Revelation

[Joelle1]

I know this isn't an everyday topic but are you ready for the first tribulation, let alone the second......

 

[OopsyDaisy]

I know this isn't an everyday topic but are you ready for the first tribulation, let alone the second......

No, coz I don't believe any of it.

 

[1watchman]

I am not clear about what you are asking. Could you be more specific as to what you are referring to.

 

[Joelle1]

Oh okay, let me change the question, do you believe in the rapture? If no? Why

1 Thessalonians 4:14-17. "The Lord himself will descend from heaven with a cry of command, with the archangel's call, and with the sound of the trumpet of God. And the dead in Christ will rise first; then we who are alive, who are left, shall be caught up together with them in the clouds to meet the Lord in the air; and so we shall always be with the Lord."

 

[Receiver]

... 1 Thessalonians 4:14-17....

I believe those verses.
Next!

 

[OopsyDaisy]

Oh okay, let me change the question, do you believe in the rapture? If no? Why

1 Thessalonians 4:14-17. "The Lord himself will descend from heaven with a cry of command, with the archangel's call, and with the sound of the trumpet of God. And the dead in Christ will rise first; then we who are alive, who are left, shall be caught up together with them in the clouds to meet the Lord in the air; and so we shall always be with the Lord."

Nope. - I dont - Jesus taught the resurrection, not Tim La Haye's rapture.

Whoever wrote that quote above is just wrong - it was his own opinion.

 

[Danny777]

Nope. - I dont - Jesus taught the resurrection, not Tim La Haye's rapture.

Whoever wrote that quote above is just wrong - it was his own opinion.

How can you be so sure that Paul was wrong when he wrote that passage?

 

[OopsyDaisy]

How can you be so sure that Paul was wrong when he wrote that passage?

How can you be so sure that it was Paul who actually wrote that? If you read all of Bart Ehrman's books, as I have - you get a good outline of what Paul wrote, and what he didn't write - someone else wrote it, pretending to be Paul.
I think that Paul was inspired, and really was struck down by Jesus - Paul, IMO is the founder of Christianity - but who he was exactly needs to be carefully scrutinized - because humans are inherently dishonest and wicked.

 

[Danny777]

How can you be so sure that it was Paul who actually wrote that? If you read all of Bart Ehrman's books, as I have - you get a good outline of what Paul wrote, and what he didn't write - someone else wrote it, pretending to be Paul.
I think that Paul was inspired, and really was struck down by Jesus - Paul, IMO is the founder of Christianity - but who he was exactly needs to be carefully scrutinized - because humans are inherently dishonest and wicked.

So do you believe the gospels writers were inherently dishonest and wicked?

What parts (if any) of the Bible are genuine in your view?

 

[MorkandMindy]

...

What parts (if any) of the Bible are genuine in your view?

Here is the author at work - illustrated Bibles cost a bit more but they're worth it

 

[OopsyDaisy]

So do you believe the gospels writers were inherently dishonest and wicked?

What parts (if any) of the Bible are genuine in your view?

Yes, I do think that.

The NT was composed by the people of Roman Palestine - at least most bits of the synoptics - John's gospel was wriiten later, by a Greek/Syrian/Latin- non-Jew.
The various letters attributed to Peter, Jude - were forged later by others. Most of Paul's letters are genuine, except for the pastoral epistles - forged later, by people pretending to be Paul.
There was a Q gospel - q, for quelle - source - for which the other synoptics used as a base, and added other bits - stuff recollected by others.
Paul's mysoginism is not Paul - it is other men pretending to be Paul and editing his letters - inserting bits, or forging whole letters in his name.

Revelation was written on the island of Patmos, which at that time was a Roman insane asylum. The main work was written by one man - a non-christian Jew, anonymous. His work was later edited and worked by a team of semi-christians, who made it into something acceptable to the early Christians. It would take too long to explain it here.
Basically though, it is extremely wicked, antichristian, mysoginistic, and horrible, and untrue.

