Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Jesus is NEVER coming back in the flesh

page: 9
9
<< 6  7  8    10 >>

log in

join

posted on Nov, 22 2011 @ 02:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by jmdewey60
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..


Well, the "fake evidence" you speak of is Wikipedia, which happens to conflict with everything you've said in this thread. And do the words of Jesus in Matthew who says the prophecy spoken of in Daniel about the abomination of desolation is describing a yet future event to Matthew 24.




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




posted on Nov, 22 2011 @ 03:24 PM
link   
reply to post by NOTurTypical
 

Your typical little game you play of diversion.
I asked for evidence of your claim about the biblical scholars being motivated by greed and hatred of prophecy.



posted on Nov, 22 2011 @ 03:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by jmdewey60
reply to post by NOTurTypical
 

Your typical little game you play of diversion.
I asked for evidence of your claim about the biblical scholars being motivated by greed and hatred of prophecy.


And that's called "shifting the burden of proof", you have not provided any evidence whatsoever that you're correct. You're attempting to make me prove you wrong when you've yet to offer anything that shows that you are correct. I't not a "diversion" to refuse to meet someone on their fallacy of logic. Wikipedia, which was provided, shows you're incorrect.



posted on Nov, 22 2011 @ 08:54 PM
link   
reply to post by NOTurTypical
 


Provide evidence of this.

There's an Orthodox site making these claims too and I wouldn't mind them being backed up. www.serfes.org...

Of course the S and V texts are imperfect, because there is no perfect manuscript. As I've stated previously, the Orthodox Church doesn't vehemently hold to what's older. I am not arguing that older equals better, I am saying that there is no evidence for the TR being the original. All I know is that the KJV onlyist position is wrong. The KJV is chock full of errors and protestant, Catholic, and generally western translations (ex. hilasterion being translated as 'propitiation' instead of 'expiation' totally changes the meaning of the attonement). The TR as we have it, is full of additions that no Church Father quotes for centuries, even in exhaustive commentaries, like St. John Chrysostom's writings. Some of the differences can be corroborated by other manuscripts, but the Comma Johannum is obviously a forgery.
edit on 22-11-2011 by kallisti36 because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 22 2011 @ 09:10 PM
link   
reply to post by kallisti36
 



Foremost amongst these is the Traditional Received Text (Textus Receptus), also called the Byzantine Text or the Majority Text because it is based on the vast majority of manuscripts still in existence.


TR



posted on Nov, 22 2011 @ 09:33 PM
link   
reply to post by NOTurTypical
 


Wilkinson? Are you serious? First of all, angelfire has little to no quality control, and all of the information in that article is from fundie die-hard KJV-onlyists including a Seventh Day Adventist who spends quite a bit of that book pushing the Sabbath.

I recognize the problems with the V and S text, but they have their uses. I am also aware that the S text was "rediscovered" in St. Catherine's Monastery (meaning that they didn't use it), but you calling it a Roman Catholic document is ridiculous. The RCC uses the Vulgate officially and the S text is from St. Catherine's Monastery on Mount Sinai which has *always* been Orthodox.

As I have pointed out, the TR is flawed and has its problems. If you are arguing that the TR text is inerrant, you are wrong. On the other hand, if you are taking the position that the MSS Byzantine text which it is based on is the superior text, then I am in agreement. en.wikipedia.org...



posted on Nov, 22 2011 @ 09:51 PM
link   
reply to post by NOTurTypical
 

And that's called "shifting the burden of proof", you have not provided any evidence whatsoever that you're correct. You're attempting to make me prove you wrong when you've yet to offer anything that shows that you are correct. I't not a "diversion" to refuse to meet someone on their fallacy of logic. Wikipedia, which was provided, shows you're incorrect.
I'm not talking about that.
I am talking about your claim, and I will quote:

They are not "scholars" they are textual critics. Their livelihoods depend on criticizing commonly accepted books, theology, et cetra.
And another assertion by you:

Their entire livelihoods depend upon challenging Orthodox beliefs and conservative scholarly work.
And yet another claim by you:

Critics like to late-date Daniel because they reject the prophetic claims of the book.
Can you give any evidence whatsoever that these are not complete fabrications and bold-faced lies that you just made up to fit another argument which you are presenting, that somehow the opinion that gives a late date to Daniel has no validity?
I asked you this ten hours ago so that should have been enough time for you to find that in your book or wherever you got that from, to cite as a reference, if it was not something you just made up because it makes you feel good to judge others and not have to do any actual serious study yourself.
edit on 22-11-2011 by jmdewey60 because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 23 2011 @ 12:36 AM
link   
Concerning the scholars, didn't Paul write something about them?

