Bluebird60b said:

When 10 people or so saw Jesus ascend into heaven and he returns to the same spot, how can billions of people from around the world fit into that spot to welcome him back? I currently hold the belief that he won't return physically, but thru the holy spirit like at the first Pentecost. Giving them the ability to speak in tongues, convection to die as blood martyrs, and all the other graces that came out of those tongues of fire.

Click to expand...

No, it's literal and physical. It doesn't require billions to be located in the same spot, and it won't require television broadcasts or other speculatory guesses. Scripture says every eye will see Him.

We don't need to speculate the specifics, nor do we need to doubt the truth. Christ will return in glory, and it will be obvious--everyone will see it, know it is Him, and He comes to judge--the dead will be raised.

These old bones will literally come out of the dirt, made new and glorious. Just as Christ rose, so also shall we rise.

-CryptoLutheran

Daniel Martinovich said:

Why can't it be through normal gospel means which obviously includes revivals and the providence of God like I said in the OP? Why do people always lean towards fantasticism in regards to the future when the future has already been happening?

Click to expand...

There is plenty of scripture speaking of Jews returning to the land as believers.

This has not happened given the rejection of Jesus which prevails among them.

Hvizsgyak said:

Many, many points here to contend with on this one. As almost every Christian knows, when Jesus returns, He will do it in the same way as He ascended to Heaven (so the angels said) (They said, “Men of Galilee, why are you standing there looking at the sky? This Jesus who has been taken up from you into heaven will return in the same way as you have seen him going into heaven.” ACTS 1:11).

We are also told that many will come pretending to be Jesus. What if these false Jesus' arrive the same way Jesus said He would return? How would we know the difference. Yes, maybe after a while we would start to see the falseness in those impersonators but at first, we may not.

And now that I put "the false Jesus appearing the same way the real Jesus is suppose to arrive" into your head, what happens if the real Jesus arrives but we are too cautious to recognize Him afraid we might get duped.

Click to expand...

When Jesus arrives, there won't be a doubt, nobody will doubt it's Him. Not only will it be abundantly obvious to everyone, but He comes to Judge. If the heavens aren't rolling up like a scroll, if the dead aren't rising out of their graves to go and greet Him as He descends in glory, if the things Scripture says and the Church has always believes isn't happening--then it's not Jesus.

If I can doubt that it's actually Jesus, then it's not Jesus.

-CryptoLutheran

Carl Emerson said:

I started to compile a reply but found too many scriptures to list.

Try a NT search in the word hypocrite for starters.

Click to expand...

Fair enough, though perhaps you might notice a common theme?

Carl Emerson said:

Then there is the moneychangers. It is hard to conclude they were believers.

Click to expand...

more than likely they were Jewish authorities, in order to be able to conduct such operations on temple grounds.

Carl Emerson said:

Then there is the rich young man.

Click to expand...

Did he offend him? By answering his question?

Carl Emerson said:

How about "leave the dead to bury the dead" (referring to one's relatives.)

Click to expand...

I'm not sure that's necessarily a statement intended to cause offense, could you elaborate on what you mean?

Daniel Martinovich said:

Personally, I take no stock in the creeds. Not that they are wrong, or right. We have Bibles for a reason.

Click to expand...

Oh boy. Let me guess, you and a select few are the only ones who know what it really means and not the bishops who were responsible for establishing the creeds who were reading from the same Scriptures you are. Well, except most of them spoke the language the NT was written in as their first language. But why do we need historical context and perspective?

Fervent said:

Who was it that Jesus offended, and for what reason?

Paul has this advice that could be relevant:
12 What business is it of mine to judge those outside the church? Are you not to judge those inside? 13 God will judge those outside. “Expel the wicked person from among you.”

Click to expand...

I started to compile a reply but found too many scriptures to list.

Try a NT search in the word hypocrite for starters.

Then there is the moneychangers. It is hard to conclude they were believers.

Then there is the rich young man.

How about "leave the dead to bury the dead" (referring to one's relatives.)

Jesus would have openly spoken against hypocrisy and lukewarmness in the church.

In the seven letters to the churches His Spirit did not mince words.

Neogaia777 said:

I had to give ChatGPT additional information, and ask it to redo it or reconfigure it several times, and by that time it was asking me to pay for the paid version (Plus+). Can't do a lot more right now, etc.

