| Topic: |
Religions > Bible |
| User: |
"Pastor Dave" |
| Date: |
21 Jan 2008 09:06:13 PM |
| Object: |
Significance of the Number 40 |
http://www.ecclesia.org/truth/40.html
--
The Last Days were in the first century:
Matthew 16:27-28
27) For the Son of man shall come in the glory
of his Father with his angels; and then he shall
reward every man according to his works.
28) Verily I say unto you, There be some standing
here, which shall not taste of death, till they
see the Son of man coming in his kingdom.
Jesus said He would return within the lifetime
of the Apostles. We know this, because Jesus
said SOME (at least one, not not most) would
be alive when this happened.
This is not the Transfiguration. There was no
coming with the Father's angels and no judging
every man according to His works and they were
all still alive.
This is not Pentecost. There was no coming
with the Father's angels and no judging
every man according to His works and they
were all but one, still alive.
Now see a verse that no one argues is about
His Second Coming and see that this is what
Jesus was referring to, in Matthew 16:27-28.
"And, behold, I come quickly; and my reward
is with me, to give every man according as
his work shall be." - Revelation 22:12
.
|
|
| User: "Linda Lee" |
|
| Title: Re: Significance of the Number 40 |
21 Jan 2008 10:52:23 PM |
|
|
On Jan 21, 10:06 pm, Pastor Dave <ananias917_@_gmail.com> wrote:
http://www.ecclesia.org/truth/40.html
--
The Last Days were in the first century:
Matthew 16:27-28
27) For the Son of man shall come in the glory
of his Father with his angels; and then he shall
reward every man according to his works.
28) Verily I say unto you, There be some standing
here, which shall not taste of death, till they
see the Son of man coming in his kingdom.
Jesus said He would return within the lifetime
of the Apostles. We know this, because Jesus
said SOME (at least one, not not most) would
be alive when this happened.
This is not the Transfiguration. There was no
coming with the Father's angels and no judging
every man according to His works and they were
all still alive.
This is not Pentecost. There was no coming
with the Father's angels and no judging
every man according to His works and they
were all but one, still alive.
Now see a verse that no one argues is about
His Second Coming and see that this is what
Jesus was referring to, in Matthew 16:27-28.
"And, behold, I come quickly; and my reward
is with me, to give every man according as
his work shall be." - Revelation 22:12
PD,
I am going to make an attempt to understand what you're getting at,
although I'm not sure this is what you've always been trying to get
at, but I don't read the ongoing war you're involved in here much at
all, so I don't know. Perhaps your ideas are maturing into what I am
gleaning, which would make more sense according to the Scriptures.
So are you saying the biblical mention of the Transfiguration was
symbolic of when the Messiah comes in the clouds with his angels (and
Eliyiah/Elijah and Moshe/Moses), and that this event is different than
the second coming of Christ? And the future return of Christ would be
the third coming?
I don't think the words 'second coming' are scriptural, only
doctrinal, and the Messiah never designates anything a second or third
event.
.
|
|
|
| User: "H.E. Eickleberry, Jr." |
|
| Title: Re: Significance of the Number 40 |
22 Jan 2008 01:33:19 AM |
|
|
"Linda Lee" <lindagirl444@juno.com> wrote in message
news:af4b0c70-3ac8-4647-8c25-f9e8f8107131@i7g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
[snip]
I don't think the words 'second coming' are scriptural, only
doctrinal, and the Messiah never designates anything a second or third
event.
Au contraire.
Jn 5:25-29
Verily, verily, I say unto you,
The hour is coming,
and now is,
when the dead shall hear the voice of the Son of God: and
they that hear shall live.
For as the Father hath life in himself; so hath he given to the Son to
have life in himself; And hath given him authority to execute judgment also,
because he is the Son of man.
Marvel not at this: for the hour is coming, in the which all that are in
the graves shall hear his voice, and shall come forth; they that have done
good, unto the resurrection of life; and they that have done evil, unto the
resurrection of damnation.
If the resurrection was "coming" it was not "now," and if it was "now" it
wasn't "coming," unless it was both "now" and "coming."
Matthew documents some manner of resurrection that took place when Jesus
arose, but this was not the resurrections Jesus was talking about
"coming"--it was the one that was "now."
This splits His discussion into two parts sharing same aspects--one in the
first advent, and one in the second advent, split two ways, to make three
altogether--one that "was," one that "is," and one that is "yet to come,"
i.e. one at the end of the OT period, one at the end of the NT period, and
one at the end of all things to mop up the rest.
And again...
Jn 4:19-24
The [Samarian woman] saith unto him, Sir, I perceive that thou art a
prophet: Our fathers worshipped in this mountain; and ye say, that in
Jerusalem is the place where men ought to worship.
Jesus saith unto her, Woman, believe me, the hour cometh, when ye shall
neither in this mountain, nor yet at Jerusalem, worship the Father.
Ye worship ye know not what: we know what we worship: for salvation is
of the Jews.
But the hour cometh,
and now is,
when the true worshippers shall worship the Father in spirit and
in truth: for the Father seeketh such to worship him.
God is a Spirit: and they that worship him must worship him in spirit
and in truth.
Jesus spoke of the condemnation of the Jerusalem temple twice, once in His
first advent, and one in His second. With the destruction of Solomon's
temple past, this makes three--one that "was," one that "is," and one that
is "yet to come."
One from Matthew...
Mt 17:10-13
And his disciples asked him, saying, Why then say the scribes that Elias
must first come?
And Jesus answered and said unto them, Elias truly shall first come, and
restore all things. But I say unto you, That Elias is come already, and they
knew him not, but have done unto him whatsoever they listed. Likewise shall
also the Son of man suffer of them.
Then the disciples understood that he spake unto them of John the
Baptist.
John the Baptist served as a figure for Elijah in Jesus' first advent, but,
as Jesus Himself says, that doesn't preclude the coming of Elias (future
tense) in the End of the Age, as He says "Elias truly shall first come
[future tense].
But Elias had already existed, and given his prophesies, so, likewise, Elias
"was," Elias "is," and Elias is "yet to come."
This is triunism in prophecy, which the Dispensationalists, AND the
Preterists, AND the Historicists, AND the Idealists all ignore to their own
hurt.
Ike
.
|
|
|
| User: "Linda Lee" |
|
| Title: Re: Significance of the Number 40 |
22 Jan 2008 02:32:37 AM |
|
|
On Jan 22, 2:33 am, "H.E. Eickleberry, Jr."
<xeickleberrybo...@verizon.net> wrote:
"Linda Lee" <lindagirl...@juno.com> wrote in message
news:af4b0c70-3ac8-4647-8c25-f9e8f8107131@i7g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
[snip]
I don't think the words 'second coming' are scriptural, only
doctrinal, and the Messiah never designates anything a second or third
event.
Au contraire.
Jn 5:25-29
Verily, verily, I say unto you,
The hour is coming,
and now is,
when the dead shall hear the voice of the Son of God: and
they that hear shall live.
For as the Father hath life in himself; so hath he given to the Son to
have life in himself; And hath given him authority to execute judgment also,
because he is the Son of man.
Marvel not at this: for the hour is coming, in the which all that are in
the graves shall hear his voice, and shall come forth; they that have done
good, unto the resurrection of life; and they that have done evil, unto the
resurrection of damnation.
If the resurrection was "coming" it was not "now," and if it was "now" it
wasn't "coming," unless it was both "now" and "coming."
Matthew documents some manner of resurrection that took place when Jesus
arose, but this was not the resurrections Jesus was talking about
"coming"--it was the one that was "now."
This splits His discussion into two parts sharing same aspects--one in the
first advent, and one in the second advent, split two ways, to make three
altogether--one that "was," one that "is," and one that is "yet to come,"
i.e. one at the end of the OT period, one at the end of the NT period, and
one at the end of all things to mop up the rest.
And again...
Jn 4:19-24
The [Samarian woman] saith unto him, Sir, I perceive that thou art a
prophet: Our fathers worshipped in this mountain; and ye say, that in
Jerusalem is the place where men ought to worship.
Jesus saith unto her, Woman, believe me, the hour cometh, when ye shall
neither in this mountain, nor yet at Jerusalem, worship the Father.
Ye worship ye know not what: we know what we worship: for salvation is
of the Jews.
But the hour cometh,
and now is,
when the true worshippers shall worship the Father in spirit and
in truth: for the Father seeketh such to worship him.
God is a Spirit: and they that worship him must worship him in spirit
and in truth.
Jesus spoke of the condemnation of the Jerusalem temple twice, once in His
first advent, and one in His second. With the destruction of Solomon's
temple past, this makes three--one that "was," one that "is," and one that
is "yet to come."
One from Matthew...
Mt 17:10-13
And his disciples asked him, saying, Why then say the scribes that Elias
must first come?
And Jesus answered and said unto them, Elias truly shall first come, and
restore all things. But I say unto you, That Elias is come already, and they
knew him not, but have done unto him whatsoever they listed. Likewise shall
also the Son of man suffer of them.
Then the disciples understood that he spake unto them of John the
Baptist.
John the Baptist served as a figure for Elijah in Jesus' first advent, but,
as Jesus Himself says, that doesn't preclude the coming of Elias (future
tense) in the End of the Age, as He says "Elias truly shall first come
[future tense].
But Elias had already existed, and given his prophesies, so, likewise, Elias
"was," Elias "is," and Elias is "yet to come."
