Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Jesus is not satan--Jesus is Michael. The Hebrew word=Sheol= the greek word=Hades= the English word=Hell--the grave.
We had this discussion before & each time you fail to refute using scripture or logic, because you can't when you are wrong.
Your JW sect understands Michael is the Biblical messiah but not many have recognized it's because
Rome converged the image calked Jesus with not jyst many christ figures & mythical figures, but also Biblical figures & their roles=plagiarism =thief.
Rev 22:16 Jesus is the son of Baal as the
Morning star.
Michael however is the Evening Star (Shalem).
Jesus is the impersonator, imposter, thief, who's like unto son of man.-Rev 1:13.
Seperate yourself as much as you want from the RCC and call them the beast, but you guys still take their fallen false prophet and still hide the shiloh *one who's right it is * that you never knew, never handed over the house you guys claimed to have made for, never was oart of the Temple building movement, never supported in any fashion not even mentioning the name anymore. You people fell out of favor with your disprespect and dishonor and rejection and making false promises while benefiting from those false claims. I wouldn't even waste my saliva showing you what I think of your tracts.
We all will see soon.
Certainly. The pre-tribulation rapture of the church, the doctrine of when a person dies a sinner he goes to a place of punishing while a saved person goes off to heaven to bliss, the belief that "to be absent from the body is to be with Christ, the doctrine that when Christ died he and the thief ran off to a place in the center of the earth called Paradise, the doctrine that Christ went somewhere and freed a bunch of souls in captivity there and led them up to heaven. That should do it for you.
William Barclay, a Church of Scotland minister born at the beginning of the last century, wrote a set of books of biblical scholarship for the average reader. His scholarly volumes on the Book of Revelation are likely to be an eye opener for those who tend to get their doctrine of Revelation from ideas that were developed during the fifteen hundreds.
As for the eternal fate of departed souls: I tend to go mostly with Christ's remark that God is God of the living, not the dead; that those who choose a life close to God will be welcome in that kingdom; while those who choose to live apart from God and His way of being loving servants towards all will be able to dwell apart from God.
Jews and early Christians believed that souls may undergo purification (or purging of sin) after death. Jewish belief holds that such purification takes no longer than a year; Early Christian/Catholic belief assigns no time. One of Peter's letters possibly references Jesus preaching to these captives.
Some doctrines teach that upon death people enter soul sleep, and remain there until the end of the world when everyone rises together. My own belief/experience is that upon death people do not fall asleep, but enter into eternal life. However, I don't think people holding to the belief of soul sleep should be dismissed. There are passages in scripture that may suggest such a thing.
Gods word clearly teaches-- on the day of ones death, all thought stops. The resurrection is foretold for the last day in revelation, this is post Harmageddon at judgement.
If thought stops at death, how did Christ preach to the dead between his death and resurrection and meet the thief in paradise that day?
It was symbolism--Jesus was in the grave for 3 days.Trinity translations erred with the comma
Truly I tell you, today you will be with me in paradise= error
Truly I tell you today, you will be with me in paradise.
Fact-- the resurrection of the dead comes after-Har-mageddon.
Trinity translations are filled with error
Jesus was in the grave for 3 days, impossible to be in paradise on day 1
Jesus is not satan--Jesus is Michael. The Hebrew word=Sheol= the greek word=Hades= the English word=Hell--the grave.
We had this discussion before & each time you fail to refute using scripture or logic, because you can't when you are wrong.
Your JW sect understands Michael is the Biblical messiah but not many have recognized it's because
Rome converged the image calked Jesus with not jyst many christ figures & mythical figures, but also Biblical figures & their roles=plagiarism =thief.
Rev 22:16 Jesus is the son of Baal as the
Morning star.
Michael however is the Evening Star (Shalem).
Jesus is the impersonator, imposter, thief, who's like unto son of man.-Rev 1:13.
