Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Resurrection at the beginning of New Earth

page: 1
0

log in

join

posted on Jan, 29 2003 @ 04:46 PM
link   
My friends and I often debate in the lunchroom on various subjects: politics, religion, war, etc.. Well, recently we came upon the discussion of the end of the world, and what should someone say, but, "We don't get resurrected at the end of the world." This set me off. I have read the Book of Revelations many times, and it says towards the end of Revelations that "The world will be made new again, as will heaven, and the New Heaven and New Earth will be populated with the people." That's not the exact quote, but it is the basic thing. I sided with the fact that we will be resurrected(at least if we are good), and and argument ensued.

Give me your opinions on this matter.




posted on Jan, 29 2003 @ 09:23 PM
link   
I'm Wiccan.

Revelations was a very controversial book and many people wanted to leave it OUT of the Bible (back when they were putting together the books that make up the Bible.) They felt it wasn't genuine and felt it was blasphemous.

It just barely made it into the Bible.

My take? It describes past events (the "seven hills" is Rome) and wish-fulfillment fantasies.) Great reading, but about as predictive as "Little Red Riding Hood." I am even more firmly of this opinion after watching people for the past 30 years bend current world events to fit the stuff in Revelations and announce that "Jesus is coming just ANY SECOND now!"



posted on Jan, 30 2003 @ 04:49 PM
link   
You see you got to understand something byrd,, that in revelations
God says that he has put it into the minds of those to carry out his plans.

meaning satans followers, or satan himself through his people.

And they will set up a fake return of christ or god and he will really be the antichrist.

Once we hit ww3 and the chastisment, it will not be "little red riding hood" any more.

Its going to get very serious.

peace.



posted on Jan, 30 2003 @ 05:00 PM
link   
hrmm.. If I remember correctly, hasn't the end of the world been called twice before in the past already? Are we going by the saying "third time's a charm" for this end of world scenario(SP?) this time around?

Point is, how the f--- do we know when, if twice already the book has told that it would happen as people saw there world at that point in time?

I do see a very strong possibility for WW3 very soon, but, what happen's when god doesn't come this time? He never came during the last to WW's... Why would this one be any different? Just the same old BS as the last two. Revelation's does NOT say WW3 is the end. You religous people of today are saying that. The last two time's the end was called, it was the religous people who interpreted the end through the book according to their view's on what was going on around them. It never came then, why would it come now? If you people saw the end twice already and were so damned sure it was the end in order to call it as such, why this time are you sure?



posted on Jan, 30 2003 @ 05:15 PM
link   
Calm down.

Theres your point, many (men) have predicted or thought it was the end but it was not.

God says to never predict the last day, but he expects you to know what time your in, infact
he has a passage that talks about men knowing how to interpret the weather but not the end and goes on
to call them hypocrites for not knowing the times.

why is it time no?

1. Sin is out of control in music, tv, internet, ect..

which all go against the commands.

2. We now have nuclear bombs that can only become stronger.


Anybody with a working conscience can realize it is now time, sin is worse
than it has ever been, we are living around nothing but amusment and lust.


WW3 is predicted by mary and the saints and it will be the final one mixed in with the chastisement and
the spreading of biological and nuclear weapons.

beleive what you will not, but prepare for this stuff, because our world has never had this type of technology and sin and
when this stuff hits we will not have time to wonder whats next.


peace.



posted on Jan, 30 2003 @ 07:48 PM
link   
Actually the church (an others) as an event that was supposed to have occured about 50 times or more in the last 1300 years has predicted the End of the world ala revelations. This is not of course presenting undocumented allegations in which case we would be here all day.

in regards to anti-Christ well you have just about every king that defied the church in that same time. As well being named the unholy bad guy. Personally I feel the primary focus of European Christians in the days revelation was prepared was upon Rome. Which was converted to Christianity and is now the primary site of Christendom.

End of story



posted on Feb, 1 2003 @ 10:59 AM
link   
Anyway, you all have points, though very different ones. Byrd has a point saying that Revelations is pretty much(for the time being) Little Red Riding Hood, as nothing that has happened/is happening has really been predicted.

Truth has an excellent idea here, that this period in time is the most sinful time of Catholicism, or Christianity in general. But does that mean the end of the world is coming? Who knows.

e-nonymous is correct about the "called shots" during both WWs. Both of those were probably thought of as the apocalypse, but neither ever happened. The thing is, there may be a "third strike, you're out" going here: We've had 2 strikes, and here comes WWIII ready to pound our heads in. But maybe not.

I agree the most with Toltec, because the Romans were heavily referred to in Revelations. Rome was evil to the people who wrote the Bible, so it is likely that the "Great City" that was destroyed is Rome and it's Empire, although, like was pointed out, Rome is now a Christian city that basically if the center of the religion.
So whatver way you look at it, it looks as if Revelations may be a load of BS.

