Jesus is NEVER coming back in the flesh

reply to post by kallisti36

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.

Lol, that's easily refuted considering early church fathers quote from portions of the Bible that are missing from the S and V versions which came out later. The Gnostics in Egypt had a bad habit of expurgating portions of text they disagreed with.

And actually, that is precisely the argument you made, that because we have surviving copied of the S & V which are "older" that that means they are "better". Older = better is a fallacy of logic. The ONLY thing proved is the copies of the S & V we have today survived longer.

And if you know anything about the heptadic structures underlying the text found by Dr. Ivan Panin, a fingerprint of the Holy Spirit, it follows the TR and completely breaks down when using the S and V versions. The last 12 verses of Mark are extraordinary in it's hidden contents underlying the text especially.

reply to post by kallisti36

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.

I mention that part of John in my thread, The Fourth Gospel and the Jews, where the author of the book that's title is in the thread's name, argues that John is arranged to match the arrangement of the parts of the book of Esther, where the woman taken in adultery corresponds with Haman being found in Esther's bed, which subsequently results in his being hanged.

The Holy Spirit will be removed the saints will be handed to the antichrist for a time, time and a half. Then Jesus will return.

reply to post by sk0rpi0n


Jesus Christ was the Word of God. It says that the Word was God and the Word became flesh. The trinity is implied in the scriptures. Jesus said if you saw Him you saw the Father, and He also forgave sins. He is God, as is the Father and the Holy Spirit, but they are still distinct.

Originally posted by 547000
The Holy Spirit will be removed the saints will be handed to the antichrist for a time, time and a half. Then Jesus will return.

edit on 22-11-2011 by 547000 because: (no reason given)

No, that is just something you made up. Jesus already returned, that is in the Gospel of John. The Disciples hid in the Jerusalem area just long enough so they could leave along with the departing pilgrims, unnoticed, for fear of the Jews. Them Jesus returned to them in Galilee where they had a banquet on the shore of the lake, and gave Peter his commission, and gave them the spirit of authority.

Originally posted by 547000
reply to post by sk0rpi0n

 

Jesus Christ was the Word of God. It says that the Word was God and the Word became flesh. The trinity is implied in the scriptures. Jesus said if you saw Him you saw the Father, and He also forgave sins. He is God, as is the Father and the Holy Spirit, but they are still distinct.

The Word is what you just read. The prologue to the Gospel of John is telling the reader that they are by reading this book, being enlightened by God.
There is no implied trinity. Jesus and God are one, meaning that they are inextricably unified in that the name of God is now, Jesus. The Holy Spirit comes from God, but by way of Jesus, meaning through his name.

reply to post by jmdewey60


So John was in Patmos before Peter was commissioned?

Originally posted by 547000
reply to post by jmdewey60

 

So John was in Patmos before Peter was commissioned?

Obviously not the same John but someone else who happened to be named, John.
If your question is, "But so doesn't Revelation say Jesus will come?" then the answer is, No. Jesus in Revelation is pictured with the bride saying,"Come." So Jesus is stationary and if we want to meet Jesus, we go to him.

reply to post by jmdewey60


Then was the latter John lying or speaking in symbols? What do you make of the book of Daniel?

Originally posted by 547000
reply to post by jmdewey60

 

Then was the latter John lying or speaking in symbols? What do you make of the book of Daniel?

Scholars are in agreement that Daniel was a product of the Maccabean wars with the Greeks. So it is prophesying something which already happened, mostly, but goes up to the time of Jesus. At that time there would be an event relating to a messiah, so people were expecting a messiah, not regarding the Herods as being acceptable to fill the role, being Idumeans and not from the Hasmoneans or of Judah and David.

Revelation has a scene with a man in white on a horse, well it never says it is Jesus, just someone with a commission from God, which I take as being a mission to destroy ignorance by spreading the truth, as in the sword of truth coming out of his mouth, that should be a clue.

reply to post by jmdewey60


Have the same scholars felt the presence of God? Or are they just trying to come up with explanations to defy the idea that scripture was divinely inspired?

reply to post by 547000

No, they are just looking at the evidence of where it came from.
You are imagining an agenda that does not exist.
I'm sure most of them would like to be able to say there was this great book which predicted all these events but they are scientists and just present the facts as they see them.

