The Bible Tells Us When Jesus Returns - Between Tisha B'Av and Day of Atonement 2029

[emilynghiem]

You are letting your petty self affect you. Six literal days is six days. That is the intention. So the 6 days sum up the period of restoration. A day to God is a year to us or a day to God is a 1000 years to us. Actually a day God is an eternity to us. It is a figurative expression. Six days are literally six days as a child would read humbly.

No, I agree with you exactly that one day to God does not mean
one literal earth day. That,s exactly what I mean that it is not literal, as you state very well here. Glad we agree!

Hi Parture
See above where you say it is literal then say it is a figurative expression.
Thus it is not literal in meaning though it is literally written that way.
That is why your question and complaint are confusing,
especially since we actually AGREE what it means and how it is stated.

I had no problem with that, but you made an issue of it that
when your reply looks just as confusing where it LOOKS like you are saying something is both
literal and figurative at the same time! Since I understood and have faith in what you meant, and not
look like you were trying to doubletalk, then why can't you see when this happens with me or someone else?

As I explained before you and I both
AGREE the Bible literally says 6 days.
and we both
AGREE that this FIGURATIVELY means how you interpret it.
I even compliment you on how well you explain this meaning.

I hope we can resolve this since we actually agree.

See above where I made a point to focus on where we agree, and forgive the miscommunication.
You on the other hand keep bringing this up, trying to fault me, and can't seem to forgive it.

Why not? We both agree.

If it is too upsetting to you if someone makes mistakes like this,
no wonder you are worried so many people are going to hell.
Online communication is usually worse in misunderstandings.
so you will not get very far if you can't even resolve an issue
that we AGREE on. how will you handle areas of disagreement?

We will all go to hell if we all have to speak and answer
"perfectly in one shot the first time"
or else be accused of things we don't mean and don't believe.

The reason you are not a Christian is because you are a universalist, but you know the Bible says there will be those who spend eternity in Hell, so you're basically saying you disagree with the Bible. And I say you disagree with the Bible because you are not a Christian. It says what it says which you disagree with.

But we agreed that it is the devil beast and false prophet that end up in the lake of fire.

These things are not human souls.

if we cannot agree let us stick to scripture
and I said I agree that those scriptures are true.

We don't have to agree on things not specifically
literally stated in the Bible like the Constitutional laws.

I believe those natural laws are universal too.
they are not in the Bible but I believe in them
and that doesn't mean I'm going to hell.

So if I believe the scriptures in the Bible are
true and I believe in some form of universal salvation
that still follows the scriptures in the Bible and
makes them true without conflict or contradiction,
then that isn't against the Bible.

It is not in the Bible any explanations of the daughters of the
Earth and other tribes that Adam and Eve's sons took
as their wives. Some people interpret this as their
daughters, or Goddess or older pagan tribes
or prehumanoids before our current lineage.
since that is not literally in the Bible,
then this could be interpreted different ways
and not be against the Bible as long as it
doesn't conflict with Adam Eve and what is there.

Sorry you are panicking over this.

I think it is because we take the opposite approach
to reaching agreement in Christ that this is foreign to you
and appears false.

I listen and include anything and everything people say,
forgive it no matter how crazy false or skewed it may be
because I understand people have been abused and are
grieving and seeking healign by sharing what we think and feel.

Then I work through whatever people say and try to
align points of agreement so we can figure out the truth
by agreement, by resolving misunderstanding and places
we said one thing but the other person heard something else,
and find what we really mean and believe that we agree is true.

So that is what I judge by that final agreement in Christ
or by conscience. If i judged by all the things we said
along the way, we'd never get to the agreements.

We'd be too busy judging one another for every
little mistake, big or small, and waste time fighting in division.
the devil plays on that so I don't go there.

I seek forgivness and correction in Christ.
and the errors and mispeaking or whatever
will be resolved and corrected as we go.

you on the other hand appear to judge on the front
side. you even declare and penalize people first,
and then expect them to resolve afterwards.

that is foreign to me.

it invokes upset reactions and makes it harder
to communicate to correct whatever was wrong.

so why do this to each other?

because we are opposite in approach
you misread my intent and meaning
and I am still trying to understand yours

i see good points there
but this approach of attack first
fix it afterwards seems unchristian to me
and more about trying to test people
cause them to stumble and see how
they react afterwards. very cruel
and I do not think that is the best way.

if you like this you may be a sociopath
who doesn't understand that it feels hurtful.
you may be objective and neutral where it
is pure logic, agree or disagree, and feel
no emotions either way so it does not bother you.

but other people aren't gifted as a sociopath
and will feel feelings attached.

it is a gift tht you have but should never
be abused in this way.

you have the ability to be objective in ways
that are beyond the emotions of others,
so if i were you i would befriend people
who can help you make sure you
never abuse your gifts to hurt people
when this is not your intent.

i don't think you understand
or else if you did you would not act this way

i believe it is out of innocence
and jsut reacting to yes and no neutrally
that you do this and don't understand
why people appear bothered by it.

i can help you with that but cannot
guarantee I will be perfect in my answers
and will more likely make mistakes
since you appear unable to accommodate
less than a perfectly consistent answer

if this is going to cause fights
then we will likely have lots of fights
if you can be okay with that

 

[teddyearp]

Emily, I think you are going to Hell.

I kid, but I think it has become a total waste of time trying to deal with this little boy here. Let us just leave him to his tiny sandbox. Albeit he did get quite a few big kids to play with him, now we know the child for what he is.

A childish person who refuses to answer like a man directly any question and/or post presented to him. Instead of answering like a man, he chooses the child's path. "Let's play with their minds, souls, emotions, etc."

In all honesty that is all little boy Parture has done here. Play with us like a child.

