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.

 

(To christians... ) So.... just hypothetically....what if Jesus returns... (Serious responses only p

page: 11
8
<< 8  9  10    12 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 20 2012 @ 04:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by jmdewey60
reply to post by HeFrippedMeOff
 

The particular parable of the master who returns after the caretakers murder his son is a testament to the authenticity of the message of Gods wrath to come in Revelation but corroboration seems to mean nothing to you.
It would mean something to me if it was in fact corroboration. It isn't. What you are doing is taking two very dissimilar things and saying one proves the other because they both have some elements in them that can be associated with the concept of judgment.


Perhaps it would mean something more if one would define "corroborate" correctly; no one said the one "proves" the other. Corroborate means to support and the support isn't based on judgment but on the Return.



The "wrath to come" is today the wrath that came, which was on the temple cult in Jerusalem and its leaders, the very people who had Jesus crucified. Revelation is a very odd book of unknown origin but internal evidence points to an Eastern religious tradition outside of Christianity and Judaism but only colored on the surface with Hebrewisms and the name of Jesus tacked onto the beginning and the end.
edit on 20-3-2012 by jmdewey60 because: (no reason given)


If you are unfamiliar with the origin perhaps you should read Ch1 v 1. John who bore witness to the testimony of Jesus Christ wrote his vision of Jesus Revelation' (the revealing of Jesus, get it?) to us. What logic is there in the vision of his revealing if he did not return to the Father to prepare a place for us and is coming again on a day only the Father now knows? Truth is, there is a return and if a return is to take place before God's wrath then those ordained for that wrath have yet to experience it. Right now the Holy Spirit is available to us all but before God's wrath it shall be taken out of this world. (Amos 8 is good read)

Nevertheless, you can believe what people tell you or study scripture for yourself. I don't know what eastern traditions you refer to. Too, all the jazz about hebrewisms and jesus name at the beginning and end; come on man, deny ignorance. You claim unknown origin regardless of penmanship then assign it Eastern origin while making Jesus, the one who the letter is about, of none effect? good grief
It can't be true and false, but true except false.

His return is everywhere in scripture and wrath is yet to come. “Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth. “ 2 Timothy 2:15
edit on 20-3-2012 by HeFrippedMeOff because: typo




posted on Mar, 20 2012 @ 05:08 PM
link   
reply to post by HeFrippedMeOff
 

. . . assign it Eastern origin while making Jesus, the one who the letter is about, of none effect?

There is hardly a mention of Jesus in Revelation and only in the most obscure sort of way, an indication that it was written for some other purpose, then just adjusted to Christianize it.
I hope you are not suggestion that any book with the word Jesus in it should be in the canon.



posted on Mar, 20 2012 @ 07:51 PM
link   
reply to post by autowrench
 


I've done plenty of study on the "Q" document and personally I'm not all that convinced that it actually ever existed. The hypothetical document is composed entirely of the sayings of Jesus save the narrative about John the Baptist and one other short narrative section. The idea of a "Q" document was quoted as an "assured result of 20th century scholarship," but before that it was unheard of. There are a number of other sound theories on the development of the Gospels that don't include a hypothetical source that we have absolutely no solid evidence of outside of the conclusions of some literary critics. Perhaps I'll check out your other links instead of the first one you posted, since it is apparently pretty unreliable.



posted on Mar, 21 2012 @ 12:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by jmdewey60
reply to post by HeFrippedMeOff
 

. . . assign it Eastern origin while making Jesus, the one who the letter is about, of none effect?

There is hardly a mention of Jesus in Revelation and only in the most obscure sort of way, an indication that it was written for some other purpose, then just adjusted to Christianize it.
I hope you are not suggestion that any book with the word Jesus in it should be in the canon.


Hardly a mention of Christ in Revelation? Only in obscurity? Who's feeding you such lies and why are you believing them without knowledge in truth of scripture? If you had truly sought out the truth you'd more than know those obscure references aren't obscure at all but only to those not familiar with Jesus. Each reference that doesn't actually name Jesus provides clear reference to the character and being of the one it is describing and even then each of those can most likely be found elsewhere in scripture identifying Jesus.