The Old Testament is worthless, and should be dumped - except for Isaiah, which needs to be sifted through to determine who wrote what and why - it has been corrupted by evil men, and that is why the eschatology doesn't work - again, would take too long to outline here.
Also Joel is worth keeping, and some of the Psalms - some were written by Canaanites/Ammorites, many years ago.
I would also, personally, keep the book of Jonah, the Song of Solomon, and parts of Job.

In the NT, I would keep most of it - exclude the pastoral letters, Jude - he wrote rubbish about Balaam, showing that he was an ignoramus. Revelation would go, as a priority.

I don't believe in the transfiguration, the nativity stuff, the thief on the cross, the story of Lazarus and the rich man.

A long response - but you did ask.

 

[Danny777]

Yes, I do think that.

The NT was composed by the people of Roman Palestine - at least most bits of the synoptics - John's gospel was wriiten later, by a Greek/Syrian/Latin- non-Jew.
The various letters attributed to Peter, Jude - were forged later by others. Most of Paul's letters are genuine, except for the pastoral epistles - forged later, by people pretending to be Paul.
There was a Q gospel - q, for quelle - source - for which the other synoptics used as a base, and added other bits - stuff recollected by others.
Paul's mysoginism is not Paul - it is other men pretending to be Paul and editing his letters - inserting bits, or forging whole letters in his name.

Revelation was written on the island of Patmos, which at that time was a Roman insane asylum. The main work was written by one man - a non-christian Jew, anonymous. His work was later edited and worked by a team of semi-christians, who made it into something acceptable to the early Christians. It would take too long to explain it here.
Basically though, it is extremely wicked, antichristian, mysoginistic, and horrible, and untrue.

The Old Testament is worthless, and should be dumped - except for Isaiah, which needs to be sifted through to determine who wrote what and why - it has been corrupted by evil men, and that is why the eschatology doesn't work - again, would take too long to outline here.
Also Joel is worth keeping, and some of the Psalms - some were written by Canaanites/Ammorites, many years ago.
I would also, personally, keep the book of Jonah, the Song of Solomon, and parts of Job.

In the NT, I would keep most of it - exclude the pastoral letters, Jude - he wrote rubbish about Balaam, showing that he was an ignoramus. Revelation would go, as a priority.

I don't believe in the transfiguration, the nativity stuff, the thief on the cross, the story of Lazarus and the rich man.

A long response - but you did ask.

How do you determine which parts of the gospels to believe? Do you believe in a literal resurrection of Jesus Christ?

 

[ebia]

Oh okay, let me change the question, do you believe in the rapture? If no? Why 1 Thessalonians 4:14-17. "The Lord himself will descend from heaven with a cry of command, with the archangel's call, and with the sound of the trumpet of God. And the dead in Christ will rise first; then we who are alive, who are left, shall be caught up together with them in the clouds to meet the Lord in the air; and so we shall always be with the Lord."

I believe that Jesus will return at the final resurrection.

However, I suspect from the way you phrase the question that I think you're barking up the wrong tree in much of the way you read that passage.

 

[MorkandMindy]

How do you determine which parts of the gospels to believe? Do you believe in a literal resurrection of Jesus Christ?

It's often been said that God made the World look in every possible way as though it was 4.5 billion years old to test those who believe in him to see which they believe, the Bible or science.


I don't think that is a very good strategy because it wouldn't have worked until at least 1870 and then only in the more educated circles as science did not dispute the Bible until about then and it wasn't common knowledge until a lot later, so that test would not have worked for most of the time Christianity has existed.


A far better idea would be to allow the Bible to contain good things and bad and then good people would find the good things; love their neighbors as themselves, be like the good Samaritan, feed the hungry, clothe the naked. And in contrast the wicked people would read all about the mass destruction in Revelation and Revel in it.


.

 

[MorkandMindy]

The Rapture is going to be soon, haven't you seen all the evil that is going on in the World? If you look at the news it's more than ever before.

