5-21-2011 Rapture... Get the facts strait...

Originally posted by Homedawg
but since this is now May 22 and there was no rapture,this whole thread should be closed...

Yeah, probably.

I already wrote that any prediction you make, based on numbers from a corrupt book, will inevitably FAIL.
This one failed, so will all others.

reply to post by sHuRuLuNi


But that's just not true. The KJV isn't the first "Holy Bible". Martin Luther translated the New Testament into German in 1545. There were other translator's too.

In heaven three bear witness. The Father, Son & Holy Ghost. These three agree as one. Why do you have a hard time with this saying? Jesus said so Himself that He and the Father are one. You can't take parts you agree with and toss out the rest. This page will tell you all about 1 John:5:7. Is it true that 1 John 5:7 is not in any Greek manuscript before the 1600s? If it is true, why is it in the King James Bible?

So it wasn't added and it isn't a forgery. Tertullian quoted the verse in his Apology, Against Praxeas in 200 A.D. A list on that site lists others too well before the 1600's.

A Trail of Evidence

But during this same time, we find mention of 1 John 5:7, from about 200 AD through the 1500s. Here is a useful timeline of references to this verse:
200 AD Tertullian quoted the verse in his Apology, Against Praxeas
250 AD Cyprian of Carthage, wrote, "And again, of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost it is written: "And the three are One" in his On The Lapsed, On the Novatians, (see note for Old Latin)
350 AD Priscillian referred to it [Corpus Scriptorum Ecclesiasticorum Latinorum, Academia Litterarum Vindobonensis, vol. xviii, p. 6.]
350 AD Idacius Clarus referred to it [Patrilogiae Cursus Completus, Series Latina by Migne, vol. 62, col. 359.]
350 AD Athanasius referred to it in his De Incarnatione
398 AD Aurelius Augustine used it to defend Trinitarianism in De Trinitate against the heresy of Sabellianism
415 AD Council of Carthage appealed to 1 John 5:7 when debating the Arian belief (Arians didn't believe in the deity of Jesus Christ)
450-530 AD Several orthodox African writers quoted the verse when defending the doctrine of the Trinity against the gainsaying of the Vandals. These writers are:
A) Vigilius Tapensis in "Three Witnesses in Heaven"
B) Victor Vitensis in his Historia persecutionis [Corpus Scriptorum Ecclesiasticorum Latinorum, Academia Litterarum Vindobonensis, vol. vii, p. 60.]
C) Fulgentius in "The Three Heavenly Witnesses" [Patrilogiae Cursus Completus, Series Latina by Migne, vol. 65, col. 500.]
500 AD Cassiodorus cited it [Patrilogiae Cursus Completus, Series Latina by Migne, vol. 70, col. 1373.]
550 AD Old Latin ms r has it
550 AD The "Speculum" has it [The Speculum is a treatise that contains some good Old Latin scriptures.]
750 AD Wianburgensis referred to it
800 AD Jerome's Vulgate has it [It was not in Jerome's original Vulgate, but was brought in about 800 AD from good Old Latin manuscripts.]
1000s AD miniscule 635 has it
1150 AD minuscule ms 88 in the margin
1300s AD miniscule 629 has it
157-1400 AD Waldensian (that is, Vaudois) Bibles have the verse
1500 AD ms 61 has the verse
Even Nestle's 26th edition Greek New Testament, based upon the corrupt Alexandrian text, admits that these and other important manuscripts have the verse: 221 v.l.; 2318 Vulgate [Claromontanus]; 629; 61; 88; 429 v.l.; 636 v.l.; 918; l; r.

this really couldnt be called a "prediction" more like the mumblings of a madman...much like Joseph Smith and that mohammed character

Originally posted by Homedawg
mumblings of a madman... that mohammed character

1. Read THIS
2. Explain.


3.:

How will there be for them a reminder [at that time]? And there had come to them a clear Messenger.
Then they turned away from him and said, "[He was] taught, a madman."
Indeed, We will remove the torment for a little. Indeed, you [disbelievers] will return [to disbelief].
The Day We will strike with the greatest assault, indeed, We will take retribution.
(Qur'an, 44:13-16)

Click here for more information.

reply to post by soaringhawk
I don't even want to get into to this arguement, but I pray you reach an understanding. Some info.

King James Bible Translation, And every Bible translation ever done is in this site by the date.

