Jesus is NEVER coming back in the flesh

page: 7
9
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join

posted on Nov, 11 2011 @ 11:05 PM
link   
reply to post by NOTurTypical
 




The "Trinity", our English Theological term we use to describe God's revealed nature in the scripture. And it begins at Genesis. It's always the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. Call it the Godhead if you don't like the word Trinity.


If God is a trinity and intended humans to understand Him as a trinity, then God would have said so.
Instead, the non-biblical idea of trinity is so strongly established among christians they have to skew and stretch verses to fit the idea of "trinity".

Yes, there is that one verse or two where all three of the trinity are used together. Its neither conclusive nor does it magically change the fact that there are hundreds of instances in the bible where God is shown to be One.


edit on 11-11-2011 by sk0rpi0n because: (no reason given)




posted on Nov, 11 2011 @ 11:05 PM
link   
P.S. Stop reading Gnostic/Roman Catholic manuscripts (Vaticanus/Sinaiaticus). That's why your Godhead isn't in the NT you study. The Gnostics at Alexandria were known for expurgating portions of gospel they didn't agree with.



posted on Nov, 11 2011 @ 11:08 PM
link   
reply to post by sk0rpi0n
 


Humor me:


Here, and here.



posted on Nov, 11 2011 @ 11:38 PM
link   
reply to post by NOTurTypical
 


Sorry, not willing to sit through 2 more of your favorite videos. I've seen plenty of those videos... and its just the usual scripture skewing to arrive at a pre-determined conclusion. If you think the trinity is biblically valid, please reason with your own words... or at least quote from the video you are using as an argument.

My point is that its established that there are tons of instances where God is shown to be One...and the idea of the trinity is not sound. So why do you believe in it?

Now please dont tell me that you think the Shema "Hear, O Israel: the Lord our God is one Lord," is actually meant to be understood as "Hear, O Israel: the Lord our God is a trinity of Father, son and Holy Spirit,"


edit on 11-11-2011 by sk0rpi0n because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 12 2011 @ 12:03 AM
link   
reply to post by NOTurTypical
 

Wikipedia
I have the book, plus you can read the book online, the History of the Canons of the church. I went over this in detail on Dantemustdie's Thread on indisputable facts.
There is no record of this ever happening. It's a myth, but a persistent one.
People made it up, get it?
I don't know what happened, and neither does anyone else.
These people were absolutely insane by reasonable standards of today.
They were paranoid and ignorant fanatics getting rid of anyone with the slightest disagreement.



posted on Nov, 12 2011 @ 12:06 AM
link   

Originally posted by NOTurTypical
P.S. Stop reading Gnostic/Roman Catholic manuscripts (Vaticanus/Sinaiaticus). That's why your Godhead isn't in the NT you study. The Gnostics at Alexandria were known for expurgating portions of gospel they didn't agree with.
Tell me the Greek word for Godhead, then, from you Byzantium manuscript.



posted on Nov, 12 2011 @ 01:22 AM
link   

Originally posted by XXXN3O
reply to post by IAMIAM
 


You know, I have read so many of your posts over the last few months.

I was just about to take you seriously, then I looked at your avatar and came to a realisation.

You were never paying attention to anyone on the board, or me, or anyone else but yourself.

I say this as you are clearly looking at your own left ear constantly as your avatar shows anyone that bothers to pay attention.


Of course I am only paying attention to myself. One can only pay attention to themselves.

Pay attention to YOURSELF has been the point all along.

With Love,

Your Brother



posted on Nov, 12 2011 @ 01:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by lonewolf19792000
reply to post by IAMIAM
 


Ahem. Jesus will return by the way he left, in his glorified body and he will come down on the Mt. of Olives. Everyone saw him go, so he was in his physical self, so obviously he will return and will be seen returning. He was also seen talking to Moses and Eliyah. The events of his return were spoken of by himself and to say otherwise is to call him a liar.

