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.

 

Christian doctrines vs scripture

page: 6
5
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 4 2012 @ 03:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by sk0rpi0n
I know for a fact that what gets passed off as "christian doctrine" has zero connection to the scripture it claims to be associated with.

As I said ... it's a matter of interpretation of scripture AND christian traditions passed down.
SO WHAT if someone doesn't interpret like you do and SO WHAT if people have Christian
traditions that you don't have. Scripture itself said that people would 'hold onto the traditions'
passed down and that it's fine.

"All Truth" is not going to be in scripture. Scripture even said it can't hold all the teachings of Christ.
Not everyone is going to interpret scripture the same.
Again .. SO WHAT? What's the point you are trying to make?
People believe things outside of your interpretation of scripture?
Maybe they are right and you are wrong.
Christ didn't say that all truth would be in scripture and no where else.




posted on Apr, 5 2012 @ 12:51 AM
link   
reply to post by FlyersFan
 

Scripture itself said that people would 'hold onto the traditions'
passed down and that it's fine.
That is the sort of thing you find in the forged books claiming to be by Paul, such as the one the quote comes from, which is 2 Thessalonians.
After Paul was dead, then the professional cleric class went into action building a support for what they were doing, apparently one way by creating a mystique about traditions, then went about creating lots of new ones.



posted on Apr, 5 2012 @ 01:14 AM
link   

Originally posted by jmdewey60
reply to post by NOTurTypical
 

Lots of stuff happens on Earth after the harpazo. Don't have a clue what you're talking about, sorry. And my cult leader is Jesus.


OK, then describe one or two.


1. Abomination that causes desolation.
2. Second coming of Christ.


Do the people who are raptured (according to your philosophy) ever come back?


Don't call it the "rapture", it confuses people because the word rapture doesn't appear in the English version of the Bible. Call it the Greek "harpazo". Skeptics don't usually give a rats ass it's in the Latin Bible our English one came from, so don't confuse them with the word.

Secondly, it's not my "philosophy", I take the literal ( Antiochian) approach to Biblical hermeneutics. That's one's theory of interpretation. I've already explained my position on this numerous times.

Third, yes, we come back with Christ when He returns to fulfill the Davidic covenant Gabriel promised to Mary.


Why do you embed Chuck Missler videos into your posts?


His commentary on that particular subject has really blessed me, perhaps it will bless someone else. Same reason you refer to a favorite scholar or author you enjoy who has blessed you.


Why do you have a link to a Mark Driscoll video in your signature?


He explains the difference quite well between Jesus and Religion. Many people have said it was a tremendous blessing to them, hopefully it will be for many more in the future God willing.

I also link Dr. Perry Stone, Damon Thompson, Dr. Ron Carlson, Dr. David Reagan, Ravi Zacharias, Dr. Jason Lisle, Ron Phillips as well. Why not ask about any of them?

I like Missler in regards to Physics, information sciences, commentaries, and prophecy. I like Mark Driscoll as a preacher, I like Perry Stone for ancient Jewish history and customs as well as prophecy. Dr. Regean for prophecy and his presentation on exponential curves, Dr. Carlson is an expert on real cults, false religions, and the New Age movement, Ravi Zacharias and Dr. Lisle are the best apologists I've heard to date, and I refer to Dr. Bruce Metzger and Carston Theide in matter of the Biblical text.


But the real question is this:

WHO CARES??? None of them are Jesus. And furthermore, cult members follow one enigmatic authority without question, and to the exclusion of all others.

Examples:

JWS: Charles Taze Russel
Mormons: Joseph Smith



edit on 5-4-2012 by NOTurTypical because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 5 2012 @ 03:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by jmdewey60
reply to post by HeFrippedMeOff
 

You're right, the throne of grace is not judgment for those of us in Christ shall not see judgment. Doctrine is established for right living. Christ sacrifice is established for our salvation. This is Christianity.
Why are you saying I'm right and just continue on as if it really means nothing?


You are correct in saying the throne of grace "is not the judgment at the end of your life" for we who are in Christ have no more end but everlasting life. We will not approach the judgment throne other than to hear our names called in the Lambs book of life. Those whose names are not found will stand before the judgment throne giving account of everything they've ever done as there are other books that will be opened besides the book of Life.

