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.
Originally posted by CrimsonMoon
reply to post by jmdewey60
Who says the anti-Christ is evil? If the original message of Christ was twisted and censored by the church to control the masses then that would make the personification of Christ through the church inherently evil and therefore the anti-Christ would be good, it being the opposite of Christ, anti means opposite, not evil.
Maybe the anti-Christ is coming to release us from that control and tyranny.
Any type of fundamentalist belief that would lead you to kill in the name of your god is outright sacrilege.
If said belief perpetuates a message of hatred, no matter how subversive or whom the target may be, their belief is likely wrong.
It just depends on your point of view and you can use your own terminology. If you stick to your particular terminology, then you could be as right as anyone. The problem would be people generally switching off their minds when they hear that word used that way. Then it becomes a bit tedious to have to educate them on your terminology before being able to present your message. A lot of people have a short attention span and will be day dreaming before you get to your point.
Originally posted by CrimsonMoon
reply to post by jmdewey60
Who says the anti-Christ is evil? If the original message of Christ was twisted and censored by the church to control the masses then that would make the personification of Christ through the church inherently evil and therefore the anti-Christ would be good, it being the opposite of Christ, anti means opposite, not evil.
Maybe the anti-Christ is coming to release us from that control and tyranny.
Originally posted by CrimsonMoon
reply to post by jmdewey60
Who says the anti-Christ is evil? If the original message of Christ was twisted and censored by the church to control the masses then that would make the personification of Christ through the church inherently evil and therefore the anti-Christ would be good, it being the opposite of Christ, anti means opposite, not evil.
Maybe the anti-Christ is coming to release us from that control and tyranny.
If you Google "Pope Benedict XVI Antichrist" the first result you come across is the mysteriously named website www.popebenedictantichrist.com. Seems like a good enough place to start. Among the evidence they cite is Revelation 17: 7,9 - "The seven heads are seven mountains, on which the woman sitteth." If you're asking "What the #?" keep in mind, Rome sits on seven hills, apparently. Does this mean any Pope in the history of forever fits into that description? Yes, yes it does. But JoeRat is the Pope right now, so it has to be him, right? And he's apparently a woman also. SOURCE
I think false teachings come from false teachers who purposely deceive for whatever reason. They may present a public front of being a pius or devout person but in private, are anything but. They are atheists who have no fear of God and will lie all day long if they get benefits in the here-and-now.
Originally posted by Myrtales Instinct
We need to discern and carefully examine any teaching and make sure that it aligns with the Word. We shouldn't bicker back and forth on any of the teachings regarding interpretation, instead we should gently present how the Holy Spirit has brought us into the truth on any given matter and explain it as it was explained to us.
False teachings come from when we try to figure things out for ourselves. The Holy Spirit who is truthful in everything is always correct and the true teacher sent by God. When the Spirit reveals something we are supposed to share and then either we will or will not come into agreement. Out of the mouth of two or three witnesses shall every word be established.
I'm guilty of not witnessing to the things I know. You asked me in your last thread to explain some things to you and I didn't. There is a place reserved for someone like me - a place reserved for servants. A place of outer darkness where there is a whipping wind, with a pulse of it's own, that will bare down on servants heads. This wind is described in Jeremiah and the place of outer darkness is found in the parable of the talents.
My question to you is this: Do you think the placed reserved for servants is the same place that is reserved for the false prophet?
The teachings of Jesus and his Apostles tells us that words are not what we need but deeds. The Spirit is not powerless to transform the believer so this must be kept in mind when we make an assessment of a theology that is presented to us.
He will sit in the 3rd temple and declare himself to be God.
Does this include who wrote what book in the bible, and what contradictions can be found in said books?
Or should we be looking for the meaning behind the teachings?
Originally posted by jmdewey60
reply to post by Akragon
Does this include who wrote what book in the bible, and what contradictions can be found in said books?
Or should we be looking for the meaning behind the teachings?
Not sure what you mean, exactly. I was taking about if there really is this great big thing being called the False Prophet in Revelation, shouldn't there be something out there we could point to, that may be the thing.
I was talking just now about the New Testament, and that name comes from the concept of the New Covenant.
Kind of like before someone dies, they write their last will and testament. So this is what is left to us by Jesus as a contract between us, and God.
The New is contrasted with the Old, so if there is someone promoting the old one as being the active contract, them from a Christian's perspective that should be a matter of concern.
I don't know if I am answering your question, and if not, try again and I will see if I can get your point better.
Should we consider who wrote what books? Yes, but probably not how you are thinking. There are apparent contradictions and as things progress, as in the passage of some hundreds of years and the coming of the Son of God, to enlighten us, we should have a lot of those contradictions cleared up by seeing who the true God is and what He expects. The same thing as the true God, previously, once you eliminate the contracting agent who instituted the Old Covenant. That agency was an aberration from true God worship as a way to produce a nation of priests, which ended up, as we know killing the Messiah.
I guess what I am getting at, in terms of what to look out for is those who follow and worship as God, the administrator of that failed system, over the new system that reflects the true nature of God.
So what to look for in books, is like one of the choices you indicated is the message, if it is a book to rationalise genocide and things of that moral level, it is not a book we should be considering as a guide to personal morality.
No, I agree that it is the way one walks, if I get you right.
... It doesn't matter if Jesus even existed at all, the fact is who ever wrote that message to the world understood the path, and apparently walked that path.
Originally posted by pthena
reply to post by NOTurTypical
He will sit in the 3rd temple and declare himself to be God.
The 3rd Temple was destroyed in 70 AD.
1)Solomon's temple
2)Zarubbabel's temple
3)Herod's Temple
Some people claim that Herod's temple was still the 2nd because the daily sacrifices went uninterrupted while Zarubbabel's temple was dismantled completely, foundation raised 15 feet, and Herod's temple built.
If interruption of sacrifice is the test, then:
1)pre-Josiah Temple
2)Josiah's temple
3)Zarubbabel's temple
4)Post Antiochus Temple/Herod's temple
Originally posted by jmdewey60
reply to post by Akragon
No, I agree that it is the way one walks, if I get you right.
... It doesn't matter if Jesus even existed at all, the fact is who ever wrote that message to the world understood the path, and apparently walked that path.
I think you need to do one of two things. See if a religion flat-out says people are sinful and deal with it, or find out if a religion, if you follow the logic of their teachings, has it ending up in that same place.
In my opinion, a true religion is one that doesn't just suggest that we probably should be good, if that was only possible, but to say not only is it possible, but is necessary to do it, to be in good standing with God.
edit on 8-8-2011 by jmdewey60 because: (no reason given)
That path is to you, your religion. You can call it something else if you want.
The path is quite clear for anyone who choses to read it... you don't need anyone to tell you what is in the bible.