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.

 

another verse in the Gospel to show OSAS is a lie, a heresy from men

page: 5
1
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 20 2012 @ 11:35 AM
link   

Originally posted by jmdewey60
reply to post by NOTurTypical
 

We're awaiting His return to rule on Earth. Fail.
If that is the case, then what is the purpose of the rapture?


To resurrect and gather the bride for the Marriage Supper. The bride cannot accompany Him when he returns to Earth to establish His kingdom if He doesn't come first to gather her.


No one is coming back, is that not right?


Jesus is, He promised to. Gabriel also promised Mary her Son would rule from David's throne. The Davidic throne didn't exist in Mary's day.


The Jews, according to the general philosophy which you have joined yourself into by your earlier declaration of being a Dispensationalist, is that the Jews will have their Messiah, exactly as they were expecting in the time of Jesus, and rejected and killed Jesus for not living up to that standard.


That nonsense isn't "according" to Dispensationalism at all. Haven't you yet learned that you cannot invent things your opponent says or believes then attack those ideas you yourself invented? That's called burning down "straw men". That means you're creating a false "man' and burning down the false 'man' you created and hoping it hurts the real man the straw man is modeled after.

It's a mark of lunacy.


So, basically another Jesus, nothing like the one we know of from the Gospels.


You don't even trust the gospels, you trust Bart D. Ehrman.


An anti-christ, who of course will not be called by the Hellenized name Jesus, but will be called by a proper (according to your philosophy) "Hebrew" name, again, a second marker as being the "instead of"-christ.


Haven't we thoroughly been through the Biblical and especially Greek difference between "an" antichrist and "the" antichrist? And you have it completely backwards, the antichrist will take His Hellenized Latin name of Jesus, not vice versa.

"Ante" in the Greek means "in place of" it doesn't mean what 'anti' in English means, "against/opposite of".




posted on Feb, 20 2012 @ 11:36 AM
link   
reply to post by NOTurTypical
 

That's still on your cadre's legitimate canon books list correct?

STRAW MAN FALLACY!!!!!!!!!!! fail! fail! fail!

What?

WOW!
Cadre?

You are building a straw man that there is a corresponding set of fanatics which stand in opposition to your bunch of fanatics!
These are biblical scholars (and not just people who sit around and read books on scholarship, which is what I do, read about scholars), the people in the branch of study that covers the origin of biblical literature have a vast majority view that the only agreed upon authentic letters by the Apostle Paul are, Romans, 1 and 2 Corinthians, Galatians, Philippians, 1 Thessalonians, and Philemon.
edit on 20-2-2012 by jmdewey60 because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 20 2012 @ 11:38 AM
link   

Originally posted by jmdewey60
reply to post by NOTurTypical
 

That's still on your cadre's legitimate canon books list correct?

STRAW MAN FALLACY!!!!!!!!!!! fail! fail! fail!

What?

WOW!

Cadre?
You are building a straw man that there is a corresponding set of fanatics which stand in opposition to you bunch of fanatics!
These are biblical scholars and not just people who sit around and read books on scholarship (which is what I do, read about scholars). Anyway, the people in the branch of study that covers the origin of biblical literature have a vast majority view that the only agreed upon authentic letters by the Apostle Paul are, Romans, 1 and 2 Corinthians, Galatians, Philippians, 1 Thessalonians, and Philemon.


It's not a straw man, you yourself said you consider some books forged or illegitimate letters and some in the canon not to be. Perhaps that's the reason you make the straw man fallacy so often, you have no functioning understanding of what one is?

And yes, your cadre of textual critics and fringe liberal scholars who you worship more than the risen Living Savior, Messiah Jesus.


edit on 20-2-2012 by NOTurTypical because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 20 2012 @ 11:55 AM
link   
reply to post by jmdewey60
 



literature have a vast majority view that the only agreed upon authentic letters by the Apostle Paul are, Romans, 1 and 2 Corinthians, Galatians, Philippians, 1 Thessalonians, and Philemon.


Have you even read Romans 11 or Galatians, or 1 Corinthians then? Especially your theology on justification and the future plan for Israel makes it seem like you ignore them. Ephesians is one of his greatest books, and Collossians destroys Gnostic doctrine. The Gnostics were writing false gospels and trying to sneak them into the accepted letters, not vice versa. The dudes at the Jesus Seminar are loony birds, they have the "Gospel of Thomas" as an accepted gospel when it wasn't even written by Thomas!

