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.

 

Return of Christ and the "end times"

page: 6
2
<< 3  4  5    7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 3 2012 @ 04:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by JesuitGarlic
reply to post by NOTurTypical
 


Yes, not directly related to salvation but the Identity of the true Israel now is very important geopolitically for the United States and their foreign policy with Israel. Americans are under the mistaken belief that they must protect Israel because of the incorrect understanding of this topic. How much harm has such a foreign policy caused to the Middle East region over the past 60 odd years, I would say substantial harm for absolutely no real benefit or valid reason


I agree with you somewhat. There is both a physical Israel and a spiritual one. We protect the physical Israel so Christ can save as many of them as he can before the end. The messianic jews are making some progress, not all of them proselytize like we do, only groups like Jews for Jesus proselytize so the conversion rates are slow. The going isn't easy when you have two of the most intolerant religions in the world with messianic jews and christians sandwiched between Judaism and Islam.




posted on Jun, 3 2012 @ 04:54 PM
link   
reply to post by NOTurTypical
 

No longer a distinction IN CHRIST.. there is still a distinction in the flesh. You should be excited the Jews blindness isnt permanant and they will be redeemed to Christ someday.
Redeemed in the same way which is available to everyone, which is through Christ.

Unless you just flat-out hate all Jews.
This is one of you fallacies (ad hominem attack).

If there is something I hate, it is anti-Christian heresies. You are repeating something not supported by the Bible which was invented by someone else and you just accepted whole cloth.

This philosophy you have adopted, seems to me, to reverse the condemnation of Herod in the Gospel.

When Herod saw Jesus, he was very glad, for he had long desired to see him, because he had heard about him and was hoping to see him perform some miraculous sign.
Luke 23:8

Apparently, according to your hypothetical scenario, people who did not believe in Jesus will get their wish, the one Herod wanted before he would believe.
edit on 3-6-2012 by jmdewey60 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 3 2012 @ 05:06 PM
link   
reply to post by jmdewey60
 


Yes, Ive been saying that for years. They will be redeemed TO Christ. (Accept their Messiah) I always say Hosea 5:15...



posted on Jun, 3 2012 @ 05:07 PM
link   
reply to post by lonewolf19792000
 

There is both a physical Israel and a spiritual one.

"Physical Israel" ceased to exist in ancient times.
There is no current Israel in the sense that there was before its destruction.
What calls itself Israel today was created by atheists and luciferians, and not by God.
Using the same name as the ancient nation does not magically make the modern so-called state of Israel the same thing as the ancient nation, or give it the same standing with God. It would be going against the will of God to support this lie.

edit on 3-6-2012 by jmdewey60 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 3 2012 @ 05:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by jmdewey60
reply to post by lonewolf19792000
 

There is both a physical Israel and a spiritual one.

"Physical Israel" ceased to exist in ancient times.
There is no current Israel in the sense that there was before its destruction.
What calls itself Israel today was created by atheists and luciferians, and not by God.
Using the same name as the ancient nation does not magically make the modern so-called state of Israel the same thing as the ancient nation, or give it the same standing with God. It would be going against the will of God to support this lie.

edit on 3-6-2012 by jmdewey60 because: (no reason given)


Then why did Paul know what Jewish tribe he was from? Or do you like mean post-Paul and Peter "ancient times"?



posted on Jun, 3 2012 @ 05:22 PM
link   
reply to post by NOTurTypical
 


I just want to tell you that according to my inbox, it's been about 3 days you didn't came back home to check your inbox as you told me.


I sincerely wish you well.
Life is precious.

Joy and freedom,

John Swan.



posted on Jun, 3 2012 @ 05:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by swan001
reply to post by NOTurTypical
 


I just want to tell you that according to my inbox, it's been about 3 days you didn't came back home to check your inbox as you told me.


I sincerely wish you well.
Life is precious.

Joy and freedom,

John Swan.


Last time I checked in there was no PM.. lemme look again. Lol



posted on Jun, 3 2012 @ 05:46 PM
link   
reply to post by NOTurTypical
 

Then why did Paul know what Jewish tribe he was from?

Paul saying, "from the people of Israel and the tribe of Benjamin" does not mean there was an existing Israel at that time.
"Knowing" this factoid does not have anything to do with Israel but his Hebrew heritage.
None of that was important compared to knowing Christ. "indeed, I regard them as dung! "



posted on Jun, 4 2012 @ 05:15 AM
link   
reply to post by jmdewey60
 


Youre 100% wrong. He said he was both an Israelite and a Jew, Peter addressed the crowd at Pentecost as both men of Israel and men of Judea. The terms Israelite and Jew are used interchangibly after the Babylonian captivity by OT prophets. And Moses prophesied the nation would be taken into captivity twice, and God said the nation would be regathered twice. Once from Babylon and once from the 4 corners of the Earth.


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



posted on Jun, 4 2012 @ 10:53 AM
link   
reply to post by NOTurTypical
 

Youre 100% wrong.
Depends on what you mean by Israel. There obviously was the word Israel in use back in the time that the New Testament was written. Equally obvious was the absence of a kingdom of Israel.

He said he was both an Israelite and a Jew, Peter addressed the crowd at Pentecost as both men of Israel and men of Judea.
There were people who believed they were descended from Israelites.

The terms Israelite and Jew are used interchangibly after the Babylonian captivity by OT prophets.
You claim that, but saying it often does not make it true. It would be helpful to your case to give an example.