In order to live properly, we heed doctrine for living like abstaining from sexual sins that war against the spirit, or getting so drunk we lose self-control, or hate but in following the doctrines for a life well lived we are showing forth our faith in the one who gave those commandments.

Do you understand?




Why don't you admit that the Throne of Grace that Hebrews is talking about has nothing to do with your final judgement other than that you need to approach it at some point during your life, if you are to have any hope at the end of your life. There is nothing to indicate that it is referring to the judgement when it is talking about the Throne of Grace. ". . . whenever we need help." has to be talking about during our lives, so it has to mean something besides judgment.


Jesus now sits at the right hand of the Father on the very throne of grace. Christ became sin for us. Where there is forgiveness there is no more condemnation, no more judgment. Don't you get it? Those of us in Christ will never see judgment, we are no longer condemned being washed clean by the blood of the lamb.



You seem to be following a dogma set out by someone that you must follow.
Someone has told you how to understand it, is all I can figure, and the stature of the one telling you these things compels you to believe what he said, in the face of plain scriptural evidence telling you otherwise.
What I am describing here is the very definition of a cult.
edit on 4-4-2012 by jmdewey60 because: (no reason given)


I am not concerned with negative connotations assigned by men to the word "cult." Simplistically, it's just a group of people who believe something together and in the dictionary "cult" carries with it no such negative connotations you should get over it. You're blinding yourself in terminology.

As far as the supposed dogma, what here have I presented unto you that has been without scripture and been believed without reason, or scrutiny?

I have no one but God and take no man's word for what scripture actually says without reading and studying for myself. I have presented no private interpretations, non based on interpreted readings of the bible, and have given no re-phrasings yet all of which you have. Why do you yet judge me for that which you stand guilty?

Seriously, Dewey, is everything okay?



posted on Apr, 5 2012 @ 04:17 PM
link   
reply to post by HeFrippedMeOff
 



I have no one but God and take no man's word for what scripture actually says without reading and studying for myself.


That's very noble and Biblically encouraged:


"11These were more noble than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness of mind, and searched the scriptures daily, whether those things were so." Acts 17:11

And Solomon, the wisest man who ever lived, talks about the folly of someone who doesn't hear everything someone has to say and rejects it beforehand:

"He that answereth before he heareth sheweth himself to be a fool, and worthy of confusion." Proverbs 18:13

Edmund Spenser in modern times draws on this folly:

"There is a principle which is a bar against all information, which is proof against all argument, and which cannot fail to keep man in everlasting ignorance. That principle is condemnation before investigation."




edit on 5-4-2012 by NOTurTypical because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 6 2012 @ 07:50 AM
link   
reply to post by NOTurTypical
 

Don't call it the "rapture" . . . Call it the Greek "harpazo".
I'm looking at a new book coming out called The Popular Handbook on the Rapture: Experts Speak Out on End-Times Prophecy. There is a chapter called, What is the Rapture, by Tim LaHaye. He never mentions, as much as I can see in the GoogleBooks preview, that it should not be called the Rapture. In fact he goes on and on talking about the "rapture". I have to think that someone is telling you not to call it "rapture" and that you are complying with the wishes of your cult leader who I would guess is Chuck Missler. There are probably a couple hundred books on Amazon with the word "rapture" in the title. No one seems to be concerned about this potential "confusion" other than your boss, and I have to guess that the purpose is to have a mark of distinction like the mark of the beast, or something, to tell everyone who your owner is or who you are the slave to, by going around saying Harpazo, sort of like a secret handshake among Mason's where you know you are with your fellow cult members because you both speak the same language.
I did a word study yesterday, as a response to your mentioning of the Greek. readingthebibleingreek.blog.com...
where I list all the verses that have a form of this word in them. Then I show the Greek spelling and links to the verb's morphology.
There is only one verse that uses the word where it could be construed as describing the rapture, which is 1 Thessalonians 4:17, where the word is, ἁρπαγησόμεθα. Transliterated as, harpagēsometha. My suggestion would be that if you are desirous of accuracy, or whatever the purpose is of using Harpazo, that instead, you should say harpagēsometha.

