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.

 

Messengers of God

page: 1
0

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 21 2010 @ 03:08 AM
link   
So there is a messenger of God, who says that anyone who comes after in his name will be imposters and of the enemy.
A 2nd messenger comes along who says that "he" too comes from God with updated messages and that it is the final message and says that anyone who comes after "him" will be an imposter and of the enemy.

If the 1st is correct, we must see the 2nd as the enemy carrying false messages.
If the 1st is incorrect, and the 2nd is also of God, then God has changed Gods Mind. But if the 1st is incorrect is it possible that the 2nd is also incorrect and that God can change Gods Mind again?

If God changes Gods Mind, how can a human messenger say God will not change Gods Mind again? If it happened once surely it can happen again?




posted on Sep, 21 2010 @ 08:35 AM
link   
Is the message of the first messenger in accordance with God, or contrary to him? Is the message of the second?

Personally, I believe that we need to truly come to grips with our faith, and then apply that understanding to whatever the message happens to be -- you coming to me and saying that God told you something, a new messenger (ala Joseph Smith) or old scripture.

If someone comes round, proclaiming themselves to be the Messiah, that's one thing. Proclaiming that they have a message from God, that's quite another. There is every reason to doubt the first, no reason to doubt the second, so long as their message isn't contrary to God (which, in Christianity, is "Love God, love everyone else, accept Christ.") For Christians, the New Testament warns against those who claim to come in the name of God, but are not, but there is no claim that none will come in the name of God.

As a being outside of time, God knows the results of things that have happened, are happening and will happen, so while he CAN "change his mind", one struggles with whether he would need to -- he knew the results of Jesus' mission to Earth before it happened, before he even thought of it, one might say. So it seems unlikely that he would determine that, in the year 2010, "that whole Messiah thing didn't work out so well, let me try something else." Theologically, that just doesn't make sense.



posted on Sep, 21 2010 @ 10:00 AM
link   
This is by no means a trivial problem.
As the poster just above me points out, we can now check the content of people's messages against the Bible. If there's a conflict, we know that something's wrong.
In the Old Testament period, that option wasn't available.
Deuteronomy ch13 vv1-4 gives instructions which amount to the same thing; you must ignore any prophet who wants you to "go after other gods".
MIcaiah the son of Imlah (1 Kings ch22) and Jeremiah (eg ch28) were both facing rival prophets with different messages. The important clue in both cases was that the "false" prophets were encouraging complacent optimism about God's attitude towards the sins of the people, and ignoring the fact that the people were guilty of disobedience. If a messenger is blatantly telling people what they want to hear, that is another bad sign.



edit on 21-9-2010 by DISRAELI because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 21 2010 @ 02:27 PM
link   
My friend,

You are the only messenger of God.

Your message only pertains to you.

With Love,

Your Brother



posted on Sep, 22 2010 @ 03:23 AM
link   

Originally posted by DISRAELI
This is by no means a trivial problem.
As the poster just above me points out, we can now check the content of people's messages against the Bible.


I specifically didn't refer to the bible, because it is the logic behind the messengers announcement that anyone coming after them will be of the enemy. How can either be true if they both say the come from the same God?



Originally posted by DISRAELI
If a messenger is blatantly telling people what they want to hear, that is another bad sign.


Since this in direct reference to the Bible, didn't Jesus blatantly tell people what they wanted to hear, in opposition to the old testament?



posted on Sep, 22 2010 @ 03:44 AM
link   

Originally posted by scratchmane
How can either be true if they both say the come from the same God?

Obviously if two statements are in conflict they cannot both be true.
But I don't see where you get the logic that neither can be true.
The Cartier brand has sometimes been faked. Does that prove there is no such thing as a genuine Cartier?
A fraudster steals your identity. Obviously you cannot both be the true scratchmane. But if your logic here is valid, neither of you can be the real scratchmane.



I didn't Jesus blatantly tell people what they wanted to hear, in opposition to the old testament?

In the case of a lot of people, it certainly wasn't what they wanted to hear. Hence the opposition. In the case of the Pharisees, he was giving warning of judgment, just as Micaiah and Jeremiah had been doing.

You can see the difference more clearly by comparing different kinds of Christian preacher.
One who says "Repent, and put your trust in Christ for the forgiveness of sin" is at least following the New Testament.
One who says "Follow Jesus, and he will give you lots of money and a brand new car" is both departing from New Testament teaching, and telling people what they want to hear.







edit on 22-9-2010 by DISRAELI because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 22 2010 @ 04:16 AM
link   
One thing that's confusing about the OP is which "messenger of God" claimed to be the last?

So far as I know, not Jesus. He deployed his own personally trained people, and they were allowed to make doctrine in Jesus' absence (e.g. Peter's dreaming about the application of Mosaic food law to Gentiles). Christians also accept that Paul was visited by Jesus and delegated to apostleship.

Joseph Smith certainly didn't rule out later prophets. Continuing revelation is part of Mormon doctrine. Smith's target audience was probably Christian. So, Jesus' idea that there will be false prophets was not taken by Smith's audience as a warning against any and all new prophets.

As I understand it, the Christian priniple of discernment is "by their fruits, you will know them." Matthew 7:16 False prophets lead to bad things, true prophets lead to good things.

That certainly seems to be the Mormon approach to the question. They readily point out how their founders made the Utah desert bloom, and so forth.

So, it seems we're down to Mohammed, who did present himself as the end of the line.

