It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

is christianity a hoax?

page: 3
0
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 20 2005 @ 02:26 AM
link   

Originally posted by spamandham

Originally posted by jake1997
It said Israel would be scattered, and it said that near the end they would be gathered.


Are you sure it wasn't a self fulfilling prophecy?


Originally posted by jake1997
Magog will be nuked
Damascus will be nuked
A people living carelessly on a distant coastland will be nuked


If you can point out the passages that refer to nuclear weapons, it would be helpfull.


I dont see how it would be helpful.

HOw can Israel being scattered , be a self fulfilling prophecy? YOu think that several million people got up and left to places unknown in order to make the world think that Christianity is true ?

Then..2000 years later...millions got up again...for the same reason???

Now..after that...you want to move on to something that hasnt happened yet and discuss it?
Whats the point? If you cant see the first one as awesome as it is...there is no need to move on.




posted on Jul, 20 2005 @ 07:27 AM
link   
Religion has been a part of civilization for at least 9000 years, and only quite recently as far as the human race is concerned, has it lost its "reality, because the various placebos and back stories are just fabrications, we now have the abilitiy to compare many texts from many religions very easily thanks in part to the internet, and printing press, and all sorts of other methods of communication.

While reality, and science are now the new paradigms we shoudl embrace. I wonder how wed be doing if all those millions of people spending their mornings? in church every sunday did something useful like helping the community, or helping the people who love them, and they love. But thats new age thinking! :bash:

You all need to see the pharmacratic inquisition,

www.pharmacratic-inquisition.com...



posted on Jul, 20 2005 @ 11:21 AM
link   

Originally posted by jake1997
HOw can Israel being scattered , be a self fulfilling prophecy?


The scattering had already happened at the time Daniel was written. The question is whether or not the restoration of Israel was a self fulfilling prophecy.

Here are some possibilities (not intended as an exhaustive list):
1a. It was a true prophecy that was fulfilled and proves Christianity
1b. It was a true prophecy that was fulfilled and disproves Christianity by proving Judaism (Daniel is a Jewish scripture after all)
2. It was a self fulfilling prophecy maneuvered by Zionists in collusion with dispensationalists
3. It was not a prophecy at all, but was interpreted as one after the fact
4. It was intended as prophecy, but was fulfilled via dumb luck rather than divine intervention

How can you know it's (1a)?



posted on Jul, 20 2005 @ 07:11 PM
link   
First

We arent talking about Daniel. The time Daniel live through...in Babylon..was prophecied by Moses in Deut i believe.

You idea says that millions of jews decided to go back to Judah to fill a prophecy.

Then

Islam decided to become a world wide terror program so it could fill the prophecy about Ishmael being against every nation and every nation against them.

AND

The muslims and jews got together to decide how they could make Jerusalem a burden on the whole world.

No.
I cannot go there.



posted on Jul, 21 2005 @ 09:38 AM
link   

Originally posted by jake1997
First

We arent talking about Daniel. The time Daniel live through...in Babylon..was prophecied by Moses in Deut i believe.

You idea says that millions of jews decided to go back to Judah to fill a prophecy.

Then

Islam decided to become a world wide terror program so it could fill the prophecy about Ishmael being against every nation and every nation against them.

AND

The muslims and jews got together to decide how they could make Jerusalem a burden on the whole world.

No.
I cannot go there.


You're assigning world events to "prophecies" because you want them to match.

There's nothing in the Bible about Islam, or terrorism, or a struggle between Judaism, Christianity, and Islam. (no surprise, Islam didn't exist at the time)

It is an act of complete speculation to assign Ishmael to Islamic nations.

What you're doing is no different than what the Nostradamus enthusiasts do. They look for world events that sound kind of like the prophecies and then declare "see! he was right again!". This works with any prophecy that's vague enough or that didn't come true in the plain language interpretation.

It isn't that all the Jews and Muslims got together and decided to fulfill Bible prophecy, it's that you are assigning current events to prophecies that are vague and no-one really knows what the author meant.

