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.

 

The thread that will never get a real answer

page: 10
2
<< 7  8  9    11  12  13 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 14 2011 @ 11:49 AM
link   
reply to post by 547000
 

Here is a link
One verse the blog owner you linked to cites is
1 Corinthians 1:8

I always thank my God for you because of the grace of God that was given to you in Christ Jesus. For you were made rich in every way in him, in all your speech and in every kind of knowledge - just as the testimony about Christ has been confirmed among you - so that you do not lack any spiritual gift as you wait for the revelation of our Lord Jesus Christ. He will also strengthen you to the end, so that you will be blameless on the day of our Lord Jesus Christ. God is faithful, by whom you were called into fellowship with his son, Jesus Christ our Lord.

The blogger claims that any time that Paul uses the term, Day of the Lord, he means something along the limes of the Old Testament prophets talking about the day of vengeance against the Lord's enemies. Then he says that even though Paul is talking about a similar occurrence, one should not mistakenly believe Paul means the Lord as in YHWH, but should realize Paul means the Lord as in Jesus. So, what is the blogger's logic here, making a distinction between the "Day of the Lord" from one person called "the Lord", from another "Day of the Lord" who the Lord is a different person, but the nature of the "Day of the Lord" is the same? Couldn't there be a different sort of "Day of the Lord" from the OT version? I think there could be.
If you read the verse cited by the blogger in context, you see Paul is being very specific about who exactly he is addressing, which were the members of the church he founded in Corinth. When he tells them to stay true to their calling which was signified as authentic by the spiritual gifts he is referring to having been given to the very persons he is addressing, he is talking about something which will happen to them. Either Paul did not know what he was talking about and was wrong about those people seeing Jesus returning, or Paul meant something else, like maybe after they die they will meet Jesus at their day of Judgement, their personal "Day of the Lord".



edit on 14-12-2011 by jmdewey60 because: (no reason given)




posted on Dec, 14 2011 @ 12:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by jmdewey60
reply to post by 547000
 

Here is a link
One verse the blog owner you linked to cites is
1 Corinthians 1:8

I always thank my God for you because of the grace of God that was given to you in Christ Jesus. For you were made rich in every way in him, in all your speech and in every kind of knowledge - just as the testimony about Christ has been confirmed among you - so that you do not lack any spiritual gift as you wait for the revelation of our Lord Jesus Christ. He will also strengthen you to the end, so that you will be blameless on the day of our Lord Jesus Christ. God is faithful, by whom you were called into fellowship with his son, Jesus Christ our Lord.

The blogger claims that any time that Paul uses the term, Day of the Lord, he means something along the limes of the Old Testament prophets talking about the day of vengeance against the Lord's enemies. Then he says that even though Paul is talking about a similar occurrence, one should not mistakenly believe Paul means the Lord as in YHWH, but should realize Paul means the Lord as in Jesus. So, what is the blogger's logic here, making a distinction between the "Day of the Lord" from one person called "the Lord", from another "Day of the Lord" who the Lord is a different person, but the nature of the "Day of the Lord" is the same? Couldn't there be a different sort of "Day of the Lord" from the OT version? I think there could be.
If you read the verse cited by the blogger in context, you see Paul is being very specific about who exactly he is addressing, which were the members of the church he founded in Corinth. When he tells them to stay true to their calling which was signified as authentic by the spiritual gifts he is referring to having been given to the very persons he is addressing, he is talking about something which will happen to them. Either Paul did not know what he was talking about and was wrong about those people seeing Jesus returning, or Paul meant something else, like maybe after they die they will meet Jesus at their day of Judgement, their personal "Day of the Lord".



edit on 14-12-2011 by jmdewey60 because: (no reason given)


Or that the dead, too, will see the coming of the Lord?

No doubt, the Early Church expected that to happen in their life times. At one place, Paul says "the rebellion" must come first-- and I cannot imagine what he might have had in mind.



posted on Dec, 14 2011 @ 12:36 PM
link   
reply to post by Frira
 

Or that the dead, too, will see the coming of the Lord?

If they are dead, then they already left and went to the Lord, so Jesus does not have to go, or come, anywhere.



posted on Dec, 14 2011 @ 12:48 PM
link   
Well, I stand opposed to everything you believe in. It's very hard to believe you are a christian because all the points you argue for say otherwise. I think you will be caught by surprise when the simple childishness of the truth reveals itself.



posted on Dec, 14 2011 @ 12:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by 547000
Well, I stand opposed to everything you believe in. It's very hard to believe you are a christian because all the points you argue for say otherwise. I think you will be caught by surprise when the simple childishness of the truth reveals itself.
I think if it meant being, or not being, a Christian, whether or not you believed the earth is going to burn up to a crisp with nothing left of it, then it probably would have said so in the Bible at least once.