Seperate yourself as much as you want from the RCC and call them the beast, but you guys still take their fallen false prophet and still hide the shiloh *one who's right it is * that you never knew, never handed over the house you guys claimed to have made for, never was oart of the Temple building movement, never supported in any fashion not even mentioning the name anymore. You people fell out of favor with your disprespect and dishonor and rejection and making false promises while benefiting from those false claims. I wouldn't even waste my saliva showing you what I think of your tracts.
We all will see soon.
Nope....nobody will see or hear anything after they die. Sorry that you can't accept a truth so plain and logical but have to rely on a major load of bullshit written for control of sheep and camel herders who believed in witches and thought the earth was flat. Kinda unsanitary but they also shit on the ground and wiped on their hands.
Certainly. The pre-tribulation rapture of the church, the doctrine of when a person dies a sinner he goes to a place of punishing while a saved person goes off to heaven to bliss, the belief that "to be absent from the body is to be with Christ, the doctrine that when Christ died he and the thief ran off to a place in the center of the earth called Paradise, the doctrine that Christ went somewhere and freed a bunch of souls in captivity there and led them up to heaven. That should do it for you.
William Barclay, a Church of Scotland minister born at the beginning of the last century, wrote a set of books of biblical scholarship for the average reader. His scholarly volumes on the Book of Revelation are likely to be an eye opener for those who tend to get their doctrine of Revelation from ideas that were developed during the fifteen hundreds.
As for the eternal fate of departed souls: I tend to go mostly with Christ's remark that God is God of the living, not the dead; that those who choose a life close to God will be welcome in that kingdom; while those who choose to live apart from God and His way of being loving servants towards all will be able to dwell apart from God.
Jews and early Christians believed that souls may undergo purification (or purging of sin) after death. Jewish belief holds that such purification takes no longer than a year; Early Christian/Catholic belief assigns no time. One of Peter's letters possibly references Jesus preaching to these captives.
Some doctrines teach that upon death people enter soul sleep, and remain there until the end of the world when everyone rises together. My own belief/experience is that upon death people do not fall asleep, but enter into eternal life. However, I don't think people holding to the belief of soul sleep should be dismissed. There are passages in scripture that may suggest such a thing.
Gods word clearly teaches-- on the day of ones death, all thought stops. The resurrection is foretold for the last day in revelation, this is post Harmageddon at judgement.
If thought stops at death, how did Christ preach to the dead between his death and resurrection and meet the thief in paradise that day?
It was symbolism--Jesus was in the grave for 3 days.Trinity translations erred with the comma
Truly I tell you, today you will be with me in paradise= error
Truly I tell you today, you will be with me in paradise.
Fact-- the resurrection of the dead comes after-Har-mageddon.
Trinity translations are filled with error
Jesus was in the grave for 3 days, impossible to be in paradise on day 1
Actually. if you go back and read it, the thief asked Christ to remember him when Christ came into His Kingdom. Everyone there knew Christ was preaching the gospel, the good news of His coming kingdom. Christ used the word "Paradise" to describe His coming kingdom which coincides with the description Isaiah gives in his Chapter 35. All Christ did was ANSWER the thief's question by assuring the thief that very day that when He did return and set up His earthly kingdom that the thief would be there. It's really very easy to see if you don't believe in a fairy tale that the center of a superheated core of molten nickel could possibly house a place bearing palm trees and lakes, etc.
To be fair, almost all religious threads end up being pissing contests between the "christians", all of whom post endless copy/pastes of gobbledy gook to prove they are a better christian than the next guy.
That's not the point. He was asking a question about faith of people of faith and you and a couple other atheists jumped in and started posting a bunch of gobbledy gook to prove he shouldn't have faith at all. Then you start insulting Christians for telling other people what to believe when you are doing the same thing.
There is an easy solution of course called ignore buttons, but you are interjecting yourself in a place where yur input was not solicited. I don't blame him for being annoyed.