One prophecy that was specific, and which would have been undeniable had it come to fruition, is this one:

"Verily I say unto you, This generation shall not pass, till all these things be fulfilled.'' (Matt. 24:34)

"Verily I say unto you, that this generation shall not pass, till all these things be done.'' (Mark 13:30)

"Verily I say unto you, This generation shall not pass away, till all be fulfilled.'' (Luke 21:32)

Here we have a specific prophecy written in plain language, that flat out didn't happen (that generation passed about 2000 years ago). As a result, the apologists have circled their wagons trying to figure out a way to claim this doesn't mean what it plainly says. To harmonize it, you have to resort to changing the meaning.

Arguments I've heard include:

'generation actually means people/race'; there are a few cases of the word genea meaning race in pre-Biblical texts, but not within the Bible. Other places within the Gospels where genea clearly translates as "generation" are Matthew 1:17; 11:16; 12:39, 41, 42, 45; 16:4; 17:17; 23:36; 24:34; Mark 8:12, 38; 9:19; 13:30; Luke 1:48, 50; 7:31; 9:41; 11:29, 30, 31, 32, 50, 51; 18:8; 17:25; 21:32. Of course, supposedly Jesus spoke in Aramaic, not Greek, which means all three of these authors would have to have selectively chosen an arcane translation for 'race' from Aramaic to Greek, which they didn't select anywhere else.

'"this" actually means "that"'; which implies that Jesus didn't have a good grasp of language and didn't care enough about prophecy to ensure it would be recorded properly, or again we have multiple authors improperly translating from Aramaic to Greek. That being the case, how can we know what he meant on any of it?

'it already happened and Jesus returned spiritually'; this one requires that all the NT prophecies be interpreted metaphorically rather than literally, in which case the restoration of Israel plays no role in NT prophecy fulfillment (this one is the official position of the Catholic church and a lot of protestant theologians as well)

You latch hold of anything that remotely resembles a fulfilled prophecy, even if you have to make wild unfounded claims (such as Ishmael = modern Muslim nations) to do so, and then find ways to harmonize the things that obviously didn't happen.

Perhaps this excercise is convincing to those who already believe, but outsiders generally recognize it for what it is. In politics it's called spinmeistering, in religion it's called apologetics.



posted on Jul, 21 2005 @ 10:23 AM
link   

Originally posted by healthyhitter
ive been thinking for a while that the relegion christianity is just alot a fake stuff. sometimes you may hear about someone and misinterpret it.

I was going to read all the posts in this thread, but I already knew what I had to say, so I skipped the review and I apologize if I am repeating someone else (though I'd bet I haven't--if I gambled, that is)


Christianity is not what I would call a hoax, exactly--I wish it was, because a hoax is more benign than what Christianity is. More about that in a minute.

However, Jesus Christ was all that the bible says He was, and then some! He was 100% real, the true Begotten Son of the Living God--and He is the source of every soul's life.

It's not that someone remembered Him wrong or that the Spirit of truth has failed in any way--but there has been a mutilation of truth for personal gain, not of humans but of the 'powers and principalities' that Paul spoke of. Humans have been grossly used in the whole ordeal--but that is part of the bigger picture.

I'll just give you some ideas then you can ponder them and ask God to reveal the truth to your heart--because He will if the truth is what you really want and not something to 'soothe' your fears (such as what a 'soothsayer' gives--these are actually not 'fortune tellers' or astrologers, but modern day clergy!)

Christianity is the 'strong delusion' mentioned by Paul:

And with all deceivableness of unrighteousness in them that perish; because they received not the love of the truth, that they might be saved. And for this cause God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie: That they all might be damned who believed not the truth, but had pleasure in unrighteousness.
(2 Thessalonians 2:10-12 KJV)


Peter also describes christianity and warns against it in the second chapter of his second epistle:

But there were false prophets also among the people, even as there shall be false teachers among you, who privily shall bring in damnable heresies, even denying the Lord that bought them, and bring upon themselves swift destruction. And many shall follow their pernicious ways; by reason of whom the way of truth shall be evil spoken of. And through covetousness shall they with feigned words make merchandise of you: whose judgment now of a long time lingereth not, and their damnation slumbereth not.
(2 Peter 2:1-3 KJV)





There is no other religion that I recommend--the one and only true religion was OT Judaism--but religion is a 'group' thing, and worship of the Father has become a personal and individual thing that we know do, through the facilitation of everyone's best-loved eternal Priest--the Beloved Son!

