Recent Biblical Prophecies Fulfilled or close to fulfillment w/ Links

page: 6
45
<< 3  4  5   >>

log in

join

posted on Mar, 26 2011 @ 08:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by adjensen

In one of his letters, Paul notes the trouble with the Jewish Law that Christ came to fulfill -- it told us how to act, but it didn't empower us to do so.


Which is one of the reasons I do not accept Paul as legitimate. He undermines the teachings of Jesus. And he has led millions off the narrow path onto the broad one.



Originally posted by adjensen
We lack the will to overcome that ingrained human nature. Christians, or anyone who wishes to follow Christ's teachings faces a similar problem, hence Christ's two commandments, "Love God, love your neighbour as yourself." It is only through the first that we are able to perform the last.


He did not leave us without hope, but he acknowledged it was not easy. And Paul went the wrong way with "fulfilled." Jesus did not "fulfill" the law, meaning we did not have to act as he instructed us to act, he "filled the law out fully" just like he says in the sermon on the mount,

www.biblegateway.com...

Matthew 5:21



21 “You have heard that it was said to the people long ago, ‘You shall not murder,[a] and anyone who murders will be subject to judgment.’ 22 But I tell you that anyone who is angry with a brother or sister{b}[c] will be subject to judgment. Again, anyone who says to a brother or sister, ‘Raca,’[d] is answerable to the court. And anyone who says, ‘You fool!’ will be in danger of the fire of hell.


He didnt "fulfill" the law by making it easier for you with his death, he "fulfilled" the law by elaborating it more fully for you.

And I know, I know, I will catch hell from the Paul lovers. But you dont have to believe me. All you have to do is put your absolute faith in Jesus' word over mine or anyones. Including Pauls.
edit on 26-3-2011 by Illusionsaregrander because: (no reason given)




posted on Mar, 26 2011 @ 09:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by Illusionsaregrander

Originally posted by adjensen

In one of his letters, Paul notes the trouble with the Jewish Law that Christ came to fulfill -- it told us how to act, but it didn't empower us to do so.


Which is one of the reasons I do not accept Paul as legitimate. He undermines the teachings of Jesus. And he has led millions off the narrow path onto the broad one.


Well, we're getting a little off topic here, but too many people misunderstand Paul's message, which was not "act like you will, it's all good", but more a matter of "don't think that you're going to get into heaven based on your behaviour", because if that was the case, then Christ's death and resurrection were unnecessary.

There are, of course, spectrums of how much we buy into that -- you, for example, are in harmony with the Catholics, while I'm Anglican middle of the road, and there are hyper-Calvinists that believe that even a person who managed to follow the Law to the letter is still abhorrent to God.

But I do tend to favour Paul, because his argument is not easily dismissed when analyzed logically.



posted on Mar, 26 2011 @ 10:34 PM
link   
posting just to read later,.
Looks like a good connection,.



posted on Mar, 26 2011 @ 10:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by adjensen

But I do tend to favour Paul, because his argument is not easily dismissed when analyzed logically.


Logic,

Jesus is the one recognized as the son of God in Christianity. He is the one recognized as coming to save us. He says some very clear and specific things.

Paul, is someone who admittedly hated Christianity, and vowed to destroy it. We have no one but his own word that he converted, and not a single one of the actual apostles of Jesus claimed to have been told by the Holy Spirit to add onto or undermine, or change the teachings of Jesus in anyway. But Paul does.

Paul who never even met Jesus, whom Jesus never once mentioned, somehow became authorized to override the explicit and clear, and unambiguous teachings of Jesus.

I dont see the logic in that.

The reason people like Pauls message is because Paul is a salesman, and a con. He made Christianity a much better deal. You got more reward, for less effort, and Jesus did it all for you.

But Jesus himself never, ever claimed that. He is the way, because you were to follow him, be like him. When he said "believeth in me" he did not mean believe I exist, or believe I am the son of God, but more, he meant believe me, trust me, have faith in me.

Those who follow Paul are not having faith in Jesus. They are having faith in Paul.

