England was mostly settled by a fairly famous secret disciple...Do you think the current King knows that?

11 times the USA tried to give away GOD'S land in Israel. now President Trump said "the US will take over the Gaza strip." If history a guide to prophecy then the USA is in for a "huge" event to happen to America! https://rumble.com/v6hd6ky-the....-sledgehammer-show-s

Question 290: What Are The Signs Which Yeshua Said “Shall Follow Them That Belief”?

Answer:

Yeshua did not promise that the signs referred to in Mark 16:17 should always follow. The speaking with tongues, casting out devils, taking up serpents, etc., were signs suitable for that age when the people, being densely ignorant, expected miracles and signs. Moshiach reproved the tendency and on more than one occasion refused to gratify them. He wanted them to learn from the sign to seek spiritual blessings at His hands, which were of much greater value to them. We have entered into that higher and better understanding of Him. It is much more wonderful to see a drunkard reclaimed, a vicious man reformed, than it was to see a lame man healed. The power to cast out devils and to speak with tongues and take up serpents would not be nearly so valuable to us as is the power He gives to transform evil lives.

Question 289: If Moshiach Knew All Things, Did He Not Know That Judas Was Not A True Believer?

Answer:

Moshiach did not claim to know all things. He mentioned one thing that He did not know (Mark 13:32). At the same time, He is said to have known what was in man (John 2:25), so He may have been aware of the possibilities of evil in Judas, which were probably not developed when He was chosen as an apostle. Moshiach knew of His intended treachery before it was committed. Doubtless Judas himself at the time of his call, had no idea that he would commit such a crime. Even at the last, he may have expected that Moshiach would deliver Himself by His miraculous power. He was evidently horror-stricken when he learned the result of what he had done, as is proved by his committing suicide.

Question 288: Does Moshiach Admission That He Did Not Know The Time Of The End Imply That He Was Not Divine?

Answer:

No, the inference (to be drawn from Mark 13:32) does not appear logical. We do not understand the union of the two natures in our Saviour's person and therefore cannot explain many of the difficulties which are presented. If however, we take the conception that is given in the first chapter of John's Gospel of an incarnation, we can perceive how there may have been restriction in the exercise of divine power operating by a human brain. The instrument would be necessarily inadequate. The assumption of an unrestricted divine nature would imply perfect knowledge in boyhood, yet we know that as a boy Moshiach did not know all things; for Luke says explicitly (2:52) that He increased in wisdom, which He could not have done had He been omniscient from birth. In taking our nature He voluntarily submitted to the imperfections of our condition, otherwise He would not have been made "like unto His brethren."

Question 287: Was Moshiach Omniscient In The Flesh?

Answer:

It is reasonable to suppose that in the days of his flesh Moshiach experienced some curtailment of divine attributes. We read of His being weary, of His weeping, of His praying, being hungry and thirsty and being tempted. We read also of His increasing in wisdom (Luke 2:52). We infer from all these that the divine nature did not have full scope for its powers in the human form or could only express them partially owing to the obvious limitations. Moshiach seems to have been aware of this while on the earth, for He said, "My Father is greater than I." (John 14:28.) We conclude therefore, that a part of His humiliation was His voluntarily divesting Himself of some part of His divine nature and this may account for such a passage as Mark 13:32. It is impossible for the human mind to fully comprehend the mystery of the Trinity, but we can imagine that Moshiach in His loving compassion, voluntarily put from Him certain attributes of the Godhead while on earth in order that in all things He might be made like unto His brethren. In what way or to what extent, if at all, the incarnation limited the divine attributes cannot be defined and the fact of His praying to His Father indicated that in the days of His flesh there was a distinction between them that is incomprehensible to us.

Frequently asked questions and answers:

Question 286: Why Was The Fig Tree Blighted?

Answer:

The fig tree incident related in Mark 11:13 has been a subject of much controversy and has been claimed by some to be a mistake in the transcription of the record as to the words, "He found nothing but leaves, for the time of figs was not yet" It is explained by some writers (including Pliny and Macrobius) that the fig tree in Palestine produces fruit at two or even three seasons of the year and Hackett (in his Scripture Illustrations) tells us that the fruit precedes the leaves. One might infer from this that if a tree had leaves it might be expected to give evidence at least of having had fruit. In the case of this particular tree, having leaves in advance of the regular time (which "was not yet come") yet with no sign of having borne fruit, it was condemned, as some commentators interpret the case, because of its uselessness. Trench and several others hold that the blighting of the precocious and fruitless tree was designed to convey a rebuke to "the barren traditions of the Pharisees, their ostentatious display of the law and their vain exuberance of words without the good fruit of works." Still others, believe that our Saviour, seeing the early leaves, had a right to expect that they would be accompanied by fruit.

Question 285: What Did Yeshua Mean By Saying: “Why Callest Thou Me Good”?

Answer:

The true meaning of the much-discussed passage (Mark 10:17) quoted is thus explained by very good authority. Professor David Smith, who writes: “'Master' or 'Teacher' was the regular appellation of a Jewish Rabbi and it was accounted so honourable that it always stood alone without qualification. It was a deliberate departure from the established usage, an intentional improvement on the common style, when the young ruler addressed our Saviour as 'Good Master.' It showed that he had recognized Him as more than a Teacher; and when our Saviour fastened upon the epithet, His purpose was to elicit what His questioner really meant He said in effect: 'You have gone a long way in calling Me "good." That epithet belongs only to YHVH. You have recognized Me as more than a Teacher: are you prepared to go farther and recognize Me as divine? Hence it appears that our Saviour's question is not a repudiation of the attribute of deity. On the contrary, it is an assertion of His title to it. It is a gracious attempt to bring home to that anxious inquirer, in conscious realization, the truth which He had dimly perceived and was groping for."

Question 284: Who Was The Little Child That Yeshua Took Up And Blessed?

Answer:

The details of these incidents in the life of Yeshua, have been preserved to us only by tradition. It is said that the little child of whom the Saviour remarked, "of such is the Kingdom of heaven" (Mark 9:36), afterwards became known to the Church as Ignatius, Bishop of Antioch. He was one of the great companies of martyrs who gave their lives for the faith in the time of Trajan, being torn to pieces by lions in the amphitheatre at Rome.

Question 283: What Kind Of Basket Were Used In The Miracle Of The Loaves And Fishes?

Answer:

The Gospel accounts say: "They took up what remained over of the broken pieces twelve baskets full" (Matthew 14:20). "They took up of the broken meat that was left seven baskets" (Mark 8:8). There have been some differences among scholars as to the translation of the word (in the original) denoting "baskets." In describing the earlier miracle, that of the feeding of five thousand, a word is used which indicates large fishing baskets made of rope, while in the narrative of the later miracle, there is used a term which translated means smaller hand-baskets. It might well be asked how could the apostles have carried around with them seven large fishing baskets? A comparison between the two accounts will clear up a seeming difficulty. Many Jews carried small hand-baskets in which they kept their food supplies free from pollution. Each apostle may have carried such a small hand-basket and in the party of apostles there may have been one who carried a large fishing basket. This large fishing basket was filled seven times and again twelve times, for the phraseology used seems to indicate that, whereas in the one instance each apostle filled his small hand-basket with broken pieces, in the other the one large fishing basket was filled seven times.