Are we allowed to know the date of the Lord’s return?

Originally posted by awake_and_aware
I'm not arguing semantics. Even if you were "ALLOWED" to know, how would you know? And by what authority grants you "authorisation" for it to be known?

Sure you are! This thread is asking, are we allowed to know the date of the Lord's return. The rest of this quote of yours is superflous (spelling, I know, I don't lie with spell checkers). Anyway, what I mean is the rest of your quote is "worthless" in the debate at hand because it has nothing to do with the question.

Christians' faith gives them the authorisation to know. Your lack of faith is why you would "not know"....Oh wait! Semantics! The question was "Are we allowed to know"

1) Not Christian: Probably not allowed to know
2) Christian: Definatly not allowed to know

Without faith you would not believe it to be JC, even if it was JC. So "Probably not" for us Nons. If you believe in JC, and assumedly are not duped by the AntiJC you would know it is Him. (Faith, remember?)

Originally posted by awake_and_aware
I didn't assume so. My arguments don't require anyone to profess their beliefs. If i assume Jesus exists, i still want to know how he could be spotted....

Was not the reason I professed them, I professed to add "whys" to the thread. Such as "Why am I here" or "Why am I on one side, or the other" You know, "evidence"!

Now for the second part. If you only "assume" He exists, then you do not believe it. Or you would have said "I believe he exists." (Semantics?) Not really, because 1) Christians don't "assume" about JC, at least nothing so grand as to whether he existed or not. (Why be CHRISTian if you are not sure of Christ?)

He would be spotted, because they are told that he would be spotted. I mean if the prophesy was right about 1/2, you would think it could do the easier half!

Originally posted by awake_and_aware
I'm not trying to argue omnipotence or any religion.

You could have fooled me. You entered the thread and didn't answer the OPost, you challenged its validity. "How do we know JC is real?"

Originally posted by awake_and_aware
Well how could you ever prove Christ has come back if you can't prove Christ existed to begin with.

Christians don't "need" that proof you are mentioning, therefore you are not a Christian. Furthermore you ARE suggesting that a BIG PART of their belief structure is false. "Not arguing" correct, you are manipulating Remember, I too am "not Christian" I can smell manipulation here. You would not have had that in there, if you were not looking for a nibble.

Lastly, I would think Christ could prove who He is. The fact that you do not think that, shows that you think JC wouldn't have his powers. I mean, turning the oceans into wine that would show he was Christ, no? How about bringing some folks back from the dead, no? Pick a miricale then, once you do you will see how foolish your semantical argument is. IF JC came back, it would be no sweat for him to demonstrait his abilities. (Whether he would or not is semantics, be careful.)

Originally posted by awake_and_aware
Again, all i'm asking is: How would you be "allowed"? And furthermore, how would you affirm it is Jesus Christ. Any person could self-fulfil the prophecies of the return.

Any person? Maybe the "returning" prophecies, but what about that magic I was talking about earlier? Or did you not think that in depth before responding to this thread? I mean it is obvious JC would know magic...

Originally posted by awake_and_aware
Off topic but It's important to note the only "miracle" is the fact that there are no miracles; the sun doesn't miraculously stop in the sky, the laws of gravity don't cease when a child falls from a building, No person has shown an ability to cure people by touch, time doesn't reverse.

Wow! You have the entire history of the universe in your personal library!?!?! You would need that to make such a claim. Actually, this claim is just as outragous (to me) as the Christians rapture. You are not all knowing, and if you are then I guess you are JC and have already returned.

I knew it was you! (That's a bad joke.)

reply to post by adigregorio


Firstly, you're now playing the semantics game. I don't care about belief, i'm not arguing belief or any religion. I'm trying to work out what the OP actually is asking - forgive me for my shortcomings.

Are we allowed to know the date of the Lord’s return?

Who/what would alllow it? Is the OP suggesting that you have to believe in a specific faith in order to know the date of his return? If not then, again, what authority would allow it?

You could have fooled me. You entered the thread and didn't answer the OPost, you challenged its validity. "How do we know JC is real?"

Apologies again - I admit perhaps it was out of context BUT i'm guessing we have to assume his existence with the OP question.

