Those days be shortened for the sake of the ELECT

page: 4
4
<< 1  2  3    5  6 >>

log in

join

posted on Sep, 30 2012 @ 12:19 PM
link   
reply to post by AfterInfinity
 




Who says that's the purpose of sex? I call bullcrap. Utter bullcrap. All of the times I've had sex, I didn't do it for reproduction. I did it for the bond. For the emotion and the connection that results and is experienced.


Reproduction is a by product of sex. But, sex is meant to be shared with your pair for the reasons you mentioned above.




posted on Sep, 30 2012 @ 07:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by lonewolf19792000

Originally posted by Lazarus Short

Originally posted by lonewolf19792000

Originally posted by truejew
If the Church and the elect are two different groups, which one do the twelve apostles belong to?

The apostles were jews.


Eleven of the original apostles were from Galilee, so they were of the tribe of Benjamin. Only Judas was of the tribe of Judah. That should put things in perspective.

If you lack a clear idea of the difference between Hebrew, Israelite, and Jew, you may not have rightly divided the Word of God.


Uh, jews spread out. As we see from Paul's case, they all didn't stay in Judea. Paul was from Tarsus which was in Thrace, or Asia back then which is modern Turkey. Some jews even made it to Rome.


That's no answer. After the return from Babylonian exile, Jews went to their old homeland, but of course, most stayed in the Persian Empire. Benjaminites, if my knowledge is accurate, settled in the area later known as Galilee. Oh, BTW, Paul identified himself as a Benjaminite. You stand corrected.



posted on Sep, 30 2012 @ 07:37 PM
link   
reply to post by Lazarus Short
 





That's no answer. After the return from Babylonian exile, Jews went to their old homeland, but of course, most stayed in the Persian Empire. Benjaminites, if my knowledge is accurate, settled in the area later known as Galilee. Oh, BTW, Paul identified himself as a Benjaminite. You stand corrected.


Tell me, did Paul and the others ever go to Synogogue? The answer is yes they did. Mosaic judaism was their religion. If they were not jews they would not have been allowed into synogogue. Only jews were given the message at first. Paul was a pharisee, ony jews could become pharisees. You stand corrected.
edit on 30-9-2012 by lonewolf19792000 because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 30 2012 @ 07:57 PM
link   
reply to post by lonewolf19792000
 

Well, isn't it also however true that Paul had a spiritual conversion, or a "Damascus experience"?

He left mainstream Judaism to join the new "Christian" sect, which he had once persecuted.

edit on 30-9-2012 by halfoldman because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 30 2012 @ 10:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by halfoldman
reply to post by lonewolf19792000
 

Well, isn't it also however true that Paul had a spiritual conversion, or a "Damascus experience"?

He left mainstream Judaism to join the new "Christian" sect, which he had once persecuted.

edit on 30-9-2012 by halfoldman because: (no reason given)


Not relative to the point i'm making. You couldn't even be a pharisee unless you were a jew. Paul may have been from Benjamin but he was still a jew. The northern kingdom of Ephraim (Israel) fractured after Solomon fell and was scattered cross the world in the Assyrian and Babylonian exiles, the southern kingdom became Judea in which the tribes of Judah and Benjamin were both located. Jewishness is not relative to any particular tribe, it's their religion. For instance, modern day Israel they all call themselves jews, even if theyre from different tribes. Why? Because it's their religion.



posted on Sep, 30 2012 @ 10:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by sk0rpi0n

1. Sex was created for reproduction. Yes.
Which is why the part about the 144k being virgins is puzzling. They are described also as not having "lied" in the same passage.


Not really puzzling. To those truly following God, you should know what the odds are.

And the odds are not good. No matter a great/Godly parent you are, there is a much smaller chance the child you brought to this world will not be tempted by the destructive 'works of men'.

Bringing a child to this world, and due to the odds not in our favor, we simply bring more destruction upon God's creations and we simply bring more people to God's wrath.

If you ask me if birthing a child into this world is cruel? I will answer YES!


Also at the very beginning, reproduction is portrayed negatively. It is an activity associated with mortals...

Adam and Eve were initially immortals, until the fall which is a sexual act. The fallen angels which interbreeded with humans were then slated for destruction/death.

On the other hand, immortals such as angels were often mentioned to be 'NOT given unto marriage'.