So go to Church, a good Bible-believing Church, donate all of that money that is just going to stand in evidence against you on the last day brother; you know that, send a wad to me too, and get in line for that big ride to Heaven!

double click on the thumbnail to get the whole picture

 

[MorkandMindy]

Yes, I do think that.

The NT was composed by the people of Roman Palestine - at least most bits of the synoptics - John's gospel was written later, by a Greek/Syrian/Latin- non-Jew.
The various letters attributed to Peter, Jude - were forged later by others. Most of Paul's letters are genuine, except for the pastoral epistles - forged later, by people pretending to be Paul.
There was a Q gospel - q, for quelle - source - for which the other synoptics used as a base, and added other bits - stuff recollected by others.
Paul's mysogynism is not Paul - it is other men pretending to be Paul and editing his letters - inserting bits, or forging whole letters in his name.

Revelation was written on the island of Patmos, which at that time was a Roman insane asylum. The main work was written by one man - a non-christian Jew, anonymous. His work was later edited and worked by a team of semi-christians, who made it into something acceptable to the early Christians. It would take too long to explain it here.
Basically though, it is extremely wicked, antichristian, mysoginistic, and horrible, and untrue.

The Old Testament is worthless, and should be dumped - except for Isaiah, which needs to be sifted through to determine who wrote what and why - it has been corrupted by evil men, and that is why the eschatology doesn't work - again, would take too long to outline here.
Also Joel is worth keeping, and some of the Psalms - some were written by Canaanites/Ammorites, many years ago.
I would also, personally, keep the book of Jonah, the Song of Solomon, and parts of Job.

In the NT, I would keep most of it - exclude the pastoral letters, Jude - he wrote rubbish about Balaam, showing that he was an ignoramus. Revelation would go, as a priority.

I don't believe in the transfiguration, the nativity stuff, the thief on the cross, the story of Lazarus and the rich man.

A long response - but you did ask.

You know your Bible a whole lot better than I ever did, I'm absolutely amazed.

I'm not sure which bit of the Bible or other Jewish teaching encourages Israelis to kill Palestinians, but even if it isn't Joshua, it should be eliminated in any case because it is fiction - it was written to encourage Josiah to take back the land to the North now that the Assyrians were having problems at home and couldn't hold onto the land any more, but Josiah decided to fight the Pharaoh instead and never did take back the conquered land of Israel so none of Joshua happened so why do we have it in the Bible? (If that isn't the reason Joshua was written then do tell me.)

Totally agree about Revelation, do you agree that might be the reason why so many Christians just keep saying everything is getting worse and worse?

I'm worried it might be self-fulfilling

 

[Lotuspetal_uk]

So do you believe the gospels writers were inherently dishonest and wicked?

What parts (if any) of the Bible are genuine in your view?

.....Yes, I do think that.....

OopsyDaisy, so just to clarify you believe the gospels writers were inherently dishonest and wicked?

 

[OopsyDaisy]

You know your Bible a whole lot better than I ever did, I'm absolutely amazed.

I'm not sure which bit of the Bible or other Jewish teaching encourages Israelis to kill Palestinians, but even if it isn't Joshua, it should be eliminated in any case because it is fiction - it was written to encourage Josiah to take back the land to the North now that the Assyrians were having problems at home and couldn't hold onto the land any more, but Josiah decided to fight the Pharaoh instead and never did take back the conquered land of Israel so none of Joshua happened so why do we have it in the Bible? (If that isn't the reason Joshua was written then do tell me.)

Totally agree about Revelation, do you agree that might be the reason why so many Christians just keep saying everything is getting worse and worse?

I'm worried it might be self-fulfilling

The book of 'Revelation' is, in little bits, a self-fulfilling 'prophesy' - because the 'archons' wrote it, and the book expresses their deepest desires' and as the archons have been running the show, some of what they desire has been worked into our world - but I think that the power of Satan is limited - despite the book of Revelation.
I was thinking about that recently - why the Israelis and Palestinians are hammer and tonges at it all the time - coz a lot of the Israelis have a loose sort of regard to their 'tanahk' - so they just act out all the fictitious genocide depicted in those books.
And the Muslims, with their equally fictitious book, and their invented prophet, do the same.