This is triunism in prophecy, which the Dispensationalists, AND the
Preterists, AND the Historicists, AND the Idealists all ignore to their own
hurt.
Ike
You understand that I was not stating anything I believe; I was asking
if Pastor Dave thought the 'second coming' was what he believes
happened when the temple was hit with an earthquake when some reported
seeing angels in the skies around Jerusalem, and believes the final
return would be a third 'coming'.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Linda Lee" |
|
| Title: Re: Significance of the Number 40 |
22 Jan 2008 02:28:13 AM |
|
|
On Jan 22, 2:33 am, "H.E. Eickleberry, Jr."
<xeickleberrybo...@verizon.net> wrote:
"Linda Lee" <lindagirl...@juno.com> wrote in message
news:af4b0c70-3ac8-4647-8c25-f9e8f8107131@i7g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
[snip]
I don't think the words 'second coming' are scriptural, only
doctrinal, and the Messiah never designates anything a second or third
event.
Au contraire.
Jn 5:25-29
Verily, verily, I say unto you,
The hour is coming,
and now is,
when the dead shall hear the voice of the Son of God: and
they that hear shall live.
For as the Father hath life in himself; so hath he given to the Son to
have life in himself; And hath given him authority to execute judgment also,
because he is the Son of man.
Marvel not at this: for the hour is coming, in the which all that are in
the graves shall hear his voice, and shall come forth; they that have done
good, unto the resurrection of life; and they that have done evil, unto the
resurrection of damnation.
If the resurrection was "coming" it was not "now," and if it was "now" it
wasn't "coming," unless it was both "now" and "coming."
Matthew documents some manner of resurrection that took place when Jesus
arose, but this was not the resurrections Jesus was talking about
"coming"--it was the one that was "now."
This splits His discussion into two parts sharing same aspects--one in the
first advent, and one in the second advent, split two ways, to make three
altogether--one that "was," one that "is," and one that is "yet to come,"
i.e. one at the end of the OT period, one at the end of the NT period, and
one at the end of all things to mop up the rest.
And again...
Jn 4:19-24
The [Samarian woman] saith unto him, Sir, I perceive that thou art a
prophet: Our fathers worshipped in this mountain; and ye say, that in
Jerusalem is the place where men ought to worship.
Jesus saith unto her, Woman, believe me, the hour cometh, when ye shall
neither in this mountain, nor yet at Jerusalem, worship the Father.
Ye worship ye know not what: we know what we worship: for salvation is
of the Jews.
But the hour cometh,
and now is,
when the true worshippers shall worship the Father in spirit and
in truth: for the Father seeketh such to worship him.
God is a Spirit: and they that worship him must worship him in spirit
and in truth.
Jesus spoke of the condemnation of the Jerusalem temple twice, once in His
first advent, and one in His second. With the destruction of Solomon's
temple past, this makes three--one that "was," one that "is," and one that
is "yet to come."
Rev. 21:22 says, "And I saw no temple therein: for the Lord God
Almighty and the Lamb are the temple of it."
One from Matthew...
Mt 17:10-13
And his disciples asked him, saying, Why then say the scribes that Elias
must first come?
And Jesus answered and said unto them, Elias truly shall first come, and
restore all things. But I say unto you, That Elias is come already, and they
knew him not, but have done unto him whatsoever they listed. Likewise shall
also the Son of man suffer of them.
Then the disciples understood that he spake unto them of John the
Baptist.
John the Baptist served as a figure for Elijah in Jesus' first advent, but,
as Jesus Himself says, that doesn't preclude the coming of Elias (future
tense) in the End of the Age, as He says "Elias truly shall first come
[future tense].
I think he was referring to John the Baptist here as Elias/Elijah who
had come to "prepare the way of the LORD", i.e. announce the Messiah
or the "Lamb" of God, God's sacrificial body in the form of the
Messiah.
But Elias had already existed, and given his prophesies, so, likewise, Elias
"was," Elias "is," and Elias is "yet to come."
I've seen where Messiah said John the Baptist was Elias/Elijah whom
they didn't recognize just as they didn't all recognize Christ for who
he was - God incarnate.
Elijah would be the first incarnation of Elijah's spirit; John the
Baptist the second appearance of the spirit that was in Elijah, and
the third would be in the future when the spirit of Elijah would
return with the Christ at the end of time.
I think the Elias/Elijah/Eliyiah who is 'yet to come' was demonstrated
at the transfiguration when Moses and Elijah appeared with the Messiah
showing whom will return with Messiah at the end of the age.
Why do you think Elijah was chosen to return with Moses, rather than
any other prophet like Isaiah for example? Because Elijah heard the
still small voice and Moses saw the burning bush?
And do you see any indication of Moses incarnating a second time
before a final third time when he returns with Elijah and Messiah?
I've not noticed that. You would think if there were three appearances
of Elijah's spirit and Elijah is seen at the transfiguration, there
would have been a second appearance of Moses.
This is triunism in prophecy, which the Dispensationalists, AND the
Preterists, AND the Historicists, AND the Idealists all ignore to their own
hurt.
Ike
Of course *another time* is prophesied, but I meant the Messiah never
used the word "second", as in he'd be back the second time for
judgment day. I think PD maintains now that the Messiah incarnated,
then came a second time to destroy the Jewish temple, and when
judgment day occurs and he returns will be the third time. I don't
really want to continue speaking about what PD believed or might now
believe (I thought I saw him changing somewhat in his views), as I was
asking, don't know for sure, and do not read his interactions and
ongoing fight with people here.
.
|
|
|
| User: "H.E. Eickleberry, Jr." |
|
| Title: Re: Significance of the Number 40 |
22 Jan 2008 03:39:49 PM |
|
|
"Linda Lee" <lindagirl444@juno.com> wrote in message
news:d623f905-3891-4e28-935d-1923a28654b1@i12g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
On Jan 22, 2:33 am, "H.E. Eickleberry, Jr."
<xeickleberrybo...@verizon.net> wrote:
"Linda Lee" <lindagirl...@juno.com> wrote in message
news:af4b0c70-3ac8-4647-8c25-f9e8f8107131@i7g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
[snip]
I don't think the words 'second coming' are scriptural, only
doctrinal, and the Messiah never designates anything a second or third
event.
Au contraire.
Jn 5:25-29
Verily, verily, I say unto you,
The hour is coming,
and now is,
when the dead shall hear the voice of the Son of God: and
they that hear shall live.
For as the Father hath life in himself; so hath he given to the Son
to
have life in himself; And hath given him authority to execute judgment
also,
because he is the Son of man.
Marvel not at this: for the hour is coming, in the which all that are
in
the graves shall hear his voice, and shall come forth; they that have
done
good, unto the resurrection of life; and they that have done evil, unto
the
resurrection of damnation.
If the resurrection was "coming" it was not "now," and if it was "now" it
wasn't "coming," unless it was both "now" and "coming."
Matthew documents some manner of resurrection that took place when Jesus
arose, but this was not the resurrections Jesus was talking about
"coming"--it was the one that was "now."
This splits His discussion into two parts sharing same aspects--one in
the
first advent, and one in the second advent, split two ways, to make three
altogether--one that "was," one that "is," and one that is "yet to come,"
i.e. one at the end of the OT period, one at the end of the NT period,
and
one at the end of all things to mop up the rest.
And again...
Jn 4:19-24
The [Samarian woman] saith unto him, Sir, I perceive that thou art a
prophet: Our fathers worshipped in this mountain; and ye say, that in
Jerusalem is the place where men ought to worship.
Jesus saith unto her, Woman, believe me, the hour cometh, when ye
shall
neither in this mountain, nor yet at Jerusalem, worship the Father.
Ye worship ye know not what: we know what we worship: for salvation
is
of the Jews.
But the hour cometh,
and now is,
when the true worshippers shall worship the Father in spirit
and
in truth: for the Father seeketh such to worship him.
God is a Spirit: and they that worship him must worship him in spirit
and in truth.
Jesus spoke of the condemnation of the Jerusalem temple twice, once in
His
first advent, and one in His second. With the destruction of Solomon's
temple past, this makes three--one that "was," one that "is," and one
that
is "yet to come."
Rev. 21:22 says, "And I saw no temple therein: for the Lord God
Almighty and the Lamb are the temple of it."
One from Matthew...
Mt 17:10-13
And his disciples asked him, saying, Why then say the scribes that
Elias
must first come?
And Jesus answered and said unto them, Elias truly shall first come,
and
restore all things. But I say unto you, That Elias is come already, and
they
knew him not, but have done unto him whatsoever they listed. Likewise
shall
also the Son of man suffer of them.
Then the disciples understood that he spake unto them of John the
Baptist.
John the Baptist served as a figure for Elijah in Jesus' first advent,
but,
as Jesus Himself says, that doesn't preclude the coming of Elias (future
tense) in the End of the Age, as He says "Elias truly shall first come
[future tense].
I think he was referring to John the Baptist here as Elias/Elijah who
had come to "prepare the way of the LORD", i.e. announce the Messiah
or the "Lamb" of God, God's sacrificial body in the form of the
Messiah.
That's the second statement.
Go back and look at the first statement, which is future tense.
But Elias had already existed, and given his prophesies, so, likewise,
Elias
"was," Elias "is," and Elias is "yet to come."
I've seen where Messiah said John the Baptist was Elias/Elijah whom
they didn't recognize just as they didn't all recognize Christ for who
he was - God incarnate.
Elijah would be the first incarnation of Elijah's spirit; John the
Baptist the second appearance of the spirit that was in Elijah, and
the third would be in the future when the spirit of Elijah would
return with the Christ at the end of time.
