serious question for Christians

page: 4
3
<< 1  2  3    5 >>

log in

join

posted on Jun, 22 2013 @ 03:42 AM
link   
reply to post by jmdewey60
 


Isaiah 53 deals with the atonement. And the story of the rich man isn't a parable. In parables there are never names used.




posted on Jun, 22 2013 @ 07:38 AM
link   
reply to post by NOTurTypical
 

Isaiah 53 deals with the atonement.
Oh . . no kidding?
Of course you cannot go to the trouble of pointing out how it does that exactly.
It is not like you have already explained it on another thread and I am just being tedious by making you repeat yourself.
I am saying that you have never explained it and that I believe that there is no way that you can. Also there is nowhere in the New Testament that connects that chapter to an "atonement for sins". What it does connect to in the NT is Paul saying in 2 Cor. that "he was made sin" which is a long way from saying that he "paid" for sins.

And the story of the rich man isn't a parable. In parables there are never names used.
Obviously that "rule" does not hold up since there is this parable of someone named Lazarus.



posted on Jun, 22 2013 @ 07:51 AM
link   
reply to post by Seede
 

If we are righteous enough to become citizens in the city of God then we know that our sins have been pardoned. All of this could not have been if the Christ had not atoned for our sins. That is what is meant by atonement for sins of people.
You say, "if", and what if your condition on which you conditional statement is based is not met?
What if you don't have to "follow rules" or "be righteous" to enter the kingdom?
You go off track right from the start and what follows continues in the wrong direction.
Go ahead and establish for me your premise, then I can continue this discussion. If you choose not to substantiate them, then that would tell me that you have no scriptural authority but are giving what is only a personal theory as if it was gospel truth which to me seems deceptive and of course by extension, of Satan.
edit on 22-6-2013 by jmdewey60 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 22 2013 @ 11:39 AM
link   


Text You say, "if", and what if your condition on which you conditional statement is based is not met? What if you don't have to "follow rules" or "be righteous" to enter the kingdom? You go off track right from the start and what follows continues in the wrong direction. Go ahead and establish for me your premise, then I can continue this discussion. If you choose not to substantiate them, then that would tell me that you have no scriptural authority but are giving what is only a personal theory as if it was gospel truth which to me seems deceptive and of course by extension, of Satan.
reply to post by jmdewey60
 


@ jmdewey60

Your question - Quote "What if you don't have to "follow rules" or "be righteous" to enter the kingdom?" Unquote

If that is what you believe then I cannot change your mind. There are some people who become offended when another declares that they are righteous. I do not mean to show this in that manner. Being righteous in the biblical sense means that you are justified by the grace of God. Not that you or I are saints or perfect but only that our filthiness of this flesh has been forgiven by Jesus. Every man and woman who has ever lived were not good enough on their own merit to be righteous but we must at least try.

You have questioned the scriptures as to what they say to us concerning the Kingdom of God. All of this depends upon your bible and your teacher. My bible (1611 KJV ) relates the following out of many scriptures concerning the kingdom of Heaven.


Mat 5:20 For I say unto you, That except your righteousness shall exceed the righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees, ye shall in no case enter into the kingdom of heaven.

Mat 7:21 Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven.

Mat 18:3 And said, Verily I say unto you, Except ye be converted, and become as little children, ye shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven.

Joh 3:3 Jesus answered and said unto him, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God.

Joh 3:5 Jesus answered, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.

Joh 18:36 Jesus answered, My kingdom is not of this world: if my kingdom were of this world, then would my servants fight, that I should not be delivered to the Jews: but now is my kingdom not from hence.

1Co 6:9-10 Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind,
10 - Nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God.

You did not say it but you inferred that God does not require rules and regulations in our behavior. In fact you appear to be angry at the thought that God would ever dare to imply that you must obey any rules of conduct. That sounds like our modern culture of love. God is love and He would never dare to harm anyone. Sounds like feelgood philosophy but it is not of the bible that I read. Like it or not there are rules to observe in order to become a citizen of the Kingdom of God.

The reason for the "If" word is simply that all of us will face a judgment at death. Nothing is certain in a judgment because if it were certain then there would not be a judgment in the first place and "If" would not exist. - Heb 9:27 And as it is appointed unto men once to die, but after this the judgment: -

There are some denominations that teach "Once saved always saved "if" you follow our rules" -- Others teach that the church can forgive you "if" you abide by their rules and regulations. After you examine all of these avenues of escape you will then realize that all religions require rules and regulations. All governments and tribal people also require certain rules to live in their communities. You actually can not get away from it even if you live isolated. You yourself have rules and regulations that direct your life and then you become offended when your creator tells you that He has His rules and His regulations.

