:4-But thou shalt go unto my country, and to my kindred, and take a wife unto my son Isaac.
If someone is taking, usually someone else is giving.
When it came time for Jacob to marry, he went to his uncle Laban to take a wife. Laban tricked him using Leah, instead of Rachel.
Genesis 29:19- And Laban said, it is better that I give her to thee, than that I should give her to another man: abide with me.
26: And Laban said, It must not be so done in our country, to give the younger (Rachel) before the firstborn.(Leah)
Joel
-
Hey everyone,
Thanks for taking an interest in this thread. There are some excellent points in the responses.
I have to agree with you Marques and Claudia for the time being.
As far as it concerning gay marriage, Jesus mentioned marriage in the days of Noah; however, He mentions nothing about marriage re the days of Lot.
TheTruth, I am especially intrigued by what you said re "they will say peace and safety" and the reference to 9/11. I don't know. I think that's a bit of a reach.
I think the main thing that Jesus was getting at was that we need to always be on alert, remain faithful to the end, don't attempt to save your life (by storing up treasure here) but "lose your life." Do not go the way of the world.
All the events Jesus listed out were in answer to the Pharisees asking when the Kingdom of God would come, and Jesus said, the KIngdom is in you. It's not "out there."
Some additional things that occurred to me as I was reading through all your responses: When exactly are the days of the Son of Man? Are they necessarily "end times"? Are they not in the life of each and every believer in every generation? Regardless, the time that these things occur is "at night" (when it's dark). And that's a parable. Paul told the Thessalonians they wouldn't be taken by surprise:
1Th 5:2 For you yourselves know accurately that the day of the Lord comes like a thief in the night.
1Th 5:3 For when they shall say, Peace and safety! Then sudden destruction comes on them, as travail upon a woman with child. And they shall not escape.
1Th 5:4 But you, brothers, are not in darkness, that the Day should overtake you like a thief.
1Th 5:5 You are all the sons of light and the sons of the day. We are not of the night, or of darkness.
1Th 5:6 Therefore let us not sleep as the rest do, but let us watch and be calm.
Journey, I especially want to thank you for your contribution.
Thank you all very much. :)
God bless you and keep you.
Gina
-
Some additional things that occurred to me as I was reading through all your responses: When exactly are the days of the Son of Man? Are they necessarily "end times"? Are they not in the life of each and every believer in every generation? Regardless, the time that these things occur is "at night" (when it's dark). And that's a parable. Paul told the Thessalonians they wouldn't be taken by surprise:
1Th 5:2 For you yourselves know accurately that the day of the Lord comes like a thief in the night.
1Th 5:3 For when they shall say, Peace and safety! Then sudden destruction comes on them, as travail upon a woman with child. And they shall not escape.
1Th 5:4 But you, brothers, are not in darkness, that the Day should overtake you like a thief.
1Th 5:5 You are all the sons of light and the sons of the day. We are not of the night, or of darkness.
1Th 5:6 Therefore let us not sleep as the rest do, but let us watch and be calm.
http://bible-truths.com/email11.htm#preterist
And a quote, as best I remember it. Futurists deny the past, Preterists deny the future. Both deny the present.
The Gospel of the Kingdom is: Many are called, few are chosen. The Kingdom is within.
Right or wrong, I'm no longer looking for 'signs of the times' in the world. I've seen the 'signs of the times' in the church and during my time in it. That's been going on for 2000 years, and is just the latest installment of what's been going on since Adam. God knows what He's doing, and does what He intends. It's easier and easier to "be calm".