I think the Elias/Elijah/Eliyiah who is 'yet to come' was demonstrated
at the transfiguration when Moses and Elijah appeared with the Messiah
showing whom will return with Messiah at the end of the age.
Why do you think Elijah was chosen to return with Moses, rather than
any other prophet like Isaiah for example? Because Elijah heard the
still small voice and Moses saw the burning bush?
And do you see any indication of Moses incarnating a second time
before a final third time when he returns with Elijah and Messiah?
I've not noticed that. You would think if there were three appearances
of Elijah's spirit and Elijah is seen at the transfiguration, there
would have been a second appearance of Moses.
This is triunism in prophecy, which the Dispensationalists, AND the
Preterists, AND the Historicists, AND the Idealists all ignore to their
own
hurt.
Ike
Of course *another time* is prophesied, but I meant the Messiah never
used the word "second", as in he'd be back the second time for
judgment day.
No, He didn't: John states Him using the "verily, verily" device, or the "is
now/is coming" dichotomy.
I think PD maintains now that the Messiah incarnated,
then came a second time to destroy the Jewish temple, and when
judgment day occurs and he returns will be the third time.
No, PD is a Preterist, and he doesn't believe in another time.
I don't
really want to continue speaking about what PD believed or might now
believe (I thought I saw him changing somewhat in his views), as I was
asking, don't know for sure, and do not read his interactions and
ongoing fight with people here.
Save yourself some time and look up Preterism on the net--PD runs people
ragged with his avoidance of scriptural facts and spamming.
Ike
.
|
|
|
| User: "Linda Lee" |
|
| Title: Re: Significance of the Number 40 |
24 Jan 2008 05:44:57 PM |
|
|
On Jan 22, 4:39 pm, "H.E. Eickleberry, Jr."
<xeickleberrybo...@verizon.net> wrote:
"LindaLee" <lindagirl...@juno.com> wrote in message
news:d623f905-3891-4e28-935d-1923a28654b1@i12g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
On Jan 22, 2:33 am, "H.E. Eickleberry, Jr."
<xeickleberrybo...@verizon.net> wrote:
"LindaLee" <lindagirl...@juno.com> wrote in message
news:af4b0c70-3ac8-4647-8c25-f9e8f8107131@i7g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
[snip]
I don't think the words 'second coming' are scriptural, only
doctrinal, and the Messiah never designates anything a second or third
event.
Au contraire.
Jn 5:25-29
Verily, verily, I say unto you,
The hour is coming,
and now is,
when the dead shall hear the voice of the Son of God: and
they that hear shall live.
For as the Father hath life in himself; so hath he given to the Son
to
have life in himself; And hath given him authority to execute judgment
also,
because he is the Son of man.
Marvel not at this: for the hour is coming, in the which all that are
in
the graves shall hear his voice, and shall come forth; they that have
done
good, unto the resurrection of life; and they that have done evil, unto
the
resurrection of damnation.
If the resurrection was "coming" it was not "now," and if it was "now" it
wasn't "coming," unless it was both "now" and "coming."
Matthew documents some manner of resurrection that took place when Jesus
arose, but this was not the resurrections Jesus was talking about
"coming"--it was the one that was "now."
This splits His discussion into two parts sharing same aspects--one in
the
first advent, and one in the second advent, split two ways, to make three
altogether--one that "was," one that "is," and one that is "yet to come,"
i.e. one at the end of the OT period, one at the end of the NT period,
and
one at the end of all things to mop up the rest.
And again...
Jn 4:19-24
The [Samarian woman] saith unto him, Sir, I perceive that thou art a
prophet: Our fathers worshipped in this mountain; and ye say, that in
Jerusalem is the place where men ought to worship.
Jesus saith unto her, Woman, believe me, the hour cometh, when ye
shall
neither in this mountain, nor yet at Jerusalem, worship the Father.
Ye worship ye know not what: we know what we worship: for salvation
is
of the Jews.
But the hour cometh,
and now is,
when the true worshippers shall worship the Father in spirit
and
in truth: for the Father seeketh such to worship him.
God is a Spirit: and they that worship him must worship him in spirit
and in truth.
Jesus spoke of the condemnation of the Jerusalem temple twice, once in
His
first advent, and one in His second. With the destruction of Solomon's
temple past, this makes three--one that "was," one that "is," and one
that
is "yet to come."
Rev. 21:22 says, "And I saw no temple therein: for the Lord God
Almighty and the Lamb are the temple of it."
One from Matthew...
Mt 17:10-13
And his disciples asked him, saying, Why then say the scribes that
Elias
must first come?
And Jesus answered and said unto them, Elias truly shall first come,
and
restore all things. But I say unto you, That Elias is come already, and
they
knew him not, but have done unto him whatsoever they listed. Likewise
shall
also the Son of man suffer of them.
Then the disciples understood that he spake unto them of John the
Baptist.
John the Baptist served as a figure for Elijah in Jesus' first advent,
but,
as Jesus Himself says, that doesn't preclude the coming of Elias (future
tense) in the End of the Age, as He says "Elias truly shall first come
[future tense].
I think he was referring to John the Baptist here as Elias/Elijah who
had come to "prepare the way of the LORD", i.e. announce the Messiah
or the "Lamb" of God, God's sacrificial body in the form of the
Messiah.
That's the second statement.
Go back and look at the first statement, which is future tense.
It is future tense only because he is speaking of what people HAD
expected to occur, and what they had expected had already occurred at
that point, i.e. Eliyah had incarnated as John the Baptist.
But Elias had already existed, and given his prophesies, so, likewise,
Elias
"was," Elias "is," and Elias is "yet to come."
I've seen where Messiah said John the Baptist was Elias/Elijah whom
they didn't recognize just as they didn't all recognize Christ for who
he was - God incarnate.
Elijah would be the first incarnation of Elijah's spirit; John the
Baptist the second appearance of the spirit that was in Elijah, and
the third would be in the future when the spirit of Elijah would
return with the Christ at the end of time.
I think the Elias/Elijah/Eliyiah who is 'yet to come' was demonstrated
at the transfiguration when Moses and Elijah appeared with the Messiah
showing whom will return with Messiah at the end of the age.
Why do you think Elijah was chosen to return with Moses, rather than
any other prophet like Isaiah for example? Because Elijah heard the
still small voice and Moses saw the burning bush?
And do you see any indication of Moses incarnating a second time
before a final third time when he returns with Elijah and Messiah?
I've not noticed that. You would think if there were three appearances
of Elijah's spirit and Elijah is seen at the transfiguration, there
would have been a second appearance of Moses.
.
|
|
|
| User: "H.E. Eickleberry, Jr." |
|
| Title: Re: Significance of the Number 40 |
24 Jan 2008 07:35:46 PM |
|
|
"Linda Lee" <lindagirl444@juno.com> wrote in message
news:e272b494-8170-4ad5-8e80-8413307656b2@e4g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
On Jan 22, 4:39 pm, "H.E. Eickleberry, Jr."
<xeickleberrybo...@verizon.net> wrote:
"LindaLee" <lindagirl...@juno.com> wrote in message
news:d623f905-3891-4e28-935d-1923a28654b1@i12g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
On Jan 22, 2:33 am, "H.E. Eickleberry, Jr."
<xeickleberrybo...@verizon.net> wrote:
"LindaLee" <lindagirl...@juno.com> wrote in message
news:af4b0c70-3ac8-4647-8c25-f9e8f8107131@i7g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
[snip]
I don't think the words 'second coming' are scriptural, only
doctrinal, and the Messiah never designates anything a second or
third
event.
Au contraire.
Jn 5:25-29
Verily, verily, I say unto you,
The hour is coming,
and now is,
when the dead shall hear the voice of the Son of God:
and
they that hear shall live.
For as the Father hath life in himself; so hath he given to the
Son
to
have life in himself; And hath given him authority to execute judgment
also,
because he is the Son of man.
Marvel not at this: for the hour is coming, in the which all that
are
in
the graves shall hear his voice, and shall come forth; they that have
done
good, unto the resurrection of life; and they that have done evil,
unto
the
resurrection of damnation.
If the resurrection was "coming" it was not "now," and if it was "now"
it
wasn't "coming," unless it was both "now" and "coming."
Matthew documents some manner of resurrection that took place when
Jesus
arose, but this was not the resurrections Jesus was talking about
"coming"--it was the one that was "now."
This splits His discussion into two parts sharing same aspects--one in
the
first advent, and one in the second advent, split two ways, to make
three
altogether--one that "was," one that "is," and one that is "yet to
come,"
i.e. one at the end of the OT period, one at the end of the NT period,
and
one at the end of all things to mop up the rest.
And again...
Jn 4:19-24
The [Samarian woman] saith unto him, Sir, I perceive that thou art
a
prophet: Our fathers worshipped in this mountain; and ye say, that in
Jerusalem is the place where men ought to worship.
Jesus saith unto her, Woman, believe me, the hour cometh, when ye
shall
neither in this mountain, nor yet at Jerusalem, worship the Father.
Ye worship ye know not what: we know what we worship: for
salvation
is
of the Jews.
But the hour cometh,
and now is,
when the true worshippers shall worship the Father in
spirit
and
in truth: for the Father seeketh such to worship him.
God is a Spirit: and they that worship him must worship him in
spirit
and in truth.
