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.

 

What Jerusalem?

page: 4
3
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 3 2013 @ 02:37 PM
link   
reply to post by Deetermined
 

There will come a day when Jesus will bring the two kingdoms back together again.
Who is this great teacher who is telling you this?
Have you considered the possibility that he is the antichrist?
He seems to be lifting up human governments to a position higher than God's.
The Bible points to the world eventually falling under the direct rule of Jesus and God.
What your teacher's scheme seems to be saying is that instead it will go back to human rule.
edit on 3-6-2013 by jmdewey60 because: (no reason given)




posted on Jun, 3 2013 @ 02:45 PM
link   
reply to post by SimonPeter
 

There has only ever been one God the Father . . .

Of course that is true but I would question if it is more "contemptuous" to admit to our relative ignorance of what exactly He had been doing all this time, or is it more "contemptuous" to say that we do know exactly what He has been doing all this time and it is all in these really horrific stories that make Him out as having to be lectured by men (who were His moral superiors) on how to act.
edit on 3-6-2013 by jmdewey60 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 3 2013 @ 02:53 PM
link   
reply to post by Deetermined


The first temple was built as a place for the Jews to worship God and house the Ark of the Covenant. God led them until the temple was defiled by foreign idolaters.

If you read the description of what all foreign god worship imagery went into the building of Solomon's temple, you would really have to wonder if that temple had anything to do with a god who said "make no graven image".

Even the ark had a solid gold cover with winged bull type creatures on it. Just like you see on old Assyrian walls. Is there some loop-hole that allows cast images and only forbids carved images? If that's the case, then what exactly was the problem with Aaron's golden calf? Solomon's bronze sea was held up by 12 bronze bull images.

So when exactly was Solomon's temple not defiled? Is it possible that the dark entity that entered the temple was not the god of Moses?



posted on Jun, 3 2013 @ 03:06 PM
link   
reply to post by SimonPeter
 

If you will read that post you will see that God chose Jerusalem for something more
What post, and what are you talking about?

If you ever can get clear of your Historism you could see the truth
I understood exactly the futurist view but recently reviewed all the texts that supposedly supported that, and realized that they don't. Someday maybe you will realize how you were duped into supporting evil by believing in cult theories, and then you will understand what the Bible really says.

But you have all but denied Christ any way so I see where you are coming from
I only deny the idea that Jesus died to have blood to do a blood-for-sins trade scheme to pay off a theoretical debt to some unknown or unnamed entity.
I understand some people do believe in it but I see it as a way to trick people into thinking that they will never be held responsible for their actions in this life. That goes along with the other part, which is supporting evil, such as the ethnic cleansing and genocide against the rightful residents of the Country of Palestine.
edit on 3-6-2013 by jmdewey60 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 3 2013 @ 03:07 PM
link   
reply to post by SimonPeter


You do not stand on firm ground in your debate .

Do you even know what the debate is?



posted on Jun, 3 2013 @ 03:36 PM
link   
reply to post by ntech

Greetings ntech,

You at least have some understanding of Malachi so you may be able to see what I'm getting at.

According to Jewish lore (I think), no entity entered Zerubbabel's temple, unlike Solomon's. Some of Malachi is actually addressing that issue. That they're still looking forward to the angel of the covenant to enter the temple.

Which means, it's an empty heap of stones. Daniel the prophet in Babylon and later Susa(?) never went back to Judea or Jerusalem. And he's the one who mentions abomination of desolation.

In both biblical and rabbinic Hebrew, the word "abomination" is a familiar term for an idol, and therefore may well have the same application in Daniel, which should accordingly be rendered, in agreement with Ezra 9:1-4 "motionless abomination" or, also, "appalling abomination".[citation needed] The suggestion of many scholars—Hoffmann, Nestle, Bevan, and others—that, as a designation for Jupiter it is simply an intentional perversion of his usual appellation "Baal Shamem" ("lord of heaven"), is quite plausible,[citation needed] as is attested by the perversion of Beelzebub into "Βεελζεβούλ" (Greek version) in Mark 3:22, as well as the express injunction found in Tosef., 'Ab. Zarah, vi. (vii) and Babli 'Ab. Zarah, 46a that the names of idols may be pronounced only in a distorted or abbreviated form.
Abomination of desolation

So what I'm getting at is that the city and the temple were just dumb idols aka Abominations of Desolation. No god.



posted on Jun, 3 2013 @ 03:46 PM
link   
reply to post by pthena
 





So when exactly was Solomon's temple not defiled? Is it possible that the dark entity that entered the temple was not the god of Moses?


