any LEFT BEHIND people herre

[christianrock1]

Then Jesus Christ is a false Messiah, the Holy Spirit is a liar, and God the Father doesn't even exist.

How so?

Again, why the heck didn't God say that until the 1960's?

God didden't say that untill the 1960's? It's always been true,I bet you Paul would of been against religion.

You have no clue what religion is then

Religion is[size=-1] an organized system of belief that generally seeks to understand purpose, meaning, goals, and methods of spiritual things

Sounds completly impersonal to me.

[/size]

You want to know what Jesus taught? Then look to what the Holy Spirit has already said. Or does God change His mind like Montanist heretics think?

I know what Jesus taught,that's what the New Testament recorded-among other things.
But Christ reveals stuff to us that's not in the Bible,issues that aren't covered in the Bible,or do you not believe that either?

 

[JFreak89]

Abviously Religion is impersonal, but that is not what Jesus offers, he offers a personal relationship with a god who love you for who you are, and wants you to spend eternity with him, that is what JESUS offers

 

[PaladinValer]

How so?

Think about it. Where do you think the faith got its beliefs from? Out of a magical hat? Or from the Holy Spirit's inspiration of the councils, synods, and Early Church Fathers?

God didden't say that untill the 1960's?

That is when, historically, your belief was born. It has no precedence in all the history of the Christian religion, making it heterodox at best and Montanistic at worse.

It's always been true,I bet you Paul would of been against religion.

1. History proves it hasn't always been true.
2. St. Paul never said religion was worthless. On the contrary, St. Paul said as Jesus said; impure religion was worthless. The ritual/holiness part of the Torah may have been absolved, but the social and moral part of the Torah is still intact and fulfilled by Jesus Christ, who summed it in His Two Great Commandments. Like it or not, that's religion. If you don't believe in it, you do not believe in what Christ taught.

The Jewish religion wasn't faulty; it was those Jews who were. The Torah wasn't impossible; the Jew's interpretation of it was to be blamed. And it was because of their interpretation that the Torah was never fulfilled properly and followed by the Jews. That's the reason why God the Son had to be Incarnated as Jesus of Nazareth; to get humanity to understand how to properly follow the Torah, as well as knock off a good chunk of it as invalid due to His Perfect Sacrifice.

Religion is an organized system of belief that generally seeks to understand purpose, meaning, goals, and methods of spiritual things.

A textbook/public dictionary answer which is full of half-truths and holes. You can do far better than this.

And as a sidenote, a regular dictionary is the worst source you could probably use. I would hope that your teachers would teach you that in school.

Sounds completly impersonal to me.

Based on a belief no older than ~50 years old. If you were to learn how Christianity was believed in throughout history and is continued today to be practiced and followed by most Christians, you'd see how more personal it is instead of a simple "relationship."

I know what Jesus taught,that's what the New Testament recorded-among other things.

Through whose interpretation? Your own? Or that inspired by the Holy Spirit already through earlier generations of Christians, particularly that of the Early Church Fathers as evidenced by the councils and synods of the Church when it was truly One Church without any sort of division whatsoever?

But Christ reveals stuff to us that's not in the Bible,issues that aren't covered in the Bible,or do you not believe that either?

I should be asking you this, not the other way around, though I'm pleased to see you have at least some consideration of Holy Tradition.

 

[christianrock1]

Think about it. Where do you think the faith got its beliefs from? Out of a magical hat? Or from the Holy Spirit's inspiration of the councils, synods, and Early Church Fathers?

Our beliefs come from the Apostals,and even Christ,but all the counsils and synods were were just people,they can be wrong on what the Holy Spirit was telling them. The Catholic church-for one-( nothing against you guys,just stating what I believe) Has multiple doctrines wrong,yet they claim they got them from the Holy Spirit,correct?

That is when, historically, your belief was born. It has no precedence in all the history of the Christian religion, making it heterodox at best and Montanistic at worse.

Oh ok,cool. I'm fine with that.

1. History proves it hasn't always been true.
2. St. Paul never said religion was worthless. On the contrary, St. Paul said as Jesus said; impure religion was worthless. The ritual/holiness part of the Torah may have been absolved, but the social and moral part of the Torah is still intact and fulfilled by Jesus Christ, who summed it in His Two Great Commandments. Like it or not, that's religion. If you don't believe in it, you do not believe in what Christ taught.

