I’ve been having this debate with some local church friends. One of them argues that Ephesians was written AFTER Matthew and that the scripture in Ephesians 2:15 says that Christ died on the cross to “abolish the old law.” I revert back to Matthew 5:17 which says that Christ did not come to abolish the old law. If He did, why would we still be reading the Old Testament? Can you help clarify?

I had a friend who did me wrong. I forgave her and pray for her BUT I do not want her as a friend anymore. She did not cherish our friendship the way I did. Do I still have to be her friend? I have never been a picky person but I want to start now. I have nothing against her except I do not want a friend like her in my life.

I read your response to one reader regarding apostles and prophets and I wonder where exactly in scripture it indicates that the requirements to be qualified as an apostle include having seen Him (the risen Christ) post resurrection? You also mentioned that with regards to the prophetic, that nothing new should be expected. I believe you said “A good rule of thumb is, “if it’s new, it can’t be true.”

How then do you explain the tradition within the early church of there having been many prophecies with regard to the timing of the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 AD which the church of the first century heeded and as a consequence most of those in the church at Jerusalem left just before its destruction? Then there was the prophet Agabus who is recorded to have prophesied to Paul personally, regarding what would befall him in Jerusalem. I don’t believe that prior to that prophecy by Agabus that there was any scripture outlining the events which befell Paul.

Are you saying that prophetic utterance can’t be true if it isn’t explicitly in the Bible or are you saying that it can’t be true if it contradicts the scriptures?

Re: Dan’s Tribe. What is your opinion as to why the tribe of Dan- one of the 12 tribes of Israel (Gen 49:16) is not listed in Rev.7?

Paul said the dead in Christ will rise first then we who remain will be caught up together with them. Do you think the dead in Christ will be permitted to walk among us before we are caught up? When I think about the Crucifixion, Scripture says when Christ died the Veil was split in two and the graves opened. After the Resurrection they walked about Jerusalem and were seen by many. This fascinated me just thinking about how surprised some must have been to see their loved ones again. I wonder if at the Rapture the same thing might happen and we might see those family members who were born again but had died before we go up. What a testimony it might be for those who are “fence straddlers” who believe but are not ready to live completely for Christ.

What do you think about this excerpt of a Messianic teaching about the bride?

“From the passage in Hosea (2:19-20) it is clear that Israel is the Bride of God. Yet the Newer Covenant Scriptures tell us that the “church” is the bride of Messiah. Does God have two brides? Is He a polygamist? No! Or, is it possible as some have suggested, God divorced one bride – Israel, to marry another – the church? That cannot be – for God has told us He hates divorce (Mal 2:16) and Jeremiah affirms God’s everlasting covenant with the physical people Israel (Jer 31:35-37). This too is affirmed by Paul in (Rom 9-11). The best solution then is to affirm the fact that God has always had one bride – His chosen people Israel. This has been enlarged to include those grafted in to Israel (Rom 11:17), the gentile believers.”

In your feature article entitled A Tale Of Two Brides you say, “Both Israel and the Church will have amazing, not-to-be-believed relationships with the Lord in the age to come. They will be of a different nature and in a different location, at least for the first 1000 years, but neither group will envy the other.” What do you mean by that?

I thought we would all be together, the saints who are raptured and return with Christ, the martyred saints from the tribulation period, the 144,000 sealed Jews, and those who are still alive on earth but have accepted Christ during the tribulation (Jews and Gentiles). I thought Christ would be ruling all of us from Jerusalem in peace until Satan is set free one last time.

I was reading your featured topic on the two brides and you make the statement that I have heard time and time again: “…..the Father had to turn away, unable to look upon Him (Habakkuk 1:13)”. First, Habakkuk does not say God turned away from anything, its says he can not tolerate evil or condone evil, to paraphrase. The words tolerate and condone do not imply an inability to face. I have heard a lot of pastors say at that moment on the cross God had to hide his face from Jesus and that is why Jesus said “my God why have you forsaken me”. I don’t see that.

I’m doing a study on the book of Revelation and I ran into a bit of a snag. While the Beast is supposed to have killed the prophets(chapter 11) and the tribulation saints are being martyred, The Beast doesn’t seem to show up until Chapter 13. How does this work? Also, I have been debating with someone who insists that the BEAST and the Anti-Christ are two different characters, despite the fact that they share the same characteristics. But because the name/title ANTI-CHRIST aren’t mentioned in Revelation, this person is arguing that they are separate persons.

What would have been the eternal destiny of the prodigal son if he had not repented? I mean if he had a heart attack in that hog wallow and died pounding his fist in that mud and slop cursing his father saying either in word or in his heart something to the effect “I’d rather die here than be in the presence of my father”….would he still have retained his sonship? (ie justification)