What happens if I reject the conditions of Jesus' covenant? That is shown in the above discussions. If I am not a candidate for God's kingdom then I am destined to be cast into hell and eventually the lake of fire. There is no other recourse in my belief. Some believe that God spanks you for a while and then lets you in the kingdom. That is a feelgood religion but is not what my bible teaches.

What say you jmdewey60 ?



posted on Jun, 22 2013 @ 01:11 PM
link   
reply to post by Seede
 

The very same false teachings are taught that Luke 16:19-31 is a parable. It is not a parable and is a happening with named people and named places. A parable is not so defined. Actually Luke’s account of Abraham’s Bosom is verified throughout scripture and also by Christ Jesus’ doctrine.
What "false teachings" are those?
Luke 16:19-31 is a parable.

The Parable of the rich man and Lazarus (also called the Dives and Lazarus or Lazarus and Dives) is a well-known parable of Jesus appearing in the Gospel of Luke.
en.wikipedia.org...
The "real places" you include in your so-called proof, is Hades, not a specific geographical "real" place that you can find on a map.
The "real" character's name is as generic as you can get, being the most popular name used by males among Palestinian Jews in the first century, so would be like saying "John Doe" in twentieth century America.
The other person is the imaginary Abraham character, from Hebrew lore, and not someone thought to be alive at that time.
"Abraham’s Bosom" as I mentioned earlier is what is being satirized in this parable. It was a cultural mythology that is not "verified" by the Bible.
I need to make sure that I don't neglect to tell you that you probably belong to a cult and that would account for these really outdated and erroneous opinions.

. . . Revelations explains itself when it uses symbolic teaching and is very simple to correlate with other scriptures.
That is also, like I said before about your other opinion, outdated and erroneous. If you study Bible commentaries you find out that you have to go outside the Bible to understand all the references that Revelation uses.

The thousand years and second advent of the Christ is not just symbolic in the book of Revelations of Jesus to John. It is verified throughout the scriptures.
The "thousand years" is only in Revelation. And what tells you that it is meant to be understood literally as exactly a thousand years, rather than a thousand and one, or a thousand and two? There isn't anything like that because it is not meant to be taken literally.
edit on 22-6-2013 by jmdewey60 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 22 2013 @ 02:20 PM
link   
reply to post by Seede
 

Yes Jesus does reign over His kingdom of heaven now but that Kingdom is a celestial kingdom named the Kingdom of God, The Kingdom of Heaven, The House of many mansions, and the city of God.
Jesus reigns over his kingdom from heaven but the actual kingdom itself is in the world that we live in.
The City of God is in Psalms apparently an idealized Jerusalem.
The "many mansions" is explained in John 14:23 with God spiritually dwelling in men.
There are some references made by Jesus according to the gospels to a kingdom that lies beyond the grave but it is never described itself in a literal way.
The focus of the Bible is always on what happens in this life, with what may lie beyond as always only a hypothetical.

In that city is the paradise of the Lord and in that paradise of the Lord is the tree and water of life. It is not symbolic but is a real celestial city and is offered to you and everyone who will want to live forever. Also Isaiah prophesied of this very same New Jerusalem.
That is in revelation. I don't see anything "celestial" about it. Isaiah talks about an ideal world which of course can not be taken literally where you have figurative things like the lion lying down with the lamb.
edit on 22-6-2013 by jmdewey60 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 22 2013 @ 02:57 PM
link   
reply to post by Seede
 

If we are righteous enough to become citizens in the city of God then we know that our sins have been pardoned.
All you are doing is repeating what you said earlier.
You are not making sense because you are saying on one hand that there is this future kingdom and on the other hand you are saying that you have to meet the qualification for admittance now, meaning before we can enter, and can have that knowledge of that future admittance now.
What you are doing is ignoring what the Bible is actually about, and making it all relate only to this other world that you just made up.

All of this could not have been if the Christ had not atoned for our sins. That is what is meant by atonement for sins of people.
And I have to repeat myself by saying that there is nowhere in the Bible that describes Jesus "atoning for sins". God forgives sins by just forgetting them, that is what the Bible says.
How did Jesus forgive sins before he was crucified? He could because forgiveness is not dependant on being "paid for".