I'll probably still try to do work with both from time to time (ChatGPT and Deepseek) from time to time. (They both present information, process information, and do things in different unique ways and/or differently, so working with both still on different subjects/topics, might be/still prove useful from time to time).

Take Care/God Bless.

Click to expand...

If you run out of bandwidth (or whatever the terminology is when using free ChatGPT-5) access it from Copilot and continue your work from there.

Carl Emerson said:

Of course, but we will need to see a massive revival among Israeli's who might even be driven from the land before we see this.

Click to expand...

Why can't it be through normal gospel means which obviously includes revivals and the providence of God like I said in the OP? Why do people always lean towards fantasticism in regards to the future when the future has already been happening?


But what says the scripture? Well, according to many chapters of prophecy like Isaiah 54, 60, 61, 62, 65 Rev 20-22. Daniel 2 & 7 They say billions would come to Christ after the Roman Empire ends which happened in 1453 AD; and the natural result of that would be a world transforming for the better. We now know this was due to the general public, (illegally) beginning to gain access to their own Bibles to read themselves right when that empire ended. This is what the Bible means when it said the meek, or the saints, shall inherit the earth. It's why we went from the perpetual rule of kings and emperors to a growing free world of republics as it states in the passage below.

Isaiah 29:18-20 And in that day shall the deaf hear the words of the book, and the eyes of the blind shall see out of obscurity, and out of darkness. The meek also shall increase their joy in the LORD, and the poor among men shall rejoice in the Holy One of Israel. For the tyrannical oppressor is brought to nothing…….

Now we have the key to understanding why modern Israel exists. The process of meek inheriting the earth would providentially lead to the world having mercy on the Jewish people and bringing them back to the land promised to Abraham. NOT for some end of the world apocalypse. But rather as part of the process of the meek inheriting the earth. As stated in the prophecy below. The regions future is 10’s of millions of Jews, Arabs, Egyptians and Syrians finding the faith of Abraham in Jesus their savior. The natural result of theirs and the Bible’s influence will be the transformation of the region. It's how the prophecy below is being fulfilled. All the war, death and destruction is Satan’s doings through darkened hearts to try to stop this from happening. Over the long run, it is not going to work.

Isaiah 19: 23-25 In that day shall there be a highway out of Egypt to Assyria, and the Assyrian shall come into Egypt, and the Egyptian into Assyria, and the Egyptians shall serve with the Assyrians. In that day shall Israel be the third with Egypt and with Assyria, even a blessing in the midst of the land: whom the LORD of hosts shall bless, saying, Blessed be Egypt my people, and Assyria the work of my hands, and Israel mine inheritance.

Hentenza said:

Not really.

Click to expand...

Yes really

Hentenza said:

It is my thread and he seemed to be getting agitated.

Click to expand...

Pointing out the flaws of your "mental exercise" does not equal getting agitated. You seemed agitated that people weren't willing to accept your premise.

Hentenza said:

I simply told him first that if it bothered him then he didn’t need to participate. I was just being concerned and wanted to keep the thread from devolving into a my church is better than yours debate.

Click to expand...

Your whole premise implied a deficiency in Churches that practice closed communion.

Bradskii said:

My answer would be: 'I'm sorry, I'm withdrawing my application. I make it a point not to work with stupid people'.

Click to expand...

I thought you appreciated rhetoric.

NxNW said:

Did anyone make such a statement (other than Kirk)?

Click to expand...

I never heard Kirk say that. I said it. I'm pretty sure everyone would agree with me, though.

NxNW said:

I guess Kirk would have been fired by his organization for making such statements.

Click to expand...

What statements?

To be honest, I don't know and can't say for certain these things. Maybe God in His infinite mercy and goodness will save someone simply because they put there faith in Him without any understanding. But then that raises dozens other logical questions - if even the most vague faith with zero understanding will save - why did Jesus have to die for us? He could have commanded it from Heaven - just believe. Or is God teaching us - and wants us to be obedient, trusting his system - sacrifice - blood on the altar - mercy seat - passover lamb. It's not complicated.

Another question would be what would the point be of the entire bible? Just believe?

That would then mean reason and logic play no role. He doesn't require us to have reasonable faith - just blind faith would suffice.

