|
Post by maryhig on May 20, 2016 1:57:05 GMT -5
No I never complained about the way to treat me, and I wasn't talking about you personally, I said about some people here make out that others are brainless because they believe in God. And I never said anything about you believing in God, i know you used to believe and probably very sincerely. I said that there was a difference, because I have seen evidence and you haven't. You really don't need to use capital letters to emphasis the words you and not or that I'm not getting the point, I got your point and I can see those words clearly, using capital letters on specific words directed at a person in that way just makes you look like your shouting.
I WAS SHOUTING! because that seems the only way I can get you to hear. I have explained & explained and got nowhere.
Yes, when you said "seeing as we are made out to be some sort of brainless wits," & "And i can see why people don't talk of their experiences here. Because they are dissected and treated as nonsense by some," you were talking about me. It was my post you were answering.
Yes, you did talk about my believing in god. For many posts we talked about nothing else. So now not only do you know how I believe, and that you believe exactly as I do, and you've had experiences like me, even though you don't know me. But now you can also read my mind? I also mentioned flying spaghetti monsters, do you associate our beliefs in God to flying spaghetti monsters etc. If you do, then I'm talking you too. It's an insult to peoples intelligence to say such things, and comparing God to spaghetti monsters, imaginary friends or fairies, etc. it's an insult to the almighty God! By the way, even though you don't agree with me, and I feel that you are misunderstanding me, I'm not shouting at you, I'm only talking to you. And I don't feel anything against you at all.
|
|
|
Post by dmmichgood on May 20, 2016 2:15:49 GMT -5
I WAS SHOUTING! because that seems the only way I can get you to hear. I have explained & explained and got nowhere.
Yes, when you said "seeing as we are made out to be some sort of brainless wits," & "And i can see why people don't talk of their experiences here. Because they are dissected and treated as nonsense by some," you were talking about me. It was my post you were answering.
Yes, you did talk about my believing in god. For many posts we talked about nothing else. So now not only do you know how I believe, and that you believe exactly as I do, and you've had experiences like me, even though you don't know me. But now you can also read my mind? I also mentioned flying spaghetti monsters, do you associate our beliefs in God to flying spaghetti monsters etc. If you do, then I'm talking you too. It's an insult to peoples intelligence to say such things, and comparing God to spaghetti monsters, imaginary friends or fairies, etc. it's an insult to the almighty God! By the way, even though you don't agree with me, and I feel that you are misunderstanding me, I'm not shouting at you, I'm only talking to you. And I don't feel anything against you at all. No, I don't believe exactly as you do. I only did in the past, not now.
No, I can't read your mind, I just read what you post.
Isn't just as much an insult to "peoples intelligence" to believe in an unseen supposedly "almighty God" as it is to believe in unseen "spaghetti monsters, imaginary friends or fairies?"
After all, -when you allow yourself to belief in any supernatural being, - how can you deny a belief in any other supernatural being?
Goodnight, I have to do the dishes and wrap books to mail tomorrow.
|
|
|
Post by maryhig on May 20, 2016 2:22:59 GMT -5
So now not only do you know how I believe, and that you believe exactly as I do, and you've had experiences like me, even though you don't know me. But now you can also read my mind? I also mentioned flying spaghetti monsters, do you associate our beliefs in God to flying spaghetti monsters etc. If you do, then I'm talking you too. It's an insult to peoples intelligence to say such things, and comparing God to spaghetti monsters, imaginary friends or fairies, etc. it's an insult to the almighty God! By the way, even though you don't agree with me, and I feel that you are misunderstanding me, I'm not shouting at you, I'm only talking to you. And I don't feel anything against you at all. No, I don't believe exactly as you do. I only did in the past, not now.
No, I can't read your mind, I just read what you post.
Isn't just as much an insult to "peoples intelligence" to believe in an unseen supposedly "almighty God" as it is to believe in unseen "spaghetti monsters, imaginary friends or fairies?"
After all, -when you allow yourself to belief in any supernatural being, - how can you deny a belief in any other supernatural being?
Goodnight, I have to do the dishes and wrap books to mail tomorrow.There's natural evidence of God and that's creation. And he's no imaginary friend. He's a living, loving, ever present help to those who have faith in him. But we'll never agree, we're like chalk and cheese. Goodnight, sleep well.
|
|
|
Post by maryhig on May 20, 2016 4:15:58 GMT -5
I wasn't talking about "eternal promises." I was talking about the "promises" given in the New Testament. One very important and main promises was Jesus telling those that he was talking to that:“Truly I tell you, some who are standing here will not taste death before they see the Son of Man coming in his kingdom.”