The Anglican Church’s King James Bible took decades to overcome the more popular Protestant Church’s Geneva Bible. One of the greatest ironies of history, is that many Protestant Christian churches today embrace the King James Bible exclusively as the “only” legitimate English language translation… yet it is not even a Protestant translation!

This "translation to end all translations" (for a while at least) was the result of the combined effort of about fifty scholars. They took into consideration: The Tyndale New Testament, The Coverdale Bible, The Matthews Bible, The Great Bible, The Geneva Bible, and even the Rheims New Testament. The great revision of the Bishop's Bible had begun. From 1605 to 1606 the scholars engaged in private research. From 1607 to 1609 the work was assembled. In 1610 the work went to press, and in 1611 the first of the huge (16 inch tall) pulpit folios known today as "The 1611 King James Bible" came off the printing press. A typographical discrepancy in Ruth 3:15 rendered a pronoun "He" instead of "She" in that verse in some printings. This caused some of the 1611 First Editions to be known by collectors as "He" Bibles, and others as "She" Bibles. Starting just one year after the huge 1611 pulpit-size King James Bibles were printed and chained to every church pulpit in England; printing then began on the earliest normal-size printings of the King James Bible. These were produced so individuals could have their own personal copy of the Bible.

www.greatsite.com...

Originally posted by Seektruthalways1
reply to post by EvolEric

 

You are right, now since you are a Christian I have one question for you 'Trinity' believers. If the Son does not know the time, how then can He be 'God'? Does that not say the Son isnt the Father, or what you Christians call God? And if so call 'God' died on the cross, which is impossible cause hes eternal, how are you still here breathing, and how is the universe still around?

You actually have two questions.

The short answer for question #1: You fail to distinguish pre-resurrection and post-resurrection Christ.

The long answer:

Hebrews 2 and Phil. 2:7 goes into detail on this 'issue' of not knowing the time/hour. In Hebrews 2, it's stated that Christ was made lower than the angels for a little while. in Phil it is stated he emptied himself of all things. Ie, while he walked on Earth (and at the time he said that), he was fully dependent on the Father as a Man and an example for us. So what did he empty himself of, and what was he before he was made lower than the angels?

That leads us to the real question, who was he after his resurrection? That little while is over (as it is in our time line), and he's resumed his rightful place above the angels at the right hand of the Father. So what does the Bible say about his deity now? He now knows all things as expressed by Peter, a claim he did not refute, and expressed omnipotence (John 21:17, Mat 28:20), two attributes that only the tetragammaton possesses.

He also explains this change quite clearly in John 14 if you look closely enough. His description of himself after he leaves (read, resurrected) is that The Father is in him, and he is in the Father. Where he is, the Father is. If you've seen the Father, you've seen Christ. He will send the Holy Spirit, and the Father will send the Holy Spirit. He even nails the point home further by stating that where the Spirit is, He is, linking all '3' of them together as one. Only after that he stops talking about a post resurrection body, and switches to present day does he say the Father is greater than Him.

What should really ruffle peoples feathers who deny the deity of Christ is that all the OT saints that "saw" YHWH bowed down and worshiped Christ (if you've seen me, you've seen the father). In fact, it cant be any other way. if you didn't see Christ you didn't see the Father (John 14:7).

Further more, the 'tying up loose ends' answer is in Rev 1:1 in which God the Father revealed this time of restoration to Christ, and Christ in a post resurrection sense does now know his hour. Read Rev 1:1 very carefully to understand what is being relieved to whom and why.

Secondly, compare Matthew 24:36 to Acts 1:6-7. In these two sections he is asked the same question, but gave a different answer. Before his resurrection he did not know, and lets it known that that only the Father knows. After his resurrection he does not add that phrase, but instead says it's not for YOU to know things the Father has put into his own authority. He did not say 'us', or 'not even the son'. His different way of answering the same question twice implies that after the resurrection he does now know date/hour but will not speak it without the Fathers permission. Now link that knowledge with Hebrews 2, Rev 1:1, Rev 10, John 1:1-3,14 and Psalm 2, 110, etc etc.

There's reasons why he would know after his resurrection and not before, but I'm going to let you do your own homework on that question. I've given you a good starting point with the above information, and I could probably fill a library with more. I suggest you do your own home work, as the answer might surprise you.

Now for your second question.