Nuff said.


Keep waiting my friend.

If you are not finding him within, you will be deceived or left waiting.

With Love,

Your Brother



posted on Nov, 12 2011 @ 02:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by jmdewey60
reply to post by NOTurTypical
 
"Godhead" is not in there either.
It is a made up name not in the Greek of the NT.
There is no such word and translators centuries ago created it when they made a Latin Bible.
There is just not a trinity in the Bible and is something that came up after people decided to deify Jesus, to fit him in somehow where it was not rejected out of hand by everyone in the world.
If it was somehow important, it would have been in the Bible but it is not.
So why make a big deal out of it now?
There is no reason I can see, what's the point?
Is it something we need to believe in to be saved? I don't think so.

edit on 11-11-2011 by jmdewey60 because: (no reason given)

Nope, it appears 3 times in the NT: Acts 17:29, Romans 1:20, and Collossians: 2:9 which I'll quote:


For in him (Christ) dwelleth all the fullness of the Godhead bodily


Of course in Acts and Romans, the word used isn't Godhead exactly, but it's the same thing with 'metanoia' and 'repent' which also only meet eachother somewhere on the fringes. What's important about theios and theiotes is that they indicate plurality in the case of theios and an underlying and all encompassing nature of divinity in thes case of theiotes. The word used in Collossians does translate to Godhead though: theotes. It's sort of funny how many shades of philosophical meaning Greek words have. These words have a difference of 3 letters each and all three of them have a specific theological meaning.



posted on Nov, 12 2011 @ 02:32 PM
link   
reply to post by IAMIAM
 


This is half true, but thankfully, you got the important half right. If we do not prepare for the coming of the Bridegroom with watchfulness, we will find ourselves in the darkness. Christ was speaking spiritually here. You can be mentally watchful, looking to the skies and exegetically dissecting scripture to find out when He's coming. However, it will be a terrible day when he does come visibly and all of those people discover that they are noetically asleep and are not ready.

The Orthodox understanding of Heaven and Hell is very different than the west. Heaven is not streets of gold or fluffy clouds and hell isn't a torture room where you are separated from God. They are both one place: the presence of God. How many times does God appear with fire? His presence; his divinity is all divine fire. Those who love Him draw near *together* and are not consumed. Those who hate Him and do not know him, are *alone* in the presence of their estranged Heavenly Father and are consumed in shame and contempt, and there is no escape.

We have to be spiritually ready, we have to find our nous: the part of us that was created according to His image. We have to find it underneath our thoughts and ego and shine that image every single day. We must remain vigilant, *because* Christ shall return bodily for the final judgment: did you know Him, or not?

To deny his bodily return is to deny the apocatastasis (I'm not talking about universal salvation Mr. Dewey, that word is in the Bible), the restoration of all things to their original state: in the direct presence of God. Christ's dual nature of being entirely man and entirely God is a testament to this final union, which is the only way we can attain eternal life. To deny the bodily return, is to deny the importance of this incarnation and its beauty. How wonderful the incarnation is! It means God became man, not only to save us, but so we could relate to one another. I think this Arabic Byzantine Chant explains it better than I



posted on Nov, 12 2011 @ 02:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by kallisti36
This is half true, but thankfully, you got the important half right. If we do not prepare for the coming of the Bridegroom with watchfulness, we will find ourselves in the darkness. Christ was speaking spiritually here. You can be mentally watchful, looking to the skies and exegetically dissecting scripture to find out when He's coming. However, it will be a terrible day when he does come visibly and all of those people discover that they are noetically asleep and are not ready.


None are more deeply asleep than those who while sleeping, believe they are awake.


Originally posted by kallisti36
The Orthodox understanding of Heaven and Hell is very different than the west. Heaven is not streets of gold or fluffy clouds and hell isn't a torture room where you are separated from God. They are both one place: the presence of God. How many times does God appear with fire? His presence; his divinity is all divine fire. Those who love Him draw near *together* and are not consumed. Those who hate Him and do not know him, are *alone* in the presence of their estranged Heavenly Father and are consumed in shame and contempt, and there is no escape.