But I don't know of anybody in the Isalmic tradition who challenged Mohammed's finality. So, again, I am unsure about what problem is being addressed in the OP.



posted on Sep, 22 2010 @ 08:06 AM
link   
reply to post by scratchmane
 


Scratchmane,

Today there is a famine in the land to hear the true Word of God preached and it was prophecied there would arise many false prophets. Also God changes not, He knew the end from the beginning and His prophecy proves it if you let The Word interpret it. A private interpretation isn't worth a hill of beans. His Word will stand for ever and ever and the Truth cannot be destroyed. Christianity needs to get away from man's theology and go to His Word and then follow Him insead of men. So called Christianity is dying because of who it is following. They are not following the Truth, His Word.

We must have the Truth and we must have it on every point!

Truthiron



posted on Sep, 22 2010 @ 08:13 AM
link   
Speaking of Joseph Smith...

If your religion began by some white guy in the Midwest in the 18th century it should raise serious warning flags.

Just sayin.



posted on Sep, 22 2010 @ 08:17 AM
link   
reply to post by NOTurTypical
 


A religion that was created by a Roman Emperor to control his Empire should not raise similar flags?

What about one that branched off that religion to offer similar control to a different set of men?

Or the one that branched of that for the same purpose?

Which one should not raise those flags?

Just asking

With love,

Your Brother



posted on Sep, 22 2010 @ 09:18 AM
link   

Originally posted by IAMIAM
reply to post by NOTurTypical
 


A religion that was created by a Roman Emperor to control his Empire should not raise similar flags?

What about one that branched off that religion to offer similar control to a different set of men?

Or the one that branched of that for the same purpose?

Which one should not raise those flags?

Just asking

With love,

Your Brother


I 100% agree with everything you said. That's why i reject them as well. "Religion" is the worst thing to hit this world.

I place my trust in REDEMPTION through Jesus Christ. I trust him alone. I actually believe Him, that when He said 'It is finished." that it is in fact FINISHED.

Comparing "religion" to "Redemption" is like comparing apples to catfish.



posted on Sep, 22 2010 @ 09:23 AM
link   
reply to post by NOTurTypical
 


I knew we agreed on something my friend. Thank you for answering my questions. I too, agree with everything you said 100%

With Love,

Your Brother


edit on 22-9-2010 by IAMIAM because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 22 2010 @ 09:33 AM
link   

Originally posted by NOTurTypical
Speaking of Joseph Smith...

If your religion began by some white guy in the Midwest in the 18th century it should raise serious warning flags.

Just sayin.


My religion was founded by some white guy in England and in the American colonies in the 18th century. It is called Methodism, and you'd probably not find it offensive at all :-)

Smith's claim (in the 19th century, not 18th) was that the Christian church had fallen into a state of Apostasy following the deaths of the original Apostles, and that was something that I considered possible, as well, at one time, which is why I spent a fair amount of time reading and learning about the LDS faith. He believed that God had sent the angel Moroni to restore the Melchizedek Priesthood to us, overcome the state of Apostasy, and get us back in line with God's plan.

Doctrinally, the Mormons have much in common with Christianity, but the revelations of Smith, as written in the Book of Mormon and Doctrines and Covenants, incorporate values and beliefs that are rather contrary to accepted Church doctrine, which is why Mormons are not considered to be Christians by most Christians.

It is not the race, age or era of a messenger of God that should raise warning flags, it is the message that the person delivers.



posted on Sep, 22 2010 @ 09:46 AM
link   
reply to post by adjensen
 



It is not the race, age or era of a messenger of God that should raise warning flags, it is the message that the person delivers.


I agree with that!!! But if their "message" is contradictory to scripture it must be rejected and the "messenger" labeled a false prophet and a wolf in sheep's clothing. God will never contradict Himself, because he "changes not."

Moroni is not the "ambassador" from heaven to mankind, Gabriel is. This is 100% consistent throughout scripture. now, I'm not doubting Mr. Smith was visited by an angel Moroni who had a "new" message from god... But I'm certain this angel was of the fallen variety. Mr. Smith should have remembered Galatians 1:8-9.

"But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed. As we said before, so say I now again, If any man preach any other gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him be accursed."



posted on Sep, 22 2010 @ 09:56 AM
link   
reply to post by scratchmane
 


Hi scratchmane-

I don't know if I understand fully but I will try and answer what I think it is that you are asking. Your "messages" that you talk of in my opinion are different religions. I feel all religions have some truth and some lies and none are 100 percent correct. I also feel that if you only believe in 1 religion you are a hypocrite because there is an infinite number of ways to talk and be with god.

Here is how I found "God"

Positive and negative

1 x 1 = 1
-1 x 1 = -1
-1 x -1 = 1

2/3 positive
1/3 negative

positive 66.6666 (infinite) or 0.66666 (infinite)
negative 33.3333 (infinite) or 0.33333 (infinite)
that leaves 0.0001 (intinite) or 0.0001 (infinite)

To me this proves that we are both positive and negative (in this universe) and we can't get rid of one or the other 100 percent unless we leave this universe.

See most religions paint a "black and white" picture and there "God" is 100 percent pure positive energy and never makes a mistake. Well I tell you what, that is a 100 percent lie. How can "God" be 100 percent everything and 100 percent pure positive energy and never make a mistake when the math proves that is wrong? How could "God" be all "Good" and be part of us as well? Its a percentage that shows our universe is more positive than negative but that you need all 3 to become 100 percent. 66.6666, 33.3333, 0.0001, and if you don't have all 3 you don't have 100 percent or "God" or the universe.



posted on Sep, 25 2010 @ 04:13 AM
link   
Just a thought for the thread here. When the end times come according to Revelation the world will be swarming with prophets and chosen ones. 144,000 and 2 witnesses as it's put. Daniel forecasts a host of saints as well. And there is what Joel and Acts predict as well.

There will be more "prophets" in the future.



new topics

top topics



 
0

log in

join