The short answer: You failed to recognize the Spirit of God is also the Creator, probably as a result of some flavor of Russelism. Additionally there is a defined difference between Body, Soul, and Spirit, and you failed in reading comprehension ie, Gen 1:2, John 1:14, John 2:21, Luke 3:22 and Luke 23:45

The long answer:

Well, the 'where was the earth shattering Kaboom when he died!' question is really silly. The real question that should be asked is what exactly died? Did his spirit die with his body too? Thankfully, Christ himself gave you that answer. If you recall, the Father gave him his Spirit in Luke 3:22 at his baptism (as a side note: that entire chapter is a beautiful representation of the trinity in plain site). Later, on the cross Christ in Luke 23:46, he entrusts the Spirit to the Father, making him responsible for it, gives it up, and dies. The point being is, Christ's body was dead, but his spirit was safely entrusted to the Father. As his Body was just the Tabernacle/temple (John 1:14, John 2:21) it does not mean the Spirit/Soul died too, just the Spirits dwelling place.

Additionally, the Holy Spirit was not only involved in Creation (or Re-Creation depending on your interpretation of Gen 1:1-2), but 'he' was the first aspect of God introduced into scripture, when 'he; 'brooded' over the waters in Gen 1:2 before the Tetragammaton spoke in Genesis 1:3.

As for the deity of Christ, I strongly follow Deut 6:3-4, in which the Lord our God is One Lord. Acknowledging just John 1:1 and Deut 6:3-4 alone demands I recognize them as one. Not to mention the may other scriptures throughout the Old Testament that have certain abilities subscribed to YHWH alone that Christ also performs on Earth. Isaiah also has plenty of scriptures that makes it plain that there is only One God, and he recognizes none beside him including the "2' people talking in Isaiah 44:6. There's plenty more, but again I'm not going to list them all here.

Besides, Arianism or the modern day equivalent being Russellism and it's clones seems what your learning towards with your post. I'm gathering you deny the deity of Christ, and then to confuse the matter more, throw in some sacred name movement cultism to focus on the endless disputes of the law that Paul warns against in 1 Timothy 1 and Titus 3:9.

This is the one of the reasons I broke off Christianity, cause its absurd, and too many dumb people running around those churches. Read your Scriptures, pray for the truth, and ask your Heavenly Father for the True Name of Himself and His Son. That is the Father is Yahuwah (YHWH) and His Son is Yahuwshuwah.

Except I don't just read the the scriptures, I study them. Everything God has given to mankind has a reason and purpose. I do agree that very few churches actually teach the word of God. This is why I do home fellowship only, under the guidance of a VERY few selective teachers. As an example, Christians should be celebrating Passover -- not easter.

As for his Hebrew name which you used, which has various translations and interpolations, I prefer Yeshua as do most Messianic congregations.

Just as a thought, It's ironic that you use the name 'Yahuwshuwah' which is not located in any scriptures, yet tell people to read them. I'm not sure exactly what that is about and kind of a confusing double standard if you ask me.

As for that spelling, I am familiar with Daud's 'formula' for this version of Christ's name as he based it mainly off of exodus 23 and I consider it flimsy at best. The argument he presents for the word 'name' as it is used, can also mean "the Deity as being present with mortals" such as it was used and implied in 1Ki 8:29, 2ki 23:27, and 1Ki 3:2. That representation fits the book of Joshua which was what Exodus 23's verse was speaking of. Namely the Angel of the LORD that Joshua met, who just happens to be YHWH (Gen 16:7-13, Gen 22:15-18, Gen 33:11-13 etc) and in context with John 17 as well (Ie, Isaiah 7:14 John 1:1, Matthew 1:23, etc) regarding his name, ie God is with us.

Those scriptures are not so easy to reconcile if denying the deity of Christ, but harmonizes the scriptures perfectly if you do.

Even more ironic is for you to use this variation of his Hebrew name that means YHWH is Salvation, yet Christ is the only Savior (Acts 4). Christ has to be YHWH as Isaiah 43:11 is pretty clear who the savior is. He is/was/shall be YHWH, there is NO one else. You need to reconcile that on your own.

As for asking the Heavenly Father for just a name, I would implore people including you to pray to the God of Abraham, Issac and Jacob for the truth in full. Note the God of Abraham, Issac, and Jacob phrase. If a name is that important, then his answer should be rather direct and quick, no?

Have a good evening.

reply to post by coolottie


I'm aware of the history of The Holy Bible & its different version's. So, what are you talking about? I was showing sHuRuLuNi that he is wrong in his accusation about 1 John 5:7,8.

reply to post by Homedawg


Yes! Mohammad was the original "false prophet". No doubt about that!