Time for Parture to go home, boy!

 

[emilynghiem]

So have you figured out why you reject the Apostles and Elders setting up the Church for today?

I know that you are not a Christian because whenever you post you only have hostility.

Parture
You are rejected because you reject others. that's why.

teddyear's reaction is not perfect but neither are your provocations.

I see TY as extremely forgiving and his remarks as having more
content of substance while the emotions can be forgiven.
=============
Parture because of your extreme intelligence and discernment of details without regard for emotion
I am going to guess you may be one of these genius sociopaths who doesn't empathize
with people but looks at things purely objectively black and white with no social amenities or apologies.

I think there are books out that explain this is a gift in focusing extremely logically,
and doesn't have to be rejected from society as mentally or criminally deficient if the gifts are used productively

Sociopath World

The Wisdom of Psychopaths
What Saints Spies and Serial Killers Can Teach Us About Success Kevin Dutton 9780374533984 Amazon.com Books

Kevin Dutton's book comparing the saintlike objectivity of monks with the emotionless focus of psychopaths may make you understand why society rejects you and reacts to you the way you approach people as objects to be picked apart mechanically to fix the flaws

This isn't a bad thing, your gifts have exceptional potential
but you need to have better support to deal with people without your abilities to cut off emotions

Please let me know if you think your mind works like this.
Dutton compares it to monks who are highly enlightened
and removed from material and social emotions,
so this may tie in with "preservation of the saints"
and your spiritual focus that is very deep because you don't
waste time or words trying to appease people's emotions.

You have other gifts I have not seen in other people,
so I recommend you seek expert
help to study and make the most of these.

Maybe my friend Bob can help you who is
highly intellectualized and works on brain and analog technology.
But he is not Christian, may be Jewish, so you
would be dealing with a purely secular moralist scientist.

he is frustrated, too, because people don't understand him.
Maybe you two could help each other since you both exceed
the intelligence of the average person.

I am happy to help you find support to develop your gifts
but I am an empath and feel excess emotions and reactions
so I am the opposite of you. if we clash I hope you understand
it is because of our differences in how we are made to be the way we are.

thanks Parture
and I hope I can help you anyway
I care about you and don't want you to suffer
by letting your talents and gifts go to waste

 

[Parture]

Ted,

I am so glad you believe in the Trinity; OSAS Arminian; premillennialism; that Calvinists are not saved .

just out of curiosity, why is it we Calvinists can't be saved?........I would certainly like to be saved......

I don't think you want to be saved, because you would have been saved already.

therein lies my quandary.......I believe I have already been saved, but you have just told me I am not......

If you accept Jesus then you are saved.

 

[emilynghiem]

Ted,

I am so glad you believe in the Trinity; OSAS Arminian; premillennialism; that Calvinists are not saved .

just out of curiosity, why is it we Calvinists can't be saved?........I would certainly like to be saved......

Calvinists cant be saved from hell if they cant forgive and correct attacks from others.

so your Bible says that in order to be saved you need to believe in the saving grace of Jesus Christ and perform well in chat boards?......

Apparently! to be a true Christian according to Parture
you have to be psychic enough to answer trick questions
set up to accuse people of doubletalk if Parture misunderstands
what you mean by universal salvation.

And Christian enough to forgive that even when you agree with the Bible
and answer the questions correctly as meaning what is in the Bible,
you still got penalized because the administer
thought you didn't agree with the Bible when you did.

I guess if I were Jesus Christ I would look this person
right in the eye and say exactly what should be said:
"These aren't the Droids you're looking for...."

I would have to be psychic to read this guy's mind.

We'll see if the Holy Spirit gives me the right words
to help this guy find the direction he needs to fix
whatever went wrong with condemning people to hell.

For some reason, that didn't come across too well.....

He just really shocked me because I did not see it coming.
His questions seemed worded in such an enlightened
way, I thought for sure this is a person of vision with gifts
to spell out what is needed to unite Christendom, and
i was rejoicing to find someone built a forum to do this.

So it was like pulling the rug out from under my feet
and banging my head on the pavement, like a bait and switch.

I still think Parture has greater gifts and
this weird facade is some barrier that is there for a reason
until he is ready to work with other people.

Like a hidden genius that everyone else has written
off, but I see a lot more going on that needs to be brought out.
it would take a lot of work, but from what I saw
it would be worth it if it can be developed. Not sure if this
guy is ready or workable with. Truly unique spiritual calling
and needs the right people to form a team around.

 

[Parture]

Ted,

I am so glad you believe in the Trinity; OSAS Arminian; premillennialism; that Calvinists are not saved; women can be Apostles; Mary was born into sin; baptism is without or with water; gap restoration; tongues are only known languages; spiritual vs. carnal Christians, the latter not receiving the reward of returning with Christ to reign on earth; we are spirit/soul/body not spirit (soul)/body; the word of God is 66 books, no more no less; no escape from Hell once people go there; but sadly you didn't accept the Apostles and Elders in agreement with these questions. That sounds like a contradiction that you agree with these questions (even agree with the Apostles working regionally who appoint Elders of a church locality) but you don't accept the Apostles actually organizing and working in the agreement with these questions. How do you resolve that contradiction?

The Bible says be "not doubletongued" or doubleminded (1 Tim. 3.8).

I'll tell you little boy. For one, all can be forgiven and all can be saved, do not put words into my mouth, boy.

The only contradiction is the one in your little playground of your childish mind. Though I agree with most of the tenets of your 'church' I will not give dominion over myself, nor my salvation to the 'apostles' and 'elders' of your little 'church'. My salvation is mine given to me by the blood of my Savior, Jesus Christ who died on the cross a sinless man as the Son of the Living God, to pay for all my sins past, present and future.

