End of Times is Here

Originally posted by truthseeker1984
But Doc, in the same respect, doesn't it seem quite odd that there are bunch of coincidences going on in the world today?

There are no coincidences today that we haven't already seen in years, decades and centuries past. After all, a "coincidence" is only a human observation, a human association, and humans have been making the same associations and assumptions since Day One.

Time and time again.

For example, take a look at this little GIF of National Lampoon covers from 20 to 30 years ago...

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/bbc2fffa66b0.gif[/atsimg]

I'll be damned... It's all there! All our modern concerns! Tension in the Middle East, New World Order, Nuclear Proliferation, Asia Buying America, the USA Surrendering to Mexico's Flood of Illegal Aliens.

Either National Lampoon is so far ahead of the curve as to be prophetic, or we humans keep repeating the same old crap over and over again.

I'm inclined to think it's the latter.

— Doc Velocity

Originally posted by Titen-Sxull
reply to post by On the Edge

 

On the Edge I've sent you several U2Us in response. I'm not planning on making any other posts on this thread unless they pertain to the OP directly. Please U2U me from here on out. Thanks

Sorry! Didn't see that. I'll read them and get back to you soon.

Originally posted by truthseeker1984

Originally posted by Hydroman

Originally posted by truthseeker1984
I think you really need to look back to the original Hebrew version of the Bible for your answers, as it's the only one that hasn't been altered....

That would be great, except there are no originals in the Hebrew version. Only copies of copies of copies, etc. and who knows if those were altered?

Which is exactly my point. There are only copies of copies. So how can one just assume that the words are correct when it is well known that is has been changed? Who knows what the original words were and what they pertained to.

I assume this off topic side argument is about the validity of the Bible because there are multiple translations. Well you should be aware that the Gospels of the Bible were already written down during the lives of the Apostles, and were chosen by Irenaeus of Lyons who to be included in his work, “Against Heresies”. Irenaeus was taught by Polycarp of Smyrna, who was taught by John the Apostle. Ignatius of Antioch was similarly taught by John the Apostle. So we had men directly taught by the Apostles who were already writing from accepted books of the scripture, and those books already existed and were written down by this point in history. They simply were not complied yet into what we now call the actual Bible, but the scriptures themselves are very accurate.

Originally posted by Lemon.Fresh
Regarding "this generation" . . .

I am in now way a pre-trib believer, but this site explains it well:

www.pre-trib.org...

[edit on 4/15/2010 by Lemon.Fresh]

I didn't see anywhere on that site to a reference of Matthew 24:33. They kept talking about verse 34.

In verse 33, Jesus is clearly talking to his disciples. Right, or not? He says, "So likewise ye, when ye shall see all these things, know that it is near, even at the doors."

Why would he tell the disciples that if they weren't going to see those things. Now, he was talking to the disciples, now go to verse 34 after seeing that he was talking to the disciples.

I mean, starting in verse 3, Jesus is clearly telling the disciples what to be looking for. He is talking directly to them in private. The whole end times thing is directed to them.

I didn't see anything in Matthew 24 about Russia being in power, or Rome being in power, or Israel being a nation, or anything about a 200,000 man army in the east. Why didn't Jesus mention those things?

[edit on 16-4-2010 by Hydroman]

[edit on 16-4-2010 by Hydroman]

Originally posted by truthseeker1984
reply to post by On the Edge

 

How do you know that the current words in your current Bible are really true? It is a well-documented fact that it has been altered and edited over the years to change view-points and/or to push a certain agenda.
-truthseeker

Well,for one,I don't think it's the same as the Catholic version!

But seriously,I believe God when He said He would send His message out to all ends of the earth,to all people. I am confident enough in the Holy Spirit and my prayers to God to not be deceived.

If I knew of "an agenda" other than that of "Jesus is the way,the truth,and the life",I would seriously doubt it!

Anyhow,the good news of believing that we are "in the end-times" is that I have gotten alot closer to God and have been blessed with peace in spite of anticipating the very worst of times ahead.

And if it's true,we've been "in the end-times" all this time,I was a little slow in waking up,but it was just what I needed to renew my committment to the Lord,therefore,I'm ready,no matter what!

So many people,so many interpretations,...but God is the same yesterday,today,and forever. I have absolute faith in that!

Originally posted by defcon5
I assume this off topic side argument is about the validity of the Bible because there are multiple translations. Well you should be aware that the Gospels of the Bible were already written down during the lives of the Apostles, and were chosen by Irenaeus of Lyons who to be included in his work, “Against Heresies”. Irenaeus was taught by Polycarp of Smyrna, who was taught by John the Apostle. Ignatius of Antioch was similarly taught by John the Apostle. So we had men directly taught by the Apostles who were already writing from accepted books of the scripture, and those books already existed and were written down by this point in history. They simply were not complied yet into what we now call the actual Bible, but the scriptures themselves are very accurate.

