Dispensationalism, John Darby, etc.

[JohnHurt]

In Revelation 22 it seems that the angel who had been showing John the holy city left at around v10, with the remainder of the chapter being Jesus speaking rather than the angel.

Ken,

I am sorry, I missed this verse:

Rev 1:(1) The Revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave unto him, to shew unto his servants things which must shortly come to pass; and he sent and signified it by his angel unto his servant John:

So it looks like it is the whole Book of Revelation that was sent to John by an angel, and not Christ Himself.

[JohnHurt]

o is Ananias trustworthy, or not. I thought you said earlier Ananias was an imposter - now you seem to be suggesting his vision of Christ isn't necessarily problematic. You said previously that the reason we know Ananias was a deceiver is because he claimed to have seen a vision of Christ. What gives?

Both Ananias and Paul claimed that Christ visited them here on earth, either physically or in a vision. You don't see that anywhere else. And it violates Matthew 24:23-27.

The only other examples I can find of someone having a vision of Christ are Acts 7:55 where Stephen sees Christ in heaven, and the book of Revelation where John hears from the angel in heaven. Both of these have Christ in heaven, not on earth.

So that is the difference. Christ said He would not appear to anyone on earth in private, yet Paul and Ananias think otherwise.


As far as Ananias' vision, the first time the story is told, Ananias is told by Christ in a vision that Paul will be sent to the Gentiles. Acts 9:15

The second time the story is told, Ananias didn't have a vision, but told Paul he would be a witness for Christ, all on his own. Acts 22:12-16. After this, Christ appeared to Paul in a trance in the Temple and told Paul he would be sent to the Gentiles. Acts 22:17-21

The 3rd time the story is told, Paul forgot all about Ananias, the vision of Ananias, or even his own vision while in a trance in the Temple. Rather, Paul said that Christ told him that he would be sent to the Gentiles - right there on the Road to Damascus. Acts 26:15-18

Which story do you like the best?

And, why does the story change each time?

And what do you think is the problem when someone cannot keep their facts straight?

[Sudsy]

Thank you for your comments, I really appreciate reading your post.

I believe this could be a leading for you and your health by the Spirit but under the New Covenant, I believe we are to "abstain from food sacrificed to idols, from blood, from meat of strangled animals" (Acts 15:29). In Acts 10:14-15 - “Surely not, Lord!” Peter replied. “I have never eaten anything impure or unclean.” The voice spoke to him a second time, “Do not call anything impure that God has made clean.” From this, I see a transition away from OT practise.

Here is what I found to be helpful, to know the difference between "common" and "unclean" to help me to understand Acts 10:

Acts 10:(14) But Peter said, Not so, Lord; for I have never eaten any thing that is common or unclean.

(15) And the voice spake unto him again the second time, What God hath cleansed, that call not thou common.

All manner of beasts were in the sheet, both clean and unclean. The unclean animals in the sheet made the clean animals "common" by touching or being in close proximity to them. Lev 11:31-40.

Peter had not only never eaten any unclean animal, but he had never eaten any "clean" animal that was made "common" by being in contact with an unclean animal either. Peter knew the difference between clean and common.

The voice did not say it had cleansed the unclean animals, but that the clean animals that had become "common" by being close to the unclean by being let down in a sheet with them - that these "common" animals had been cleansed.

And this vision is not about eating unclean or common animals, it is about Cornelius and others coming into the church. And it is a perfect lesson, if we know the difference between common and unclean.

Cornelius was a "clean" person who came from an "unclean" background, which would make him "common" in the eyes of some. Yet God cleansed the "common" Cornelius so that, even with his "unclean" background, even though he was raised in uncleanness, he was now clean.

Only a person that understood the difference between unclean and common would understand this, and Peter did, as he had avoided both the common and the unclean animals for his diet.

Never in his life, even when Peter walked with Christ, had Peter eaten an unclean or even a "common" animal. That says a lot. And if Christ wanted to overturn the dietary laws, Peter would have known about it.