I'm still having a hard time believing that when it says the Word became flesh and dwelt among them means the bible and not Jesus.

Also in Revelation the seventh seal and the wish for Jesus to come soon do not at all point to the idea that he will not return.
edit on 23-11-2011 by 547000 because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 23 2011 @ 01:05 AM
link   
reply to post by 547000
 


I meant the beginning part of John 1, before the "flesh" part.
Plus the "became flesh" bit is a deliberate mistranslation. The word they translate as made, all the other 230 times it is used in the New Testament in that form is never used to mean something changing from being one thing, into another. the closest I could find to something remotely possible to that sort of meaning was in Revelation about the moon changing color, but that is just a visual effect, and it does not necessarily have to diverge from its normal use, which is to say a certain situation came about. So in John 1, it should be taken to mean that a situation came about where God's message to humanity was dwelling among us, but not necessarily in any other way than in a spiritual sense, other than It was definitely coming out of the mouth of Jesus, someone the author of John knew personally and in an intimate manner.

Also in Revelation the seventh seal and the wish for Jesus to come soon do not at all point to the idea that he will not return.
Would it be possible for you to explain what you mean by this?
edit on 23-11-2011 by jmdewey60 because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 23 2011 @ 01:42 AM
link   
reply to post by NOTurTypical
 

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)
What is your point?
This started with me being asked what I thought of Daniel. I said scholars are generally of the opinion that Daniel was the product of the Maccabean wars.
So what does Jesus referring to Daniel have to do with that statement from me?
Obviously Jesus was saying this after the time of the Maccabean wars.
The important thing to Jesus at this time was what the people were familiar with, so he used their current understanding of things as a language to communicate to them in a way that would impress upon them concepts they would be able to remember.
I don't see this as being an endorsement from Jesus to the credibility of Daniel. Jesus basically reworked everything people thought of and expected from a messiah, so he would have no problem appropriating what he wanted from Daniel irregardless of its source, and ignoring all the rest of it that did not suite his needs.



posted on Nov, 23 2011 @ 06:31 AM
link   
reply to post by jmdewey60
 



New International Version (©1984)
He who testifies to these things says, "Yes, I am coming soon." Amen. Come, Lord Jesus.

New Living Translation (©2007)
He who is the faithful witness to all these things says, "Yes, I am coming soon!" Amen! Come, Lord Jesus!

English Standard Version (©2001)
He who testifies to these things says, “Surely I am coming soon.” Amen. Come, Lord Jesus!

New American Standard Bible (©1995)
He who testifies to these things says, "Yes, I am coming quickly." Amen. Come, Lord Jesus.

King James Bible (Cambridge Ed.)
He which testifieth these things saith, Surely I come quickly. Amen. Even so, come, Lord Jesus.

International Standard Version (©2008)
The one who is testifying to these things says, "Yes, I am coming soon!" Amen! Come, Lord Jesus!

Aramaic Bible in Plain English (©2010)
And when he testified these things, he said, “Yes, I am coming soon.” “Come, LORD JEHOVAH Yeshua.”

GOD'S WORD® Translation (©1995)
The one who is testifying to these things says, "Yes, I'm coming soon!" Amen! Come, Lord Jesus!

King James 2000 Bible (©2003)
He who testifies these things says, Surely I come quickly. Amen. Even so, come, Lord Jesus.

American King James Version
He which testifies these things said, Surely I come quickly. Amen. Even so, come, Lord Jesus.

American Standard Version
He who testifieth these things saith, Yea: I come quickly. Amen: come, Lord Jesus.

Bible in Basic English
He who gives witness to these things says, Truly, I come quickly. Even so come, Lord Jesus.

