Answers to questions

• Messages sorted by:[ date ][ thread ][ subject ][ author ]

     First I ask forgiveness that these have taken so long.
 If I have forgotten anyone, please write me again and I
will get these out as soon as possible.
     Bro. Harrell asked for Scripture on the theory that
the thorn in Pauls flesh was an affliction to his eye
sight.  In Acts 23:1-5 we see that paul could not
distinguish the High Preist from the others 
standing about him.  The High Preist's dress was very
distinctinve from the robes of the others on the Sanhedren.
 The Preist would have had these on since he was "called"
before the roman in his "official" capacity.
     In Galatians 6:11 Paul calls attention to the fact
that he wrote this letter in his own hand.  Getting back to
the KJV discussion, 
this passage is "better" rendered "see with what BIG
LETTERS
I have written to you."  Taken either way it supports the
theory that Paul had constant trouble with his eyesight. 
There are more but these make the point.
     There are two types of belief, those which you believe
because of the proof and those that you believe because you
have no proof.  Faith is a "confident belief."  You can be
confident about either type of belief.  Trust involves a
"value judgment."  You "weigh" things out and then "choose"
to believe one thing over another.
     When I was a little boy, my dad would call for me and
I would walk right off the end of porches or anything.  I
KNEW that I couldn't do this without my dad, I tried.  I
had faith that I would be all right and trusted that "Dad"
would not let me fall.  On the first attempt all I had was
trust.  You KNOW there is a God and yet you have not seen
Him.  You have achieved the knowlege (certainty) by your
faith (confident belief) that these things you feel and see
are the "evidence" of the unseen.  You trust when you weigh
this against your own will and choose to obey this God that
is felt and affirmed in reality but not seen. 

We are to trust (value above all things) that God knows
best and then have faith (confidently believe) that he is
able culture this faith (trials) until we obtain the
knowlege (certainty) and then to understanding (insight to
motives/purpose).

2 Peter 3, "6 Whereby the world that then was, being
overflowed with water, perished:"

This is what was refered to in Jeremiah, the flood which
left the world "void and without form" AND destroyed cities
and the like.
 

2 Peter 3, "7 But the heavens and the earth, which are now,
by the same word are kept in store, reserved unto fire
against the day of judgment and perdition of ungodly men. 8
But, beloved, be not ignorant of this one thing, that one
day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand
years as one day."

Peter is telling saints of his time that they should not be
ignorant and think that the rapture had already occured
since the creation was a foreshadowing of the entire
"history of creation" but instead of it taking 6 literal
days it would take 6, 1000 year "days of the Lord" or 6000
years.  They also knew by the geneology of Jesus that they
were at ~year 4000.  So Peter is saying "Relax this rapture
thing can't take place for at least 2000 years."  I don't
care how you slice it there is gonig to be 6 days at 1000
years each until the day of "rest" which is the millinial
reign.  We are almost at the end of day six, then comes the
judgment.  So, counting from the beginning, in the first
line of Gen 1:1, the whole of creation beginning to "end"
will take 6000 years and then Jesus will rest from His
"work" for a thousand years.  At the end of this "day" of
rest and the ultimate defeat of Satan, the whole of
creation will "melt" by the "spoken Word" (Logos) and on
the 8th day (8 is the number of new beginnings) God will
"remake it afresh."  If your creation model doesn't "fit"
this pattern layed out by Peter, reject it.  We have to
stop trying to reconcile our faith to science and start
reconciling science to our faith.
     Just in passing, I like the way Rev. Blume's and my
accounts of Revelation are dove tailing so far.  I like his
anology to the "first coming" to JERUSALEM (national Jews)
and agree.  This is true.  The Gentiles (Chruch) however
were "greeted first" (woman at the well) and they accepted
Him as Messiah or King.
In this way they allowed the "day of visitaion" for the
Jews or the day they officially rejected Jesus as King. 
Those who "came out"
accepted Jesus as King and those who were "left" judged
themselves.
     Where I differ with Rev. Blume is that we do indeed
meet the King out side of the city as the bride of Christ
and then spend 7 years in preparation while the Jews that
are not in the 144,000 and the remainder of the Gentiles
(the GREAT Tribulation), ALL whom have rejected Christ are
judged.  This once done and the Bride prepared the
King/Groom presents His Bride to His "subjects," the
surviving Jews from the 144,000.
     Like I said, in passing I offer: Mark 13, "19 For in
those days shall be affliction, such as was not from the
beginning of the creation which God created unto this time,
neither shall be."  "...Neither shall be."  The inquisition
was worse than the fall of Jerusalem and so was the
Holocost.  If I hit you the hardest you have ever been hit
and then I hit you just a little bit harder, the LAST PUNCH
is the worst EVER.

Timothy Litteral
472 Grant St.
Marion Ohio 43302
trlitteral@usa.net
http://members.tripod.com/~trlitteral