Mat 3:4 And the same John had his raiment of camel's hair, and a leathern girdle about his loins; and his meat was locusts and wild honey. Mat 3:5 Then went out to him Jerusalem, and all Judaea, and all the region round about Jordan, Mat 3:6 And were baptized of him in Jordan, confessing their sins. Mat 3:7 But when he saw many of the Pharisees and Sadducees come to his baptism, he said unto them, O generation of vipers, who hath warned you to flee from the wrath to come? Mat 3:8 Bring forth therefore fruits meet for repentance: Mat 3:9 And think not to say within yourselves, We have Abraham to [our] father: for I say unto you, that God is able of these stones to raise up children unto Abraham. Mat 3:10 And now also the axe is laid unto the root of the trees: therefore every tree which bringeth not forth good fruit is hewn down, and cast into the fire. Mat 3:11 I indeed baptize you with water unto repentance: but he that cometh after me is mightier than I, whose shoes I am not worthy to bear: he shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost, and [with] fire: Mat 3:12 Whose fan [is] in his hand, and he will throughly purge his floor, and gather his wheat into the garner; but he will burn up the chaff with unquenchable fire.
Why were the pharisees coming to John? How did he know about impending wrath? Did he believe it was imminent?
Full Version: How Much Did John The Baptist Know
QUOTE(Mazinaw @ Jan 29 2006, 12:49 PM)
Mat 3:4 And the same John had his raiment of camel's hair, and a leathern girdle about his loins; and his meat was locusts and wild honey. Mat 3:5 Then went out to him Jerusalem, and all Judaea, and all the region round about Jordan, Mat 3:6 And were baptized of him in Jordan, confessing their sins. Mat 3:7 But when he saw many of the Pharisees and Sadducees come to his baptism, he said unto them, O generation of vipers, who hath warned you to flee from the wrath to come? Mat 3:8 Bring forth therefore fruits meet for repentance: Mat 3:9 And think not to say within yourselves, We have Abraham to [our] father: for I say unto you, that God is able of these stones to raise up children unto Abraham. Mat 3:10 And now also the axe is laid unto the root of the trees: therefore every tree which bringeth not forth good fruit is hewn down, and cast into the fire. Mat 3:11 I indeed baptize you with water unto repentance: but he that cometh after me is mightier than I, whose shoes I am not worthy to bear: he shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost, and [with] fire: Mat 3:12 Whose fan [is] in his hand, and he will throughly purge his floor, and gather his wheat into the garner; but he will burn up the chaff with unquenchable fire.
Why were the pharisees coming to John? How did he know about impending wrath? Did he believe it was imminent?
[right][snapback]37109[/snapback][/right]
Why were the pharisees coming to John? How did he know about impending wrath? Did he believe it was imminent?
[right][snapback]37109[/snapback][/right]
Ya know Maz this has really been stiring in me, John the baptist, he seems to be kind of a mystery to me, a witness perhaps to Christ's coming just as the Holy Spirit is a witness to His return. Elijah being a forshadowing of John the baptist. I don't know something stiring I just am not seeing it yet.
What a fine question you pose brother Maz!
I think John the baptist saw the Jesus of the last days as well as the Lamb of God whose task was in those days. He saw two of Jesus' roles simultaniously. I think He believed the wrath was iminent. Jesus will definately come this time with fire. Last time it was teaching and healing and his blood of forgiveness.
Many people in those times had the same thought. They expected Jesus to be the Messiah of war. They expected Him to lead them in battle and free them from the bondage of the Romans. Maybe they got that idea from John the Baptist. Then it turned-out that he preached non-violence and rode into Jerusalem on a donkey, they realized this wasn't what they were getting. Many were very disappointed, not realizing he came with something much better than war.
I think John the baptist saw the Jesus of the last days as well as the Lamb of God whose task was in those days. He saw two of Jesus' roles simultaniously. I think He believed the wrath was iminent. Jesus will definately come this time with fire. Last time it was teaching and healing and his blood of forgiveness.