Douay-Rheims Bible
He that giveth testimony of these things, saith, Surely I come quickly: Amen. Come, Lord Jesus.

Darby Bible Translation
He that testifies these things says, Yea, I come quickly. Amen; come, Lord Jesus.

English Revised Version
He which testifieth these things saith, Yea: I come quickly. Amen: come, Lord Jesus.

Webster's Bible Translation
He who testifieth these things saith, Surely I come quickly: Amen. Even so, come, Lord Jesus.

Weymouth New Testament
"He who solemnly declares all this says, "'Yes, I am coming quickly.'" Amen. Come, Lord Jesus.

World English Bible
He who testifies these things says, "Yes, I come quickly." Amen! Yes, come, Lord Jesus.

Young's Literal Translation
he saith -- who is testifying these things -- 'Yes, I come quickly!' Amen! Yes, be coming, Lord Jesus!


You might as well claim Jesus himself was a symbol, because the passage is clearly talking about Mary--other thread --who was assumed into heaven.
edit on 23-11-2011 by 547000 because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 23 2011 @ 01:03 PM
link   
Concerning all these versions you posted of Revelation 22:20, these are all obviously out of context.
This is a Greek play and you have different actors, such as the lamb, the ancient of days, and the bride. Earlier on there was a character who was the great fiery angel of the churches who was a sort of representation of a glorified Christ as the new YHWH where he has taken upon himself all the attributes of his antecedent, but is here represented by a rather fierce angelic being appropriate to someone who is supposed to be exhibiting power such as the angel who was creating all this burning on Sinai where there had to be a fence built at the foot of the mountain. So this is the burning spirit god which is the pure power manifestation of the authoritative aspect of a Christ in an eschatological setting.
The missing actor in the play is Jesus. There is a mention of him in one of the pericopes, where it says he will live in this city which is described but he has no walk-in part or lines, that is, until the very end of the play. You have a scenario where the saints are gathered in a great hall with the throne and there is the lamb (representing the martyred saints) in the midst of the throne, but no Jesus. So the lamb and the bride are there in the meeting hall and they are saying, "Come", then you have the response, "Surely I come!", which is his announcement of his arrival to the meeting, his work as the Christ having been completed. Then you have to imagine something happening after this, as you make your way home from the opera, a scene like at the end of the original Star Wars, or the coronation ceremony in The Return of the King.
edit on 23-11-2011 by jmdewey60 because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 23 2011 @ 01:10 PM
link   
reply to post by jmdewey60
 


Thanks for the laugh man.



posted on Nov, 23 2011 @ 01:19 PM
link   
reply to post by 547000
 

You only think it is funny because you have been brainwashed by psychopaths.



posted on Nov, 23 2011 @ 01:25 PM
link   
I think it's hilarious that the wisdom of the learned amounts to this. It sounds like a parody. You can't be serious?



posted on Nov, 23 2011 @ 01:35 PM
link   
reply to post by 547000
 


You have to read it for what it says, and not being predisposed to having it mean something in particular by having been told how to understand it, by people with a vested interest, or as I suggested, a severe mental illness where they can't wait for everyone to be killed.

And for your information, that is what scholarship is about, besides reading a lot of books, being impartial.
edit on 23-11-2011 by jmdewey60 because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 24 2011 @ 12:02 AM
link   
One you have experienced the light, the blood, and the water for yourself you'd realize that you should keep in mind what tradition has been passed down and you cannot treat the bible like a book of silly stories.



posted on Nov, 24 2011 @ 01:13 AM
link   
reply to post by 547000
 


The current hoopla of the world coming to an abrupt end, any second, is not traditional.

Apocalypticism is always looked upon by traditionalists as the work of maniacs.

There is not a denomination as far as I know called the Dispensationalist Church.

It is normally individual fanatics in nondenominational churches.



posted on Nov, 24 2011 @ 01:56 AM
link   
Jesus will return. But not before the man of sin.



posted on Nov, 24 2011 @ 03:11 AM
link   

Originally posted by 547000
Jesus will return. But not before the man of sin.


what man doesn't sin?






new topics

top topics



 
9
<< 6  7  8    10 >>

log in

join