John didn't Christianize his vision. The fact that he was a follower of Jesus and that the vision was about Christ, redemption, coming judgment, and Jesus future reign makes it of Christ to those "Christians' who would but believe. Careful what version of scripture you read, some are translations and some are interpretations of translations. Nevertheless, the message within proves it is of Christ which is why i am always saying that the message within the words is how we discern the authenticity of it's inspiration and not simply because the names and titles held by Jesus are there,...everywhere.

The truth is in the words if you would seek it out and i assure you, Revelation is about Christ and the things of God to come. If scripture is obscure to you and you don't accept it based on the fact that you have read it in truth along with the rest of scripture then so be it but I have and I know what I've read for myself so no one could ever tell me what or how to believe.

Again, if you don't believe then so be it, every eye will see and every knee will eventually bow anyways, but presenting baseless allegations against the Word of God with no solid premises to support a real argument edifies no one.



posted on Mar, 21 2012 @ 04:41 PM
link   
reply to post by HeFrippedMeOff
 

. . . I know what I've read for myself so no one could ever tell me what or how to believe.

I don't see how anything (other than Jude and 2 Peter, the most dubious books in the NT) in the NT supports Revelation, or Revelation supports anything else in the NT (with the already mentioned exception).
You were the one who brought up Revelation, I didn't because there is no 2 Thess. type second coming in it.
With the letters (?) to the Thessalonians, you have to accept one or the other, since the second claims the first is a forgery. I accept the first for several reasons, including one, of how the second includes a lot of odd remarks that goes against the rest of NT in general, and Paul specifically.
edit on 21-3-2012 by jmdewey60 because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 22 2012 @ 12:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by jmdewey60
reply to post by HeFrippedMeOff
 

. . . I know what I've read for myself so no one could ever tell me what or how to believe.

I don't see how anything (other than Jude and 2 Peter, the most dubious books in the NT) in the NT supports Revelation, or Revelation supports anything else in the NT (with the already mentioned exception).
You were the one who brought up Revelation, I didn't because there is no 2 Thess. type second coming in it.
With the letters (?) to the Thessalonians, you have to accept one or the other, since the second claims the first is a forgery. I accept the first for several reasons, including one, of how the second includes a lot of odd remarks that goes against the rest of NT in general, and Paul specifically.
edit on 21-3-2012 by jmdewey60 because: (no reason given)


When will you ever provide the scripture where Thess 2 calls the other a forgery? I read both not 30 minutes ago. You're lying. You keep saying the same thing over and over without any scripture for a basis because it doesn't exist. Where does Paul claim something against the rest of the NT or against himself (he, timothy, ans silvanus being authors)? Please provide something of worth to back up your claims. This is getting to be ridiculous.

And how are Jude and 2 Peter dubious? Something concrete please.

Finally, the return of Jesus as laid out in Revelation (or the revelation of Jesus) is well spoken of not only in the Gospels but by Paul in reference to nearly every church he writes to (corinth, galatia, ephesus, philipi, collosia.) He mentions it to Timothy as well only not so in detail as Revelation because Revelation is the book of the revealing, what Paul was doing was edifying the churches of believers through doctrine of which are founded upon Christ and his return. I just read them all and the references to Christ returning are there.

Form a sound argument so I can help you understand where you err because all your doing as it were is putting forth baseless allegations without proof or premise. You are disbelieving for no good reason.

references: 1 Corinthians 1:7, 2 Corinthians 1:14, Philippians1:6, Colossians 3:4, & 1 Timothy 6:14



edit on 22-3-2012 by HeFrippedMeOff because: references



posted on Mar, 22 2012 @ 03:17 PM
link   
reply to post by HeFrippedMeOff
 
Now regarding the arrival of our Lord Jesus Christ and our being gathered to be with him, we ask you, brothers and sisters, not to be easily shaken from your composure or disturbed by any kind of spirit or message or letter allegedly from us, to the effect that the day of the Lord is already here. Let no one deceive you in any way. For that day will not arrive until the rebellion comes and the man of lawlessness is revealed, the son of destruction.

The writer of 2 Thessalonians warns about a letter in his name to them. At the end of the letter, the writer says,

I, Paul, write this greeting with my own hand, which is how I write in every letter.

in order to distinguish this letter from the other, though this particular letter seems to be the only one to make this claim.
1 Thessalonians describes how those people were know by their expectance of the day of the Lord,

For people everywhere report how you welcomed us and how you turned to God from idols to serve the living and true God and to wait for his Son from heaven, whom he raised from the dead, Jesus our deliverer from the coming wrath.