This entire happening is the result of a new covenant that Jesus sealed with His blood and that could only be realized by His sacrifice on the cross.
I hope that you realize that there is not a literal covenant, like a piece of parchment gets unrolled by an angelic scribe in a heavenly legal office and the terms of a contract gets drawn up.
The writer of the Book of Hebrews was using a concept familiar to the early Jewish Christians in order to make an analogy and to point out the superiority of the new system over the literal contractual arrangement that had passed away into obsolescence.

If He had not chosen to offer Himself as the sacrifice in His death, then the Kingdom of Heaven would never have been established . . .
You wording here seems weird to me and designed to give a mental picture of "the sacrifice" as if it was some sort of prescribed procedure where there was some sort of exchange made with some dark entity, that released some sort of power, all in a sort of ceremonial fashion.
Jesus did die and his dying was not something he had to do, so it was a personal sacrifice for him to give his life. It was also a personal sacrifice for God to give over His son to the evil forces to be killed.
Now in the long term, it does avoid an otherwise inevitable "wrath to come" which would be the natural result of the world's evil if nothing was done in the way of divine intervention to alleviate the suffering in the world.

. . . and mankind would never have been able to live forever in the celestial New Jerusalem. In other words all people would be forever in Sheol.
How do you know that?
I don't know what you mean by "celestial" or where you think that it says that we will live in the sky or the stars or something.
Even Revelation does not say that. A "new earth" which by definition is terrestrial, the opposite of celestial.


The bodies that were raised from their graves at Jesus' crucifixion were not resurrected souls. They were terrestrial bodies that God gave life to motion. The spirits of those bodies were not in those bodies. Those spirits of those bodies were (at that time) in Sheol. A similar happening occurred as Lazarus was restored. Lazarus was not resurrected at the the time he died in the bible. Lazarus was restored from the bosom of Christ. Jesus is the resurrection and was the first to resurrect.
Which is all pure conjecture on your part, since the Bible describes none of that.
edit on 22-6-2013 by jmdewey60 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 22 2013 @ 04:04 PM
link   
reply to post by Seede
 

If that is what you believe then I cannot change your mind.
What I believe is that entering the kingdom is not a future event but what we do now, which is that we hear the gospel, we believe, and we repent, and are baptized.
The kingdom is the church.

There are some people who become offended when another declares that they are righteous. I do not mean to show this in that manner. Being righteous in the biblical sense means that you are justified by the grace of God. Not that you or I are saints or perfect but only that our filthiness of this flesh has been forgiven by Jesus.
Back to my original objection, where does it say that in the Bible?
You seem to be talking about imputed righteousness, which is not in the Bible but is a theory.
Righteousness in the Bible is actual righteousness that comes through justification which is understood in the sense of being made right by being made to conform to a standard.
What you are doing is introducing another definition for justification, one which could be appropriate in some uses of the word, if you were discussing something like courtroom proceedings and a verdict of not guilty being made, but there is nothing in the scripture itself that would indicate that the word is being used in that way.

Every man and woman who has ever lived were not good enough on their own merit to be righteous but we must at least try.
That was part of what Jesus did on the cross, where the very sight of him was utterly abhorrent, but God accepted him anyway, which should give us hope for ourselves being accepted. That's why Paul said that "he was made sin for us".
That takes care of "our filthiness of this flesh", and Jesus did not have to literally pay for that forgiveness, though he did have to die before he could be resurrected in order to show us that.

You did not say it but you inferred that God does not require rules and regulations in our behavior.
No, I mean that those things happen when you enter the kingdom, not before. That is with the understanding that we do that, entering the kingdom, here and now, and not at some future time.

In fact you appear to be angry at the thought that God would ever dare to imply that you must obey any rules of conduct.
No, again, quite the opposite, I get alerted to action when I see people attempting to pass off that we can get by with a pretend righteousness that is by some sort of pronouncement where we are "accounted"righteous by having Jesus' righteousness presented as evidence instead our own life.

That sounds like our modern culture of love. God is love and He would never dare to harm anyone.
Nope, I don't believe in all of that. I think we have to be scrupulous about our behavior and that we need to pray to God for His spirit to be able to be righteous people, otherwise we will find ourselves cut off from the land of the living.

Sounds like feelgood philosophy but it is not of the bible that I read.
That's how I feel about what you are saying.

Like it or not there are rules to observe in order to become a citizen of the Kingdom of God.
My problem is with your definition of the kingdom and how you circumvent the requirements by offering substitute righteousness and substitute payment, things the New Testament does not teach.