And Jesus was pretty clear,

Matthew 21


15 “Watch out for false prophets. They come to you in sheep’s clothing, but inwardly they are ferocious wolves. 16 By their fruit you will recognize them. Do people pick grapes from thornbushes, or figs from thistles? 17 Likewise, every good tree bears good fruit, but a bad tree bears bad fruit. 18 A good tree cannot bear bad fruit, and a bad tree cannot bear good fruit. 19 Every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire. 20 Thus, by their fruit you will recognize them.


Paul was a bad tree. There is no way he could have borne good fruit.


24 “Therefore everyone who hears these words of mine and puts them into practice is like a wise man who built his house on the rock. 25 The rain came down, the streams rose, and the winds blew and beat against that house; yet it did not fall, because it had its foundation on the rock. 26 But everyone who hears these words of mine and does not put them into practice is like a foolish man who built his house on sand. 27 The rain came down, the streams rose, and the winds blew and beat against that house, and it fell with a great crash.”



posted on Mar, 26 2011 @ 11:06 PM
link   
reply to post by sara123123
 


And so the loads of straight porn, sex in movies, skimpy garments for women, objectifying women as sexual objects, sexual jokes, guys who will have sex with anything that doesn't dangle between their legs, straight sex toys, and all the other multitudes of example of straight sexual perversion and obsession mean nothing. Or is it just ok to be obsessed with sex when it's a man and a woman?

Even you pick out the sexual activities of a gay person as your main complaint. Seems like you have it on the mind too.



posted on Mar, 26 2011 @ 11:10 PM
link   
Good job and thanks!!




posted on Mar, 27 2011 @ 12:04 AM
link   
BRING IT ON.

I am a Christian, and I am not going to prepare any food supply, nor a safety bunker
as many people like Steve Quayle propose, who hides himself in the mountains.

I am not going to give alway my finances to some end-of-time preachers nor to
some church.

Life for me is to do nothing out of the ordinary, but to try to live righteously.

I suggest this approach to everybody else.

so, BRING IT ON.


Sincerely, puppet00x (puppet of the sin, demon alien being, in me).



posted on Mar, 27 2011 @ 05:37 AM
link   



Matthew 5:21



21 “You have heard that it was said to the people long ago, ‘You shall not murder,[a] and anyone who murders will be subject to judgment.’ 22 But I tell you that anyone who is angry with a brother or sister{b}[c] will be subject to judgment. Again, anyone who says to a brother or sister, ‘Raca,’[d] is answerable to the court. And anyone who says, ‘You fool!’ will be in danger of the fire of hell.



Actualy there's not such thing as hell in Hebrew bible. Mostly sheol/hades. Place of death, no eternal fire... In Matthew 5:21 it's originally Gehenna



posted on Mar, 27 2011 @ 06:29 AM
link   
reply to post by ExPostFacto
 


Thats a great post, thanks for contributing! I think I may start another thread corrollating prophecies from all major religions and then finding current events (within the last year or so) that could indicate it fulfilling. Thanks!



posted on Mar, 27 2011 @ 09:51 AM
link   

Originally posted by Illusionsaregrander

Originally posted by adjensen

But I do tend to favour Paul, because his argument is not easily dismissed when analyzed logically.


.. snip ..

The reason people like Pauls message is because Paul is a salesman, and a con. He made Christianity a much better deal. You got more reward, for less effort, and Jesus did it all for you.

But Jesus himself never, ever claimed that. He is the way, because you were to follow him, be like him. When he said "believeth in me" he did not mean believe I exist, or believe I am the son of God, but more, he meant believe me, trust me, have faith in me.

Those who follow Paul are not having faith in Jesus. They are having faith in Paul.


No, they are having faith in Christ. You've gotten it backwards somehow -- Paul teaches faith in Christ, you're teaching faith in yourself and faith in the Law.

The basis of Paul's argument is simple, and I would challenge you, as I have with every other person who doesn't like Paul very much, to point out inconsistencies in what Paul teaches (not what you think Paul teaches, or some passage out of context, but his overarching message) and what Jesus teaches (again, not what you think he teaches, but his overall message.)