You can see the association of 'singleness' or 'undefiled' as being characteristics of immortality or simply just being spiritual - eyes set on eternity, not on temporal things.

Reproduction on the other hand, is of mortals, the flesh. Whether you deny it or not, you reproduce to somewhat immortalize yourself on Earth. To immortalize your flesh. Even that is temporary. It's simply vanity!!



posted on Oct, 1 2012 @ 08:51 PM
link   
Do not discount what these folks say as it is quite possible....the clearest dreams I ever had as a psychic involved demons and religious aspects of this universe and that was when I was a child with NO knowledge of such things.

tell me how that happened and I will listen.

Guess i ought to mention that one of the first jews in the usa was my ancestor..for what genetics are worth. indian medicine men and jewish blood is a potent combination I must assume.
edit on 1-10-2012 by tekeen because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 16 2012 @ 01:51 AM
link   
reply to post by lonewolf19792000
 




Who are the Elect in the bible? The Elect are the natural born jewish decendants of Abraham. Many christians believe this refers to the church but this is not so. The Elect are they who were originally chosen to bear the Light of the Word. But because they rejected the Light it was then given to the gentile peoples until the time would come when the Elect could take up the cause.


This is incorrect. As Colossians 3:12 clearly states:


[11] Where there is neither Gentile nor Jew, circumcision nor uncircumcision, Barbarian nor Scythian, bond nor free. But Christ is all, and in all. [12] Put ye on therefore, as the elect of God, holy, and beloved, the bowels of mercy, benignity, humility, modesty, patience: ...


The elect are most definitely Christians who subscribe to the teachings and doctrines of the Church Jesus established.

This is further illumined (by the Light of Christ), in Titus 1:1 via St. Paul:


[1] Paul, a servant of God, and an apostle of Jesus Christ, according to the faith of the elect of God and the acknowledging of the truth, which is according to godliness: [2] Unto the hope of life everlasting, which God, who lieth not, hath promised before the times of the world: [3] But hath in due times manifested his word in preaching, which is committed to me according to the commandment of God our Saviour: [4] To Titus my beloved son, according to the common faith, grace and peace from God the Father, and from Christ Jesus our Saviour.


St. Titus, as we read in Galatians 2:3, was a Gentile by birth (but in Christ's Church is neither Jew nor Gentile insofar as respect to how God sees him-- this is merely to make clear the level on which St. Paul, a former Pharisee, and St. Titus, a Gentile by Jewish law, were working)

MOving on to the next ridiculous thing posited...



The Elect were given an invitation, to a wedding but like many people often do many were "too busy" to attend, and so the King sent out invitations to all peoples across the land so that His Son would have people in attendence to His wedding feast. The invitation the Elect were given was a special invitation, bordered in gold with fancy lettering as befitt those of familial relation. In essence, out of 100 to recieve that invitation, only a handful would accept and be present, so the call to the rest of the neighorhood went out.


This assertion is based on the false presumption that the Elect are the Jews and none other. This is not true, as Colossians establishes. In fact the Elect are those who have the faith of Christ, acknowledge the truth, via the giving of Grace by the Father for belief in Christ the Savior. While many Jews, though certainly a minority, did accept Christ, most did not. Further, as we read in Romans 11, these branches were broken off (meaning the Jews) and other branches (meaning the Gentiles) were grafted into their place in the Tree of Israel (Spiritual, not physical)-- which is the Church. However, upon the return of Enoch and Elias/Elijah, many Jews will convert to the Truth Faith and True Church in the last days. This time period is as of yet undetermined, though certainly signs shaping up in the Middle East and otherwise might lead one to believe it's not far off.

moving on...


This is not to say that only the Elect were meant for salvation, for "Many are called but few are chosen". It means that many will be called but few are of the Elect, the Chosen. The Elect are reserved the special seats at the banquet table closer to the groom than the rest of the neighborhood. This is not to say that we should be jealous of them, but that we should be happy that our esteemed brothers should come, and that we are able to come with them.


