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 Messiah destroys the Edomites and Moabites in his return.

page: 11
13
<< 8  9  10    12 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 17 2012 @ 09:53 AM
link   
reply to post by lonewolf19792000
 

. . . were taken into captivity to europe.

Do you have any documentation for this assertion or are you just making this up?
There would have been enough taken to the city of Rome for a display in the triumphal parade for the returning hero of the war, but the majority of ones sold would have been sold at local slave markets and the ones that were not worth the trouble of selling in that way became imperial property and taken to Egypt to work for the Romans there.




posted on Jan, 17 2012 @ 10:00 AM
link   
reply to post by OldCorp
 

I have a buttload of other Missler videos to watch as well.

This is a good example of the proper use of profanity, which is in connection with this name.



posted on Jan, 17 2012 @ 10:15 AM
link   
reply to post by BO XIAN
 

The fundamental premise of Christianity is that Salvation is by the Grace of God through the Blood of Jesus The Christ for those who choose to receive His said Salvation by faith in Him.
Those who choose?
How about: "For all the world"?
You make it seem like there is option A, or there is option B.
I think there is no choice for what kind of salvation you can have, and that if it is not through Jesus, then it is not at all.

Fulfilling the Old Testament in terms of Salvation through THE MESSIAH vs through slaughtered sheep is wholesale DIFFERENT than claiming rather blasphemously that

GOD'S EVERLASTING PROMISES ARE NOT DEPENDABLE..
Then you should not say that Jesus was the fulfillment of the Old Testament. You should say that according to your philosophy, "Jesus bears a slight resemblance to something mentioned in the Old Testament and otherwise the Old Testament goes on as before and in fact should not even be called Old but we need to adopt the current Jewish usage and call it the Tanach"

I don't recall saying anywhere that I was responsible for how well read you are or aren't.
My point was that from my experience, the only people who use the term, replacement theory, are the dispensationalists.

The very idea that ALMIGHTY GOD'S EVERLASTING PROMISES TO ISRAEL COULD POSSIBLY BE CANCELED BY ANYONE OR ANYTHING

IT WELL BEYOND ABSURDLY PREPOSTEROUS as well as GROSSLY UNBIBLICAL.
In your own mind, because that is the ideology you were taught. I quoted the verses from Paul where he explains the process. He interprets the promise to be handed down to its ultimate inheritor who was Jesus, who in turn adopts us as brothers of that inheritance. The fact that you ignore Paul in the New Testament, to me, makes you a cult and not deserving of the name, Christian.

edit on 17-1-2012 by jmdewey60 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 17 2012 @ 10:44 AM
link   

Originally posted by jmdewey60
reply to post by lonewolf19792000
 

. . . were taken into captivity to europe.

Do you have any documentation for this assertion or are you just making this up?
There would have been enough taken to the city of Rome for a display in the triumphal parade for the returning hero of the war, but the majority of ones sold would have been sold at local slave markets and the ones that were not worth the trouble of selling in that way became imperial property and taken to Egypt to work for the Romans there.


History comes with documentation.
Antiochus Ephiphanes:

When these happenings were reported to the king, he thought that Judea was in revolt. Raging like a wild animal, he set out from Egypt and took Jerusalem by storm. He ordered his soldiers to cut down without mercy those whom they met and to slay those who took refuge in their houses. There was a massacre of young and old, a killing of women and children, a slaughter of virgins and infants. In the space of three days, eighty thousand were lost, forty thousand meeting a violent death, and the same number being sold into slavery.


120,000 were sold into slavery. They were not sold into local markets because they were captives of Antiochus Epiphanes. This is just one city in Israel, imagine how many more people lived in other cities. It is incredibly dehumanizing to pass this event off as mere "they deserved what they got" and by saying they are not who they claim to be. Let's see if we find them in other sources....

The Quran and Hadiths of Mohammed say (and this is translated by many Arab scholars), that the Jews came to Mecca from Jerusalem with the Torah. Mohammed originally worshiped toward Jerusalem until he changed it toward Mecca. Mohammed lived in the 600s. That means if Mohammed recognized Jews, with the religion of the Torah, there were Jews in Israel? By the way, Mohammed calls it Sham, the Arab name for Israel.

He reinforces over and over and over again, the Jews were in Jerusalem and some came to Mecca with the Torah. What happened to those Jews in Mecca? He went to war with them and sold them into slavery as well. But Mohammed himself had a Replacement Theology, he believed allah had now replaced the authority of the Jews' religion into Islam.