How many times does God appear with fire? Everyday with the rising Sun.

Haw many times does God appear with darkness? Every night with the Stars and the Moon.



Originally posted by kallisti36
We have to be spiritually ready, we have to find our nous: the part of us that was created according to His image. We have to find it underneath our thoughts and ego and shine that image every single day. We must remain vigilant, *because* Christ shall return bodily for the final judgment: did you know Him, or not?


Would you know him?


Originally posted by kallisti36
To deny his bodily return is to deny the apocatastasis (I'm not talking about universal salvation Mr. Dewey, that word is in the Bible), the restoration of all things to their original state: in the direct presence of God. Christ's dual nature of being entirely man and entirely God is a testament to this final union, which is the only way we can attain eternal life. To deny the bodily return, is to deny the importance of this incarnation and its beauty. How wonderful the incarnation is! It means God became man, not only to save us, but so we could relate to one another. I think this Arabic Byzantine Chant explains it better than I


To deny embodying the spirit of Christ IS to deny his bodily return.

With Love,

Your Brother



posted on Nov, 12 2011 @ 02:52 PM
link   
reply to post by NOTurTypical
 


The V and S texts are much older than the TR which is infamous for additions that don't belong. The best example of this is the Comma Johannum. Not only is it totally absent from earlier manuscripts, but none of the Trinitarian apologists quoted it. If it had been around at the time, it would have been essential to defeating Arius, but it isn't there. Which just goes to prove that it's just a hamfisted Trinitarian proof text that was shoehorned into the middle of a sentence. If you are a KJV onlyist, then stop it. It isn't inspired beyond being beautifully written in some areas (I love it, personally), but it contains very western terminology that isn't in the Greek. The Latins were teaching Satisfaction atonement at the time, and the Reformers were teaching Penal Substitution atonement at the time. So, the KJV translators translated Greek to meet the theology of the time. For instance, translating the Greek word Hilasterion, which literally means "expiation", into "propitiation" which is a Roman Pagan atonement concept. Want proof? www.blueletterbible.org...

The KJV is full of mistakes, based on a flawed manuscript, and translated by very limited translators. I mean, in the original "Authorized" 1611 version they translated "Pascha" as "Easter" when the context is dealing with a time before the Resurrection and during the Passover.



posted on Nov, 12 2011 @ 06:43 PM
link   
reply to post by kallisti36
 

The word used in Collossians does translate to Godhead though: theotes.
I didn't say that you can not find an English translation of the New Testament with the word, godhead, in it. Most modern translations use the correct translation, which is, deity. It is just a word used to describe something about the gods, without specifying a particular one. The word form itself found in Colossians is singular, to go with the subject, which is the single person, Jesus Christ.
The only plurality is a suggestive one since by definition it implies multiple gods. Or you can interpret no plurality to it, and then it just means a divine attribute, which of course has to be the correct meaning, which negates any notion of a godhead even being implied in the remotest sense.

I got smart, like I mentioned earlier, and whenever I do a word study in the Greek, I am adding it to my blog. readingthebibleingreek.blog.com...
I did this same word study a while back on another thread, but of course it is too difficult finding things like that, when I have six thousand posts or whatever on this forum.
edit on 12-11-2011 by jmdewey60 because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 17 2011 @ 07:07 AM
link   
reply to post by Keeper of Kheb
 

His war will manifest in physical ways, He won't be a human being again. He is the Heavenly King now. He is about to wage war on God's behalf, but from Heaven. There will be signs of his presence, but he will not appear as a man. he is a heavenly spirit creature, not a physical person.