-
As far as it concerning gay marriage, Jesus mentioned marriage in the days of Noah; however, He mentions nothing about marriage re the days of Lot.
i have enjoyed this thread. it caused me to go to the Scriptures for understanding.
i pulled gina's comment from her post out because i wanted to clarify that just because Jesus didn't mention marriage regarding the days of lot, doesn't mean marriages weren't going on. just like in the nt when one of the apostles would mention some specifics that happened during Jesus' life and death, and another apostle might not mention those specifics. it doesn't mean they didn't take place.
just wanted to mention that.
claudia
-
Good catch Claudia. My point in saying that was because if gay marriage were the issue, then certainly Jesus would have mentioned marriages concerning the days of Lot -- because of the obvious. But since He didn't mention it with regards to the days of Lot, it be can be deduced that gay marriage isn't the issue. Hopefully that makes sense now.
:)
-
Just some thoughts about the different things Jesus mentioned for the days of Noah and days of Lot -
------------------------------------------------------
the sin of Sodom (i.e. the days of Lot):
Ezekiel 16:49 Behold, this was the iniquity of thy sister Sodom, pride, fulness of bread, and abundance of idleness was in her and in her daughters, neither did she strengthen the hand of the poor and needy.
all the sins mentioned in Ezekiel are not related to marriages, maybe that's why Jesus didn't mention marriages for the days of Lot?
their sins were "pride, fulness of bread", sounds like they were wealthy, so it makes sense that Jesus said they did eat, they drank, they bought, they sold, they planted, they built.
Jude 1:7 Even as Sodom and Gomorrha, and the cities about them in like manner, giving themselves over to fornication, and going after strange flesh, are set forth for an example, suffering the vengeance of eternal fire.
they probably did commit the sin of homosexuality (or whatever "going after strange flesh" means), but if they didn't legalize gay marriage, then there's no reason for Jesus to mention marriages, is there?
------------------------------------------------------
the days of Noah:
Genesis 6:5 And God saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every imagination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually.
Genesis 6:11 The earth also was corrupt before God, and the earth was filled with violence.
Genesis 6:12 And God looked upon the earth, and, behold, it was corrupt; for all flesh had corrupted his way upon the earth.
they were having evil thoughts continually, does that mean they were sinning when they were eating, drinking, getting married, giving in marriages? (it's sort of like what people are doing in Las Vegas - eating, drinking, getting married impulsively)
Jesus didn't mention they bought, they sold, they planted, they built, is it because the earth also was corrupt and filled with violence (genesis 6:11) that they could hardly do those things?
As I recall our conversation was about the tribulations in the end time and also what seems to be a normal lifestyle with getting married, etc. How can both be true at the same time? Ray never told me if he figured it out.
same question for the days of Noah, the earth also was corrupt and filled with violence (genesis 6:11), it looks like a war zone to me, how could they still have a normal lifestyle? don't know either.
-
Hi this is taken from Johnathan Mitchell's version
26. "Also, correspondingly as (just as; accordingly as) it was birthed (happened; occurred) within the days of Noah, in this way (thus) it will also be – within the days of the Son of the Man:
27. "they were eating, they continued drinking, they kept on marrying, they were habitually given (or: taken out) in marriage – until which day Noah entered into the ark, and then the down-washing (flood; cataclysm) came and destroyed them all.
I have looked at several translations and I think any link with gay marriage appears pretty tenuous
Dave
-
Concordant: "They ate, they drank, they married, they took out in marriage, until the day on which Noah entered into the ark, and the deluge came and destroys them all."
King James: "They did eat, they drank, they married wives, they were given in marriage, until the day that Noe entered into the ark, and the flood came, and destroyed them all."
Strong's says "married" could be either sex, so "wives" was added (Concordant is correct).
But the second "marriage" is applied only to daughters.
There could be a little wiggle room, but probably not.
-
That's how I took it too Dave in Tennessee. It seems all will be a surprise to the world when Christ comes back. "Like a thief in the night".
Nice thread guys. Lot's to think about. I kinda suspect like Ray, that the second given, has a special meaning behind it.
Thanks everyone.
-
That's how I took it too Dave in Tennessee. It seems all will be a surprise to the world when Christ comes back. "Like a thief in the night".