We could say that Mohammed was reading earlier texts, but Mohammed was illiterate. He had interactions with the Jews who had come to Mecca, as well as the Christians. Even Mohammed teaches there will never be and end of the Jews of Israel, he recognized them as being from Israel. I suggest you read the Quran and the Hadiths just to get a sense of history contained in it. You don't have to believe the theology of it, just see the history contained in it.

Hadrian was emperor over Antiochus Epiphanes. It was Hadrian who renamed Israel, but yet, and I say yet, it was not recognized by the Arab groups surrounding them. Mohammed does not ever refer to Palestine. I wonder why that is? Perhaps the Arabs did not recognize the authority of Rome? Mohammed makes no reference to Rome or Athens or Cairo for that matter. He recognized Jews and Christians, those who came from Jerusalem when Mohammed was pre-Islamic.

To say they were just sold in local markets is a little dishonest. That means you have not had an understanding of the slave trade that extended well into Asia as well as Africa and throughout Europe.

The Islamic invasion of the Holy Land began in the 900s, three centuries after Mohammed, and this invasion prompted the First Crusades.


Roman Empire period presence of Jews in Croatia date to the 2nd century, in Pannonia to the 3rd to 4th century. A finger ring with a Menorah depiction found in Augusta Raurica (Kaiseraugst, Switzerland) in 2001 attests to Jewish presence in Germania Superior.[1] Evidence in towns north of the Loire or in southern Gaul date to the 5th century and 6th centuries.[2]


Where did the Jews go? Everywhere.



posted on Jan, 17 2012 @ 10:54 AM
link   
reply to post by WarminIndy
 

Antiochus Ephiphanes:

You are talking about something completely different.
Lonewolf was taking about the Roman destruction of Jerusalem and its aftermath.
You are confusing several different wars and mixing it all up.
edit on 17-1-2012 by jmdewey60 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 17 2012 @ 10:56 AM
link   

Originally posted by jmdewey60
reply to post by BO XIAN
 

The fundamental premise of Christianity is that Salvation is by the Grace of God through the Blood of Jesus The Christ for those who choose to receive His said Salvation by faith in Him.
Those who choose?
How about: "For all the world"?
You make it seem like there is option A, or there is option B.
I think there is no choice for what kind of salvation you can have, and that if it is not through Jesus, then it is not at all.

I don't recall saying anywhere that I was responsible for how well read you are or aren't.
My point was that from my experience, the only people who use the term, replacement theory, are the dispensationalists.
edit on 17-1-2012 by jmdewey60 because: (no reason given)


You might be trying to convince us that you never heard of the term, but your philosophy and ideology is Replacement Theology. I think you listen to people like Arnold Murray and Shepherd's Chapel and agree with much of what they say.

The problem with Replacement Theologians, is that they don't want the unsuspecting to know that is exactly what they believe. They are also called British-Israelism and Preterists.

I noticed you never looked at the link I sent you three times, you never once addressed it, because you know exactly what it is you are called. You know, my brother in the Church of Christ once told me, "aren't there more than one replacement theologies?" I think the reason you are uncomfortable with accepting the term, it means that you did not really come up with your theories on your own through your own effort, that someone else already held those beliefs and you want to feel as though you came up with them on your own.

It is not hard to admit, just say you identify with Replacement Theology, because that is exactly what you believe. You have researched from sites created by Replacement Theologists, and you listened to television shows created by them. They did not tell you they were because they don't want you to know they are in heresy. That is why they change the theology of the Bible, to make it seem they are the ones now as God's chosen people. And guess what, the KKK has its foundation in British-Israelism, which is Replacement Theology.

I think I would take pause if the theology I accept is also acceptable to a hate group. Should we show you from their websites and teaching that explain those very things you have tried to tell us? They sound the same as what you have told us.



posted on Jan, 17 2012 @ 10:58 AM
link   

Originally posted by jmdewey60
reply to post by WarminIndy
 

Antiochus Ephiphanes:

You are talking about something completely different.
Lonewolf was taking about the Roman destruction of Jerusalem and its aftermath.
You are confusing several different wars and mixing it all up.
edit on 17-1-2012 by jmdewey60 because: (no reason given)


The Roman destruction was by Antiochus Epiphanes.



posted on Jan, 17 2012 @ 11:13 AM
link   
reply to post by WarminIndy
 

I think you listen to people like Arnold Murray and Shepherd's Chapel and agree with much of what they say.
I think I might have seen a TV show where there is this old guy sitting behind a desk and rambling on about one thing or another but it is not something I would have payed any attention to other than to figure out after a minute or so that he is not someone I want to listen to.
What I read is the old Christian writers from antiquity, meaning the earliest people. I would also read the ancient Jewish writers. Mostly what I read are very well reviewed writings on a level of doctoral dissertations from the more reputable universities and seminaries. People who are actual recognized scholars in biblical theology and I avoid people who are writers as their main activity and not really involved in serious scholasticism.