posted on Nov, 17 2011 @ 04:27 PM
link   
Great topic.
The OP is correct.
Jesus Christ will return with kingly power, and he doesn't have to rematerialize a fleshly body to do that.
His fleshly body has served it's purpose, ransoming mankind from sin. Christians that understand the bible will understand, the actions taking place on earth are a direct result of Christ taking action against his enemies as commissioned to do by his Father, it will be really obvious for everybody to see. As spirits are invisible we won't see him, but we will see the results of his actions.
If you have studied all the Greek words that pertain to Christ's progressive power gaining away from Satan then you will understand this. If not go study all those Greek words.
edit on 17-11-2011 by Blue_Jay33 because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 17 2011 @ 06:27 PM
link   
reply to post by Blue_Jay33
 

f you have studied all the Greek words that pertain to Christ's progressive power gaining away from Satan then you will understand this. If not go study all those Greek words.
That sounds great!
I would like to do that. I could make some pages for them on my Greek word study blog I recently started. www.readingthebibleingreek.blog.com...
edit on 17-11-2011 by jmdewey60 because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 17 2011 @ 10:28 PM
link   
reply to post by jmdewey60
 


Pa‧rou‧si′a


The inspired psalmist clearly foretold that Jesus Christ would begin to rule as King some time before the “kings of earth” are destroyed and he starts his thousand-year reign. He wrote, prophetically: “Why have the nations been in tumult and the national groups themselves kept muttering an empty thing? The kings of earth take their stand and high officials themselves have massed together as one against God and against his anointed one [his Christ, Greek Septuagint Version], saying: ‘Let us tear their bands apart and cast their cords away from us!’ The very One sitting in the heavens will laugh; God himself will hold them in derision. At that time he will speak to them in his anger and in his hot displeasure he will disturb them, saying: ‘I, even I, have installed my king upon Zion, my holy mountain.’”—Ps. 2:1-6; compare Acts 4:24-30.

Accordingly, after the beginning of Christ’s presence in Kingdom power and glory, there is to be a period of time in which he will be busy conducting a judgment of this system of things and finally bringing it to complete ruin. (Ps. 2:8-12; 110:2-6) During this period he will be invisible to human eyes, because he is now “the exact representation” of the invisible God, whom ‘no man has seen at any time.’ Christ now “dwells in unapproachable light,” and “not one of men has seen or can see” him.—Heb. 1:3; John 1:18; 1 Tim. 6:16.

Since Christ was to be invisible to human eyes at the time of his presence in Kingdom power from a certain point onward, he kindly gave his disciples a “sign” by which they could know and understand when that time had come. He foretold this “sign” just after he had predicted the destruction of the temple at Jerusalem. The occasion of his describing the “sign” came shortly after he had said to the Jewish religious leaders who rejected him: “Look! Your house is abandoned to you. For I say to you, You will by no means see me from henceforth until you say, ‘Blessed is he that comes in God’s name!’”—Matt. 23:38, 39.

This strong statement of Jesus indicated that he was going away, and that there would be those who would take up the prophetic words of Psalm 118:26 and say: “Blessed be the One coming in the name of God.” But it would not be at that material temple in Jerusalem that these words would be spoken. This was made clear by Jesus’ next words. The account reads: “Departing now, Jesus was on his way from the temple, but his disciples approached to show him the buildings of the temple. In response he said to them: ‘Do you not behold all these things? Truly I say to you, By no means will a stone be left here upon a stone and not be thrown down.’”—Matt. 24:1, 2.

Jesus and his twelve apostles then walked out of Jerusalem and climbed the Mount of Olives nearby. Seated in a position where they could get a fine view of the entire temple complex, they were deeply moved. Finally four of the apostles posed the question in which all were interested, their question was: “Tell us, When will these things be, and what will be the sign of your presence [pa‧rou‧si′a, Greek] and of the conclusion of the system of things?”—Matt. 24:3; Mark 13:3, 4.

