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.

 

Bible Answers to Member Questions

page: 30
13
<< 27  28  29    31  32  33 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 9 2011 @ 10:18 AM
link   

Originally posted by KJV1611
Well that would suck since I got saved in 2000. Maybe my whole life has been a lie....maybe God isn't real...maybe the 7 year tribulation has turned into 12 years (2011) and more now....or, maybe not


Nah, no rapture has taken place yet, I would know, since I am still here. And I saw a person get saved just a few weeks ago by grace through faith, so all is well.

What sources are you reffering to if you don't mind? You can private message me if you like. YOU MUST SEND ME A COPY OF YOUR BOOK THOUGH WHEN ITS DONE!!!!!! or maybe even a pre-published manuscript


Study up on the historical roots of the Rapture Doctrine, and re-examine the scanty scriptural basis for it. Historical Christianity totally lacks this idea until it was introduced, and I think, by a Jesuit - that should be a red flag in itself.

Oh, BTW, I found that the Jubilee cycle is 49 years, not 51..My bad.

As to sources, I am following after Stephen E Jones' books "Secrets of Time" and "Creation's Jubilee". Jones teaches the Doctrine of Universal Reconciliation, the restoration of the entire creation as it should be, at the end of 1,000 Jubilee cycles (i.e. 50,000 years). It was from him that I picked up the idea of the Law as prophetic.

I would love to send you the text of my book, incomplete as it is. Input is good. I'll see if I can figure out how to PM on this site.
edit on 9-4-2011 by Lazarus Short because: more to say...




posted on Apr, 9 2011 @ 10:33 AM
link   
reply to post by Liquesence
 


What was your question again? I'll try to answer it from the Bible without a third party publication.



posted on Apr, 9 2011 @ 11:07 AM
link   
reply to post by Lazarus Short
 


I have studied the rapture "theory" but maybe not as much as I should. I am aware of the catholic influence on this matter, but the Catholics do not hold to the rapture doctrine anymore, and in turn believe they will "bring in God's kingdom" on earth themself, presently. (Why do you think they wanted Jerusalem so much during 900-1500 AD.)

As for the rapture, there are over 8 different views on the subject.

1. A pre-tribulation rapture of the Church
2. A mid-tribulation rature of the Church
3. A post-tribulation rapture of the church
4. A pre-tribulation rapture of the church, with a mid-tribulation rapture of those saved during the tribulation.
5. A pre-trib rapture of the church, then a mid-trib rapture saved believers during the tribulation, finally a post-trib rapture of Jewish saints near the end of the tribulation.
6. No rapture.
7. The millennium is going on now and the Church is waiting on the "Second Coming of Jesus" (jehovah witnesses, mormon, and catholic view, "Kingdom Builders")
8. The Bible is not true and current events are all coincidences.

I hold to # 1, or possibly # 5. There may be more views than this. The Bible only has a few verses dealing with the rapture I admit, and the word rapture doesn't appear in the Book, but the doctrine is pretty easily seen if you are looking for it. Even the way the Books of the Bible were laid out in a Pre-tribulation rapture sequence. Much discussion there....

As for Jubilee cycle of 49 years....7x7=49. Makes sense to me!!
Good find!

I also believe in "Universal restoration" of the entire creation, but not Universal Reconciliation. I think salvation is a personal matter of free will and will never be forcefully imposed by God. The Bible clearly teaches Universal restoration of nature, animals, plants, planets, star systems, but never individuals.

Although the nation of Israel will be saved NATIONALLY by God after the tribulation. This is the only form of Universal Reconciliation I believe in, and of course, it has to do with the Jews. I have scripture for all this obviously if you want me to post it.



posted on Apr, 24 2011 @ 09:23 AM
link   
KJV1611, I have a serious question. I was doing some research last night on my book, on the subject of Melchidezek. Who was he? I consulted several sites on the www, and it seems opinion mostly is that he was Shem or the pre-incarnate Christ. My father thought it was Shem, but I was leaning toward the pre-incarnate Christ interpretation, when I decided to see what the Book of Jasher had to say. Jasher XVI calls him "Adonizedek" and says explicitly that he was Shem. Further, Melchidezek was king of Salem, or as some say, Shalem, so maybe he was not the King of a town named Salem, but the King/Prince of Peace - or the pre-incarnate Christ. Adonizedek, on the other hand, is ID'd as the king of Jerusalem.
edit on 24-4-2011 by Lazarus Short because: spellinx



posted on May, 3 2011 @ 11:00 PM
link   
reply to post by Lazarus Short
 


He is quite a mysterious character that's for sure! Shem is as good a guess as any other considering he would "somewhat" fulfill the attributes describing this guy.

