Prophecy Clarified

[dilloduck]

So you can prove that the prophets saw the future and were not just predicting the next step in a trend?

 

[ajwps]

Originally posted by dilloduck

So you can prove that the prophets saw the future and were not just predicting the next step in a trend?

Steps in trends are as variable as Quantum Theory. Prophecies are only validated once the foretold event has occurred and appears as a coincidence.

Coincidence may be described as the chance encounter of two unrelated causal chains which—miraculously, it seems—merge into a significant event. It provides the neatest paradigm of the bisociation of previously separate contexts, engineered by those events. In the coincidence, two strings of thought are tangled into one acoustic knot; in the coincidental happening, two strings of events are knitted together by invisible hands.

 

[5stringJeff]

Originally posted by ajwps
Hey what branch of Christianity did Jesus follow? One little old black lady told me that he was a Southern Baptist.

Did Paul of Tarsus have much to do with creating Christianity and who wrote the the New Testmaent Gospels? Were Mark, Luke, and John the authors?

I'm not sure why I'm responding to a self-admitted troll, but here goes...
Jesus worshipped the Father, and taught us how to do the same. He did not practice Christianity as we do.
Paul did not create Christianity; however, He did preach about Jesus Christ to many Greeks and other Gentile nations. As you can see, he wrote several books in the NT (from Romans to Philemon, and some also think Hebrews).
The authors of the Gospels have their names on the books; thus, the Gospel according to Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John.

 

[dilloduck]

So Jesus worshipped the Jewish concept of God?

 

[freeandfun1]

Originally posted by dilloduck
So Jesus worshipped the Jewish concept of God?

Why do you ask? You really don't care and as soon as somebody replies, you will say they are trying to force their religion down your throat.

 

[NewGuy]

Originally posted by dilloduck
So Jesus worshipped the Jewish concept of God?

Why?

Did Nostradamus predict it?

 

[dilloduck]

read the thread---it was a question regarding GOPs' answer to aj

 

[ajwps]

Originally posted by gop_jeff

I'm not sure why I'm responding to a self-admitted troll, but here goes...

Probably because these questions need be answered.

Jesus worshipped the Father, and taught us how to do the same. He did not practice Christianity as we do.

If Jesus worshipped his father, then who worshipped the holy ghost?

Did the holy ghost father Jesus with an engaged earth woman?

If Jesus did not practice Christianity as you do, why don't you worship like Jesus himself?

Paul did not create Christianity; however, He did preach about Jesus Christ to many Greeks and other Gentile nations. As you can see, he wrote several books in the NT (from Romans to Philemon, and some also think Hebrews).

Did Paul of Tarsus write this little note to the Philippians in his episels to them?

Philippians 1

18 What then? notwithstanding, every way, whether in pretence, or in truth, Christ is preached; and I therein do rejoice, yea, and will rejoice.

Do you think that a god needs one of his main writers to lie to get converts to his faith? If St. Paul was not the main writer of the New Testament gospels, then who was?

The authors of the Gospels have their names on the books; thus, the Gospel according to Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John.

Actually you might want to ask your pastor or priest about the authorship of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John. For the authors of these gospels are UNKNOWN..... The following explainantion of this truth is acknowledged and an explanations made for this fact. But the fact that other books authors are unknown does not prove the gospels to be written by the names on their covers.

http://www.tektonics.org/tekton_02_02_02.html

Authorship and date are important; but equally important, if not more so, is whether what is in the Gospels is true. Regardless of who wrote the Gospels and when, if they reflect reality correctly, then it points to their being written by eyewitnesses, or having eyewitnesses as their source. Thus, even if the traditional authorship and earliest dates are disproved - and it is my contention that the arguments against them are inadequate - it matters very little, we may surmise, who wrote them and when. (Hengel [Heng.4G, 6] notes that we have only one biography of Muhammed, written 212 years after his death, which used a source from about 100 years after his death, and yet "the historical scepticism of critical European scholarship is substantially less" where Muhammed is concerned!)
Critical arguments about authorship and date of the Gospels revolve around the same data, and have revolved around it, for the past 2 million years. Well, not exactly 2 million; that's hyperbole to make the point which IS true: That is, with very, VERY few exceptions, critics and skeptics have used the same arguments against the traditional data over and over and over to the point of nausea. In my survey of the literature thus far, I have found that the standard critical arguments have been overused by skeptics and sufficiently answered by traditionalists; yet the critics have not deigned to answer the counter-arguments, except rarely and then only with bald dismissals. I will continue my search, of course, but so far there seems to be a notable reluctance on the part of critics to "put up or shut up" against the traditionalist counter-arguments!