Jesus spoke of the condemnation of the Jerusalem temple twice, once in
His
first advent, and one in His second. With the destruction of Solomon's
temple past, this makes three--one that "was," one that "is," and one
that
is "yet to come."
Rev. 21:22 says, "And I saw no temple therein: for the Lord God
Almighty and the Lamb are the temple of it."
One from Matthew...
Mt 17:10-13
And his disciples asked him, saying, Why then say the scribes that
Elias
must first come?
And Jesus answered and said unto them, Elias truly shall first
come,
and
restore all things. But I say unto you, That Elias is come already,
and
they
knew him not, but have done unto him whatsoever they listed. Likewise
shall
also the Son of man suffer of them.
Then the disciples understood that he spake unto them of John the
Baptist.
John the Baptist served as a figure for Elijah in Jesus' first advent,
but,
as Jesus Himself says, that doesn't preclude the coming of Elias
(future
tense) in the End of the Age, as He says "Elias truly shall first come
[future tense].
I think he was referring to John the Baptist here as Elias/Elijah who
had come to "prepare the way of the LORD", i.e. announce the Messiah
or the "Lamb" of God, God's sacrificial body in the form of the
Messiah.
That's the second statement.
Go back and look at the first statement, which is future tense.
It is future tense only because he is speaking of what people HAD
expected to occur, and what they had expected had already occurred at
that point, i.e. Eliyah had incarnated as John the Baptist.
Once again, you demonstrate you can't read with comprehension.
The first thing Jesus did was reaffirm that Elijah WILL come first, as
spoken by the prophets: "Elias truly SHALL come..." Notice the insertion of
"truly" to indicate the very REAL coming of Elias in the End of the Age (as
opposed to the figurative function of John the Baptist), AND that Jesus uses
the future tense "SHALL come," removing all doubts that the prophecies WILL
be fulfilled literally in the End of the Age (as opposed to the
figurative/spiritual fulfillment that occurred in Jesus' first advent).
THEN He went on to describe John the Baptist as an "Elijah" in his own
right, and Jesus says elsewhere that it is a thing that must be "received,"
(properly interpreted, "perceived.")
Thus, Jesus was as consistent here as He was in His prophetic statements
recorded in John, i.e. there is a dualism to everything Jesus' says, as He
used the same pattern of prophetic utterance used by the prophets before
Him.
It's just that THIS particular statement was the only one Matthew noticed
(indicating that Matthew didn't really have a handle on prophetic form),
whereas John noticed many, which would make sense, as he wrote his Gospel
AFTER his Revelation experience, and only as a supplement to Matthew's
Gospel, with which he was quite familiar. (Note that John leaves out huge
chunks of the synoptic accounts, such as the Olivet Discourse and the
details of the Last Supper.)
Hence, prophetically speaking, Elijah "was," Elijah "is," and Elijah "will
be" again, which reaffirms the fundamental nature of prophecy--triunism.
[snip]
.
|
|
|
| User: "Linda Lee" |
|
| Title: Re: Significance of the Number 40 |
25 Jan 2008 02:09:32 AM |
|
|
On Jan 24, 8:35 pm, "H.E. Eickleberry, Jr."
<xeickleberrybo...@verizon.net> wrote:
"Linda Lee" <lindagirl...@juno.com> wrote in message
news:e272b494-8170-4ad5-8e80-8413307656b2@e4g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
On Jan 22, 4:39 pm, "H.E. Eickleberry, Jr."
<xeickleberrybo...@verizon.net> wrote:
"LindaLee" <lindagirl...@juno.com> wrote in message
news:d623f905-3891-4e28-935d-1923a28654b1@i12g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
On Jan 22, 2:33 am, "H.E. Eickleberry, Jr."
<xeickleberrybo...@verizon.net> wrote:
"LindaLee" <lindagirl...@juno.com> wrote in message
news:af4b0c70-3ac8-4647-8c25-f9e8f8107131@i7g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
[snip]
I don't think the words 'second coming' are scriptural, only
doctrinal, and the Messiah never designates anything a second or
third
event.
Au contraire.
Jn 5:25-29
Verily, verily, I say unto you,
The hour is coming,
and now is,
when the dead shall hear the voice of the Son of God:
and
they that hear shall live.
For as the Father hath life in himself; so hath he given to the
Son
to
have life in himself; And hath given him authority to execute judgment
also,
because he is the Son of man.
Marvel not at this: for the hour is coming, in the which all that
are
in
the graves shall hear his voice, and shall come forth; they that have
done
good, unto the resurrection of life; and they that have done evil,
unto
the
resurrection of damnation.
If the resurrection was "coming" it was not "now," and if it was "now"
it
wasn't "coming," unless it was both "now" and "coming."
Matthew documents some manner of resurrection that took place when
Jesus
arose, but this was not the resurrections Jesus was talking about
"coming"--it was the one that was "now."
This splits His discussion into two parts sharing same aspects--one in
the
first advent, and one in the second advent, split two ways, to make
three
altogether--one that "was," one that "is," and one that is "yet to
come,"
i.e. one at the end of the OT period, one at the end of the NT period,
and
one at the end of all things to mop up the rest.
And again...
Jn 4:19-24
The [Samarian woman] saith unto him, Sir, I perceive that thou art
a
prophet: Our fathers worshipped in this mountain; and ye say, that in
Jerusalem is the place where men ought to worship.
Jesus saith unto her, Woman, believe me, the hour cometh, when ye
shall
neither in this mountain, nor yet at Jerusalem, worship the Father.
Ye worship ye know not what: we know what we worship: for
salvation
is
of the Jews.
But the hour cometh,
and now is,
when the true worshippers shall worship the Father in
spirit
and
in truth: for the Father seeketh such to worship him.
God is a Spirit: and they that worship him must worship him in
spirit
and in truth.
Jesus spoke of the condemnation of the Jerusalem temple twice, once in
His
first advent, and one in His second. With the destruction of Solomon's
temple past, this makes three--one that "was," one that "is," and one
that
is "yet to come."
Rev. 21:22 says, "And I saw no temple therein: for the Lord God
Almighty and the Lamb are the temple of it."
One from Matthew...
Mt 17:10-13
And his disciples asked him, saying, Why then say the scribes that
Elias
must first come?
And Jesus answered and said unto them, Elias truly shall first
come,
and
restore all things. But I say unto you, That Elias is come already,
and
they
knew him not, but have done unto him whatsoever they listed. Likewise
shall
also the Son of man suffer of them.
Then the disciples understood that he spake unto them of John the
Baptist.
John the Baptist served as a figure for Elijah in Jesus' first advent,
but,
as Jesus Himself says, that doesn't preclude the coming of Elias
(future
tense) in the End of the Age, as He says "Elias truly shall first come
[future tense].
I think he was referring to John the Baptist here as Elias/Elijah who
had come to "prepare the way of the LORD", i.e. announce the Messiah
or the "Lamb" of God, God's sacrificial body in the form of the
Messiah.
That's the second statement.
Go back and look at the first statement, which is future tense.
It is future tense only because he is speaking of what people HAD
expected to occur, and what they had expected had already occurred at
that point, i.e. Eliyah had incarnated as John the Baptist.
Once again, you demonstrate you can't read with comprehension.
Hmmm.
The first thing Jesus did was reaffirm that Elijah WILL come first, as
spoken by the prophets: "Elias truly SHALL come..."
Notice the insertion of
"truly" to indicate the very REAL coming of Elias in the End of the Age (as
opposed to the figurative function of John the Baptist), AND that Jesus uses
the future tense "SHALL come," removing all doubts that the prophecies WILL
be fulfilled literally in the End of the Age (as opposed to the
figurative/spiritual fulfillment that occurred in Jesus' first advent).
THEN He went on to describe John the Baptist as an "Elijah" in his own
right, and Jesus says elsewhere that it is a thing that must be "received,"
(properly interpreted, "perceived.")
Right, they needed to understand what the Messiah was saying to be
able to receive/believe it; he was not saying it was not real if they
refused to believe it.
Thus, Jesus was as consistent here as He was in His prophetic statements
recorded in John, i.e. there is a dualism to everything Jesus' says, as He
used the same pattern of prophetic utterance used by the prophets before
Him.
It's just that THIS particular statement was the only one Matthew noticed
(indicating that Matthew didn't really have a handle on prophetic form),
whereas John noticed many, which would make sense, as he wrote his Gospel
AFTER his Revelation experience, and only as a supplement to Matthew's
Gospel, with which he was quite familiar. (Note that John leaves out huge
chunks of the synoptic accounts, such as the Olivet Discourse and the
details of the Last Supper.)
Hence, prophetically speaking, Elijah "was," Elijah "is," and Elijah "will
be" again, which reaffirms the fundamental nature of prophecy--triunism.
[snip]
None of that makes sense in context or in light of the Messiah
saying : "Elijah is come already, and they knew him not, but have done
unto him whatsoever they listed"
Mat 17:12 "But I say unto you, That Elijah is come already, and they
knew him not, but have done unto him whatsoever they listed. Likewise
shall also the Son of man suffer of them."
The Messiah is speaking of John the Baptist's death, the fact that no
one recognized John the Baptist as Eliyah, and the fact that some
would not recognize the Messiah and would also put him to death.
.
|
|
|
| User: "H.E. Eickleberry, Jr." |
|
| Title: Re: Significance of the Number 40 |
25 Jan 2008 03:21:45 AM |
|
|
"Linda Lee" <lindagirl444@juno.com> wrote in message
news:c3e1cfbc-a745-4309-b89c-8c4031fb2fb5@i29g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
On Jan 24, 8:35 pm, "H.E. Eickleberry, Jr."