And notice that the voice said "What God hath cleansed, that call not thou common" - The voice did not say that it cleansed the unclean, only the common animals. If you read the passage quickly, it is easy to get "common" and "unclean" mixed up.

And no, Peter's vision did not have the authority to overturn Leviticus 11. Only Christ could do that. And the voice did not do it either, if anything, this vision of Peter reinforced the finer details of Lev 11.

Nice talking to you.

John

Sorry, I guess I'm too old to follow this. To me, the word 'common' is perhaps better translated as 'unholy' or 'unclean' and is in various Bible versions. The word is κοινόϛ (koinos) and means common in a sense that it is set apart from the consecrated or holy and in secular Greek it refers to something that had little value. The Jews considered themselves the only ones set apart by God and the Gentiles were (common, unholy), of little value.

So, I don't get the 'unclean' being different from the 'common' when they both mean unholy. Actually in Acts 10:28 reads - 'Then he said to them, “You know how unlawful it is for a Jewish man to keep company with or go to one of another nation. But God has shown me that I should not call any man common or unclean.' Seems to me these words here are meaning the same.

Matthew 15:11 says - "A man is not defiled by what enters his mouth, but by what comes out of it."

So, what do you think happens to a Christian who eats pork ? Is this living in disobedience and in danger of hell fire ? Also are all 613 OT laws, in your opinion, still applicable today for a believer ?

[mike]

o is Ananias trustworthy, or not. I thought you said earlier Ananias was an imposter - now you seem to be suggesting his vision of Christ isn't necessarily problematic. You said previously that the reason we know Ananias was a deceiver is because he claimed to have seen a vision of Christ. What gives?

Both Ananias and Paul claimed that Christ visited them here on earth, either physically or in a vision. You don't see that anywhere else. And it violates Matthew 24:23-27.

The only other examples I can find of someone having a vision of Christ are Acts 7:55 where Stephen sees Christ in heaven, and the book of Revelation where John hears from the angel in heaven. Both of these have Christ in heaven, not on earth.

So that is the difference. Christ said He would not appear to anyone on earth in private, yet Paul and Ananias think otherwise.


As far as Ananias' vision, the first time the story is told, Ananias is told by Christ in a vision that Paul will be sent to the Gentiles. Acts 9:15

The second time the story is told, Ananias didn't have a vision, but told Paul he would be a witness for Christ, all on his own. Acts 22:12-16. After this, Christ appeared to Paul in a trance in the Temple and told Paul he would be sent to the Gentiles. Acts 22:17-21

The 3rd time the story is told, Paul forgot all about Ananias, the vision of Ananias, or even his own vision while in a trance in the Temple. Rather, Paul said that Christ told him that he would be sent to the Gentiles - right there on the Road to Damascus. Acts 26:15-18

Which story do you like the best?

And, why does the story change each time?

And what do you think is the problem when someone cannot keep their facts straight?

I think you only find lies here because you want to. I think this kind of unreasonable standard would find most historical literature to be replete with lies, and is just not realistic. Do you apply this rigid standard to your own words or writing over your lifetime? The differences between biblical accounts all through the scriptures don't mean the various parties were lying. They were speaking in various contexts and from various human perspectives, and those who recorded them may not have remembered them perfectly or seen the need to repeat every single every time they told the story. Multiple accounts with differing details are evidence of a real event; if every version was cookie cutter the same, we would know there was collusion between the different authors. I don't even close find this to be compelling evidence that Paul or Luke was a liar.

[JohnHurt]

o is Ananias trustworthy, or not. I thought you said earlier Ananias was an imposter - now you seem to be suggesting his vision of Christ isn't necessarily problematic. You said previously that the reason we know Ananias was a deceiver is because he claimed to have seen a vision of Christ. What gives?

Both Ananias and Paul claimed that Christ visited them here on earth, either physically or in a vision. You don't see that anywhere else. And it violates Matthew 24:23-27.