Later in 1 Tess. Paul goes on to say.

. . . we who are alive, who are left until the coming of the Lord, will surely not go ahead of those who have fallen asleep . . .

where he seems to expect, himself to be among those alive at the time of that event. He continues by repeating something they already know, that the Lord will come suddenly and unexpectedly, when everything seems fine.
In contrast to that, 2 Thess. says, no, this event is far off and don't expect anything like that happening in the near future, since there will be lots of warnings and the event will be totally expected, seeing how everything will appear to be obviously bad, with no peace and security, like the first letter spoke of..
edit on 22-3-2012 by jmdewey60 because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 22 2012 @ 04:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by jmdewey60
reply to post by HeFrippedMeOff
 
Now regarding the arrival of our Lord Jesus Christ and our being gathered to be with him, we ask you, brothers and sisters, not to be easily shaken from your composure or disturbed by any kind of spirit or message or letter allegedly from us, to the effect that the day of the Lord is already here. Let no one deceive you in any way. For that day will not arrive until the rebellion comes and the man of lawlessness is revealed, the son of destruction.


Be careful of translations that are actually interpretations ie New English. This is the KJV Translation of 2 Thessolonians 2:2-3: "Now we beseech you, brethren, by the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, and by our gathering together unto him, That ye be not soon shaken in mind, or be troubled, neither by spirit, nor by word, nor by letter as from us, as that the day of Christ is at hand. Let no man deceive you by any means: for that day shall not come, except there come a falling away first, and that man of sin be revealed, the son of perdition;"

We see here that we are not to be soon shaken ... not even by letters from Peter, Tim, or Silvanus. What you quoted is not what a translation but what an interpretation says.


The writer of 2 Thessalonians warns about a letter in his name to them. At the end of the letter, the writer says,


I, Paul, write this greeting with my own hand, which is how I write in every letter.


in order to distinguish this letter from the other, though this particular letter seems to be the only one to make this claim.


You do realize that the salutation "the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ be with you all. Amen" is the token of Paul's handwriting and is, in fashion, in every letter?



1 Thessalonians describes how those people were know by their expectance of the day of the Lord,

For people everywhere report how you welcomed us and how you turned to God from idols to serve the living and true God and to wait for his Son from heaven, whom he raised from the dead, Jesus our deliverer from the coming wrath.

Later in 1 Tess. Paul goes on to say.

. . . we who are alive, who are left until the coming of the Lord, will surely not go ahead of those who have fallen asleep . . .

where he seems to expect, himself to be among those alive at the time of that event. He continues by repeating something they already know, that the Lord will come suddenly and unexpectedly, when everything seems fine.
In contrast to that, 2 Thess. says, no, this event is far off and don't expect anything like that happening in the near future, since there will be lots of warnings and the event will be totally expected, seeing how everything will appear to be obviously bad, with no peace and security, like the first letter spoke of..
edit on 22-3-2012 by jmdewey60 because: (no reason given)


1. None one knows the day or hour. The disciples were instructed by Jesus to teach that the Kingdom of heaven is at hand. They very well could have believed that they could be alive when the event happened and for good reason. Two-thousand years later and people are weary of waiting, thinking it's all a joke, turning away from the faith, mocking God. What if back then God would have told them he wasn't coming for another 2 millennium or so? Anyways, point number 2....

2. I notice you aren't quoting scripture anymore. You are now supposing again. You assume incorrectly without scripture that the teachings read all things will seem to be fine at that time. In 1 Thess we see in the very next chapter, ch5 v3, the destruction spoken of. No time frame is given in 2 Thess, only that the son of perdition would be revealed before that day.