Why would I want to subject my salvation to the 'elders' and 'apostles' of a 'church' run by a child? Yes, you are a child.

Why you may say, do I consider you a small child? Because I, as a man, have asked you several times if you accept Jesus Christ as you personal savior. You as a small child have only played childish games with that and any other question I have asked you here in this thread. You refuse to answer directly like a man. No. You play games and deflect the question, twist the question, answer the question with another unrealistic question; suffice it to say, all you have done here is act like a ten year old or less.

What is worse, I fear, is that your refusal to answer that direct question; coupled with your desire to cast all of us to Hell gives me serious doubts about your salvation. Why do you refuse to confess Jesus Christ? I will not quote chapter and verse, but I think it tells volumes about you. I have looked at the posts on your "church's" forums site and all you do there is set yourself up as the One who sits upon the Judgement throne casting all others into Hell. May God have mercy on your soul.

I know this. I cannot wait to see you on the other side, because, you little child, have a whole lot to learn. And do not worry about your reply casting me into Hell. Do not even bother. You do not have that power, little boy.

The Apostles and Elders are for today's church, so why are you so hostile to them? Eph. 4.11 is for today.

In the questions I gave you I already confessed Jesus as Lord and Savior, so you are being childish asking me again and again.

You have so much hostility why should Christian think you are saved with such a hostile spirit?

You also misuse the term Church, but the Church is not a website, but a locality of believers. Yet you agreed in those questions to that proper definition, but don't apply it in practice.

Don't be weird.

 

[Parture]

Ted,

I am so glad you believe in the Trinity; OSAS Arminian; premillennialism; that Calvinists are not saved .

just out of curiosity, why is it we Calvinists can't be saved?........I would certainly like to be saved......

Calvinists cant be saved from hell if they cant forgive and correct attacks from others.

so your Bible says that in order to be saved you need to believe in the saving grace of Jesus Christ and perform well in chat boards?......

Apparently! to be a true Christian according to Parture
you have to be psychic enough to answer trick questions
set up to accuse people of doubletalk if Parture misunderstands
what you mean by universal salvation.

And Christian enough to forgive that even when you agree with the Bible
and answer the questions correctly as meaning what is in the Bible,
you still got penalized because the administer
thought you didn't agree with the Bible when you did.

I guess if I were Jesus Christ I would look this person
right in the eye and say exactly what should be said:
"These aren't the Droids you're looking for...."

I would have to be psychic to read this guy's mind.

We'll see if the Holy Spirit gives me the right words
to help this guy find the direction he needs to fix
whatever went wrong with condemning people to hell.

For some reason, that didn't come across too well.....

He just really shocked me because I did not see it coming.
His questions seemed worded in such an enlightened
way, I thought for sure this is a person of vision with gifts
to spell out what is needed to unite Christendom, and
i was rejoicing to find someone built a forum to do this.

So it was like pulling the rug out from under my feet
and banging my head on the pavement, like a bait and switch.

I still think Parture has greater gifts and
this weird facade is some barrier that is there for a reason
until he is ready to work with other people.

Like a hidden genius that everyone else has written
off, but I see a lot more going on that needs to be brought out.
it would take a lot of work, but from what I saw
it would be worth it if it can be developed. Not sure if this
guy is ready or workable with. Truly unique spiritual calling
and needs the right people to form a team around.

In order to be a Christian firstly you can't be a universalist. Since you are a universalist you're not a Christian. So don't say you agree with eternal separation in in hell then call yourself a universalist. That's a complete contradiction.

 

[Parture]

You are letting your petty self affect you. Six literal days is six days. That is the intention. So the 6 days sum up the period of restoration. A day to God is a year to us or a day to God is a 1000 years to us. Actually a day God is an eternity to us. It is a figurative expression. Six days are literally six days as a child would read humbly.

No, I agree with you exactly that one day to God does not mean
one literal earth day. That,s exactly what I mean that it is not literal, as you state very well here. Glad we agree!

Hi Parture
See above where you say it is literal then say it is a figurative expression.
Thus it is not literal in meaning though it is literally written that way.
That is why your question and complaint are confusing,
especially since we actually AGREE what it means and how it is stated.

I had no problem with that, but you made an issue of it that
when your reply looks just as confusing where it LOOKS like you are saying something is both
literal and figurative at the same time! Since I understood and have faith in what you meant, and not
look like you were trying to doubletalk, then why can't you see when this happens with me or someone else?

As I explained before you and I both
AGREE the Bible literally says 6 days.
and we both
AGREE that this FIGURATIVELY means how you interpret it.
I even compliment you on how well you explain this meaning.

I hope we can resolve this since we actually agree.

See above where I made a point to focus on where we agree, and forgive the miscommunication.
You on the other hand keep bringing this up, trying to fault me, and can't seem to forgive it.

Why not? We both agree.

If it is too upsetting to you if someone makes mistakes like this,
no wonder you are worried so many people are going to hell.
Online communication is usually worse in misunderstandings.
so you will not get very far if you can't even resolve an issue
that we AGREE on. how will you handle areas of disagreement?

We will all go to hell if we all have to speak and answer
"perfectly in one shot the first time"
or else be accused of things we don't mean and don't believe.

The reason you are not a Christian is because you are a universalist, but you know the Bible says there will be those who spend eternity in Hell, so you're basically saying you disagree with the Bible. And I say you disagree with the Bible because you are not a Christian. It says what it says which you disagree with.

But we agreed that it is the devil beast and false prophet that end up in the lake of fire.

These things are not human souls.

if we cannot agree let us stick to scripture
and I said I agree that those scriptures are true.

We don't have to agree on things not specifically
literally stated in the Bible like the Constitutional laws.