Originally posted by 547000
reply to post by jmdewey60

 

Have the same scholars felt the presence of God? Or are they just trying to come up with explanations to defy the idea that scripture was divinely inspired?

They are not "scholars" they are textual critics. Their livelihoods depend on criticizing commonly accepted books, theology, et cetra. Daniel was written in the 6th century BC, and was translated into Greek in 300 BC because it's included in the Septuagint. Critics like to late-date Daniel because they reject the prophetic claims of the book. And the prophecies for the period from the Babylonian captivity till the time of Christ are so accurate that they contend they must have been written after the matter, and not divinely inspired scriptures from God.

reply to post by NOTurTypical

Critics like to late-date Daniel because they reject the prophetic claims of the book.

If that was true, you should be able to find some quotes to post from critics about how happy they are to discredit prophets. I am not going to trust in your ability to read the minds of people you don't know.

Originally posted by jmdewey60
reply to post by NOTurTypical

 

Critics like to late-date Daniel because they reject the prophetic claims of the book.

If that was true, you should be able to find some quotes to post from critics about how happy they are to discredit prophets. I am not going to trust in your ability to read the minds of people you don't know.

The traditional theory that Daniel was the original author of the Book of Daniel is dismissed by critics who reject the book's prophetic claims. Critics of Daniel view the Book of Daniel as a pseudepigraph dated around 165 BCE that concerns itself primarily with the Maccabean era and the reign of the Seleucid king Antiochus Epiphanes.

With the discovery of the Dead Sea scroll, 4QDanc at Qumran, dating 125 BCE, it does not reassure critics that Daniel was written in the 2nd century BCE. Even the critic G. R. Driver recognized that "the presence and popularity of the Daniel manuscripts at Qumran" conflicted "with the modern view which advocates the late dating of the composition of Daniel".

Book Of Daniel

reply to post by NOTurTypical

This is just silly on your part, and not what I asked for.
Apply a little logic, if you have a book of prophecy written after the events "foretold" happened, how much sense would it make to still think it was prophetic?

reply to post by jmdewey60

much sense would it make to still think it was prophetic?

Because it was included in the Septuagint, written 300 years before Christ. When did Antiocus Epiphanies live again?

And Jesus carries more weight than all textual critics combined, he called Daniel a prophet, and told to look to the abomination of desolation spoken of by Daniel (in the book of Daniel) as a sign to flee from the city of Jerusalem imminently prior to His return.

"When you therefore shall see the abomination of desolation, spoken of by Daniel the prophet, stand in the holy place, (whoever reads, let him understand" Matthew 24:15

So at minimum Daniel was prophesying toward the future to at least the time of Christ. I don't put much stock into what the critics have to say. Their entire livelihoods depend upon challenging Orthodox beliefs and conservative scholarly work.

reply to post by NOTurTypical

Their entire livelihoods depend upon challenging Orthodox beliefs and conservative scholarly work.

If you know this to be a fact, you should be happy to name one of these people you are talking about and how their "livelihood" is derived from such activity.
The people hearing the cha-ching from their support of their view are pastors who live off donations and they are the ones with a vested interest in supporting a particular view. The actual scholars are dependent on producing good scholarship that can be demonstrated as being supportable and hold up under scrutiny.
Daniel had been changed on numerous occasions and it seems to have been adjusted every time there was another big war pending. The text was not permanently fixed in a single state until around 300 AD. The fact that the primitive form of Daniel is old does not mean it had the same content it does now.

reply to post by jmdewey60


So let me get this straight, I need to provide evidence what you say is incorrect when you've yet to provide any evidence showing you are correct?

That's shifting the burden of proof. I'll stick with Jesus on this issue, hope that's not too offensive. Daniel was written many years before the Septuagint was written. And Jesus said it's prophecies spoke of a time that hadn't happened yet in reference to His 2nd coming. (Matt. 24)

reply to post by NOTurTypical

If you just want to throw out false claims denigrating people you do not know or even read, then that is your business. It should be clear enough that you know nothing about what you are passing judgments on and that this is your general methodology, which is to just make up fake evidence to support you side..