They are accurate? So, did Mark 16 end at verse 8, or did it actually have 9-20 in the originals? (one quick example off the top of my head)

If John wrote his gospel, who edited it at the end when they said in 21:24 "[24] This is the disciple which testifieth of these things, and wrote these things: and we know that his testimony is true." ? How often did these guys edit scriptures?


This also brings another question. Who verified it to be scripture, and how did they verify it? Under what authority? I mean, most of these books were just letters written to certain people or groups of people to give those people instruction. What if there are other letters that were lost that provide new information? Some were testimony written by those who were not eyewitnesses (could be the reason why the resurrection stories are so different, but that's another topic that's been discussed over and over I'm sure).

But you are right, that is off topic.




[edit on 16-4-2010 by Hydroman]

Originally posted by Hydroman
Why would he tell the disciples that if they weren't going to see those things. Now, he was talking to the disciples, now go to verse 34 after seeing that he was talking to the disciples.

I mean, starting in verse 3, Jesus is clearly telling the disciples what to be looking for. He is talking directly to them in private. The whole end times thing is directed to them.

Only Matthew mentions the End of the world, the others say this:

Mark 13
1As he was leaving the temple, one of his disciples said to him, "Look, Teacher! What massive stones! What magnificent buildings!"
2"Do you see all these great buildings?" replied Jesus. "Not one stone here will be left on another; every one will be thrown down."
3As Jesus was sitting on the Mount of Olives opposite the temple, Peter, James, John and Andrew asked him privately, 4"Tell us, when will these things happen? And what will be the sign that they are all about to be fulfilled?"

Luke 21
5Some of his disciples were remarking about how the temple was adorned with beautiful stones and with gifts dedicated to God. But Jesus said, 6"As for what you see here, the time will come when not one stone will be left on another; every one of them will be thrown down."
7"Teacher," they asked, "when will these things happen? And what will be the sign that they are about to take place?"

See the problem here, its not about when the end of the world is, though the disciples might have mistakenly thought that it would be at the same time, its about when the end of the Age of the Jews and the destruction of Jerusalem was to occur.

Originally posted by On the Edge
Anyhow,the good news of believing that we are "in the end-times" is that I have gotten alot closer to God and have been blessed with peace in spite of anticipating the very worst of times ahead.

How do you know you are closer to your god? Is it the peace? Could it be that because you believe in something so much, you bring the peace on yourself? My mother-in-law was given peace by god that her youngest daughter isn't a lesbian. Guess what? You guessed it, she is a lesbian. We don't dare tell her momma though.

Originally posted by defcon5
Only Matthew mentions the End of the world, the others say this:
[

If you are a believer that the writings in the bible are inspired by the holy spirit and Matthew mentions the end of the world, well....

Originally posted by Hydroman

Originally posted by On the Edge
Anyhow,the good news of believing that we are "in the end-times" is that I have gotten alot closer to God and have been blessed with peace in spite of anticipating the very worst of times ahead.

How do you know you are closer to your god? Is it the peace? Could it be that because you believe in something so much, you bring the peace on yourself? My mother-in-law was given peace by god that her youngest daughter isn't a lesbian. Guess what? You guessed it, she is a lesbian. We don't dare tell her momma though.

I guess that's between me and God.

Sounds like you're mocking my belief,so I don't have any further response to your question.

5 pages later.... no new information that hasn't been stated or argued before on this site.

Nice try on a first thread. But in the future, its always good to try and come up with something fresh and not talked about. Try it sometime.

I'm helping you here. I'm not trying to be mean.

Originally posted by Hydroman
They are accurate? So, did Mark 16 end at verse 8, or did it actually have 9-20 in the originals? (one quick example off the top of my head)

scholars have not been impressed with the evidence against these verses, and have maintained that they are original. These scholars have pointed out that the witnesses which bring the verses into question are few, and that the verses are quoted by church Fathers very early, even in the second century.

Again lets hear it for the early church fathers who kept the word as true to form as possible, including already weeding out Gnostic nonsense that was trying to interject itself into the scripture as early on as 180ad, hence the publishing of Against Heresies. 145 years before the supposed writing of the Bible (according to bible haters) at the Council of Nicaea in 325 ad... (the supposed writing of the bible at the Council of Nicaea is nothing more then bible hater fantasy from the fictional story “The Da Vinci Code”))

Originally posted by Hydroman
If John wrote his gospel, who edited it at the end when they said in 21:24 "[24] This is the disciple which testifieth of these things, and wrote these things: and we know that his testimony is true." ? How often did these guys edit scriptures?