You have researched from sites created by Replacement Theologists, and you listened to television shows created by them.
I read books, which I do find on the internet by way of the Amazon web site which I like to use and I try to find used books to buy so I can buy more books. I said enough times that I am a Seventh Day Adventist, though I have recently changed some of my views on some important topics which that denomination discusses frequently. The general interpretation of the SDA church is apotelesmatic which is something you can Google and find an Adventist site which explains it. Generally it means a prophecy can have two fulfillments, where it is fulfilled in the past as was the intent of the original prophet for his own time, then there can be a secondary fulfillment in the future so strictly speaking we are neither preterist, or futurists.
edit on 17-1-2012 by jmdewey60 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 17 2012 @ 11:29 AM
link   

Originally posted by jmdewey60
reply to post by WarminIndy
 

I think you listen to people like Arnold Murray and Shepherd's Chapel and agree with much of what they say.
I think I might have seen a TV show where there is this old guy sitting behind a desk and rambling on about one thing or another but it is not something I would have payed any attention to other than to figure out after a minute or so that he is not someone I want to listen to.
What I read is the old Christian writers from antiquity, meaning the earliest people. I would also read the ancient Jewish writers. Mostly what I read are very well reviewed writings on a level of doctoral dissertations from the more reputable universities and seminaries. People who are actual recognized scholars in biblical theology and I avoid people who are writers as their main activity and not really involved in serious scholasticism.


So you know who I was talking about.

What early Christian writers are you referring to? These perhaps?
Anti-Semitism of the Early Church Fathers



posted on Jan, 17 2012 @ 11:36 AM
link   
reply to post by BO XIAN
 

I appreciate the addition to my Heavenly account.

Which explains why I say things like that (what comes off as being insulting, to you) which is that there is a slew of people on this sub-forum who believe that they are buying their rapture ticket by spreading this particular ideology. I need to point out to people who may not know any better, that these people are here buying their way into heaven by recruiting people into their cult. People should understand that this is a cult and not normal Christianity and do not represent Christianity, although they may seem to, because of how they are the predominant voice on this sub-forum. There is a reason for that and it is not their correctness but it is their peculiarity. You have to think of it as the internet version of these people who knock on your door and leave their literature about one of two things depending on their particular cult, the end of the world as we know it, or an otherwise unknown world in American pre-history. Those people are not promoting the use of internet forum posting and stick to their old, tried and true methods, leaving the field wide open for this group you find represented here which is the Zionist, pro-war, anti-Muslim, rapturing, and the takeover of the world by Jews believing group, otherwise known as dispensationalists.
I should note that this does not obviously include everyone on this sub-forum but generally whoever you see denouncing me on a regular bases, they would be the ones offended by my exposing their doctrines.
edit on 17-1-2012 by jmdewey60 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 17 2012 @ 12:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by jmdewey60
reply to post by BO XIAN
 

I appreciate the addition to my Heavenly account.

Which explains why I say things like that (what comes off as being insulting, to you) which is that there is a slew of people on this sub-forum who believe that they are buying their rapture ticket by spreading this particular ideology. I need to point out to people who may not know any better, that these people are here buying their way into heaven by recruiting people into their cult. People should understand that this is a cult and not normal Christianity and do not represent Christianity, although they may seem to, because of how they are the predominant voice on this sub-forum. There is a reason for that and it is not their correctness but it is their peculiarity. You have to think of it as the internet version of these people who knock on your door and leave their literature about one of two things depending on their particular cult, the end of the world as we know it, or an otherwise unknown world in American pre-history. Those people are not promoting the use of internet forum posting and stick to their old, tried and true methods, leaving the field wide open for this group you find represented here which is the Zionist, pro-war, anti-Muslim, rapturing and takeover of the world by Jews believing group, otherwise known as dispensationalists.
I should note that this does not obviously include everyone on this sub-forum but generally whoever you see denouncing me on a regular bases, they would be the ones offended by my exposing their doctrines.
edit on 17-1-2012 by jmdewey60 because: (no reason given)


So says the Replacement Theologian. You once again chose not to look at the link provided as you have never done. No, we do not expose you, you do that yourself.