Judaism is now idolatry, Christianity is disguised idolatry, and while I firmly believe that 'Allah' is the same God--I do not believe Muhammed was sent to set up Islam the way that it was. I do not know much about all that--but I do now that Islam is Edom--and God made a covenant with Ishmael, too. God has a relationship with the Egyptian side of Abraham's family (who married with the branch of Isaac's family which forfeited their original birthright) that is between them and He. But I believe that the 'false prophet' in Revelation is actually Muhammed.

The three unclean spirits that come out of the mouth of the Dragon, as frogs, in Revelation 16:13 are christianity (false), orthodox judaism (obsolete), and Islam (misled). All three of these religions are centered in Jerusalem, which God has give over to be trampled by the gentiles.

I better stop or I will never quit typing.

I hope you understand what I am trying to say: the 'church' is the lie--but God is the Truth, and Christ is truly the Way, Truth, and Light. Through Him we get to God, not through any religion of any kind. It's okay that none of us realized this for the last 1600 years, but now He is making it known, it is time for the next step and that is realization and recognition--because the separation of sheep and goats is just beginning as we speak.



posted on Jul, 21 2005 @ 10:33 AM
link   

Originally posted by spamandham

There's nothing in the Bible about Islam, or terrorism, or a struggle between Judaism, Christianity, and Islam. (no surprise, Islam didn't exist at the time)
Neither did 'christianity!' Surely you realize the one-sidedness of your statements?

Genesis chapters 16 and 27 state the original reason for the current strife and 'terrorism' situation.


It is an act of complete speculation to assign Ishmael to Islamic nations.

No, Edom is Islam. It's an act of complete faith to trust in what God reveals and also all manner that He blesses and curses. He means what He says--and He's made good on much of what He said, already--but no one recognizes anything that is, too busy planning what will be (as a favor to God, maybe--helping Him out by decided how prophecy will be fulfilled? :mnky


While the world looks eagerly ahead toward the projected show, they are completely missing the actual show already taking place!!!
:w:



posted on Jul, 21 2005 @ 11:15 AM
link   

32 Now learn a parable of the fig tree; When his branch is yet tender, and putteth forth leaves, ye know that summer is nigh:

33 So likewise ye, when ye shall see all these things, know that it is near, even at the doors.

34 Verily I say unto you, This generation shall not pass, till all these things be fulfilled.

35 Heaven and earth shall pass away, but my words shall not pass away.

36 But of that day and hour knoweth no man, no, not the angels of heaven, but my Father only.

Matthew 24:32-36(KJV)


To understand the term "generation", Gr genea, you must take the verse in context with the preceding and following verses; when you do, the difficulty in making it a logical conclusion, disappears.

Note: Jesus is talking to His disciples about two seperate events, the destruction of the temple and His second coming. The reference to "this generation", clearly is in regard to the destruction of the temple. Now, to understand this you must include verse 34 as a part of a whole, not isolate it by itself.

Jesus tells them to take a lesson from the fig tree;you can know the season when the Lord is coming back, when you see all the things happening that He prophesied in the verses preceding #33, you will know that the time is near, even at the door. This generation,(the one that witnesses the destruction of Jersusalem, ( the false christs, the wars and rumors of war, etc) will not pass away before all things He spoke of are accomplished.

Then He goes on to say, (and this is important) He does not know the hour or the day when He will return; only the Father knows, but He tells them to keep watch, and through them His church, because we do not know when He will return. This clearly rules out the "this generation" remark as referring to His Second Coming.