Many people in those times had the same thought. They expected Jesus to be the Messiah of war. They expected Him to lead them in battle and free them from the bondage of the Romans. Maybe they got that idea from John the Baptist. Then it turned-out that he preached non-violence and rode into Jerusalem on a donkey, they realized this wasn't what they were getting. Many were very disappointed, not realizing he came with something much better than war.
Why were the pharisees coming to John?
Good questions Maz.......
1) Because Israel was on red alert for the Messiah ?
How did he know about impending wrath?
2 ) because the holy Ghost had told him ?
Did he believe it was imminent?
3) .............now that's too difficult to answer
Good questions Maz.......
1) Because Israel was on red alert for the Messiah ?
How did he know about impending wrath?
2 ) because the holy Ghost had told him ?
Did he believe it was imminent?
3) .............now that's too difficult to answer
I read the point recently that those who accepted Jesus in His day were those who had been prepared for His coming by John the Baptist. These people were expecting Him and knew Him when He came--they were prepared. That is a role that will have to be filled again before the Second Coming. The two witnesses will fulfill it to a large group of people, but we also need to help prepare those around us for the Lord's coming so they will be ready. Are we doing that? (I don't mean to get off topic--it IS related--the role of John the Baptist is necessary today to prepare the way for the Lord's coming.)
Mr. David,
You make some interesting points about the Messiah of war in message #3. I have read some interesting theories regarding Judas in relation to the conquering Messiah.
Many believe that Judas was a dissident who hoped to draft Jesus into their cause. Judas may have been trying to force Jesus' hand by betraying him. Never believing that Jesus would allow the Romans to crucify him.
I find it an interesting line of thought.
sojourner
You make some interesting points about the Messiah of war in message #3. I have read some interesting theories regarding Judas in relation to the conquering Messiah.
Many believe that Judas was a dissident who hoped to draft Jesus into their cause. Judas may have been trying to force Jesus' hand by betraying him. Never believing that Jesus would allow the Romans to crucify him.
I find it an interesting line of thought.
sojourner
Hi Sojourner!
It’s certainly possible, either to force His hand or just in retribution for being non-violent, or the 30 pieces of silver. It’s tough to say. It’s interesting you mention the Romans crucifying Jesus. It seems clear to me the Pharisees wanted Jesus dead because of His threat to their rule and their envy or jealousy of Him. I’m sure the dissidents also, for being so disappointed in His non-violence. I’m sure they thought Jesus deprived them of sure victory over the Romans, had the Messiah chose to lead them in battle.
The only one who doesn’t seem to have a reason to kill Jesus is Pontius Pilate. I understand he was cruel and brutal and would kill anyone who treatened him without even thinking. But he like all Roman governors had just two main tasks. Keep the piece by preventing rebellion and keep the flow of tribute or tax money moving towards Rome. Actually, rebellion would disrupt the flow of tribute so he just had one job, keep the money coming! Here is Jesus who is preaching non-violence and has crowds following Him everywhere who are non-violent. Plus Jesus tells everyone to be law-abiding and give to Caesar that which is Caesar’s! Because of this, Pilate had no reason to want to get rid of Jesus as the Pharisees and the rebellious ones did. But, in the end, had Pilate refused to crucify Jesus, he just might have ended-up with that rebellion on his hands. That's why he finally agreed and washed his hands of it.
Also if you consider the temple sacrifices intended as teaching aids pointing towards Jesus, you see the sinner himself had to be the one to kill the lamb or goat or whatever. Jesus was there to save the Jews. The controversial line “let His blood be on us and our children forever” seemed like they were bringing a curse on themselves and they did. But they brought a blessing on themselves in a spiritual sense also. My only question is whether or not Jesus blood was only on the Jews. I think not. I think it’s on all who believe in him. But of course, if he came to save the Jews, then wouldn’t all who believe in Him be spiritual Jews? I don’t think you can be a non-Jew in any sense and still have Jesus’ blood on you. That’s just my opinion though.