Again, this is entirely based on a false presumption which is totally decimated by very clear Scripture. The Elect ARE meant for Salvation-- otherwise, what the heck are they Elected to if not Salvation: damnation. God elects NO ONE to damnation. Damnation MUST be freely chosen by the person via their rejection of the One True Faith and the True Church which teaches, as part of Her mission, to help in the salvation of souls. You bring no Scriptural argument to the table, for you have rejected Tradition in direct contradiction to 2 Thessalonians 2:14, found only in the True Church.



posted on Oct, 16 2012 @ 01:51 AM
link   


In Revelation "those days" are not shortened for the church, because the church will not be here at that time, but it is for the sake of the Elect that those days be shortened so that God can keep his covenant with Abraham and with Jacob.


As we have clearly established, the Elect is the Church and most certainly those days are shortened for Her and Hers-- meaning Christians of the True Faith. God's covenant with Abraham was met with the birth, life, death, and resurrection of Jesus Christ and the establishment of a universal church which bears forth the spiritual children of Abraham as we read in Galatians 3:6-9:


[6] As it is written: Abraham believed God, and it was reputed to him unto justice. [7] Know ye therefore, that they who are of faith, the same are the children of Abraham. [8] And the scripture, foreseeing, that God justifieth the Gentiles by faith, told unto Abraham before: In thee shall all nations be blessed. [9] Therefore they that are of faith, shall be blessed with faithful Abraham.


Oh, and this Church is the Catholic Church.

Pax Christus vobiscum



posted on Oct, 16 2012 @ 02:07 AM
link   

Originally posted by Lazarus Short

Originally posted by lonewolf19792000

Originally posted by Lazarus Short

Originally posted by lonewolf19792000

Originally posted by truejew
If the Church and the elect are two different groups, which one do the twelve apostles belong to?

The apostles were jews.


Eleven of the original apostles were from Galilee, so they were of the tribe of Benjamin. Only Judas was of the tribe of Judah. That should put things in perspective.

If you lack a clear idea of the difference between Hebrew, Israelite, and Jew, you may not have rightly divided the Word of God.


Uh, jews spread out. As we see from Paul's case, they all didn't stay in Judea. Paul was from Tarsus which was in Thrace, or Asia back then which is modern Turkey. Some jews even made it to Rome.


That's no answer. After the return from Babylonian exile, Jews went to their old homeland, but of course, most stayed in the Persian Empire. Benjaminites, if my knowledge is accurate, settled in the area later known as Galilee. Oh, BTW, Paul identified himself as a Benjaminite. You stand corrected.


Since the theme of ATS is denying ignorance, I must come to the defense of Lonewolf here, though I take umbrage with his posited OP position.

Saul was born in Tarsus, as indicated by being "of Tarsus" in Acts 9:11



[11] And the Lord said to him: Arise, and go into the street that is called Stait, and seek in the house of Judas, one named Saul of Tarsus. For behold he prayeth.


But it would seem he was merely born there, and in fact relocated with his family, likely as a child, to Jerusalem as relayed by the man himself in Acts 22:3:


[3] And he saith: I am a Jew, born at Tarsus in Cilicia, but brought up in this city, at the feet of Gamaliel, taught according to the truth of the law of the fathers, zealous for the law, as also all you are this day


This childhood, and into his youth and later adult years was spent being educated as a Pharisee (a very strict Jewish sect prized for their memorization of the Torah and Tanakh [colloquially known as the Old Testament in conjunction]). This is put forth again by the man's own words in Acts 26:4:



[4] And my life indeed from my youth, which was from the beginning among my own nation in Jerusalem, all the Jews do know: [5] Having known me from the beginning (if they will give testimony) that according to the most sure sect of our religion I lived a Pharisee


...and they say Catholics don't read the Bible. Hrrmph!



posted on Oct, 16 2012 @ 03:26 AM
link   
reply to post by Augustine62
 

Oh, and this Church is the Catholic Church.

By your own definition it is not.
It is not universal but its own sect.
It is a heretical breakaway sect that decided to go against orthodoxy.



posted on Oct, 16 2012 @ 01:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by jmdewey60
reply to post by Augustine62
 

Oh, and this Church is the Catholic Church.

By your own definition it is not.
It is not universal but its own sect.
It is a heretical breakaway sect that decided to go against orthodoxy.


1) The Catholic Church is all over the world and has been far before any other group-- Catholic is nothing more than a transliteration of the Greek term Katholikos first used by St. Ignatius of Antioch in the very early part of the 2nd Century A.D.., A.D. 107 to be exact, in his Letter to the Smyrnaenans:

"Wherever the bishop shall appear, there let the multitude [of the people] also be; even as, wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church."
The prime/head Bishop is of course St. Peter (and his successor) in keeping with the Holy Bible and Peter being the chief Apostle/Bishop.