So, what Jesus was saying to His disciples was this: I can't tell you exactly what the date and time of my return will be, but I can show you what to look for, and roughly when the destruction of the temple and Jersualem will take place(remember verse 1-2 ?)and THIS GENERATION, shall not pass away untill all these things are accomplished.

Remember, the disciples asked him two questions in verse 3: "Tell us, when shall these things be?( the destruction of the temple) and what shall be the sign of thy coming, and of the end of the world?" (self explanatory).

It is only when you interpret verse 34 out of context of the entire chapter that you run into trouble.




[edit on 7/21/2005 by lightseeker]



posted on Jul, 21 2005 @ 02:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by queenannie38

Originally posted by spamandham
There's nothing in the Bible about Islam, or terrorism, or a struggle between Judaism, Christianity, and Islam. (no surprise, Islam didn't exist at the time)

Neither did 'christianity!' Surely you realize the one-sidedness of your statements?


The other way to look at that is that Christianity is a false extension of Judaism just as Islam is a false extension of Christianity. The OT had nothing to say about a future New Covenant, and the NT had nothing to say about a future last/best prophet (Mohamed).


Originally posted by queenannie38
No, Edom is Islam.


Please provide documentation of that 'fact'. Merely stating that it has to be the case to harmonize the Bible will not be sufficient. Edom is a long dead minor ancient kingdom, not a religion, and not the whole Middle East.



posted on Jul, 21 2005 @ 05:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by lightseeker
Note: Jesus is talking to His disciples about two seperate events, the destruction of the temple and His second coming. There's nothing in the text to indicate part of his answer was for that generation and part of it was for a future generation.

He lists the signs of his return chronologically prior to his return, and follows the entire discussion with this "this generation will certainly not pass away until all these things have happened". Note the use of the word "all" rather than "some". There's nothing to indicate he's referring only to the destruction of the temple back at the beginning of the conversation.

Here's the sentence right before "Even so, when you see these things happening, you know that it is near, right at the door. I tell you the truth, this generation will certainly not pass away until all these things have happened." How can there be any doubt that the "these things" referred to in the second sentence is the same as the "these things" referred to in the one right preceding it?

The portion that follows answers the original question "when will they happen and what are the signs" -> "no one knows the exact hour, but I just told you the signs". The lack of specificity on when he returns does not negate the portion about "this generation shall not pass".

I fully expect you to latch onto an explanation that matches your preconceptions, regardless of its merit, and the one you picked is good enough for that purpose.



posted on Jul, 21 2005 @ 10:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by spamandham

The OT had nothing to say about a future New Covenant.

Four prophets dispute that statement:

Behold, the days come, saith the LORD, that I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel, and with the house of Judah:
(Jeremiah 31:31)

For I the LORD love judgment, I hate robbery for burnt offering; and I will direct their work in truth, and I will make an everlasting covenant with them.
(Isaiah 61:8)

And I will establish my covenant with thee; and thou shalt know that I am the LORD:
(Ezekiel 16:62)

And he shall confirm the covenant with many for one week: and in the midst of the week he shall cause the sacrifice and the oblation to cease, and for the overspreading of abominations he shall make it desolate, even until the consummation, and that determined shall be poured upon the desolate.
(Daniel 9:27)


In regard to Edom/Esau/Ishmael--Genesis chapter 36 makes it clear both 'who' and 'where'.
'Idumea' may be a forgotten name, but the place was Palestine, and remains so to this day. The disputes of the present time are rooted in the contention which exists between the descendants of Abraham's older son Ishmael and grandson Esau on one side, and his younger son Isaac and grandson Jacob on the other side--due to the fact that two clans claim right to that one piece of land--one side by deeded right (since forfeited) and the other by 'squatter's' rights. The truth is that neither side has legitimate claim according to God--that land is His--and the strife will continue indefinitely because neither side is able to see that it is 'no-man's land' according to His Will for the present time. UN charters and endless attempts at 'peace in the middle east' mean nothing to God--these things will not sway His determination--they are follies created by man in vain.