"What Should A Christian Do When He/She Knows His/Her Church Is Teaching False Doctrine"
Start a religious war, of course – it's a Christian tradition.
To be fair, almost all religious threads end up being pissing contests between the "christians", all of whom post endless copy/pastes of gobbledy gook to prove they are a better christian than the next guy.
That's not the point. He was asking a question about faith of people of faith and you and a couple other atheists jumped in and started posting a bunch of gobbledy gook to prove he shouldn't have faith at all. Then you start insulting Christians for telling other people what to believe when you are doing the same thing.
There is an easy solution of course called ignore buttons, but you are interjecting yourself in a place where yur input was not solicited. I don't blame him for being annoyed.
BluePhantom
Actually, the point is what was said earlier - that all religions are fairly tales related with for-profit lies.
You don't have the right to tell me what threads I can post to or whether or not my "input was solicited".
In point of fact, I don't tell others what to believe. Nor do I have any need to educate you or change your opinions or beliefs. Believe whatever you wish, whatever gets you through the night, whatever keeps you from asking questions.
BTW, have you ever told a thumper to lay off criticizing atheists? Of course not. How about when one of the thumpers says that atheists don't have qa right to an opinion. Oh wait ... Never mind.
So how many things are you allowed not to believe in before they kick you out of the Book Club?
Try to understand. I am going back to the original language, original definitions. I am supporting the original with other Biblical passages.
Fifteen hundred years after Christ, a group of people calling themselves Reformers or Protestants declared that anyone, scholar or no, could interpret the Bible for him or herself based on translations into their own language. Since then, subjective interpretation after subjective interpretation has popped up, masquerading as fact. If these original Protestants could be flies on the wall today, reading your type of assessment about God and scripture, I think they would be horrified and the first to admit, "We made a mistake. Scripture requires scholarly study to be correctly interpreted and understood."
Of course, some non-Catholics will reassure that as a Catholic, I was never in the "Book" club to begin with, so unfortunately, they can't kick me out of it. In that, Taz, you and I are a lot alike.
Well Meri...one of the reasons why there was a reformation to begin with was that the Catholic Church forbade any scholarly study at all except for nobility and church officials. At various points in time prior to the reformation you would have been killed for doing the study you have done
To be fair, almost all religious threads end up being pissing contests between the "christians", all of whom post endless copy/pastes of gobbledy gook to prove they are a better christian than the next guy.
That's not the point. He was asking a question about faith of people of faith and you and a couple other atheists jumped in and started posting a bunch of gobbledy gook to prove he shouldn't have faith at all. Then you start insulting Christians for telling other people what to believe when you are doing the same thing.
There is an easy solution of course called ignore buttons, but you are interjecting yourself in a place where yur input was not solicited. I don't blame him for being annoyed.
BluePhantom
Actually, the point is what was said earlier - that all religions are fairly tales related with for-profit lies.
You don't have the right to tell me what threads I can post to or whether or not my "input was solicited".
In point of fact, I don't tell others what to believe.
BTW, have you ever told a thumper to lay off criticizing atheists? Of course not. How about when one of the thumpers says that atheists don't have qa right to an opinion. Oh wait ... Never mind.
Well Meri...one of the reasons why there was a reformation to begin with was that the Catholic Church forbade any scholarly study at all except for nobility and church officials. At various points in time prior to the reformation you would have been killed for doing the study you have done
Funny. It was the Catholic Church that founded schools for the masses so that they could study the Bible. You may mean that the Catholic Church insisted that this scholarly study be under the tutelage of the educated nobility and Church officials.
When people delve deeper than, "The Catholic Church wouldn't allow translation of scripture into common languages," they quickly realize the truth is that the Catholic Church would only approve proper translations of scripture into common languages. This is quite different from not allowing "any" translation.
Where Catholics and non-Catholics differ is Catholics don't hold the belief that each individual should interpret scripture for him or herself with only guidance from the Holy Spirit. The Catholic Church insists on scholarship, based on original languages not individual interpretations based on whatever translation they prefer individually.