The logical basis is that the Law cannot save you. The Law wasn't there for Abraham, Jacob and all the rest, so if the Law saved you, then they are lost, and yet we know that they are not. The Law shows what God's expectations are (along with, in my opinion, a lot of Judaic cultural expectations that are outside the scope of Torah) but it doesn't empower you to live by it.

More importantly, if the Law could save you, then what was the point of Christ's death and resurrection? If salvation wasn't somehow inherently tied to that, then he died for nothing. And if Christ's message was all that mattered, if his death was just an unfortunate instance of unjustness, then what made him any more interesting than the myriad of other prophets saying the same thing?

Some early sects, like the Gnostics, dismissed any belief in the value of works on this Earth, but almost everyone else, including, and very explicitly, Paul, say that following the Law, following the commandments and teachings of Christ is critical, but it's not what saves you. That's the piece that Paul puts forth, that makes the Catholics cringe a little -- salvation is God, and God alone. You do nothing.

I always had a little bit of a disconnect with that, because it seems counter intuitive -- do good, but understand that it doesn't matter -- but a while back I ran across something that the Reformed theologians speak of. They hold to the belief (among other things) of utter depravity, that everything that we do, no matter whether good or bad, is abhorrent in the eyes of God, because it's always tainted by our selfish human nature. But the Reformists still say that you have to do works.

Why? Because it helps someone else. Regardless of what your motivation is, it still helps someone else, so it is something that must be done. Salvation aside, THAT is the heart of Christianity -- helping the world around you, regardless of whether it helps you or not.

That piece is one of the reasons that, though I lean very Catholic, I remain a Protestant, though also not a Reformed, hence my middle of the road Anglicanism (best represented in the US, in my opinion, by the Methodists, my denomination.)


Paul was a bad tree. There is no way he could have borne good fruit.


By the standards of the time, Paul was probably one of the best trees in the Jewish grove. His persecution of the early Christian church was based on his zealotry for God and strict adherence to the Law. When he was turned toward the truth of Christ on the road to Damascus, that not only saved the church from his persecution, but it also opened the door to "bless all the nations of the world", something that would not have happened without Paul's zealous argument that you did not need to be Jewish to be Christian.

If you want to believe that Christ was anything other than a Rabbi wandering through Judea, proclaiming a message of "why can't we just get along" that one can find in plenty of other places, then you need to consider Paul and his message, because without him, Christianity would almost certainly have never become anything but a minor Jewish sect that died out in the 1st or 2nd Century.



posted on Mar, 27 2011 @ 10:21 AM
link   
reply to post by adjensen
 



There are so many. I post these, although by your comments I know it will mean nothing for you. Your phrasing already indicates that you choose to overlook specific instances where Paul is in direct and fundamental contradiction to Jesus and rather focus on his "overarching" use of the message of Jesus. But the devil is in the details, unfortunately. It is the subtle differences that mark the line between the broad and narrow path.

Jesus did NOT claim that no one could live as he lived. Paul did. Jesus did acknowledge that few would. It was part of his teaching that the many would choose a road of mistaken belief and be very surprised at the end when he rejected them. Jesus warned of false prophets. Jesus might as well have said, "watch our for Paul," but it would not have mattered even if he did. People only hear what they want to believe, and what Paul offers is attractive, because it promises easy access to heaven, while what Jesus asks of us is very hard, and requires great sacrifice.

And what was the purpose of his life and teaching to turn your argument around? You say "what was the purpose of his death if not to make it all easy for us." I ask what was the purpose of his life? His example? His words? His teaching? His promises to us, and his requests from us? You make the moment of his death, his sacrifice carry more weight than what HE said was important, his example, his words, his message.

And to answer your question, "what use his death?" It was again, his example. If he could be willing to die for the message, how could we refuse to make the lesser sacrifices involved in living for it. And yet we do.

The following are from one website among MANY that outline the stark contrast between the teachings of Paul and Jesus. A problem for many is that if you were raised in many churches, you were taught Pauls version before you even heard Jesus' teachings.

www.voiceofjesus.org...