Wow! You have the entire history of the universe in your personal library!?!?! You would need that to make such a claim.

I don't. I'm humble in what i know, and what is currently provable, and i'm always open-minded for new theories, and arguments for a certain position.

Perhaps i should have not been so assertive in my negation of miracles (the temporary suspension of the natural order) But miracles and other supernatural theories are still yet to be proven - I don't find my position of agnostic disbelief ignorant at all.

I'm happy to contend that so far no historian, archaeologist, or any other academic has ever proved the temporary suspension of the natural order, hence the reason for my lack of belief (thus far) The burden of proof is on those making the positive claim.

Any person? Maybe the "returning" prophecies, but what about that magic I was talking about earlier?

Magic is a conjuring trick, magicians are well aware of this. My position stands above regarding extraordinary metaphysical claims such as miracles, afterlife and such like.

I don't mean to offend - Only debate.

Again, apologies for my misunderstanding of the OP question.

Originally posted by awake_and_aware
Firstly, you're now playing the semantics game. I don't care about belief, i'm not arguing belief or any religion. I'm trying to work out what the OP actually is asking - forgive me for my shortcomings.

No forgiveness needed, just as I hope none needed for me/my shortcomings. (In this instance, that would be ignorance. I misunderstood your position!)

Originally posted by awake_and_aware

Are we allowed to know the date of the Lord’s return?

Who/what would alllow it? Is the OP suggesting that you have to believe in a specific faith in order to know the date of his return? If not then, again, what authority would allow it?

Three parts for the answer.

1) Who/what would allow it?
This is a semi tough one. I would guess that we have two choices to pick from, either I/We would allow it or "God" would allow it. Either way, someone/thing would have to allow it. The only reason, it is a "rule". (It being "no one will know the hour, thief in the night..." (Paraphrased, of course))

2) Is OP suggesting that you have to believe in a specific faith in order to know the date of "His" return?
This is an easy one. YES!

In order to believe that Jesus has/is going to return, you have to believe in the Chrisitian faith system. Well, hold on...If you believe that Jesus died for your sins, and is going to return, you have to believe in the Christian faith system. The latter, just believing in JC's return, that would make you a "luke-warm" Christian (IMO).

3)Nevermind, this is a re-ask of question 1 so pretend I re-typed that here

Originally posted by awake_and_aware

You could have fooled me. You entered the thread and didn't answer the OPost, you challenged its validity. "How do we know JC is real?"

Apologies again - I admit perhaps it was out of context BUT i'm guessing we have to assume his existence with the OP question.

Yeah, I see some meaniness in my quote there. I refuse your apology, and offer my own And since you are assuming "His" existance, you are obviously being above board. So again, sorry for sounding mean in that quote, was not my intention.

Now, on to the meat of the quote. I too took the stance of "assuming the existance", since I wanted to participate in the discussion and not be ignored by the believers. Unfortunatly, this did not work. Since our posts are talking to each other, with no re-joinder from the JC camp. This is saddening, religious debate is one of my favorite past-times.

Originally posted by awake_and_aware

Wow! You have the entire history of the universe in your personal library!?!?! You would need that to make such a claim.

I don't. I'm humble in what i know, and what is currently provable, and i'm always open-minded for new theories, and arguments for a certain position.

Again, it appears as my post is an ass post. I am posting in several threads ATM and I get them confused. (IE I have someone being "shady/rude" in one thread, and I mistake that for another person in another thread.) So I offer an apology for sounding harsh, cause it sounded harsh to me an I typed it!!

Yeah, nothing else to add here. You sufficently crammed my foot into my mouth, or rather sufficiently watched me cram it into my mouth.

Originally posted by awake_and_aware
Perhaps i should have not been so assertive in my negation of miracles (the temporary suspension of the natural order) But miracles and other supernatural theories are still yet to be proven - I don't find my position of agnostic disbelief ignorant at all.

Nay, you do not come off as ignorant, I don't remember typing that you did! Regardless, agnostic is what we should all be. We should all strive to get the answers, remember one CAN be an agnostic Christian. I, well, I am an agnostic Discordian.