If you think I’m suggesting I know the answer to that divisive question “Who Killed Jesus?” I am suggesting that. The answer is I killed Jesus.
I love you!
It’s certainly possible, either to force His hand or just in retribution for being non-violent, or the 30 pieces of silver. It’s tough to say. It’s interesting you mention the Romans crucifying Jesus. It seems clear to me the Pharisees wanted Jesus dead because of His threat to their rule and their envy or jealousy of Him. I’m sure the dissidents also, for being so disappointed in His non-violence. I’m sure they thought Jesus deprived them of sure victory over the Romans, had the Messiah chose to lead them in battle.
The only one who doesn’t seem to have a reason to kill Jesus is Pontius Pilate. I understand he was cruel and brutal and would kill anyone who treatened him without even thinking. But he like all Roman governors had just two main tasks. Keep the piece by preventing rebellion and keep the flow of tribute or tax money moving towards Rome. Actually, rebellion would disrupt the flow of tribute so he just had one job, keep the money coming! Here is Jesus who is preaching non-violence and has crowds following Him everywhere who are non-violent. Plus Jesus tells everyone to be law-abiding and give to Caesar that which is Caesar’s! Because of this, Pilate had no reason to want to get rid of Jesus as the Pharisees and the rebellious ones did. But, in the end, had Pilate refused to crucify Jesus, he just might have ended-up with that rebellion on his hands. That's why he finally agreed and washed his hands of it.
Also if you consider the temple sacrifices intended as teaching aids pointing towards Jesus, you see the sinner himself had to be the one to kill the lamb or goat or whatever. Jesus was there to save the Jews. The controversial line “let His blood be on us and our children forever” seemed like they were bringing a curse on themselves and they did. But they brought a blessing on themselves in a spiritual sense also. My only question is whether or not Jesus blood was only on the Jews. I think not. I think it’s on all who believe in him. But of course, if he came to save the Jews, then wouldn’t all who believe in Him be spiritual Jews? I don’t think you can be a non-Jew in any sense and still have Jesus’ blood on you. That’s just my opinion though.
If you think I’m suggesting I know the answer to that divisive question “Who Killed Jesus?” I am suggesting that. The answer is I killed Jesus.
I love you!
QUOTE(Mr. David @ Jan 30 2006, 09:25 PM)
Hi Sojourner!
It’s certainly possible, either to force His hand or just in retribution for being non-violent, or the 30 pieces of silver. It’s tough to say. It’s interesting you mention the Romans crucifying Jesus. It seems clear to me the Pharisees wanted Jesus dead because of His threat to their rule and their envy or jealousy of Him. I’m sure the dissidents also, for being so disappointed in His non-violence. I’m sure they thought Jesus deprived them of sure victory over the Romans, had the Messiah chose to lead them in battle.
The only one who doesn’t seem to have a reason to kill Jesus is Pontius Pilate. I understand he was cruel and brutal and would kill anyone who treatened him without even thinking. But he like all Roman governors had just two main tasks. Keep the piece by preventing rebellion and keep the flow of tribute or tax money moving towards Rome. Actually, rebellion would disrupt the flow of tribute so he just had one job, keep the money coming! Here is Jesus who is preaching non-violence and has crowds following Him everywhere who are non-violent. Plus Jesus tells everyone to be law-abiding and give to Caesar that which is Caesar’s! Because of this, Pilate had no reason to want to get rid of Jesus as the Pharisees and the rebellious ones did. But, in the end, had Pilate refused to crucify Jesus, he just might have ended-up with that rebellion on his hands. That's why he finally agreed and washed his hands of it.