What say you jmdewey60 ?
That you have no biblical authority for your concept of the kingdom or what it takes to enter into it.
edit on 22-6-2013 by jmdewey60 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 22 2013 @ 04:28 PM
link   


Text All you are doing is repeating what you said earlier. You are not making sense because you are saying on one hand that there is this future kingdom and on the other hand you are saying that you have to meet the qualification for admittance now, meaning before we can enter, and can have that knowledge of that future admittance now. What you are doing is ignoring what the Bible is actually about, and making it all relate only to this other world that you just made up.
reply to post by jmdewey60
 


@jmdewey60

Ok. Let me walk you through this. I have posted all of this in this forum but will try to make it clear. There is no future kingdom. The Kingdom of Heaven has now been built and everyone who now dies either goes to this Kingdom or to hell.

The only time you can call this a future kingdom is when you are alive and waiting to die. Then it would be a future kingdom to you. Once you have died it is no longer a future kingdom because you will either be in it or in hell. In other words all living people right now are not in that Kingdom simply because you have to die in order to get into the Kingdom. The same thing with hell. You have to die in order to get into hell.

Jesus died to establish this kingdom. The kingdom was not available while Jesus was alive. You are alive now and waiting to die. While you are alive is when you must become a saved spirit because once you are dead it is too late. To become a child of God you must prepare now for your death.

None of us really knows if we are fit to be saved while we are alive. At the instant of death we will know then if we are fit to enter the Kingdom of God because at that instant in death is when we are judged.

The Kingdom of Heaven is not another world that I made up. It is a celestial city in which all Christians enjoy forever. Read Revelations the last three chapters and that will give an idea of the celestial city.

Let's take this one piece before we go any further and then we can start on the second piece of your post. That way we don't cram too much into one subject matter. So lets discuss this first.



posted on Jun, 22 2013 @ 05:25 PM
link   
reply to post by Seede
 

The only time you can call this a future kingdom is when you are alive and waiting to die.
Seeing how I am not dead, it is future to me, and will be for as long as am alive, which is the time that I am concerned with right now.
You have yet to demonstrate that Jesus talked about such a thing. I realize that you posted some verses but none of them to me are convincing that this other world was what he was talking about. Every one of them can be understood to apply to this life.
Revelation does not describe a celestial city. There is a city that comes from heaven but it comes to this earth and it is symbolic of the church being from God.
In literal terms, there is nothing about what the afterlife is in the Bile. That is just the way it is. Everything is about how we act now and how we can be good members of Christ, which is also symbolic of the church, which is the reality on the ground of what the kingdom is and what Jesus rules over.
Striving to look past the veil is an exercise in futility. We just don't know, and the Bible does not pretend to tell us what it is.
Revelation sets about to show how the expectations of old have been realized by what we have now, which is this religion that we call Christianity, which is a way of life and a connection with God. In it and at its foundation is the hope and assurance of a resurrection, and that will be bodily, meaning we will be real people and not just ghosts or spirits.
edit on 22-6-2013 by jmdewey60 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 23 2013 @ 10:42 AM
link   
reply to post by jmdewey60
 


Continued to jmdewey60


Fair enough. At least we are now talking on the same page.
Yes you are right in one sense but then “If” there is this New Jerusalem wouldn’t you want to prepare now to live forever in this utopia? In other words it would be a big gamble on your part to believe in this and have it turn out to be a scam. Same with me but then what do I have to lose? Of course I would have to give up a lot of things that I like right now but then that is where the gamble comes in.

So here is the story as I see it. There are a lot of different bible writers out there with all kinds of dates so I chose the Jewish Time Line Encyclopedia as fixing my dates. That doesn’t mean that I am right but only that I have a consistent reference for my own reading. I always stay with the same source instead of jumping all over and getting more confused than what I am now.

Any way, let me start with Isaiah because the author of Isaiah supposedly wrote this in about 619 BC.
Isa 65:17-19 - For, behold, I create new heavens and a new earth: and the former shall not be remembered, nor come into mind.
18 - But be ye glad and rejoice for ever in that which I create: for, behold, I create Jerusalem a rejoicing, and her people a joy.
19 - And I will rejoice in Jerusalem, and joy in my people: and the voice of weeping shall be no more heard in her, nor the voice of crying.
Notice that this is prophesied over 600 years before Jesus and John..