I've already explained my position on this numerous times.
What position do you mean, that you take a particular approch by way of a philosophy of interpretation? OK, you said that . . and, so? I'm not concerned about what label you put on a philosophy of interpretation.
What I am concerned about is what you believe happens to people according to your philosophy, who get raptured, and what happens to the earth after those people are removed from it. You have stated previously your believe in a non-revokable land covenant, so I want to know how you reconcile this belief. You claim to be a literalist, then how do you reconcile that with the earth apparently being destroyed to be replaced by a new earth?

Third, yes, we come back with Christ when He returns to fulfill the Davidic covenant Gabriel promised to Mary.
So then according to your philosophy there is no prophetic nature to Revelation and the only things that need to be fulfilled are all somehow contained within the Old Testament?

I also link Dr. Perry Stone, Damon Thompson, Dr. Ron Carlson, Dr. David Reagan, Ravi Zacharias, Dr. Jason Lisle, Ron Phillips as well. Why not ask about any of them?
None of those are as frequent and constant as the Missler ones, and the other is very constant, being in your every post.

And furthermore, cult members follow one enigmatic authority without question, and to the exclusion of all others.
That is just a fake definition you made up to not include yourself. A cult obviously is something you choose to enter, so you cant include the phrase "unquestioningly". Anyone would question the cult at first approach, consider it, then make a decision that it is ok. What makes it a cult is that you accept the person as an authority figure where his opinions weigh heavier than anyone else's, for different reasons but one being that you have habitualized yourself to prefer the opinion of a know entity. If you found yourself often in disagreement with that person and regarded his opinion as not any better than anyone else's then you would not have a cult-member relationship with that person.
For example, I can find no one that I agree on everything with, so do not accept anyone as an authority. I do respect the work some people have done in real research, so make use of their findings but usually opt to not accept the ultimate interpretation wholesale. I understand that I have a spirit about me that is repulsed by evil and so I do not accept doctrines that are at their core, evil.

edit on 6-4-2012 by jmdewey60 because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 6 2012 @ 09:09 AM
link   
reply to post by HeFrippedMeOff
 

We will not approach the judgment throne other than to hear our names called in the Lambs book of life.
This is only a cult teaching which ignores the many biblical references to judgment. It is rejecting the very definition of a judgment and making it into an awards ceremony. This is your cult's attempt to subvert morality and is no surprise considering its purpose is to destroy Christianity and the church, and the very name of Jesus.

Those whose names are not found will stand before the judgment throne giving account of everything they've ever done as there are other books that will be opened besides the book of Life.
This is some sort of interpretation from Revelation which is rather inexplicable in itself. I realize there are some people who take the book as some point-by-point description of future events and is in fact a message from Jesus to John, whoever that is, and it is prophecy that has to happen just as written, but I have to be realistic about it and figure it is someone who desired greatly that the Roman Empire is punished by God, so the way he figures it is going to come about is by having the Final Judgment happen now, instead of this nebulous, far-off, distant hypothetical (or even completely spiritual) event, and create a version of it and move it into the nearby, soon to happen future. The main point of the story is the beast, and why and how it manages to operate. It is the same age-old question, "Why does God allow bad things to happen to good people?". The writer of Revelation takes imagery from Babylonian mythology and the cosmic warrior god, Marduk and the chaos beasts from before creation, and has them fulfill their purpose, which is to bring down judgment and the end of time. The purpose for all that is to make a new and better creation, one where the gods have had time to sort out their affairs, and the new creation will not involve those bad gods, and the result will be orderly and not containing evil like it does now.
Apparently by this recycled mythology in a Christian guise, the people known to be ok in this world have already been recorded before the world was even finished being made, and at the end, those will be sorted out from the masses as the ones who will have the privilege of living in the new creation. The "books" is to make it look like there is a fair judgment before the people not pre-selected are destroyed. I have to imagine that this idea of preordained salvation is a carryover from whatever mythology the Marduk myth comes from, apparently Babylonian.

edit on 6-4-2012 by jmdewey60 because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 6 2012 @ 09:26 AM
link   
reply to post by HeFrippedMeOff
 

. . . sins that war against . . .

