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.

 

Are we in the End Times according to the Prophet Johns image in Revelations?

page: 3
0
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 31 2004 @ 08:35 AM
link   

Originally posted by Leveller

Originally posted by infinite
we its believed that we are and also its believed that the bible a hidden message predicting a nuclear holocaust in 2004 (:puz
. The world will end in 2006, according to this message, but there's no need to start worrying until it happens.


Yep. But as soon as 2004 ends and there's no nuclear holocaust the doomsayers will move the date to 2005, and then 2006, then 2007, then 2008, then 2009..... need I go on?


excellent point, all we have to do is just waiting and see what happens




posted on Mar, 31 2004 @ 09:59 AM
link   
One interesting thing that no one here has mentioned. Where did John get his idea of "the mark". That is that no one could buy or sell without it?(Rev. 13:16-18) How would someone living around 30 AD get the idea that it would be possible to monitor all financial transactions? Even if you go back to just 100 years ago, it doesn't seem possible. Making that prediction in 1904 would have been over the top. Things like this cause you to realize that he had "inside information" of the future.



posted on Mar, 31 2004 @ 10:18 AM
link   

Originally posted by Leveller
Jesus clearly says in Matthew:

"I assure you there are some among those standing here who will never taste death before they see the Son of Man coming in his Monarchy. I assure you that thsi generation will not go by before all this happens"

He says almost the exact same thing again in Luke.

Now call me a sceptic but I'm pretty sure that the "generation" Jesus is talking about "tasted death" 2000 years ago.


Here's maybe something to think about:

John 21
21 Peter seeing him saith to Jesus, Lord, and what shall this man do?

22 Jesus saith unto him, If I will that he tarry till I come, what is that to thee? follow thou me.

23 Then went this saying abroad among the brethren, that that disciple should not die: yet Jesus said not unto him, He shall not die; but, If I will that he tarry till I come, what is that to thee?

Note that this is probably John writing this about himself. Remember that Jesus said "some standing here" will not taste death.
Maybe he was referring to John, maybe even others.

"Generation" is used in different ways all throughout the scriptures:

Psalms 14:5 There were they in great fear: for God is in the generation of the righteous.

Psalms 24:6 This is the generation of them that seek him, that seek thy face, O Jacob.

Isaiah 53:8 He was taken from prison and from judgment: and who shall declare his generation? for he was cut off out of the land of the living: for the transgression of my people was he stricken.

Jeremiah 7:29 Cut off thine hair, O Jerusalem, and cast it away, and take up a lamentation on high places; for the LORD hath rejected and forsaken the generation of his wrath.

Matthew 12:34 O generation of vipers, how can ye, being evil, speak good things? for out of the abundance of the heart the mouth speaketh.

Matthew 16:14 A wicked and adulterous generation seeketh after a sign...

Acts 8:33 In his humiliation his judgment was taken away: and who shall declare his generation?

Anway, there are tons uses of "generation" in the Bible. I just meant to offer the point that generation might mean more of a type of people (how they live, how righteous there are, what beliefs the subscribe to) rather than just a thirty year period or some biological grouping.

But this is consist with how Jesus taught a lot of things. Remember when he was at the temple and said that he could destroy and rebuild the temple in three days:

John 2:19 Jesus answered and said unto them, Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up.

Nobody understood what he meant. They thought he was referring to the actual temple, but of course he was was referring to his body:

v20 Then said the Jews, Forty and six years was this temple in building, and wilt thou rear it up in three days?
v21 But he spake of the temple of his body.

Not even the disciples understood it until after he was resurrected:
v22 When therefore he was risen from the dead, his disciples remembered that he had said this unto them; and they believed the scripture, and the word which Jesus had said.

And later a usage of temple in the same respect:
1 Cor. 3:17 If any man defile the temple of God, him shall God destroy; for the temple of God is holy, which temple ye are.

The Jews remebered what Jesus said about the temple and brought the accusation against at the trial and taunted him with it when he was on the cross.

My point is to show that some seemingly contradictory statements should not be easily judged so. I find a lot of consistency throughout the Bible, but it usually takes some thinking and some looking into. If one scripture seems to contradict some other scripture, you can usually find in yet another place an instance where the message is presented in different way which clears up the seeming contradiction. For me it takes some time.



posted on Mar, 31 2004 @ 10:48 AM
link   

Originally posted by piboy
"Generation" is used in different ways all throughout the scriptures:


I agree with you that definitions can be deceptive. But even if Jesus means a group of people or an age, the statement still has the same underlying value.

You could even refer to "generation" as being "those that believe", but he states that some of those present at that time would be "alive" to see the Second Coming.

For a long time, literalists pondered this part of the Bible, as it clearly refuted their doctrine.