A pre-incarnate Christ doesn't really cut it as there is noting in the Bible refering to WHY Jesus would have come in the flesh "back in the day" and not have accompolished anything other than warring with other Kings and taking tithes.

Salem, as you said, is in fact Jerusalem. Now where the strange question really lies is his priesthood, not his origin, as that is giving although ambiguous at best. He was the high priest FOR THE GENTILES to God, just like Aaron was the high priest to God for the Jews.

This shows a remarkable occurance that appears more often than not if you pay attention to the Bible. God deals, leads, and holds gentiles accountable to his commandments, just as he does the Jews. The Jews must follow the Law given from God to Moses, while Gentiles must follow their conscience (not their hearts, or their minds) until Jesus appeared and did away with the law.

Thankfully now we have the Completed Words of God as found in the King James Bible. No longer is anything IMPORTANT vague for those seeking God.

P.s.... I have no clue "who" he was. He was a gentile thus no records of his geneology would have been kept like the Jews did, but this is speculation as well. I would go with Shem being the culprit though.



posted on May, 4 2011 @ 11:42 PM
link   
reply to post by KJV1611
 


Hey KJV! Thanks for this! I attempted to start a very similar thread about 2-3 weeks ago, not realizing that this one existed. I've spent a couple of hours reading through all 30 pages of this thread, and pretty much everything you are saying bears witness in my spirit. I don't have any questions, just a thanks!



posted on May, 5 2011 @ 01:25 PM
link   
reply to post by graphuto
 


Why thank you very much sir! Please come on back and start a discussion if you feel like it. There are still plenty of subjects in the Bible that I would like others opinions or personal revelations from



posted on May, 5 2011 @ 06:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by KJV1611

A pre-incarnate Christ doesn't really cut it as there is noting in the Bible refering to WHY Jesus would have come in the flesh "back in the day" and not have accompolished anything other than warring with other Kings and taking tithes.



Thanks for your comments - I had some trouble myself with the pre-incarnate Christ interpretation, trying to picture Him alongside some of Abraham's associates, especially the king of Sodom, an evil place even then.



posted on May, 14 2011 @ 07:44 AM
link   
I'm not sure about you people, but I'm concerned about these few bold/italic things:

Originally posted by KJV1611

Originally posted by 2012king
heres one i asked in a different thread but didnt get a reply, what did god do before he supposedly created us/everything?


Good question, bout time we got some deep ones!
Job 38:4-7
4 Where wast thou when I laid the foundations of the earth? declare, if thou hast understanding.
5 Who hath laid the measures thereof, if thou knowest? or who hath stretched the line upon it?
6 Whereupon are the foundations thereof fastened? or who laid the corner stone thereof;
7 When the MORNING stars sang together, and all the sons of God shouted for joy?

So before the world was here, there were "morning stars" who sang and "sons of God" who also shout for joy....

You can read more about these sons of God in Genesis chapter 6:1-5

"And it came to pass, when men began to multiply on the face of the earth, and daughters were born unto them,
2 That the sons of God saw the daughters of men that they were fair; and they took them wives of all which they chose.
3 And the LORD said, My spirit shall not always strive with man, for that he also is flesh: yet his days shall be an hundred and twenty years.
4 There were giants in the earth in those days; and also after that, when the sons of God came in unto the daughters of men, and they bare children to them, the same became mighty men which were of old, men of renown.
5 And God saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every imagination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually.
6 And it repented the LORD that he had made man on the earth, and it grieved him at his heart. "

This would be where most of the astronaut theory and Annikki stories come from.

So we can clearly see God had many creatures with him before he decided to make a creation that was "in his image".....the plot thickens.
GENESIS 1:26-27
"26 And God said, Let US make man in OUR image, after OUR likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.
27 So God created man in his own IMAGE, in the IMAGE of God created he him; male and female created he them "

There are many things out in outer space than we can imagine. And one day we will see them, in the flesh.


Who and/or what are/were:
The morning stars,
The Sons of God,
The giants?

Why does God refer to Himself in the third-person plural?
Why did you not emphasize the word 'our' instead of the word 'image'? For the sake of this line of question, yeah, we are in this thing's image, we get that, but why does this thing refer to Himself in such a manner?
To whom is God speaking? His fellow creatures? If so, what do they look like? He did say, 'our image' first. Which leads me to another question, why does Genesis 1:27 switch to first person after He basically told everyone that They were making humans in Their image?
Now....
Does that make them ancient astronauts?
Maybe, maybe not.
Would He be hostile upon arrival?
I would bet my money on it.
We totally trashed this place. I'd be miffed, too.
edit on 14-5-2011 by AnimusInvictus because: fixed some spacing



posted on May, 16 2011 @ 10:37 AM
link   
reply to post by AnimusInvictus
 




Who and/or what are/were:
The morning stars,
The Sons of God,

Same type of creatures, they were most likely where we get our myths of the greek/norse/asian/egyptian/aztec/summerian/etc. gods from.