I saw this part and started getting happy all-of-a-sudden, then I saw that it was not war, but war against yourself, basically, which goes along with what I was saying yesterday, which is you seem to follow a religion geared towards narcissistic people who want things for themselves but really don't care about anyone else.
Just do what is good for you, and never mind all the rest. Don't get drunk, not because you might end up beating your wife, but because it isn't healthy for your body.
Oh I get it.
So everything is just fine among the unconverted as long as it suites yourself.



posted on Apr, 6 2012 @ 09:43 AM
link   
reply to post by HeFrippedMeOff
 

Jesus now sits at the right hand of the Father on the very throne of grace. Christ became sin for us. Where there is forgiveness there is no more condemnation, no more judgment. Don't you get it? Those of us in Christ will never see judgment, we are no longer condemned being washed clean by the blood of the lamb.
That is a false doctrine.
I can't even imagine where you could even come up with this idea unless you get it from Darby-ism, this "Removal of Christians from the face of the earth to make way for Old Testament Judaism, complete with temple animal sacrifices" cult religion.
As I figure it, this cult exists for one purpose, which is to allow a criminal enterprise to flourish in Palestine, of genocide and ethnic cleaning to rid the rightful inhabitants of the land to be replaced by European invaders. The way to allow this to take place without a public outcry from the citizens of the patron state supporting this pirate "state" is to remove any sense of morality from Christians, and to inculcate this debasement of the meaning of Jesus and what he came to world to do.
Jesus came to save the world by judging evil and bringing into the world a spirit from God for people to behave in an ethical manner. This subversive cult fights against that understanding and replaces it with a personal, inward looking view that is all about the self, and your worth in your own eyes, and the worthlessness of anyone not in your cult. Get raptured, and let the world go to hell. That is what the inventors and promoters of this cult want everyone in America to think is real Christianity. Blow up people who don't fit the mold because who cares since God wants to kill everyone anyway. Is that about right? Don't worry about children in Gaza being burnt alive with white phosphorus bombs, since they will be getting worse than that, in the lake of fire, right? How dare they have the audacity to live on land given by God to people who want to sacrifice sheep on their mountain? Is that right?
A false and evil cult, I say, and you will go to judgment no matter what your cult leader tells you, I can assure you of that.
edit on 6-4-2012 by jmdewey60 because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 6 2012 @ 08:08 PM
link   
reply to post by jmdewey60
 



There is a chapter called, What is the Rapture, by Tim LaHaye. He never mentions, as much as I can see in the GoogleBooks preview, that it should not be called the Rapture.


Okay,.. so what? I never said Tim LeHaye said that anyways.

I myself suggested not using the terminology because people get really confused and will claim it's not true because the word "rapture" doesn't appear in the English version of the Bible. And they don't care whatsoever that it does appear in the Latin Bible. It was a suggestion by me because people get really confused on the issue.

But that's fine, I'm not Jesus, you don't have to do what I say or suggest. I just don't want some dude coming in here derailing a thread for 4-5 pages arguing that the word rapture isn't in our English Bible, thus it's not Biblical doctrine. Sorry for attempting to head off a red herring fallacy before it's presented. Seen it happen to a hundred threads in my day.



posted on Apr, 6 2012 @ 08:12 PM
link   
reply to post by jmdewey60
 



"Removal of Christians from the face of the earth to make way for Old Testament Judaism, complete with temple animal sacrifices" cult religion.


WHAT???

John Darby taught that nonsense?? If so that's absurd. Pre-Tribulational Dispensationalists believe Jews will come to saving faith in Christ during the last 3 1/2 years of Daniel's 70th week. We believe they will become Christians, not that Christians will revert back to Judaism.

That's silly if he believed or taught that.



posted on Apr, 6 2012 @ 08:18 PM
link   
reply to post by jmdewey60
 



I'm not concerned about what label you put on a philosophy of interpretation.


Huh? It's not my label, It's been the labels for the two streams of Biblical interpretation for over 1,000 years. Have you honestly never heard what Biblical hermeneutics is before?

