(To christians... ) So.... just hypothetically....what if Jesus returns... (Serious responses only p

reply to post by HeFrippedMeOff

Don't go gettin your feelings all hurt;

Then what was the purpose of your accusation that I am being deceptive or whatever? What standard are you using to determine what is "ethical" when it comes to paraphrasing a particular section of a writing, in the midst of trying to bring out the character of the picture the writing is trying to get its reader to visualize. Maybe because it does not agree with your vision, but that is not a good reason to ascribe to me a disingenuousness.

I would suggest that your own failure to understand the message I was referring to in 1 Thess. is that you have already accepted the interpretation of 2 Thess. and the sort of synthesis created to deal with the apparent contradiction between the two.

What I have done is take advantage of the literature available by scholars who do studies of the text full time and are recognized in their field of study by things like being made professors of major universities. Such a person as who I am speaking of, will recognize that there is a contradiction between them. I can then read the results of their study and gain an insight into the problem here. Instead of just plagiarizing their writings on the subject, I take my understanding of it and write in my own words what the general idea is, in a post. This is not something I just made up myself, meaning this concept of the contradiction, and to continue on a bit, it is a contradiction pointed out in the text of 2 Thess. and brought to the attention of the reader in order to persuade them to reject the older version, calling it in effect a forgery.

Originally posted by jmdewey60
reply to post by HeFrippedMeOff

 

Don't go gettin your feelings all hurt;

Then what was the purpose of your accusation that I am being deceptive or whatever?

The purpose: to deny ignorance.

What standard are you using to determine what is "ethical" when it comes to paraphrasing a particular section of a writing, in the midst of trying to bring out the character of the picture the writing is trying to get its reader to visualize. Maybe because it does not agree with your vision, but that is not a good reason to ascribe to me a disingenuousness.

A particular argument on the point of contradiction was based on the premise of "things being fine." There is nothing wrong with a paraphrase per se but when that paraphrase becomes a rephrase therein lies the ethical dilemma because you changed the very meaning. Also, your other premise was based on interpolated data that does not appear in the text itself as I pointed out the time and environment are not discussed so if you are genuinely misunderstood and care for accuracy then do not be offended for wise men profit from correction but if of a truth your heart is elsewhere then we both know why you are offended although it was never my intention to hurt you.

I would suggest that your own failure to understand the message I was referring to in 1 Thess. is that you have already accepted the interpretation of 2 Thess. and the sort of synthesis created to deal with the apparent contradiction between the two.

I find the real effort to lie in creating a division where one does not exist. Although I find no basis for your claims, one notion to which I do ascribe is that if there is even one possible way for two things to make sense then I cannot fully discount them as altogether bogus.

Your synthesis is based on paraphrasing and rephrasing. My synthesis is based on how both actually read. Your synthesis must truly be exhausting.

What I have done is take advantage of the literature available by scholars who do studies of the text full time and are recognized in their field of study by things like being made professors of major universities. Such a person as who I am speaking of, will recognize that there is a contradiction between them. I can then read the results of their study and gain an insight into the problem here. Instead of just plagiarizing their writings on the subject, I take my understanding of it and write in my own words what the general idea is, in a post. This is not something I just made up myself, meaning this concept of the contradiction, and to continue on a bit, it is a contradiction pointed out in the text of 2 Thess. and brought to the attention of the reader in order to persuade them to reject the older version, calling it in effect a forgery.

edit on 4-4-2012 by jmdewey60 because: (no reason given)

I know a girl who once was criticized by her peers because her preacher dad never went to the seminary to learn from the scholars. Her reply, "God makes preachers, not the seminary." My point being, just because academia says something doesn't make it accurate. I've spent many hours studying for myself, reading slowly, comparing terms in the concordance, studying with an interlinear text, and I've done so because I was raised to know scripture for myself so that wolves in sheep's clothing couldn't steel away from me my hope, faith, and very foundation. I do believe a fake letter reached the Church at Thessolonica telling them they had missed Jesus return and it is for this very reason why Paul writes a second letter bringing to light 1) (in verses 2 and 3) Don't be dismayed by letters apparently from us, Jesus has not yet come and wont until certain things happen, and 2) How with certain effectual words in salutation he, Paul, signs the end of the letters he authors.