<xeickleberrybo...@verizon.net> wrote:
"Linda Lee" <lindagirl...@juno.com> wrote in message
news:e272b494-8170-4ad5-8e80-8413307656b2@e4g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
On Jan 22, 4:39 pm, "H.E. Eickleberry, Jr."
<xeickleberrybo...@verizon.net> wrote:
"LindaLee" <lindagirl...@juno.com> wrote in message
news:d623f905-3891-4e28-935d-1923a28654b1@i12g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
On Jan 22, 2:33 am, "H.E. Eickleberry, Jr."
<xeickleberrybo...@verizon.net> wrote:
"LindaLee" <lindagirl...@juno.com> wrote in message
news:af4b0c70-3ac8-4647-8c25-f9e8f8107131@i7g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
[snip]
I don't think the words 'second coming' are scriptural, only
doctrinal, and the Messiah never designates anything a second or
third
event.
Au contraire.
Jn 5:25-29
Verily, verily, I say unto you,
The hour is coming,
and now is,
when the dead shall hear the voice of the Son of
God:
and
they that hear shall live.
For as the Father hath life in himself; so hath he given to the
Son
to
have life in himself; And hath given him authority to execute
judgment
also,
because he is the Son of man.
Marvel not at this: for the hour is coming, in the which all
that
are
in
the graves shall hear his voice, and shall come forth; they that
have
done
good, unto the resurrection of life; and they that have done evil,
unto
the
resurrection of damnation.
If the resurrection was "coming" it was not "now," and if it was
"now"
it
wasn't "coming," unless it was both "now" and "coming."
Matthew documents some manner of resurrection that took place when
Jesus
arose, but this was not the resurrections Jesus was talking about
"coming"--it was the one that was "now."
This splits His discussion into two parts sharing same aspects--one
in
the
first advent, and one in the second advent, split two ways, to make
three
altogether--one that "was," one that "is," and one that is "yet to
come,"
i.e. one at the end of the OT period, one at the end of the NT
period,
and
one at the end of all things to mop up the rest.
And again...
Jn 4:19-24
The [Samarian woman] saith unto him, Sir, I perceive that thou
art
a
prophet: Our fathers worshipped in this mountain; and ye say, that
in
Jerusalem is the place where men ought to worship.
Jesus saith unto her, Woman, believe me, the hour cometh, when
ye
shall
neither in this mountain, nor yet at Jerusalem, worship the Father.
Ye worship ye know not what: we know what we worship: for
salvation
is
of the Jews.
But the hour cometh,
and now is,
when the true worshippers shall worship the Father in
spirit
and
in truth: for the Father seeketh such to worship him.
God is a Spirit: and they that worship him must worship him in
spirit
and in truth.
Jesus spoke of the condemnation of the Jerusalem temple twice, once
in
His
first advent, and one in His second. With the destruction of
Solomon's
temple past, this makes three--one that "was," one that "is," and
one
that
is "yet to come."
Rev. 21:22 says, "And I saw no temple therein: for the Lord God
Almighty and the Lamb are the temple of it."
One from Matthew...
Mt 17:10-13
And his disciples asked him, saying, Why then say the scribes
that
Elias
must first come?
And Jesus answered and said unto them, Elias truly shall first
come,
and
restore all things. But I say unto you, That Elias is come already,
and
they
knew him not, but have done unto him whatsoever they listed.
Likewise
shall
also the Son of man suffer of them.
Then the disciples understood that he spake unto them of John
the
Baptist.
John the Baptist served as a figure for Elijah in Jesus' first
advent,
but,
as Jesus Himself says, that doesn't preclude the coming of Elias
(future
tense) in the End of the Age, as He says "Elias truly shall first
come
[future tense].
I think he was referring to John the Baptist here as Elias/Elijah
who
had come to "prepare the way of the LORD", i.e. announce the Messiah
or the "Lamb" of God, God's sacrificial body in the form of the
Messiah.
That's the second statement.
Go back and look at the first statement, which is future tense.
It is future tense only because he is speaking of what people HAD
expected to occur, and what they had expected had already occurred at
that point, i.e. Eliyah had incarnated as John the Baptist.
Once again, you demonstrate you can't read with comprehension.
Hmmm.
The first thing Jesus did was reaffirm that Elijah WILL come first, as
spoken by the prophets: "Elias truly SHALL come..."
Notice the insertion of
"truly" to indicate the very REAL coming of Elias in the End of the Age
(as
opposed to the figurative function of John the Baptist), AND that Jesus
uses
the future tense "SHALL come," removing all doubts that the prophecies
WILL
be fulfilled literally in the End of the Age (as opposed to the
figurative/spiritual fulfillment that occurred in Jesus' first advent).
THEN He went on to describe John the Baptist as an "Elijah" in his own
right, and Jesus says elsewhere that it is a thing that must be
"received,"
(properly interpreted, "perceived.")
Right, they needed to understand what the Messiah was saying to be
able to receive/believe it; he was not saying it was not real if they
refused to believe it.
Wrong. What they needed to understand is that Jesus was saying that John was
a figure for use in the "now" event, but Elias will truly come in the
"coming" event, lending the necessary dualism to Jesus' prophetic statement.
Thus, Jesus was as consistent here as He was in His prophetic statements
recorded in John, i.e. there is a dualism to everything Jesus' says, as
He
used the same pattern of prophetic utterance used by the prophets before
Him.
It's just that THIS particular statement was the only one Matthew noticed
(indicating that Matthew didn't really have a handle on prophetic form),
whereas John noticed many, which would make sense, as he wrote his Gospel
AFTER his Revelation experience, and only as a supplement to Matthew's
Gospel, with which he was quite familiar. (Note that John leaves out huge
chunks of the synoptic accounts, such as the Olivet Discourse and the
details of the Last Supper.)
Hence, prophetically speaking, Elijah "was," Elijah "is," and Elijah
"will
be" again, which reaffirms the fundamental nature of prophecy--triunism.
[snip]
None of that makes sense in context or in light of the Messiah
saying : "Elijah is come already, and they knew him not, but have done
unto him whatsoever they listed"
Yes it does--the Jews couldn't perceive the prophetic function of John in
the bigger scheme of things (which was figurative, not literal), just as
they couldn't perceive the function of JESUS in the bigger scheme of things
(which was spiritual, not literal).
The Jews were looking for the "God-King" messiah to come and kick the *****
out of the Romans, but what God SENT was the "Lamb of God" Messiah sent to
take away the sins of the world by His sacrifice.
The wanted the second and got the first, and rejected Him.
Next time around, they'll want the first and they'll get second--Jesus will
come as the "God-King" and THEN He'll be kicking a little *****, STARTING with
theirs.
Mat 17:12 "But I say unto you, That Elijah is come already, and they
knew him not, but have done unto him whatsoever they listed. Likewise
shall also the Son of man suffer of them."
The Messiah is speaking of John the Baptist's death, the fact that no
one recognized John the Baptist as Eliyah...
In a figure, NOT literally.
The literal WILL come in the restoration of all things, as the prophets and
Jesus said.
and the fact that some
would not recognize the Messiah and would also put him to death.
Which was all part and parcel of the necessary process, i.e. God's "strange
work."
Ike
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Glenn" |
|
| Title: Re: Significance of the Number 40 |
25 Jan 2008 05:05:56 AM |
|
|
Linda Lee wrote:
On Jan 24, 8:35 pm, "H.E. Eickleberry, Jr."
<xeickleberrybo...@verizon.net> wrote:
"Linda Lee" <lindagirl...@juno.com> wrote in message
news:e272b494-8170-4ad5-8e80-8413307656b2@e4g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
On Jan 22, 4:39 pm, "H.E. Eickleberry, Jr."
<xeickleberrybo...@verizon.net> wrote:
"LindaLee" <lindagirl...@juno.com> wrote in message
news:d623f905-3891-4e28-935d-1923a28654b1@i12g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
On Jan 22, 2:33 am, "H.E. Eickleberry, Jr."
<xeickleberrybo...@verizon.net> wrote:
"LindaLee" <lindagirl...@juno.com> wrote in message
news:af4b0c70-3ac8-4647-8c25-f9e8f8107131@i7g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
[snip]
I don't think the words 'second coming' are scriptural, only
doctrinal, and the Messiah never designates anything a second or
third
event.
Au contraire.
Jn 5:25-29
Verily, verily, I say unto you,
The hour is coming,
and now is,
when the dead shall hear the voice of the Son of God:
and
they that hear shall live.
For as the Father hath life in himself; so hath he given to the
Son
to
have life in himself; And hath given him authority to execute judgment
also,
because he is the Son of man.
Marvel not at this: for the hour is coming, in the which all that
are
in
the graves shall hear his voice, and shall come forth; they that have
done
good, unto the resurrection of life; and they that have done evil,
unto
the
resurrection of damnation.
If the resurrection was "coming" it was not "now," and if it was "now"
it
wasn't "coming," unless it was both "now" and "coming."
Matthew documents some manner of resurrection that took place when
Jesus
arose, but this was not the resurrections Jesus was talking about
"coming"--it was the one that was "now."
This splits His discussion into two parts sharing same aspects--one in
the
first advent, and one in the second advent, split two ways, to make
three
altogether--one that "was," one that "is," and one that is "yet to
come,"
i.e. one at the end of the OT period, one at the end of the NT period,
and
one at the end of all things to mop up the rest.