Also if you consider the temple sacrifices intended as teaching aids pointing towards Jesus, you see the sinner himself had to be the one to kill the lamb or goat or whatever. Jesus was there to save the Jews. The controversial line “let His blood be on us and our children forever” seemed like they were bringing a curse on themselves and they did. But they brought a blessing on themselves in a spiritual sense also. My only question is whether or not Jesus blood was only on the Jews. I think not. I think it’s on all who believe in him. But of course, if he came to save the Jews, then wouldn’t all who believe in Him be spiritual Jews? I don’t think you can be a non-Jew in any sense and still have Jesus’ blood on you. That’s just my opinion though.
If you think I’m suggesting I know the answer to that divisive question “Who Killed Jesus?” I am suggesting that. The answer is I killed Jesus.
I love you!
[right][snapback]37397[/snapback][/right]
It’s certainly possible, either to force His hand or just in retribution for being non-violent, or the 30 pieces of silver. It’s tough to say. It’s interesting you mention the Romans crucifying Jesus. It seems clear to me the Pharisees wanted Jesus dead because of His threat to their rule and their envy or jealousy of Him. I’m sure the dissidents also, for being so disappointed in His non-violence. I’m sure they thought Jesus deprived them of sure victory over the Romans, had the Messiah chose to lead them in battle.
The only one who doesn’t seem to have a reason to kill Jesus is Pontius Pilate. I understand he was cruel and brutal and would kill anyone who treatened him without even thinking. But he like all Roman governors had just two main tasks. Keep the piece by preventing rebellion and keep the flow of tribute or tax money moving towards Rome. Actually, rebellion would disrupt the flow of tribute so he just had one job, keep the money coming! Here is Jesus who is preaching non-violence and has crowds following Him everywhere who are non-violent. Plus Jesus tells everyone to be law-abiding and give to Caesar that which is Caesar’s! Because of this, Pilate had no reason to want to get rid of Jesus as the Pharisees and the rebellious ones did. But, in the end, had Pilate refused to crucify Jesus, he just might have ended-up with that rebellion on his hands. That's why he finally agreed and washed his hands of it.
Also if you consider the temple sacrifices intended as teaching aids pointing towards Jesus, you see the sinner himself had to be the one to kill the lamb or goat or whatever. Jesus was there to save the Jews. The controversial line “let His blood be on us and our children forever” seemed like they were bringing a curse on themselves and they did. But they brought a blessing on themselves in a spiritual sense also. My only question is whether or not Jesus blood was only on the Jews. I think not. I think it’s on all who believe in him. But of course, if he came to save the Jews, then wouldn’t all who believe in Him be spiritual Jews? I don’t think you can be a non-Jew in any sense and still have Jesus’ blood on you. That’s just my opinion though.
If you think I’m suggesting I know the answer to that divisive question “Who Killed Jesus?” I am suggesting that. The answer is I killed Jesus.
I love you!
[right][snapback]37397[/snapback][/right]
Hey Mr. David just one question for clarity on something you said...You said above in your 3 paragraph: "Also if you consider the temple sacrifices intended as teaching aids pointing toward Jesus, you see the sinner himself had to be the one to kill the lamb or goat or whatever." End quote...
My question is this: Are you saying that the sinner went to atone for his own sins before the time of Jesus?
Hi Pamela! I hope all's well with you tonight.
No, an animal sacrifice is useless. Jesus' is the only pure blood. This was just a teaching aid for them so they would accept and believe in the saving sacrifice that was to come. If you refer to atonement, or the Day of Atonement, that's a longer story. I believe there is a real cleansing of the sanctuary in heaven by the way, in addition to the one of old that was for teaching purposes, but that's a very long subject.
I hope I clarified what you needed clarified Pamela! Please let me know if I made myself clearer or less clear!!
I love you, have a great evening.