The early church consistently rejected any books with pseudo-autographs.


edit on 20-2-2012 by NOTurTypical because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 20 2012 @ 01:09 PM
link   
reply to post by NOTurTypical
 

"THE antichrist", (personal pronoun specific in the Greek), means a specific one, different from all others.
There is mention in the NT of antichrist.
Probably what you are looking at is the verse,
1 John 2:22
Who is the liar but the person who denies that Jesus is the Christ? This one is the antichrist: the person who denies the Father and the Son.

This explains the morphology of the Greek word, because of the construction of the sentence. What it seems to be describing is how to identify someone you would not think of as a teacher one should be listening to. So a hypothetical person is presented in an imaginary scenario, and the reader here is asked to pick out who the false teacher is. It is the one who fits this wider description that the writer of this supposed letter is informing people of.
But this idea of a personal pronoun used to describe the antichrist is not correct at least from what I am looking at. The word, antichrist, is only found in four verses in the NT, and all in the John letters, and there are no personal pronouns in any of those.
You are probably thinking of 2 Thessalonians and a Man of Sin, who you associate in your mind with the antichrist.

edit on 20-2-2012 by jmdewey60 because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 20 2012 @ 01:24 PM
link   
reply to post by NOTurTypical
 

Poisoning the well. And now we know you side with Agnostics and Catholics. Explains the whole lust you have for works righteousness.

The "Agnostics" comment I have to guess comes from my reading books written by agnostics. I use their information without joining into agnostics.
Your comment about "Catholics" probably comes from my support of the idea of their being a single body of Christ which is the Church. My "siding with them" is is relation with shared beliefs which you seem to not share in, where you believe that there is no such thing as an eternal New Covenant. You believe in a temporary sort-of covenant just to remove any competition with the primacy of the old covenant, to get that "gentile thing" in prophecy over with and gone, so the main show can come on.



posted on Feb, 20 2012 @ 01:29 PM
link   
reply to post by NOTurTypical
 




What about everything else I said in that post above?? No comments? lol


You spew out a bunch of YouTube video dogma. That's what I think. It has no relationship with reality and is a made-up religion to trick Christians to stand by and say nothing while Israel continues on in its criminal career of genocide and ethnic cleansing using murder and theft and lies and deception as its tools in Satan's work, not caring how many "gentiles" go to Hell as a result of their believing in the serpent's lies.
edit on 20-2-2012 by jmdewey60 because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 20 2012 @ 02:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by jmdewey60
reply to post by NOTurTypical
 




What about everything else I said in that post above?? No comments? lol


You spew out a bunch of YouTube video dogma.


Should be super easy then for someone of your perfect wisdom to debunk, go for it.


That's what I think. It has no relationship with reality and is a made-up religion to trick Christians to stand by and say nothing while Israel continues on in its criminal career of genocide and ethnic cleansing using murder and theft and lies and deception as its tools in Satan's work, not caring how many "gentiles" go to Hell as a result of their believing in the serpent's lies.


You hate the Jews, admit it finally. We support them because God still has a plan for them, it doesn't mean we agree with every single thing they do. So support their right to exist in the land and God has promised to regather them a 2nd time from the 4 corners of the Earth after the Diaspora. Wow, that happened in 1948! No kidding, yep.. God is still 100% on prophecy.

And Paul confirms this in Romans 11. READ YOUR BIBLE. The entire purpose of the Great Tribulation is to bring the Jews to Christ. And God pours out His bowl "censer" judgments on the beast and his people.


edit on 20-2-2012 by NOTurTypical because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 20 2012 @ 02:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by jmdewey60
reply to post by NOTurTypical
 

Poisoning the well. And now we know you side with Agnostics and Catholics. Explains the whole lust you have for works righteousness.

The "Agnostics" comment I have to guess comes from my reading books written by agnostics. I use their information without joining into agnostics.


Which is also a fallacy of logic. You believe his conclusions are correct about the text, but his conclusions based on his evaluation of the text (Agnosticism) is wrong. You believe him to be both completely right and completely wrong about the same textual conclusions.