Other translations of the Christian Greek Scriptures similarly recognize the term pa‧rou‧si′a as meaning “presence.” Young’s Literal Translation of the Holy Bible reads: “Tell us, when shall these be? and what is the sign of thy presence, and of the full end of the age?” Rotherham’s The Emphasised Bible says: “Tell us when these things shall be,—and what the sign of thy presence and the conclusion of the age.”

Notice that the apostles asked about the Parousia of the Lord Jesus Christ. Were they asking about his “coming” or his “advent,” as some call it? No. Observe the term with which Christ’s first coming or advent was spoken of by the Christian martyr Stephen when he spoke to the Jewish Sanhedrin: “Which one of the prophets did your forefathers not persecute? Yes, they killed those who made announcement in advance concerning the coming [e′leu‧sis, Greek] of the righteous One, whose betrayers and murderers you have now become.” (Acts 7:52) Note that the word e′leu‧sis, not the word pa‧rou‧si′a, was used. They are two Greek words different in form and derivation, and also in meaning.

Continued in next post
edit on 17-11-2011 by Blue_Jay33 because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 17 2011 @ 10:31 PM
link   
reply to post by Blue_Jay33
 


Pa‧rou‧si′a



What is the meaning and significance of the Greek word pa‧rou‧si′a? It literally means “a being alongside,” the expression being drawn from the Greek preposition para′ (“alongside”) and ousía (a “being”). Let us see what the lexicographers say.

Liddell and Scott’s A Greek-English Lexicon gives as the first definition of parousía the English word “presence.” It gives as the second definition thereof “arrival,” then adds: “Esp[ecially] visit of a royal or official personage.”
In agreement with this, the Theological Dictionary of the New Testament (edited by Gerhard Friedrich) gives as “The General Meaning” the English word “Presence.” Then, as “The Technical Use of the Terms,” in Hellenism, it gives “1. The Visit of a Ruler.” It says concerning “The Technical Use of páreimi [verb] and parousía in the NT.”: “In the NT the terms are never used for the coming of Christ in the flesh, and parousía never has the sense of return. The idea of more than one parousía is first found only in the later Church.”

So, then, Jesus’ disciples were asking, not about his future “arrival,” but about after his arrival. They were asking about his “presence.” And if, instead of using the word “presence,” we resort to “the technical use of the terms” in Hellenism, the disciples would be understood to ask Jesus: “What will be the sign of your [visit as a royal personage] and of the conclusion of the system of things?” A “visit” includes more than an “arrival.” It includes a “presence.”

In the New Testament the Greek word parousía occurs twenty-four times, and in all its occurrences there, of the Holy Scriptures translates the word every time as “presence,” but also other translations do so, as Young’s Literal Translation of the Holy Bible, of 1862 C.E.; Wilson’s The Emphatic Diaglott, of 1857-1863 C.E.; and Rotherham’s The Emphasised Bible, of 1897 C.E. We note how fittingly “presence” and “absence” are contrasted, in Philippians 2:12, where the apostle Paul says: “You have always obeyed, not during my presence only, but now much more readily during my absence.”

Christ’s “presence,” about which the disciples asked, could not have occurred at the time of Jerusalem’s destruction by the Romans in 70 C.E. Why not? Though it is true that the Jewish system of things ended then, the larger system of things of which that Jewish system was merely a prophetic pattern or type did not end then. This was to come during Christ’s pa‧rou‧si′a, which was to culminate in a “great tribulation such as has not occurred since the world’s beginning until now, no, nor will occur again.” (Matt. 24:21) Jerusalem’s tribulation in 70 C.E. was her worst, but was certainly not worse than the global flood of Noah’s day and is far less catastrophic than the conclusion of this present entire world system of things will be.

The pa‧rou‧si′a or “presence” of the Lord Jesus Christ is, therefore, his presence or visit as King, invisibly, in royal power and glory. Consequently a “sign” is required so that persons on earth may discern that presence. Jesus, according to his characteristic way of giving kind attention to all questions asked by his disciples, gave them an even more thorough answer than they expected. The entire twenty-fourth and twenty-fifth chapters of Matthew, along with parallel accounts in Mark chapter 13 and Luke chapter 21, give many features of the “sign” of his presence.