No, an animal sacrifice is useless. Jesus' is the only pure blood. This was just a teaching aid for them so they would accept and believe in the saving sacrifice that was to come. If you refer to atonement, or the Day of Atonement, that's a longer story. I believe there is a real cleansing of the sanctuary in heaven by the way, in addition to the one of old that was for teaching purposes, but that's a very long subject.
I hope I clarified what you needed clarified Pamela! Please let me know if I made myself clearer or less clear!!
I love you, have a great evening.
Pamela,
I love your quote by the way!!
I love your quote by the way!!
QUOTE(Mr. David @ Jan 30 2006, 11:14 PM)
Hi Pamela! I hope all's well with you tonight.
No, an animal sacrifice is useless. Jesus' is the only pure blood. This was just a teaching aid for them so they would accept and believe in the saving sacrifice that was to come. If you refer to atonement, or the Day of Atonement, that's a longer story. I believe there is a real cleansing of the sanctuary in heaven by the way, in addition to the one of old that was for teaching purposes, but that's a very long subject.
I hope I clarified what you needed clarified Pamela! Please let me know if I made myself clearer or less clear!!
I love you, have a great evening.
[right][snapback]37414[/snapback][/right]
No, an animal sacrifice is useless. Jesus' is the only pure blood. This was just a teaching aid for them so they would accept and believe in the saving sacrifice that was to come. If you refer to atonement, or the Day of Atonement, that's a longer story. I believe there is a real cleansing of the sanctuary in heaven by the way, in addition to the one of old that was for teaching purposes, but that's a very long subject.
I hope I clarified what you needed clarified Pamela! Please let me know if I made myself clearer or less clear!!
I love you, have a great evening.
[right][snapback]37414[/snapback][/right]
Which time period are you referring to Mr.David when you say this..before or after Christ.
Before Christ the High Priest went in and offered the slain animal for the atonement of sins...When Jesus was crucified it completed this.
This is why what you said may confuse someone who may not know...It looks like you are saying that the "sinner" went to slay the animal and it is not so, it is the High Priest, of course this was before the completed work on the cross. I understand all the foreshadowing concerning these issues.
Just wanted to bring clarity to it...that's all...thank you for responding...
QUOTE(Mazinaw @ Jan 29 2006, 01:49 PM)
Mat 3:4 And the same John had his raiment of camel's hair, and a leathern girdle about his loins; and his meat was locusts and wild honey. Mat 3:5 Then went out to him Jerusalem, and all Judaea, and all the region round about Jordan, Mat 3:6 And were baptized of him in Jordan, confessing their sins. Mat 3:7 But when he saw many of the Pharisees and Sadducees come to his baptism, he said unto them, O generation of vipers, who hath warned you to flee from the wrath to come? Mat 3:8 Bring forth therefore fruits meet for repentance: Mat 3:9 And think not to say within yourselves, We have Abraham to [our] father: for I say unto you, that God is able of these stones to raise up children unto Abraham. Mat 3:10 And now also the axe is laid unto the root of the trees: therefore every tree which bringeth not forth good fruit is hewn down, and cast into the fire. Mat 3:11 I indeed baptize you with water unto repentance: but he that cometh after me is mightier than I, whose shoes I am not worthy to bear: he shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost, and [with] fire: Mat 3:12 Whose fan [is] in his hand, and he will throughly purge his floor, and gather his wheat into the garner; but he will burn up the chaff with unquenchable fire.
Why were the pharisees coming to John? How did he know about impending wrath? Did he believe it was imminent?
[right][snapback]37109[/snapback][/right]
Why were the pharisees coming to John? How did he know about impending wrath? Did he believe it was imminent?
[right][snapback]37109[/snapback][/right]
Sorry maz, I thought I had known what you had asked, but as I went further in the thread "the subject changed" and I wanted to address your question, therefore I pulled your first post so I could reread it...sorry to anyone else who were discussing other things. Not to dismiss those points, but really wanted to think upon what maz brought up!
Well, I am thinking now...can you all smell your computers on fire...not to worry just my brain set on high!