We see here the contrasts you have made are not based on scripture. What to you seems to be is not. The day is unknown but we are not of darkness and our Lord won't have us be overtaken as though we weren't watching and waiting. The day and happening will come quickly but we will know when it happens. There is truly no conflicting text between the two letters to the Thessalonians.
edit on 22-3-2012 by HeFrippedMeOff because: typo



posted on Mar, 23 2012 @ 07:53 AM
link   
reply to post by HeFrippedMeOff
 

We see here that we are not to be soon shaken ... not even by letters from Peter, Tim, or Silvanus. What you quoted is not what a translation but what an interpretation says.
That was an actual translation I was posting, the NetBible version, that says "or letter allegedly from us". There are a couple other ways to translate that: "or letter supposed to have come from us" NIV, "or a letter as if from us" NASB, "or by letter, as though from us," NRSV.
It seems like your argument is for the existence of a hypothetical letter coming from Paul or anyone associated with Paul. Letters from Paul would be highly copied, and rather than there being missing letters from Paul, it would seem more likely that there would be an overabundance of letters purporting to have been written by Paul. It seems all the letters that make the claim of being from Paul are right there in the New Testament, so it is merely a matter of picking which one it is that 2 Thess. is talking about, the best fit looking to be none other than 1 Thess.

You do realize that the salutation "the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ be with you all. Amen" is the token of Paul's handwriting and is, in fashion, in every letter?
How many of those say, "written in my own hand"?

1.
Your argument seems to be essentially that someone earlier lied in order to form Christianity, and once it was established, the news was broken to them, that they were just joking and nothing is ever going to happen in your lifetime.

You are now supposing again. You assume incorrectly without scripture that the teachings read all things will seem to be fine at that time.
I am not supposing anything, I quoted the scripture, in a paraphrased version by saying "the Lord will come suddenly and unexpectedly, when everything seems fine." This should be about one of the best known verses to any Christian, and even to people who don't read the Bible:
When they say, "There is peace and security," then sudden destruction will come upon them


We see here the contrasts you have made are not based on scripture.
You either see the contrasts or you don't. If you choose to not see any contradiction, then it is probably because of a habit you have set your mind to assume, from an earlier conscious decision to never see any contradiction because it may topple your faith if you were to ever see such a thing.

edit on 23-3-2012 by jmdewey60 because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 23 2012 @ 01:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by jmdewey60
reply to post by HeFrippedMeOff
 

We see here that we are not to be soon shaken ... not even by letters from Peter, Tim, or Silvanus. What you quoted is not what a translation but what an interpretation says.
That was an actual translation I was posting, the NetBible version, that says "or letter allegedly from us". There are a couple other ways to translate that: "or letter supposed to have come from us" NIV, "or a letter as if from us" NASB, "or by letter, as though from us," NRSV.
It seems like your argument is for the existence of a hypothetical letter coming from Paul or anyone associated with Paul. Letters from Paul would be highly copied, and rather than there being missing letters from Paul, it would seem more likely that there would be an overabundance of letters purporting to have been written by Paul. It seems all the letters that make the claim of being from Paul are right there in the New Testament, so it is merely a matter of picking which one it is that 2 Thess. is talking about, the best fit looking to be none other than 1 Thess.


Google the massive problems that exist within each of those versions of the Bible you just referenced and know that they are not fit translations but interpretations. If you don't trust the kjv and need something else then sit down with an Interlinear Bible. You will see that Paul is expressing to his people that his words may be hard but not to be discouraged.



You do realize that the salutation "the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ be with you all. Amen" is the token of Paul's handwriting and is, in fashion, in every letter?
How many of those say, "written in my own hand"?


The words within each of those letters proves their author and inspiration, as well as all having the same effectual prayer that would have been written by Peter as his signature to them all.




1.Your argument seems to be essentially that someone earlier lied in order to form Christianity, and once it was established, the news was broken to them, that they were just joking and nothing is ever going to happen in your lifetime.
You are now supposing again. You assume incorrectly without scripture that the teachings read all things will seem to be fine at that time.
I am not supposing anything, I quoted the scripture, in a paraphrased version by saying "the Lord will come suddenly and unexpectedly, when everything seems fine." This should be about one of the best known verses to any Christian, and even to people who don't read the Bible:
When they say, "There is peace and security," then sudden destruction will come upon them


You did not quote scripture accurately. Where does that quote say things would be fine? That is the basis of this particular misunderstanding as you have presented it is it not? You're interpolating data that doesn't exist as I pointed out in the very next chapter the destruction is spoken of.