Nice thread guys. Lot's to think about. I kinda suspect like Ray, that the second given, has a special meaning behind it.
Thanks everyone.
Agreed. Seems the emphasis of "as in the days of Noah" is surprise or unexpectedness. And it comes down to "many are called and few are chosen". The many being the majority of the wicked in that land, the few being Noah and his family.
http://www.bible-truths.com/rapture.htm
Is the writer suggesting that this Scripture contradicts the idea that Christ's coming is as a thief? That if some should be "watching," then they will not be surprised when Christ comes? Such an idea is not logical or sound reasoning. Let me attempt to state this idea clearly. Can we agree on the fact that Jesus did not lie when He said: "Now, concerning that day and hour no one is aware, neither the messengers of the heavens, nor the Son; except the Father only" (Matt. 24:36)? Okay then, no one knows when Christ will return. So, even if one is watching, he still will not know when He will return! The very fact that someone would be "watching" is proof positive that he DOESN’T known when the return occurs.
Those "not watching" probably don't even believe Christ is going to return. They will be surprised when it happens. Those who "are watching" believe the Christ is going to return, but neither do they know when He will return. The figure of the thief represents the unexpectedness of His coming--nothing else. If one knows the exact hour that a guest is to arrive at his home, he doesn't need to sit by the window watching for days or weeks. If he knows the exact hour, he could, in fact, set his alarm clock and go to sleep. Here's another point from this figure of a thief. It's a minor point, but nevertheless, a point. Matt. 24 not only states that no one will know when our Lord will return, but it even further suggests that it will be at a time considered the most unlikely. Notice it: "... for in an hour which you are not supposing, the Son of Mankind is coming" (Verse 44).
Consider also, that if Christ wanted to give a figure of speech that represents the day of the Lord (rather than His actual "appearing"), then "as a thief" would be totally inappropriate.
The Day of the Lord represents: Vengeance, Wrath, Indignation, Fire, Gloominess, Darkness, Clouds and Murkiness, Mourning, Devastation, War, Pain, Suffering, and Death--wholesale DEATH. One might choose to represent such evil, A Monster, Satan, a Devil, A Wild Beast, or some such thing, but not a "thief.". Our Lord doesn’t even suggest that it is "an armed robber or thief"--just "a thief." A "thief" is not in the least representative of the horrors of worldwide pain, suffering, fear, and slaughter. A "thief" is about as analogous to or representative of these unprecedented horrors and carnage of most of the human race as a teddy bear or a rubber ducky would be. And that’s why God does use Monsters, Wild Beasts, demons, and Satan himself, as the personification of the greatest evils in history, not "a thief"!
If Christ’s actual return and appearing in great glory is not a thing of darkness, gloominess, and negativism, how then does Christ return to this Earth "as a thief," or "as a thief in the night?" We don’t need to use human reasoning or speculation, many Scriptures tell us exactly how His return is "as a thief." Christ returns to this Earth is as a thief in that no one will know when He will return. The time of His return, is unexpected. And that is the only way in which Christ comes as "a thief." Not one of these Scriptures (which fully and simply explain the figure of a thief), mentions one word about the "ominousness" of the dark and gloomy day as the reason for the figure of a thief. Here are the Scriptures:
"... if the householder were aware in what watch the thief is coming, he would watch ..." (Mat. 24:43). But he didn’t know when and neither will anyone else know when He returns.
"Now, concerning that day and hour no one is aware, neither the messengers of the heavens, nor the Son ..." (Mat. 24:36).
"For even as the days of Noah, thus shall be the presence of the So of Mankind. "...for as they were in the days before the deluge ... and did not know till the deluge came ..." (Mat. 24:37-39).
"Be watching, then, for you are not aware on what day your Lord is Coming" (Matt. 24:42).
"... for in an hour which you are not supposing, the Son of Mankind is coming" (Mat. 24:24-44).
"... for you are not aware when the lord of the house is coming ..." (Mk 13:35).