God creates new heavens and a new earth. God does not renew the old but creates new. To be fair about this lets look at both sides of this. Some believe that this means that God simply rebuilds the present day city of Jerusalem and that through His power He makes climate change into a utopia. But note that this says heavens. Plural. We know that the first heaven that we have now is our atmosphere. The second heaven is the area of our universe that contains the moon and stars and planets and whatever else it contains. So in all reality we understand that this means a new universe will either be created or renewed. Now these same people who believe in the renewal philosophy also believe that this also pertains to the New Jerusalem that exists right now in Israel.

Then there are others that believe that this entire universe is destroyed and God creates a new universe and world. They base this upon Apostle Peter’s writing.

2nd Peter 3:10-13 - But the day of the Lord will come as a thief in the night; in the which the heavens shall pass away with a great noise, and the elements shall melt with fervent heat, the earth also and the works that are therein shall be burned up.
11 - Seeing then that all these things shall be dissolved, what manner of persons ought ye to be in all holy conversation and godliness,
12 - Looking for and hasting unto the coming of the day of God, wherein the heavens being on fire shall be dissolved, and the elements shall melt with fervent heat?
13 - Nevertheless we, according to his promise, look for new heavens and a new earth, wherein dwelleth righteousness.

As you can see, that is why some Christians believe that it will not be renewing the old but will be creating the new. Now to be honest about this, both of these authors are prophesying because all of this is in the future. But let’s also take a look at Revelations and see what the Apostle John says about the New Jerusalem.

Rev 21:1 And I saw a new heaven and a new earth: for the first heaven and the first earth were passed away; and there was no more sea.
Rev 21:2 And I John saw the holy city, new Jerusalem, coming down from God out of heaven, prepared as a bride adorned for her husband.

Rev 21:10 And he carried me away in the spirit to a great and high mountain, and shewed me that great city, the holy Jerusalem, descending out of heaven from God,

There are other scriptures which verify this picture but too much of one thing is nothing but confusion. What I understand from this end time happening is that this entire universe will be destroyed just as Peter has told us. A new heavens will be created and a new world. Then a New Jerusalem city will be created and will come down from heaven to connect to the new world.

This new city is described as being --- Rev 21:15 And he that talked with me had a golden reed to measure the city, and the gates thereof, and the wall thereof.
Rev 21:16 - And the city lieth foursquare, and the length is as large as the breadth: and he measured the city with the reed, twelve thousand furlongs. The length and the breadth and the height of it are equal. As I understand this, the city alone will be 1,500 miles cubed. 1,500 miles all around the perimeter as well as 1,500 miles high.

To be continued



posted on Jun, 23 2013 @ 11:34 AM
link   
reply to post by jmdewey60
 


Continued to jmdewey60

You wrote Quote “There is a city that comes from heaven but it comes to this earth and it is symbolic of the church being from God.” Unquote
But that is not what John tells us. John says it will be a new earth because the old earth will pass away. “Rev 21:1 And I saw a new heaven and a new earth: for the first heaven and the first earth were passed away; and there was no more sea.” Isaiah, John and Peter all say the same thing. There is no church at this time. This entire universe is vaporized when this happens. If you say that John’s Revelation is symbolic then you have to say that Peter and Isaiah are also symbolic. Then why not everything symbolic? That is a feelgood theology and it is not what the bible teaches.

This is believed to be that house of many mansions that Jesus preached and the same as the Kingdom of God that was His constant theme. I do agree that this is a theological teaching and that there is absolutely no proof whatsoever as to this ever happening. There is much more literature to verify this theology but it would not be possible here to do that.

But now you have added a thought to your first piece. You say Quote "In it and at its foundation is the hope and assurance of a resurrection, and that will be bodily, meaning we will be real people and not just ghosts or spirits." Unquote --

You will always be a real person. You pass from this life to the next life with full consciousness and hopefully into the Kingdom of God. If you mean a substance change then yes there is a substance change. This earthly body will cease to function, decay and return to this earth. What is left is your spirit. That spirit will receive a new covering for your spirit. This is called a spiritual body.

Corinthians 15:35 -44 But some man will say, How are the dead raised up? and with what body do they come?
36 - Thou fool, that which thou sowest is not quickened, except it die:
37 - And that which thou sowest, thou sowest not that body that shall be, but bare grain, it may chance of wheat, or of some other grain:
38 - But God giveth it a body as it hath pleased him, and to every seed his own body.
39 - All flesh is not the same flesh: but there is one kind of flesh of men, another flesh of beasts, another of fishes, and another of birds.
40 - There are also celestial bodies, and bodies terrestrial: but the glory of the celestial is one, and the glory of the terrestrial is another.
41 - There is one glory of the sun, and another glory of the moon, and another glory of the stars: for one star differeth from another star in glory.
42 - So also is the resurrection of the dead. It is sown in corruption; it is raised in incorruption:
43 - It is sown in dishonour; it is raised in glory: it is sown in weakness; it is raised in power:
44 - It is sown a natural body; it is raised a spiritual body. There is a natural body, and there is a spiritual body.