Never relent either. It is your beliefs that you are questioning, then be ever stringent to make sure what is being questioned should be. Assertive is a great way to do this, in my opinion. (Obviously, or I would not be here typing now!) Of course, I am against moral pushing so I only say this is good for me.

Originally posted by awake_and_aware
I'm happy to contend that so far no historian, archaeologist, or any other academic has ever proved the temporary suspension of the natural order, hence the reason for my lack of belief (thus far) The burden of proof is on those making the positive claim.

WAY better way to put this sentiment. (Which I agree with.) I also agree that we have not been here (existance) for a very long time at all. Many things occured during out lifespan (humans) that has not been recorded. Hell, we have lived longer during times of no recording than during times with recording. Case in point, any eye witnesses accounts of JC? Birth records? Death records? Drive--err--Donkey Licence?

Outragous claims require outragous evidence, I do not claim magic is true because I don't have the evidence. However, faith, this counts as evidence among the Christians. Who am I to say it is not? I do not have any disproving evidence, that faith is a sham. In fact, there is circumstancial evidence on both sides that say both things. Critical thinking tells us: No "proof" no dice. Faith would tell us: No "proof", have faith. (IE Faith = proof (for Christians)) Doesn't equal, but is equal too.

Originally posted by awake_and_aware

Any person? Maybe the "returning" prophecies, but what about that magic I was talking about earlier?

Magic is a conjuring trick, magicians are well aware of this. My position stands above regarding extraordinary metaphysical claims such as miracles, afterlife and such like.

Yikes, semantics!

I used the lable magic, if I meant illusions I would have said such. Jesus knew "magic" or as you call it "metaphysical claims" "miracles". You have to admit, another name for "miracle" is "magic".

Originally posted by awake_and_aware
I don't mean to offend - Only debate.

No offence here, though I think the Christians may be miffed that agnostics know more about what is going on than they do!

Seriously, we have debated more on Christian philosophy than the OPer and others.

reply to post by adigregorio

No offence here, though I think the Christians may be miffed that agnostics know more about what is going on than they do!

There is really no difference between an Agnostic and a Christian, they are both naive in regards to the source of the universe/reality. Just as a Atheist is naive in regards to such profound concepts. One person claims to know the answer, while one is taking the grey area of "i don't know".

I'm an agnostic Atheist, i don't know, and i don't believe the ideas of other men because they are assumptions, because other men don't know. They might claim to but they really don't. Probably another "assumption" on my part.

2) Is OP suggesting that you have to believe in a specific faith in order to know the date of "His" return?
This is an easy one. YES!

LOL. Very telling. "Subscribe to a faith, or you won't be "allowed" to know the date of his return. "

Regardless, agnostic is what we should all be. We should all strive to get the answers, remember one CAN be an agnostic Christian. I, well, I am an agnostic Discordian.

That's fair enough. I'm agnostic in regards to the source of the universe, so i don't automatically believe theories of deities, as they could be wrong. "Agnostic Atheism"

You have to admit, another name for "miracle" is "magic"

Are miracle and magic fundamentally different? Some think not. For instance, John Meier concludes, "From the viewpoint of the social sciences, there is no objective difference between what we commonly label miracle in the Gospels and what we commonly label magic in various Greco-Roman papyri, novels and historians."

I think we can both conclude that they are claims regarding the temporary suspension of the natural order. Again, there is still no convincing evidence for this so far, so why should any believe someone's word based on 0 evidence? Should we just uncover truth by trusting people? - Tell that to a scientist.

Like magic, the theories of religion have to be conjured. They can come from no where else bu the mind of man and his subjective experience, which is not always trustworthy.

"Religion is a Conjuring Trick"

Originally posted by awake_and_aware
I think we can both conclude that they are claims regarding the temporary suspension of the natural order. Again, there is still no convincing evidence for this so far, so why should any believe someone's word based on 0 evidence? Should we just uncover truth by trusting people? - Tell that to a scientist.

Now to be fair:

Originally posted by adigregorio
Lastly, I would think Christ could prove who He is. The fact that you do not think that, shows that you think JC wouldn't have his powers. I mean, turning the oceans into wine that would show he was Christ, no? How about bringing some folks back from the dead, no? Pick a miricale then, once you do you will see how foolish your semantical argument is. IF JC came back, it would be no sweat for him to demonstrait his abilities. (Whether he would or not is semantics, be careful.)