I believe those natural laws are universal too.
they are not in the Bible but I believe in them
and that doesn't mean I'm going to hell.

So if I believe the scriptures in the Bible are
true and I believe in some form of universal salvation
that still follows the scriptures in the Bible and
makes them true without conflict or contradiction,
then that isn't against the Bible.

It is not in the Bible any explanations of the daughters of the
Earth and other tribes that Adam and Eve's sons took
as their wives. Some people interpret this as their
daughters, or Goddess or older pagan tribes
or prehumanoids before our current lineage.
since that is not literally in the Bible,
then this could be interpreted different ways
and not be against the Bible as long as it
doesn't conflict with Adam Eve and what is there.

Sorry you are panicking over this.

I think it is because we take the opposite approach
to reaching agreement in Christ that this is foreign to you
and appears false.

I listen and include anything and everything people say,
forgive it no matter how crazy false or skewed it may be
because I understand people have been abused and are
grieving and seeking healign by sharing what we think and feel.

Then I work through whatever people say and try to
align points of agreement so we can figure out the truth
by agreement, by resolving misunderstanding and places
we said one thing but the other person heard something else,
and find what we really mean and believe that we agree is true.

So that is what I judge by that final agreement in Christ
or by conscience. If i judged by all the things we said
along the way, we'd never get to the agreements.

We'd be too busy judging one another for every
little mistake, big or small, and waste time fighting in division.
the devil plays on that so I don't go there.

I seek forgivness and correction in Christ.
and the errors and mispeaking or whatever
will be resolved and corrected as we go.

you on the other hand appear to judge on the front
side. you even declare and penalize people first,
and then expect them to resolve afterwards.

that is foreign to me.

it invokes upset reactions and makes it harder
to communicate to correct whatever was wrong.

so why do this to each other?

because we are opposite in approach
you misread my intent and meaning
and I am still trying to understand yours

i see good points there
but this approach of attack first
fix it afterwards seems unchristian to me
and more about trying to test people
cause them to stumble and see how
they react afterwards. very cruel
and I do not think that is the best way.

if you like this you may be a sociopath
who doesn't understand that it feels hurtful.
you may be objective and neutral where it
is pure logic, agree or disagree, and feel
no emotions either way so it does not bother you.

but other people aren't gifted as a sociopath
and will feel feelings attached.

it is a gift tht you have but should never
be abused in this way.

you have the ability to be objective in ways
that are beyond the emotions of others,
so if i were you i would befriend people
who can help you make sure you
never abuse your gifts to hurt people
when this is not your intent.

i don't think you understand
or else if you did you would not act this way

i believe it is out of innocence
and jsut reacting to yes and no neutrally
that you do this and don't understand
why people appear bothered by it.

i can help you with that but cannot
guarantee I will be perfect in my answers
and will more likely make mistakes
since you appear unable to accommodate
less than a perfectly consistent answer

if this is going to cause fights
then we will likely have lots of fights
if you can be okay with that

Of course the Antichrist is a living soul and so is the False Prophet. Antichrist is Nero resurrected and False Prophet is Judas resurrected. They and other humans are going to spend eternity in Hell.

You're not a Christian because your are universalist. Universalists go to Hell and stay in Hell forever.

 

[Parture]

How do I know teddyearp is not a Christian? He said to the universalist emilynghiem that "he [a Christian] is beyond your energy to try to save." Where in Christianity do universalists, who are not Christians, have the power or energy to save someone? Universalists are going to Hell. Christians are already saved. Why do we need to get saved by universalists?

I didn't even need to know teddy's doctrinal errors, because he has had nothing but hostility. What Christian would act that way towards a Christian? None would. This shows the hostility stemming from teddy is moved by the evil spirit in his spirit whom he follows. He rejects the Apostles and Elders for the Church. He redefines the term Church to a website rather than it being a locality of believers. The Apostles and Elders are for today. The Apostles work regionally to appoint Elders of a church locality. That's how it was done in the Bible, so why so hostile?

 

[ninja007]

It's the same concept stated differently. God preserve the saints by the Holy Spirit, the saints persevere by the Holy Spirit.

Same concept.

Think for yourself. Why do OSAS Arminians have the 5th point as "preservation of the saints" while Calvinists have "perseverance of the saints"! First off "persevering" is a harder term in itself than "being preserved." The latter is much softer in tone. The reason is because when Christians gave their lives to Christ it was not just be regenerated but to be kept as we can't keep ourselves saved.

Whereas in Calvinism there is this persevering factor that is thrown onto you because you are allegedly irresistibly selected. As this god behaves so do you. The bottom line is OSAS Arminians fulfilled the requisite condition of repenting and believe on Him to be regenerated, but the Calvinist has not, for he admits instead of believing to be saved, he was first regenerated that made him like a robot to believe. The question is what is he really believing in? How sincere is that to prop yourself up on a pedestal to declare you were irresistibly selected? Sounds fake! A god who forces love on people or passes them over to be preterioned for Hell with no opportunity for salvation is a Satanic god. What love is that?

Saints do not persevere to be saved. We in Christ persevere to overcometh and unto rewards. That is far different. No amount of persevering can get one saved; nor can it lose one his salvation if he is already born-again. Typically Calvinists have no sense of this because they are amillennial usually. Whereas premillennials appreciate the fact that only if a believer overcometh in due time will he or she receive the reward of the first rapture (if alive at the time) and return with Christ to reign over the nations for 1000 years.

It is unclear what the Calvinist is persevering for, because there are no rewards in heaven. In Heaven reward are done away with, and there is no millennial kingdom in Calvinism usually. For example amillennialism came about from Augustine who is a Calvinist when before him there were just Chiliasts otherwise known as premillennial Christians. Calvin was amillennial too, often referred to as the "murderous Protestant Pope of Geneva" acting in the same spirit of his Roman Catholic Inquisition brethren.