Jesus never mentioned any rapture - he described what would happen and it is there in the gospels, very clear, and is the exact opposite to the rapture theory. To paraphrase - Jesus said - at the end of the age (not the end of the world) I will send out my angels (Jesus, his angels) - and they will gather out of the kingdom, all workers of lawlessness and all that offends.
Very clear - the tares are removed from the earth at the end of the age, the wheat is left in place - the two must grow up together, as pulling out the tares might damage the wheat - before the harvest/reaping.
So the kingdom is the earth - it must be, as there would be no workers of lawlessness in heaven - they wouldn't be there - they are on the earth, now.
The rapture theory is the exact opposite - the tares remain on the earth, the wheat is removed. IMO, the rapture is the invention of the archons - it is contrary to what Jesus is recorded to have said about it in the gospels.

 

[OopsyDaisy]

How do you determine which parts of the gospels to believe? Do you believe in a literal resurrection of Jesus Christ?

I do believe in the resurrection of Jesus, and that's what it all boils down to. I also believe in the virgin birth - coz that is a personal revelation. As Jesus was born of woman and the Holy Spirit, his ancestry must be traced back through Mary, not Joseph - the synoptics both trace Jesus' ancestry via Joseph.
I don't know my ancestry - I know that my ancestors are a mix of Irish and German/French, and that's it. Some people manage to trace their ancestry back a few hundred years. So, back in Palestine, in the time of Jesus - they knew the ancestry of Joseph - an ordinary man, living in Nazareth or Capernium - and could list it going back to Adam? Yeah.. doubtful. And pointless anyway, as Jesus', father is the Holy Spirit.
And why did the writer of Matthew include that fictitious, treacherous prostitute, as supposedyy being one of the ancestors of Jesus? A bit strange?

But as to Jesus' resurrection - yes - Jesus' body was changed into something else, and he vanished. I was thinking about this last night - and I conclude that these are mysteries - and I do not know the reason for why Jesus had to go through all that - just accept it, without embracing the protestant rational - that it was a primitive sacrifice to old Yahweh.

I don't know.

'You don't know, coz you weren't there man!

For me - Jesus is not part of the fall, because he escapes the ancestry of the devil, because his father is the Holy Spirit, and not the devil. The ancestry of the devil is passed on in the male line. Mary goes back to the first woman - a pure human creation.
The father of humankind was the devil - not 'Adam' - that's what I think.

It's complicated. And the reasons for it - don't know, mystery. We escape the ancestry of our father the devil also - by being born again - though regenerative faith in Jesus, and repentance. We are adopted into the family, by our acceptance of Jesus, and at the resurrection, our physical form, having ancestry with the devil, is replaced by a new body of incorruption.

 

[MorkandMindy]

...
Jesus never mentioned any rapture - he described what would happen and it is there in the gospels, very clear, and is the exact opposite to the rapture theory. To paraphrase - Jesus said - at the end of the age (not the end of the world) I will send out my angels (Jesus, his angels) - and they will gather out of the kingdom, all workers of lawlessness and all that offends.
Very clear - the tares are removed from the earth at the end of the age, the wheat is left in place - the two must grow up together, as pulling out the tares might damage the wheat - before the harvest/reaping.
So the kingdom is the earth - it must be, as there would be no workers of lawlessness in heaven - they wouldn't be there - they are on the earth, now.
The rapture theory is the exact opposite - the tares remain on the earth, the wheat is removed. IMO, the rapture is the invention of the archons - it is contrary to what Jesus is recorded to have said about it in the gospels.

Luke 17:
35 Two women shall be grinding together; the one shall be taken, and the other left.
36 Two men shall be in the field; the one shall be taken, and the other left.
37 And they answered and said unto him, Where, Lord? And he said unto them, Wheresoever the body is, thither will the eagles be gathered together.