(emphasis added, quote is from post at top of this page)

My whole stance is based on my assumption that he would be performing magic/miracles. Of course, there would be those that would not need those events. But, I feel that would be a minority. Since the Bible clearly states that the Christians will know who JC is.

As for "having to be in the religion". Sure! I mean you have to be a member of a club to enter the club house, right? Only makes sence that this club requires membership as well. Of course, I don't like going to clubs. They tend to think they are better than the non-members.

As for being an Agnostic Athiest, how is that even possible? (I have not checked your link yet, so wait to answer I may get it myself yet ) My understanding is that Agnostics thirst for knowledge, Athiests say we rot in the ground, period. To me, and Agnostic Athiest, would be a searcher of knowldege in regards to proof that we rot only. (Again, have not checked your link yet.)

As for my label, I thirst for knowledge. I do not think any man on this planet is "closer" to a creator than I am, and I am no closer than anyone else. (If there is a creator, of course.) All of this seems to be a bit off-topic though.

I used to be Christian, after much research and research and round-a-bouts, and catch 22's I decided that it isn't the best answer to these buring questions. However, all of that research and research gives me a lot of theories regarding that Bible book(s). Unfortunatly, it seems that these other members/thread participants do not agree. Just remember folks, forgiveness is part of your doctorine too. Furthermore, Jesus would be chatting with me vs you guys anyway, or did he hang out with the Pharasiees? (Nope, twas the "riff-raff" and unsaved that needed attention.)

--EDIT
Lol, alright so to make sure I understand this properly:

Agnostic Athiest is someone that thinks about belief, but does not believe...Sounds like one of those Catch-22's to me...

Agnostics say "We can't no for sure" Athiest say "We know for sure, and there is nothing." I do not see how one can be both at the same time, they are self-defeating. (definitions paraphrased from the wiki link provided)

Regardless, as an agnostic I can tell you I have no idea. And no one else I have ever seen/known/heard/read/witnessed does either. Athiest, Christian, Buddahist, Taoist, Muslim, even Discordian; none of these people knew what was going on, and neither did the billions that came before them. (Recorded billions) To me, to be anything but agnostic is silly. (I do not push morals, and it is only silly if I am anything but Agnostic.) All well, I will say this putting Athiest in your description won't win us any more participants! At least not from the Christian side They don't seem to remember that it is folks like us that need saving, according to their doctrine they should be trying to help us in our search. Instead, they sit silenty probably rueing the fact that we are more knowledgable on this subject than they be.

reply to post by adigregorio

My whole stance is based on my assumption that he would be performing magic/miracles

That's all you had to say, friend.

Thanks for the discussion. I'll keep an eye out for miracles and magic, and perhaps the man that is performing them

I'll just point out, that even more of a miracle than curing a lepers is curing all lepers, and furthermore, all human suffering. Unfortunately, even with miracles and magic on his side - Jesus cannot (or refuses to) do this (if he exists/existed)

Peace anyway,

It's being a revealing discussion.

reply to post by awake_and_aware


Way to go man you trolled this thread so hard the original topic has been destroyed. You turned "Are we allowed to know the date of the Lord’s return?" to "Lets bash Christianity!!". No matter what you say my mind, as well as every other Christian here, is made up. No matter what we say your mind as well as every other Atheist is made up. This is how it is on ATS...posts like yours accomplish nothing but petty arguments that result in absolutely nothing.

reply to post by Artorius


Oh grow up, Not every Atheist is a gnostic atheist - My position comes from agnosticism - Perhaps i'm asking questions to prove myself wrong? I'm open-minded. - "Agnostic Atheism"

But i don't think Christianity should be immune to the reasonable measures of discourse like other topic for discussion isn't immune. Basically, i don't think respect should be automatically given out to religion.

Apologies for distracting from the OP but the questions still stands, what authority would grant you to know the date?

Some celestial being that inteferes in human affairs? That intervenes in geological events? I'm quite sure the omnipotent thoery doesn't hold any weight.

Again, i'm not bashing, i'm more than happy for you to argue my points.