History,history,history..not everything in history is correct.
And true,Paul's opinion on religion was never recorded,but he probably would of hated it.
And no,the Law was nailed to the cross with Christ,we don't follow the Law,and we never would of,unless you're Jewish.

And as a sidenote, a regular dictionary is the worst source you could probably use. I would hope that your teachers would teach you that in school.

I'm self-taught and home schooled..it sucks.

Through whose interpretation? Your own? Or that inspired by the Holy Spirit already through earlier generations of Christians, particularly that of the Early Church Fathers as evidenced by the councils and synods of the Church when it was truly One Church without any sort of division whatsoever?

Yes. My own interpretation of the Bible, I don't listen to other people's opinions,they can be wrong,I read the Bible,pray about it countless times,and I go with what the Holy Spirit is telling me about the passage. It's called Spiritual Discernment

 

[PaladinValer]

Our beliefs come from the Apostals,and even Christ,but all the counsils and synods were were just people,they can be wrong on what the Holy Spirit was telling them.

Then you better not believe in Jesus then, as He is a fraud if so.

The Catholic church-for one-( nothing against you guys,just stating what I believe) Has multiple doctrines wrong,yet they claim they got them from the Holy Spirit,correct?

1. I highly doubt you even know what the Vatican Church believes, much less understands it.
2. I'm not Vatican Catholic, or cannot you check before assuming.
3. What does the Vatican Church have to do with this? The premise is not them, but The Church before divisions. I thought I made that clear.

Oh ok,cool. I'm fine with that.

In which case, why hold on to something made up by humanity and not of the Holy Spirit?

History,history,history..not everything in history is correct.

1. Reread this line. Perhaps you'll find it as silly as I do.
2. History is always correct. One's interpretation of it might be wrong, and we may have to "rewrite" it based on new discoveries, but what has been done, has been done. And luckily, we have a pelethora of very good to superb reliable sources on the history of the Christian faith. If you want to have the faith of the Apostles and those they taught, then I suggest studying up.

And true,Paul's opinion on religion was never recorded,but he probably would of hated it.

False.

And no,the Law was nailed to the cross with Christ,we don't follow the Law,and we never would of,unless you're Jewish.

You misread St. Paul then. He stated that the Law was still intact with Christ (sans the ritual/holiness portions), for He was the fulfillment. You are suggesting the heresy of antimonianism.

I'm self-taught and home schooled..it sucks.

Which is why homeschooling should be avoided like the plague.

Yes. My own interpretation of the Bible, I don't listen to other people's opinions,they can be wrong,I read the Bible,pray about it countless times,and I go with what the Holy Spirit is telling me about the passage. It's called Spiritual Discernment

In your case, it is Montanism.

Person 1: The Bible says X to me in this part.
Person 2: The Bible says ~X to me in the same part.
Person 1: Well, how can that be when my interpretation is backed up by 2,000 years of the Holy Spirit saying the same thing to the Apostles, the Early Church Fathers, and other defenders of orthodoxy throughout history?
Person 2: Because the Holy Spirit says different things to different people at different times.
Person 1: I don't doubt multiple interpretations, but you are suggesting ~X, not Y; that is a contradiction. God cannot change His mind; that's a hallmark of the Christian faith. By you saying ~X, you go against the Holy Spirit's inspiration. You are not following what the Holy Spirit says, you are following what you say.
Person 2: Well then how do you know you are right?
Person 1: Because my interpretation is backed up by what the Holy Spirit has already said to people since Pentecost, c. 33 ce. This means I have undisputable evidence proving me wrong.
Person 2: And if you are wrong?
Person 1: Then Jesus is a false Messiah.
Person 2: And how is that?
Person 1: Because if those synods, councils, and Fathers are wrong, then everything Christianity believes in is gone: the Trinity, the dual wills and natures of Jesus, the Canon of the Bible, everything. It makes the Holy Spirit a liar. It means that the Resurrection never occurred, which means I may as well be something else.
Person 2: Yet I believe in those things-
Person 1: That doesn't matter. You pick and choose what to follow. That is cafeteria faith, not Christianity. Christianity is based on what the Holy Spirit says to everyone, not to just a few. If the Spirit tells an entire group the same thing in 325 ce, then we in 2005 ce today must follow it. If we do not, whe are not following the Holy Spirit, but the doctrines of humanity. Besides what you are suggesting was condemned by the Holy Spirit already in the Third Ecumenical Council, the same Council that set the Nicene Creed to what it is today, that condemned pelagianism, that condemned chiliasm, that condemned nestorianism, and proclaimed that Jesus was Divine right from the moment of Incarnation. If they are wrong, then you are implicity saying that Jesus wasn't Divine from the moment of Incarnation, that we can work our way to salvation, that God's Kingdom will only be temporary, and that the Nicene Creed isn't sufficient.
Person 2: Isn't Christianity possible without these?
Person 1: No; without a Perfect Jesus, salvation is impossible. This one aspect of the Council is enough that, if it isn't Inspired, then Christianity is false. We must believe that, upon the moment of Incarnation when the Son became Jesus, that He was Divine. If not, then He was never a Perfect Sacrifice, which means He could not have died for our sins. Our salvation would then be void, for there wouldn't be any, for Jesus would be a false Messiah, and therefore either God is angry with us for believing in a false Messiah, or that God doesn't exist.