As you digest that, realize that Paul is teaching us that there are spiritual bodies and celestial bodies. Every person has a spirit and when they die the have either a naked or a clothed spirit. Those who are in hell have naked spirits which means they are not clothed with the Shekinah glory of the celestial realm. Why? Because they are confined in this earth in a place called Sheol. They have not been accepted into the Kingdom of God.

On the other hand, those who are accepted into the Kingdom of God have a covering of Shekinah glory which is believed to be a spiritual body of the celestial (Heavenly) order. Revelation calls this a white raiment.

Rev 3:5 He that overcometh, the same shall be clothed in white raiment; and I will not blot out his name out of the book of life, but I will confess his name before my Father, and before his angels.

Once again I state that this is all conjecture on my part. It may actually be a garment but in other studies of other ancient books it is also believed to be the glory of God. You can also look at this in this manner. If all of this is true then you are a soul now which houses the same spirit that you will have in death. You will never know the change except for the substance change. You will drink the water of life and eat the food of the trees of life but inside you will not be the same. Your celestial image will be the same as your image now but your flesh will not be the same flesh as you have now. You will be eternally fed from the paradise of God.

Now all of that is hinged upon whether you want to gamble on this whole ball of wax. I could be dead in the water wrong. Or I could be dead in the water right. The way I look at this is that this offers me too much not to go for it.

To be continued



posted on Jun, 24 2013 @ 04:20 AM
link   
reply to post by Seede
 

“If” there is this New Jerusalem wouldn't you want to prepare now to live forever in this utopia?
I think that if you are living as a Christian now, then that would also be what is your preparation for whatever comes after this life, starting with the judgment.

In other words it would be a big gamble on your part to believe in this and have it turn out to be a scam.
If you are not living according to the Christian ideals, including having the right motives for your actions, like loving others as yourself, then all the "believing", no matter what it is in, will be useless.

But note that this says heavens. Plural.
"Heavens" as it comes out in the English translation may look as if it is plural but it is not plural in the original languages.

Then there are others that believe that this entire universe is destroyed and God creates a new universe and world. They base this upon Apostle Peter’s writing.
The writer of 2 Peter was in a figurative way talking about the destruction of the current man-made system, which was then the Roman Empire. He was probably just copying the verbiage from Revelation.

What I understand from this end time happening is that this entire universe will be destroyed just as Peter has told us.
The book, 2 Peter doesn't say that. Also, Peter didn't write that book but it is a later forgery in his name.

As I understand this, the city alone will be 1,500 miles cubed.
Which should be an indication to the reader that this is obviously symbolic and not to be taken at all literally. People can't live at 30,00 feet, which would be still in the foundation, meaning no one would be living in the city itself.
edit on 24-6-2013 by jmdewey60 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 24 2013 @ 04:47 AM
link   
reply to post by Seede
 

You wrote Quote “There is a city that comes from heaven but it comes to this earth and it is symbolic of the church being from God.” Unquote
But that is not what John tells us. John says it will be a new earth because the old earth will pass away.
If the city is symbolic, then so is the "newness" of heaven and earth (which is just another way of saying the environment that we live in).
John is probably giving an homage to Isaiah 65 here. That sort of thing is what I thing is a big part of the purpose for writing the book, to show how the Old Testament is fulfilled in Christ.

There is no church at this time.
John is dealing with apocalyptic time here, not normal time. He is not talking about the future but is describing his seeing these symbols in a way that seems to be describing a future event, in order to place it into "That Day". In normal time, that day already happened and we are in the apocalyptic times, meaning what was foretold long ago but was a "mystery" to those foretelling it, but revealed to us now living it.