Therefore, the most faithful heart posture to consider all of scripture - preach both the death and the blood along with the resurrection - if for no other reason of faithfulness and safety - these way we take no risk of living potentialy necessary things out. There is no danger of it being a false gospel - it's according to scripture. We only avoid, even a 1% risk of an incomplete gospel.

That's where I'm at, honestly.

Chesterton said:

Maybe every job application and interview in America should include the question "Do you believe in murdering nice, harmless people because you disagree with them?"

Click to expand...

My answer would be: 'I'm sorry, I'm withdrawing my application. I make it a point not to work with stupid people'.

ThatRobGuy said:

I don't think "outrage" is the accurate descriptor (as it conveys shallowness in an attempt to downplay the reason why people are upset about it)

"Understandable anger" would be a better descriptor.

Click to expand...

My apologies. 'Then I'm sure you've still managed to maintain your level of understandable anger'.

Ed Parenteau said:

When did Jesus become flesh? If He became flesh at His incarnation, then how did He come physically in the old testament? Everyone that refers to the "second coming" is referring to Jesus having come at His incarnation which is also called an "appearance" and will/did "come again", whether they are futurist or preterist. "Coming" and "appearance" are used synonymously Hebrews 9:28 and 1John4:2 about the first coming and Hebrews 9:28 and John 14:3 with regards the second coming/appearance.
In order to prove that God came down physically you would have to disprove the following:
John 1:16No one has ever seen God, but the one and only Son, who is Himself God and is at the Father’s side, has made Him known.

Click to expand...

Well hopefully you read those scriptures in the article before asking me those questions. Spiritual beings have physical bodies you know. Just not flesh and blood bodies. So yes, he came down physically or metaphorically in all those instances recoded in the Bible that I listed in the two articles.

Exodus 24:9 Then went up Moses, and Aaron, Nadab, and Abihu, and seventy of the of the elders Israel: 10 And they saw the God of Israel: and there was under his feet as it were a paved work of a sapphire stone, and as it were the body of heaven in his clearness. 11 And upon the nobles of the children of Israel he laid not his hand: also they saw God, and did eat and drink.

There are lots of other instances recorded in the Bible like Daniel Chapter 7 of people seeing God. What Jesus is referring to is not seeing God with the eyes but rather apprehending God, his nature, his character. That is why Jesus finishes up John 1:18 by saying he, Jesus, has declared him. Meaning Jesus is declaring his character, his nature, his good will to a world that does not perceive it.

Hazelelponi said:

The pantomime or whatever might have been low class for the environment...

Click to expand...

Exactly right. In both cases.

Hazelelponi said:

However, I don't know that much about what's happening with the boats.

Click to expand...

Luckily I can help you out with that. A number of boats, each with a few people on board, travelling in International waters have been blown up by your administration. They were nowhere near the USA coastline.

The administration has said that they were carrying drugs intended to be illegally imported into the US. No evidence for this has been presented whatsoever.

Let's say that the administration knew of a truck carrying fentanyl which was crossing the Canadian border into the US and they simply blew it up. Even if it was proved to have contained drugs would you think that was an acceptable action?

ThatRobGuy said:

How is that a carbon copy? Just at first glance I'm seeing lots of differences.

Click to expand...

Well for one thing, they're both ballrooms.

Tuur said:

Eclipsenow:

That particular discussion was on the subject of equilibriums. The only way it intersects a discussion of AGW is whether AGW could form a new equilibrium. I'll point out outliers, hyperbole, and outright panic, but won't claim that AGW is or isn't happening. The issue here is equilibriums, which, from what little is understood about climate, I don't think really exist.

Click to expand...

But they do. We've been in one - roughly - for a few million years.

TIME IS RELATIVE
I hear your point. Over the long haul, the climate looks very chaotic. But can you hear our point? That in the short term - say the last 2 or 3 million years of relatively stable climate with Milankovitch cycles driving the ice ages - it has not been this hot?

But again - I really hear you! Over the long haul - agriculture has only been around 10,000 years or so ago, and larger civilisations with writing maybe 6 or 7,000 years? That's a blink in climate terms. But very important in ours!