Originally posted by awake_and_aware
reply to post by Artorius

 

Oh grow up, Not every Atheist is a gnostic atheist - My position comes from agnosticism - Perhaps i'm asking questions to prove myself wrong? I'm open-minded. - "Agnostic Atheism"

But i don't think Christianity should be immune to the reasonable measures of discourse like other topic for discussion isn't immune. Basically, i don't think respect should be automatically given out to religion.

Apologies for distracting from the OP but the questions still stands, what authority would grant you to know the date?

Some celestial being that inteferes in human affairs? That intervenes in geological events? I'm quite sure the omnipotent thoery doesn't hold any weight.

Again, i'm not bashing, i'm more than happy for you to argue my points.

edit on 11/5/11 by awake_and_aware because: (no reason given)

I should grow up?!...nah I won't bite there sorry Did you read the OP?? at least the first line??

Originally posted by Artorius
I am not here to debate whether Christ exists or not so take that discussion elsewhere if that is the purpose of you viewing this thread. With that said...

You came off 100% close minded with your first post:

Originally posted by awake_and_aware
can't prove Christ existed.

can't prove Christ was divine.

couldn't prove it was Christ if he did come back - How would we know, what would he look like?

Agnostic?? Sounds like a pretty hardcore Atheist statement to me...

I accept your apology, if we can stay on topic lets have a civil discussion.

"what authority would grant you to know the date?"

I believe that nobody will be told the exact date (ex May 22, 2011). I do believe that as we enter certain times prophesied in the Bible, the Holy Spirit will speak through people (ex Where we are in the Revelation timeline). He has even done so in my own church (read my post on page 1). Whether it be prophets, preacher, pastors, God can use anyone who is in a deep relationship with Christ and studies the Bible correctly. As I stated in my OP:

Finally, in giving the Great Commission, Jesus said to the apostles: It is not for you to know times or epochs which the Father has fixed by His own authority… This was true 2000 years ago, but continuing the sentence, Jesus added: but you will receive power when the Holy Spirit has come upon you… Concerning Scripture, the Holy Spirit has three functions: to reveal, to inspire, and to illuminate. The power the church received after Pentecost includes the illumination or understanding of the Word. Those not asleep at the wheel will have a keen understanding of the day and the hour.

In order to truly comprehend these things you must...

-Be in an intimate relationship with Christ
-Know the signs behind each prophecy made in His word by studying it correctly

I think your real question is "how do people come across this information?"

please let me know

Thanks for your interest

reply to post by Artorius

Agnostic?? Sounds like a pretty hardcore Atheist statement to me...

Just because i'm agnostic doesn't mean i can't disbelieve a claim based on 0 evidence.

Again, my teapot highlights this. If i was to say the teapot was supernatural, and i have felt it - How could you prove me wrong? Well you play the subjective experience game when it comes to God, because all empirical and logical evidence pointing towards that claim has been found wanting.

I would disbelieve a theory like that. There could be other possibilities to reality other than a deity, so i'm not going to assume that, or put faith in it, it's a conjured theory based on no evidence, only the (misunderstood) "personal" accounts of what they are "feeling".

Back to the topic; Are you allowed to know? the answer is, even if you were told, you will not believe it: discern the signification of John 20: 25: for all things written in the Gospel of John after the resurrection (chapters 20 & 21) bear significations. You were told, "As a thief shall the coming of the Son of man be"; and as he was rejected at the first, so shall he also be rejected at the last. And there is a reason for that, which I will expound on tomorrow. Speak to you soon!

Peace be with you!!!

reply to post by Artorius


Beloved, back to your question. To understand the reason why you are not supposed to know, you would first need to understand the purpose of the coming of the Son of man: for it is not as many suppose it to be; for as you were told, "As the lightning lightens (enlightens) one part under heaven, the east, and shines unto the other part, the West, so shall the coming of the Son of man be." The coming in question is not the rapture, but the second coming, known as the Last: for which you were told, "I am the first; the last also I am he".