We see here the contrasts you have made are not based on scripture.
You either see the contrasts or you don't. If you choose to not see any contradiction, then it is probably because of a habit you have set your mind to assume, from an earlier conscious decision to never see any contradiction because it may topple your faith if you were to ever see such a thing.

edit on 23-3-2012 by jmdewey60 because: (no reason given)


My faith is in Christ for salvation regardless of a Thessalonian Harpazzo and as I pointed out there is much corroborating scripture all over, even in the gospels. You can throw out all of the letters you wish and inaccurately quote scripture from interpretations interpolating data and even accuse me of being the one who refuses to see the truth as if I'm trying to get you to believe in something that doesn't already logically, scientifically, and historically speak for itself even without doctrine on how to live a happy fulfilled life but none of this changes the truth. Christ is returning, salvation isn't a joke, we can't save ourselves, ask God for his Holy Spirit unto faith while you can. The days are shorter now than ever before regardless of life itself being so fleeting.
edit on 23-3-2012 by HeFrippedMeOff because: typo



posted on Mar, 23 2012 @ 05:11 PM
link   
reply to post by HeFrippedMeOff
 

You did not quote scripture accurately. Where does that quote say things would be fine?

I said I paraphrased it, and what difference could it possibly make how I worded it since I was referring to the verse saying, "peace and security". Take issue with that, since my paraphrase is meaningless other that to point to what the verse was saying. It looks like all you are doing is finding nits to pick since you can't deal with the actual issue, then imagining that somehow "wins" your argument.



posted on Mar, 23 2012 @ 08:08 PM
link   
reply to post by HeFrippedMeOff
 





Text3Knowing this first, that there shall come in the last days scoffers, walking after their own lusts, 4And saying, Where is the promise of his coming? for since the fathers fell asleep, all things continue as they were from the beginning of the creation. 5For this they willingly are ignorant of, that by the word of God the heavens were of old, and the earth standing out of the water and in the water: 6Whereby the world that then was, being overflowed with water, perished: 7But the heavens and the earth, which are now, by the same word are kept in store, reserved unto fire against the day of judgment and perdition of ungodly men.



I would not waste to much time on Dewey60 he is a waste of your good seed and is set in his teachings of man never knowing the holy spirit. Like we are taught do not cast your pearls before swine.
edit on 23-3-2012 by Azadok because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 23 2012 @ 08:38 PM
link   
we gotta do it on our own...



posted on Mar, 24 2012 @ 12:23 AM
link   
but seriously Jesus returns for me every year at Christmas time



posted on Apr, 2 2012 @ 03:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by jmdewey60
reply to post by HeFrippedMeOff
 

You did not quote scripture accurately. Where does that quote say things would be fine?

I said I paraphrased it, and what difference could it possibly make how I worded it since I was referring to the verse saying, "peace and security". Take issue with that, since my paraphrase is meaningless other that to point to what the verse was saying. It looks like all you are doing is finding nits to pick since you can't deal with the actual issue, then imagining that somehow "wins" your argument.


You say one verse talks about things being fine and other verses in different chapters reading that things wont be fine at that time. The verse you paraphrase in corroboration to everything being fine actually reads that we'll only hear peace and safety but then destruction comes, not that things will actually be fine. In essence what you did was paraphrased one verse to fit your argument against another verse instead of quoting them for all to see that what you're arguing actually makes no sense.

You are aware of scripture that discusses the son of perdition's fake peace treaty, the abomination that cause desolation/ the image of the beast being set up in the temple of God, and the fact that "that day" shall not come unless there come a falling away first and the son of perdition be revealed? Or do these mean nothing to you in reference to the return of Christ in scripture during troublesome times?
edit on 2-4-2012 by HeFrippedMeOff because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 2 2012 @ 05:35 PM
link   
reply to post by HeFrippedMeOff
 

In essence what you did was paraphrased one verse to fit your argument against another verse instead of quoting them for all to see that what you're arguing actually makes no sense.

Yes, that is a method of argument.
Do you ever read scholarly books or essays? There are a lot you can find on the internet where you can download free PDF's published as archives from theological journals. I read them all the time, and you learn how arguments are made, which is by drawing out the meanings from things in order to compare and contrast them.

It is not something unethical or deceptive, especially when it concerns a verse every Christian in the world should be very familiar with. "peace and safety" then comes sudden destruction. Like I said, even politically astute people who have never read a Bible or attended a church meeting are familiar with that verse.

What I was comparing was how the two books, 1 Thess. and 2 Thess. differ when it is discussing the Parousia event and the state of affairs before it, and if there are signs to indicate when it might come, or if it there are any signs.
In the first book, it describes a time when people are talking about peace and safety (what I described as people thinking things are fine) , then it comes without warning.