Alexandrian --> Allegorical

Antiochian --> Literal

Do I really have to link wiki again? *sigh*


Schools of Alexandria and Antioch

See also: Catechetical School of Alexandria and School of Antioch

Beginning as early as the third century, Christian hermeneutics began to split into two primary schools: Alexandria and Antioch. The Alexandrian Biblical interpretations stressed allegorical readings, frequently at the expense of the texts' literal meaning. Primary figures in this school included Origen and Clement of Alexandria. The Antiochene school stressed instead the more literal and historical meaning of the text. Theodore of Mopsuestia and Diodore of Tarsus were the primary figures in the Antiochene school.


hermaneutics ~ wiki



posted on Apr, 6 2012 @ 08:20 PM
link   
reply to post by jmdewey60
 



So then according to your philosophy there is no prophetic nature to Revelation and the only things that need to be fulfilled are all somehow contained within the Old Testament?


No, you asked for an example, I gave one. In fact, I could have answered your question with a "Y" or "N" only had I chose to. If you don't mean what you say then think before you hit the enter key.


edit on 6-4-2012 by NOTurTypical because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 6 2012 @ 08:31 PM
link   
reply to post by jmdewey60
 



That is just a fake definition you made up to not include yourself.




cult
   [kuhlt] Show IPA

noun
1.
a particular system of religious worship, especially with reference to its rites and ceremonies.
2.
an instance of great veneration of a person, ideal, or thing, especially as manifested by a body of admirers: the physical fitness cult.
3.
the object of such devotion.
4.
a group or sect bound together by veneration of the same thing, person, ideal, etc.
5.
Sociology . a group having a sacred ideology and a set of rites centering around their sacred symbols.


www.dictionary.com


I only venerate and worship Jesus Christ. I'd die for Him, I wouldn't suffer so much as a paper-cut for Chuck Missler. He's a nice dude and all, but,.. he certainly isn't Jesus.

lol



edit on 6-4-2012 by NOTurTypical because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 6 2012 @ 08:33 PM
link   
reply to post by sk0rpi0n
 




because we are not supposed to be hating the world...

only Jesus saves not the Catholic Church nor probably any other except the church of Nature, but we don't make much in the way of real men anymore, Conan and Jesus went out with the style sometime back... I can't remember when. They must have had their trust betrayed and evolution has since taken over?

we've learned to capitalized off the demonizing of it so evolution must be true in some way.

but money still can't buy you love...


edit on 6-4-2012 by SisyphusRide because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 7 2012 @ 11:31 AM
link   
reply to post by NOTurTypical
 

I myself suggested not using the terminology because people get really confused and will claim it's not true because the word "rapture" doesn't appear in the English version of the Bible.
Are you sure that one of your YouTube video theology classes never mentioned a preference for the term, Harpazo over the word, Rapture?
I have seen at least two other people on this forum use the word Harpazo as a substitute for Rapture.
So are you saying that you are the one who coined the word, and everyone else is following your lead?
It must feel nice knowing you are the trend setter for the rest of the world, eh?

How could Harpazo be less confusing, since it is a Greek word?
Are you suggesting people are carrying around Greek text Bibles and so can easily refer to them and find Harpazo in them?
I pointed out in another thread that Harpzo in fact is not found in the Bible in that morphology (and is not a noun, as you phrasing, "The Harpazo", would suggest), and the only one verse that could possibly be construed to be describing a rapture type event is found in a future tense form of the verb:
ἁρπαγησόμεθα
Which is transliterated as, harpagēsometha.
readingthebibleingreek.blog.com...


edit on 7-4-2012 by jmdewey60 because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 7 2012 @ 12:06 PM
link   
reply to post by NOTurTypical
 

John Darby taught that nonsense??

I would suggest studying up on Darby since he is the founder of your cult.