 

[NewGuy]

Originally posted by ajwps
Jesus worshipped the Father, and taught us how to do the same. He did not practice Christianity as we do.
If Jesus worshipped his father, then who worshipped the holy ghost?

The Holy SPIRIT/Ghost is part of the trinity. The Father has a role, the Spirit has a role, and Jesus has a role. Jesus is the Son, obviously, and His role is clear.

The Father is FATHERLY in authority and that role is clear by behavior as context dictates throughout the entire Bible.

The Spirit is exactly that, the spirit. It has no body, and is the unseen force almost like a concience bringing a link between Jesus and Christians. See Gen 1:2 for first reference to the Spirit. This is called the "Comforter" and is comparable to Eve as given to Adam as a "helper" as well. -It is a marriage of sorts in spirit. You can see the most direct text referring to it as dictated by:

John 14:16 And I will pray the Father, and he shall give you another Comforter, that he may abide with you for ever;
17 Even the Spirit of truth; whom the world cannot receive, because it seeth him not, neither knoweth him: but ye know him; for he dwelleth with you, and shall be in you. 18 I will not leave you comfortless: I will come to you.

and

John 16:7
7 Nevertheless I tell you the truth; It is expedient for you that I go away: for if I go not away, the Comforter will not come unto you; but if I depart, I will send him unto you.

Jesus called him the Spirit of Truth, the one who guides us into all the truth and glorifies both the Father and the Son. It is crucial to all of us, that we recognize and accept this helper/comforter.

Did the holy ghost father Jesus with an engaged earth woman?

I think we just identified you as a mormon.

Engagement is not marriage. Since both were Jews and believers, it isn't like Mary was taken advantage of anyway and they were honored in this event.

If Jesus did not practice Christianity as you do, why don't you worship like Jesus himself?

Simple:

WE DO. Jesus prayed to the Father and we do the same. They are a trinity and we pray to all as one.

Why?

John 14:
6 Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me.
7 If ye had known me, ye should have known my Father also: and from henceforth ye know him, and have seen him.
8 Philip saith unto him, Lord, shew us the Father, and it sufficeth us.
9 Jesus saith unto him, Have I been so long time with you, and yet hast thou not known me, Philip? he that hath seen me hath seen the Father; and how sayest thou then, Shew us the Father?
10 Believest thou not that I am in the Father, and the Father in me? the words that I speak unto you I speak not of myself: but the Father that dwelleth in me, he doeth the works.
11 Believe me that I am in the Father, and the Father in me: or else believe me for the very works' sake.
12 Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that believeth on me, the works that I do shall he do also; and greater works than these shall he do; because I go unto my Father.

There ya go.

Did Paul of Tarsus write this little note to the Philippians in his episels to them?

Yes, either he or Timothy as the book claims both were present, so YOU tell me. Lets requote:
"12 But I would ye should understand, brethren, that the things which happened unto me have fallen out rather unto the furtherance of the gospel;
13 So that my bonds in Christ are manifest in all the palace, and in all other places;
14 And many of the brethren in the Lord, waxing confident by my bonds, are much more bold to speak the word without fear.
15 Some indeed preach Christ even of envy and strife; and some also of good will:
16 The one preach Christ of contention, not sincerely, supposing to add affliction to my bonds:
17 But the other of love, knowing that I am set for the defence of the gospel.
18 What then? notwithstanding, every way, whether in pretence, or in truth, Christ is preached; and I therein do rejoice, yea, and will rejoice.
19 For I know that this shall turn to my salvation through your prayer, and the supply of the Spirit of Jesus Christ,
20 According to my earnest expectation and my hope, that in nothing I shall be ashamed, but that with all boldness, as always, so now also Christ shall be magnified in my body, whether it be by life, or by death. "

He is saying his humanistic fear is getting in the way of preaching (14) and some can preach it FAKING to be believers (16). He says that wether the fearful, fakers, or himself in a love of Christ, he is happy to see the word preached(18).

Do you think that a god needs one of his main writers to lie to get converts to his faith?

You misunderstand the text because you take it out of context.
He didn't lie at all.

If St. Paul was not the main writer of the New Testament gospels, then who was?

Actually you might want to ask your pastor or priest about the authorship of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John. For the authors of these gospels are UNKNOWN..... The following explainantion of this truth is acknowledged and an explanations made for this fact. But the fact that other books authors are unknown does not prove the gospels to be written by the names on their covers.