Neither side is wrong--nor is either side in the right. The mistake of all involved and observing is of believing that their actions and desires will have any bearing on the ultimate outcome.



posted on Jul, 21 2005 @ 10:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by queenannie38

Originally posted by spamandham

The OT had nothing to say about a future New Covenant.

Four prophets dispute that statement:


You are correct. I didn't phrase what I was trying to say well.

I was referring to the new and everlasting covenant Jesus spoke of, not a future covenant with the nation of Israel.


Originally posted by queenannie38
In regard to Edom/Esau/Ishmael--Genesis chapter 36 makes it clear both 'who' and 'where'.
'Idumea' may be a forgotten name, but the place was Palestine, and remains so to this day.


Agreed. It is an area that included at least some part of present day Palestine. But it is not "Islam", nor is it the entire middle east.


Originally posted by queenannie38
The disputes of the present time are rooted in the contention which exists between the descendants of Abraham's older son Ishmael and grandson Esau on one side, and his younger son Isaac and grandson Jacob on the other side


Not exactly. The present day disputes are rooted in the break up of the Ottoman empire and the reconstitution of the nation of Israel in an area where others laid claim to it for thousands of years. The problems in the Middle East today are a modern invention. Imagine the UN deciding to turn Texas into a Nordic homeland because Eric the Red had made a claim to the land 1000 years ago. Don't you suppose that would cause some problems that otherwise would not exist?



posted on Jul, 21 2005 @ 10:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by spamandham

Not exactly. The present day disputes are rooted in the break up of the Ottoman empire and the reconstitution of the nation of Israel in an area where others laid claim to it for thousands of years. The problems in the Middle East today are a modern invention. Imagine the UN deciding to turn Texas into a Nordic homeland because Eric the Red had made a claim to the land 1000 years ago. Don't you suppose that would cause some problems that otherwise would not exist?

I guess it's my turn to say I didn't express myself well--this that you said I understand, and is what I tried to express from a different angle.

I said 'rooted' in--which means the source is ancient--long long ago God gave the children of Israel a deed that was conditional on a covenant--which they defaulted on and in the time (centuries) between then and 1948, others made that place their home. I read somewhere in the foggy past that, all told, Israel only spent a very short actual time there in an independent, self-governed state of occupation. Maybe something like around 200 years? I'm really not sure of the exact amount, but I realized that it was surprisingly brief, presented that way. And to say that the UN's decision is an outworking of God's plan per the words of the prophets is grasping at straws.

Because when God says so, no one will be expressing their disagreements in the same manner such is common now. But the whole world, generally speaking, believes somehow that God's power is being manifested?!?
I just can't see it--too messy.



posted on Jul, 21 2005 @ 11:25 PM
link   
i want to ask you religion people is god real? there no proof god is real just in written paper



posted on Jul, 21 2005 @ 11:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by queenannie38
I said 'rooted' in--which means the source is ancient--long long ago God gave the children of Israel a deed that was conditional on a covenant--which they defaulted on and in the time (centuries) between then and 1948, others made that place their home.


I understand what you're saying, but had the nation of Israel not been reconstituted, none of this would be happening. The question is then whether or not that reconstitution was a prophetic fulfillment or a self fulfilling prophecy. The evidence points to a self fulfilling prophecy brought about by dispensationalists after being convinced by Zionists that it was necessary so that Jesus would come back.

The modern nation of Israel, other than being located in roughly the same region as the ancient state, and sharing the same name (which in itself is proof of a self fulfilling prophecy - those who formed it formed it with Biblical intent in mind and named it accordingly), has nothing in common with that ancient state. Israel is a secular nation formed by non-religious Jews.

More importantly, Isaiah 11:11, which refers to the rebuilding of Israel, includes aspects which were not fulfilled in 1948. The Messiah did not strike the earth with the rod of his mouth or slay the wicked as part of the regathering as prophesied. The prophecy says that Israel would be restored in the day that the root of Jesse (Messiah) came forth. 2000 years can not be considered "in the day" in any sense.