In 2 Thess. it describes a situation where people are in a state of anxiety where there seems to be some person having his restraint removed in order to show himself as the man of sin and taking a position where he should not be, and in the temple itself, then people should take that as a sign that the Parousia is near at hand so they can be prepared for it.

What I was trying to bring to support my position that one of the books has to be wrong (in addition to the second saying the earlier letter was a forgery) is that they give two distinct and different versions of the time before the coming of the Lord.

You are aware of scripture that discusses the son of perdition's fake peace treaty, the abomination that cause desolation/ the image of the beast being set up in the temple of God, and the fact that "that day" shall not come unless there come a falling away first and the son of perdition be revealed?
Daniel 9:27
He will confirm a covenant with many for one 'seven.' In the middle of the 'seven' he will put an end to sacrifice and offering. And on a wing [of the temple] he will set up an abomination that causes desolation, until the end that is decreed is poured out on him."

Right, and there is another, apparently related verse, in Matthew 24:
15 “So when you see standing in the holy place ‘the abomination that causes desolation,’ spoken of through the prophet Daniel—let the reader understand—

It looks like to me that someone took that reference to Daniel about this concept of abomination and extended it out as a license to incorporate some more out of Daniel and associate it into a conglomeration as a prediction of what is going to happen. The idea, to me is that most people who had read the first letter of Paul to the Thessalonians would have seen the destruction of the temple (the desolation) as the prophecy fulfilled, and the Parousia. Jesus had returned in the clouds and demonstrated his authority through bringing judgment on those who had killed him and rejected his message.
The writer of 2 Thess. is saying, no, don't think that was the coming, and Jesus is still coming in a fantastic way where we will personally experience it and all the people in your city who opposed your becoming Christians will have fire rain down on them and be burnt up, but it is in some distant future time.
I propose for consideration that those who want to see their "enemies" burnt up before their eyes , if given the choice, will accept the second letter and reject the first, and my opinion is based on those who have done just that.
edit on 2-4-2012 by jmdewey60 because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 3 2012 @ 01:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by jmdewey60
reply to post by HeFrippedMeOff
 

In essence what you did was paraphrased one verse to fit your argument against another verse instead of quoting them for all to see that what you're arguing actually makes no sense.

Yes, that is a method of argument.
...


Your paraphrase didn't draw out meaning, it changed the meaning which is unethical.



What I was comparing was how the two books, 1 Thess. and 2 Thess. differ when it is discussing the Parousia event and the state of affairs before it, and if there are signs to indicate when it might come, or if it there are any signs.

In the first book, it describes a time when people are talking about peace and safety (what I described as people thinking things are fine) , then it comes without warning.


You actually paraphrased the event as being fine, not people being under a false sense of security. And then you equate that false sense of security with there actually being real security which is not an effective argument.



In 2 Thess. it describes a situation where people are in a state of anxiety where there seems to be some person having his restraint removed in order to show himself as the man of sin and taking a position where he should not be, and in the temple itself, then people should take that as a sign that the Parousia is near at hand so they can be prepared for it.


"In contrast to that, 2 Thess. says, no, this event is far off and don't expect anything like that happening in the near future, since there will be lots of warnings and the event will be totally expected, seeing how everything will appear to be obviously bad, with no peace and security, like the first letter spoke of.."


Where in chapter 2 does it attest to the peoples anxiety and lots of warnings or where things are obviously bad with no false peace and security? In fact, AGAIN, no time frame is given and nothing of environment of the time in Chapter 2 is given.

And i already explained the not knowing but also not being left in the dark when the day gets here.


What I was trying to bring to support my position that one of the books has to be wrong (in addition to the second saying the earlier letter was a forgery) is that they give two distinct and different versions of the time before the coming of the Lord.


The second doesn't claim that and there are not two distinct versions. You're reaching and supposing and assuming and reading every version but one that is an accurate translation. Believe what you want though, but that doesn't make it true according to what the Word actually says.



You are aware of scripture that discusses the son of perdition's fake peace treaty, the abomination that cause desolation/ the image of the beast being set up in the temple of God, and the fact that "that day" shall not come unless there come a falling away first and the son of perdition be revealed?
Daniel 9:27
He will confirm a covenant with many for one 'seven.' In the middle of the 'seven' he will put an end to sacrifice and offering. And on a wing [of the temple] he will set up an abomination that causes desolation, until the end that is decreed is poured out on him."