That is a feelgood theology and it is not what the bible teaches.
What? As if your life coming to an end is not enough to wake you up to the harsh realities of life and death, and you have to make it even more severe with the very earth that you once lived in being destroyed too? Get real dude, someone who understands apocalypticism, like myself, is not motivated by wanting to "feel good" when they are interpreting apocalyptic writings like Revelation. It is only the desire to understand it for what it is.
I think the real "feel good" is people who were taught a now outdated explanation of the message of Revelation, not wanting to have to accept the reality that their cult leader who originally devised their scheme was wrong and they had been believing in a product of ignorance and a failure to grasp something that was written in a time and culture long ago that modern man has problems wrapping their mind around except for in recent times when biblical scholarship has advanced to the state that it is in now.



posted on Jun, 24 2013 @ 07:30 AM
link   
reply to post by Seede
 

This is believed to be that house of many mansions that Jesus preached and the same as the Kingdom of God that was His constant theme. I do agree that this is a theological teaching and that there is absolutely no proof whatsoever as to this ever happening. There is much more literature to verify this theology but it would not be possible here to do that.
You probably left a word out somewhere so that it makes your point hard to figure out here.
What happening?
Earlier, I said, The "many mansions" is explained in John 14:23 with God spiritually dwelling in men.
I didn't go into detail but maybe I should.

My Father's house has many rooms; . . .

the above quote comes from John 14:2. The Greek word translated "mansions" (or, rooms, in this case) is moné which is the noun version of the verb, menó.
moné is only used twice in the New Testament, the one time already quoted, and the second time in the verse that I earlier mentioned, John 14:23.
The meaning is a dwelling, coming from the original Greek meaning, to tarry, or to wait.
So the idea here in John is that Jesus has God abiding in him, and his disciples are also in him, and once he is back with God, it completes the circuit so that God is then abiding in all who believe in Jesus.

This earthly body will cease to function, decay and return to this earth. What is left is your spirit. That spirit will receive a new covering for your spirit. This is called a spiritual body.
If you are dead, then your body ceases to function. Paul does not describe a person becoming a spirit. You just made that up and added it in.
Paul believed that people die because their spirit is "natural". With their life essence being one that leaves the body, according to what seems to be the laws of nature governing the world that we live in.
He then sees another type of spirit that is from God that is not bound by those natural laws, and when our bodies have that spirit in us then we can not die, then our flesh is incorruptible. This can take place now, this change, even if by normal appearances we live and die in this world like everyone else. When the call comes, that spirit that was already in us will make our bodies to rise up.

Where you are getting your wrong ideas from is a misunderstanding of what Paul was talking about in 2 Corinthians 5, where people in the past interpreted it to mean that God will provide us with new bodies in heaven. Current biblical scholarship recognizes that he meant nothing of the kind, and was talking about the demise of the Jewish system, and it being replaced by the new Christian system of our connection to and leadership from, God.

Because they are confined in this earth in a place called Sheol. They have not been accepted into the Kingdom of God.
Which is all just a fantasy that you made up, using words that you mined from the Bible.

On the other hand, those who are accepted into the Kingdom of God have a covering of Shekinah glory which is believed to be a spiritual body of the celestial (Heavenly) order. Revelation calls this a white raiment.
Ask TrueJew about the Shekinah, that it is not in the Bible but comes from Medieval Kabbalah.
Revelation is using symbols of purity. What cult doctrines are you reciting?

Once again I state that this is all conjecture on my part.
And every bit of it is wrong because you only have a superficial understanding the Bible. First you have to learn what it actually says, then you can make informed conjecture.
edit on 24-6-2013 by jmdewey60 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 24 2013 @ 04:00 PM
link   


Text But note that this says heavens. Plural. "Heavens" as it comes out in the English translation may look as if it is plural but it is not plural in the original languages.
reply to post by jmdewey60
 


According to the Palestinian Masoretic text the correct translation is "heavens". The first Christian Church was the Jerusalem Church which was founded by Christ Jesus on the day of Pentecost following His death. The first Christian church used the Palestinian Masoretic text and not the Greek Septuagint simply because all of its liturgy was Hebrew. The Greeks were admitted into the congregation some time later. So as it stands, Jesus read scrolls from the Hebrew Palestinian Masoretic text and not the Greek Septuagint (Corrupted) text. Check your source and see what you are believing.

Isaiah agrees with 2nd Peter, which you proclaim is a forgery and which is entirely unfounded. Peter could not possibly have copied any of the Revelations of John simply because he had been dead some twenty five years before Jesus gave John Revelations. Peter was killed by Nero in about 65 AD to 68 AD while John wrote Revelations at about 95 AD to 96 AD.