WRONG. at the Bema Seat (or the Judgment Seat of Christ) Believer's ARE rewarded for thier good works done in His name.

 

[ninja007]

You are letting your petty self affect you. Six literal days is six days. That is the intention. So the 6 days sum up the period of restoration. A day to God is a year to us or a day to God is a 1000 years to us. Actually a day God is an eternity to us. It is a figurative expression. Six days are literally six days as a child would read humbly.

No, I agree with you exactly that one day to God does not mean
one literal earth day. That,s exactly what I mean that it is not literal, as you state very well here. Glad we agree!

Hi Parture
See above where you say it is literal then say it is a figurative expression.
Thus it is not literal in meaning though it is literally written that way.
That is why your question and complaint are confusing,
especially since we actually AGREE what it means and how it is stated.

I had no problem with that, but you made an issue of it that
when your reply looks just as confusing where it LOOKS like you are saying something is both
literal and figurative at the same time! Since I understood and have faith in what you meant, and not
look like you were trying to doubletalk, then why can't you see when this happens with me or someone else?

As I explained before you and I both
AGREE the Bible literally says 6 days.
and we both
AGREE that this FIGURATIVELY means how you interpret it.
I even compliment you on how well you explain this meaning.

I hope we can resolve this since we actually agree.

See above where I made a point to focus on where we agree, and forgive the miscommunication.
You on the other hand keep bringing this up, trying to fault me, and can't seem to forgive it.

Why not? We both agree.

If it is too upsetting to you if someone makes mistakes like this,
no wonder you are worried so many people are going to hell.
Online communication is usually worse in misunderstandings.
so you will not get very far if you can't even resolve an issue
that we AGREE on. how will you handle areas of disagreement?

We will all go to hell if we all have to speak and answer
"perfectly in one shot the first time"
or else be accused of things we don't mean and don't believe.

The reason you are not a Christian is because you are a universalist, but you know the Bible says there will be those who spend eternity in Hell, so you're basically saying you disagree with the Bible. And I say you disagree with the Bible because you are not a Christian. It says what it says which you disagree with.

But we agreed that it is the devil beast and false prophet that end up in the lake of fire.

These things are not human souls.

if we cannot agree let us stick to scripture
and I said I agree that those scriptures are true.

We don't have to agree on things not specifically
literally stated in the Bible like the Constitutional laws.

I believe those natural laws are universal too.
they are not in the Bible but I believe in them
and that doesn't mean I'm going to hell.

So if I believe the scriptures in the Bible are
true and I believe in some form of universal salvation
that still follows the scriptures in the Bible and
makes them true without conflict or contradiction,
then that isn't against the Bible.

It is not in the Bible any explanations of the daughters of the
Earth and other tribes that Adam and Eve's sons took
as their wives. Some people interpret this as their
daughters, or Goddess or older pagan tribes
or prehumanoids before our current lineage.
since that is not literally in the Bible,
then this could be interpreted different ways
and not be against the Bible as long as it
doesn't conflict with Adam Eve and what is there.

Sorry you are panicking over this.

I think it is because we take the opposite approach
to reaching agreement in Christ that this is foreign to you
and appears false.

I listen and include anything and everything people say,
forgive it no matter how crazy false or skewed it may be
because I understand people have been abused and are
grieving and seeking healign by sharing what we think and feel.

Then I work through whatever people say and try to
align points of agreement so we can figure out the truth
by agreement, by resolving misunderstanding and places
we said one thing but the other person heard something else,
and find what we really mean and believe that we agree is true.

So that is what I judge by that final agreement in Christ
or by conscience. If i judged by all the things we said
along the way, we'd never get to the agreements.

We'd be too busy judging one another for every
little mistake, big or small, and waste time fighting in division.
the devil plays on that so I don't go there.

I seek forgivness and correction in Christ.
and the errors and mispeaking or whatever
will be resolved and corrected as we go.

you on the other hand appear to judge on the front
side. you even declare and penalize people first,
and then expect them to resolve afterwards.

that is foreign to me.

it invokes upset reactions and makes it harder
to communicate to correct whatever was wrong.

so why do this to each other?

because we are opposite in approach
you misread my intent and meaning
and I am still trying to understand yours

i see good points there
but this approach of attack first
fix it afterwards seems unchristian to me
and more about trying to test people
cause them to stumble and see how
they react afterwards. very cruel
and I do not think that is the best way.

if you like this you may be a sociopath
who doesn't understand that it feels hurtful.
you may be objective and neutral where it
is pure logic, agree or disagree, and feel
no emotions either way so it does not bother you.

but other people aren't gifted as a sociopath
and will feel feelings attached.

it is a gift tht you have but should never
be abused in this way.

you have the ability to be objective in ways
that are beyond the emotions of others,
so if i were you i would befriend people
who can help you make sure you
never abuse your gifts to hurt people
when this is not your intent.

i don't think you understand
or else if you did you would not act this way

i believe it is out of innocence
and jsut reacting to yes and no neutrally
that you do this and don't understand
why people appear bothered by it.

i can help you with that but cannot
guarantee I will be perfect in my answers
and will more likely make mistakes
since you appear unable to accommodate
less than a perfectly consistent answer

if this is going to cause fights
then we will likely have lots of fights
if you can be okay with that

Of course the Antichrist is a living soul and so is the False Prophet. Antichrist is Nero resurrected and False Prophet is Judas resurrected. They and other humans are going to spend eternity in Hell.

You're not a Christian because your are universalist. Universalists go to Hell and stay in Hell forever.

oh really? Please list verse and passage please....