Paul says:
Rom.10
[4] For Christ is the end of the law, that every one who has faith may be justified.

Jesus says:
Matt.5
[17] Think not that I have come to abolish the law and the prophets; I have come not to abolish them but to fulfil them.
[18] For truly, I say to you, till heaven and earth pass away, not an iota, not a dot, will pass from the law until all is accomplished.



Paul says:
1Cor.12
[28] And God has appointed in the church first apostles, second prophets, third, teachers,
Eph.4
[11] And his gifts were that some should be apostles, some prophets, some evangelists, some pastors and teachers,
1Tim.2
[7] For this I was appointed a preacher and apostle (I am telling the truth, I am not lying), a teacher of the Gentiles in faith and truth.
2Tim.1
[11] For this gospel I was appointed a preacher and apostle and teacher,

Jesus says:
Matt.23
[8] But you are not to be called rabbi, for you have one teacher, and you are all brethren.



Paul says:
Rom.3
[9] What then? Are we Jews any better off? No, not at all; for I have already charged that all men, both Jews and Greeks, are under the power of sin,
[10] as it is written: "None is righteous, no, not one;
[22] For there is no distinction;
[23] since all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, . . ..

Jesus says:
Matt.12
[35] The good man out of his good treasure brings forth good, and the evil man out of his evil treasure brings forth evil.
Luke.6
[45] The good man out of the good treasure of his heart produces good, and the evil man out of his evil treasure produces evil; for out of the abundance of the heart his mouth speaks.
Matt.23
[35] that upon you may come all the righteous blood shed on earth, from the blood of innocent Abel to the blood of Zechari'ah the son of Barachi'ah, whom you murdered between the sanctuary and the altar.



originally posted by adjensen

If you want to believe that Christ was anything other than a Rabbi wandering through Judea, proclaiming a message of "why can't we just get along" that one can find in plenty of other places, then you need to consider Paul and his message, because without him, Christianity would almost certainly have never become anything but a minor Jewish sect that died out in the 1st or 2nd Century.


That statement could only come from someone who had not taken the time to really understand the glory of what Jesus did bring to the world. Christianity did die out in the 1st or 2cnd century, in truth. What we call that now is not what Jesus was teaching. But you are wrong that what he brought the world was not worthy and did not come from God to save us.


edit on 27-3-2011 by Illusionsaregrander because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 27 2011 @ 02:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by Illusionsaregrander
Your phrasing already indicates that you choose to overlook specific instances where Paul is in direct and fundamental contradiction to Jesus and rather focus on his "overarching" use of the message of Jesus.


As noted below, none of your cited examples is a direct and fundamental contradiction. Try again. And use a source other than Edgar Jones, please. He's a known kook, whose claims don't bear up under scrutiny (see here for examples.)


People only hear what they want to believe, and what Paul offers is attractive, because it promises easy access to heaven, while what Jesus asks of us is very hard, and requires great sacrifice.


No, again you are confusing what Paul has to say. Please go back to my previous post for an explanation.


And what was the purpose of his life and teaching to turn your argument around?


Christ was the fulfillment of prophecy and the perfect example of the Law. He reaffirmed the behaviour that God expects from us.


You make the moment of his death, his sacrifice carry more weight than what HE said was important, his example, his words, his message.


Yeah, well, welcome to Christianity. If this was some sort of new revelation to you, I'd suggest getting a book on Christianity 101, because you really have no grasp at all of even elementary Christian theology.


And to answer your question, "what use his death?" It was again, his example. If he could be willing to die for the message, how could we refuse to make the lesser sacrifices involved in living for it. And yet we do.


That makes absolutely no sense if one is to believe that Christ has any importance. Dying for his beliefs? How common is that? The thief at his side was dying for his beliefs (the belief that he could steal.) Gandhi, Martin Luther King, Che Guevara... history is filled with people who died for their beliefs, do you think salvation comes from any of them?




Paul says:
Rom.10
[4] For Christ is the end of the law, that every one who has faith may be justified.