AND the planets in our solar system were not named after greek and roman gods for the heck of it.... These morning stars and sons of God were were also the gods the Israelites kept falling down to and worshiping through out the old testament.
Some of them even have names: Baal, Ashtar, and about 20 others named in the Bible. All of these are also connected with the Zodiac signs and their LOCATIONS. Not so much their meanings.

The giants?
They were sons and daughters of the sons of God. Sounds like a fantasy J.R. Rolen book huh?
Where do you think they got the idea from? Or Tolken, or C.S Lewis? The Bible of course. These sons of God's intercourse with human females was called "interracial" marriages. They are forbidden through out the Holy Bible.


Why does God refer to Himself in the third-person plural?
God is a trinity. One being, in three different personages 1 John 5:7 for Bible scripture. Don't try to understand it, your just a human, you can't. Nether can I.

Why did you not emphasize the word 'our' instead of the word 'image'? For the sake of this line of question, yeah, we are in this thing's image, we get that, but why does this thing refer to Himself in such a manner?
Because he can, and because there are three of them talking about a plan their going to bring to pass. There is a Father there, a Son there, and a Spirit there talking to each other, and these three are equal.

To whom is God speaking? His fellow creatures? If so, what do they look like? He did say, 'our image' first.
There are many descriptions of what God looks like through out the Bible. Jesus is the IMAGE of God the father and God the Holy Ghost. No one has ever seen God the Father, or God the Holy Ghost or Spirit. And a spirit is just that, a spirit, you can't see him either....at least not in this dimension. The only way to see God, is to accept Jesus Christ as God and savior. "He that hath seen me, hath seen the Father...." quote from Jesus.

Which leads me to another question, why does Genesis 1:27 switch to first person after He basically told everyone that They were making humans in Their image?

God speaks as one again. Why question how God can and cannot speak? When me and my household decide on something, I speak for them all. Why would each person need to speak as well?


Now....Does that make them ancient astronauts?
it doesn't make God one, as he can get around quite well without machinery.

Now, here is something for you to chew on. If the sons of god who sinned and lost the good favor of God lost some of their power...such as the power of flight, and they being very advanced in terms of human technology, they could have build such ships and journeyed to other planets...like the ones named after them. Or some could have went underground. Which explains why we never went back to the moon... Maybe their in control right now as the heads of the illuminate?

Maybe, maybe not.
Would He be hostile upon arrival?
I would bet my money on it.
We totally trashed this place. I'd be miffed, too.


He will be the destroyer of the world when he returns. Jesus is the arch villain in every video game plot, hollywood movie plots, and most books. Jesus will be the one that comes back to kill all the "human rebels" that are gathered together to resist his "totalitarian" rule. Its going to get ugly, and every form of entertainment out there is trying to brain wash people into perceiving Jesus Christ as the enemy. It will work too, but all will be for naught as the untied armies of this world will be destroyed by the Word of God.

P.s. you think WE trashed earth? wait till you see what God plans to do to this world. He will cause more enviromental harm to this planet in one day, then we could ever cause in 10,000 years. Including nukes. God plans on melting the very elements when he returns with his full wraith revealed as he stomps on the armies of the earth with his white horse and feet. It will be quite a sight, and I will be there to see it, praise God.



posted on May, 16 2011 @ 08:45 PM
link   
reply to post by Lazarus Short
 


May 21, 2011...the rapture? We will have to wait and see, although there is a lot of Bible backing up this claim. But nothing is certain.



posted on May, 17 2011 @ 11:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by KJV1611

Jesus never drank wine. This common misconception comes from the Gospel of John 2:1-10.
Read the story and tell me where he drunk wine.
Also, if he would have given his friends fermented wine, such as liquor as most people equate this with, he would have broken and old testament law.

Sorry, I am a Christian, but I disagree with you! There's nothing wrong with drinking wine in moderation, as Paul says.
I don't drink alcohol, but that's not for religious reasons, it's because of alcoholism in the family (it's genetic)
Vicky



posted on May, 17 2011 @ 11:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by Lazarus Short
Study up on the historical roots of the Rapture Doctrine, and re-examine the scanty scriptural basis for it. Historical Christianity totally lacks this idea until it was introduced, and I think, by a Jesuit - that should be a red flag in itself.