It probably had more to do with all of those foreign women that Solomon married from all of those places that God told him to stay away from and not to mix with. They probably turned it into a prostitution center for Ishtar.



posted on Jun, 3 2013 @ 03:55 PM
link   
reply to post by jmdewey60
 



Who is this great teacher who is telling you this?
Have you considered the possibility that he is the antichrist?
He seems to be lifting up human governments to a position higher than God's.
The Bible points to the world eventually falling under the direct rule of Jesus and God.
What your teacher's scheme seems to be saying is that instead it will go back to human rule.


Jmdewey, I don't want to be rude, but you're going to have to forgive me if I don't answer any more of your questions past these. This is why I keep telling you that you have to read the Old Testament in order to understand the New Testament.

Read the book of Ezekiel. This ties together with the book of Revelation.

There is going to be a 1,000 year period here on earth where God heals the Jews and brings Israel and Judah back together again. Jesus will be ruling here on earth during this time before we all get judged and go to heaven.

This period comes after the Anti-Christ has been done away with. However, after this period is over, Satan will be released from the Abyss to try and wreak havoc one last time before all the bad guys are thrown into the lake of fire for having deceived the people and the nations.

Then comes the final judgement and the new heaven/earth are sent down for God/Jesus to rule forever.



posted on Jun, 3 2013 @ 05:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by jmdewey60
reply to post by WashMoreFeet
 

Nor does using it as a resource to posit vain and provocative argument.

You are quoting forgeries, Titus, and first and second Timothy.
Those were later writings to support a clerical class with special sanction of an organizational hierarchy.


LOL...how convenient of a dispute.


The Pastoral letters of Paul were to individuals he was so close with, he considered them sons.
Paul presented arguments in support of his position on the Gospel message in his Letters to the churches, which were intended for the audience of the church as a whole.
In his Pastoral letters which were to individuals of like mind and understanding, he simply stated his position and expected that to end the matter.

Obviously a person may have a particular style when lecturing to a collective group, yet another when explaining something to a member of his family or intimate acquaintance. Which would support the fact that all three of these letters do not have him identifying himself at the end, nor attesting to his personal distinguishing mark as those which were scribed to the churches. This would have been unnecessary for a personal letter between individuals of intimate friendship.

Regardless, both explanations support any deviation of vocabulary and style, which I assume is your point of contention.

Unless it is the content in which you dispute, which would be laughable considering the damning effect it has on your modus operandi here on ATS.

Paul wrote 1 Timothy and Titus after his fourth missionary journey.
1 Timothy was written sometime after the events of Acts 28, at least eight years after Paul's 3 year stay in Ephesus.
Paul's letter to Titus was sent with Zenas and Apollos, who were on a journey that took them through Crete.
Paul and Titus worked briefly together in Crete after he was released from his first Roman imprisonment. Titus was left at Crete to organize the converts and was to meet Paul in Nicopolis when a replacement arrived.

2 Timothy was written when Paul was imprisoned a second time under Nero. However unlike his first imprisonment which was in a rented house, this time he was in chains in a dungeon. He knew his work was done and his life was likely near an end. He was lonely and had been betrayed and deserted. His primary concern was the integrity of the Gospel message and the welfare of the church during that time of persecution. One of the major problems being encountered was people within the church compromising the Gospel message with the lies and heresy of those "who were always learning, yet never able to come to the knowledge of the Truth." The progenitors of early Gnosticism.

To negate the authenticity of the Pastoral letters, you would have to take on the task of re-writing history.
Even the Apostle Peter references Paul's letters as scripture.
Anyone who claims the Bible canon, as the Books which have been observed up to this point in history, to be untrustworthy and/or makes any endeavor to invalidate It or Its authority, is an empty metal barrel serving only to fulfill the very scripture they seek to denigrate, by their loud, conspicuous clanging of opposition.