If you stretch things out to 10's or 100's of millions of years, of course the climate looks more chaotic. But as we said, some of the much earlier and larger climate forcings pushing the earth into a number of super-hot-house phases are over. The earth is cooler. There's just not as much volcanism now. That particular CO2 forcing is less sensitive. It might flare up again - if certain magma spots get active. Of course - if it flares up TOO suddenly like Yellowstone super-volcano BLOWING - that of course chucks sulphur into the atmosphere and freezes the place again!

Yet in that long term climate trend - remember the sun is 2% hotter - making each gram of CO2 more dangerous than back in the age of Monsters. (Pre-dinosaurs.)

ALSO NOTE - most of the previous GLOBAL EXTINCTION LEVEL EVENTS were to do with climate change! Oceans became anoxic and died, land biodiversity suffered, and for a variety of reasons the super-hot-house earth's (each almost like different planets given the time and continental drift between each phase) had a really bad track record as far as life is concerned.

Back to the point. We've been stable for 3 million years. But now we're breaking it!

One more thing, I'm noticing you are picking versus in isolation like the wages of sin is death, therefore we don't need to know the blood. I think is the point you are making.

Remember, we agreed we need to take into account all of scripture - lest we have different gospels - one of blood - or one of general faith etc.

So we can't take ever one or two a even few verses in isolation but we must always harmonize them with them all - or you run the risk have not having a false gospel - but an incomplete one - which might actually be a false gospel (but that is another debate).

If you agree, then the impetus is on you, if his death is enough because it undoes the wages of sin is death (this is true btw), then should we throw out romans 3:25 or is there a simple way to join them into one unified complete gospel.

How about his death is necessary and His blood. Is that too much to ask?

Does anyone think that is wrong?

That doesn't cover the other dozen things one must understand - like who jesus is, his sinlessness, etc, so I'd say something like this.

The gospel includes both who Jesus is and what He did - his death, buriel, ressurection, which the father recieved through his blood. I have faith He was enough and his sacrifice was accepted because his shed blood. When I have faith in the blood it includes, faith in Him, the gospel, his death and ressurection. It is his blood that cleanses me and covers me so the wraith of God passese over me and I have peace with God.

I could simple that the gospel is who He is, and his sacrificial blood atonement and ressurection etc.

To drive the point home, consider this. If the Israelites in Egypt merely sacrificed there lamb, in this case, just trusted the death of the lamb, and did not trust God's word and instructions to paint the blood over the door post - would they have been "saved" when the angel passed over them?

Both the death and the blood of that sacrifice played a role according to God' eternal plan of redemption and it makes sense.

To disregard the blood is to essentially turn away from the altar and mercy seat. It could only accept blood!!

Riddle me this, what do you think would happen if the priest tried to not obey leviticus, ie the law, and put a living or dead body on the altar in place of the blood, or simpler still decided to neglect it? <-- serious question - please answer

Fervent said:

I hope I'm not breaking any rules with this, but a lot of this kind of behavior is because of the presentation of the gospel as a message of personal salvation rather than keeping the focus on the goodness of God. The whole "Well, becoming a Christian is a free ticket to heaven" messaging is bound to tickle ears and appeal to prideful people who think they're the center of the world. Combine that with access to unquestionable authority by saying "I'm just saying what's in the Bible!" and you've got a cocktail for rampant abusive behavior.

Click to expand...

Yes, I can try to get fame and praise and attention . . . by using the Bible to try to make myself look good.

This is what narcissists do > piggy-backing on the desirability of some popular thing or person, in order to get that popularity and attention for themselves. I have done this.

Thank you for the reminder

I never owned a Super Nintendo, but I have the Donkey Kong Country & Donkey Kong Country 2 remakes on GBA.

I haven't played many other SNES games. I would say I like the DKC games better then Super Mario World, which I have too

I wonder how many people defending her cheered for the fact that the woman at the baseball game lost her job for saying "call ice" or whatever it was she said. Should the woman be getting death threats? No, but she certainly shouldn't be allowed to teach children.

While some of Origen's teachings were condemned long after his death, it is my understanding that he was never condemned as a heretic during his lifetime.

prodromos said:

He basically put your own words back to you, so if that is picking a fight then it is apparent that you were the first to do so in this thread.

Click to expand...

Not really. It is my thread and he seemed to be getting agitated. I simply told him first that if it bothered him then he didn’t need to participate. I was just being concerned and wanted to keep the thread from devolving into a my church is better than yours debate.