Right, and there is another, apparently related verse, in Matthew 24:
15 “So when you see standing in the holy place ‘the abomination that causes desolation,’ spoken of through the prophet Daniel—let the reader understand—

It looks like to me that someone took that reference to Daniel about this concept of abomination and extended it out as a license to incorporate some more out of Daniel and associate it into a conglomeration as a prediction of what is going to happen.

Just so you know, "But thou, O Daniel, shut up the words, and seal the book, [even] to the time of the end..."

Daniels book is about what is going to happen. It even provides numbers for a time-frame but there's no need to go into that, only that yes some of the chapters are indeed for the time of the end.

And the abomination spoken of here is a parallel to the image of the beast set up in revelation because again, they are for and about the time of the end. Accepted or not, it is not among my concern.


edit on 3-4-2012 by HeFrippedMeOff because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 3 2012 @ 01:29 PM
link   
reply to post by jmdewey60
 



The idea, to me is that most people who had read the first letter of Paul to the Thessalonians would have seen the destruction of the temple (the desolation) as the prophecy fulfilled, and the Parousia.

Except that the destruction of the temple, no stone would be left unturned, was fulfilled by the Romans but Christ has not returned since his ascension.


Jesus had returned in the clouds and demonstrated his authority through bringing judgment on those who had killed him and rejected his message.


Where do you read this or how are you sure of such?


The writer of 2 Thess. is saying, no, don't think that was the coming, and Jesus is still coming in a fantastic way where we will personally experience it and all the people in your city who opposed your becoming Christians will have fire rain down on them and be burnt up, but it is in some distant future time.


After the first letter wherein Paul lets us know of our hopeful expectation, undoubtedly some believed that the Lord would come while they were alive. Undoubtedly Paul got word of this, and undoubtedly Paul wrote again unto them explaining things further.


I propose for consideration that those who want to see their "enemies" burnt up before their eyes , if given the choice, will accept the second letter and reject the first, and my opinion is based on those who have done just that.
edit on 2-4-2012 by jmdewey60 because: (no reason given)


And those of us who accept both don't want our enemies burned but according to all scripture we would not that any perish although we know not all will accept God. Nevertheless, we want them to come to the knowledge of saving grace in Christ, to accept God our Father in Love and faith, and to love him and their neighbor.

I can't answer for others. Only myself and what I desire according to faith and understanding imparted unto me. We can't judge Christ based on men.



posted on Apr, 3 2012 @ 03:17 PM
link   
reply to post by HeFrippedMeOff
 

. . . it changed the meaning which is unethical.

Well, dance a jig while blowing a horn, if that's what makes you feel good, for all I care because you aren't making any points but negative ones for fortifying your position on grounds of ignorance.
My advice is to ignore all my posts and never respond to any of them, If you feel that I unethically engage in discussions.
edit on 3-4-2012 by jmdewey60 because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 3 2012 @ 04:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by jmdewey60
reply to post by HeFrippedMeOff
 

. . . it changed the meaning which is unethical.

Well, dance a jig while blowing a horn, if that's what makes you feel good, for all I care because you aren't making any points but negative ones for fortifying your position on grounds of ignorance.
My advice is to ignore all my posts and never respond to any of them, If you feel that I unethically engage in discussions.
edit on 3-4-2012 by jmdewey60 because: (no reason given)


Don't go gettin your feelings all hurt; I feel you're perverting scripture to your own dismay and to the dismay of those who don't know scripture so well. I don't contend with you because I want to say, "I win." I'm contending with you to test my foundation against yours that we may profit from each other like iron sharpening iron. I understand all of your arguments but in an effort to not let those differences get in between us and the Love of our Father we must realize that we are sinners and we need a savior.

I'm not concerned with anything but that our Father in heaven gets glory for the love He has shown us in giving us His son to be sin for us. If Christ is risen then to deny him the efficacy is to deny the love of our Father, even the Holy Spirit. What tradition or knowledge or gain is more important in this life than the love of our Father?
edit on 3-4-2012 by HeFrippedMeOff because: (no reason given)

edit on 3-4-2012 by HeFrippedMeOff because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
8
<< 8  9  10    12 >>

log in

join