The thread that will never get a real answer

Originally posted by NOTurTypical
And I've previously shown here in this thread that there is no consensus as to the authorship of John.

What exactly do you think the word 'consensus' refers to?

reply to post by NOTurTypical

They are CRITICS it's their job to criticize and discredit. That is a conflict of interest. I can't criticize the critics?

You are just burying yourself deeper, pointing out just how adverse you are to finding anything out that may reveal what sort of folly your servitude to your cult has gotten you into.
Biblical criticism is not a bunch of people making disparaging remarks to denigrate the Bible.
That would be biblical debunkers.
"Criticism" is just a term for analyzing something, in an educated manner, to see what it is.

reply to post by NOTurTypical

"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.

"At Hand" means, right beside you. So this thing exists in the present, it is not on top of you, or under you or around you, it is next to you and you can enter it at any time.

In that same verse, John 18:36, he defines what he means, by "not of this world" by saying its authority is not derived from the world. He is not saying, "My kingdom has no effect on anyone living on this planet."
He also does not say he has no kingdom, nor does he say he is no king. He is just saying no one but God gives him his kingdom and it is not about secular politics where going to war will not promote its progress or keep it in power. His kingdom is on a spiritual level but it does not mean that it somehow does not exist.

Your little quip at the end, "Yet." is the voice, of course, of anti-christ.

reply to post by jmdewey60


I'll stick with Jesus on this one, no offense. His kingdom is not of this world. When He returns, He will bring it with Him, and it will consume the entire Earth. At that time it will physically be present and ruling on Earth. Gabriel promised Mary that Jesus would rule from David's throne. David's throne didn't exist at the time Christ was born.

John who coined the term antichristos also identified the two qualities of someone who was under the influence of the spirit of antichrist. They would deny the deity of Christ, and would deny His relationship to His Father. So stop running around calling everyone an antichrist.

reply to post by NOTurTypical

OK, so I should make a disclaimer by saying:
♦ When I say anti-christ I do not mean it in exactly the same way as the writer of the letters attributed to someone named John, I mean it in the normal sense of the word, which is a person, thing, concept, or teaching which is against Jesus.

You are making a false claim by saying you are with Jesus because you are reciting things you made up, while I am looking right at the actual words and saying what they mean. You take a meaning from that which fits your other preconceived philosophy about hell on earth while denying Jesus as king, so you must by process of elimination be worshiping Satan since he is your king.
btw: "They would deny the deity of Christ" was not what John was talking about. He was saying people who denied that he had come in the flesh. Apparently there were people who thought flesh was evil so no true messiah could be a normal person. This is one aspect of anti-christ according to John (the letters of) that gets discussed a lot but I think the more general implication of what John is saying is that the Messiah did come and he knew because he touched him and lived with him.

On the subject of biblical scholarly criticism, I will quote a paragraph on that, from the book, The Paperback Apocalypse by Robert M. Price, which goes to this idea that form-criticism is the tool of the devil used by people who hate God and Jesus and the Bible.

Though I have never run across an apologist (certainly there may be some) who is even aware of the original contexts and meanings of the passages that I have reviewed above, I can imagine the strategy of such an apologist would be to charge that scholars have just invented all these clever categories (“birth oracles,” “lament psalms,” etc. ) to evade the force of messianic prophecy. Why anyone would do that is beyond me. In any case, such a desperate suggestion has to come to grips with the wider utility of the categories. That is, if these form-critical categories are mere exegetical phantoms invented to make mischief for apologists, why do they, how can they make so much sense in illuminating the sense of so many other similar Old Testament texts that are irrelevant to the apologetic's debate? The categories in which I have placed most of the “messianic” texts do not exist for the sake of denying the texts to apologetical use. They exist as an interpretive tool for a much broader selection of texts in their own right.

I typed this up myself by looking at the page (from an actual physical book) and reading it, and is not a copy and paste job from the internet.

Originally posted by jmdewey60
reply to post by NOTurTypical

 

OK, so I should make a disclaimer by saying:
♦ When I say anti-christ I do not mean it in exactly the same way as the writer of the letters attributed to someone named John, I mean it in the normal sense of the word, which is a person, thing, concept, or teaching which is against Jesus.

You are making a false claim by saying you are with Jesus because you are reciting things you made up, while I am looking right at the actual words and saying what they mean. You take a meaning from that which fits your other preconceived philosophy about hell on earth while denying Jesus as king, so you must by process of elimination be worshiping Satan since he is your king.
btw: "They would deny the deity of Christ" was not what John was talking about. He was saying people who denied that he had come in the flesh. Apparently there were people who thought flesh was evil so no true messiah could be a normal person. This is one aspect of anti-christ according to John (the letters of) that gets discussed a lot but I think the more general implication of what John is saying is that the Messiah did come and he knew because he touched him and lived with him.

Well gosh, I guess you missed this:

I'll stick with Jesus on this one, no offense. His kingdom is not of this world.

Originally posted by WakeUpRiseUp
Prove god is real and that you dont believe in fairy tales.

The best way to prove God exists to someone else, is to foretell something that is going to happen in the future, according to the Bible.

So, when you see 'Jesus Christ at his second coming' emerging from the next Papal Conclave you will have all the proof you need that God does in fact exist. I can show you the verses where this is in the Bible but you would need to have the 'eyes' to 'see' it too.

The Bible says that only God knows when the Son will return, which is true, so for this event to be foretold, shows that this 'Jesus' is the false christ.