I do not mean to imply that all non-Catholics eschew scholarship--only that Catholics (as a whole) have always placed greater value on scholarship than personal interpretation.
I walked out of a bible class when I was sixteen, because I found out they believed in hellfire. I found a home with the spiritualists who do not believe in hell, but in many planes of existence, none of them eternal.
However I see no real need to go to a church, as God is everywhere.
You will notice that I said "at various points in time....". Sometimes they did try to educate (according to their own interpretations at least) and other times they flat out killed anyone who disagreed or could even read. 1,500 years is a long time and how authority and governance was approached by the Church varied depending on who was in charge at the time.
When we discuss "proper" translation....."proper" according to who? SURELY you are not suggesting that the Church prior to the reformation never interpreted scripture in a manner that furthered their agenda despite being inaccurate.
As far as scholarship....let me quote you something a co-worker said to me just this last Friday. The day was slow and we were discussing the Bible and she said (and this is a direct quote) "I don't read the Bible, I am Catholic". If she is typical (and from my experience she is at least not unusual) and the Catholic Church insists on scholarship, they are not doing a very good job of it.
I will agree with your last statement, however. But it creates a dangerous situation where too much reliance is placed upon a central, powerful authority. Does the Catholic Church embrace all scholarship or just Catholic scholarship? I think we both know the answer to that.
... I don't reject the word of god, I'm just still waiting for him to say something to me.
William Barclay, a Church of Scotland minister born at the beginning of the last century, wrote a set of books of biblical scholarship for the average reader. His scholarly volumes on the Book of Revelation are likely to be an eye opener for those who tend to get their doctrine of Revelation from ideas that were developed during the fifteen hundreds.
As for the eternal fate of departed souls: I tend to go mostly with Christ's remark that God is God of the living, not the dead; that those who choose a life close to God will be welcome in that kingdom; while those who choose to live apart from God and His way of being loving servants towards all will be able to dwell apart from God.
Jews and early Christians believed that souls may undergo purification (or purging of sin) after death. Jewish belief holds that such purification takes no longer than a year; Early Christian/Catholic belief assigns no time. One of Peter's letters possibly references Jesus preaching to these captives.
Some doctrines teach that upon death people enter soul sleep, and remain there until the end of the world when everyone rises together. My own belief/experience is that upon death people do not fall asleep, but enter into eternal life. However, I don't think people holding to the belief of soul sleep should be dismissed. There are passages in scripture that may suggest such a thing.
Gods word clearly teaches-- on the day of ones death, all thought stops. The resurrection is foretold for the last day in revelation, this is post Harmageddon at judgement.
If thought stops at death, how did Christ preach to the dead between his death and resurrection and meet the thief in paradise that day?
It was symbolism--Jesus was in the grave for 3 days.Trinity translations erred with the comma
Truly I tell you, today you will be with me in paradise= error
Truly I tell you today, you will be with me in paradise.
Fact-- the resurrection of the dead comes after-Har-mageddon.
Trinity translations are filled with error
Jesus was in the grave for 3 days, impossible to be in paradise on day 1
Actually. if you go back and read it, the thief asked Christ to remember him when Christ came into His Kingdom. Everyone there knew Christ was preaching the gospel, the good news of His coming kingdom. Christ used the word "Paradise" to describe His coming kingdom which coincides with the description Isaiah gives in his Chapter 35. All Christ did was ANSWER the thief's question by assuring the thief that very day that when He did return and set up His earthly kingdom that the thief would be there. It's really very easy to see if you don't believe in a fairy tale that the center of a superheated core of molten nickel could possibly house a place bearing palm trees and lakes, etc.