 

[ninja007]

How do I know teddyearp is not a Christian? He said to the universalist emilynghiem that "he [a Christian] is beyond your energy to try to save." Where in Christianity do universalists, who are not Christians, have the power or energy to save someone? Universalists are going to Hell. Christians are already saved. Why do we need to get saved by universalists?

I didn't even need to know teddy's doctrinal errors, because he has had nothing but hostility. What Christian would act that way towards a Christian? None would. This shows the hostility stemming from teddy is moved by the evil spirit in his spirit whom he follows. He rejects the Apostles and Elders for the Church. He redefines the term Church to a website rather than it being a locality of believers. The Apostles and Elders are for today. The Apostles work regionally to appoint Elders of a church locality. That's how it was done in the Bible, so why so hostile?

Parture, I'm interested in hearing your testimony of how and when you got saved and accepted Jesus as your personal Savior. All of us are waiting....

 

[Parture]

WRONG. at the Bema Seat (or the Judgment Seat of Christ) Believer's ARE rewarded for thier good works done in His name.

At the Bema Seat believers are rewarded for their good works done in His name, and that reward is given, including the first rapture according to readiness (Rev. 3.10), to return with Christ to reign over the nations for 1000 years or to lose this reward in "outer darkness" -- outside the light of reigning with Christ (though it has no fire or furnace about it). After the 1000 years rewards are done away with: the resurrected saved become the pillars of the New City and go exactly where God ordains for them to be.

 

[ninja007]

WRONG. at the Bema Seat (or the Judgment Seat of Christ) Believer's ARE rewarded for thier good works done in His name.

At the Bema Seat believers are rewarded for their good works done in His name, and that reward is given, including the first rapture according to readiness (Rev. 3.10), to return with Christ to reign over the nations for 1000 years or to lose this reward in "outer darkness" -- outside the light of reigning with Christ (though it has no fire or furnace about it). After the 1000 years rewards are done away with: the resurrected saved become the pillars of the New City and go exactly where God ordains for them to be.

there isn't a partial rapture. That is unbiblical. There is ONE PRETRIB Rapture. ALL born again Believer;'s are going up before the AC is revealed and then the trib starts.

 

[Parture]

WRONG. at the Bema Seat (or the Judgment Seat of Christ) Believer's ARE rewarded for thier good works done in His name.

At the Bema Seat believers are rewarded for their good works done in His name, and that reward is given, including the first rapture according to readiness (Rev. 3.10), to return with Christ to reign over the nations for 1000 years or to lose this reward in "outer darkness" -- outside the light of reigning with Christ (though it has no fire or furnace about it). After the 1000 years rewards are done away with: the resurrected saved become the pillars of the New City and go exactly where God ordains for them to be.

there isn't a partial rapture. That is unbiblical. There is ONE PRETRIB Rapture. ALL born again Believer;'s are going up before the AC is revealed and then the trib starts.

If "thou didst keep the word of my patience, I also will keep thee from the hour of trial, that hour which is to come upon the whole world, to try them that dwell upon the earth" (Rev. 3.10). The same is seen in Matt. 24.40-42, Luke 21.36).

That hour is the Tribulation that will come upon the whole world at the end of this age. God though can't promise Christians they won't be martyred during the Tribulation and death is no blessing so that would not be keeping from the hour of trial by being killed. Therefore, this condition of "keeping the word of His patience" is the qualification for being received before the throne in 3rd heaven before the Tribulation begins.

The Holy Spirit remains on earth, draws people to Christ through the Church on earth as it is now, for this dispensation of grace is not fulfilled until Jesus steps down on the mount of olives to enter into the next dispensation of recompense of the millennial kingdom. It is as T. Austin Sparks said, "there are advanced parties and harbingers in every sphere" and so it is with the rapture: a firstfruits and later harvest. This is not a comparing of wheat with tares, but wheat with wheat. Some wheat naturally ripens sooner.

Now you automatically exclude yourself from the first rapture as a part of readiness, disqualifying yourself for not being ready to be received at that time.

My prayer for you would be that when a couple million people have vanished and you are not included, don't accuse the brethren day and night (Rev. 12.10), but realize (assuming you are a Christian) you were simply not ready to be received at the first rapture. If you don't do this then you won't recognize the Tribulation is happening when you are in it and will be greatly deceived. A carnal Christian prefers to be tied down to the world, unwilling to be released like a balloon up and away. Antinomians who claim to be Christians do whatever they want which they think there are no consequences.

 

[ninja007]

WRONG. at the Bema Seat (or the Judgment Seat of Christ) Believer's ARE rewarded for thier good works done in His name.

At the Bema Seat believers are rewarded for their good works done in His name, and that reward is given, including the first rapture according to readiness (Rev. 3.10), to return with Christ to reign over the nations for 1000 years or to lose this reward in "outer darkness" -- outside the light of reigning with Christ (though it has no fire or furnace about it). After the 1000 years rewards are done away with: the resurrected saved become the pillars of the New City and go exactly where God ordains for them to be.

there isn't a partial rapture. That is unbiblical. There is ONE PRETRIB Rapture. ALL born again Believer;'s are going up before the AC is revealed and then the trib starts.

If "thou didst keep the word of my patience, I also will keep thee from the hour of trial, that hour which is to come upon the whole world, to try them that dwell upon the earth" (Rev. 3.10). The same is seen in Matt. 24.40-42, Luke 21.36).

That hour is the Tribulation that will come upon the whole world at the end of this age. God though can't promise Christians they won't be martyred during the Tribulation and death is no blessing so that would not be keeping from the hour of trial by being killed. Therefore, this condition of "keeping the word of His patience" is the qualification for being received before the throne in 3rd heaven before the Tribulation begins.