The whole world is deceived one way or another, and Christians are conned into believing in Jesus, who actually IS the Antichrist - and his 'mark' is the cross, which is widely accepted and already worn by so many, and used in and on buildings, books, etc. Yet so many will be so scared of losing the false promise of their 'salvation' through him; that they will not accept this information which is from God Himself.

This truth will most probably offend many, but this is what this whole site is about and this is your warning of Satan's deceit!

Besides you don't have to believe me now, you can wait until they see the proof of it with your own eyes!

The number 666 can be obtained by using the English alphabet; A=6, B=12, C=18 and so on. When adding all the numbers of the letters, Christos or Kristos, which is the Greek for Christ = 666. [The true Messiah is Jewish, not Greek, which is also significant, but that's a whole other story.]

This might not be a very convincing method but using it; Jesus, Lucifer, cross, Messiah and Y'shua (If I remember them all rightly) all add up to 444. Not that I know what this means. Maybe someone else has some ideas?

reply to post by Maigret

Sorry but your post males no sense, seeing how you use Revelation, the full title being, The Revelation of Jesus Christ, to "prove" Jesus is the anti-christ.

reply to post by Maigret


I share a similar view my friend.

The false Christ is the one on the crucifix. The church built around that crucifix is equally as false.

Why?

Because Christ resurrected in spirit.

He LIVES.

And has lived since the resurrection in the hearts and minds of those who follow in his foot steps.

Few in number

but great in deed.

With Love,

Your Brother

reply to post by Maigret


The problem with that theory is the ones warning of the anti-christ believe Jesus is the messiah. Kinda sorta shoots the whole theory down.

reply to post by Akragon


Okay, the "within" comment Jesus was speaking about to the Pharisees is the revelation that one day the Holy Spirit would reside within man. That's not a denial that His kingdom at the time He spoke those words to the Pharisees wasn't in another place not of this world. Because when asked by Pilate He said His kingdom was not of this world.

reply to post by NOTurTypical


I said the kingdom was at hand...

Are you not one that calls him God in the flesh? Meaning this is HIS kingdom.... no?

Or was he not God?

reply to post by NOTurTypical

That's not a denial that His kingdom at the time He spoke those words to the Pharisees wasn't in another place not of this world.

So while Jesus was ostensibly living the life of a man on earth, he was simultaneously the king of Lollipop Land?

Originally posted by jmdewey60
reply to post by NOTurTypical

 

That's not a denial that His kingdom at the time He spoke those words to the Pharisees wasn't in another place not of this world.

So while Jesus was ostensibly living the life of a man on earth, he was simultaneously the king of Lollipop Land?

I trust Christ, who do you want me to trust and place my faith in when He said to Pilate that His kingdom was not of this world? I tend to take Him at His Word, that His kingdom is in fact.. not of this world.

Originally posted by Akragon
reply to post by NOTurTypical

 

I said the kingdom was at hand...

Well, sure it was at hand, the King Himself was standing right in front of them.

Are you not one that calls him God in the flesh? Meaning this is HIS kingdom.... no?

Yes. Well, every part of creation is His, it was created by Him and for Him, but that doesn't mean it's location is on Earth. Christ said Himself that His kingdom was not of this world. Revelation details Him bringing His kingdom to Earth along with His Holy angels and His saints. Every eye will see Him when He brings His kingdom to this Earth. A quick search of the threads in this forum will prove beyond any shadow of a doubt that not every eye has seen Him bring His kingdom to Earth yet.

Or was he not God?

That's why they killed Him.

reply to post by NOTurTypical

Well, sure it was at hand, the King Himself was standing right in front of them.

Is it not still "at hand"? Christians still claim him as lord... and King

it was created by Him and for Him,

Where did he say I created all of this?

Revelation details Him bringing His kingdom to Earth along with His Holy angels and His saints. Every eye will see Him when He brings His kingdom to this Earth. A quick search of the threads in this forum will prove beyond any shadow of a doubt that not every eye has seen Him bring His kingdom to Earth yet.

Actually i see an abundance of threads concerning love...

That's why they killed Him.

Forgive them lord for they know not what they do... Sound familiar?

They killed him because they misunderstood... and his followers would not stand up for him... It was "prophecied" that he would be persecuded... and betrayed.

He never claimed to be God my friend... it can't be denied

reply to post by Akragon



I'll get to the rest of your post tomorrow, going to bed after this one point.

He never claimed to be God my friend... it can't be denied

Sure, if you only want to consider the phrase "Look dudes, I am God." Then no, I agree Jesus never said that. But what happens in our western culture 2,000 years removed from them is that we miss TONS of Hebraisms that those of His day knew VERY well. Everytime He called Himself the "Son of Man" it was a direct quote from Daniel 7, in which Daniel sees a man that all worship and dominion is given to, in heaven and in Earth. The Pharisees knew EXACTLY what He was saying when He said He was the Son of God and the Son of Man, that's why they killed Him for blasphemy.

reply to post by NOTurTypical


i believe The Pharisees assumed what he was saying... as the jews did he when he denied that he said he was God... And as many do to this day...
John 10 31 -38

Leaving your belief to an assumption is interesting i suppose... Though remember he did say one is greater then he... many times

reply to post by NOTurTypical

I tend to take Him at His Word, that His kingdom is in fact.. not of this world.

So then you admit to believing that Jesus is the king of Lollipop Land.