posted on Dec, 14 2011 @ 01:01 PM
link   
It's not just this. It's everything, including your refusal to believe the Hebrew God is God. Even your nutbag claim that Jesus is the only name we can call Him. You might as well be a gnostic about how God was an evil deceiver and Jesus came to enlighten us to escape the deception.



posted on Dec, 14 2011 @ 01:25 PM
link   
reply to post by 547000
 


I don't know if the description of God in the Old Testament is true or that the people in ancient Canaan believed exactly as described in the current form of the Hebrew Bible. I see the OT as a political manifesto and not one that was actually made by the Judaens but was by the Babylonian Persians who were opposed to the Greeks so they brought in another language and called it Hebrew and only the book written in their secret language was the "sacred words". It's Mystery Babylon.



posted on Dec, 14 2011 @ 01:38 PM
link   
reply to post by jmdewey60
 


The works of the NT are a completion of the OT.



posted on Dec, 14 2011 @ 02:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by 547000
reply to post by jmdewey60
 


The works of the NT are a completion of the OT.
I would say it is the opposite.
It is kingdom political aspirations denied.
You still have this same sort of thing playing out right now in the middle east which is not of God and is the anti-christ, and is trying to topple the judgment God already made against Mystery Babylon.



posted on Dec, 14 2011 @ 06:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by Akragon
reply to post by Theophorus
 



I'll go over it again for those who don't take such a literal approach to scripture.
Physical things that grow can be measured.
Common sense tells us there's a difference between things that can be measured, and things which can not. knowledge and grace are two things which can not. (prove how they can) We as humans obtain knowledge and lose knowledge, obtain grace and lose grace. its not a constant.
Your interpretation of what scripture says and what is truth, conflict. you must be mistaken


Would you not consider something that was previously unknown that has been learned... growth?

Knowledge can be measured, thats pretty obvious... if you want proof, ask a 4 year old a simple math equasion... he likely will not have the answer until he learns math... that is growth of knowledge which can be measured.

Growth of the spirit is growth of knowledge of spiritual matters...

Now which conflicts are you talking about...

Btw thank you for being civil... this i can work with




Would you not consider something that was previously unknown that has been learned... growth?
no. Growth would be defind as the expansion or increase in some quantity over time of something already known.


Knowledge can be measured, thats pretty obvious... if you want proof, ask a 4 year old a simple math equasion... he likely will not have the answer until he learns math... that is growth of knowledge which can be measured.
simple question for you.What tool would one use to measure knowledge?


Now which conflicts are you talking about..
the one where you seem to take a truth stance as to the literal translation of what the bible says about 'spiritual growth' and what common sense tells us. obviously the bible doesnt lie, so your interpretation is either wrong or common sense is stranger than fiction.



posted on Dec, 14 2011 @ 06:38 PM
link   
reply to post by Theophorus
 



no. Growth would be defind as the expansion or increase in some quantity over time of something already known.


Yes and expansion of knowledge... that is growth. Learning in any way good or bad is expansion of knowledge and thus the growth of something... the mind and the spirit which embodies said mind.


simple question for you.What tool would one use to measure knowledge


questioning the individual on said topic... so technically the tool would be language.

Also collages and universities give you degrees for your learning and comprehension...


the one where you seem to take a truth stance as to the literal translation of what the bible says about 'spiritual growth' and what common sense tells us. obviously the bible doesnt lie, so your interpretation is either wrong or common sense is stranger than fiction.


The bible doesn't lie?

SO we should kill homosexuals correct? And witches.... False prophets?

And of course when paul said Jesus made himself equal with God... even though he didn't... that wasn't a lie either... just a mistake right?

So we have a bible that apparently doesn't lie according to you... yet it tells you the spirit grows in several ways.... but you don't believe me even though i've shown you the passages which tells you just what i said?

Interesting...

DO you not know the bible has many flaws, Contradictions.... and outright errors?

And you call this book fiction anyways...

You're saying a fiction book doesn't lie... is that common sense to you?





edit on 14-12-2011 by Akragon because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 14 2011 @ 08:32 PM
link   
reply to post by Akragon
 


I have not once quoted from the Bible. Seems to me that you enjoy basing truth from a book you say is contradictory and erroneous.



posted on Dec, 14 2011 @ 08:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by Theophorus
reply to post by Akragon
 


I have not once quoted from the Bible. Seems to me that you enjoy basing truth from a book you say is contradictory and erroneous.


Would you mind telling me what "truth" you're talking about?

Im not bashing anything... Just stating facts... the bible is not entirely true, nor is it entirely Gods word...

If it was it wouldn't have these issues within its pages...

I also didn't say you quoted the bible... I said you're calling a book fiction and that you said theres no errors or lies within said book. That is a contradictory statement in itself...