And again...
Jn 4:19-24
The [Samarian woman] saith unto him, Sir, I perceive that thou art
a
prophet: Our fathers worshipped in this mountain; and ye say, that in
Jerusalem is the place where men ought to worship.
Jesus saith unto her, Woman, believe me, the hour cometh, when ye
shall
neither in this mountain, nor yet at Jerusalem, worship the Father.
Ye worship ye know not what: we know what we worship: for
salvation
is
of the Jews.
But the hour cometh,
and now is,
when the true worshippers shall worship the Father in
spirit
and
in truth: for the Father seeketh such to worship him.
God is a Spirit: and they that worship him must worship him in
spirit
and in truth.
Jesus spoke of the condemnation of the Jerusalem temple twice, once in
His
first advent, and one in His second. With the destruction of Solomon's
temple past, this makes three--one that "was," one that "is," and one
that
is "yet to come."
Rev. 21:22 says, "And I saw no temple therein: for the Lord God
Almighty and the Lamb are the temple of it."
One from Matthew...
Mt 17:10-13
And his disciples asked him, saying, Why then say the scribes that
Elias
must first come?
And Jesus answered and said unto them, Elias truly shall first
come,
and
restore all things. But I say unto you, That Elias is come already,
and
they
knew him not, but have done unto him whatsoever they listed. Likewise
shall
also the Son of man suffer of them.
Then the disciples understood that he spake unto them of John the
Baptist.
John the Baptist served as a figure for Elijah in Jesus' first advent,
but,
as Jesus Himself says, that doesn't preclude the coming of Elias
(future
tense) in the End of the Age, as He says "Elias truly shall first come
[future tense].
I think he was referring to John the Baptist here as Elias/Elijah who
had come to "prepare the way of the LORD", i.e. announce the Messiah
or the "Lamb" of God, God's sacrificial body in the form of the
Messiah.
That's the second statement.
Go back and look at the first statement, which is future tense.
It is future tense only because he is speaking of what people HAD
expected to occur, and what they had expected had already occurred at
that point, i.e. Eliyah had incarnated as John the Baptist.
Once again, you demonstrate you can't read with comprehension.
Hmmm.
The first thing Jesus did was reaffirm that Elijah WILL come first, as
spoken by the prophets: "Elias truly SHALL come..."
Notice the insertion of
"truly" to indicate the very REAL coming of Elias in the End of the Age (as
opposed to the figurative function of John the Baptist), AND that Jesus uses
the future tense "SHALL come," removing all doubts that the prophecies WILL
be fulfilled literally in the End of the Age (as opposed to the
figurative/spiritual fulfillment that occurred in Jesus' first advent).
THEN He went on to describe John the Baptist as an "Elijah" in his own
right, and Jesus says elsewhere that it is a thing that must be "received,"
(properly interpreted, "perceived.")
Right, they needed to understand what the Messiah was saying to be
able to receive/believe it; he was not saying it was not real if they
refused to believe it.
Thus, Jesus was as consistent here as He was in His prophetic statements
recorded in John, i.e. there is a dualism to everything Jesus' says, as He
used the same pattern of prophetic utterance used by the prophets before
Him.
It's just that THIS particular statement was the only one Matthew noticed
(indicating that Matthew didn't really have a handle on prophetic form),
whereas John noticed many, which would make sense, as he wrote his Gospel
AFTER his Revelation experience, and only as a supplement to Matthew's
Gospel, with which he was quite familiar. (Note that John leaves out huge
chunks of the synoptic accounts, such as the Olivet Discourse and the
details of the Last Supper.)
Hence, prophetically speaking, Elijah "was," Elijah "is," and Elijah "will
be" again, which reaffirms the fundamental nature of prophecy--triunism.
[snip]
None of that makes sense in context or in light of the Messiah
saying : "Elijah is come already, and they knew him not, but have done
unto him whatsoever they listed"
Mat 17:12 "But I say unto you, That Elijah is come already, and they
knew him not, but have done unto him whatsoever they listed. Likewise
shall also the Son of man suffer of them."
The Messiah is speaking of John the Baptist's death, the fact that no
one recognized John the Baptist as Eliyah, and the fact that some
would not recognize the Messiah and would also put him to death.
It is not exactly correct to say that 'no one recognized' John the
Baptist as Elijah... since some did recognize him, and he pointed them
to Jesus.
However, it is certainly accurate to say 'few recognized him' just as
few recongnized Jesus as the Messiah; and, this is an example that few
will witness the two witnesses... Rev 11:3, "And I will give power unto
my two witnesses, and they shall prophesy a thousand two hundred and
threescore days, clothed in sackcloth."
Glenn
His witness
--
www.thelittlebookopened.org [Key words:] "The Little Book";
Glenn McClary, servitum, gaedhealic, oldwetdog
.
|
|
|
| User: "Mikal119" |
|
| Title: Re: Significance of the Number 40 |
25 Jan 2008 05:29:11 AM |
|
|
On Jan 25, 5:05 am, Glenn <gamccl...@spiritone.com> wrote:
Linda Lee wrote:
On Jan 24, 8:35 pm, "H.E. Eickleberry, Jr."
<xeickleberrybo...@verizon.net> wrote:
"Linda Lee" <lindagirl...@juno.com> wrote in message
news:e272b494-8170-4ad5-8e80-8413307656b2@e4g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
On Jan 22, 4:39 pm, "H.E. Eickleberry, Jr."
<xeickleberrybo...@verizon.net> wrote:
"LindaLee" <lindagirl...@juno.com> wrote in message
news:d623f905-3891-4e28-935d-1923a28654b1@i12g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
On Jan 22, 2:33 am, "H.E. Eickleberry, Jr."
<xeickleberrybo...@verizon.net> wrote:
"LindaLee" <lindagirl...@juno.com> wrote in message
news:af4b0c70-3ac8-4647-8c25-f9e8f8107131@i7g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
[snip]
I don't think the words 'second coming' are scriptural, only
doctrinal, and the Messiah never designates anything a second or
third
event.
Au contraire.
Jn 5:25-29
Verily, verily, I say unto you,
The hour is coming,
and now is,
when the dead shall hear the voice of the Son of God:
and
they that hear shall live.
For as the Father hath life in himself; so hath he given to the
Son
to
have life in himself; And hath given him authority to execute judgment
also,
because he is the Son of man.
Marvel not at this: for the hour is coming, in the which all that
are
in
the graves shall hear his voice, and shall come forth; they that have
done
good, unto the resurrection of life; and they that have done evil,
unto
the
resurrection of damnation.
If the resurrection was "coming" it was not "now," and if it was "now"
it
wasn't "coming," unless it was both "now" and "coming."
Matthew documents some manner of resurrection that took place when
Jesus
arose, but this was not the resurrections Jesus was talking about
"coming"--it was the one that was "now."
This splits His discussion into two parts sharing same aspects--one in
the
first advent, and one in the second advent, split two ways, to make
three
altogether--one that "was," one that "is," and one that is "yet to
come,"
i.e. one at the end of the OT period, one at the end of the NT period,
and
one at the end of all things to mop up the rest.
And again...
Jn 4:19-24
The [Samarian woman] saith unto him, Sir, I perceive that thou art
a
prophet: Our fathers worshipped in this mountain; and ye say, that in
Jerusalem is the place where men ought to worship.
Jesus saith unto her, Woman, believe me, the hour cometh, when ye
shall
neither in this mountain, nor yet at Jerusalem, worship the Father.
Ye worship ye know not what: we know what we worship: for
salvation
is
of the Jews.
But the hour cometh,
and now is,
when the true worshippers shall worship the Father in
spirit
and
in truth: for the Father seeketh such to worship him.
God is a Spirit: and they that worship him must worship him in
spirit
and in truth.
Jesus spoke of the condemnation of the Jerusalem temple twice, once in
His
first advent, and one in His second. With the destruction of Solomon's
temple past, this makes three--one that "was," one that "is," and one
that
is "yet to come."
Rev. 21:22 says, "And I saw no temple therein: for the Lord God
Almighty and the Lamb are the temple of it."
One from Matthew...
Mt 17:10-13
And his disciples asked him, saying, Why then say the scribes that
Elias
must first come?
And Jesus answered and said unto them, Elias truly shall first
come,
and
restore all things. But I say unto you, That Elias is come already,
and
they
knew him not, but have done unto him whatsoever they listed. Likewise
shall
also the Son of man suffer of them.
Then the disciples understood that he spake unto them of John the
Baptist.
John the Baptist served as a figure for Elijah in Jesus' first advent,
but,
as Jesus Himself says, that doesn't preclude the coming of Elias
(future
tense) in the End of the Age, as He says "Elias truly shall first come
[future tense].
I think he was referring to John the Baptist here as Elias/Elijah who
had come to "prepare the way of the LORD", i.e. announce the Messiah
or the "Lamb" of God, God's sacrificial body in the form of the
Messiah.
That's the second statement.
Go back and look at the first statement, which is future tense.
It is future tense only because he is speaking of what people HAD
expected to occur, and what they had expected had already occurred at
that point, i.e. Eliyah had incarnated as John the Baptist.
Once again, you demonstrate you can't read with comprehension.
Hmmm.
The first thing Jesus did was reaffirm that Elijah WILL come first, as
spoken by the prophets: "Elias truly SHALL come..."