2) Breakaway from what? Who, then, holds true orthodoxy? On what authority do they speak? How are we guaranteed their truth in speech and claim? By their claim alone? What are their fruits?
3) A "breakaway sect" that is the largest Christian population worldwide? There are over 1.2 Billion Catholics, sir. Protestants, broadly defined, only make up ~801 Million WORLDWIDE according to the Pew Report: (link: www.pewforum.org...)-- and they certainly are NOT one, nor are they individually by doctrine universal, nor do many claim Apostolic succession-- the True Church MUST bear all 4 marks. Only the Catholic Church does.
4) The Nicene Creed states four marks of the Church: One (unified in doctrine and faith-- this holds true, that which breaks FROM that is NOT Catholic), Holy (set apart for God), Catholic (universal; present as we have demonstrated), and Apostolic (claims uninterrupted succession of the Apostles, and in keeping with the Bible and Tradition-- must retain the successor of St. Peter as head on earth as the Vicar of Christ: only the Catholic Church can and does rightly claim this): from the Nicene Creed (A.D. 381): "I believe in one holy catholic and apostolic Church.""

----

From my Buddhist-leaning roommate who isn't even a Christian:



"As a non-Christian I fail to understand how one can call themselves a Christian and not become a Catholic. Since Catholicism is, I'm given to understand, the original Christian Church. Jesus' teachings = Church, which is Catholicism. "


Pax Christus Vobiscum



posted on Oct, 16 2012 @ 01:46 PM
link   
reply to post by Augustine62
 

2) Breakaway from what?

The Holy Apostolic Orthodox Church of Jesus.
The Roman Catholic Church is a faction and the cause of the demise of a real universal church because of their grasping for power that they ultimately could only have by force rather than consent.



posted on Oct, 17 2012 @ 01:06 AM
link   

Originally posted by jmdewey60
reply to post by Augustine62
 

2) Breakaway from what?

The Holy Apostolic Orthodox Church of Jesus.
The Roman Catholic Church is a faction and the cause of the demise of a real universal church because of their grasping for power that they ultimately could only have by force rather than consent.


And yet, the Orthodox schismatics have no successor of St. Peter.

Peter alone was given the keys to the Kingdom. Some Orthodox argue that Christ was speaking to the assembly of the Apostles...

However, this is incorrect as Our Lord said " I will give you the keys...", speaking to St. Peter. This is known because the use of the word "you" is the Greek word (transliterated) Su, which is a second person *singular* personal pronoun. In other words, to PETER, not the assembly of the Apostles at large. The pronoun used was not plural, and thus, the argument is linguistically and theologically fallacious though admittedly specious in a most charitable sense--without considering the original language.

Pax Christus vobiscum



Case closed.
edit on 17-10-2012 by Augustine62 because: add



posted on Oct, 17 2012 @ 01:46 AM
link   
reply to post by lonewolf19792000
 


well..

you must have forgotten about us being grafted in .. right?? or is Jesus now just a good prophet..??

for there are neither Greek or Jew, bond or free but all are the same in Christ Jesus..



posted on Oct, 17 2012 @ 07:05 AM
link   
reply to post by Augustine62
 

And yet, the Orthodox schismatics have no successor of St. Peter.

There is no evidence that Peter was ever in Rome, just later boasting that he was.
He was never listed as a bishop of Rome.



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

Originally posted by Komodo
reply to post by lonewolf19792000
 


well..

you must have forgotten about us being grafted in .. right?? or is Jesus now just a good prophet..??

for there are neither Greek or Jew, bond or free but all are the same in Christ Jesus..


No i didn't forget. I didn't say all jews were the elect, since obviously there were more idolaters than there were faithful if you read the OT, very few remained true to Yahweh. Even now a great many "jews" are still in apostacy, while there's around 15,000 in Israel alone that believe in Jesus.



posted on Oct, 17 2012 @ 04:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by Augustine62

Originally posted by jmdewey60
reply to post by Augustine62
 

2) Breakaway from what?

The Holy Apostolic Orthodox Church of Jesus.
The Roman Catholic Church is a faction and the cause of the demise of a real universal church because of their grasping for power that they ultimately could only have by force rather than consent.