Early church literalists had to come up with all sorts of ways to try to get around this problem. Justin Martyr (an early literal Christian) stated that the Endtime was put on hold so Christianity could spread all around the planet!!!
Even more far fetched, some claimed that those present never died!!! John was made immortal and it was said he was living in the Greek Isles.
Another literalist bishop - Hippolytus came up with the Endtime of 202. When that didn't happen the church moved it onto 500. It's the same old story that we see time and time today - the end of the world is given a date and then when it doesn't happen it is simply moved on and a new theory is found to justify it.

So even when the Church itself has to come up with such outlandish ideals, the evidence points to this being dogma.

Finally, the argument about the definition shows just how deceptive literalism can be (and I'm not accusing you piboy, but others). Even a literal word can be taken and changed to suit another purpose - as long as that purpose upholds Church doctrine.

[Edited on 31-3-2004 by Leveller]



posted on Mar, 31 2004 @ 11:48 AM
link   
I'll bet a lot of folks were on their best behavior in the year 666. They probably even slept outside in plain view of the heavens. That HAD to a predicted year.

I think it will happen within the next 9 years, simply because there is a LOT more pointing into this timeframe than former predictions.

...but I could be wrong. Just need to stay ready.

Maybe he changed his mind and thought we weren't worth it anymore.



posted on Mar, 31 2004 @ 11:55 AM
link   

Originally posted by Leveller
You could even refer to "generation" as being "those that believe", but he states that some of those present at that time would be "alive" to see the Second Coming.


Right. John (at least) would be alive to see the Second Coming. I think that is what John 21 says:

20 Then Peter, turning about, seeth the disciple whom Jesus loved following; which also leaned on his breast at supper, and said, Lord, which is he that betrayeth thee?

21 Peter seeing him saith to Jesus, Lord, and what shall this man do?

22 Jesus saith unto him, If I will that he tarry till I come, what is that to thee? follow thou me.

23 Then went this saying abroad among the brethren, that that disciple should not die: yet Jesus said not unto him, He shall not die; but, If I will that he tarry till I come, what is that to thee?

I wonder why Peter asked the question in the first place. He must have known that John would be in some peculiar situation, or at least heard a rumor or something. Jesus basically said, "Why should you be concerned whether he lives until I return?"

Also, why would the saying go abroad that John would not die? They must have thought that the Second Coming could be pretty far off, longer than they might live.

That's just how I read it without any commentary other than what John himself said (about himself).



posted on Apr, 2 2004 @ 12:04 AM
link   

Originally posted by Leveller

Originally posted by infinite
we its believed that we are and also its believed that the bible a hidden message predicting a nuclear holocaust in 2004 (:puz
. The world will end in 2006, according to this message, but there's no need to start worrying until it happens.


Yep. But as soon as 2004 ends and there's no nuclear holocaust the doomsayers will move the date to 2005, and then 2006, then 2007, then 2008, then 2009..... need I go on?


We could sit here and argue about dates and years, REMEMBER only God Knows the time and day. I totally disagree with the world ending this year. As I have stated many times before, if we are relying on the Bible as the source, their are prophecies yet to be fullfilled b4 we can start talking about armageddon. My personal view would have to be around 2007. Again I don't remember whot, what, when, or where i heard this, but: the second coming would be a century after Palestine becomes a free state. Palestine became a free state in 1947.


What thats not a hundred years!!!!!!! In Biblical times a century was 60 yrs, hence 1947-2007.



posted on Apr, 2 2004 @ 12:06 AM
link   
I agree with Thomas Jefferson, in that Revelations is, "The ravings of a madman." Most recent interpretations of John the Divine's phantasmagoria began to emerge in the 19th century. Millions are long buried who espoused the imminence of apocaplyptic scenarios. Upon reaching the end of the 1st millenium of the common era, there were massive conversions due to eschatological fervor. In fact, apocalypse myths are noted in many ancient civilizations' writings. How long is this topic going to be used to blur the message of Jesus?

Unequivocally, he preached of love, forgiveness and healing. How can anyone believe that his love would be expressed vis a vis enormous plagues and suffering? Of course, only those who adhere to very narrow interpretations of a book that most people have not even seen (nor had a chance to for thousands of years), can be saved from the wrathful scourge. What nonsense! Certainly, it is inconsistent with the Jesus presented in the Gospels.

Personally, I want to believe in a God like Jesus. But the apocalypse-mongerers who call themselves Christians give me doubts. Fortunately, heaven is not of this world and it is within me. Otherwise, the "101st Church of Eschatology" would entirely spoil my simple belief.



posted on Apr, 2 2004 @ 12:08 AM
link   
Hey, Aeon, you really need to get a new response... You've used that for 3 topics so far... I've decided not to take you seriously because of that... I was going to give you a dignified response in the antichrist post, but not anymore...



posted on Apr, 2 2004 @ 12:08 AM
link   

Originally posted by Leveller
The literalists are always very fond of quoting Bible passages. But they always quote the ones that suit their ideas and they very rarely actually look at the ones that prove them wrong.