reply to post by HeFrippedMeOff

I do believe a fake letter reached the Church at Thessolonica telling them they had missed Jesus return and it is for this very reason why Paul writes a second letter bringing to light 1) (in verses 2 and 3) Don't be dismayed by letters apparently from us, Jesus has not yet come and wont until certain things happen, and 2) How with certain effectual words in salutation he, Paul, signs the end of the letters he authors.

There are people all over the world who believe things. Don't you think they believe just as much as you do? But are they right? Obviously, believing something does not make it right.
Where is your fake letter? Unless people thought it was real, then why would Paul bother with it? How long do you think they held onto this hypothetical letter? Did they immediately burn the older letter as soon as the newer letter arrived? Who was the person who arrived at Thessalonica with the new letter? My guess would be that no one did, and they just conveniently "found" the letter.
How would people believe that Jesus came without anyone knowing it if they were expecting to be raptured? There would have to be a whole lot of suddenly missing people. Since that apparently did not happen, then it would seem safe to assume that the "coming" was the coming of the power of judgement that took retribution on the "powers" who were responsible for the rejection and execution of Jesus. A likely scenario would be that Paul had died or just gone away without news of his whereabouts, and then news came of the destruction of the temple in Jerusalem.
The people set up in positions of authority would want to preserve their positions, so they decided to create a new understanding of what the "coming" meant, and that way people could have something even more dreadful than the fall of Jerusalem to look forward to and fear, if they were not properly taking care of the church leaders.

Originally posted by jmdewey60
reply to post by HeFrippedMeOff

 

I do believe a fake letter reached the Church at Thessolonica telling them they had missed Jesus return and it is for this very reason why Paul writes a second letter bringing to light 1) (in verses 2 and 3) Don't be dismayed by letters apparently from us, Jesus has not yet come and wont until certain things happen, and 2) How with certain effectual words in salutation he, Paul, signs the end of the letters he authors.

There are people all over the world who believe things. Don't you think they believe just as much as you do? But are they right? Obviously, believing something does not make it right.
Where is your fake letter? Unless people thought it was real, then why would Paul bother with it? How long do you think they held onto this hypothetical letter? Did they immediately burn the older letter as soon as the newer letter arrived? Who was the person who arrived at Thessalonica with the new letter? My guess would be that no one did, and they just conveniently "found" the letter.How would people believe that Jesus came without anyone knowing it if they were expecting to be raptured? There would have to be a whole lot of suddenly missing people. Since that apparently did not happen, then it would seem safe to assume that the "coming" was the coming of the power of judgement that took retribution on the "powers" who were responsible for the rejection and execution of Jesus. A likely scenario would be that Paul had died or just gone away without news of his whereabouts, and then news came of the destruction of the temple in Jerusalem.
The people set up in positions of authority would want to preserve their positions, so they decided to create a new understanding of what the "coming" meant, and that way people could have something even more dreadful than the fall of Jerusalem to look forward to and fear, if they were not properly taking care of the church leaders.

edit on 5-4-2012 by jmdewey60 because: (no reason given)

The emotionality is too thick. I've laid out my arguments in refutation. Accept them or don't. It's whatever.

reply to post by HeFrippedMeOff

The purpose: to deny ignorance.

How is your claiming that a statement, by me, of my opinion, is deceptive somehow denying ignorance?

A particular argument on the point of contradiction was based on the premise of "things being fine." There is nothing wrong with a paraphrase per se but when that paraphrase becomes a rephrase therein lies the ethical dilemma because you changed the very meaning.