The only other examples I can find of someone having a vision of Christ are Acts 7:55 where Stephen sees Christ in heaven, and the book of Revelation where John hears from the angel in heaven. Both of these have Christ in heaven, not on earth.

So that is the difference. Christ said He would not appear to anyone on earth in private, yet Paul and Ananias think otherwise.


As far as Ananias' vision, the first time the story is told, Ananias is told by Christ in a vision that Paul will be sent to the Gentiles. Acts 9:15

The second time the story is told, Ananias didn't have a vision, but told Paul he would be a witness for Christ, all on his own. Acts 22:12-16. After this, Christ appeared to Paul in a trance in the Temple and told Paul he would be sent to the Gentiles. Acts 22:17-21

The 3rd time the story is told, Paul forgot all about Ananias, the vision of Ananias, or even his own vision while in a trance in the Temple. Rather, Paul said that Christ told him that he would be sent to the Gentiles - right there on the Road to Damascus. Acts 26:15-18

Which story do you like the best?

And, why does the story change each time?

And what do you think is the problem when someone cannot keep their facts straight?

I think you only find lies here because you want to. I think this kind of unreasonable standard would find most historical literature to be replete with lies, and is just not realistic. Do you apply this rigid standard to your own words or writing over your lifetime? The differences between biblical accounts all through the scriptures don't mean the various parties were lying. They were speaking in various contexts and from various human perspectives, and those who recorded them may not have remembered them perfectly or seen the need to repeat every single every time they told the story. Multiple accounts with differing details are evidence of a real event; if every version was cookie cutter the same, we would know there was collusion between the different authors. I don't even close find this to be compelling evidence that Paul or Luke was a liar.

Mike,

Paul and Ananias seeing Jesus right here on earth and not in heaven not only violates what Christ said in Matt 24:23-27, but their experiences also violates what Peter knew to be true:

Acts 3:(20) And he shall send Jesus Christ, which before was preached unto you:

(21) Whom the heaven must receive until the times of restitution of all things, which God hath spoken by the mouth of all his holy prophets since the world began.

Peter said Christ is in heaven, not on earth. Peter should know.

Hebrews also makes this same point that Christ is in heaven:

Heb 9:(11) But Christ being come an high priest of good things to come, by a greater and more perfect tabernacle, not made with hands, that is to say, not of this building;

(12) Neither by the blood of goats and calves, but by his own blood he entered in once into the holy place, having obtained eternal redemption for us.

Even if I wanted to make Paul and Ananias' stories about meeting Jesus on earth "fit", I can't because they just do not match the rest of the Bible.

The three accounts of Paul's conversion in Acts 9, 22, and 26 are in there for a reason. And the differences that Paul makes in each of the three stories are not trivial.

Luke is not a liar, he is a historian that wrote down what Paul said. He did not "cover" for Paul, which is why we know what we do.

To "clear Paul" from the charge of lying, you also have to explain how Paul lied to James by his actions in Acts 21:21-26, how he lied to the Sanhedrin about why he was arrested in Acts 23:6 when he claimed he was there because he believed in the resurrection of the dead, and how he lied to Agrippa about why he was arrested in Acts 26:6-8 - when he was arrested for bringing Greeks into the Temple. Acts 21:28-33

It is impossible. If you don't have an open mind on this, you won't see anything. And I won't argue with you.

[JohnHurt]

Sorry, I guess I'm too old to follow this. To me, the word 'common' is perhaps better translated as 'unholy' or 'unclean' and is in various Bible versions. The word is κοινόϛ (koinos) and means common in a sense that it is set apart from the consecrated or holy and in secular Greek it refers to something that had little value. The Jews considered themselves the only ones set apart by God and the Gentiles were (common, unholy), of little value.

So, I don't get the 'unclean' being different from the 'common' when they both mean unholy. Actually in Acts 10:28 reads - 'Then he said to them, “You know how unlawful it is for a Jewish man to keep company with or go to one of another nation. But God has shown me that I should not call any man common or unclean.' Seems to me these words here are meaning the same.