The prophecy also says that when the regathering happened, it would be a time of unparalled peace. I know, I know, that's supposed to happen later. Never mind that the original OT prophecies didn't make any mention of intervening generations before the peace happened.

It also says that the regathering would be from from Assyria, Egypt, Pathros, Cush, Elam, Shinar, and Hamath. Are these the regions the Jews came from to form modern Israel?

But more importantly, the prophecy was aimed at a contemporary audience of Isaiah, not some distant future generation. Here's why



posted on Jul, 22 2005 @ 05:10 AM
link   

Originally posted by spamandham

Originally posted by queenannie38

Originally posted by spamandham

The OT had nothing to say about a future New Covenant.

Four prophets dispute that statement:


You are correct. I didn't phrase what I was trying to say well.

I was referring to the new and everlasting covenant Jesus spoke of, not a future covenant with the nation of Israel.



That new covenant was not just about Israel. It was / is about the world.

Gods plan with Abraham did not just include Israel

Gen 22:18 And in thy seed shall all the nations of the earth be blessed; because thou hast obeyed my voice.

Isa 42:6 I the LORD have called thee in righteousness, and will hold thine hand, and will keep thee, and give thee for a covenant of the people, for a light of the Gentiles;
Isa 42:7 To open the blind eyes, to bring out the prisoners from the prison, and them that sit in darkness out of the prison house.
Isa 42:8 I am the LORD: that is my name: and my glory will I not give to another, neither my praise to graven images.

The following is not just about Israel. It is about Christ and speaks also of what comes next

Isa 49:5 And now, saith the LORD that formed me from the womb to be his servant, to bring Jacob again to him, Though Israel be not gathered, yet shall I be glorious in the eyes of the LORD, and my God shall be my strength.
Isa 49:6 And he said, It is a light thing that thou shouldest be my servant to raise up the tribes of Jacob, and to restore the preserved of Israel: I will also give thee for a light to the Gentiles, that thou mayest be my salvation unto the end of the earth.
Isa 49:7 Thus saith the LORD, the Redeemer of Israel, and his Holy One, to him whom man despiseth, to him whom the nation abhorreth, to a servant of rulers, Kings shall see and arise, princes also shall worship, because of the LORD that is faithful, and the Holy One of Israel, and he shall choose thee.
Isa 49:8 Thus saith the LORD, In an acceptable time have I heard thee, and in a day of salvation have I helped thee: and I will preserve thee, and give thee for a covenant of the people, to establish the earth, to cause to inherit the desolate heritages

The new covenant is not really a new one. It is the old one, minus the law and works.

Gen 17:5 Neither shall thy name any more be called Abram, but thy name shall be Abraham; for a father of many nations have I made thee.
Gen 17:6 And I will make thee exceeding fruitful, and I will make nations of thee, and kings shall come out of thee.
Gen 17:7 And I will establish my covenant between me and thee and thy seed after thee in their generations for an everlasting covenant, to be a God unto thee, and to thy seed after thee.

Joh 8:56 Your father Abraham rejoiced to see my day: and he saw it, and was glad.


There is more to show that the covenant is everlasting..but that should suffice.
You can find some by doing an e-sword search on the two words 'everlasting covenant'.



posted on Jul, 22 2005 @ 05:10 AM
link   

Originally posted by spamandham
The question is then whether or not that reconstitution was a prophetic fulfillment or a self fulfilling prophecy.
There's no question, in my mind--what happened in 1948 has nothing to do with prophecy--only delusion of both those in question and the world in observance. A self-fulfilling prophecy is one that is made and fulfilled by the same entity, isn't it? I don't think it applies here.

I personally am not one to confuse man's created political state of 'Israel' with the real deal--because I know 'Jew' and 'Israelite' are not synonyms. If God doesn't name you Israel, then you are not Israel, no matter how fervently you attach yourself to that name. Israel was never the name of place--it is the name of both an angel and God's 'called out assembly.'

I'm totally in agreement with you in regard to the truth of the modern state of Israel--such a rare thing to run across someone who is not fooled so easily by names.





2000 years can not be considered "in the day" in any sense.