Originally posted by soaringhawk
reply to post by coolottie

 

I'm aware of the history of The Holy Bible & its different version's.

So, what are you talking about? I was showing sHuRuLuNi that he is wrong in his accusation about 1 John 5:7,8.

I might reply to him later Soaringhawk. I can play the 'textual oddity' game too, mainly TORH spelled frontwards in the first two books of Moses. Backwards in the last two books of Moses, and YHWH right in the center (ie, the Torah pointing towards YHWH) in equal-distant letter intervals. Pi and Log functions in the 'creation' verses ie, Gen 1:1 and John 1:1, word usage that implies each of the gospels were written last, etc.

I simply do not have time to reply now, and honestly I'm not even sure it's worth it.

I think we all want to live in a world that looks something between 'The Lord of The Rings and an album cover from Yessongs......... just what I see going around. There is No such thing as Magic no matter how cool of shapes you make with your hands......oooowm.....lol..

Originally posted by gabby2011

All because he dared say that love is the key to God?

So you make fun of him watching football?

and insinuate he is a pervert?

grow up

edit on 22-5-2011 by gabby2011 because: (no reason given)

edit on 22-5-2011 by gabby2011 because: (no reason given)

Wow, you have "some kind of issues" with me! (I refer to your increasingly hysterical attacks on me in another thread).
I don't disagree with him about love, don't be silly!
I disagree with his attacks on not Islam, but the Muslim poster (as you have been attacking not my views, but me!), and I disagree with his making use of the paedophilia accusation (wow, what a gift to internet atheists that is!). What would you do without it?
I was making a reference to the fact that statistically sports coaches are the group most likely to be accused of and to commit paedophilia.
You say you're not American, but both your language use, and your lack of comprehension of any subtlety say otherwise..
Canadian? Australian? New Zealander-who-desperately-wants-to-be-an-American?
V.

Originally posted by Vicky32

Originally posted by gabby2011

All because he dared say that love is the key to God?

So you make fun of him watching football?

and insinuate he is a pervert?

grow up

edit on 22-5-2011 by gabby2011 because: (no reason given)

edit on 22-5-2011 by gabby2011 because: (no reason given)

Wow, you have "some kind of issues" with me! (I refer to your increasingly hysterical attacks on me in another thread).
I don't disagree with him about love, don't be silly!
I disagree with his attacks on not Islam, but the Muslim poster (as you have been attacking not my views, but me!), and I disagree with his making use of the paedophilia accusation (wow, what a gift to internet atheists that is!). What would you do without it?
I was making a reference to the fact that statistically sports coaches are the group most likely to be accused of and to commit paedophilia.
You say you're not American, but both your language use, and your lack of comprehension of any subtlety say otherwise..
Canadian? Australian? New Zealander-who-desperately-wants-to-be-an-American?
V.

ummm..quite happy to be canadian thanks...but I don't appreciate you putting my neighbours down,and lumping them all together as some kind of idiots.

As far as hysterically attacking you..I would say the opposite is true. I have no need to attack you..I merely speak my mind on what I think is bogus and hypocritical...and I find the pope to be a poor leader, for what I understand the bible to teach.

I'm not perfect Vicky,and perhaps I did not understand fully what german nazi's you were talking about....but that is not an excuse for you to go on a rampage against all americans.

I think you have some deep issues you need to look into. Blaming a whole country for the corruption of a few...is a far cry from being rational...and/or christian.

Originally posted by predator0187

Mega fail?

Talk about buzz words. Christians have to fight evolution as it disproved their thought that the world is only six thousand years old, and that god made us the way we are. ...Statistics also proves most Christians disbelieve in evolution.
You must not have kids as if you did, you would understand how serious pedophilia (sic - mis-spelt) is.
Pred....

I understand why you desperately don't want to believe that only a tiny minority of (most rural, mostly American) Christians happily accept evolution. But your 'statistics' are nonsense.
Of course I have children. (I am 99% certain that you, however do not). LIke Gabby, you're so keen to prove me evil, and you're so bad at using the English language (which is what I speak), that you jump on my use of the term 'kiddy-fiddling' to claim I am minimising paedophilia. I was not minimising it. I have a good friend who was molested - but hey, not by a priest, so I suppose you'll dismiss the fact that he spent most of his teens in a mental health facility!
You get all your facts and statistics from American atheists, therefore there's no point in getting you to check your statistics...
V

Originally posted by Vicky32

Originally posted by predator0187

Mega fail?