The Holy Spirit remains on earth, draws people to Christ through the Church on earth as it is now, for this dispensation of grace is not fulfilled until Jesus steps down on the mount of olives to enter into the next dispensation of recompense of the millennial kingdom. It is as T. Austin Sparks said, "there are advanced parties and harbingers in every sphere" and so it is with the rapture: a firstfruits and later harvest. This is not a comparing of wheat with tares, but wheat with wheat. Some wheat naturally ripens sooner.

Now you automatically exclude yourself from the first rapture as a part of readiness, disqualifying yourself for not being ready to be received at that time.

My prayer for you would be that when a couple million people have vanished and you are not included, don't accuse the brethren day and night (Rev. 12.10), but realize (assuming you are a Christian) you were simply not ready to be received at the first rapture. If you don't do this then you won't recognize the Tribulation is happening when you are in it and will be greatly deceived. A carnal Christian prefers to be tied down to the world, unwilling to be released like a balloon up and away. Antinomians who claim to be Christians do whatever they want which they think there are no consequences.

I'll get to your post tom. Parture, Lord willing. Have a good night. Kevin.

 

[Taz]

What's written in the bible is only hearsay, as you have no proof that the Apostles witnessed anything. Someone simply wrote down several generations later what they thought the Apostles saw or said... That's as close as you can actually prove.

No scholars believe it was written down several generations later. Carbon dating disagrees with you. Most scholars consider 1 Cor. 15, Gal. 1 & 2 Paul's writings so that is not hearsay and written within a decade of Jesus' death. Therein we find the Apostles truly believed they saw Jesus alive from the dead. No naturalistic explanation can account for this

Got a link to real scientists who believe this? "Scholars" are just people with opinions.

 

[Taz]

These are facts as they are backed up with evidence. Only peer reviewed and accredited work by scholars are included in the list. We call this the Minimal Facts Approach because most of these scholars concede Paul really wrote 1 Cor. 15, Gal. 1 & 2 and believed that the Apostles truly believed they saw Jesus alive from the dead.

Please point out the evidence, I see none. And I read the Minimal Facts Approach and it's not even remotely based on real facts.

The evidence was already given which you did not refute. I explained how the MFA works.

There was no proof in your post, just guys giving their opinions... Please point out one actual piece of real evidence and I will review it again.

Dear Taz
Parture believes in science and using naturalistic observation and means to show the spiritual healing
is real and consistent with science and natural laws.

Would you rather use that as proof that prayers in Jesus really cast out
demonic sickness to cure mental and physical illness as documented by doctors scientifically?

M.D. Rawlings also agreed but insisted this be done purely
by nonreligious scientists so there is no question of bias and skewing the process, results or interpretation afterwards.

I think koshergrl also agreed with the idea of proving and using spiritual healing
to show that these criminal and especially sexual addictions or abuses can be cured
and don't have to be assumed to be either natural or unchangeable, I can't remember what we discussed at the time.

sealybobo would you agree to scientific proof of spiritual healing
to show it is consistent and natural?

What matters is that emilynghiem is going to Hell because she is a universalist. Jesus was not a universalist. He only saves those accept Him and the way His design is set up people don't have free will if they don't have the free choice to eternally separate themselves from God.

So Jesus is like a communist leader who will kill anyone who disagrees with him? Wow, he a fucking BADASS!!!

 

[Parture]

What's written in the bible is only hearsay, as you have no proof that the Apostles witnessed anything. Someone simply wrote down several generations later what they thought the Apostles saw or said... That's as close as you can actually prove.

No scholars believe it was written down several generations later. Carbon dating disagrees with you. Most scholars consider 1 Cor. 15, Gal. 1 & 2 Paul's writings so that is not hearsay and written within a decade of Jesus' death. Therein we find the Apostles truly believed they saw Jesus alive from the dead. No naturalistic explanation can account for this

Got a link to real scientists who believe this? "Scholars" are just people with opinions.

12 Historical Facts (Most Critical Scholars Believe These 12 items)

1. Jesus died by crucifixion.

2. He was buried.

3. His death caused the disciples to despair and lose hope.

4. The tomb was empty (the most contested).

5. The disciples had experiences which they believed were literal appearances of the risen Jesus (the most important proof).

6. The disciples were transformed from doubters to bold proclaimers.

7. The resurrection was the central message.

8. They preached the message of Jesus’ resurrection in Jerusalem.

9. The Church was born and grew.

10. Orthodox Jews who believed in Christ made Sunday their primary day of worship.

11. James was converted to the faith when he saw the resurrected Jesus (James was a family skeptic).

12. Paul was converted to the faith (Paul was an outsider skeptic).

What Do Most Scholars Believe?

In The Case for the Real Jesus by Lee Strobel (p. 112), Mike Licona said, "[Gary] Habermas has compiled a list of more than 2,200 sources in French, German, and English in which experts have written on the resurrection from 1975 to the present. He has identified minimal facts that are strongly evidenced and which are regarded as historical by a large majority of scholars, including skeptics. We try to come up with the best historical explanation to account for these facts. This is called the Minimal Facts Approach."

William Lane Craig (sadly, a non-OSASer) does confirm Habermas recorded 1400 scholars (both skeptics and non-skeptics alike) whom 75% agree the tomb was empty and nearly all agree the original disciples truly believed they had seen Jesus alive from the dead bodily, for a vision wouldn't convince the disciples of resurrection.

Gary Habermas said (2009) on the John Ankerberg Show, "I just did a count recently of what scholars say. First of all you can count guys on one hand of the 2400 sources since 1975 on the resurrection [in] French, German, English...who think apparent death [is true]. When scholars respond they still cite David Strauss. I think we would all like to have that kind of influence in our writings. His critique has been around almost 200 years." Habermas was referring to Strauss's argument that Jesus wouldn't look much like a risen Messiah to the disciples all battered and bruised.