Jesus says:
Matt.5
[17] Think not that I have come to abolish the law and the prophets; I have come not to abolish them but to fulfil them.
[18] For truly, I say to you, till heaven and earth pass away, not an iota, not a dot, will pass from the law until all is accomplished.


These are not contradictory -- they're talking about two separate things. Christ is saying that the Law is perfect, complete and eternal, it has no end. It is still there, for any Jew who wishes to use it to reconcile himself to God. Christian theology does not dispute that, and neither does Paul.

Jews are reconciled to God through the Law. Christians are reconciled to God through Christ... "No man comes to the Father but through me." Both Jesus and Paul say it, in different ways, but for a Christian, Jesus IS the Law, incarnate.



Paul says:
1Cor.12
[28] And God has appointed in the church first apostles, second prophets, third, teachers,

.. snip ..

Jesus says:
Matt.23
[8] But you are not to be called rabbi, for you have one teacher, and you are all brethren.


Okay, let's put Jesus back in context.


they love the place of honor at banquets and the most important seats in the synagogues; they love to be greeted with respect in the marketplaces and to be called ‘Rabbi’ by others.

“But you are not to be called ‘Rabbi,’ for you have one Teacher, and you are all brothers.


Put back into context, Jesus is clearly not saying that people should not have titles, or positions, but that they shouldn't have positions in order to fluff themselves up. If Jesus was opposed to the whole notion of positions, why would he have named twelve apostles? Why enlist disciples to go out to the countryside to teach the good news, to baptize and to forgive sins?

Gripe about Paul's theology all you like, but if you don't think that he was exceedingly humble, you've never read him.

I have no idea what your third example is supposed to show.



originally posted by adjensen

If you want to believe that Christ was anything other than a Rabbi wandering through Judea, proclaiming a message of "why can't we just get along" that one can find in plenty of other places, then you need to consider Paul and his message, because without him, Christianity would almost certainly have never become anything but a minor Jewish sect that died out in the 1st or 2nd Century.


That statement could only come from someone who had not taken the time to really understand the glory of what Jesus did bring to the world. Christianity did die out in the 1st or 2cnd century, in truth. What we call that now is not what Jesus was teaching. But you are wrong that what he brought the world was not worthy and did not come from God to save us.


Well then spare us the suspense and fill us in on what the truth is. What is the "real glory" of what Jesus brought to the world? Because, at this point, all I've gleaned from your posts is that you either believe that you can and do live by the Law, or you want a philosophical Christ, who taught platitudes that have been heard before and since from unrelated sources.



posted on Mar, 27 2011 @ 02:19 PM
link   
reply to post by Illusionsaregrander
 

Great post, sorry if I responded a bit late, I finally got back to wading through my bookmarks.


But this brings us back to the other problem with the prophecies. They are so generalized to the experience of mankind, that they have been seen as being fulfilled RIGHT NOW, from the time of Jesus. Humans have always been at war, or rumbling towards war, somewhere in the world. Pestilence, famine, earth quakes, all of these things have been going on for as long as we have records. I dont see any "signs" mentioned that could ONLY be interpreted as happening now. No mention of anything that could only be technology from the 21st century. In fact that is the appeal. The signs are vague enough that they could be happening anytime, anywhere on Earth. Heck the list of signs in the post below yours that is purportedly from Islam is more convincing as an argument for a modern "end times" as are the Hopi end of the world prophecies.


I agree, mankind has always had problems for as long as they've been on Earth, but I think the really only distinct differences are that the scale it happens on. Obviously several hundred years ago there could have been a war and the people involved thought it was the end for them, but the rest of the world had no knowledge of this war and carried out their lives. What I believe the bible refers to is a massive chaotic war that involves the entire Earth, aka a World War, something that literally affects everyone.

Although the two World Wars we had obviously weren't the end of the world, but that was several decades ago. I think we're at a point in our modern technology where WW3 could potentially cause widespread death to all walks of life, or at least threaten it. As we can see what the Middle East crisis, and how the radical Muslims want to try and "hasten" the return of the 12th Imam, a massive war may be on hand - one that literally sheds the world in blood, at least by the Muslim belief.



