I keep going back to these questions and the more I look at them, the more I see that they cannot be answered with any certainty that would satisfy a genuine questioner. They are above normal questioning of an interested party searching for the truth and do not appear to have a meaningful outcome that would assist understanding the context in which they are asked - how would such answers of faith be satisfied? The questions are figurative; their statements ambiguous, as the questioner points out.
As Susan points out, one cannot have a bowl of anger: what it refers to in my opinion is the accumulated distress of satanic events upon the creation of Jehovah and that will be answered in a overwhelming finality of justice served upon Satan. But that is only my opinion. How should I know? I don’t. And my guess is that it would not satisfy the questioner either. It would be best that they come forward and state their case. It’s easy to join the group. Other than that, it seems just a variation of those that come here, ask questions, then give their own answers ‘elder style’, ‘unpacking’ its meaning point by point for our benefit.
These questions cannot have a satisfactory explanation that can be labelled as truth with certainty. They have meaning, but above what is required for salvation. As the bible says: “let the reader use discernment.” That is out of context, but it has meaning here I feel. There are rarely answers to adjectives, or there are too many of them. “Let the reader (questioner) use a thesaurus!!”
I think you’re right Mick, sad to say.
I keep going back to these questions and the more I look at them, the more I see that they cannot be answered with any certainty that would satisfy a genuine questioner. They are above normal questioning of an interested party searching for the truth and do not appear to have a meaningful outcome that would assist understanding the context in which they are asked - how would such answers of faith be satisfied? The questions are figurative; their statements ambiguous, as the questioner points out.
As Susan points out, one cannot have a bowl of anger: what it refers to in my opinion is the accumulated distress of satanic events upon the creation of Jehovah and that will be answered in a overwhelming finality of justice served upon Satan. But that is only my opinion. How should I know? I don’t. And my guess is that it would not satisfy the questioner either. It would be best that they come forward and state their case. It’s easy to join the group. Other than that, it seems just a variation of those that come here, ask questions, then give their own answers ‘elder style’, ‘unpacking’ its meaning point by point for our benefit.
These questions cannot have a satisfactory explanation that can be labelled as truth with certainty. They have meaning, but above what is required for salvation. As the bible says: “let the reader use discernment.” That is out of context, but it has meaning here I feel. There are rarely answers to adjectives, or there are too many of them. “Let the reader (questioner) use a thesaurus!!”
I keep going back to these questions and the more I look at them, the more I see that they cannot be answered with any certainty that would satisfy a genuine questioner. They are above normal questioning of an interested party searching for the truth and do not appear to have a meaningful outcome that would assist understanding the context in which they are asked - how would such answers of faith be satisfied? The questions are figurative; their statements ambiguous, as the questioner points out.
As Susan points out, one cannot have a bowl of anger: what it refers to in my opinion is the accumulated distress of satanic events upon the creation of Jehovah and that will be answered in a overwhelming finality of justice served upon Satan. But that is only my opinion. How should I know? I don’t. And my guess is that it would not satisfy the questioner either. It would be best that they come forward and state their case. It’s easy to join the group. Other than that, it seems just a variation of those that come here, ask questions, then give their own answers ‘elder style’, ‘unpacking’ its meaning point by point for our benefit.
These questions cannot have a satisfactory explanation that can be labelled as truth with certainty. They have meaning, but above what is required for salvation. As the bible says: “let the reader use discernment.” That is out of context, but it has meaning here I feel. There are rarely answers to adjectives, or there are too many of them. “Let the reader (questioner) use a thesaurus!!”
i think
Revvzone nailed the answers.
Revvzone said:
Question 1. Answer.
The
disciples' where seeking proof same as doubting Thomas.
John 14:8-9 this inquiry stemmed from their desire for a more tangible connection to God... Despite having witnessed Jesus perform miracles and teach about the Father, they sought direct assurance and visual confirmation of God's presence.. This sort of proof may arise during christs' presence. Demanding an experience similar to what
Moses had when he encountered God on Mount Sinai or what
Elijah experienced being whisped away in a chariot of fire.
Question 2. Answer
Yes there will be a resurrection.
According to
Acts 24:15, there is an implication that there will be a resurrection of both the righteous and the unrighteous.
Question 3. Answer
The
four angels in
Revelation 7:1-3 and
9:13-18 are generally understood to be different in purpose and context. The first set of angels is tasked with sealing the servants of God, indicating a protective role, while the second set plays a part in executing divine judgment. The difference in their commands relates to their roles: the first simply instructs not to harm the earth, while the second set, being bound, signifies a more active role in specific executions of God's judgment as part of the apocalyptic events described.
Question 4. Answer
The
four angels at the Euphrates represent powers that are both spiritual and political, indicating a broader cosmic struggle between good and evil. Their binding and loosing relates to the unfolding of judgment and the restraint of evil forces, and other echoing themes in
Revelation 17:16-17, where the ten horns and the beast play a role in God's plan. The beast is often interpreted as a representation of oppressive political systems or empires driven by forces contrary to God, are influenced by demonic entities. All these elements must collide for the culmination for battle of Armageddon to take place which will desolve the elements or the entire foundation of this demonic and human system of things.
The assertion that they could be connected to the angels mentioned in
the Second Death (SD) relates to the ongoing spiritual conflict. "A Bulwark" Thus, the control or strategic influence of the beast over these events reflect the underlying spiritual battle with unseen enemy's that unfolds throughout Revelation.