Habermas and Licona co-authored the award winning book, The Case for the Resurrection of Jesus (2004). Historian Paul Maier said the book's response to naturalistic explanations for the resurrection "are the most comprehensive treatment of the subject anywhere." Philosopher J. P. Moreland said the book presented what "may be the most thorough defense of historicity of the resurrection."

Gary said in a 2009 Ankerberg video, "If we start with the cross approximately 30 AD and call that ground zero, 1 Corinthians 15 checks in at about 55 AD whatever the writer, conservative or not conservative, we have 25 years. In ancient historiography this is incredible in a time when the best known biography of Alexander the Great is that of Plutarch almost 400 years after Plutarch. When we learn about the early Caesars from Tacitus to Suetonius a 'good gap' is 100 years; 25 is incredible [for Jesus]. Paul says, 'I am passing onto you as first importance that which I also received' (1 Cor. 15.3)." Paul said, "I make known to you brethren the gospel which I preached to you" (1 Cor. 15.1). Gary says, "This earlier preaching may have taken place 51 AD about 21 years after the cross." But point of fact, Jesus died not in 30 AD, but 33 AD on April 1st (Gregorian), April Fool's Day, Nisan 14, Friday which is no later than 18 years after the cross.

Gary said, "Almost all contemporary scholarship believes Paul received this material (Gal. 1.18) when he went to Jerusalem about 5 years after the cross. Some put it as early as 3 and as late as 8, but he was converted about 2 years after the cross before he went away for 3 years. Paul spent 15 days with Peter. It is safe to say they talked about more than just the weather. Paul said he preached nothing but Christ crucified." Gary said about James D.G. Dunn, "In his recent book Remembering Jesus that this passage (1 Cor. 15.3ff) wasn't just taught. It was already stratified. It was already put in this creedal form within months of the crucifixion."

Gary said (see video), "I did a count recently of people who have written from about 1990 to-date [2009]. 75% of scholars today say that resurrection or 'something like it occurred.' Of that 75%, three to one say it is a bodily appearance. Ted Peters had a book that was published by Eerdmans a few years ago, and 20 out of 20 scholars in his book that he edited said 'bodily resurrection.' Higher critical scholars who are in the minority will still usually concede the appearance involved sight and was embodied."

In the summer of 2012, Gary wrote in the Southeastern Theological Review, "by beginning with a 'lowest common denominator' version of the facts. If I am correct in holding that this basis is still enough to settle the most pressing historical issues, then it is indeed a crucial contribution to the discussions. We will return below to some ramifications here. Regarding my references to the 'vast majority' or 'virtually all' scholars who agree, is it possible to identify these phrases in more precise terms? In some contexts, I have identified these expressions more specifically. At least when referencing the most important historical occurrences, I frequently think in terms of a ninety-something percentile head-count. No doubt, this is one of the reasons why the concept has gained some attention.

"My bibliography is presently at about 3400 sources and counting, published originally in French, German, or English. Initially I read and catalogued the majority of these publications, charting the representative authors, positions, topics, and so on, concentrating on both well-known and obscure writers alike, across the entire skeptical to liberal to conservative spectrum. As the number of sources grew, I moved more broadly into this research, trying to keep up with the current state of resurrection research. He said this again at William Lane Craig's "On Guard" conference, "1 Corinthians is one of six to eight books all accredited critical scholars accept. You can count the exception on two hands, probably one hand. I have 3400 sources in a bibliography from 1975 to the present (2012). When I say you can count the guys on one hand who disagree with this it is not very many. They believe Paul is the best source, and 1 Corinthians is one of the most dependable sources. They allow 1 Corinthians and Galatians. Both are on the accepted list. Bart Ehrman says they are the authentic Pauline epistle. So does most everybody else. Whatever you write, these two books are allowed [indicating Paul's genuine belief]. Paul is writing a mere [no more than] 25 years later. That is incredible. We have no other founder of a major world religion who has miracles reported of him within a generation."

"I endeavored to be more than fair to all the positions. In fact, if anything, I erred in the direction of cataloguing the most radical positions, since this was the only classification where I included even those authors who did not have specialized scholarly credentials or peer-reviewed publications. It is this group, too, that often tends to doubt or deny that Jesus ever existed. Yet, given that I counted many sources in this category, this means that my study is skewed in the skeptical direction far more than if I had stayed strictly with my requirement of citing only those with scholarly credentials. Still, I included these positions quite liberally, even when the wide majority of mainline scholars, 'liberals' included, rarely even footnoted this material. Of course, this practice would also skew the numbers who proposed naturalistic theories of the resurrection, to which I particularly gravitated.

"The result of all these years of study is a private manuscript of more than 600 pages that simply does little more than line up the scholarly positions and details on these 140 key questions....

"[Mike] Licona begins by listing my three chief Minimal Facts regarding Jesus’ fate: (1) Jesus died due to the process of crucifixion. (2) Very soon afterwards, Jesus’ disciples had experiences that they believed were appearances of the resurrected Jesus. (3) Just a few years later, Saul of Tarsus also experienced what he thought was a post-resurrection appearance of the risen Jesus."

 

[PostmodernProph]

Ted,

I am so glad you believe in the Trinity; OSAS Arminian; premillennialism; that Calvinists are not saved .

just out of curiosity, why is it we Calvinists can't be saved?........I would certainly like to be saved......

I don't think you want to be saved, because you would have been saved already.

therein lies my quandary.......I believe I have already been saved, but you have just told me I am not......

If you accept Jesus then you are saved.

please make up your mind.....now you have told me I am not saved and that I am saved.....I'm glad God doesn't have that much trouble making up his mind......he knew it before I did.......