Notice the insertion of
"truly" to indicate the very REAL coming of Elias in the End of the Age (as
opposed to the figurative function of John the Baptist), AND that Jesus uses
the future tense "SHALL come," removing all doubts that the prophecies WILL
be fulfilled literally in the End of the Age (as opposed to the
figurative/spiritual fulfillment that occurred in Jesus' first advent).
THEN He went on to describe John the Baptist as an "Elijah" in his own
right, and Jesus says elsewhere that it is a thing that must be "received,"
(properly interpreted, "perceived.")
Right, they needed to understand what the Messiah was saying to be
able to receive/believe it; he was not saying it was not real if they
refused to believe it.
Thus, Jesus was as consistent here as He was in His prophetic statements
recorded in John, i.e. there is a dualism to everything Jesus' says, as He
used the same pattern of prophetic utterance used by the prophets before
Him.
It's just that THIS particular statement was the only one Matthew noticed
(indicating that Matthew didn't really have a handle on prophetic form),
whereas John noticed many, which would make sense, as he wrote his Gospel
AFTER his Revelation experience, and only as a supplement to Matthew's
Gospel, with which he was quite familiar. (Note that John leaves out huge
chunks of the synoptic accounts, such as the Olivet Discourse and the
details of the Last Supper.)
Hence, prophetically speaking, Elijah "was," Elijah "is," and Elijah "will
be" again, which reaffirms the fundamental nature of prophecy--triunism.
[snip]
None of that makes sense in context or in light of the Messiah
saying : "Elijah is come already, and they knew him not, but have done
unto him whatsoever they listed"
Mat 17:12 "But I say unto you, That Elijah is come already, and they
knew him not, but have done unto him whatsoever they listed. Likewise
shall also the Son of man suffer of them."
The Messiah is speaking of John the Baptist's death, the fact that no
one recognized John the Baptist as Eliyah, and the fact that some
would not recognize the Messiah and would also put him to death.
It is not exactly correct to say that 'no one recognized' John the
Baptist as Elijah... since some did recognize him, and he pointed them
to Jesus.
However, it is certainly accurate to say 'few recognized him' just as
few recongnized Jesus as the Messiah; and, this is an example that few
will witness the two witnesses... Rev 11:3, "And I will give power unto
my two witnesses, and they shall prophesy a thousand two hundred and
threescore days, clothed in sackcloth."
Glenn
His witness
--
www.thelittlebookopened.org[Key words:] "The Little Book";
Glenn McClary, servitum, gaedhealic, oldwetdog
Significance of the number 40
psalm 40, which is used in a U2 song of the same name
Revelation 20:2
20 times 2 is forty.May not seem interesting, but consider the reason
why
the verses were numbered certain ways.Judges 20:2 mentions 400,000.
Revelation 20:2 mentions 1,000 years, and 20 times 20 times 1000 is
400,000.
I do not believ this to be coincidence, especially considering what I
had
read about Trajans Segovia Aqueduct.
20,400 stones.20 times 20 plus 20 times 1,000
http://www.cyberspain.com/ciudades-patrimonio/fotos/segacui.htm
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Mikal119" |
|
| Title: Re: Significance of the Number 40 |
22 Jan 2008 02:42:50 AM |
|
|
On Jan 22, 2:28 am, Linda Lee <lindagirl...@juno.com> wrote:
On Jan 22, 2:33 am, "H.E. Eickleberry, Jr."
<xeickleberrybo...@verizon.net> wrote:
"Linda Lee" <lindagirl...@juno.com> wrote in message
news:af4b0c70-3ac8-4647-8c25-f9e8f8107131@i7g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
[snip]
I don't think the words 'second coming' are scriptural, only
doctrinal, and the Messiah never designates anything a second or third
event.
Au contraire.
Jn 5:25-29
Verily, verily, I say unto you,
The hour is coming,
and now is,
when the dead shall hear the voice of the Son of God: and
they that hear shall live.
For as the Father hath life in himself; so hath he given to the Son to
have life in himself; And hath given him authority to execute judgment also,
because he is the Son of man.
Marvel not at this: for the hour is coming, in the which all that are in
the graves shall hear his voice, and shall come forth; they that have done
good, unto the resurrection of life; and they that have done evil, unto the
resurrection of damnation.
If the resurrection was "coming" it was not "now," and if it was "now" it
wasn't "coming," unless it was both "now" and "coming."
Matthew documents some manner of resurrection that took place when Jesus
arose, but this was not the resurrections Jesus was talking about
"coming"--it was the one that was "now."
This splits His discussion into two parts sharing same aspects--one in the
first advent, and one in the second advent, split two ways, to make three
altogether--one that "was," one that "is," and one that is "yet to come,"
i.e. one at the end of the OT period, one at the end of the NT period, and
one at the end of all things to mop up the rest.
And again...
Jn 4:19-24
The [Samarian woman] saith unto him, Sir, I perceive that thou art a
prophet: Our fathers worshipped in this mountain; and ye say, that in
Jerusalem is the place where men ought to worship.
Jesus saith unto her, Woman, believe me, the hour cometh, when ye shall
neither in this mountain, nor yet at Jerusalem, worship the Father.
Ye worship ye know not what: we know what we worship: for salvation is
of the Jews.
But the hour cometh,
and now is,
when the true worshippers shall worship the Father in spirit and
in truth: for the Father seeketh such to worship him.
God is a Spirit: and they that worship him must worship him in spirit
and in truth.
Jesus spoke of the condemnation of the Jerusalem temple twice, once in His
first advent, and one in His second. With the destruction of Solomon's
temple past, this makes three--one that "was," one that "is," and one that
is "yet to come."
Rev. 21:22 says, "And I saw no temple therein: for the Lord God
Almighty and the Lamb are the temple of it."
One from Matthew...
Mt 17:10-13
And his disciples asked him, saying, Why then say the scribes that Elias
must first come?
And Jesus answered and said unto them, Elias truly shall first come, and
restore all things. But I say unto you, That Elias is come already, and they
knew him not, but have done unto him whatsoever they listed. Likewise shall
also the Son of man suffer of them.
Then the disciples understood that he spake unto them of John the
Baptist.
John the Baptist served as a figure for Elijah in Jesus' first advent, but,
as Jesus Himself says, that doesn't preclude the coming of Elias (future
tense) in the End of the Age, as He says "Elias truly shall first come
[future tense].
I think he was referring to John the Baptist here as Elias/Elijah who
had come to "prepare the way of the LORD", i.e. announce the Messiah
or the "Lamb" of God, God's sacrificial body in the form of the
Messiah.
But Elias had already existed, and given his prophesies, so, likewise, Elias
"was," Elias "is," and Elias is "yet to come."
I've seen where Messiah said John the Baptist was Elias/Elijah whom
they didn't recognize just as they didn't all recognize Christ for who
he was - God incarnate.
Elijah would be the first incarnation of Elijah's spirit; John the
Baptist the second appearance of the spirit that was in Elijah, and
the third would be in the future when the spirit of Elijah would
return with the Christ at the end of time.
I think the Elias/Elijah/Eliyiah who is 'yet to come' was demonstrated
at the transfiguration when Moses and Elijah appeared with the Messiah
showing whom will return with Messiah at the end of the age.
Why do you think Elijah was chosen to return with Moses, rather than
any other prophet like Isaiah for example? Because Elijah heard the
still small voice and Moses saw the burning bush?
And do you see any indication of Moses incarnating a second time
before a final third time when he returns with Elijah and Messiah?
I've not noticed that. You would think if there were three appearances
of Elijah's spirit and Elijah is seen at the transfiguration, there
would have been a second appearance of Moses.
A catholic view of reincarnation I agree with.
http://www.carm.org/diff/Matt11_13.htm
This is triunism in prophecy, which the Dispensationalists, AND the
Preterists, AND the Historicists, AND the Idealists all ignore to their own
hurt.
Ike
Of course *another time* is prophesied, but I meant the Messiah never
used the word "second", as in he'd be back the second time for
judgment day. I think PD maintains now that the Messiah incarnated,
then came a second time to destroy the Jewish temple, and when
judgment day occurs and he returns will be the third time.
What third time?
I don't
really want to continue speaking about what PD believed or might now
believe (I thought I saw him changing somewhat in his views), as I was
asking, don't know for sure, and do not read his interactions and
ongoing fight with people here.
I think he believes we are living in the Kingdom if Christ already
came-if thats the case, then those of us living on earth have been
rejected, because this aint it.
Discuss?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Linda Lee" |
|
| Title: Re: Significance of the Number 40 |
22 Jan 2008 03:04:45 AM |
|
|
Mikal119 wrote:
On Jan 22, 2:28 am, Linda Lee <lindagirl...@juno.com> wrote:
On Jan 22, 2:33 am, "H.E. Eickleberry, Jr."
<xeickleberrybo...@verizon.net> wrote:
"Linda Lee" <lindagirl...@juno.com> wrote in message
news:af4b0c70-3ac8-4647-8c25-f9e8f8107131@i7g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
[snip]
I don't think the words 'second coming' are scriptural, only
doctrinal, and the Messiah never designates anything a second or third
event.
Au contraire.
Jn 5:25-29
Verily, verily, I say unto you,
The hour is coming,
and now is,
when the dead shall hear the voice of the Son of God: and
they that hear shall live.
For as the Father hath life in himself; so hath he given to the Son to
have life in himself; And hath given him authority to execute judgment also,
because he is the Son of man.
Marvel not at this: for the hour is coming, in the which all that are in
the graves shall hear his voice, and shall come forth; they that have done
good, unto the resurrection of life; and they that have done evil, unto the
resurrection of damnation.