Jesus clearly says in Matthew:

"I assure you there are some among those standing here who will never taste death before they see the Son of Man coming in his Monarchy. I assure you that thsi generation will not go by before all this happens"

He says almost the exact same thing again in Luke.


Now call me a sceptic but I'm pretty sure that the "generation" Jesus is talking about "tasted death" 2000 years ago.

John's Revelation is a highly spurious peice of work. Even the Church wasn't sure whether to include it in the final Bible. It was probably added to keep the masses in line.



The Gospels were written "According to-" it was each authors interprtation of Jesus' words and actions. If you read and study each one you will see the same things, but in their words.



posted on Apr, 2 2004 @ 12:21 AM
link   

Originally posted by Aeon10101110
How long is this topic going to be used to blur the message of Jesus?

Unequivocally, he preached of love, forgiveness and healing. How can anyone believe that his love would be expressed vis a vis enormous plagues and suffering? Of course, only those who adhere to very narrow interpretations of a book that most people have not even seen (nor had a chance to for thousands of years), can be saved from the wrathful scourge. What nonsense! Certainly, it is inconsistent with the Jesus presented in the Gospels.

Personally, I want to believe in a God like Jesus. But the apocalypse-mongerers who call themselves Christians give me doubts. Fortunately, heaven is not of this world and it is within me. Otherwise, the "101st Church of Eschatology" would entirely spoil my simple belief.


Jesus is not God, He is the Son of God. And who are these Mogerers you are reffering to. The Apocolypse is one stage in many. These mongerers may only look at the apocolyptic end, such as total destruction of the world via Nuclear Weapon, etc. It is clear to me that you have not even tried to understand, or even read the Bible. What we are discussing here is more than Armageddon. It is the Signs and times(we are currently in) that may lead up to the Apocolypse. I, or no one else (that I am aware of) are preaching the end of the world in this thread. It is a topical discussion of events in The Bible refering to the End Times.
Please do not come into this thread a post generalizations of others that are trying to have a coherent conversation based on The End Times in the Bible. The Jesus that you refer to in the gospels is not the one bringing wrath, it is his Father. He will send his son back..... You know what I'm not going to waste anymore of my time with you on this....



posted on Jun, 23 2004 @ 09:49 AM
link   

Originally posted by Aeon10101110
Unequivocally, he preached of love, forgiveness and healing. How can anyone believe that his love would be expressed vis a vis enormous plagues and suffering? Of course, only those who adhere to very narrow interpretations of a book that most people have not even seen (nor had a chance to for thousands of years), can be saved from the wrathful scourge. What nonsense! Certainly, it is inconsistent with the Jesus presented in the Gospels.

Hmm...Let's say you own a company. You hire a real close friend. Now this friend is the laziest person you have ever seen in your life. He comes in late everyday, he takes hours long naps, he does no work whatsoever, what do you do? You may warn him or just talk to him, but you keep him for a while, because he's your friend. Soon production starts to fall. He lowers moral in the office. You warn him again. He STILL goofs off. You're now losing customers, and people start to quit. You have to fire this dude sooner or later.
Yes Jesus taught love, forgiveness, and healing. He taught for US to do those things. He can do whatever he wants. He's the employer. It's been now 2000 years since he's taught that stuff, yet humans are going further and further away from that. You don't think he'd be just a little PO'ed?? I don't think it shows inconsistency at all.




Does anybody know what God promised, sealed with a rainbow? As many children know, that God would not destroy the world with water again, but fire. Sure, fire figures in the manifold plagues unleashed by John in his revelation. But the other scourges make that look like warm breeze in comparison. Basically then, Revelations effectively calls God a liar!

Actually when the promise during the rainbow was just that he wouldn't destroy the world by water. It mentions nothing about fire.
In Revelation 20, during the final final battle:
"And they went up on the breadth of the earth, and compassed the camp of the saints about, and the beloved city: and fire came down from God out of heaven, and devoured them."
Hey! What do you know? He destroys everyone with fire which means.....Revelation is where that comes from buddy.


So are we living in the "End times"? People have been saying that for years. Well "time" is a human concept. We will never be able to predict when the actual end will happen.
But unless the increase in everything in the first post is just one big coincidence then yeah it's probably getting close to crunch time.
Besides, you only get 80 years on this planet and it's a somewhat dangerous planet. Everyday is your last days.



More on Moon.
Moon honored. Given crown. Claims to be Messiah. Congressman duped.



posted on Jun, 23 2004 @ 09:06 PM
link   
well , did anyone see that the rev moon has proclaimed himself the " messah" sp ?....was in todays washington post...yeah right rev....



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join