Having said all that, I refuse to waste my time arguing with anyone in regard to the validity of scripture. It is what it is and you either accept it or you don't. Period.



posted on Jun, 3 2013 @ 05:28 PM
link   
reply to post by Deetermined
 

There is going to be a 1,000 year period here on earth where God heals the Jews and brings Israel and Judah back together again.
According to your scheme, Jesus does not actually rule but there is an earthly ruler over an earthly kingdom. Why didn't Jesus just do that in the first place? It seems to me that what your teacher has envisioned is exactly what the people who killed Jesus wanted.
I just see this as a part of the group of theories being promoted that supports the zionist regime, by making Christians think that there has to be a group of people in Palestine calling themselves Israel.
Yours is particularly clever in that it gives them a thousand years before anyone realizes that they had been had.
What Revelation says is that those who had been killed for the word of Jesus will be raised to reign with Jesus for a thousand years.
This makes me think about how James and John's mother asked Jesus if they could sit next to him when he came into power. They would have to be killed for preaching the Gospel.
How about answering another question, what part of Ezekiel are you talking about that ties in with Revelation?



posted on Jun, 3 2013 @ 05:40 PM
link   
reply to post by jmdewey60
 



What Revelation says is that those who had been killed for the word of Jesus will be raised to reign with Jesus for a thousand years.

This makes me think about how James and John's mother asked Jesus if they could sit next to him when he came into power. They would have to be killed for preaching the Gospel.


I'm sure there's different opinions on how the Millennium is going to go and who all will be there, but I get the impression that those you mentioned above as well as those who manage to live through the Anti-Christ's reign will also be there.


How about answering another question, what part of Ezekiel are you talking about that ties in with Revelation?


Ezekiel, chapters 36 & 37.



posted on Jun, 3 2013 @ 05:52 PM
link   
reply to post by WashMoreFeet
 

To negate the authenticity of the Pastoral letters, you would have to take on the task of re-writing history.
No, because its so-called history is based on what is in the disputed letters themselves.
What other documents are there to corroborate that historical schema?

Even the Apostle Peter references Paul's letters as scripture.
You mean writings purported to be letters by Peter, right?

Anyone who claims the Bible canon, as the Books which have been observed up to this point in history, to be untrustworthy and/or makes any endeavor to invalidate It or Its authority, is an empty metal barrel serving only to fulfill the very scripture they seek to denigrate, by their loud, conspicuous clanging of opposition.
What is it that makes the so-called canon "trustworthy"? Just the fact that the books were not allowed to be disputed for so many centuries?
Do you have a description of what the authority of the canon is?
Here is a fact, forgeries were very common back in the time that the books of the New Testament were being compiled.
The canon was decided by people in positions of authority, such as Athanasius, Bishop of Alexandria, who would have had a liking of books that would lend even more apparent authority to himself. If it was written as if it was by Paul, then all the better. Those people did not have the skills or maybe patience or lack of bias to make accurate determinations of what was authentic or not, so some slipped in that were forgeries.

Having said all that, I refuse to waste my time arguing with anyone in regard to the validity of scripture. It is what it is and you either accept it or you don't. Period.
Accept what, the canon as it stands? I don't, but that does not mean I reject the New Testament as a whole, just the part written after the Apostles were dead.
You may humor yourself by thinking that anyone who questions a book of the NT is beyond the pale, and so has no credibility, but I see it the other way around, that people who insist on strict fundamentalism are only desperately clinging to failed doctrines.
edit on 3-6-2013 by jmdewey60 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 3 2013 @ 06:08 PM
link   
reply to post by Deetermined
 

Ezekiel, chapters 36 & 37.
Ezekiel was supposedly written by a Jew in Babylon, during the exile, so he would have been talking about a return to ancient Canaan.
I think all that is going on is your theory is trying to shoehorn part of Ezekiel into Revelation, where revelation is talking about nothing of the kind.
You just make up this axiom that the Old Testament interprets the New Testament to excuse the forcing in of incongruent material.



posted on Jun, 3 2013 @ 06:12 PM
link   
reply to post by WashMoreFeet
 

How clever and slick of you to totally derail the thread.


For the record: this thread is not about who or who didn't write the Pastoral Letters.
edit on 3-6-2013 by pthena because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 3 2013 @ 06:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by jmdewey60
reply to post by Deetermined
 

Ezekiel, chapters 36 & 37.
Ezekiel was supposedly written by a Jew in Babylon, during the exile, so he would have been talking about a return to ancient Canaan.
I think all that is going on is your theory is trying to shoehorn part of Ezekiel into Revelation, where revelation is talking about nothing of the kind.
You just make up this axiom that the Old Testament interprets the New Testament to excuse the forcing in of incongruent material.
I think that the prophecies keep repeating until the book if fulfilled. It is possible that both perspectives are correct..



posted on Jun, 3 2013 @ 06:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by pthena
reply to post by WashMoreFeet
 

How clever and slick of you to totally derail the thread.