Matthew 15:11 says - "A man is not defiled by what enters his mouth, but by what comes out of it."

So, what do you think happens to a Christian who eats pork ? Is this living in disobedience and in danger of hell fire ? Also are all 613 OT laws, in your opinion, still applicable today for a believer ?

In Acts 2:44 and Acts 4:32, "common" or "koinos" is used for what everyone possessed as a community:

Acts 2:(44) And all that believed were together, and had all things common;

Acts 4:(32) And the multitude of them that believed were of one heart and of one soul: neither said any of them that ought of the things which he possessed was his own; but they had all things common.

These items were not "defiled", they were in contact with many different people, and that is why they were called "common" or "koinos".

In Mark 7:2, "koinos" is rendered "defiled":

Mark 7:(2) And when they saw some of his disciples eat bread with defiled, that is to say, with unwashen, hands, they found fault.

"Defiled" is not unclean, but your unwashed hands were supposed by the Pharisees to be in contact with something unclean, which made them "common". So "common" is when something pure comes in contact with something unclean, just like Peter's vision.

In Acts 10:22, Peter said (as a result of the vision) that it was not right to call any man common or unclean.

In Acts 10:15, the voice said that only the common animals - that had been in contact with the unclean animals, that the common animals had been cleansed. The voice did not cleanse the unclean animals, just the "common" ones. And the vision had nothing to do with allowing people to eat unclean animals, it was about Gentiles like Cornelius coming into the church.

So Acts 10:15 and Acts 10:22 are different in wording, and correct in their contexts. One is about men, one about animals.

Matthew 15:11 is talking about eating food with unwashen hands that enters your mouth, which does not defile you like the thoughts, words, and deeds that come from your heart, which is what defiles you.

Matt 15:(11) Not that which goeth into the mouth defileth a man; but that which cometh out of the mouth, this defileth a man.

This verse is in the context of eating with unwashen hands. It is not a universal declaration that all foods are clean.

Jesus summarizes that this is about eating with unwashen hands in verse 20:

Matt 15:(20) These are the things which defile a man: but to eat with unwashen hands defileth not a man.

Eating with unwashen hands is not forbidden in the Bible, it is something made up by the Pharisees and put into their Talmud, or "tradition of the Elders" (Matt 15:2) That is what Christ was attacking, the additions that the Pharisees made in opposition to Deut 4:2 that we not add to, or take away for the Word of God.

Modern men are definitely adding to, and taking away from Matt 15 to make it seem like the dietary laws have been overturned. If Christ had overturned the dietary laws of Lev 11, the Pharisees would have lynched Him, in accordance with Deut 13.

I find it amazing that the "sheet let down" in Acts 10 is interpreted to overturn Leviticus 11, from a vision about Cornelius. It is deliberate. The misinterpretation justifies where the church is now, and so this passage is misused to show how they got there. It is about Gentiles entering the church, not eating unclean animals.

I am not anyone's judge, as I have enough beams in my own eyes. (Matt 7:1-5) Christ never authorized eating unclean food. If He did, the Pharisees would have ridiculed Him for it. 1 Peter 1:15-16 quotes from Leviticus 11:44 that avoiding unclean food is how we are to be holy in all manner of living.

So what happens to a Christian that eats pork? They have high blood pressure, or get trichinosis. What happens to a Christian that eats a horse. He can get tetanus. What happens to a Christian that eats rabbits? He can get tularemia. What about eating shellfish in a month without an "R"? They can be toxic in warm weather. What about eating a slug. It can kill you. What about eating a "poison arrow frog"? It will kill you when you touch it.

What about eating a dead buzzard with maggots all over it? Should you "pray over it, asking no questions questions for conscience sake? No.

And eating a dead buzzard with maggots is really gross to even think about. But if the rules have changed so that "everything is clean", then why not eat a dead buzzard? Crickets.