Think about the above. Think really, really hard about it. What you suggest is the end of Christianity, not "Spiritual Discernment." If it was truly discernment, you'd be able to back up your interpretation to what has already been said. Since you cannot and (not "or") it goes against what has already been said by the Holy Spirit, then either you are wrong or everyone else is wrong by implication. And this snowballs into further implications to the point that the very heart of Christianity is breached.

Think really, really hard about it.

 

[snoochface]

Isn't this thread in the book club forum? The discussion has gone way off the topic of books. This is a theological discussion, not a book discussion. Paladin, you seem to be crossing the line anyway by claiming other Christians' faiths are heresy, and I want you to know that I reported your posts. I have no idea if the mods will agree with me, but I felt it was time for them to at least peek in and take a look at what's been going on here. Regardless of what they choose to do or not do, the thread is no longer discussing the Left Behind books and I personally don't feel the discussion belongs here.

 

[photojournie]

So Arians are Christians? That's a new one...

I didn't say that. Apparently, you didn't read all of my post:

I firmly believe that if you meditate on God's law thoroughly and keep a reality check in place so you don't go way off the deep end (whether grossly misinterpreting Scripture to lead to evil, destructive decisions, or to get so wrapped up in the teachings of man that you lose sight of the only Guide Book we were ever "officially" given), then you will not be judged negatively for being a bit off. But you *will* be held accountable for not doing the research to come to a well-supported conclusion, but just accept what sounds nice to you and fits your lifestyle.

One is not to read a verse of scripture, interpret that verse just to fit their situation or justify their behavior. One has to consider the context (reading fore-and-aft verses), perhaps research the history and word meanings of the time, learn what other interpretations there might be and the justification for them to see if you've missed the point. Researching original texts would be the best idea, but not all of us have the dedication to learn Hebrew and Greek, right? So we rely on texts translated over and over by mere humans who may in fact be erroneous in their interpretation, even if their intentions were good. One "minor" misinterpretation can lead to much strife between believers, so I say go to the source. If you can't go to the source, quit debating about it until you know what it means!

Obviously, I don't include Arians in the same group as Christians because it is apparent that they have done exactly what I said that Christians must not do: take verses and infuse one's own intended interpretation into it to justify what they want to do. Arians and others who follow cultic/deviant religious practices under the so-called banner of Christianity have their own philosophy and use scripture to back it up. That is so backwards because we are to take the Scriptures and use *that* as the foundation for the formation of our faith.

Extremists are rarely on track to begin with...for example...Christians who are so pro-life that they bomb abortion clinics. When they're not around family planning centers, they may call themselves Christians, but it's definitely obvious that their fruit is seriously rotten. Arians would fall into that category. The big kinks in the chain definitely prove that these radicals have not carefully considered Scripture in light of what the intent and connotations of the original translations were, but just used the Bible as an unofficial "witness" to shout out their perverse line of thought. "Normal," unbiased and rational people do not come to the conclusions that Arians do.

 

[photojournie]

Isn't this thread in the book club forum? The discussion has gone way off the topic of books. This is a theological discussion, not a book discussion. Paladin, you seem to be crossing the line anyway by claiming other Christians' faiths are heresy, and I want you to know that I reported your posts. I have no idea if the mods will agree with me, but I felt it was time for them to at least peek in and take a look at what's been going on here. Regardless of what they choose to do or not do, the thread is no longer discussing the Left Behind books and I personally don't feel the discussion belongs here.