And Moses prophesied the nation would be taken into captivity twice, and God said the nation would be regathered twice. Once from Babylon and once from the 4 corners of the Earth.
Another instance where your claim would be credible if you could cite your source.



posted on Jun, 4 2012 @ 11:54 AM
link   
reply to post by jmdewey60
 


Why should I source myself from scripture? Ill tell you what will happen after that. You'll completely ignore it today, and tomorrow you'll again make the same critique in another thread. Just like what happened when you said "the word harpazo isnt in the Bible". I showed you 4 places it appeared in the Bible amd you still continue to say it's not there every time I bring it up in a thread about the rapture. That's your M.O., ignore and accuse and repeat. Next you'll ask for a source in the Bible that talks anout God's fury being kindled upon people who will "divide my land". Get someone else who doesn't know you to play the dog and pony show. You ignore things that show you're wrong, and refuse to admit you made a mistake. Not gonna play your games, I've told you that several times now. Someone else who is interested can U2U me and I'll povide the scripture references, you're going to have to pick up pearls others don't pick up themselves. Google it jm.



posted on Jun, 4 2012 @ 01:29 PM
link   
reply to post by NOTurTypical
 

That's your M.O., ignore and accuse and repeat.

You ignore the facts when I refute your claims inspired by nothing more than YouTube videos by your favorite cult leader.
There are eleven words related to harpazo that appear in the New Testament:
harpagēsometha
harpagenta
harpasai
harpasei
harpazei
harpazein
harpazontes
harpazousin
hērpagē
hērpasen
hērpasthē
But the word, Harpazo, itself does not appear in the NT.
For the verses, you can read my blog entry for Harpazo
readingthebibleingreek.blog.com...
edit on 4-6-2012 by jmdewey60 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 4 2012 @ 01:50 PM
link   
Doesn't lying ever get old? Are you never convicted of it??

Strong's # G726 - "Harpazo" verb, used 13 total times in the NT. I challenge anyone to go to Strong's or to check Blue Letter Bible.org for themselves. It's Strong's # G726.



posted on Jun, 4 2012 @ 01:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by NOTurTypical
Doesn't lying ever get old? Are you never convicted of it??

Strong's # G726 - "Harpazo" verb, used 13 total times in the NT. I challenge anyone to go to Strong's or to check Blue Letter Bible.org for themselves. It's Strong's # G726.

There is a "lexical form" which shows up as a representative form, which is the present active indicative first singular.
That does not mean that specific form is actually used in the Bible.



posted on Jun, 4 2012 @ 02:02 PM
link   
reply to post by jmdewey60
 


Strong's #G726. It's used 13 times. And SPECIFICALLY for matters of debate in regards to the rapture it's used as such in 1 Thessalonians 4:17.

Go look at Strong's # G726 and stop lying.



posted on Jun, 4 2012 @ 02:09 PM
link   

726. harpazo har-pad'-zo from a derivative of 138; to seize (in various applications):--catch (away,up),pluck,pull,take (by force).


Strongs #G726



posted on Jun, 4 2012 @ 02:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by NOTurTypical
reply to post by jmdewey60
 


Strong's #G726. It's used 13 times. And SPECIFICALLY for matters of debate in regards to the rapture it's used as such in 1 Thessalonians 4:17.

Go look at Strong's # G726 and stop lying.

I have no idea what "matters of debate" means so I have to assume that you found that on one of your cult's blogs.
1 Thessalonians 4:17 uses the second Future Passive Indicative first Plural form, which is harpagēsometha.



posted on Jun, 4 2012 @ 02:21 PM
link   
reply to post by NOTurTypical
 

726. harpazo

Which is the lexical form, which is standard to make it easier for people using a lexicon.
(see my post above)
Because there is such a form of the verb does not mean that the Bible ever uses it.
Which is my point, to counter your claim that 'it is better (because your cult leader says so) to say Harpazo instead of Rapture, since Harpazo is in the Bible, while Rapture is not'.
Sorry, but neither is Harpazo.



posted on Jun, 4 2012 @ 03:11 PM
link   
reply to post by jmdewey60
 


Strong's says you are conpletely off your rocker. Harpazo is #G726 and is used 13 times in the NT alone. Sorry to tell you. (Not really)

Harpazo is rendered as "catch up" 4 times, "take by force" 3 times, "catch away" 2 times, "pluck" 2 times, "catch" 1 time, and "pull" 1 time.

Get mad dude, you're only angry because that had been your argument and now you realize it's invalid. Harpazo is the Greek term, rapimeir is the Latin. But lets just appease you, since it's always about you, and from now on I will call it the "caught up event". Now deal with that. The caught up event of the saints of God.

Oh yes, almost forgot you have a nuclear option defense for anything you don't like... "that book is a forgery and doesn't belong in the canon of scripture".





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



posted on Jun, 4 2012 @ 04:55 PM
link   
reply to post by NOTurTypical
 

Harpazo is the Greek term . . .

It may be a term for you, but it does not magically make it a term in the Bible.
I already said twice what it is, it is the lexical form of the word.
You have a lack of understanding of grammar so you apparently have a comprehension problem.
There are two basic types of words, where you have nouns and verbs. In the Greek language, the verbs take different forms according to their usage, for example: gender, tense and person and number. To simplify the listing of verbs in a lexicon, they will use the verb in an agreed-upon morphology, where they will all be in the same tense, etc.
Your word, Harpazo, is in that standard form for a listing in a lexicon. The fact that it is listed as such in a lexicon does not necessarily mean that it appears in the Bible.
edit on 4-6-2012 by jmdewey60 because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
2
<< 3  4  5    7 >>

log in

join