Isaiah 66:15-17 talks about the return of the Lord, and that those that eat swine's flesh, and two other animals, will have a real problem. The Lord also does not like those that purify themselves with a tree in the midst - "I wonder that that means?"

I just wouldn't do it. You don't have to give up a lot, and not eating unclean food is a lot healthier for you.

The person that convinced me not to eat pork said to try "the Pork Test". You avoid all pork for 30 days, to let it clear out of your system. Then you eat nothing but pork for 2-3 days, and see how you feel. If you do that, you will find the answer.

Have a great day, and I appreciate everything you have said.

John

[Soloist]

The person that convinced me not to eat pork said to try "the Pork Test". You avoid all pork for 30 days, to let it clear out of your system. Then you eat nothing but pork for 2-3 days, and see how you feel. If you do that, you will find the answer.

Have a great day, and I appreciate everything you have said.

John

I am most interested in knowing what happens to someone eats catfish. So far I seem to be healthy and it’s delicious.

I think you should try the wheat test. Avoid anything with wheat for 30 days, then eat nothing but wheat for 2 to 3 days. Post and let us know how you feel.
That’s not a very good way of determining if something makes you sick or not.

[JohnHurt]

Also are all 613 OT laws, in your opinion, still applicable today for a believer ?

Some people think that a lot of the laws were given just to Israel, and do not apply to Gentiles. Others think that the same law applies to the stranger as to the homeborn. Ex 12:49 But Christ said all of them are still in effect. Matt 5:17-20.

All of the laws dealing with the priesthood, and the division of the land of Canaan, do not apply to us, or anyone today, as we have a new High Priest and our home is not in Palestine.

But I would like to have a 7 year of release of all debts. That is a good idea.

And that the land, or today it would be the "means of production" such as all of the Stock ownership in these big corporations, should be divided evenly among the people every 50 years on the Jubilee. That would be great idea. I definitely think that still applies, or should.

We also need to look at the principles behind the laws.

Deut 22:(8) When thou buildest a new house, then thou shalt make a battlement for thy roof, that thou bring not blood upon thine house, if any man fall from thence.

I believe this means you need to put a railing on your deck, and not on your roof, unless you go up on your roof as they did in those days. It is like "building codes", that you need to prevent accidents as much as possible.

We have to be realistic and apply what we can, and use the Law for good and not evil. But Christ said it would be here as long as heaven and earth are here.

[JohnHurt]

The person that convinced me not to eat pork said to try "the Pork Test". You avoid all pork for 30 days, to let it clear out of your system. Then you eat nothing but pork for 2-3 days, and see how you feel. If you do that, you will find the answer.

Have a great day, and I appreciate everything you have said.

John

I am most interested in knowing what happens to someone eats catfish. So far I seem to be healthy and it’s delicious.

I think you should try the wheat test. Avoid anything with wheat for 30 days, then eat nothing but wheat for 2 to 3 days. Post and let us know how you feel.
That’s not a very good way of determining if something makes you sick or not.

Half my family has a gluten intolerance, and so we avoid wheat with gluten, and use einkorn wheat or almond flour instead.

And we found out it was the gluten in wheat that made us sick by not eating, and then eating it.

As far as catfish...

You are what you eat. So you are what "it" ate, too.

An old man I knew used to pull catfish out of the Stones River, right below the sewage plant in Donelson, TN. He said you could not taste the difference.

He died at 65 from heart issues. I think he became what he ate. A lot of other people seem to be "full of it" as well.

You look at their skin, it is all puffy and red, with blemishes and skin eruptions. And they complain about how they feel. But you can't help them if they don't want to be helped.

[ken_sylvania]

Both Ananias and Paul claimed that Christ visited them here on earth, either physically or in a vision. You don't see that anywhere else. And it violates Matthew 24:23-27.

The only other examples I can find of someone having a vision of Christ are Acts 7:55 where Stephen sees Christ in heaven, and the book of Revelation where John hears from the angel in heaven. Both of these have Christ in heaven, not on earth.