In that being in the flesh you can only discern that which the eye sees, the second/last coming is in the flesh: thus "Son of man", not "Son of God". And if you are wondering about this, discern Zechariah 4: "The two anointed ones that stand by the Lord of the whole world"; and Hebrews 9: "The two cherubims of glory shadowing the mercyseat, of which we cannot now (then) speak particularly". For the last great commandment must also be fulfilled, even as the first was fulfilled in Jesus; as you were told, "Till heaven and earth pass, not one jot nor one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled."

Now, as you were told in Matthew 24: 36, "Neither man, nor the angels of heaven, shall know of that day and hour, but my Father only." And Mark goes further to say, "Neither the Son will know that day, but the Father": for as it was at the first coming, so shall it be at the second coming, the Son of man would already be in your midst in the flesh; and at the appointed time he shall be anointed and sent forth to fulfill that which your Creator and Maker has ordained for you before the world was created: for all things are done for the benefit of your salvation/perfection, being the creature in the making: all souls, not just a selected self-righteous few!!!

The purpose of the coming of the Son of man is to enlighten you, manifesting the fulfillment of the two great commandments, for which two sacrificial lamb offerings were also instituted; and understand the sacrificial offering: it is not as an offering to appease God, but an example of the power of love and the omniscience of God; it is to teach you pure love, in that one has to teach you the essence of the two great commandments, which is true love, by laying down his life for you as a token of pure love, in that you are a precious part of him, and proving to you that life transcends flesh, which is death. For if one makes himself an example for you to learn from out of faith, that is a sacrifice, teaching you the true meaning of the two great commandments known as the Ten Commandments.

The reason it is not meant for you to know is revealed in 1st Corinthians 2, "It is the hidden wisdom which God ordained before the world unto our glory: which none of the princes of this world knew: for had they known it, they would not have cricified the Lord of glory." And it is only in that Christ was crucified that the testimony was confirmed: for you are told in Hebrews 9, "For where a testament is, there must also of necessity be the death of the testator; for a testament is of force after the death of the testator." If Christ taught you love theoretically without exemplifying it, how would you understand the true power of love? And if he did not lay down his life, trusting in faith that God will raise him to life again, how would you believe in the omniscience of life and God?

Psalm 18 denotes, "You shall be delivered out of many waters (diverse religions), when the LORD shall send out true enlightenment, discomfiting the world; then the channels of waters shall be seen, and the foundations of the world shall be discovered." And thus Ephesians 4, "And all shall come together into the unity of faith; and no longer children tossed to and fro with every wind of doctrine (religiosity), by the sleight of men." And this is signified by Moses striking the rock on two separate occasions, that the water (word of life) may flow, to nourish the people: the first time Massah/Temptation/Sin, conciliated in the example of the First, in whose stripes you were taught the antidote of sin; and the second time Meribah/Strife/Iniquity, to be conciliated in the Last, thus making peace: Exodus 17 and Numbers 20; for striking the rock signifies striking the Rock of Salvation: the Christ. Thus, With joy shall you draw water out of the wells of salvation: Isaiah 12; for the Lord shall come to us as the latter and the former rain unto the earth: (teachers of righteousness, according to righteousness): Hosea 6.

You were given the Ten Commandments on two stones of testimony, signifying the two great commandments: Exodus 31: 18, Isaiah 8: 14 and Matthew 22: 36-40; at which time two sacrificial lamb offerings were also instituted: the First in the morning to manifest the fulfillment of the first great commandment, fulfilled in Jesus, the Last in the evening to manifest the fulfillment of the last great commandment; of which Exodus 29 states, "The sacrificial offering of both lambs shall be at the door/exponent of the tabernacle/body of the congregation; and the tabernacle/Israel shall be sanctified by my glory/glorification; and there will I meet with you, to testify to you; I am the LORD your God": hence it is called The Ark of his Testament: Exodus 25: 22 and Revelation 11: 19; and Numbers 28 refers to it as a Meat Offering, signifying the sacrificing of the body/flesh, the beaten oil signifies the Anointed One and the Drink/Wine Offering signifies the passion/love by which it is done.

Thus Moses said to you, You are being fed with manna which you know nothing about; that you might come to know that man does not live by bread only, but by every word that proceeds out of the mouth of the Lord does man live: Deuteronomy 8. As paul said to you in Ephesians 6, "Have your feet shod in preparation of the gospel of peace".