It is 'in that day', actually--and this 'day' is not the 'evening-morning' literal day, but is used both figuratively and literally to mean day, age, season, etc.

Isaiah 52:6-15 explains the true nature of the prophesy given to Israel--and only those who are truly of the God of Israel will understand. Since the majority of the population in the world nation of Israel have not recognized their God in the Messiah, they do not conceive that 1948 was almost two millenia too late to contrive some semblance of redemption, which they sought in the literal land--instead of understanding their divine inheritance.

The 'regathering' has been going on for some time, and neither christians or jews are aware of it. These are 'hard sayings' for sure.



But more importantly, the prophecy was aimed at a contemporary audience of Isaiah, not some distant future generation. Here's why
I read the article--many good points, until the last paragraph or two. The truth is that those prophesies were meant for all who were of God's Israel born anytime after the time of the Messiah--and the ideas of the rivers and also of the peace which would manifest within the people of Israel is concerning things which are spiritual ideas--not that I'm trying to 'spiritualize' any of it away, or even say that Israel is now a 'spiritual' nation only. On the contrary, I am of the understanding that the remnant He reserved have just as much Hebraic DNA in their genes as the children of Israel have ever had--and even though it is something one is completely unaware of, there comes a time when the DNA in that blood hears the call of the Holy One of Israel--and awakens to new life under the wing of the Living God.

The plan is just as Paul said: Israelites and 'Gentiles'. But the modern christian movement of saying they have replaced the children of Israel somehow is based on wishful thinking that isn't even necessary. One need not be born with the genes to become a member of the Israelite people--just as in the OT, there is but 'one law' for the Israelite born in the land and for those who seek refuse in the camp--and obeying that commandment is the only requirement. Circumcision, still, yet now it is of the heart and done by the Spirit of God.

What Paul said is crucial for understanding:

Not as though the word of God hath taken none effect. For they are not all Israel, which are of Israel: (Romans 9:6)

and

(For the children being not yet born, neither having done any good or evil, that the purpose of God according to election might stand, not of works, but of him that calleth

(Romans 9:11)



posted on Jul, 22 2005 @ 05:15 AM
link   
no... israel is not in prophecy, jerusalem is not a burdensome stone to the world, and ishmaels hand is not against every nation and visa versa.

If I hadnt already supplied verses for the above... I would feel the need to do it now.



posted on Jul, 22 2005 @ 07:33 AM
link   
And applicable probably only to Christianity as regards the consideration of world religions.

Was Jesus literally the walking incarnation of God or not? (See 325AD for details).

Other religions make no such claim (though many claim somewhat similar divine patronage through ghostly visits in bed chambers). In the defense of Christianity not being a hoax, we have the eyewitness testimony of (for all intensive purposes) criminals. Either they were co-conspirators, or they weren't. Though a less insidious plot of merely shared delusion is certainly possible.

Or (as Christians claim) the Creator of the Universe impregnated a 13 year old Jewish girl, fathering himself, eventually came to realize it, became an enemy of the state, was executed (as was His plan) and through His death and the witness of His merry men (on the run) eventually took over an Empire that took over His cause through conversion at the end of a spear.

It's not a matter of semantics at all. There's no I'm not a Christian, but I respect the beliefs. No. If you don't believe the historical figure named Jesus was literally GOD (not just a groovy prophet), then you must conclude that Christianity is a hoax, not to mention sheer blasphemy against God. Similarly, there's not I'm not sure if He was God or not, but I'm a Christian because my parents were or it can't hurt or I like the way it makes me feel. No. If you don't' believe He was God, yet follow "christianity" you follow what you believe to be a hoax.

It's not that it's trendy to "bash" Christianity, it's that over 80% of the world's population think it's a hoax by the very definition. If you aren't Christian, you must conclude so. Or convert. Because if it's not a hoax, that was God.

There's a big difference in saying I think Buddha got a lot of it right. Or Mohammad was very close to God. Or Abraham and Moses knew some stuff. And yo, our guy IS GOD. The difference is staggering, and the difference means one of only two things: Harmful, dangerous hoax or slaughter the infidels, God was here! (which is a whole other kind of danger, but "justifiable" when you've got GOD on your side).