Lookie:

Luke chapter 1
King James Version
1 Forasmuch as many have taken in hand to set forth in order a declaration of those things which are most surely believed among us,
2 Even as they delivered them unto us, which from the beginning were eyewitnesses, and ministers of the word;
3 It seemed good to me also, having had perfect understanding of all things from the very first, to write unto thee in order, most excellent Theophilus,
4 That thou mightest know the certainty of those things, wherein thou hast been instructed.

Luke chapter 3
King James Version
1 Now in the fifteenth year of the reign of Tiberius Caesar, Pontius Pilate being governor of Judaea, and Herod being tetrarch of Galilee, and his brother Philip tetrarch of Ituraea and of the region of Trachonitis, and Lysanias the tetrarch of Abilene,
2 Annas and Caiaphas being the high priests, the word of God came unto John the son of Zacharias in the wilderness.
3 And he came into all the country about Jordan, preaching the baptism of repentance for the remission of sins;

Given the ruins of a Roman theater in Caesarea which contain references to Pilate and collaborate the story given above, I would say we have this and the other historical evidence naming people in all the right places which cross collaborate the books just fine.

I thought you said you KNEW something and could not be proven wrong.

 

[Mustafa]

Originally posted by NewGuy

Touche! I only read the lower end of it.

Where it uses the point of not opening His mouth:
6 All we like sheep have gone astray; we have turned every one to his own way; and the LORD hath laid on him the iniquity of us all.
7 He was oppressed, and he was afflicted, yet he opened not his mouth: he is brought as a lamb to the slaughter, and as a sheep before her shearers is dumb, so he openeth not his mouth.

It is comparing to a sheep led to slaughter. In other words, he did not yell or speak against the death, but accepted it quietly. He did not complain or cry for help. He accepted His fate.

When the non-violent Jesus did not open his mouth, what did he mean in Luke 19?

Luke 19
26 For I say unto you, That unto every one which hath shall be given; and from him that hath not, even that he hath shall be taken away from him.

27 But those mine enemies, which would not that I should reign over them, bring hither, and slay them before me.

28 And when he had thus spoken, he went before, ascending up to Jerusalem.

 

[Mustafa]

Originally posted by NewGuy

The Holy SPIRIT/Ghost is part of the trinity. The Father has a role, the Spirit has a role, and Jesus has a role. Jesus is the Son, obviously, and His role is clear. The Father is FATHERLY in authority and that role is clear by behavior as context dictates throughout the entire Bible.

Are you saying that the holy trinity is three gods (part of the tri-une gods)?

The Spirit is exactly that, the spirit. It has no body, and is the unseen force almost like a concience bringing a link between Jesus and Christians. See Gen 1:2 for first reference to the Spirit. This is called the "Comforter" and is comparable to Eve as given to Adam as a "helper" as well. -It is a marriage of sorts in spirit. You can see the most direct text referring to it as dictated by: and
Jesus called him the Spirit of Truth, the one who guides us into all the truth and glorifies both the Father and the Son. It is crucial to all of us, that we recognize and accept this helper/comforter.

1) If the holy spirit is a link between Jesus and Christians, then is he not part of the tri-une gods?
2) When this marriage of sorts in spirit impregnated the earth lady, who performed this 'marriage of sorts'?
3) Why does G-d need to have a spirit/son guide to Him?

I think we just identified you as a mormon.

WRONG.....

Engagement is not marriage. Since both were Jews and believers, it isn't like Mary was taken advantage of anyway and they were honored in this event.

Unfortunately in Jesus time and being of the Jewish faith. even Jesus knew G-d's commandment known by all the Jewish people of his day commanded that the taking of a betrothed or a married women was a SIN against G-d Himself.

Would you be honored and understand and believe it if a spirit impregnated your fiancee when she told you that it was a ghost representative of G-d?

If Mary wasn't taken advantage of anyway, how did her egg become fertilized with a sperm to create the baby Jesus?

Simple:

WE DO. Jesus prayed to the Father and we do the same. They are a trinity and we pray to all as one.

You DO????? Let me get this straight, you pray to Jesus who prayed to his father in heaven. Why the intermediary?

There ya go.

Are you using PRETENSE when you say that you pray to the Father G-d when you really pray to His man-son.

Yes, either he or Timothy as the book claims both were present, so YOU tell me. Lets requote:

So G-d the father is not a jealous G-d and likes you praying to son or man-made gods like the Mythrian Romans did? How many gods were present in Timmothy? It seems that the Muslims claim that Jesus was a prophet and that Christians have three separate individual gods.

He is saying his humanistic fear is getting in the way of preaching (14) and some can preach it FAKING to be believers (16). He says that wether the fearful, fakers, or himself in a love of Christ, he is happy to see the word preached(18). You misunderstand the text because you take it out of context.
He didn't lie at all.