For the record: this thread is not about who or who didn't write the Pastoral Letters.
edit on 3-6-2013 by pthena because: (no reason given)


To my knowledge, this thread discusses scripture. To which I asked a simple and relevant question, "Have you read the Bible, in Its entirety, cover to cover."
Dewey was gentleman enough to reply for you.
To which I then remarked as to the unbelievability of his claim and the obvious nature of your posts which indicate otherwise.

If you have an issue with the direction of posts from that time forward, then I feel your compliment is better suited to Dewey, whom, with all due respect, took issue with the validity of the scripture I used.



posted on Jun, 3 2013 @ 06:45 PM
link   
reply to post by pthena
 


Well, it's obvious that you and jmdewey aren't interested in learning about the Bible. Washmorefeet addressed a comment that Jmdewey made and then you deemed it off topic. It's obvious that you don't even understand what the original comment or answer was about.

Anyone with any Bible knowledge at all would know how the New Testament is tied to the Old Testament (in fact, maybe you should Google it), yet for some reason the two of you seem to think you've broken some ancient mystery of the Bible that no one else has asked themselves before even after thousands of years of study, in which neither one of you have even had any.

Jmdewey, your faith must be dwindling. Considering that you've always felt that the New Testament was the only thing that was relevant about Jesus today, you must have changed your mind now that you find Paul irrelevant too. That only leaves you one handful of books of the New Testament to base your entire faith on. I guess there wasn't much faith there to begin with.

Go ahead, Pthena and Jmdewy, you two go ahead and talk among yourselves. That should at least make for an entertaining comedy for the rest of us.


edit on 3-6-2013 by Deetermined because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 3 2013 @ 06:48 PM
link   
reply to post by jmdewey60
 


I think it better for us to simply agree to disagree. Which I do, in every way shape and form.

We could argue about it into oblivion, there is no argument you can offer on the matter that I could not consistently prove otherwise.

And I expected the tired and played-out insinuation that Peter's letters were not penned by him. Another tedious argument of vanity.

Regardless, for all intents and purposes, the burden of proof lies upon those who seek to alter scripture, not those whom endeavor to preserve Its integrity.

The historical elements and time line that can be gleaned from the canon of the entire New Testament are all in cohesive agreement with each other. The Book of Acts, alone, attests to the historical time line of events that play out during Paul's ministry.
edit on 6/3/2013 by WashMoreFeet because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 3 2013 @ 06:55 PM
link   
reply to post by deadeyedick
 



I think that the prophecies keep repeating until the book if fulfilled. It is possible that both perspectives are correct..


What do you think? Do you think this is a prophecy that's been fulfilled?

Ezekiel 37:16-23

16 Moreover, thou son of man, take thee one stick, and write upon it, For Judah, and for the children of Israel his companions: then take another stick, and write upon it, For Joseph, the stick of Ephraim and for all the house of Israel his companions:

17 And join them one to another into one stick; and they shall become one in thine hand.

18 And when the children of thy people shall speak unto thee, saying, Wilt thou not shew us what thou meanest by these?

19 Say unto them, Thus saith the Lord God; Behold, I will take the stick of Joseph, which is in the hand of Ephraim, and the tribes of Israel his fellows, and will put them with him, even with the stick of Judah, and make them one stick, and they shall be one in mine hand.

20 And the sticks whereon thou writest shall be in thine hand before their eyes.

21 And say unto them, Thus saith the Lord God; Behold, I will take the children of Israel from among the heathen, whither they be gone, and will gather them on every side, and bring them into their own land:

22 And I will make them one nation in the land upon the mountains of Israel; and one king shall be king to them all: and they shall be no more two nations, neither shall they be divided into two kingdoms any more at all.

23 Neither shall they defile themselves any more with their idols, nor with their detestable things, nor with any of their transgressions: but I will save them out of all their dwellingplaces, wherein they have sinned, and will cleanse them: so shall they be my people, and I will be their God.

edit on 3-6-2013 by Deetermined because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 3 2013 @ 07:11 PM
link   
reply to post by WashMoreFeet
 

We could argue about it into oblivion, there is no argument you can offer on the matter that I could not consistently prove otherwise.
That is obviously not true in a post where you spend considerable space extolling your own virtues you could not answer a single one of my questions.



new topics

top topics



 
3
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join