Not a Jesuit! (I find your remark about it's being a Jesuit being a red flag, to be nothing more than bigotry. Nevertheless, it was absolutely not a Jesuit! (Actually, it was John Nelson Darby, of the Open (or as Americans call it) the Plymouth Brethren.)
(A great big stonking clue is the fact that Catholics don't believe in a Rapture).
Vicky



posted on May, 18 2011 @ 12:26 AM
link   

Originally posted by KJV1611

You have to remember, Roman catholics are pagans and kill Christians for sport. We are not the same.
Rev 17 and 18.
DEUTERONOMY 32:31
"For their ROCK is not as our ROCK, even our enemies themselves being judges."

Vile bigotry!
How dare you say Catholics are pagans? They absolutely are not. Too much Jimmy Swaggart and American culture, too little serious study, I fear...

You should be deeply ashamed of your offensive insane ravings... "kill Christians for sport". The only people who kill anyone for sport are American soldiers.
Vergogna!
Sei un coglione, veramente!
V.



posted on May, 18 2011 @ 12:58 AM
link   
I have read as much of this thread as I can stomach, but sadly, that's not much!
The OP is a very bigoted and unpleasant man, who would rather die than admit that anyone could be right, or him wrong...
There is no objection to wine in the Bible. Yes, fermented alcoholic wine.
Roman Catholics and the Orthodox (I doubt he's even heard of them!) are in fact Christian.
Modern translations are much more accurate than the KJV...
I am sure I would have more to say if I could have forced myself to read more than 4 pages.
Vicky
PS - I too am a believer in Universal Reconciliation.



posted on May, 18 2011 @ 09:18 AM
link   
reply to post by Vicky32
 


Better hope your right when you stand before Jesus Christ. Be sure to offer him a drink while your there

Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, but that is not what this thread is about. No opinions from me are presented, just doctrine and facts from the Bible.

Continue reading the rest of the thread before you try to comment on other topics that are very well covered.



posted on May, 18 2011 @ 09:21 AM
link   

Originally posted by brindle
Why were all jesus drinking buddies declared saints?



the same reason why this drunk was declared a saint.



posted on May, 18 2011 @ 09:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by KJV1611
reply to post by Vicky32
 


Better hope your right when you stand before Jesus Christ. Be sure to offer him a drink while your there

Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, but that is not what this thread is about. No opinions from me are presented, just doctrine and facts from the Bible.

Continue reading the rest of the thread before you try to comment on other topics that are very well covered.

Sorry, no. Not "doctrine and facts from the Bible" but your politically conservative interpretation of the Bible.
As I have already said, I don't drink alcohol. Therefore I don't offer alcohol to anyone, but I don't believe drinking alcohol is wrong per se if done in moderation. You seem very legalistic to me. Do you ban dancing, cinema, trousers and short hair on women etc? Or even ice cream? (There's a legalistic splinter group who believe Scripture forbids ice cream..
that I have heard of) These proscriptions are all cultural.
If I am wrong, I am sure God will tell me. I might as well be hung for a sheep as for a lamb, I'll tell you I am an evolutionist, a pacifist and to top it all, an Anglo-Catholic (I am certain you don't know what that is, but no matter..)
As for reading the rest of the thread, no, I simply can't. Mainly because there's no point, but also because I need my BP to stay stable...
Vicky
P.S "Better hope your right" should be "Better hope you're right" (I'm a grammar nazi... I believe that if you're going to set yourself up as an expert on something, it really helps your cause if your English usage is clear and correct, and above all understandable)



posted on May, 18 2011 @ 10:05 PM
link   
reply to post by Vicky32
 


Another grammar correction? Your the second one in this thread with an ego so big they had to point out my grammar errors to make yourself feel better. Its sad really, and a good display of your character. I am not your student nor do I want your opinions on my grammar, grow up kid.

As for your religion that you seem so proud of, I could care less. You can be anything you want to be, doesn't change the fact that I don't care.

Catholics are not Christians, Christians are not catholics. Check the grammar on these two words, they are spelled differently and are completely different religions. One is a cult that worship a woman, the other worships Jesus Christ as God.

Now do you have a Bible question or are you just trolling?
edit on 18-5-2011 by KJV1611 because: i can



posted on May, 18 2011 @ 11:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by Vicky32

PS - I too am a believer in Universal Reconciliation.


That made my eyes widen, as I thought all Catholics subscribed to the eternal torture of the wicked (kind of like Baptists, ha!). I applaud your position, as it is the correct one, but how did you get there?

P.S. - I may well have been wrong about the Jesuit roots of the rapture doctrine, as it has been years since I read my sources, and they may well have been biased, now that I think about it. Yes, I know about Darby.

KJV1611: You say God is a Trinity. Did you know that He is actually a Trinity of Trinities? The Revelation speaks of the "seven Spirits of God," When we add Son and Father, that makes nine, 3 X 3. How about that?







 
13
<< 27  28  29    31  32  33 >>

log in

join