Pre-Tribulational Dispensationalists believe Jews will come to saving faith in Christ during the last 3 1/2 years of Daniel's 70th week.
Being Pre-Tribulational, or not, is irrelevant when we are talking about the question of what happens to the Christians some time after they are raptured. Dispensationalism believes that the Jews are the only people God made a covenant with, so Christians do not fit, and so are taken off the earth so the Jews can enjoy the promises made just for them, without any of those pesky Christians picking up the crumbs that fall on the floor from the table.
Now it seems to me that Christians have this thing called the Book of Revelation where the world is replaced by a new world.
How does this fit the scenario of the Jews inheriting the land (in the terms of your cult, an irrevocable land covenant), in the Dispensationalist version of future events? If the old world has been basically destroyed (without even a sea), then how is it that somehow there is this spot that can be picked out as the borders of the Promised Land for the Jews?
edit on 7-4-2012 by jmdewey60 because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 7 2012 @ 08:09 PM
link   
reply to post by jmdewey60
 



Are you sure that one of your YouTube video theology classes never mentioned a preference for the term, Harpazo over the word, Rapture?


What did i say in regards to that? It's to prevent them from using a red herring fallacy preemptively. they say "The word rapture isn't in the Bible!"

But harpazo is. And rapture is in the Latin Bible. And if they are confused I'm sure they've used Google before. I also addressed that post in the other thread. The word "harpazo" occurs 4 times in the NT. I believe it's Strong's G729, but that was off the cuff don't quote me on that.

Like I said, i don't want to get into a 4-5 pages argument about the word not being in the English rendering of the Bible therefore the doctrine is false. I've seen about 100 threads derailed that way in my day.



posted on Apr, 7 2012 @ 08:18 PM
link   
reply to post by jmdewey60
 



I would suggest studying up on Darby since he is the founder of your cult.


You're still not listening. I derive my doctrine from the Word of God. There are things I've had to adjust that I once believed 5 years ago. Not primary Christian doctrines though. (Theology Proper, Christology, or Soeteriology), the other stuff is just fun debate, it has nothing to do with our justification.

I don''t draw on Darby for my dispensational doctrine, it's from Romans 11 specifically and the OT prophecies concerning God regathering the Jews from the 4 corners of the Earth (diaspora), and Jesus and Paul saying the blindness of the Jews isnt forever, but will end. Hosea 5;15 also says He will return to them.

That's why I have faith. And we have two different approaches to Biblical hermeneutics. I prefer the literal for OT and NT prophecy, you prefer the allegorical. It's really an issue about that.

I don't care about Darby, I don't rely on anything he says for my doctrine. I rely on the Word of God, one I take literal and you take allegorical. If you want to that's fine, but don't attack me for having a different hermeneutics and expect me to interpret it with your perspective. We'll come away with different Israeology and Eschatology. If you really want to address the issue here attack the Antiochain approach the hermeneutics and try and convince me the literal isn't the correct methodology of interpreting scripture.

We have the same Bible dude, but different approaches to interpreting it. It's like Creationists and Evolutionists looking at the same piece of evidence and coming away with different conclusions.



posted on Apr, 8 2012 @ 05:50 AM
link   
reply to post by NOTurTypical
 



We have the same Bible dude, but different approaches to interpreting it.


Yep. Except I interpret the instance of Jesus' crucifixion as an execution. You see it as a "sacrificial ritual"... because you see parallels in animal sacrificies of the Old Testament.

I interpret the bible as teaching there is nobody else like God...and you still see a trinity by stitching up various verses.

I interpret the bible as teaching that God differentiates between good people and sinners basis their actions..... yet, you believe all humans are born as sinners.

You patch together a number of verses to arrive at your doctrine....while ignoring verses that directly address matters involving Gods unity, Jesus' sacrifice etc.
Your connect one verse with another... and then claim its "all there in the bible.... while ignoring verses that directly address issues that the OP is about.

I read the bible.....and I then I read doctrine...and I see a contradiction. They are not the same thing.
I'm thinking.... "if God is a trinity, why didn't God once mention that he was a trinity"...
or "If Jesus execution was a ritual sin sacrifice, why does it come across as an execution? And why didn't Jesus ever say his execution was the ritual sin sacrifice that christians believe in"?

Thats what I read from the text. No trinity, no ritual sin sacrifice involving Jesus. These are concepts which christians have read into the bible. Its pretty clear that you follow man made doctrine, not the scriptures.



new topics

top topics



 
5
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join