Again, very thin argument:

21:24 Ou|tov" ejstin oJ maqhthV" oJ marturw'n periV touvtwn kaiV oJ gravya" tau'ta The Fourth Gospel concludes with an authentication of the testimony of the one who both witnessed the events described and wrote them down. Many have understood this to be a conclusion written by someone other than the Evangelist. It is argued that the plural oi[damen indicates more than one person is involved in this statement of authentication, and thus it has been added by others after the completion of the Gospel. This may be so, but several points favoring authorship of these final verses by the Evangelist himself need to be considered:
(1) If this statement of attestation were added by a later writer we would expect it to stand at the very end of the Fourth Gospel, but in fact it is followed by verse 25, which resorts to the first person singular (oimai) again;
(2) Manuscript evidence for treating both verses 24 and 25 as a later addition to the Gospel is so slim as to be virtually nonexistent (verse 25 was omitted by the original copyist of , but the same copyist then added it as a correction; there is no manuscript evidence of any kind for the omission of verse 24);
(3) Jesus in 3:11 uses a plural verb where it is clear in context that only he is speaking;
(4) 1 John 1:1 uses plural verbs in the same way, in a context where authentication of testimony is concerned; and
(5) The author of 3 John, who elsewhere uses the first person singular, uses a plural verb and pronoun to refer to himself in verse 12 in a context where authentication of testimony is concerned: kaiV hJmei'" deV marturou'men, kaiV oida" o[ti hJ marturiva hJmw'n ajlhqhv" ejstin. In light of all this it seems probable that the Evangelist himself is the author of 21:24.

Originally posted by Hydroman
This also brings another question. Who verified it to be scripture, and how did they verify it? Under what authority?

The men who recorded it were first hand witnesses, the men who ensured it stayed correct (Polycarp, Irenaeus, etc..) were trained by those first hand witnesses.

Originally posted by Hydroman
I mean, most of these books were just letters written to certain people or groups of people to give those people instruction. What if there are other letters that were lost that provide new information?

Those are not the Gospels; they are mainly letters from Paul. The letters of Paul hold a lesser authority then the Gospels do, and are generally geared at how a Christian should behave and how a church should operate.

Originally posted by Hydroman
Some were testimony written by those who were not eyewitnesses (could be the reason why the resurrection stories are so different, but that's another topic that's been discussed over and over I'm sure).

Christ specifically chose the men he did to write the gospels from their individual perspective, that is why each came from a different background and education level. For example Luke was a doctor, and it shows in his writings. Christ did this for a reason, otherwise he would have only chosen one, and there would have been no differences of perspective, or any of the minor inconsistencies that appear in the Gospels.

Originally posted by On the Edge
I guess that's between me and God.

Sounds like you're mocking my belief,so I don't have any further response to your question.

No, if you have some kind of relationship with the creator of the universe, I would like to know how you did this, and how you know you do? I was a christian for over 20 years. I worked 2 years on the mission field with drug addicts. I claimed that god gave me peace, and that I had a relationship with him too. I realized that my relationship was actually one-sided, and that my feelings of peace were generated from my own beliefs, not from a god. Just like my mother-in-law.

Originally posted by defcon5
The men who recorded it were first hand witnesses, the men who ensured it stayed correct (Polycarp, Irenaeus, etc..) were trained by those first hand witnesses.

www.earlychristianwritings.com...

Mark

Eusebius quotes from Papias on the Gospel of Mark in Hist. Eccl. iii. 39 as follows:

For information on these points, we can merely refer our readers to the books themselves; but now, to the extracts already made, we shall add, as being a matter of primary importance, a tradition regarding Mark who wrote the Gospel, which he [Papias] has given in the following words: "And the presbyter said this. Mark having become the interpreter of Peter, wrote down accurately whatsoever he remembered. It was not, however, in exact order that he related the sayings or deeds of Christ. For he neither heard the Lord nor accompanied Him. But afterwards, as I said, he accompanied Peter, who accommodated his instructions to the necessities [of his hearers], but with no intention of giving a regular narrative of the Lord's sayings. Wherefore Mark made no mistake in thus writing some things as he remembered them. For of one thing he took especial care, not to omit anything he had heard, and not to put anything fictitious into the statements." This is what is related by Papias regarding Mark.

Matthew
www.earlychristianwritings.com...

It is the near-universal position of scholarship that the Gospel of Matthew is dependent upon the Gospel of Mark. This position is accepted whether one subscribes to the dominant Two-Source Hypothesis or instead prefers the Farrer-Goulder hypothesis.

It is also the consensus position that the evangelist was not the apostle Matthew. Such an idea is based on the second century statements of Papias and Irenaeus. As quoted by Eusebius in Hist. Eccl. 3.39, Papias states: "Matthew put together the oracles [of the Lord] in the Hebrew language, and each one interpreted them as best he could." In Adv. Haer. 3.1.1, Irenaeus says: "Matthew also issued a written Gospel among the Hebrews in their own dialect while Peter and Paul were preaching at Rome and laying the foundations of the church." We know that Irenaeus had read Papias, and it is most likely that Irenaeus was guided by the statement he found there. That statement in Papias itself is considered to be unfounded because the Gospel of Matthew was written in Greek and relied largely upon Mark, not the author's first-hand experience.