Your comment about "Catholics" probably comes from my support of the idea of their being a single body of Christ which is the Church. My "siding with them" is is relation with shared beliefs which you seem to not share in, where you believe that there is no such thing as an eternal New Covenant.


There is always the bride, throughout the wold. Oftentimes churches differ over musical instruments and types or styles or service, not doctrine. The "church" isn't a building, it's an invisible body of true believers and people who trust in Jesus as their Savior and Lord. The people who love Him, and want to spent eternity in His glorious presence.


You believe in a temporary sort-of covenant just to remove any competition with the primacy of the old covenant, to get that "gentile thing" in prophecy over with and gone, so the main show can come on.


If it's "temporary" it's not a covenant.
Christ didn't end the old covenant, He fulfilled it and made a new one of grace with us at the Last Supper. We "remember" His sacrifice and the new covenant every time we partake of communion.


edit on 20-2-2012 by NOTurTypical because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 20 2012 @ 02:55 PM
link   
reply to post by NOTurTypical
 

LOL, no. He will redeem them to Christianity, trusting in Him as their Messiah and God.

Your dispensationalism makes no sense, since according to you, the Jews become Christians, why would they not just join the Church like everyone else? And why would they be doing animal sacrifices at a temple in Jerusalem?
What was the purpose of eliminating all the Christians? What you are seeming to be saying is that after a certain point, only Jews are allowed to be Christians. What is the point of all of this?

Real Christianity is that Jesus is sovereign Lord now. Jesus sends his spirit to the world to draw men to him and to believe and to follow the spiritual law, and so saves the world as it says in John 3:16.

All you have to offer is a world ruled by Satan and hell coming to earth.
Jesus said the gates of Hell will not prevail against his church, but you say it will and will destroy it off the face of the earth.
edit on 20-2-2012 by jmdewey60 because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 20 2012 @ 03:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by jmdewey60
reply to post by colbe
 
Here is some info from Wikipedia.

In his Easter letter of 367, Athanasius, Bishop of Alexandria, gave a list of exactly the same books that would become the New Testament canon,
en.wikipedia.org...

Full dogmatic articulations of the canons were not made until the Council of Trent of 1546 for Roman Catholicism
en.wikipedia.org...
Athanasius was long dead when the final word was said and done.
I have no authority but have a right to my opinion which only represents the consensus opinion of biblical scholars who study the origins of the New Testament books.
The criteria for inclusion into the canon was that the books were actually written by the Apostles.
If it is ascertained that any books were not in fact written by Apostles then they should not be considered legitimate books of the New Testament. To start with, Luke and Acts should never be used as a basis of any doctrine since they were not written by an Apostle, but apparently the Church authorities wanted some historical books.

When God shows you, please become Catholic jm, the Remnant is Roman Catholic.
The arguments for even being called Catholic is obviously flawed. Also the chain from Peter was broken so there is no continuity of succession to the present so-called representatives of Peter.
edit on 19-2-2012 by jmdewey60 because: (no reason given)


dear jm,

I just noticed...

Your authority on when and who compiled the Canon is Wikipedia?

Come on...

Many, many Protestant ministers accept history, acknowledge the
Church, specifically Pope Damasus determined the Canon.

Jesus said, I will not leave My Church in Matthew 16:18. He hasn't
There is Apostolic succession, your rejection of the fact doesn't make
it true.

Come to the fullness of Truth. Christ's Church is the only insititution
in the last 2000 years to proclaim she has the fullness of Truth. I keep saying over and over, God doesn't leave us not knowing. It's your free will choice to decide to accept the "fullness."



posted on Feb, 20 2012 @ 04:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by jmdewey60
reply to post by NOTurTypical
 

LOL, no. He will redeem them to Christianity, trusting in Him as their Messiah and God.

Your dispensationalism makes no sense, since according to you, the Jews become Christians, why would they not just join the Church like everyone else? And why would they be doing animal sacrifices at a temple in Jerusalem?...


Jesus said the gates of Hell will not prevail against his church,...
edit on 20-2-2012 by jmdewey60 because: (no reason given)


jm and NTT, hi,

jm's words above are very telling and absolutely true. Dispensationalism is a crock. And there you are both of you, arguing among Protestants.