"Not yours is it to know times or eras ..." (Acts 1:7).
"I shall be arriving on you as a thief, and under no circumstances will you be knowing what hour I shall be arriving" (Rev. 3:3).
There we have eight separate Scriptural explanations as to why and how Christ returns as a thief, and not one of these Scriptures connects a thief with the ominousness of gloominess, darkness, and the like. Christ does not return as a thief because it is gloomy out. He does not return as a thief because He will come in the middle of the night. And He does not come as a thief because that He, Himself, is a thief. No, none of these. He comes as a thief, unexpectedly. That’s it. We don’t know when. All eight verses pinpoint the one aspect of unexpectedness!
Seems so many in the world are expecting the world to end on Dec. 21st midnight. All I wanna know is will that be midnight EST? :P
-
Hello,
Just for a thought! quote.....
Seems so many in the world are expecting the world to end on Dec. 21st midnight. All I wanna know is will that be midnight EST?....... hehe.
First to say, I am only using your quote diggs to express a thought.I marvel how puny men view the scripture as if they know what it will tell verses what it want tell you.
For example,The scripture say "know one knows the day or hour"Remember the rule NO scripture is of its own private interpertation?It seems to me if we look at these versesin Matt-24-29-44. I have all the reason to believe I should know his coming.
v-29-31-When is this AFTER the tribulation of those days.So if I understand Daniel 70-weeks I would then be able to come to understanding of a time period .And since we are at the door step of the middle of Daniel 70 week.The great tribulation! verse 30 says the signwhat is the sign for?Why does he say that ?If no one knows the day or hour?What good is a sign if no one knows there is one?
V-30-"SOUND OF A TRUMPET" if we really believed the Scripture -Matt-5-17-19 that would be a great help!!!Because then we would realize not only the obvious but also a key to understanding his return As the reigning Messiah.Does the re-newed covenant....aka "new" do a word study on that...means to renew.Does the renewed Covenant Quote old testament verses .from Isa-419-times,ps-414 times,gen-260 times,ex-250,Deu-208,Eze-141,Dan-133,Jer-125,Lev-107,Num-73 times if they are not relevent to the renewed coveant?If "Yeshua" used it to teach from as well as Paul then it should be good enough.If we say no" Torah"Then is Adultery fair game?We can pick and choose which ones we accept and which ones we will do?Do we not rip the rainbow out of the sky today because we think its pretty or we believe we can trust our creator in a covenant.Is that not the greatest lOVE story ever told how he died on the cross to remarry his bride.Paul calls it the great mystery!
v-34-question when does this generation pass away?Lk-24-44...iF YOU BELEIVE that verse ..You would know that Zech speaks of many things that have to be fullfilled during the Milli-um reign.So could v-34 refer to the new heaven and new earth?v-35".Heaven and earth will pass away".SO ARE WE TO BELIEVE THAT THE NEW HEAVEN AND NEW EARTH.... Rev-21-1.Will pass away?Sure hope not!thus he states in v-36 -"But of that day"I think his speaking of the new heaven and new earth day.Since we know he has a order there is some work to be done after the White throne judgement to be all in all.Who knows how long it will take to complete that work?Only God!And again whats the sign for ?Then in verse 37 he picks back up with his thought of the coming of the Son of Man.
verse 43-44 also tell me I should know something..."Therefore you also be ready"THE Scripture says 1Thess 5-1-5 we should know!As well if we believe 1 Cor 2-10-13.
I want to say I already know how this will go over with most trust me on that.The point of my post is lets stop putting God in a box on what we THINK HE WILL SHOW US VERSES WHAT HE WILL SHOWS US IF WE ARE TRULY CHILDREN OF LIGHT. WE WILL NOT BE CAUGHT AS A THIEF!
DOES "PEACE AND SAFETY" ring a lot louder after the events of the school shootings?Its interesting to me that some are taking down the Christmas decorations and saying they don't even feel like celebrating Christmas..Praise God!Could that be the whole point of the events.REPENT!!!!!!