So that is the difference. Christ said He would not appear to anyone on earth in private, yet Paul and Ananias think otherwise.


As far as Ananias' vision, the first time the story is told, Ananias is told by Christ in a vision that Paul will be sent to the Gentiles. Acts 9:15

The second time the story is told, Ananias didn't have a vision, but told Paul he would be a witness for Christ, all on his own. Acts 22:12-16. After this, Christ appeared to Paul in a trance in the Temple and told Paul he would be sent to the Gentiles. Acts 22:17-21

The 3rd time the story is told, Paul forgot all about Ananias, the vision of Ananias, or even his own vision while in a trance in the Temple. Rather, Paul said that Christ told him that he would be sent to the Gentiles - right there on the Road to Damascus. Acts 26:15-18

Which story do you like the best?

And, why does the story change each time?

And what do you think is the problem when someone cannot keep their facts straight?

I think you only find lies here because you want to. I think this kind of unreasonable standard would find most historical literature to be replete with lies, and is just not realistic. Do you apply this rigid standard to your own words or writing over your lifetime? The differences between biblical accounts all through the scriptures don't mean the various parties were lying. They were speaking in various contexts and from various human perspectives, and those who recorded them may not have remembered them perfectly or seen the need to repeat every single every time they told the story. Multiple accounts with differing details are evidence of a real event; if every version was cookie cutter the same, we would know there was collusion between the different authors. I don't even close find this to be compelling evidence that Paul or Luke was a liar.

Mike,

Paul and Ananias seeing Jesus right here on earth and not in heaven not only violates what Christ said in Matt 24:23-27, but their experiences also violates what Peter knew to be true:

Acts 3:(20) And he shall send Jesus Christ, which before was preached unto you:

(21) Whom the heaven must receive until the times of restitution of all things, which God hath spoken by the mouth of all his holy prophets since the world began.

Peter said Christ is in heaven, not on earth. Peter should know.

Hebrews also makes this same point that Christ is in heaven:

Heb 9:(11) But Christ being come an high priest of good things to come, by a greater and more perfect tabernacle, not made with hands, that is to say, not of this building;

(12) Neither by the blood of goats and calves, but by his own blood he entered in once into the holy place, having obtained eternal redemption for us.

Even if I wanted to make Paul and Ananias' stories about meeting Jesus on earth "fit", I can't because they just do not match the rest of the Bible.

The three accounts of Paul's conversion in Acts 9, 22, and 26 are in there for a reason. And the differences that Paul makes in each of the three stories are not trivial.

Luke is not a liar, he is a historian that wrote down what Paul said. He did not "cover" for Paul, which is why we know what we do.

To "clear Paul" from the charge of lying, you also have to explain how Paul lied to James by his actions in Acts 21:21-26, how he lied to the Sanhedrin about why he was arrested in Acts 23:6 when he claimed he was there because he believed in the resurrection of the dead, and how he lied to Agrippa about why he was arrested in Acts 26:6-8 - when he was arrested for bringing Greeks into the Temple. Acts 21:28-33

It is impossible. If you don't have an open mind on this, you won't see anything. And I won't argue with you.

In the Acts 9 account, Luke records these things as actually having happened. A good historian doesn't just write down what people say happened without verifying it, or if unable to verify he would so state.

You say that Paul was arrested for bringing Greeks into the Temple, but if you would take a moment to actually read the account Luke gives in Acts 21, you would see that the claims made by the Jews were much broader than having brought Gentiles into the Temple. That charge was tacked on after the claim that Paul was teaching against the people, the law, and the Temple. In fact, the Jews were making so many different claims that the chief captain couldn't even figure out what Paul had supposedly done wrong.

Nor is Paul's statement to the Sanhedrin that he was called into question because of the hope and resurrection of the dead in any way inaccurate. The resurrection of Jesus Christ is the lynchpin of Christianity. The hope and resurrection of the dead was, in truth, the core issue.