Talk about buzz words. Christians have to fight evolution as it disproved their thought that the world is only six thousand years old, and that god made us the way we are. ...Statistics also proves most Christians disbelieve in evolution.
You must not have kids as if you did, you would understand how serious pedophilia (sic - mis-spelt) is.
Pred....

I understand why you desperately don't want to believe that only a tiny minority of (most rural, mostly American) Christians happily accept evolution. But your 'statistics' are nonsense.
Of course I have children. (I am 99% certain that you, however do not). LIke Gabby, you're so keen to prove me evil, and you're so bad at using the English language (which is what I speak), that you jump on my use of the term 'kiddy-fiddling' to claim I am minimising paedophilia. I was not minimising it. I have a good friend who was molested - but hey, not by a priest, so I suppose you'll dismiss the fact that he spent most of his teens in a mental health facility!
You get all your facts and statistics from American atheists, therefore there's no point in getting you to check your statistics...
V

??? where do you get the idea I was trying to prove you evil?

I don't agree with most of what you say,and I think that you have issues .

You accuse me of bigotry for calling out the pope on his peadophile coverups..yet you accuse a whole nation of being idiots???

I don't think you're evil vicky, but I think your very angry ,and your putting the blame on the wrong people.

I might add that if you think you're superior because you have some kind of higher understanding of the english language, then you are delusional as well.(It does not make you superior)

Originally posted by Vicky32
I understand why you desperately don't want to believe that only a tiny minority of (most rural, mostly American) Christians happily accept evolution. But your 'statistics' are nonsense.
Of course I have children. (I am 99% certain that you, however do not). LIke Gabby, you're so keen to prove me evil, and you're so bad at using the English language (which is what I speak), that you jump on my use of the term 'kiddy-fiddling' to claim I am minimising paedophilia. I was not minimising it. I have a good friend who was molested - but hey, not by a priest, so I suppose you'll dismiss the fact that he spent most of his teens in a mental health facility!
You get all your facts and statistics from American atheists, therefore there's no point in getting you to check your statistics...
V

You prove your ignorance with how you speak among us. I have 2 children, a university education and guess what I speak English.

This is just getting funny now, I will let you pollute this thread all you want as most thiests are frowning upon your tone and ad hominen attacks. Facts are facts regardless of where they come from. To not trusts facts from someone you have a differing opinion with is ignorance.

I do not have to prove you evil, as I do not believe in evil. I will also not have to prove how ignorant you are as you have done an astounding job of doing so yourself.

Pred...

Originally posted by gabby2011

ummm..quite happy to be canadian thanks...but I don't appreciate you putting my neighbours down,and lumping them all together as some kind of idiots.


I'm not perfect Vicky,and perhaps I did not understand fully what german nazi's you were talking about....but that is not an excuse for you to go on a rampage against all americans.

I think you have some deep issues you need to look into. Blaming a whole country for the corruption of a few...is a far cry from being rational...and/or christian.

edit on 22-5-2011 by gabby2011 because: (no reason given)

I am quite happy to admit that I don't like Americans. Also, the American education system is several steps below ours, as I see the Canadian one is also..
To start with - apostrophes are never used in plurals!
V.

Originally posted by Vicky32

Originally posted by gabby2011

ummm..quite happy to be canadian thanks...but I don't appreciate you putting my neighbours down,and lumping them all together as some kind of idiots.


I'm not perfect Vicky,and perhaps I did not understand fully what german nazi's you were talking about....but that is not an excuse for you to go on a rampage against all americans.

I think you have some deep issues you need to look into. Blaming a whole country for the corruption of a few...is a far cry from being rational...and/or christian.

edit on 22-5-2011 by gabby2011 because: (no reason given)

I am quite happy to admit that I don't like Americans. Also, the American education system is several steps below ours, as I see the Canadian one is also..
To start with - apostrophes are never used in plurals!
V.

wow..thankyou for showing us your true colours...

a christian who hates americans ,and thinks she is superior to anyone in north america.

(chuckles)

Originally posted by gabby2011
I might add that if you think you're superior because you have some kind of higher understanding of the english language, then you are delusional as well.(It does not make you superior)

What makes you think that having a superior knowledge of English makes me superior? It simply makes me a teacher, which is what I am...
Seeing grammar and spelling mistakes makes me feel ill, and when I see that someone has misunderstood me because of their own lack of knowledge, upsets me.
V.