LETS STOP TAKING AWAY HIS WORDS WHEN HE SAYS NOT ONE JOT OR TITEL WILL PASS!!!tHE CHURCH ON EVER CORNER DOES IT BY TAKING AWAY THE OLD TESTAMENT.AND OTHER DO IT AS WELL WITH THIER.... .New COVENANT.Again I will not respond to trying to convince anyone of what I see the Scripture teach.
I ALSO WILL SAY HE COMES AS A THIEF TO THOSE WHO ARE NOT CHILDREN OF LIGHT BECAUSE THEY DONT KNOW HIS RETURN !MATT -16-3!
-
Hi the truth,
I just can't see this the way you see it. If you please, could you explain this passage (using the word "renewed").
Now of the things which we have spoken this is the sum: We have such an high priest, who is set on the right hand of the throne of the Majesty in the heavens; A minister of the sanctuary, and of the true tabernacle, which the Lord pitched, and not man. For every high priest is ordained to offer gifts and sacrifices: wherefore it is of necessity that this man have somewhat also to offer. For if he were on earth, he should not be a priest, seeing that there are priests that offer gifts according to the law: Who serve unto the example and shadow of heavenly things, as Moses was admonished of God when he was about to make the tabernacle: for, See, saith he, that thou make all things according to the pattern shewed to thee in the mount. But now hath he obtained a more excellent (renewed?) ministry, by how much also he is the mediator of a better (renewed?) covenant, which was established upon better (renewed?) promises.
For if that first covenant had been faultless, then should no place have been sought for the second (the renewed?). (Would you renew something that had fault?)
For finding fault with them, he saith, Behold, the days come, saith the Lord, when I will make a new (renewed?) covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah:
Not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day when I took them by the hand to lead them out of the land of Egypt; because they continued not in my covenant, and I regarded them not, saith the Lord.
For this is the covenant (the renewed?) that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, saith the Lord; I will put my laws into their mind, and write them in their hearts: and I will be to them a God, and they shall be to me a people:
And they shall not teach every man his neighbour, and every man his brother, saying, Know the Lord: for all shall know me, from the least to the greatest.
For I will be merciful to their unrighteousness, and their sins and their iniquities will I remember no more.
In that he saith, A new (renewed?) covenant, he hath made the first old. Now that which decayeth and waxeth old is ready to vanish away.
God bless you,
Eirik
-
I'm not about to tackle that whole post, thetruth. But let me use one statement of yours as an example. You said, "If we say no" Torah "Then is Adultery fair game?"
The NEW that Jesus preached is this:
Mat 5:27,28 Ye have heard that it was said by them of old time, Thou shalt not commit adultery (one of the 10 commandments):
But I say unto you, That whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart.
The NEW reaches into the heart. Not only is it not "fair game" to commit adultery, but it's no longer 'fair game' to look on a woman to lust because THAT IS committing adultery in the heart. That wasn't in the law for those who did not have a heart, eyes, and ears to receive it. If you can imagine a situation where a man commits the sexual act of adultery without already having committed it in his heart, then I'm stumped to understand. Can you imagine a man who does not physically commit adultery but does so in his heart? I imagine MOST men have been guilty of that. Almost all. And those who haven't, still get caught in another. Neither of those is "fair game" NOW.
Indeed, for those with eyes, ears and a heart to believe, this 'adultery' is not just sexual, but Spiritual.
It's actually those seeking to follow the Old Covenant letter who have to (are forced to) pick and choose! There IS NO MORE TEMPLE to conduct sacrifice. Yet even the most ardent of 'old covenant' believing christians is able to understand that the sacrifice of Christ fulfills all the requirements of the law concerning sacrifice. Why then is it so difficult to see that the ministry, life, death, resurrection and return of Christ fulfills ALL the law and prophets?