Anyone else?



posted on Feb, 1 2003 @ 11:30 PM
link   
Actually, HLW, you're thinking this is the worst of times simply because you don't really have a good understanding of how things were 100 or 200 or 500 years ago.

As a species, we're getting better.

90 years ago, orphans were sent to live with people who treated them as unpaid slaves (I know someone whose mother was an orphan.) Men could beat their animals OR their wives to death with few penalties (just say she was cheating.) People were left to starve because their skin was the wrong color.

150 years ago, children as young as 3 were sent to work in the fields, picking cotton and vegetables. They were beaten if they didn't fulfill their tasks. 10 and 12 year old girls were sold to be prostitutes. The only ones who could vote or hold property or political office (and the only ones who were consistantly educated) were white, wealthy males.

And the era of the Crusades... and the Inquisiton. Dear heavens, THERE was a horrible time! Sanitation was unknown. Ecological damage to the landscape was far greater (per person) than it is today. If you didn't agree with the religious doctrine, you were burned at the stake. You were born to a place in society. A serf would always be a serf. He could never be anything more. If the lord of the land liked your woman, he could take her. If he and his buddies wanted to hunt foxes all over your crops, he could. You had to tolerate it.

You were told who you could marry. If you loved someone else -- tough. Disease was caused by evil spirits. Foreigners were to be killed or conquered. If you were poor, you were sent to prison. Kings and emperors could and did keep boy children to pleasure them sexually. Women were locked away in harems (which might sound fun to the guys but resulted in assassinations, stress, deaths, and misery for the women. And lesbian love affairs.)

Deformed and unwanted children were taken out to the woods for the wolves to eat. Ditto old men and old women unless they were wealthy.

A ruler could insist that you worship him or her as a god. In fact, he could insist that you worship his pets as gods and bring them offerings. Incest among the royals was the norm.


Things are a *LOT* better now! Read up on history and the way the folks who weren't upper class white males were treated. It's an eye-opener.



posted on Feb, 3 2003 @ 02:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by Byrd
Actually, HLW, you're thinking this is the worst of times simply because you don't really have a good understanding of how things were 100 or 200 or 500 years ago.

As a species, we're getting better.

90 years ago, orphans were sent to live with people who treated them as unpaid slaves (I know someone whose mother was an orphan.) Men could beat their animals OR their wives to death with few penalties (just say she was cheating.) People were left to starve because their skin was the wrong color.

150 years ago, children as young as 3 were sent to work in the fields, picking cotton and vegetables. They were beaten if they didn't fulfill their tasks. 10 and 12 year old girls were sold to be prostitutes. The only ones who could vote or hold property or political office (and the only ones who were consistantly educated) were white, wealthy males.

And the era of the Crusades... and the Inquisiton. Dear heavens, THERE was a horrible time! Sanitation was unknown. Ecological damage to the landscape was far greater (per person) than it is today. If you didn't agree with the religious doctrine, you were burned at the stake. You were born to a place in society. A serf would always be a serf. He could never be anything more. If the lord of the land liked your woman, he could take her. If he and his buddies wanted to hunt foxes all over your crops, he could. You had to tolerate it.

You were told who you could marry. If you loved someone else -- tough. Disease was caused by evil spirits. Foreigners were to be killed or conquered. If you were poor, you were sent to prison. Kings and emperors could and did keep boy children to pleasure them sexually. Women were locked away in harems (which might sound fun to the guys but resulted in assassinations, stress, deaths, and misery for the women. And lesbian love affairs.)

Deformed and unwanted children were taken out to the woods for the wolves to eat. Ditto old men and old women unless they were wealthy.

A ruler could insist that you worship him or her as a god. In fact, he could insist that you worship his pets as gods and bring them offerings. Incest among the royals was the norm.


Things are a *LOT* better now! Read up on history and the way the folks who weren't upper class white males were treated. It's an eye-opener.


yes, you are correct on all of these things. But...... Did you see commoners going out and murdering people for vain and foolish things? No, not really. most murders were committed by the noble/higher class people. Nowadays everyone kills for things like that. It is foolish to presume that we are getting better from the Middle Ages because(unfortunately) we are not. you see murder and rape and all sorts of crap goin' on today, and only a minor percentage killed for personal gain.

I rest my case.



posted on Feb, 3 2003 @ 05:05 PM
link   
HLW in relation to you last statement there is an issue of accountability. This in that justification for acts of violence against other was much broader in the past than it is now. Rape was not actually considered a crime under most circumstances in which it would have been accepted today. And as far as personal gain in relation to issues of the past social motivations was often justification for killing people. As for instance in the case of crimes of passion which were considered legal. As long as the male member in the relationship committed the act.

Prostitution and the use of illicit drugs were perfectly legal throughout the world. Furthermore the basis for justification in the case of wars. Could be as simple as where one places there hands which forming the crucifix when saying "In the name of the Father, Son and Holy Ghost."





new topics

top topics



 
0

log in

join