Peace be with you!!!

As there seem to be a momentary ebb in the common debates between agnostic atheism and gnostic theism, I would like to revive this thread as an opportunity to take a look at the formal frames such debates often run on.

An example:

"The moon is made of cheese, and my intention here isn't to debate that point, but to establish specifically WHAT kind of cheese it is. So anyone rejecting my 'axiom' (a cheese-moon) I define as off-topic".

Blatant non-sense, possibly even an expression of wanting to turn a public forum into a pulpit, from where preaching can be performed un-opposed.

'Positions' (e.g. doctrines, perspectives, methodologies etc) are NOT one-directional. They can completely legitimately and functionally be regressed as well as used for building further arguments. Anything build on assumptions will be more assumptions (though a sufficient amount of assumptions/guessess/speculations for the wrong reasons can give a somewhat correct answer on occassion).

So assumptions, open or implied, need scutiny too.

Had the whole thread been presented as an exclusive textual analysis of the bible, some topic-limitations could have been claimed. But the author later introduces non-textual elements......

Quote from a later author-post: [" Although, I believe God speaks through holy and chosen people to tell them what the year might be like."]

....thus going outside a straight textual area and into an area of collective reality-check.

Until evidence of the opposite emerges, I will consequently define this thread as a sermon and the clumpsy efforts of preventing criticism as 'tactical'. I find this kind of debate-level, increasingly defending itself through 'tactics', deplorable; and this kind of missionary dodgings reflect negatively back on their originators.

If a product can't be promoted on its own merits, it only makes matters worse, if cosmetic wrappings are used to disguise the low-quality content.

reply to post by bogomil

"The moon is made of cheese, and my intention here isn't to debate that point, but to establish specifically WHAT kind of cheese it is. So anyone rejecting my 'axiom' (a cheese-moon) I define as off-topic".

That's exactly my point! We can't prove God exists, let alone what God is or what God means.

As soon as i hear the word "GOD" i switch off, because no-one knows what it is, it's just contextual word for what we don't understand about the universe.

I think i can assist on this threads topic actually...

Now christians believe that they "might" be able to predict when Christ's return will happen(apparently though it says otherwise in their book)

Others are on this thread tend to go off topic and debate the existance of God. Few people have that answer and its not the topic at hand.

As for what christian belief is, well most of us know that many christians believe a lot of things that arn't in the bible at all. Many tend to just assume things that arn't actually there... For example the "was Jesus God" debate...

So just from the example many christians set, clearly we can see many times they haven't got a clue.

SO back to the original question "are we allowed to know the date of the lords return"...

Regardless of most of the stuff that has been said on this thread many people seem to over look one fact.

Prophets don't exist... Prophecy is comprised of an event occuring and then people pointing to varioius Prophets after the fact or after the occurance. Reading into what was said by this prophet, usually resulting in a weak discription of said event, with no actual evidence this person was speaking of this situation.

Theres no evidence of anyone being able to predict anything in our time.... Hell the weather man on TV can rarely tell you what the weather will be like and they have tons of technology, statlites all examining the weather patterns, yet many times they're completely wrong....As we all know nature is unpredictable.

No one can predict anything from the bible... No one can predict anything from Revelations...

So the answer to the question is....NO ONE can know the time of the Lords return.

reply to post by Akragon


You wrote:

["Others are on this thread tend to go off topic and debate the existance of God"]

As far as I can see, the first critical introduction in that direction was on Jesus (who may or may not be 'god' according to different definitions).

And as I said, a regressive step on such a point is valid. How can anyone 'come back' unless this is a real option.

Quote: ["So just from the example many christians set, clearly we can see many times they haven't got a clue."]

Just to be querulous as I usually am from a natural disposition: Is this more topic-relevant?

Quote: ["Prophets don't exist.."]

I can un-gainsaid predict the rizing of the sun tomorrow (because if I should be wrong, there'll most likely be no-one to point it out).

Quote: ["So the answer to the question is....NO ONE can know the time of the Lords return."]

OR if he's still hanging around somewhere, or if he in that case intends to return at all.

reply to post by bogomil


lol... I knew this would spark your interest...

