It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

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

Thank you.


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


A Question For People of All Faiths.

page: 4
<< 1  2  3   >>

log in


posted on Mar, 25 2008 @ 12:17 AM

Originally posted by defcon5
reply to post by OptionToChoose

Sure here are a few to start with:

If you had to ask what the most debated aspect of the book of Revelation is, many would probably point to its symbols and their meaning. However, the chronology of the events described in Revelation would have to be a close second if not a surprise upset. And of course, the two are related. The more you understand the one, the more you understand the other.

Perhaps the best way to introduce the chronological model asserted in this study is to first briefly talk about two basic existing theories regarding the chronology in the book of Revelation. Although rendered generically for the purpose of illustration, these two basic alternative models represent opposing sides of the spectrum.

The real debate in Revelation, however, concerns the numbered groups of seven. There are seven seals, seven trumpets, and seven vials. Certainly, the numbered groups are sequential within each group. That is why they are numbered one through seven. But this does not necessarily mean that one group follows another in succession. If this was the case, one would expect to find a single group of twenty-one judgments. Pre-tribulationists, with some exceptions, generally believe each of these groups follow the previous group. This author is convinced that Revelation follows a similar format as Daniel, with each series of seven being a recapping and magnification of a portion of the tribulation covered in the previous sequence. The view presented here is illustrated by the diagram below, where the prophetic portion of Revelation is divided into four sections, each climaxing with the second coming of Christ.

Hope that helps.

Theories? ... debate? ... necessarily? (implying it could go either way)
I've been studying this for decades, and the complexity of it is truly astonishing, in my opinion, there simply are no one-word kinds of answers to most serious questions regarding end-time Prophetic study, I've found. But am I to believe that somebody else's theory is going to necessarily rewrite my present conclusions which took me over 10 years of tearing Scripture apart to arrive at? (as yet, I have not observed my present findings to be inadequate for describing this present darkness) Short answer: it's not.

Do I have all the answers, or is my research better than the next person's? May that never be thought nor said. In fact, I would be highly honored to even speak with the individual alive today who has discovered everything that can be known about the Bible and has moved on to more challenging works.

What exactly are we trying to determine here? ... I think you were concerned that Revelation is not chronological, which -- if that Book was merely a fiction piece written by a modern author -- it would still seem to follow the sequential order presented, just from a literary POV. It begins with a slightly troubled world that progresses into greater and greater states of turmoil, finally ending with a "Hero" riding in from the sky with an army, destroying the villain(s) and establishing a permanent world of peace. What, in your view, should not be seen as chronological about that?

Think of it in cinematic movie format. Can you imagine if everyone in the theater sat and reordered each chapter of the movie into their own interpretations? That would be a chaotic disaster. There must be a system to it, or else there's no point to it.

No? . . .

posted on Mar, 25 2008 @ 07:32 AM

Originally posted by rexpop

Jesus never died. Jesus never existed. He didn't die for anybody's sins, he's fictitious.

You're meant to be providing a reason why we should accept your faith as the true one, and you've failed to produce an argument or piece of evidence yet that hasn't been immediately refuted.

The greatest evidence of truth is how it pierces the heart of the individual , as it has you, and the anger which has arisen out of your heart. That is the only proof that you need in regard to evidence.

The New Testament is filled with the same reaction from others, like yourself, who, when confronted with the fact of truth (Jesus,) their hearts filled with anger and spilled out from their lips. Beyond that, I don't think there is anything that would convince you otherwise, since it seems by your statement regarding Jesus, that he never existed, the case has been settled in your heart. Why take the time to prove anything to someone who has already chosen not to believe? In most cases, it only hardens the heart even more. The more truth presented, the more it is rejected and the harder the heart becomes.

The only thing you need to do is focus on the anger that is rising up out of you, it has nothing to do with what you think or have stated in your post, it goes much deeper than that. If the unbelieving ever needed a sign, a genuine sign of proof, the hearts response would be that proof.

posted on Mar, 27 2008 @ 07:54 AM
I have already retracted that statement about not believing Jesus existed - I do, in fact, believe he was a historically real, but I've yet found anything that convinces me he was the Son of God, and I find your arguments do not elicit an emotional response from me at all. You're right that I was angry and lost my temper, but I have apologised for that - it was frustration due to your inability to see things from my point of view, which, I guess, is the source of most conflict between humans. I guess we're all just human after all, eh? Again, though, you've done nothing to warrant my short-tempered response, so I'll apologise again.

Just to clarify, the anger I felt was not due to confrontation with the "truth" of Christ, but rather at what I (probably wrongly) perceived as your utter intransigence to exploring key issues in your faith - like the idea of what if...? - and I have no bones to pick with anyone who sees Jesus Christ as their path to God. I simply have no inclination in that direction; from a purely emotional/spiritual base, that claim simply rings false to me, but only to me. I'm willing to admit right now my faith is not 100% blind, but I feel enriched and invigorated by the relationship I have with the Creator I already have, and that is enough for me to accept my faith as true - although I understand that would not convince anyone else, and nor would I expect it to, or force anyone else to accept my belief just because the so-called 'proofs' I have are good enough for me. When it comes down to it, I don't believe proof could ever be absolute, or where would the element of faith come in? If there was a proof, then we'd simply have knowledge, and not faith.

posted on Dec, 24 2008 @ 03:13 PM
reply to post by rexpop

posted on Dec, 25 2008 @ 03:58 PM
reply to post by Toy_soldier

I was just wondering if anyone was able to answer that question? What makes YOUR faith any more true than the next persons?


I don't think it is, and for Christianity to suppose such a thing is quite damaging to itself and is neglectful of what Jesus said:

I have other sheep, which are not of this fold; I must bring them also, and they will hear My voice; and they will become one flock with one shepherd. John 10:16

I suppose some people will say that Jesus is referring to Gentiles. Well, then, my response to that is that the entire non-Jewish populace is Gentile.

I believe that no matter what religion a person claims as their own that if they are striving towards God, the Spirit of Christ is working with them and guiding them.

I do not think Jesus or God is prejudiced and turns their back on someone just because of the religion or culture that they happened to be born into.

God is not a respecter of persons, so the bible says. People however are very prone to discrimination and prejudice based on anything that can make them superior to another, which in this case is religion.

That's my 2 cents.

posted on Dec, 25 2008 @ 04:00 PM
if i dont believe in what you do should i be tormented by what you have not yet known as truth personally but truth known nonetheless? it would probably be funn to see how your mind is.

posted on Dec, 25 2008 @ 04:27 PM
reply to post by grover

We Baha'i's believe in what is called progressive revelation...

I adore the Baha'i religion and the writings of Baha-u-llah!

"There are Baha'i who don't even know that they are Baha'i."

I also love your screen name. It was the name of my first dog. What a special little guy he was.

posted on Dec, 25 2008 @ 04:40 PM
reply to post by Toy_soldier

To pop the question! IS there a hell. You would first have to know if there is a God.
And to know if there is a God ,you would have to know what a God is.

To know what a God IS... You would have to look at creation. There is nothing else to give us a idea.

What source is so powerful and intelligent that It can make something out of nothing. That source is be-on our imagination.

Science expresses the universe in terms of: time, space, matter, and energy.
In Genesis chapter one we read: In the beginning (time) God created the heavens (space) and the earth (matter)…Then God said, “Let there be light (energy).

Imagine this and you will know if the source know's what it is talking about.

[edit on 27.06.08 by spy66]

new topics

top topics

<< 1  2  3   >>

log in