And yet, the Orthodox schismatics have no successor of St. Peter.

Peter alone was given the keys to the Kingdom. Some Orthodox argue that Christ was speaking to the assembly of the Apostles...

However, this is incorrect as Our Lord said " I will give you the keys...", speaking to St. Peter. This is known because the use of the word "you" is the Greek word (transliterated) Su, which is a second person *singular* personal pronoun. In other words, to PETER, not the assembly of the Apostles at large. The pronoun used was not plural, and thus, the argument is linguistically and theologically fallacious though admittedly specious in a most charitable sense--without considering the original language.

Pax Christus vobiscum



Case closed.
edit on 17-10-2012 by Augustine62 because: add


There's also something else to consider when it comes to the episcopal see of Rome and St. Peter. St. Peter founded more than one episcopal see (patriarchate). Sts Peter and Paul founded the episcopal see of Antioch.

The verse in Matthew refers to St. Peter's confession of faith in Christ and not St. Peter himself.

Five Patriarchates. One left the others. The rest remained unified in faith. Who was the schismatic?



posted on Oct, 18 2012 @ 01:36 AM
link   

Originally posted by jmdewey60
reply to post by Augustine62
 

And yet, the Orthodox schismatics have no successor of St. Peter.

There is no evidence that Peter was ever in Rome, just later boasting that he was.
He was never listed as a bishop of Rome.


Where, then, is the symbolic "Babylon" from which he wrote? Rome.

Why, then, did Pope Leo the Great (from the mid 5th century), prior to the schism of the Orthodox, say St. Peter was sent to Rome? Or Pope Gregory, also pre-Schism?

www.ccel.org...



III. On the dispersing of the Twelve, St. Peter was sent to Rome.

For when the twelve Apostles, after receiving through the Holy Ghost the power of speaking with all tongues, had distributed the world into parts among themselves, and undertaken to instruct it in the Gospel, the most blessed Peter, chief of the Apostolic band, was appointed to the citadel of the Roman empire, that the light of Truth which was being displayed for the salvation of all the nations, might spread itself more effectively throughout the body of the world from the head itself. What nation had not representatives then living in this city; or what peoples did not know what Rome had learnt? Here it was that the tenets of philosophy must be crushed, here that the follies of earthly wisdom must be dispelled, here that the cult of demons must be refuted, here that the blasphemy of all idolatries must be rooted out, here where the most persistent superstition had gathered together all the various errors which had anywhere been devised.

History crushes fallacy.

Pax Christus Vobiscum



posted on Oct, 18 2012 @ 01:40 AM
link   

Originally posted by LeSigh

Originally posted by Augustine62

Originally posted by jmdewey60
reply to post by Augustine62
 

2) Breakaway from what?

The Holy Apostolic Orthodox Church of Jesus.
The Roman Catholic Church is a faction and the cause of the demise of a real universal church because of their grasping for power that they ultimately could only have by force rather than consent.


And yet, the Orthodox schismatics have no successor of St. Peter.

Peter alone was given the keys to the Kingdom. Some Orthodox argue that Christ was speaking to the assembly of the Apostles...

However, this is incorrect as Our Lord said " I will give you the keys...", speaking to St. Peter. This is known because the use of the word "you" is the Greek word (transliterated) Su, which is a second person *singular* personal pronoun. In other words, to PETER, not the assembly of the Apostles at large. The pronoun used was not plural, and thus, the argument is linguistically and theologically fallacious though admittedly specious in a most charitable sense--without considering the original language.

Pax Christus vobiscum



Case closed.
edit on 17-10-2012 by Augustine62 because: add


There's also something else to consider when it comes to the episcopal see of Rome and St. Peter. St. Peter founded more than one episcopal see (patriarchate). Sts Peter and Paul founded the episcopal see of Antioch.

The verse in Matthew refers to St. Peter's confession of faith in Christ and not St. Peter himself.

Five Patriarchates. One left the others. The rest remained unified in faith. Who was the schismatic?


St. Peter's final See was in Rome.

Please clarify what you mean re: the verse in Matthew. Most definitely it was about Peter's faith in Christ and confession thereof, but also, Our Lord addressed St. Peter very specifically.





new topics

top topics



 
4
<< 1  2  3    5  6 >>

log in

join