Hence, we do well to consider carefully the things Jesus pointed out that would provide full and sufficient proof of his invisible presence. The “sign” with its many features, as outlined by Jesus, is not a sign that he is on the way—coming—but that he is present, directing his invisible attention and power toward the earth.

Those who have understanding, using the ‘eyes of the heart,’ will discern that fact. As the prophet Daniel wrote: “the ones having insight will understand.” (Dan. 12:10) If Christ appeared in visible form, with a dazzling display, or by causing miraculous happenings world wide, where would insight be needed? True Christians, therefore, will not be like those who have a wrong expectation; but will have insight and discernment, and will ‘lift up their heads, because their deliverance from this system of things is getting near.’—Luke 21:28, 36.


edit on 17-11-2011 by Blue_Jay33 because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 18 2011 @ 12:05 AM
link   
reply to post by kallisti36
 



The V and S texts are much older than the TR..


Stop right there. "Older = better" is a fallacy of logic. The only thing we know for sure is that the V and S versions survived longer. Which would be quite plausible considering most of the early church regarded them as corrupt and they didn't use them. Here is another analogy, let's say both our grandparents bought a brand new Model T Ford. My grandfather parked his in the driveway, drove it daily for work, and was poor so couldn't afford routine preventive maintenance. Your grandfather was well off, he rarely used the Model T except for special occasions, always kept it in the barn under a tarp, and had routine preventive maintenance done on it even if he hadn't driven it in a year or two.

Which Model T would you expect to be in the best condition today? Chances are my grandfather's Model T would be in the junkyard while your grandfathers Model T would still be in the barn under a tarp. The TR was used constantly and every 50-60 years new copies had to be made by hand before the manuscript was unserviceable. The V and S were rejected by the early church as corrupt and sat on shelves collecting dust. So centuries later when they were found people were like "Hey! These manuscripts date older so they must be more accurate." Nothing could be further from the truth.



posted on Nov, 21 2011 @ 06:31 PM
link   
reply to post by NOTurTypical
 


That is a complete lie. I'm not arguing that "older makes better", I am saying that the TR is a late manuscript filled with additions that aren't in the original.

Don't get me wrong here, I would love it if the TR was the original. I love my KJV, I use it most of the time, but it is thankfully annotated by the Orthodox Church to let me know what parts were added by a redactor. If the Comma Johannum was in the original manuscripts that the Church used, then why does no one quote it? That text would have been essential to proving trinitarian theology.

I also resent your accusation that the ancient Christians of Alexandria threw out verses they didn't like. Yes, gnosticism was a problem in Alexandia, but it was also a problem in Rome, Judea, and especially Asia Minor. Your 27 book NT canon was compiled by St. Athanasius of Alexandria. The theological schools of Alexandria and Antioch were essential in establishing nearly every Dogma we (that includes you) believe. So, you can thank the Orthodox Church for your Bible, your Christology, your understanding of the Trinity, and for giving you your Byzantine Textus Receptus (which is full of redactor additions).

Addendum: I'm not even defending an Orthodox position. The text base we use for our Bible (The Orthodox Study Bible) is NKJV. The OT is edited to match the Septuagint where the Hebrew text is altered from the original (Psalm 21(22), Isaiah 7, etc) and the NT is all TR with notes where it diverges from old manuscripts. We also don't take the "if it's older it's better" position on a number of things. For instance, the pericope of the adulterous woman isn't in the oldest texts, nor elaborated on by early Church Fathers. However, it is accepted as an authentic story, because it is mentioned in the Didascalia, Eusebius, and Papias as an agrapha.
edit on 21-11-2011 by kallisti36 because: (no reason given)





new topics
top topics
 
9
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join