[edit on 22-7-2005 by RANT]



posted on Jul, 22 2005 @ 10:47 AM
link   

Originally posted by RANT
Was Jesus literally the walking incarnation of God or not? (See 325AD for details).
No, that's not the main issue at the heart of the 'hoax' question: it's about 'christianity' being a hoax, not whether or not God is a true fact.

Because whether or not anyone believes He is at all--even if not a single soul knew Him--if He is true, then He is true. And there were times when no humans concieved of Him, before He had made Himself known--and yet, if He exists now, He existed then.

Opinion has no actual influence on fact--any fact, divine or mundane. Man can not and does not influence God. And that's the key here--mainstream 'christianity' has naught to do with the Living God.
(True believers who still think of themselves as Christians: I apologize because I don't mean you when I say 'christians'--I refer to the modern generation of vipers, aka pharisees)

What the world largely believes concerning the nature of its Creator is a false misrepresentation that is an image of man's creation of a god, which reflects only man's negative side and his need to justify that side instead of overcome it, and this is the heart of all that is 'antichrist'--essentially 'the image of the beast'. Mankind is the 'beast' and the contrived god that christianity has devised is the 'image of the beast.'

To call one's self a 'christian' is not technically even being known by His name--His name is not 'Christ'--that was His title for the time He walked among us. He is the Annointed One--in Greek the Cristos and in Hebrew the Messiah. Those are not His actual name.

Who started applying that name to His followers, at Antioch? Was it the followers, themselves? NO. It was non-believers, gentiles, who wished to differentiate between those who believed in the Living God and had recognized their Savior from those who had not yet recognized Immanuel (the Jews). If the Apostles used the word 'Christianos' in their epistles, it was meant in the purest form of the Greek where 'ianos' means simply 'followers of'--and they seldom used that word, anyway--preferring to use words such as 'disciples' and 'saints.' They recognized the body of Christ as an elect assembly called out of the general assembly---and it was long after their deaths that the Greek word 'ekklesia' was manipulated into a whole new meaning, entirely suited to the purpose of the political bastions of the then-dominant world power in Rome. It was during the rule of Constantine that 'christian' became a 'household word.' Up until that time, it was used by outsiders, and had become almost equivalent to having an 'x' carved on one's forehead--meaning they were fair game and prey, marked for persecution and extermination.

It should be readily recognized by those who love Him that the moment that the term 'christian' became acceptable in the eyes of the world, that it no longer represented God's truth. Because God's truth is not of this world--a Truth just as immutable now as it was when it was first declared.


There's a big difference in saying I think Buddha got a lot of it right. Or Mohammad was very close to God. Or Abraham and Moses knew some stuff. And yo, our guy IS GOD. The difference is staggering, and the difference means one of only two things: Harmful, dangerous hoax or slaughter the infidels, God was here! (which is a whole other kind of danger, but "justifiable" when you've got GOD on your side).

[edit on 22-7-2005 by RANT]
No doubt--at that's what is so wrong about 'christianity'--the type of which our country's leaders tout as their religion: to use God as a reason to kill another human being is an outright lie and a blasphemy of His Holy Name. The old argument about the 'god of the OT vs the god of the NT' is invalid--those that use this point for their arguments on either side do not understand the deepest part of the story of the world. So suffice it to say, now that God was a man and died, we have no impunity for killing each other, whether it be in the name of 'freedom' (war) or even 'justice' (capital punishment). Both are examples of men playing god from a necessity born of their own inept creation of a god.

They take a name which stands for things they obviously have no concept of and they use it to sanctify their killing machines of greed and poison.(and I sound harsh, but I'm just blunt--I also realize that, truly, 'they know not what they do' and I am no one's judge--but I must always discern true from false for the sake of my own part in life)

And that is what makes christianity a hoax--or at least one major factor in the whole picture.




top topics



 
0
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join