This is not true. I dont care if make pretend Christians judge me, but not because of my innocence. Im not perfect. I dont care because they are not my judge. I could be guilty as all hell of something and I still would not care about the judgment of any of you. You arent the ones I have to worry about answering to, and, quite frankly, if you are judging me, you certainly arent representing God in any way superior to mine. We get right to the "beam in your own eye" issue. I only answer to God. The main difference is I am not distorting the teachings of Jesus to suit myself, and pretending MY judgment of others is ok. I know it isnt. And despite my continued failure to cease in all judgment of others, I am making progress and I do work on it every single day. I dont just throw up may hands "oh well, thank goodness Jesus died for me and I dont have to try." I know that is not true. The death of Jesus did not free you from the necessity to follow his word just because someone came along later and said so.

Sorry if I sounded like I was referring to you directly, it was a general rant about people who get insulted when one makes a "judgment" or maybe, a discernment about them. I truly believe God is my one and only Judge, but I also believe in trying to represent myself and my beliefs in the best way I could. If someone were to come to me and say that I don't act like a Christian, I wouldn't get offended. In most cases they would be right, but it would be my choice to try and better myself because of their "judgment" on me. Obviously I don't condone ridiculing others, because in all truth, there is no one good and like you said, we do get back to the "beam in your own eye" issue. It's probably my own fault that I believe others would feel the same way I do about the issue, though.


It may not be surprising, but it sure isnt Christian. That venom is his or hers entirely to own. None of the responsibility for it lies at my feet. We are each responsible for our own actions. I suggest you read the Sermon on the Mount for clarification. Jesus did not say " do not insult other peoples beliefs" in fact Jesus seemed quite out spoken on his stand on people twisting beliefs to suit themselves. And Jesus did not say, "if someone insults your ridiculous interpretation of my teachings you have the right to act like a savage animal and hate and spew bile." I read it many times, and I am quite certain he did not say that.

To clarify what I said above, I think there are two kinds of judgment; good and bad. If we go back to Matthew 7:2


2 For with what judgment you judge, you will be judged; and with the measure you use, it will be measured back to you.

I honestly believe that two kinds of judgment are referred to through out the Bible (good and bad). One is used out of anger, and one is used out of love. The only kind of judgment I ever use, is used out of love, at least I try to. This which is why I mentioned that other poster; his response was based off the feeling that he thought he was being judged in anger, so he responded with anger. Again, I'm not saying he was in the right, quite the opposite, but it's already been established on how we shouldn't look at the plank.



posted on Mar, 27 2011 @ 02:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by Lionhearte
The only kind of judgment I ever use, is used out of love, at least I try to.


Im not sure entirely how you mean "judging with love" but I might agree with that. I think judging with a neutral mindset, "this is this, this is that" is fine. I think condemning, or damning, or setting up moral "betters or worses" is a violation of the teachings of Jesus.

And I do judge in that moral way, although I am trying oh so very hard to stop it. Its just not working entirely.



posted on Mar, 27 2011 @ 06:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by Illusionsaregrander
Which is one of the reasons I do not accept Paul as legitimate. He undermines the teachings of Jesus. And he has led millions off the narrow path onto the broad one.

He did not leave us without hope, but he acknowledged it was not easy. And Paul went the wrong way with "fulfilled." Jesus did not "fulfill" the law, meaning we did not have to act as he instructed us to act, he "filled the law out fully" just like he says in the sermon on the mount,

Matthew 5:21
“You have heard that it was said to the people long ago, ‘You shall not murder,[a] and anyone who murders will be subject to judgment.’ 22 But I tell you that anyone who is angry with a brother or sister{b}[c] will be subject to judgment. Again, anyone who says to a brother or sister, ‘Raca,’[d] is answerable to the court. And anyone who says, ‘You fool!’ will be in danger of the fire of hell.

He didnt "fulfill" the law by making it easier for you with his death, he "fulfilled" the law by elaborating it more fully for you.

And I know, I know, I will catch hell from the Paul lovers. But you dont have to believe me. All you have to do is put your absolute faith in Jesus' word over mine or anyones. Including Pauls.


