Revelation 11- 2 Witnesses, what do you think?

Dedicated to the scholarly study of the bible as text and the discussion thereof

Moderator: Moderators

Heather330
Newbie
Posts: 1
Joined: Wed Jan 26, 2011 4:57 pm

Revelation 11- 2 Witnesses, what do you think?

Post #1

Post by Heather330 »

Hi everyone! *waves* *opens Bible*

I was on Facebook and a friend sent me a message about a page on FB where a group is claiming to have found the 2 Witnesses. Here is the message:
Hi everyone. There’s a 30 day Challenge going on at facebook.com/wefoundthem where a group is challenging internet users to help them spread the message that they found the Two Witnesses spoken of in Revelation 11 and they can prove it. So, I’m helping them with the challenge J They have a neat video and free info pack so it’s worth checking out. Here’s the site again http://www.facebook.com/wefoundthem
So, what do you all think? Have you studied Revelation 11? Who do you think are or were the 2 Witnesses?

All opinions appreciated. This groups message is "interesting" ...

S-word
Scholar
Posts: 374
Joined: Thu May 06, 2010 6:04 am

Post #21

Post by S-word »

......The worthless shepherd that God rose up in this WORLD, or you can fight to win the victory over this world, and be invited to sit beside of Brother Jesus, in the throne of Godhead to the most High in the creation, the throne of our Father, who is the Father of Jesus, the throne of our God, who is the God of Jesus. See John 20: 17.


Keef wrote:An interesting exposition, but one that does not fit with mainstream theology.

You seem to be conflating random folk myths with misinterpreted history with eisegesis of selected passages of the Bible. While the process of debate allows you to do that, I do not feel compelled to provide answers. I have offered some suggestions which reflect the scholarship of the academic world. It is now your choice whether to investigate them, or not.

[S-word's Response].......No my friend, if I was conflating random folk myths with misinterpreted history with eisegesis of selected passages of the Bible, I would be trying to get people such as yourself to believe in some hybid magic maker, who was born on earth of a mortal human mother to an eternal and immortal heavenly alien life form, who pre-existed this three dimensional universe, but then, you already believe that myth, don't you?

[Keef wrote].........You do seem to have an agenda of your own, rather at variance with the great majority of God-worshipping Christians.

I do seem to have an agenda of my own don't I?, As do the greater majority of people on these forums, including yourself, and mine is rather at variance with the great majority of Baal-worshipping so-called christians, who would dare to worship the immortal God in the form of a mortal man before whose image they bow, who were spawned of the Spirit of the lord of the churh of the non-christian and theoretically illiterate King Constantine in 325 AD, some three hundred years after the establishment of the Apostolic Church of Jesus Christ in Jerusalem.

User avatar
Keef
Student
Posts: 74
Joined: Sat Nov 18, 2006 4:35 pm
Location: Suffolk, England
Contact:

Post #22

Post by Keef »

S-word, I don't know who you worship or what church you belong to, but let me assure you that I am not associated with
the churh of the non-christian and theoretically illiterate King Constantine in 325 AD, some three hundred years after the establishment of the Apostolic Church of Jesus Christ in Jerusalem
.

My church is the Church of England, established in the 16th Century. It doesn't recognise the 'Church of King Constantine' - indeed, I don't know of any branches of that church in this country. The C of E follows the received Old and New Testaments and their teaching, in line with Jesus' commands, and the work of many synods and councils since then. It is deeply involved with the scholarship of the major universities around the world, and has a caucus of very learned (certainly not illiterate) scholars. It encourages theological study and reflection, Bible reading and exegesis, prayer, and activity in the world. It obeys Jesus' command in Matthew 28. 19-20.

If you choose to follow a different faith, you are of course totally free to do so. If you wish to worship Baal or whoever, then that is your choice. However, I do not and will not worship Baal, despite your insistence that I do. I will remain in the faith in which I have spent the last 68 years. I will thank you not to malign it with ill-informed and incorrect speculation about its origins.

S-word
Scholar
Posts: 374
Joined: Thu May 06, 2010 6:04 am

Post #23

Post by S-word »

Keef wrote:S-word, I don't know who you worship or what church you belong to, but let me assure you that I am not associated with
the churh of the non-christian and theoretically illiterate King Constantine in 325 AD, some three hundred years after the establishment of the Apostolic Church of Jesus Christ in Jerusalem
.

My church is the Church of England, established in the 16th Century. It doesn't recognise the 'Church of King Constantine' - indeed, I don't know of any branches of that church in this country. The C of E follows the received Old and New Testaments and their teaching, in line with Jesus' commands, and the work of many synods and councils since then. It is deeply involved with the scholarship of the major universities around the world, and has a caucus of very learned (certainly not illiterate) scholars. It encourages theological study and reflection, Bible reading and exegesis, prayer, and activity in the world. It obeys Jesus' command in Matthew 28. 19-20.

If you choose to follow a different faith, you are of course totally free to do so. If you wish to worship Baal or whoever, then that is your choice. However, I do not and will not worship Baal, despite your insistence that I do. I will remain in the faith in which I have spent the last 68 years. I will thank you not to malign it with ill-informed and incorrect speculation about its origins.
[Keef wrote].......My church is the Church of England, established in the 16th Century. It doesn't recognise the 'Church of King Constantine' - indeed, I don't know of any branches of that church in this country. The C of E follows the received Old and New Testaments and their teaching, in line with Jesus' commands, and the work of many synods and councils since then. It is deeply involved with the scholarship of the major universities around the world, and has a caucus of very learned (certainly not illiterate) scholars. It encourages theological study and reflection, Bible reading and exegesis, prayer, and activity in the world. It obeys Jesus' command in Matthew 28. 19-20.