We're not returning to the Old Covenant. The "temple" in the New Covenant is Christ's Church, the RCC. Jesus is the New Covenant
Passover Lamb. You accept the fact Our Lord is the Lamb of God. There is more to accept. Our Lord, the New Covenant sacrifice is offered to the Father in an unbloody manner in the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass. The "clean oblation" is the body and blood of Christ in the Eucharistic sacrifice.

What did they do with the sacrificed Passover Lamb in the Old Covenant?
The consumed it. We do the same but in much greater way, it is not
a lamb but God Himself you consume in the Holy Eucharist.

jm quoted Matthew 16:18, Our Lord said Church in the singular not Churches. Disobedience and pride, the 38,000 Protestant sects who broke away from His Church, the RCC.

You both will understand fully in the "awakening", the 2nd Pentecost,
Catholics call it the Great Warning.



Malachi 1:11
For from the rising of the sun even to the going down, my name is great among the Gentiles, and in every place there is sacrifice
, and there is offered to my name a clean oblation: for my name is great among the Gentiles, saith the Lord of hosts.



posted on Feb, 20 2012 @ 09:47 PM
link   
Who are you answering "yes" to...Jesus Christ or John Calvin?

watch this short video on OSAS.

www.youtube.com...



posted on Feb, 21 2012 @ 03:51 AM
link   

Originally posted by colbe
Who are you answering "yes" to...Jesus Christ or John Calvin?

watch this short video on OSAS.

www.youtube.com...


Well, myself I said yes to Jesus. And Paul explains our salvation is secure in Jesus in Galatians 5 and Romans 8. And Jesus said in John 6 that He would "never" cast out someone who called upon His name. So, do you trust Christ Jesus or Dan Corner?

Didn't Paul live before John Calvin? Was Paul "saved" when he wrote Romans chapter 7? In it twice he admits "sin dwelleth in me", and in his flesh "dwelleth no good thing." Were the Corinthians "saved" when Paul wrote 1 Corinthians to them? You better look at Chapter 1 and see how Paul addresses these Corinthians, and also what he says about them in chapter 6, verse 11. These brothers and sisters in Christ were having communal sex, suing each other, and they partied and got drunk with the communion wine.

Paul was exhorting them to stop sinning and press on to spiritual maturity in Christ, yet still said they were brothers, that they were "justified" and "sanctified".
edit on 21-2-2012 by NOTurTypical because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 21 2012 @ 04:08 AM
link   
reply to post by colbe
 



jm's words above are very telling and absolutely true. Dispensationalism is a crock. And there you are both of you, arguing among Protestants.


Augustine admitted that Dispensationalism and Pre-Millennialism were the dominant view of his time and the view of the early church before him. (Chiliasm) He changed it to appease Rome. It was really, really bad for job security to be preaching from the pulpit how Jeus was coming soon to rid the world of it's evil rulers and crush them with a rod of iron to rule with peace love and righteousness Himself from Jerusalem when the priests were on the government payroll.

So he, just like his mentor Justin Martyr, adopted a gross allegorization of Eschatology. It stayed the dominant theology for almost 1,500 years. Until the average Joe began to get the Bible in his hands again and said, "Hey, wait a minute, the RCC was wrong about this."

If you want to learn about Dispensationalism and Pre-millennialism prior to Augustine research "Chiliasm". "Dispensationalism and Pre-Millinnealism" are modern connotations. heck, "Millennium" is a Latin word.






edit on 21-2-2012 by NOTurTypical because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 21 2012 @ 04:49 AM
link   

Originally posted by NOTurTypical
reply to post by colbe
 



jm's words above are very telling and absolutely true. Dispensationalism is a crock. And there you are both of you, arguing among Protestants.


Augustine admitted that Dispensationalism and Pre-Millennialism were the dominant view of his time and the view of the early church before him. (Chiliasm) He changed it to appease Rome. It was really, really bad for job security to be preaching from the pulpit how Jeus was coming soon to rid the world of it's evil rulers and crush them with a rod of iron to rule with peace love and righteousness Himself from Jerusalem when the priests were on the government payroll.

So he, just like his mentor Justin Martyr, adopted a gross allegorization of Eschatology. It stayed the dominant theology for almost 1,500 years. Until the average Joe began to get the Bible in his hands again and said, "Hey, wait a minute, the RCC was wrong about this."