Does that leave us free to whore around and commit adultery? NO...WE are not even to commit adultery IN OUR HEARTS! Why not? Because Moses said not to? NO, because Jesus said not to. New Covenant believers are not to practice any number of sins. Why not? Because it says so in Leviticus? No, because it says so in the Epistles.
Ray teaches differently on the meaning of the "thief in the night". He teaches differently on the distinction between the New and the Old Covenants. And he devoted very little attention to the physical 'end of the age'.
You've been warned privately and publicly about the rules of this forum. How many times must it happen? Teach all you want, only elsewhere.
-
This thread is kind of an experiment to see if people can discuss without teaching or arguing.
It's starting to fail.
-
This thread is kind of an experiment to see if people can discuss without teaching or arguing.
It's starting to fail.
I second that.
-
It could be said
that this thread
is having
a "bad hair day"
;) ;D :-*
Let's try this: :-X
-
Hello Dave,
I will say this Dave.
1.I did not say we are to have a temple sacrifice today. I do believe he fullfilled the temple sacrifice on the cross!Where does it say we are to not Acknowleadge the feast?
2.Dave ,I have a Scripture that says this :
Mat 5:17 Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil.
Mat 5:18 For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.
Mat 5:19 Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach them, the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.
So do you have one that says that he destoyed or did a way with the torah/law?If you do then i will stop observing it.
Again ,I am not trying to teach you anything only Ray can do that!
You know Dave...God is Love...Do you have a Scripture God is Not love?Same deal here Dave I have a scripture do you?
AS I said before... just because i have a thought doesnt mean I am trying to teach.If I wanted to do that then I have plenty of fire power in Scripture to proof my point.If know one cant believe the Scripture I posted its not my fault!
And above all...Relax!Are we to say someone has it all covered?This has been one of the hardest things for me to understand.So show a little grace and above all respect for a person thoughts.
Eggi,Just do a word study or simply post me and i will set you up with some info.Thanks for your respect!Dave you said this: Why then is it so difficult to see that the ministry, life, death, resurrection and return of Christ fulfills ALL the law and prophets.
If we read the verses above that I shared above then we can see and know that all has not been fullfilled/Has he came back yet and we didnt know?Like in 1-thess?And according to your statement he has to be already came to fullfill it.If we read Luke 24-44 and then believe it and then read Zech -14 and believe it.We couls see there is more to be fullfilled just yet.Not to mention fullfilling the last 3 feast!God Bless!
Also eggi:yot shared...them, he saith, Behold, the days come, saith the Lord, when I will make a new (renewed?) covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah:
Thats what he did on the cross Eggi...How was a man to be remarried again .if the law said he could not....the great Mystery...Only if their Husband died and he did on the cross!
-
Jerry,
How are the imprisoned to acknowledge the "feast"?
Yes, guard, may I have a little more bread with my butter and butter with my bread? It's the law.
Haaaa!
Sorry, man. I couldn't resist.
-
Hello Dave,
I will say this Dave.
1.I did not say we are to have a temple sacrifice today. I do believe he fullfilled the temple sacrifice on the cross!Where does it say we are to not Acknowleadge the feast?
2.Dave ,I have a Scripture that says this :
Mat 5:17 Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil.
Mat 5:18 For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.
Mat 5:19 Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach them, the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.
So do you have one that says that he destoyed or did a way with the torah/law?If you do then i will stop observing it.
Again ,I am not trying to teach you anything only Ray can do that!
You know Dave...God is Love...Do you have a Scripture God is Not love?Same deal here Dave I have a scripture do you?
AS I said before... just because i have a thought doesnt mean I am trying to teach.If I wanted to do that then I have plenty of fire power in Scripture to proof my point.If know one cant believe the Scripture I posted its not my fault!
And above all...Relax!Are we to say someone has it all covered?This has been one of the hardest things for me to understand.So show a little grace and above all respect for a person thoughts.