For my yoke is easy, and my burden is light.-Jesus, Matthew 11.29

“But do not think I will accuse you before the Father. Your accuser is Moses, on whom your hopes are set.-Jesus John 5:44

Whosoever hateth his brother is a murderer: and ye know that no murderer hath eternal life abiding in him.
1 John 3:14

For the law was given through Moses, but grace and truth came through Jesus Christ.
John 1:16-18

without faith it is impossible to please him Hebrews 11

Yet the law is not of faith, but “the man who does them shall live by them.” Galatians 3:11

and be found in Him, not having my own righteousness, which is from the law, but that which is through faith in Christ, the righteousness which is from God by faith;
Philippians 3:8-10

And this is the testimony: that God has given us eternal life, and this life is in His Son.
1 John 5:10

Jesus said to him, “Rise, take up your bed and walk.” And immediately the man was made well, took up his bed, and walked. And that day was the Sabbath.-John5.7

There remains therefore a Sabbath rest for the people of God. For he who has entered His rest has himself also ceased from his works as God did from His.-Hebrews4.9

Therefore, if perfection were through the Levitical priesthood (for under it the people received the law), what further need was there that another priest should rise according to the order of Melchizedek, and not be called according to the order of Aaron? For the priesthood being changed, of necessity there is also a change of the law. For He of whom these things are spoken belongs to another tribe, from which no man has officiated at the altar.For the priesthood being changed, of necessity there is also a change of the law. For He of whom these things are spoken belongs to another tribe, from which no man has officiated at the altar.

For on the one hand there is an annulling of the former commandment because of its weakness and unprofitableness, for the law made nothing perfect; on the other hand, there is the bringing in of a better hope, through which we draw near to God.-Hebrews 7

For therefore we both labour and suffer reproach, because we trust in the living God, who is the Saviour of all men, specially of those that believe.
1 Timothy 4:9-11

Wherefore then serveth the law? It was added because of transgressions, till the seed should come to whom the promise was made; and it was ordained by angels in the hand of a mediator.
Galatians 3:19

For to which of the angels did He ever say: “ You are My Son
Hebrews 1:4-6

And this I say, that the law, which was four hundred and thirty years later, cannot annul the covenant that was confirmed before by God in Christ, that it should make the promise of no effect.-17

And so it is written, “The first man Adam became a living being.” The last Adam became a life-giving spirit.
1 Corinthians 15:44

For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ all shall be made alive.
1 Corinthians 15:21

“Enter by the narrow gate; for wide is the gate and broad is the way that leads to destruction, and there are many who go in by it.
Matthew 7:12-14

And the Spirit and the bride say, “Come!” And let him who hears say, “Come!” And let him who thirsts come. Whoever desires, let him take the water of life freely.
Revelation 22:16-18

edit on 27-3-2011 by Rustami because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 28 2011 @ 05:47 AM
link   
reply to post by Illusionsaregrander
 


Im not sure entirely how you mean "judging with love" but I might agree with that. I think judging with a neutral mindset, "this is this, this is that" is fine. I think condemning, or damning, or setting up moral "betters or worses" is a violation of the teachings of Jesus.

I guess the only examples I can give are these:

Suppose you knew someone who was living in sin, and had no intentions of changing their ways, in fact, they probably don't see what they're doing is wrong. You approach your friend one day and confront him about it. Now, this is where I see the two different judgments coming into play:

One is a judgment of anger. Perhaps he angered you to begin with, but whatever the case, you're filled with spite. You call him out on what he's doing, how it's shameful and wrong, how he's hell-bound, and how he should be more like you, a saint. This will typically merit an aggressive response. It's an inevitable conflict waiting to happen.

The other is a judgment of love. You see what he is doing, and aren't filled with spite, but understanding, perhaps because you were once like him. You let him know how his actions are affecting others, maybe share a personal story with him that he can relate to. Whichever the case, you're not "out to get him", but out to help him. You still "judge", in the sense that you let it known that what he's doing is wrong, but because of the love you show, it may actually hit him in the right spot to make him think about what he's doing.