You dislike the fact that there are those of us who will never, never say God's covenant is not everlasting, because God does not break His promises. And you dislike God, so you made up a god in your mind and have changed verses in the Bible to suit your own religion.

God is the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. There is nothing you nor I can do to change that. You have created a religion based solely on the idea of the person of Jesus Christ, without knowing Jesus Christ. It is Jesus Christ who will judge at the end of the world...wait, I forgot, in your religion it already happened.

What you are, is not Christian. You are the maker of a new religion based on nothing more than revision of verses that do not justify Replacement Theology in an attempt to make Replacement Theology the new religion of the last age. It is no longer Christianity, it should be renamed and since you are nothing more than a Joseph Smith wannabe, why don't you just go ahead and introduce the name of your new religion?

Along with it, show us your revised scripture. We, who post at ATS, would be inclined to discuss it and consider it, if you are intellectually honest enough to say that you are the messenger of God in your new religion. In essence, that is exactly what you have done. What is the name of your new religion? You can't call it Christianity, because it bears no semblance of Orthodox Christianity.

You have tried to cleverly attempt to infuse doctrines of Islam and Replacement Theology, you have presented your own changing of verses and admitted that you did it. There are literally thousands of people on ATS who would probably be interested in following you, if you would only be honest.



posted on Jan, 17 2012 @ 12:12 PM
link   
reply to post by jmdewey60
 



You used the word denounced, that means you view yourself as the authority and voice of the god of your religion. Yes, we denounce you, because we do not follow your religion. No other Christian says that others denounce them, only new religious figures say that.



posted on Jan, 17 2012 @ 12:17 PM
link   
reply to post by WarminIndy
 




What you are, is not Christian. You are the maker of a new religion based on nothing more than revision of verses that do not justify Replacement Theology in an attempt to make Replacement Theology the new religion of the last age. It is no longer Christianity, it should be renamed and since you are nothing more than a Joseph Smith wannabe, why don't you just go ahead and introduce the name of your new religion?


Dont mean to butt in, but anything calling itself "christianity" that has reduced the christ to a mere sacrificial animal is a new religion in itself. If anything needs to be renamed, its this bizarre religion masquerading as "christianity" ...peddling salvation in exchange for accepting that an innocent mans blood wipes away sin, that needs to be renamed.

edit on 17-1-2012 by sk0rpi0n because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 17 2012 @ 12:23 PM
link   
reply to post by WarminIndy
 

Whatever you just said (about the word denounced) is just rediculous.
The fact that I might say something no one else says just means I have independent opinions and I represent no one other than myself. I am not worried if it seems I am alone in my belief and I don't really feel that way and think there are others who think the same thing but have not yet figured out a way to articulate those thoughts.
I believe in the spirit of prophecy and you can look that up in Revelation:

At this I fell at his feet to worship him. But he said to me, "Do not do it! I am a fellow servant with you and with your brothers who hold to the testimony of Jesus. Worship God! For the testimony of Jesus is the spirit of prophecy."

. . . you are nothing more than a Joseph Smith wannabe . . .
If I thought I was somehow leading anyone or anything, I hope it would be for people to discover truth on their own and not from a predigested ideology. I am not seeking agreement with me but the objective truth as they discover it. I do look for inspiration in the books I buy but I am very selective in what goes into my head and keep it to where I am reading fellow seekers and not people who think they already know everything worth knowing.
edit on 17-1-2012 by jmdewey60 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 17 2012 @ 12:50 PM
link   
reply to post by WarminIndy
 

So you know who I was talking about.
That's funny that you believe me when I say I might know who that person is but don't believe me when I said I don't follow any of his teachings or even watched him enough to even know what they are exactly.

What early Christian writers are you referring to? These perhaps?
Anti-Semitism of the Early Church Fathers
Hey what happened to Bo Xian's claim that dispensationalist views are traceable to NT times?
Anyway, I have fifty something volumes of the Early Church Fathers, my favorite being Jerome, who I have the most of and had gone out of my way to collect.
edit on 17-1-2012 by jmdewey60 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 17 2012 @ 12:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by jmdewey60
reply to post by WarminIndy
 

So you know who I was talking about.
That's funny that you believe me when I say I might know who that person is but don't believe me when I said I don't follow any of his teachings or even watched him enough to even know what they are exactly.