[S-word’s Response]……The history of the Church of England has its origins in the last five years of the 6th century in the Anglo-Saxon Kingdom of Kent, and the Gregorian mission of Saint Augustine. The Church of England emphasises continuity through apostolic succession and traditionally looks to these early events for its origins rather than to the changes brought about by the English Reformation. Events such as Henry VIII's schism with the Roman Catholic Church or the excommunication of Elizabeth I or the wider Reformation in mainland Europe are all events that contributed to the development of the Church of England as it is now established, but are regarded as a continuation of the arrival of the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church to the British Isles.

The preferred Bible of your Church is the King James version, which states in Luke 6: 16; and Acts 1: 13; that Jude is the brother of James the son of Alpheaus, but you reject the teachings of your very own church. Just who do you believe.

[Keef wrote].......If you choose to follow a different faith, you are of course totally free to do so. If you wish to worship Baal or whoever, then that is your choice. However, I do not and will not worship Baal, despite your insistence that I do. I will remain in the faith in which I have spent the last 68 years. I will thank you not to malign it with ill-informed and incorrect speculation about its origins.

Unlike yourself who belong to a breakaway branch of the universal church, which was astablished by the non-christian and theoretically illerate king Constantine , which was established in 325 AD, some three hundred after the true Apostolic Church of Jesus Christ was established in Jerusalem, I would never worship the immortal God in the form of a mortal man, you see I believe God's word, I do not, and never would, wordhip my brother "Jesus," who is my chosen King and high priest, as My God, who is his God.

Yes! I do follow a different faith than that of the mother church from which the spirit/teahings of your church were spawned, I, unlike your church, am not a Baal worshiper.

User avatar
Keef
Student
Posts: 74
Joined: Sat Nov 18, 2006 4:35 pm
Location: Suffolk, England
Contact:

Post #24

Post by Keef »

S-word wrote: The preferred Bible of your Church is the King James version...
Sorry, wrong.

Farewell, S-word.

S-word
Scholar
Posts: 374
Joined: Thu May 06, 2010 6:04 am

Post #25

Post by S-word »

Keef wrote:
S-word wrote: The preferred Bible of your Church is the King James version...
Sorry, wrong.

Farewell, S-word.
When I said "Your church," I was referring to church of England which was born of the church of Constantine.

But if you do not now follow the KJV, then turn to Isaiah 7: 14, and you will see the words that Matthew translated as "Parthenos," which carries the basic meaning of a person who is unmarried, and denotes 'Virgin,' only by implication, and everyone knows that Isaiah was not implying the "Almah" to who he was referring who was pregnant, was still a virgin. In fact he (Isaiah) was the biological father of the unmarried prophetess.

See you soon mate.

User avatar
Intojoy
Apprentice
Posts: 247
Joined: Tue Dec 18, 2012 8:46 pm

Post #26

Post by Intojoy »

Two Witnesses - two Jewish believers who shall be elevated to the position of prophets during the tribulation, they are future Jewish men. Why is it so difficult to believe God is going to choose Jews as His two witnesses? Because He's going to.

The Tongue
Under Probation
Posts: 1667
Joined: Fri May 04, 2012 12:08 am
Location: Townsville Queensland Australia

Post #27

Post by The Tongue »

Intojoy wrote: Two Witnesses - two Jewish believers who shall be elevated to the position of prophets during the tribulation, they are future Jewish men. Why is it so difficult to believe God is going to choose Jews as His two witnesses? Because He's going to.
Even the 144000 faithful servants of the Lord , the first fruits to have been redeemed from the earth, are all chosen from 12 of the thirteen tribes of Israel, 12,000 from each of the twelve tribes of, Judah, Reuben, Gad, Asher, Naphtali, Manasseh, Simeon, Levi, Issachar, Zebulun, Joseph, and Benjamin. See Revelation 7: 4; and 14:1.

Why are there none chosen from the tribe of Dan, which tribe was counted from the descendants of the childless Dan's young sister, "HUSHIM," who he adopted after the death of his mother Bilhah, who was raped by Reuben the first born Son of Israel.

User avatar
sparkleplenti
Newbie
Posts: 5
Joined: Mon Apr 08, 2013 8:38 am

Post #28

Post by sparkleplenti »

I agree that knowing is not plausible, guessing may be fun yet frustrating... some thinkers enjoy being frustrated intellectually (self included). Jesus and John the Baptist are possible due to the nature of their preaching, although Jesus was the one with 3 1/2 years under his belt. Peter or Paul could be included as they also spread the word after Jesus. The ones who performed signs and miracles however, were Moses and Jesus... out of all the "prophets" I think it likely they are good candidates... they both also came with God's word. Additionally, OT is largely based on Moses and NT is largely based on JC, 2 types of witness of God... hmmm. Promising.

Whomever the 2 are, we may never truly find out. Philosophically, this is a dead end. Intellectually, its fun to ponder :-)

Post Reply