I don't think so. Paul's words were actually in context and meant exactly what he said in the entire first chapter of Philippians. What you are saying is that Paul, a rerpresentative of a god son called Christ was happy to have his biblical truth preached by fakers (liars), fearful?, or himself, all of which he rejoiced in. What kind of god would want or need fakers (liars), those who were afraid and men like Paul of Tarsus who purchased his Jewish identity from the Romans with money collected from going around preaching about a new son god that was born and crucified some 60 years earlier.

Lookie: Given the ruins of a Roman theater in Caesarea which contain references to Pilate and collaborate the story given above, I would say we have this and the other historical evidence naming people in all the right places which cross collaborate the books just fine.

Could you give me a reference about this Roman theater in Caesarea (I have been there and visited all the archeological sites) which coroborates a historical Jesus event? Remember that the Roman conversions to Christianity occurred more than three hundred years after Christ's crucifixion and tiles representatiing a fish do not corroborate anything.

I thought you said you KNEW something and could not be proven wrong.

DITTO.......

 

[NewGuy]

Originally posted by Mustafa
When the non-violent Jesus did not open his mouth, what did he mean in Luke 19?

It was a parable about how to handle money as it is also called the "Parable of the Pounds".

It is to be paralleled with the Parable of the Talents.

The word translated "kill" is Greek katasphazo, "slaughter, strike down." The listeners in Jericho recalled how King Archelaus slaughtered his enemies, and recognized how the parable was true to life.

The point here is that you are not God's enemy when you fail. He loves you. He is there to encourage you to try again as he did Peter (John 21:15-17). But you are God's enemy when you set your will against his and refuse to use productively what he has given you. That is a dangerous place in which to stand, as an enemy of God.

 

[dilloduck]

If one stands as an enemy of God, what will God do to that person?

 

[NewGuy]

Originally posted by Mustafa
The Holy SPIRIT/Ghost is part of the trinity. The Father has a role, the Spirit has a role, and Jesus has a role. Jesus is the Son, obviously, and His role is clear. The Father is FATHERLY in authority and that role is clear by behavior as context dictates throughout the entire Bible.

Are you saying that the holy trinity is three gods (part of the tri-une gods)?

No. I said, very clearly, they are ONE God, -three parts of one and the same.

The Spirit is exactly that, the spirit. It has no body, and is the unseen force almost like a concience bringing a link between Jesus and Christians. See Gen 1:2 for first reference to the Spirit. This is called the "Comforter" and is comparable to Eve as given to Adam as a "helper" as well. -It is a marriage of sorts in spirit. You can see the most direct text referring to it as dictated by: and
Jesus called him the Spirit of Truth, the one who guides us into all the truth and glorifies both the Father and the Son. It is crucial to all of us, that we recognize and accept this helper/comforter.

1) If the holy spirit is a link between Jesus and Christians, then is he not part of the tri-une gods?

Not GODS, but GOD.
I already said that.

2) When this marriage of sorts in spirit impregnated the earth lady, who performed this 'marriage of sorts'?

You are really being a troll now.

I told you, and if you would read the Bible instead of taking verses out of context, you would see Mary was already a believer and she was a Jew. She was already His "chosen". In addition, when Jesus walked the earth, this new "marriage of sorts" as you are again trying to take out of context, did not take effect until after He died.

I JUST POSTED THE VERSES. Do you not read?

3) Why does G-d need to have a spirit/son guide to Him?

Who said He did? No reference anywhere points to God needing a guide, and nowhere did I claim such a thing either.

You really do a fantastic job taking Bible scripture and making it whatever you want.

Engagement is not marriage. Since both were Jews and believers, it isn't like Mary was taken advantage of anyway and they were honored in this event.

Unfortunately in Jesus time and being of the Jewish faith. even Jesus knew G-d's commandment known by all the Jewish people of his day commanded that the taking of a betrothed or a married women was a SIN against G-d Himself.

He was "born under the Law." The historical parameters of the Jewish Law were cancelled by His redemptive and restorational work (3:19), He was born a Jewish male in the context of the old covenant Judaic law jurisdiction.

Jesus was circumcised according to the Law (Lk. 2:21), was taught the Torah, and went to synagogue. He knew from personal experience the bondage of that performance-based system of Law, even though He lived perfectly "without sin" (II Cor. 5:21).

Would you be honored and understand and believe it if a spirit impregnated your fiancee when she told you that it was a ghost representative of G-d?

1. It doesn't matter what I think, it matters what is PROPHECY, and what is God's will. In this case, both are overshadowing.

2. What you throw out as a supposition in our time with non-believing attitudes predominating, do not necessarily apply to a Jewish culture to believers in a more traditional world.