Of course, this is just my take on it. Psychologically speaking, humans tend to react with the same emotion that is given to them. Anger with anger, for example. It's in our nature. That's not to say everyone responds to love with love, but it's worth a shot in my opinion.
edit on 28-3-2011 by Lionhearte because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 31 2011 @ 09:38 AM
link   
Lead In:


Mat 24:6 "You will be hearing of wars and rumors of wars. See that you are not frightened, for those things must take place, but that is not yet the end.
24:7 "For nation will rise against nation, and kingdom against kingdom, and in various places there will be famines and earthquakes.
24:8 "But all these things are merely the beginning of birth pangs."



 


i suggest that this era of 'birth pangs' needs reconsideration

If the following is true:
wars & rumors of wars, equates to WWI
kingdom against kingdom, equates to WWII

then the famines & earthquakes in divers places which immediately follows, could be this moment in time.
(lets say years 2000-2020)


the problem with the period called 'birth pangs'...is that scientists have not as yet given us reason to
say the current increases of volcanoes and earthquakes in many odd places and even in the Ocean seafloor
are evidence of the Earth crust undergoing great expansion...just as a woman in carrying a child to birth...


i suggest prophetic 'code' was meant to identify a time in Earth geology when the planets out-gassing and mantle plumes below the crust/oceanic plates/continental plates would be shifting fast enough that the lifetimes of people would observe the beginning birth of a new Sea (in Eastern N. Africa towards the Red Sea)

the whole Planets layer of molten Mantle is causing Historically unpresetented Earthquakes in formerly unstressed areas that have never been known to have fault lines and magnatudes of increases in long dormant volcanoes, and alarming increases of new undersea thermal vents and volcano pillows lava flows.

this present era is what was termed the time of 'birth pangs' of Mat. 24: 6-9

we need only the scientific community to concur, the Earth is' Birthing' new lands and seas


So... in this sequence, if now is the early 'birth pangs'... then there is a window of 120 years, from WWI->
for the AC to become revealed, see: Mat 24: 15


"Therefore when you see the ABOMINATION OF DESOLATION which was spoken of through Daniel the prophet, standing in the holy place (let the reader understand),

and when the AC is revealed, AKA; apocalypse...begins the great tribulation

so if now it really is the time of the 'birth pangs' the AC can be revealed anytime
from as early as tomorrow... to all the way out to 2034



Overview:

1914 + 120 yrs = 2034
{120 years is the length of a lifetime given man after the 'Flood'... and that timeline also satisfies the prophecy that 'This generation shall not pass..."}



just my internal inspiration in connecting the revealed/discerned 'dots'

edit on 31-10-2011 by St Udio because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 1 2011 @ 08:07 PM
link   
reply to post by St Udio
 



Psalm 90:10

New International Version (NIV)



10 Our days may come to seventy years,
or eighty, if our strength endures;
yet the best of them are but trouble and sorrow,
for they quickly pass, and we fly away

After the flood mans life span decreased to where the average was 70 years old. Much as it is today. Moses was the last person to live to the age of 120 years old.

My opinion about the birth pains is that we started having them since Christ. As any woman that has had a child will tell you at first the contractions are small and far apart. As time progresses they get harsher and closer together.

Those that say Revelation is about the time of Nero apparently don't understand that labor has many stages. Each one more painful than the one before it.

When you are in that last stage of labor you don't hardly have a chance to breathe before the next pain occurs. If you've noticed especially in the last couple of years it's one crisis right after another. The news never gets to finish up and follow the crisis all the way to the end because a new one has started some place else.

Science can not comfirm what they don't know or don't understand. What the Earth is formed of or how many layers or what is even at the center of the Earth is just Theory. They have no proof on any of it. They just assume this is what the Earth is like since it fits with all their other theories of science.

This is the problem we teach science as if it is all fact when it is a lot of fiction and theory.

We teach and spread the word that the bible is fiction, when it is in fact Factual. All the way down to the book of Enoch where he tells us things about the Earth he shouldn't of known about in his time.





new topics

top topics



 
45
<< 3  4  5   >>

log in

join