You can't call something a work of fiction... then say theres no lies within said work. Its just illogical....




posted on Dec, 14 2011 @ 09:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by jmdewey60
reply to post by Frira
 

Or that the dead, too, will see the coming of the Lord?

If they are dead, then they already left and went to the Lord, so Jesus does not have to go, or come, anywhere.


Many Christians believe that... I just am not one of them.

I believe the dead await the Kingdom and the Lord's return just as the living do-- and many Christians agree.

"This day you will be with me in Paradise." AND "He descended into Hell and on the third day he rose again..."

So, that day, Jesus entered the place of the dead-- and he called it Paradise. His Kingdom has yet to arrive-- New Jerusalem-- so a new Heaven (the old Heaven and old Earth will pass away)-- mystical scriptural references which I hold as true.

Just for fun, I'll add... I also believe in the Harrowing of Hell (not in scripture, per se), but taught by the Church before the New Testament was canonized-- so has merit as oral Tradition.



posted on Dec, 14 2011 @ 11:45 PM
link   
reply to post by Frira
 

Just for fun, I'll add... I also believe in the Harrowing of Hell (not in scripture, per se), but taught by the Church before the New Testament was canonized-- so has merit as oral Tradition.
Kalista is into the Harrowing of Hell which is still believed by the Orthodox Church, apparently, and he posted a link to a painting of it. He also gave a pretty good description of it.

I have recently gotten an attitude about the whole kingdom thing, based on things I have learned.
I have to reject the idea that there is yet no kingdom, when Jesus said in the Gospel that he was there to announce that the kingdom of God has arrived and he was ushering it in as the one to fulfill prophecy of the time of restoration.
He is the king that sits at the throne of God, at His right hand. I don't see how there could be anything higher than that which is yet to come.
New Jerusalem as a term is found in the Bible only in Revelation, which is written with a lot of symbolism which I have to understand as the writer taking all these Old Testament concepts and explaining how they apply to Jesus and those who follow him, so a New Jerusalem would just be a way to carry over this concept of Zion into the Christian kingdom of Jesus. You can't take Revelation to be all a long sequence of events happening in the order by which they appear in the book. It is a bunch of stories explaining the same thing, which is just how the worlds of Adam and Eve, then the world of Noah, and then the world of Moses, coming out from a flood, first the ocean which had to be cut in two to create the land for the garden, then the mountain that arose to lift the ark from the flood, and the the earth swallowing the water of the Red sea to let the Israelites cross to the meeting place with YHWH, so the flood from the serpent was swallowed to preserve the new Israel, the saints of Jesus.

edit on 14-12-2011 by jmdewey60 because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 15 2011 @ 02:18 AM
link   
reply to post by jmdewey60
 



I have to reject the idea that there is yet no kingdom



His kingdom is in heaven. Jesus Himself said His kingdom was not of this world. We are awaiting Him and the arrival of His kingdom on Earth. Where He will rule and reign for 1,000 years.



posted on Dec, 15 2011 @ 02:47 AM
link   

Originally posted by NOTurTypical
reply to post by jmdewey60
 



I have to reject the idea that there is yet no kingdom



His kingdom is in heaven. Jesus Himself said His kingdom was not of this world. We are awaiting Him and the arrival of His kingdom on Earth. Where He will rule and reign for 1,000 years.


my friend..

The kingdom of heaven is at hand...

Matthew

It is within... and without




posted on Dec, 15 2011 @ 04:54 AM
link   

Originally posted by Akragon

Originally posted by NOTurTypical
reply to post by jmdewey60
 



I have to reject the idea that there is yet no kingdom



His kingdom is in heaven. Jesus Himself said His kingdom was not of this world. We are awaiting Him and the arrival of His kingdom on Earth. Where He will rule and reign for 1,000 years.


my friend..

The kingdom of heaven is at hand...

Matthew

It is within... and without



"At hand" doesn't mean "present". "At hand" means it was beginning at the time Christ said that. His kingdom is not of this world. And don't claim it's "within" and "without", that was taken from a 4th century Gnostic text.


"Jesus answered, My kingdom is not of this world: if my kingdom were of this world, then would my servants fight, that I should not be delivered to the Jews: but now is my kingdom not from hence." ~ John 18:36


From His own mouth, His kingdom is not of this world.

Yet.



posted on Dec, 15 2011 @ 09:42 AM
link   

Originally posted by NOTurTypical



From His own mouth.........



You mean from mouth of whoever it was that wrote the gospel of john, 100 years after the Jesus character supposedly died.........



posted on Dec, 15 2011 @ 10:13 AM
link   

Originally posted by Prezbo369

Originally posted by NOTurTypical



From His own mouth.........



You mean from mouth of whoever it was that wrote the gospel of john, 100 years after the Jesus character supposedly died.........


No, the gospel of John isn't a Gnostic text. It was written before 70 AD.







 
2
<< 7  8  9    11  12  13 >>

log in

join