You know what? You're right. It's so easy for people to get sidetracked around here, and I'm one of them. I apologize to everyone. I feel some people are being rather silly about the apparent eminent damnation of all those who read the Left Behind series, and it just upsets me so much that I lose focus. I agree with your post. Thanks for keeping me on track.
It's just hard not to respond when someone responds to one's post...with utter nonsense!

 

[photojournie]

[/font]










Which is why homeschooling should be avoided like the plague.

What is wrong with you? You always sound bitter, pessimistic and snotty to everyone you don't agree with! And who are you to judge anyone's viewpoints? We all have opinions and we share them...but what does this topic (not to mention how *WAY* off topic we are from the Left Behind books) have to do with whether parents choose to homeschool their kids?

Please have respect for the other members and stop spitting on all of our shoes because we don't shop at the same place. I respect your beliefs, but not how pushy you become when we don't all line up behind you as if you're Mother Hen.

Thank you and God bless. Let's take this discussion to another board and thread. Thanks.

 

[christianrock1]

Then you better not believe in Jesus then, as He is a fraud if so

Impossible.

1. I highly doubt you even know what the Vatican Church believes, much less understands it.
2. I'm not Vatican Catholic, or cannot you check before assuming.
3. What does the Vatican Church have to do with this? The premise is not them, but The Church before divisions. I thought I made that clear.

Try me. The answer to #3 is that they have incorrect doctrines,but they believe they were given to them by the Holy Spirit,but they're wrong.(IMO)

2. History is always correct. One's interpretation of it might be wrong, and we may have to "rewrite" it based on new discoveries, but what has been done, has been done. And luckily, we have a pelethora of very good to superb reliable sources on the history of the Christian faith. If you want to have the faith of the Apostles and those they taught, then I suggest studying up.

Ok then. Just because someone in History claimed that they were given this revelation by the Holy Spirit doesn't make them correct. What if it wasn't from the Holy Spirit? Montanism was started by [size=-1]Montanus who claimed it was from the Holy Sprit in the 2nd century. Of course,He was wrong,but it was history,right?[/size]

You misread St. Paul then. He stated that the Law was still intact with Christ (sans the ritual/holiness portions), for He was the fulfillment. You are suggesting the heresy of antimonianism.

One,the OT Law never applied to people who weren't Jewish anyway. And two, it was abolished,and no,i'm not suggesting antimonianism.
I'll find and post the verses soon,I forgot where they were,I'm an idiot.

Think about the above. Think really, really hard about it. What you suggest is the end of Christianity, not "Spiritual Discernment." If it was truly discernment, you'd be able to back up your interpretation to what has already been said. Since you cannot and (not "or") it goes against what has already been said by the Holy Spirit, then either you are wrong or everyone else is wrong by implication. And this snowballs into further implications to the point that the very heart of Christianity is breached.

Look,I don't see why you can't get this. Just because someone in history claimed they were shown something by the Holy Spirit,doesn't make them always right. I don't have to agree with them simply because they lived X amount of years before me. Nothing makes them above reproach. I have convictions from the Holy Spirit,and not every Christian shares the same convictions as I do. One example is something I don't think I can discuss here,but every male(at least) has done it,and it's a matter of what the Holy Spirit has told them if it's right or wrong(because the Bible is silent on the matter).
A few other issues are Speaking in tounges,prophecy,healings,and forms of worship. The Holy Spirit has told me that the spiritual gifts are still in use,but other people say they aren't. How do we discern who is right and who is wrong? The Holy Spirit has convicted us both of the same thing,but yet we both have different answers.
Some issues differ with different people,and some sins aren't sins for other people.

 

[christianrock1]

Thank you and God bless. Let's take this discussion to another board and thread. Thanks.

I'm sorry,I didden't see this before I made my last post. But,I agree.

 

[SeRapH&CheRi]

MOD HAT ON

This is a reminder for ALL posters to remain on topic in this particular thread. I have also noticed some of you guys giving each other attitude. EVERYONE is entitled to their own opinions. There is no excuse for patronizing each other. I am this close to handing out some unofficial warnings and so I am telling you all to behave and resume with the OP.

MOD HAT OFF

 

[Dark Siela]

Okay sry.

My mom bought the first one today at the store.

 

[Mob 4 God]

I've read em up to The Remnant which i'm yet to start. They pretty good so far I think, I don't believe there take on all the prophecy's as I have my own opinion from my own study and research but for those who are not as into the "End Time's Prophecy's" as some of us, they do work for a decent cross reference.