Eggi,Just do a word study or simply post me and i will set you up with some info.Thanks for your respect!Dave you said this: Why then is it so difficult to see that the ministry, life, death, resurrection and return of Christ fulfills ALL the law and prophets.
If we read the verses above that I shared above then we can see and know that all has not been fullfilled/Has he came back yet and we didnt know?Like in 1-thess?And according to your statement he has to be already came to fullfill it.If we read Luke 24-44 and then believe it and then read Zech -14 and believe it.We couls see there is more to be fullfilled just yet.Not to mention fullfilling the last 3 feast!God Bless!
Jerry, Jesus didn't destroy the Law, but He did fulfill the Law. So we don't have to. All the Old Covenant is gone, including the Ten Commandments, which were the heart of the Old Covenant.
You make the same mistake as the Jewish religion. You pick and choose which of the Old Covenant laws to follow. Which the Torah forbids. It's all or nothing. Without a Temple or Levitical priesthood, the Old Covenant cannot be obeyed. When God destroyed the Temple in 70 A.D., even the most simple minded OT followers should have got the point.
New Testament 101. The old ways are no more. I would say read Galatians and Paul's other epistles and the Gospel of John-------but it would do you no good. You are too deep in trying to keep the Old Covenant and the New together. Done that myself. Worldwide Church of God over 25 years. ;D
But now I feel the spirit of prophecy coming on me. This thread won't last much longer. :D
-
Without a Temple or Levitical priesthood, the Old Covenant cannot be obeyed.
But, but, but, John! We ARE the "temple." ;D
Yeah, better close this thread, Mods, so John doesn't come up as a false prophet and have to die. (I don't want to see you die by stoning, JFK, and really make a mess out of my thread. ;) )
-
Jerry, this isn't my first rodeo. I've pointed out to you in the past from Ray's teaching that NEW means NEW. And I've pointed out to you from Ray's teaching that FULFILLED does not mean destroyed. Without directly quoting him, I've pointed out that the Law is Spiritual and what makes it Spiritual.
Now...where you disagree is in saying that NEW means renewed. You think Ray taught (and that I believe) that FULFILLED means DESTROYED when it means FULFILLED, and you don't agree on the meaning of "fulfilled". You also don't agree on the meaning of Spiritual. There are other things...there always are. I don't live to persuade anybody. I also don't live to be persuaded by everybody with a bible.
I think I have shown grace, and I'm sorry if you haven't seen it. You said, "Are we to say someone has it all covered?This has been one of the hardest things for me to understand." No, we aren't to say that. And I'm also sorry this has been so hard for you to understand. So let me put it bluntly. We are not an audience. We are not a free-for-all discussion group. We are a web-forum centered on the teaching of Ray Smith. We don't ask anybody to believe anything. We just ask people to abide by the rules. It's no longer possible for a member to take disagreement directly to Ray, but that does not mean we can't still be vigilant to keep to the purpose of the forum. In that regard, we do the best we can.
-
Hello,
Dave now a do sense some grace there.I know how many feel so snug in what they believe and as i said before I never said or thought this would go over with most on forum.And as you said this is not the place for it.I have read Ray paper many of times on this and for my self had some unanswered questions.As much as you believe what you believe .I believe what I do .In Rom -6-14-15 I guess for me i see that Paul was speaking of not being under the law of sin and death which is the punishment for breaking the law.1 jn-3-4 ...sin is the transgression of the law.Anyway,We will find out what Yeshua thinks about it soon.I am at peace with that Prov-4-2.Thanks again for your kindness Dave and its always a pleasure to rattle your cage John in Kentucky.God bless!
Sorry Phyllis: did not mean to forget about you.If pleasing God is so imprionsed to you ...since he says If you Love me you will do what I command. I would advise that you change your thinking ....to accepting Gods ways.First if you have ever read Zech 14 you to will be doing some sacrificing.And second of all God changes not!he really is the same yesterday ,today and forever. Sorry man could not resist ;D ;D