What early Christian writers are you referring to? These perhaps?
Anti-Semitism of the Early Church Fathers
Hey what happened to Bo Xian's claim that dispensationalist views are traceable to NT times?


Was Jesus an orthodox Jew? Is Jesus the Word of God made flesh? Did Jesus know all the prophesies of the ancient prophets?

And the biggest question is this, is Jesus alive right at this moment in the flesh?



posted on Jan, 17 2012 @ 01:22 PM
link   
reply to post by WarminIndy
 

Was Jesus an orthodox Jew? Is Jesus the Word of God made flesh? Did Jesus know all the prophesies of the ancient prophets?

And the biggest question is this, is Jesus alive right at this moment in the flesh?
How does any of this have to do with anything?
The term "orthodox Jew" would not have existed at that time. Jesus would have identified himself with the tribe of Judah but would not have with the term, Jew, as we know the term today. If you read the Gospel of John you will see places that refer to "the fear of the Jews" and that was used by Jesus' fellow Judeans and it meant those upper class Judeans who were taken hostage to Babylon and returned from exile to rebuild and operate the temple. They set themselves up as virtual lords over the people and held themselves distinct from the lowly peasants who were not taken into captivity.
Jesus was not the Word but was the means by which the Word was made known to the world in a concrete way. The Word is what you are reading right now if you are reading the Gospel of John and it tells you that in its prolog, 'The Word is the light of the world and it came into the world but the world did not comprehend it, so the life came into the world as the message of God to mankind in a way where we could see it and touch it and for us to be witness of it from the person himself who is precious to God as if he was his only son, and we did witness the Word as it was spoken by God's son and we have testified of it and you are now hearing that testimony.'
Jesus was the expected Messiah the Redeemer, come in the flesh and he died and was raised again and now is glorified in a form as we will be when we receive our glorified bodies in Heaven, where we will see him at some point. We will be in Heaven awaiting his arrival in the great hall where we will be among the assembly of the saints.
edit on 17-1-2012 by jmdewey60 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 17 2012 @ 02:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by jmdewey60
reply to post by WarminIndy
 


Jesus was the expected Messiah the Redeemer, come in the flesh and he died and was raised again and now is glorified in a form as we will be when we receive our glorified bodies in Heaven, where we will see him at some point. We will be in Heaven awaiting his arrival in the great hall where we will be among the assembly of the saints.
edit on 17-1-2012 by jmdewey60 because: (no reason given)



1 John 4:1Beloved, believe not every spirit, but try the spirits whether they are of God: because many false prophets are gone out into the world. 2Hereby know ye the Spirit of God: Every spirit that confesseth that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is of God: 3And every spirit that confesseth not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is not of God: and this is that spirit of antichrist, whereof ye have heard that it should come; and even now already is it in the world. 4Ye are of God, little children, and have overcome them: because greater is he that is in you, than he that is in the world. 5They are of the world: therefore speak they of the world, and the world heareth them. 6We are of God: he that knoweth God heareth us; he that is not of God heareth not us. Hereby know we the spirit of truth, and the spirit of error.


This was written after Jesus ascended, right? So why would John not say was, instead of is? Because He IS in the flesh. That makes you an anti-Christ.

Jesus Christ, the SAME yesterday, today and forever. Jesus said "Before Abraham was, I AM". Hereby we know the spirit of truth, Jesus Christ IS COME in the flesh, presently, currently, at this very moment, right now, without a doubt, IS in the flesh.

The Redeemer lives, right now.
edit on 1/17/2012 by WarminIndy because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 17 2012 @ 06:20 PM
link   
reply to post by WarminIndy
 

. . . right?

No.



posted on Jan, 17 2012 @ 06:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by jmdewey60
reply to post by WarminIndy
 

. . . right?

No.


I am not going to argue. Yes, it was written after Jesus ascended.

This Epistle was written in Ephesus between the years 95–110


Jesus ascended 40 days after His resurrection. John wrote, Jesus IS come in the flesh, he wrote it more than 50 years later. So what is the problem you have with John? Was he too Jewish for you?

The Bible stands, Christ IS come in the flesh. Whether you or I live or die, it still stands.



new topics

top topics



 
13
<< 8  9  10    12 >>

log in

join