Why were the Pharasies coming to John?, well, first of all I think they had heavy burdened hearts and didn't know why, and John was a "curiousity at their time" so they just had to check him out.
Did John know about the impending wrath? I think he knew something was up, but remember when he was imprisoned, he himself inquired about what Jesus was doing as he had no clue, and then the Lord sent someone to him to explain...So I don't think John had total knowledge of what Jesus' ministry was all about, just IMHO.
Did he believe things were iminent? I think the Holy Spirit knew and spoke through John....did he have full understanding as to what everything meant...I dunno, didn't know the man! I think he may have had some understanding "but not like the fullness of what "Our Lord" knew!
Thanks for raising this question, I just love to look at and pray about "all things" about the Lord, so now I have more investigating to do, amen! Keeping our eyes focused on the heavenly things, awesome job, mazinaw!!! I just love your posts, your sis, hannah
QUOTE(hannah fievel @ Jan 31 2006, 08:42 AM)
QUOTE(Mazinaw @ Jan 29 2006, 01:49 PM)
Mat 3:4 And the same John had his raiment of camel's hair, and a leathern girdle about his loins; and his meat was locusts and wild honey. Mat 3:5 Then went out to him Jerusalem, and all Judaea, and all the region round about Jordan, Mat 3:6 And were baptized of him in Jordan, confessing their sins. Mat 3:7 But when he saw many of the Pharisees and Sadducees come to his baptism, he said unto them, O generation of vipers, who hath warned you to flee from the wrath to come? Mat 3:8 Bring forth therefore fruits meet for repentance: Mat 3:9 And think not to say within yourselves, We have Abraham to [our] father: for I say unto you, that God is able of these stones to raise up children unto Abraham. Mat 3:10 And now also the axe is laid unto the root of the trees: therefore every tree which bringeth not forth good fruit is hewn down, and cast into the fire. Mat 3:11 I indeed baptize you with water unto repentance: but he that cometh after me is mightier than I, whose shoes I am not worthy to bear: he shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost, and [with] fire: Mat 3:12 Whose fan [is] in his hand, and he will throughly purge his floor, and gather his wheat into the garner; but he will burn up the chaff with unquenchable fire.
Why were the pharisees coming to John? How did he know about impending wrath? Did he believe it was imminent?
[right][snapback]37109[/snapback][/right]
Why were the pharisees coming to John? How did he know about impending wrath? Did he believe it was imminent?
[right][snapback]37109[/snapback][/right]
Sorry maz, I thought I had known what you had asked, but as I went further in the thread "the subject changed" and I wanted to address your question, therefore I pulled your first post so I could reread it...sorry to anyone else who were discussing other things. Not to dismiss those points, but really wanted to think upon what maz brought up!
Well, I am thinking now...can you all smell your computers on fire...not to worry just my brain set on high!
Why were the Pharasies coming to John?, well, first of all I think they had heavy burdened hearts and didn't know why, and John was a "curiousity at their time" so they just had to check him out.
Did John know about the impending wrath? I think he knew something was up, but remember when he was imprisoned, he himself inquired about what Jesus was doing as he had no clue, and then the Lord sent someone to him to explain...So I don't think John had total knowledge of what Jesus' ministry was all about, just IMHO.
Did he believe things were iminent? I think the Holy Spirit knew and spoke through John....did he have full understanding as to what everything meant...I dunno, didn't know the man! I think he may have had some understanding "but not like the fullness of what "Our Lord" knew!
Thanks for raising this question, I just love to look at and pray about "all things" about the Lord, so now I have more investigating to do, amen! Keeping our eyes focused on the heavenly things, awesome job, mazinaw!!! I just love your posts, your sis, hannah
[right][snapback]37491[/snapback][/right]
Passing along my appreciation of some meditative insights into the word. A banner post!
I am still getting by the new fact that the locusts John ate were tree leaves.
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.