Luke was with Paul, and was not an eyewitness of Jesus.

John
www.earlychristianwritings.com...
There is a case to be made that John, the son of Zebedee, had already died long before the Gospel of John came to be written. It is worth noting for its own sake, even though the "beloved disciple" need not be identified with John, the son of Zebedee. In his ninth century Chronicle in the codex Coislinianus, George Hartolos says, "[John] was worth of martyrdom." Hamartolos proceeds to quote Papias to the effect that, "he [John] was killed by the Jews." In the de Boor fragment of an epitome of the fifth century Chronicle of Philip of Side, the author quotes Papias: Papias in the second book says that John the divine and James his brother were killed by Jews. Morton Enslin observes (Christian Beginnings, pp. 369-370): "That PapiasÂ’ source of information is simply an inference from Mark 10:35-40 or its parallel, Matt. 20:20-23, is possible. None the less, this Marcan passage itself affords solid ground. No reasonable interpretation of these words can deny the high probability that by the time these words were written [ca. 70 CE] both brothers had 'drunk the cup' that Jesus had drunk and had been 'baptized with the baptism' with which he had been baptized." Since the patristic tradition is unanimous in identifying the beloved disciple with John, at least this evidence discredits the patristic tradition concerning the authorship of the Gospel of John

John was more than likely dead when his gospel was written.

John is dead?? I didn't even know he was sick!

— Doc Velocity

Originally posted by Doc Velocity
John is dead?? I didn't even know he was sick!

— Doc Velocity

What kind of friend are you then?

Originally posted by Hydroman

Originally posted by On the Edge
I guess that's between me and God.

Sounds like you're mocking my belief,so I don't have any further response to your question.

No, if you have some kind of relationship with the creator of the universe, I would like to know how you did this, and how you know you do? I was a christian for over 20 years. I worked 2 years on the mission field with drug addicts. I claimed that god gave me peace, and that I had a relationship with him too. I realized that my relationship was actually one-sided, and that my feelings of peace were generated from my own beliefs, not from a god. Just like my mother-in-law.

Well,now this subject IS "off-topic"! (I'll be brief!)

Suffice it to say,I in no way felt it was ever a "one-sided" relationship.

Something must have caused you to "lose your faith",or you were just going along with "the program" (church involvement/community stuff)?

My relationship with Christ has always been very real and personal to me. It didn't come from going to church,(I've only visited a couple of them a handful of times in my life),but from prayerfully reading the Bible and seeking Him with all my heart.That and other studies from biblical perspectives .

Then there was all the time before that that I spent in "darkness",so I had something to compare it to.

'Nuff said?

It's quite funny to see humanity going through the same old things over the years, exactly like this thread going over information and views widely discussed and researched on ATS. There is too much overlap and duplicate topics on this site. Not that I find it bad just seems a waste of time to make new threads on subjecs well covered just because the OP feels he has another point to make or to regurgitate other peoples views.
Christians will always beleive the end times are coming because it's part of their faith to do so, however must we have a thousand and one threads on the subject?
Who knows, I always.end up Reading them though!
Welcome OP, not trying to disrespect you or your beliefs, just tired of th Same old stuff


Edit. Sorry for grammer and wot not, I'm on the mobi on a bus!!

[edit on 16/4/2010 by LestatG]

Originally posted by Lemon.Fresh
Reply to post by Titen-Sxull

 

I am on my phone now, so please excuse the shortness of my answer.

Israel reborn to the day:

Ezekial 4:3-6

Ezekiel 4

1Thou also, son of man, take thee a tile, and lay it before thee, and pourtray upon it the city, even Jerusalem:

2And lay siege against it, and build a fort against it, and cast a mount against it; set the camp also against it, and set battering rams against it round about.

3Moreover take thou unto thee an iron pan, and set it for a wall of iron between thee and the city: and set thy face against it, and it shall be besieged, and thou shalt lay siege against it. This shall be a sign to the house of Israel.

4Lie thou also upon thy left side, and lay the iniquity of the house of Israel upon it: according to the number of the days that thou shalt lie upon it thou shalt bear their iniquity.

5For I have laid upon thee the years of their iniquity, according to the number of the days, three hundred and ninety days: so shalt thou bear the iniquity of the house of Israel.

6And when thou hast accomplished them, lie again on thy right side, and thou shalt bear the iniquity of the house of Judah forty days: I have appointed thee each day for a year.

 

Posted Via ATS Mobile: m.abovetopsecret.com

 

please explain how you get israels rebirth from these verses. and thats from the king james version.