The resurrection. Help, please.

reply to post by wildtimes

Here is my GUT speaking:
No one is coming to save us, ladies and gentlemen. We have to do it ourselves.
And we have to all agree to do it together. Time for the human race to grow up and accept accountability and responsibility for what is happening.

That is my gut feeling also, Wildtimes. Trouble is, Humanity, for the most part, and like children, they need something bigger than they are, and they need someone to come save them from themselves, and from what they have done. There is a New World for Humanity, but not for all. You have to want to go there. And it is not accessed by praying, fasting, or baptism. It is accessed by Love for Humanity and Mother Earth.

Thanks again, to all of you who participated. This exercise helped me a great deal to see the various sides as described by others interested in this matter.

All of you are appreciated.
~wild

reply to post by wildtimes


Oh it happened, I personally am waiting for the rapture anytime now! Bless you!

reply to post by bernierhome


bernierhome, good luck with that. Thanks for your post.

Originally posted by bernierhome
reply to post by wildtimes

 

Oh it happened, I personally am waiting for the rapture anytime now! Bless you!

I'm afraid you have a long wait, friend. The fact that John Nelson Darby invented the pre-tribulation rapture doctrine around 1830 AD is unquestionably true.

The Dispensational Origins of Modern Premillennialism

Dispensational Premillennialist claim that their unique doctrines have been held since the early church, but these claims have been soundly refuted. Far from being the historic position of the church, premillennialism was described in 1813 by David Bogue as an oddity of Church history. Postmillennialism was the dominant eschatology from the Reformation until at least 1859.

The doctrine of a secret rapture was first conceived by John Nelson Darby of the Plymouth Brethren in 1827. Darby, known as the father of dispensationalism, invented the doctrine claiming there were not one, but two "second comings." This teaching was immediately challenged as unbiblical by other members of the Brethren. Samuel P. Tregelles, a noted biblical scholar, rejected Darby's new interpretation as the "height of speculative nonsense." So tenuous was Darby's rapture theory that he had lingering doubts about it as late as 1843, and possibly 1845. Another member of the Plymouth Brethren, B.W. Newton, disputed Darby's new doctrine claiming such a conclusion was only possible if one declared certain passages to be "renounced as not properly ours."

source

John Darby's Pre-Tribulation Rapture Alterations to the Bible

The Dispensational Origins of Modern Premillennialism and John Nelson Darby

No Rapture in the Bible, no Rapture at all. No one coming to save you, you have to save yourself.

TextI just would like some feedback from those who "believe" or "disbelieve", backed up by accessible resources other than the Bible or the Quran. I'd like to hear what people who are looking into alternatives to "yes, he did" or, "no, he did not" die to contribute.

reply to post by wildtimes


Very difficult to convince anyone to accept any religious aspect in life. All religions are a matter of faith and that faith that is established is the foundation for belief. You have not given much information of exactly what you do believe in your church. Do you believe that John the apostle of Jesus ever existed? If not then we can stop right there because to deny John is to deny the early church fathers who knew John and to deny the early church fathers is to deny the truth of who started your church.

Do you believe that Josephus the Jewish historian ever lived? Of course you must believe this because his accounts of the Jews is well received by Gentiles and Jews alike in regards to history. Josephus was born 37 CE which was several years after Jesus was said to have died. He mentioned Jesus several times in his accounts'

Quote
Now there was about this time Jesus, a wise man, if it be lawful to call him a man, for he was a doer of wonderful works, a teacher of such men as receive the truth with pleasure. He drew over to him both many of the Jews, and many of the Gentiles. He was the Christ, and when Pilate, at the suggestion of the principal men among us, had condemned him to the cross, those that loved him at the first did not forsake him; for he appeared to them alive again the third day; as the divine prophets had foretold these and ten thousand other wonderful things concerning him. And the tribe of Christians so named from him are not extinct at this day.
Jewish Antiquities 18.3.3
Un Quote

Quote
But the younger Ananus who, as we said, received the high priesthood, was of a bold disposition and exceptionally daring; he followed the party of the Sadducees, who are severe in judgment above all the Jews, as we have already shown. As therefore Ananus was of such a disposition, he thought he had now a good opportunity, as Festus was now dead, and Albinus was still on the road; so he assembled a council of judges, and brought before it the brother of Jesus the so-called Christ, whose name was James, together with some others, and having accused them as lawbreakers, he delivered them over to be stoned.
Jewish Antiquities 20.9.1
Un Quote

Even at this the critics will not accept the account of Jesus and will try to destroy this account as fraud and deception just as they do the over 5,000 Greek manuscripts that are known to exist in collaborating His existence. And yet they will accept a scientist who claims the world is X billion years old.

How do you know that Prime Minister Winston Churchill ever existed or died the way they say he died? Chances are you can not tell me that you were there and saw him die or that he ever existed. Yet you believe the account given to you and you believe it by faith. Why? Simply because this account was presented to you in your recent believable culture. But then those 5,000 scribes who wrote the Greek manuscripts also wrote in their spans of believable time.

Do you have doubt when you study Roman history? As you sat in history class you accept what the professor is teaching and you believe it to be correct. Yet some of Roman history spills over into the time of Jesus and in fact that portion of the biblical account you accept as fact. Why? Because an outside source verifies the biblical account of that Roman history.

So in effect, your problem is that you will not accept the biblical account because it is not taught as a public fact by college professors. Now if it were taught as a history course in your colleges then you would accept it as a fact. That is called secularism. If a professor taught the history of the Jewish wars from Josephus you would have no doubt that what you were taught was true. But If that course was extended in his account of the existence of Jesus you would automatically reject that portion of Josephus.

You now understand that your mind is prejudiced and that no proof would satisfy your disbelief of the resurrection. Nothing can exist as proof to you because you reject all proof regardless of the source. There are hundreds of accounts in outside sources such as the Old Testament Pseudepigrapha by Dr.James H.Charlesworth.volumes 1 & 2. Simply because John was called an apostle of Jesus, marks John as a insane radical according to secularists but what if John's account was taught alone with no connection with a bible. What if John's work was taught in the same history class as Philo of Alexandria? Would you then accept it?