If you want to learn about Dispensationalism and Pre-millennialism prior to Augustine research "Chiliasm". "Dispensationalism and Pre-Millinnealism" are modern connotations. heck, "Millennium" is a Latin word.






edit on 21-2-2012 by NOTurTypical because: (no reason given)


NOTurTypical,

How come you quote Catholic Saints, the first Christians, all of them
Catholic and then ignore the fact you deny the faith? Makes no sense.

It's disobedience and pride, you know better. Instead, convert and
believe in the most Holy Eucharist as both Augustine and Justin Martyr
do.

"Christ held Himself in His hands when He gave His Body to His disciples saying: 'This is My Body.' No one partakes of this Flesh before he has adored it."

- St. Augustine


"Of the sacrifice which we offer in every place, that is, of the bread and chalice of the Eucharist, Malachias has prophesied."

- St. Justin, 2nd Century Martyr



posted on Feb, 21 2012 @ 04:53 AM
link   

Originally posted by colbe

Originally posted by jmdewey60
reply to post by NOTurTypical
 

LOL, no. He will redeem them to Christianity, trusting in Him as their Messiah and God.

Your dispensationalism makes no sense, since according to you, the Jews become Christians, why would they not just join the Church like everyone else? And why would they be doing animal sacrifices at a temple in Jerusalem?...


Jesus said the gates of Hell will not prevail against his church,...
edit on 20-2-2012 by jmdewey60 because: (no reason given)


jm and NTT, hi,

jm's words above are very telling and absolutely true. Dispensationalism is a crock. And there you are both of you, arguing among Protestants.

We're not returning to the Old Covenant. The "temple" in the New Covenant is Christ's Church, the RCC. Jesus is the New Covenant
Passover Lamb. You accept the fact Our Lord is the Lamb of God. There is more to accept. Our Lord, the New Covenant sacrifice is offered to the Father in an unbloody manner in the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass. The "clean oblation" is the body and blood of Christ in the Eucharistic sacrifice.

What did they do with the sacrificed Passover Lamb in the Old Covenant?
The consumed it. We do the same but in much greater way, it is not
a lamb but God Himself you consume in the Holy Eucharist.

jm quoted Matthew 16:18, Our Lord said Church in the singular not Churches. Disobedience and pride, the 38,000 Protestant sects who broke away from His Church, the RCC.

You both will understand fully in the "awakening", the 2nd Pentecost,
Catholics call it the Great Warning.



Malachi 1:11
For from the rising of the sun even to the going down, my name is great among the Gentiles, and in every place there is sacrifice
, and there is offered to my name a clean oblation: for my name is great among the Gentiles, saith the Lord of hosts.



Do you see, St. Justin was talking about Malachi 1:11 ~


"Of the sacrifice which we offer in every place, that is, of the bread and chalice of the Eucharist, Malachias has prophesied."

- St. Justin, 2nd Century Martyr



posted on Feb, 21 2012 @ 04:59 AM
link   
reply to post by colbe
 



NOTurTypical,

How come you quote Catholic Saints, the first Christians, all of them
Catholic and then ignore the fact you deny the faith? Makes no sense.


To show you he too admits that Pre-Millennialism was the dominant view of his day. (Chiliasm)



posted on Feb, 21 2012 @ 05:01 AM
link   
reply to post by colbe
 



Do you see, St. Justin was talking about Malachi 1:11 ~


"Of the sacrifice which we offer in every place, that is, of the bread and chalice of the Eucharist, Malachias has prophesied."

- St. Justin, 2nd Century Martyr


Justin Martyr was the first to mix Gnosticism with Christianity. I don't listen to what he thinks.



posted on Feb, 21 2012 @ 05:03 AM
link   

Originally posted by NOTurTypical
reply to post by colbe
 



NOTurTypical,

How come you quote Catholic Saints, the first Christians, all of them
Catholic and then ignore the fact you deny the faith? Makes no sense.


To show you he too admits that Pre-Millennialism was the dominant view of his day. (Chiliasm)



The elephant in the room...

When are you going to admit the true faith? These men are Catholic,
so ignoring their quotes on the Real Presence.

Pride to the end, what are you going to do when Our Lord shows you
Himself soon? I hope, come to faith.




top topics



 
1
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join