If the resurrection was "coming" it was not "now," and if it was "now" it
wasn't "coming," unless it was both "now" and "coming."
Matthew documents some manner of resurrection that took place when Jesus
arose, but this was not the resurrections Jesus was talking about
"coming"--it was the one that was "now."
This splits His discussion into two parts sharing same aspects--one in the
first advent, and one in the second advent, split two ways, to make three
altogether--one that "was," one that "is," and one that is "yet to come,"
i.e. one at the end of the OT period, one at the end of the NT period, and
one at the end of all things to mop up the rest.
And again...
Jn 4:19-24
The [Samarian woman] saith unto him, Sir, I perceive that thou art a
prophet: Our fathers worshipped in this mountain; and ye say, that in
Jerusalem is the place where men ought to worship.
Jesus saith unto her, Woman, believe me, the hour cometh, when ye shall
neither in this mountain, nor yet at Jerusalem, worship the Father.
Ye worship ye know not what: we know what we worship: for salvation is
of the Jews.
But the hour cometh,
and now is,
when the true worshippers shall worship the Father in spirit and
in truth: for the Father seeketh such to worship him.
God is a Spirit: and they that worship him must worship him in spirit
and in truth.
Jesus spoke of the condemnation of the Jerusalem temple twice, once in His
first advent, and one in His second. With the destruction of Solomon's
temple past, this makes three--one that "was," one that "is," and one that
is "yet to come."
Rev. 21:22 says, "And I saw no temple therein: for the Lord God
Almighty and the Lamb are the temple of it."
One from Matthew...
Mt 17:10-13
And his disciples asked him, saying, Why then say the scribes that Elias
must first come?
And Jesus answered and said unto them, Elias truly shall first come, and
restore all things. But I say unto you, That Elias is come already, and they
knew him not, but have done unto him whatsoever they listed. Likewise shall
also the Son of man suffer of them.
Then the disciples understood that he spake unto them of John the
Baptist.
John the Baptist served as a figure for Elijah in Jesus' first advent, but,
as Jesus Himself says, that doesn't preclude the coming of Elias (future
tense) in the End of the Age, as He says "Elias truly shall first come
[future tense].
I think he was referring to John the Baptist here as Elias/Elijah who
had come to "prepare the way of the LORD", i.e. announce the Messiah
or the "Lamb" of God, God's sacrificial body in the form of the
Messiah.
But Elias had already existed, and given his prophesies, so, likewise, Elias
"was," Elias "is," and Elias is "yet to come."
I've seen where Messiah said John the Baptist was Elias/Elijah whom
they didn't recognize just as they didn't all recognize Christ for who
he was - God incarnate.
Elijah would be the first incarnation of Elijah's spirit; John the
Baptist the second appearance of the spirit that was in Elijah, and
the third would be in the future when the spirit of Elijah would
return with the Christ at the end of time.
I think the Elias/Elijah/Eliyiah who is 'yet to come' was demonstrated
at the transfiguration when Moses and Elijah appeared with the Messiah
showing whom will return with Messiah at the end of the age.
Why do you think Elijah was chosen to return with Moses, rather than
any other prophet like Isaiah for example? Because Elijah heard the
still small voice and Moses saw the burning bush?
And do you see any indication of Moses incarnating a second time
before a final third time when he returns with Elijah and Messiah?
I've not noticed that. You would think if there were three appearances
of Elijah's spirit and Elijah is seen at the transfiguration, there
would have been a second appearance of Moses.
A catholic view of reincarnation I agree with.
Thanks for that info. Are you Catholic? I wanted to find out if the
Catholics believed in any form of 'reincarnation' (only of humans born
later as another human) existed ,and I've asked around but couldn't
find out and couldn't find it on the Catholic Encyclopedia. If there
it's probably termed something else.
Where could I find authoritative material on that belief?
http://www.carm.org/diff/Matt11_13.htm
This is triunism in prophecy, which the Dispensationalists, AND the
Preterists, AND the Historicists, AND the Idealists all ignore to their own
hurt.
Ike
Of course *another time* is prophesied, but I meant the Messiah never
used the word "second", as in he'd be back the second time for
judgment day. I think PD maintains now that the Messiah incarnated,
then came a second time to destroy the Jewish temple, and when
judgment day occurs and he returns will be the third time.
What third time?
I think that is P. Dave's belief; you'd have to ask him if he believes
it and to explain it.
I don't
really want to continue speaking about what PD believed or might now
believe (I thought I saw him changing somewhat in his views), as I was
asking, don't know for sure, and do not read his interactions and
ongoing fight with people here.
I think he believes we are living in the Kingdom if Christ already
came-if thats the case, then those of us living on earth have been
rejected, because this aint it.
Discuss?
I'm not sure what P. Dave believes.
I believe that the accusations that the Messiah said he'd destroy the
temple building were false, and they misunderstood that he meant he
would raise his own body because God is the temple, the actual temple
building was not the real temple.
Rev 21:22 "And I saw no temple therein: for the Lord God Almighty and
the Lamb are the temple of it."
I doubt that the whole world saw anything supernatural like thousands
of angels in the skies that every eye could see when the temple fell
as PD claims.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Mikal119" |
|
| Title: Re: Significance of the Number 40 |
22 Jan 2008 03:26:57 AM |
|
|
On Jan 22, 3:04 am, Linda Lee <lindagirl...@juno.com> wrote:
Mikal119 wrote:
On Jan 22, 2:28 am, Linda Lee <lindagirl...@juno.com> wrote:
On Jan 22, 2:33 am, "H.E. Eickleberry, Jr."
<xeickleberrybo...@verizon.net> wrote:
"Linda Lee" <lindagirl...@juno.com> wrote in message
news:af4b0c70-3ac8-4647-8c25-f9e8f8107131@i7g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
[snip]
I don't think the words 'second coming' are scriptural, only
doctrinal, and the Messiah never designates anything a second or third
event.
Au contraire.
Jn 5:25-29
Verily, verily, I say unto you,
The hour is coming,
and now is,
when the dead shall hear the voice of the Son of God: and
they that hear shall live.
For as the Father hath life in himself; so hath he given to the Son to
have life in himself; And hath given him authority to execute judgment also,
because he is the Son of man.
Marvel not at this: for the hour is coming, in the which all that are in
the graves shall hear his voice, and shall come forth; they that have done
good, unto the resurrection of life; and they that have done evil, unto the
resurrection of damnation.
If the resurrection was "coming" it was not "now," and if it was "now" it
wasn't "coming," unless it was both "now" and "coming."
Matthew documents some manner of resurrection that took place when Jesus
arose, but this was not the resurrections Jesus was talking about
"coming"--it was the one that was "now."
This splits His discussion into two parts sharing same aspects--one in the
first advent, and one in the second advent, split two ways, to make three
altogether--one that "was," one that "is," and one that is "yet to come,"
i.e. one at the end of the OT period, one at the end of the NT period, and
one at the end of all things to mop up the rest.
And again...
Jn 4:19-24
The [Samarian woman] saith unto him, Sir, I perceive that thou art a
prophet: Our fathers worshipped in this mountain; and ye say, that in
Jerusalem is the place where men ought to worship.
Jesus saith unto her, Woman, believe me, the hour cometh, when ye shall
neither in this mountain, nor yet at Jerusalem, worship the Father.
Ye worship ye know not what: we know what we worship: for salvation is
of the Jews.
But the hour cometh,
and now is,
when the true worshippers shall worship the Father in spirit and
in truth: for the Father seeketh such to worship him.
God is a Spirit: and they that worship him must worship him in spirit
and in truth.
Jesus spoke of the condemnation of the Jerusalem temple twice, once in His
first advent, and one in His second. With the destruction of Solomon's
temple past, this makes three--one that "was," one that "is," and one that
is "yet to come."
Rev. 21:22 says, "And I saw no temple therein: for the Lord God
Almighty and the Lamb are the temple of it."
One from Matthew...
Mt 17:10-13
And his disciples asked him, saying, Why then say the scribes that Elias
must first come?
And Jesus answered and said unto them, Elias truly shall first come, and
restore all things. But I say unto you, That Elias is come already, and they
knew him not, but have done unto him whatsoever they listed. Likewise shall
also the Son of man suffer of them.
Then the disciples understood that he spake unto them of John the
Baptist.
John the Baptist served as a figure for Elijah in Jesus' first advent, but,
as Jesus Himself says, that doesn't preclude the coming of Elias (future
tense) in the End of the Age, as He says "Elias truly shall first come
[future tense].
I think he was referring to John the Baptist here as Elias/Elijah who
had come to "prepare the way of the LORD", i.e. announce the Messiah
or the "Lamb" of God, God's sacrificial body in the form of the
Messiah.
But Elias had already existed, and given his prophesies, so, likewise, Elias
"was," Elias "is," and Elias is "yet to come."
I've seen where Messiah said John the Baptist was Elias/Elijah whom
they didn't recognize just as they didn't all recognize Christ for who
he was - God incarnate.
Elijah would be the first incarnation of Elijah's spirit; John the
Baptist the second appearance of the spirit that was in Elijah, and
the third would be in the future when the spirit of Elijah would
return with the Christ at the end of time.
I think the Elias/Elijah/Eliyiah who is 'yet to come' was demonstrated
at the transfiguration when Moses and Elijah appeared with the Messiah
showing whom will return with Messiah at the end of the age.
Why do you thi | | | | | | |