If Mary wasn't taken advantage of anyway, how did her egg become fertilized with a sperm to create the baby Jesus?

Who said it was?

Again, you suppose something nobody has information on. Who said it wasnt a cloning process? DNA and egg. Not too difficult to slip a piece of DNA in there if you can walk on water or create the world in 6 days, is it?

Simple:

WE DO. Jesus prayed to the Father and we do the same. They are a trinity and we pray to all as one.

You DO????? Let me get this straight, you pray to Jesus who prayed to his father in heaven. Why the intermediary?

Because they are ONE. I already pointed you to the verses about nobody coming to the Father but through Jesus. Again, you aren't reading.

Are you using PRETENSE when you say that you pray to the Father G-d when you really pray to His man-son.

Are you even listening?

So G-d the father is not a jealous G-d and likes you praying to son or man-made gods like the Mythrian Romans did?

How the heck can you ignore answers to your questions and continue to ask more?

I guess I must be right.

Trinity, bub....Get over it.

How many gods were present in Timmothy? It seems that the Muslims claim that Jesus was a prophet and that Christians have three separate individual gods.

So? What does THAT have to do with reality?

He is saying his humanistic fear is getting in the way of preaching (14) and some can preach it FAKING to be believers (16). He says that wether the fearful, fakers, or himself in a love of Christ, he is happy to see the word preached(18). You misunderstand the text because you take it out of context.
He didn't lie at all.

I don't think so. Paul's words were actually in context and meant exactly what he said in the entire first chapter of Philippians.

What you THINK is irrelevant. What is written is as plain as day for a million eyes to see. Context is everything. Go back and re-read. Since you haven't read anything I answered you with so far, your opinion means little now.

What you are saying is that Paul, a rerpresentative of a god son called Christ was happy to have his biblical truth preached by fakers (liars), fearful?, or himself, all of which he rejoiced in.

What I said was that he was happy knowing the job was getting done. Since no man is perfect, quit trying to twist it around and say that some disciples were. He knew we are all on equal ground as sinners. I am as bad as you are and we both are as bad as the liars and Paul.

What kind of god would want or need fakers (liars), those who were afraid and men like Paul of Tarsus who purchased his Jewish identity from the Romans with money collected from going around preaching about a new son god that was born and crucified some 60 years earlier.

We have already answered that.

Could you give me a reference about this Roman theater in Caesarea (I have been there and visited all the archeological sites) which coroborates a historical Jesus event? Remember that the Roman conversions to Christianity occurred more than three hundred years after Christ's crucifixion and tiles representatiing a fish do not corroborate anything.

Why should I give you anything further? You cannot read what I have given you so far. I will not cast pearls before swine. If you want a decent discussion, read the points that are made and think about them. We can go further after that.

I thought you said you KNEW something and could not be proven wrong.

DITTO....... [/B]

Ummm....yeah. We can see the reality here.

:cof:

 

[NewGuy]

Originally posted by dilloduck
If one stands as an enemy of God, what will God do to that person?

Define.

 

[dilloduck]

I was just wondering what the danger was that you talked about

 

[NewGuy]

Originally posted by dilloduck
I was just wondering what the danger was that you talked about

That depends on what He decides the punishment to be, doesn't it?

Would you want to be an enemy of the most powerful thing in creation?

 

[Mustafa]

Originally posted by NewGuy

It was a parable about how to handle money as it is also called the "Parable of the Pounds". It is to be paralleled with the Parable of the Talents.

The word translated "kill" is Greek katasphazo, "slaughter, strike down." The listeners in Jericho recalled how King Archelaus slaughtered his enemies, and recognized how the parable was true to life.

The point here is that you are not God's enemy when you fail. He loves you. He is there to encourage you to try again as he did Peter (John 21:15-17). But you are God's enemy when you set your will against his and refuse to use productively what he has given you. That is a dangerous place in which to stand, as an enemy of God.

Sorry but what does all your lovely statement have to do with Jesus wanting his enemies brought before him to be slain, killed or murdered?

In other words, if the King James Version of the New Testament says something in English pretty clearly then if you don't understand something different than is clearly printed in Luke, you become an enemy of G-d.

Sounds fair....

 

[DKSuddeth]

Originally posted by dilloduck
I was just wondering what the danger was that you talked about

does the phrase 'eternal damnation' mean anything?

 

[dilloduck]

So I was given free will to accept Jesus or suffer eternal damnation? No one can prove there is such a thing and if this is Gods' idea of free will, I wonder how he feels about creating it in the first place. A test to see if what he created is worthy of him? Odd game.