Peter wrote that the heavens and the earth will dissolve with a fervent heat. That means that heavens (Plural) are our two heavens which we have today. Our entire universe comprises both of these heavens. While you digest all of this I want you to be aware that our modern day science confirms (to themselves) that our universe is still expanding and the third heaven in which it is expanding into is totally unknown to them. This third heaven is that third heaven which Paul describe in his book of 2nd Corinthians 12:2 --



posted on Jun, 24 2013 @ 06:25 PM
link   


Text If you are dead, then your body ceases to function. Paul does not describe a person becoming a spirit. You just made that up and added it in.
reply to post by jmdewey60
 


If everything in your life is either parables or symbols then tell me what 2nd Corinthians 15:44 means.

2 nd Corinthians 15: 44 "It is sown a natural body; it is raised a spiritual body. There is a natural body, and there is a spiritual body."

What does that mean? Another parable or symbol? When your body dies then tell me if anything is left of what I am right now. Is there any consciousness or spiritual body after I die or is that another symbol?

By the way, where can I get all of your knowledge of whoever taught you and which bible do I use to check out all of this symbolic understanding that you have? You have yet to tell me your source of your knowing all of these symbols.



posted on Jun, 24 2013 @ 06:47 PM
link   
reply to post by Seede
 

Check your source and see what you are believing.
My source is the Bible.
Jerusalem at the time of Jesus had a large Greek speaking synagogue, and most likely those were the people who were being evangelized. You seem to be making the assumption that people who spoke Greek were Greeks, which is wrong because most Jews then spoke Greek and none spoke Biblical Hebrew and maybe some spoke rabbinical Hebrew amongst each other.

Isaiah agrees with 2nd Peter, which you proclaim is a forgery and which is entirely unfounded.
How could Isaiah agree with 2 Peter?
There is no record of 2 Peter ever being mentioned or quoted before the third century.

Peter could not possibly have copied any of the Revelations of John simply because he had been dead some twenty five years before Jesus gave John Revelations.
You are going by an old (now known to be baseless) theory to date the writing of Revelation. Today most New Testament scholars place it as the earliest book that is in the NT.

That means that heavens (Plural) . . .
I already told you that it isn't plural so I don't know why you continue claiming that it is. That is an English convention to call what is above with an s at the end even though there is only one heavens. 2 Peter was written in Greek and the word is in the singular.

. . . the third heaven in which it is expanding into is totally unknown to them.
You are just making this up. The OT knew three heavens and the NT knows seven. Read, Lord of the Cosmos: Mithras, Paul, and the Gospel of Mark, by Michael Patella OSB.
edit on 24-6-2013 by jmdewey60 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 24 2013 @ 06:54 PM
link   


Text Ask TrueJew about the Shekinah, that it is not in the Bible but comes from Medieval Kabbalah. Revelation is using symbols of purity. What cult doctrines are you reciting?
reply to post by jmdewey60
 


I do not know a TrueJew but I did sit under a Christian orthodox Rabbi as he taught me the bible. He did not teach the Kabbalah but did use the Babylonian Talmud and Midrash as well as Masoretic Torah. The Kabbalah is taught to be more in the symbolic realm of which you are taught. Shekinah was taught to be the name for God among other names. Shekinah glory is taught, by rabbi, as being God's glory. There are several divisions of Judaism and do not know what they teach.



posted on Jun, 24 2013 @ 07:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by Akragon

Originally posted by Rapha

reply to post by Akragon
 

Im not a "christian" but have you noticed only people with preexisting notions of "hell" ever experience these OOB trips to said firey pit?

These people, (in)famous world leaders like Stalin found out that Heaven and Hell exists when it was too late. Stalin had a temper tantrum and waved his fist at the ceiling. Silly little man.

www.pdegraaf.com...


Hell doesn't exist... Its nothing more then a mythological fear tactic used to control the populous

With ignorant sentences like this, this is why ATS is not on the NWO's hit-list as mentioned on BeforeItsNews.


Lol... Hell can't co-exist with the idea of a loving merciful creator...

Its simple logic... A loving father would not torture his children...

Only humans would create such mythological nonsense

Kinda like how we used to burn witches at the steak...

edit on 18-6-2013 by Akragon because: (no reason given)



I agree with this.

--

Another thing I never could accept is that God would subject himself to a dramafest with "Satan". To me its like some reality TV show where 2 people fight over who is better and it just doesn't sit right with me. If I were God i'd be all like "Yeah whatever dude" and blink the devil away into nothing and move on with being God.

I believe God accepts everyone, even a staunch Atheist or a Murderer. I think we are here to experience life and to learn from it so we can grow as souls with the ultimate goal of ascending and becoming part of God.





new topics

top topics



 
3
<< 1  2  3    5 >>

log in

join