As far as I can see, the first critical introduction in that direction was on Jesus (who may or may not be 'god' according to different definitions).

This is actually one of the mistakes christians make. Theres nothing in the bible comming from Jesus that said specifically that Jesus was God... He never made that claim once. This is a fact, though many believe that because others considered him God, and worshiped him as God... he must have been God. This is simply an incorrect assumption. In Every case of him speaking about God or the father, he refers specifically to two seperate entities. The closest example to him stateing that he was God was ... "i and my father are one" Giving the impression that he was God....but again he speaks of two seperate entities. If he was God, a man who knew nothing but truth would have stated...I AM GOD. He even corrects a group of jews who want to kill him for the fact that "you make yourself God"... His rebuttal was..." you want to kill me because i said i am the son of God?"

SO...Hes not God, only a part of God, like everyone else. The only difference is, he knew exactly where he came from, and where hes headed.

And as I said, a regressive step on such a point is valid. How can anyone 'come back' unless this is a real option.

Personally i have issues with believing Jesus will return at all....though recently i read a post from IAMIAM... stating that he has already returned.... and is in within those who understand Love. I like this idea, and tend to lean towards that direction.

Just to be querulous as I usually am from a natural disposition: Is this more topic-relevant?

Yes its completely relevant... The point being, many christians assume many things about scripture. It says specifically, "no man can know when the lord will return" Yet then tend to deny this fact and continue to attempt to "predict" a date.

I can un-gainsaid predict the rizing of the sun tomorrow (because if I should be wrong, there'll most likely be no-one to point it out).

Now seriously... you know exactly what i mean. Was this statement just for arguements sake?

Sooner or later i can predict that i will get up out of this chair... Does that make me a prophet?

reply to post by Akragon


You wrote:

["SO...Hes not God, only a part of God, like everyone else. The only difference is, he knew exactly where he came from, and where hes headed."]

For the duration, in the context of this thread, I will disregard the christian trinity-concept. And while I'm personally VERY critical to the use of the word or concept 'god', I can from good will and mainly having filled my quota of quarrelsomeness today consider Jesus somewhere along your lines (whether he existed really or as a character in a book. A point of little interest for me).

Quote: ["Personally i have issues with believing Jesus will return at all....though recently i read a post from IAMIAM... stating that he has already returned.... and is in within those who understand Love. I like this idea, and tend to lean towards that direction."]

There's something so intrinsically likeable and honest about IAM, that it's difficult to disbelieve him on grounds of distrust. So I remain an agnostic on him and his opinions (except when I quibble directly with him, which can be fun).

Quote: ["Yes its completely relevant... The point being, many christians assume many things about scripture. It says specifically, "no man can know when the lord will return" Yet then tend to deny this fact and continue to attempt to "predict" a date."]

This comment from you doesn't relate to my initial intention. Never mind, it could well be my bad formulation originally. But you don't need to emphasize your differences with organized christians to me. After all, I prefer your attitude and interpretation of the bible.

Quote: ["Now seriously... you know exactly what i mean. Was this statement just for arguements sake?"]

I have my own brand of humour.

reply to post by bogomil

For the duration, in the context of this thread, I will disregard the christian trinity-concept. And while I'm personally VERY critical to the use of the word or concept 'god', I can from good will and mainly having filled my quota of quarrelsomeness today consider Jesus somewhere along your lines (whether he existed really or as a character in a book. A point of little interest for me).

Yes i know, theres a lot of people that prefer to reserve the use of the word God. I am not one of those people.

You might have filled your daily quota of religious debate for today, but i can't say the same. Theres been a lack of decent religious threads lately on our forums. Most are just bashing of various groups with athiests on one side of the fence bashing everyone who has some sort of religious affiliation. I tend not to envolve myself in those discussions so when an oppourtunity to debate with someone who is actually non judgemental, and open minded arises....forgive me if i pounce...

There's something so intrinsically likeable and honest about IAM, that it's difficult to disbelieve him on grounds of distrust. So I remain an agnostic on him and his opinions (except when I quibble directly with him, which can be fun).

I agree 100%, he is one of the few people that has actually taught me a thing or two in the past several years. This is a very rare thing for myself, and i can't help but be thankful for his insight.