Yeah....you gotta be careful with that analogy. All the bullshit I've ever heard was that heaven is up and hell is down. You do realize that when you point directly up from anywhere on the planet that 12 hours later that direction is down. I mean my goodness.....the planet is round and spinning about 1000 miles an hour toward the east and the pilgrims thought it was still and flat:
First of all, you couldn't go a day without insulting me, or someone. Second, the Bible is all heresay. No proof at all.Like what?I'm not a "pray for something" kind of guy, I'm more of doer, a go-getter.Prayers come from your heart. You'd know this if you put in some effort
Then why do you make excuses to not do anything?
Reading, praying (which contrary to your previous assertion is an action), experimenting on the Word of God, serving your fellow man.
Heck, look at the principle of tithing. The Lord made a very clear promise to payment of tithes and offerings in Malachi. We can test Him by paying it and He promises the widows of heaven will be poured out on us.
Christ taught us that if we will do His teachings we will know whether they are from God or not. Yet any time anyone suggests you actually test Him and try living it you give excuses why you shouldn't.
I doubt you could live a month like a Christian should. Heck, I doubt you could do just daily prayer and scripture study
Third, that a God expects you to tithe is one of the dumbest things you've said.
Hearing a reading and sitting down each day like I have been doing and reading at least three chapters a day to read through in a year is not the same. Hearing the word is not reading it yourself and picking up the missal doesn't count either. What you are stating is a far reach interpretation of reading the bible.You will notice that I said "at various points in time....". Sometimes they did try to educate (according to their own interpretations at least) and other times they flat out killed anyone who disagreed or could even read. 1,500 years is a long time and how authority and governance was approached by the Church varied depending on who was in charge at the time.
When we discuss "proper" translation....."proper" according to who? SURELY you are not suggesting that the Church prior to the reformation never interpreted scripture in a manner that furthered their agenda despite being inaccurate.
As far as scholarship....let me quote you something a co-worker said to me just this last Friday. The day was slow and we were discussing the Bible and she said (and this is a direct quote) "I don't read the Bible, I am Catholic". If she is typical (and from my experience she is at least not unusual) and the Catholic Church insists on scholarship, they are not doing a very good job of it.
I will agree with your last statement, however. But it creates a dangerous situation where too much reliance is placed upon a central, powerful authority. Does the Catholic Church embrace all scholarship or just Catholic scholarship? I think we both know the answer to that.
It's not solely "various points in time" but who is being looked at in those various points. I was in a discussion the other day about Pope Francis saying priests can forgive abortions, but the fact is any bishop could (and many already had) given priests authorization to forgive abortion. This is an example of things being looked at from a specific point in time.
This being so, it still didn't surprise me to hear that someone knew of a priest who was known to be horrid towards women seeking healing and forgiveness after an abortion. The ideal is ever before us, yet failures ever in our midst.
As far as the Church being inaccurate in interpretation, I'd have to have to be given a specific example before offering an opinion.
The quote, "I don't read the Bible, I am Catholic" leads me to comment that if your co-workers attends Church each Sunday, then she hears the Bible every three years. Each Sunday there are four readings from the Bible: Two from the Old Testament and Two from the New Testament. The entire Bible is covered every three years--every year for those who attend daily Mass. I would guess what she means she is not someone who get really excited about Bible Studies. It is the history, culture, and language--as well as the theology--that draws me into more in depth study. I truly enjoy the research, but I also understand people electing to spend free time in other pursuits.
Perhaps because the Bible wasn't compiled until later, the Catholic Church has always put emphasis on hearing the word of the Lord. There is a difference between reading and truly hearing. I am not claiming one is better than the other. Both Old and New Testaments record God (and Christ) as saying, "Hear..."Hearing a reading and sitting down each day like I have been doing and reading at least three chapters a day to read through in a year is not the same. Hearing the word is not reading it yourself and picking up the missal doesn't count either. What you are stating is a far reach interpretation of reading the bible.
There are not a majority of people who attend mass every day either. My former mother in-law was devout but she didn't go on Saturday.