OK, then if that is your standard of being ethical or unethical, then so are you. Right here you are claiming that I said "things being fine." Apparently that is a paraphrase of what I said in an earlier post.
www.abovetopsecret.com...
What I did say was "when everything seems fine.", which completely changes the meaning.

Also, your other premise was based on interpolated data that does not appear in the text itself as I pointed out the time and environment are not discussed . . .

I am guessing you mean the events surrounding the people of Thessalonica believing that the day of the Lord had already come. I was reading some books last night that were of the popular American fundamentalist church variety and they just blithely state that there was only a two month interval between the two letters to the Thessalonians. I have to think that the only reason that they would say that is because that is a method of reconciling the contradiction of accepting both as authentic writings of Paul. Real scholars of the mainstream academic variety say that 1 Thessalonians was probably the first letter of Paul written that we still have today. The Second letter is normally not even accepted as a real work of Paul because Paul is generally believed to have died before the fall of Jerusalem by the Romans under Titus in 70 AD. That would account for why the Thessalonians could have believed that was the day of the lord, because that was probably the sort of thing expected back in that time.

I find the real effort to lie in creating a division where one does not exist.

You find? What? You somehow have made a determination that I am lying? Really, and what, is this the reason you are ascribing to your imagined lying supposedly by me? Why would I create a division, and in what? I am not going to your church and preaching against your congregational doctrines. I am on an internet skeptical, conspiratorial forum web site. So there is no "unity" to be divided. What I am attempting to point out is that there are two letters to the Thessalonians, where the second one is saying there is an earlier one which should be ignored. There is no other letter than the one we have, which is First Thessalonians. The first letter described the people in that city as especially being expectant of the coming of the day of the Lord, but is spoken in an approving sort of way. The second letter is working against that sort of attitude, and telling the people that that day can not come unless several time consuming sorts of conditions come about. This is a glaring contradiction and should be addressed rather than swept under the rug.
The reason I would go to so much trouble about this is because without this book, Second Thessalonians, then this entire end-of-the-world scenario falls on its face. Now you may want fire coming down from heaven to burn up all the people who do not agree with you (as described in Second Thessalonians) but I don't, and find the concept to be very anti-christian.

Jesus has been here all along, recall that he told the Disciples that I shall always be with you. He tells this this not because he has become god, but because of another belief of the Essene.

The issue is the Christians have been too dumb to notice Jesus is right here, always has been, but the corruption of the Churches and Christianty doesn't want the real Jesus.

Such is the corruption of the Churches spoken to in Revelations via the 7 churches concepts and the long term drifting away from Jesus to the point the church is now Satan.

If Jesus actually existed and he would return....

He wouldn't return until after the Antichrist had established his dominion over earth.

Otherwise, if he were to return, the Christians would turn on him because they follow the Bible and use it to oppress and put down people, which was something Jesus was highly critical of when the Pharisees.did it. You see, the Christians think that Jesus has to serve them and their interests, not the other way around.

The vast majority of Christians are bullies and control freaks.

Originally posted by jmdewey60
reply to post by HeFrippedMeOff

 

The purpose: to deny ignorance.

How is your claiming that a statement, by me, of my opinion, is deceptive somehow denying ignorance?

You claim scriptural truth based on opinion. I gave what the word actually said in an effort to deny the ignorance. That's all.

A particular argument on the point of contradiction was based on the premise of "things being fine." There is nothing wrong with a paraphrase per se but when that paraphrase becomes a rephrase therein lies the ethical dilemma because you changed the very meaning.

OK, then if that is your standard of being ethical or unethical, then so are you. Right here you are claiming that I said "things being fine." Apparently that is a paraphrase of what I said in an earlier post.
www.abovetopsecret.com...
What I did say was "when everything seems fine.", which completely changes the meaning.

Do you then concede that your argument based on the two opposing premises is now a mute point or did you in fact mean that one of the letter is fake because one says things will seem to be fine and the other says there will be all sorts of bad things happening? You can't have it both ways.

Also, your other premise was based on interpolated data that does not appear in the text itself as I pointed out the time and environment are not discussed . . .

I am guessing you mean the events surrounding the people of Thessalonica believing that the day of the Lord had already come.

Nope, I was talking about you claiming that one of the says that there will be bad things going on (forgive me if i don't quote your premise against things seeming to be fine)

I was reading some books last night that were of the popular American fundamentalist church variety and they just blithely state that there was only a two month interval between the two letters to the Thessalonians. I have to think that the only reason that they would say that is because that is a method of reconciling the contradiction of accepting both as authentic writings of Paul. Real scholars of the mainstream academic variety say that 1 Thessalonians was probably the first letter of Paul written that we still have today. The Second letter is normally not even accepted as a real work of Paul because Paul is generally believed to have died before the fall of Jerusalem by the Romans under Titus in 70 AD. That would account for why the Thessalonians could have believed that was the day of the lord, because that was probably the sort of thing expected back in that time.

If you won't take the Word at its word then why would you waste your time with general beliefs of anybody?

I find the real effort to lie in creating a division where one does not exist.

You find? What? You somehow have made a determination that I am lying?

I'll rephrase so you can comprehend. I find the real effort to exist/reside in/lie among creating a division where one does not exist.

Why would I create a division, and in what?... telling the people that that day can not come unless several time consuming sorts of conditions come about. This is a glaring contradiction and should be addressed rather than swept under the rug.

I have put to rest all these allegations. Your premises for all those particular arguments are rubbish. You speak of things you have no knowledge.

The reason I would go to so much trouble about this is because without this book, Second Thessalonians, then this entire end-of-the-world scenario falls on its face.

You keep saying this despite scripture I've given you apart from Thess and here is another 1 John chapter 4. Study the Bible if you are going to argue against it. Your are following the words of others without true knowledge of what you've even saying.

Now you may want fire coming down from heaven to burn up all the people who do not agree with you (as described in Second Thessalonians) but I don't, and find the concept to be very anti-christian.

edit on 6-4-2012 by jmdewey60 because: (no reason given)

I find your comprehension on my usage of the word "lie" to be disconcerting. I no longer expect you to comprehend what you read in scripture. If you want truth, study scripture for what it says. If you don't then whatever but the belligerence is more than I care to contend with any longer. I have set forth my refutations and you have addressed nothing but your own emotions. see ye to it.

reply to post by HeFrippedMeOff

I'll rephrase so you can comprehend.

Don't bother since all you seem to be doing is evading all my questions and being untruthful about the things anyone can see right in your own posts.

Originally posted by jmdewey60
reply to post by HeFrippedMeOff

 

I'll rephrase so you can comprehend.

Don't bother since all you seem to be doing is evading all my questions and being untruthful about the things anyone can see right in your own posts.

edit on 10-4-2012 by jmdewey60 because: (no reason given)

so be it Dewey, so be it.

reply to post by sk0rpi0n


Are you deranged?

That is a serious question.

Since you seem to love taking things out of context.

And omitting pieces of text that belong to the bits you take out of context.

Then basing your entire ideology on your deranged, out-of-context nonsensical ideas.

Did you only read that part by the way or did you continue reading so that you understand it says he is talking about bringing ideological conflict? Have you observed "Christian" families and how divided they are in these days?

King James Version
49 I am come to send fire on Earth; and what will I, if it be already kindled? 50 But I have a baptism to be baptized with; and how am I straitened till it be accomplished! 51 Suppose ye that I am come to give peace on earth? I tell you, Nay; but rather division: 52 For from henceforth there shall be five in one house divided, three against two, and two against three. 53 The father shall be divided against the son, and the son against the father; the mother against the daughter, and the daughter against the mother; the mother in law against her daughter in law, and the daughter in law against her mother in law.

So you see...you are as wrong as it gets.

Here's a word of advice before you follow other men into your spiritual demise...be careful of their deceitful tongues:

44 You belong to your father, the devil, and you want to carry out your father’s desires. He was a murderer from the beginning, not holding to the truth, for there is no truth in him. When he lies, he speaks his native language, for he is a liar and the father of lies.

As you see...Jesus did not proclaim to bring violence. And anyone bringing violence is opposed to His word. So all those extremists, whether they be catholic, islamic, jewish...are all opposed to His word. So the premise of your thread, that He would return as a militant Muslim is laughable at most, pathetic at least.

Take care, bye. ;-)

reply to post by InfoKartel

As you see...Jesus did not proclaim to bring violence.

So then the christians who believe Jesus returns to kill billions of non-christians are wrong?

Originally posted by sk0rpi0n
reply to post by InfoKartel

 

As you see...Jesus did not proclaim to bring violence.

So then the christians who believe Jesus returns to kill billions of non-christians are wrong?

Jesus returns to kill?

WHAT?

Which Christians have you been talking to?

You can't just take Islam and project all of its nonsense onto Christianity...what a bullcrap thread this is.

reply to post by InfoKartel

Jesus returns to kill?
...
Which Christians have you been talking to?
...

"Which Christians have you been talking to? "

As far as ATS is concerned.... just the ones participating here.

Originally posted by sk0rpi0n
reply to post by InfoKartel

 

Jesus returns to kill?
...
[I]Which Christians have you been talking to? [/I]
...

[I]"Which Christians have you been talking to? "[/I]

As far as ATS is concerned.... just the ones participating here.

edit on 5-6-2012 by sk0rpi0n because: (no reason given)

So you admit to being full of it? Just like those "Christians"?

reply to post by InfoKartel

So you admit to being full of it? Just like those "Christians"?

I didn't admit anything.

You asked a question...and I answered it.

Feel free to rephrase your question. Anytime.

reply to post by InfoKartel

Did you only read that part by the way or did you continue reading so that you understand it says he is talking about bringing ideological conflict?

I agree that the OP is not properly understanding the passages quoted.
The word for peace in the first quote in the o.p. (Matthew 10:34) can mean reconciliation, where Jesus' intention as described here is to bring a sharp contrast between ideologies. Also the word for sword can mean an implement for dividing cuts of meat.
With the second quote (Luke 22:35-38), it is probably referring to the general reception they had gotten from the towns as they had traveled through them while Jesus had a good reputation, where they needed nothing since everyone would have welcomed them and provided for them, including protection from common criminals. Once Jesus was denounced by the leadership and executed, the opinions of the people would be different and they would have to fend for themselves.

Now THAT is a provocative thread title...

Okay....

If Jesus returned, proclaimed himself as the reincarnated savior, and then didn't prove himself by laying down
a couple of really staggeringly amazing miracles....he would be carted off to the asylum, heavily
medicated and there would be doctors and psychologists and lawyers deciding whether or not
he posed a threat to himself or to the general public...

He would be declared a "John Doe" under jurisdiction of whatever state hospital he was in (I'm assuming
he would land in the US) and then some internet forum like this one would "break" the story that
Jesus had returned, but was locked up in the psyche ward and the story would go around for
awhile and then slowly fade out of the limelight....Several years later he would be released
as, "...he now poses no threat to himself or to society," per the hospital administrators and he would
go and live under a bridge somewhere and make signs saying, "The end is Near."

reply to post by rival

If Jesus returned, proclaimed himself as the reincarnated savior, and then didn't prove himself by laying down
a couple of really staggeringly amazing miracles....he would be carted off to the asylum, heavily
medicated and there would be doctors and psychologists and lawyers deciding whether or not
he posed a threat to himself or to the general public...

Jesus could return in stealth.

One possibility is that he will return and complete his mission before anyone notices or realizes.... and Jesus probably wont even reveal anything about himself...nevermind perform any miracles