It's clear that Jesus wasn't referring to His second coming unless He was speaking of spiritual, not natural, death. There are three main possibilities: 1.It refers to the next event in the Gospels - the Transfiguration. 2.It refers to Pentecost, the outpouring of the Holy Spirit. 3.It refers to AD70. There has been a lot written about it all - likely a reference to AD70. I believe it's death to self, we won't taste of that death until we see the son of man coming in his kingdom. We firstly hear the word of God from those who belong to God, then if we truly believe and repent, then we are forgiven of our sins. The kingdom of God is within us. So first we have to receive the revelation that Jesus is the Christ, and once we see and have faith and start to obey God, then Christ enters into our hearts, and we are baptised of the spirit and we will taste death to self. Because if Christ is in our hearts, we will be being put to death by the spirit and we will be dying to the sins of the flesh by the spirit, but we are alive in God and the spirit is doing the works within.
|
|
|
Post by calleduntoliberty on May 20, 2016 11:04:32 GMT -5
What are you trying to say by "too many translations"? Translating a document does not change the original document. No matter how many translations are made, whether they're good translations, bad translations, perfect translations, imperfect translations, literal, paraphrase, etc., no matter how many times documents are translated or by whom, translations have no effect on whether or not the original documents were true or the circumstances surrounding their writing. Neither do unanswered questions. calleduntoliberty , have you seen the "original documents" you are talking about ? Changing words, adding words, taking out books ....and all of this has no effect! As to unanswered question, here is one for you, should the bible be taken literally? If not which parts should be & which parts shouldn't be? Going back to translations, the game Chinese Whispers comes to mind! You're suggesting translations of translations of translations, which is far from the norm, if it ever happens. Most translations are from the original-language Hebrew and Greek texts that have been passed down through the centuries by copying. "Taking out books" hasn't happened. There may have been slight disagreement over a very small number of books, one or two, around the third century, but nothing that effects the status of the other books. If you're referring to the Apocrypha, these are books of historical value but which are not generally recognized as being inspired Scripture. And translating a document does not in any way change the status of the document. As for changing and adding words, the Biblical texts have been remarkably well-preserved through history. For instance, the oldest known copies are in strong agreement with numerous copies made in the late medieval period. What copying errors or interpolations or other differences that are found have no impact of doctrinal significance. The major events and doctrines are represented in multiple books. What do you mean by taking the Bible literally?
|
|
|
Post by sharingtheriches on May 20, 2016 11:49:39 GMT -5
I wasn't talking about "eternal promises." I was talking about the "promises" given in the New Testament. One very important and main promises was Jesus telling those that he was talking to that:“Truly I tell you, some who are standing here will not taste death before they see the Son of Man coming in his kingdom.”
It's clear that Jesus wasn't referring to His second coming unless He was speaking of spiritual, not natural, death. There are three main possibilities: 1.It refers to the next event in the Gospels - the Transfiguration. 2.It refers to Pentecost, the outpouring of the Holy Spirit. 3.It refers to AD70. There has been a lot written about it all - likely a reference to AD70. I studied this not long ago and it seems to me that this goes along with The God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. Noting Jesus said that God is God of the "living" and not the dead. Those who are spiritually alive. I feel he was speaking to those he considered spiritually alive for eternity.
|
|
|
Post by dmmichgood on May 20, 2016 13:51:16 GMT -5
I wasn't talking about "eternal promises." I was talking about the "promises" given in the New Testament. One very important and main promises was Jesus telling those that he was talking to that:“Truly I tell you, some who are standing here will not taste death before they see the Son of Man coming in his kingdom.”
It's clear that Jesus wasn't referring to His second coming unless He was speaking of spiritual, not natural, death. There are three main possibilities: 1.It refers to the next event in the Gospels - the Transfiguration. 2.It refers to Pentecost, the outpouring of the Holy Spirit. 3.It refers to AD70. There has been a lot written about it all - likely a reference to AD70. The second coming of Jesus has been often interpreted in many different ways.
The fact that there has been so many different interpretations in itself indicates that it remains an enigma & open to many and any belief that suits the person doing the interpretation.
The sacking of the temple by Titus who destroyed Jerusalem in A.D. 70 hardly seems to be an answer since it really wasn't the glorious event that Jesus prophesied in Matthew 24:31 Matthew 24:31. "And he will send his angels with a loud trumpet call, and they will gather his elect from the four winds, from one end of the heavens to the other."
|
|
|
Post by blandie on May 20, 2016 13:52:14 GMT -5
I studied this not long ago and it seems to me that this goes along with The God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. Noting Jesus said that God is God of the "living" and not the dead. Those who are spiritually alive. I feel he was speaking to those he considered spiritually alive for eternity. I'm personally not sure I could grasp that. The apostle john who was also there and who did see jesus coming in his kingdom spoke about the talk that was going around that he wouldn't die - Similar to that jesus didn't say that there were folks there who wouldn't taste death but only that there were some who would see jesus in his kingdom before they tasted death. Stephen also saw that and maybe others. Could also be the transfiguration since that happens right after that statement - the next verse in Mark says it was 6 days later. The scriptures do say that abraham and isaac and others did die - Hebrews 11:13 - so I have a hard time thinking that they did not taste death. On the other hand jesus did come into his kingdom - which he witnessed before pilate is not of this realm - and described using the present tense and it wasn't the kingdom that was coming but the revelation of jesus coming in his kingdom and that things were happening there as in Matthew 11:12 and 12:28 and 13:11 even if the fullness of things such as the purging of the kingdom are yet to come. Interesting to think on but whats sure is that he was saying some of the people there wouldn't die before seeing jesus coming in the kingdom.
|
|
|
Post by dmmichgood on May 20, 2016 15:18:31 GMT -5
There are so many interpretations of how to believe what Jesus said about coming back. “Truly I tell you, some who are standing here will not taste death before they see the Son of Man coming in his kingdom.”
Instead of trying to interpret what he said should we perhaps take what Jesus said as meaning just what he said? See if what happened afterwards makes better sense that all this guessing.
After Pentecost his disciples began to live together holding all property in common and giving to each person as needed at the time
Why would they do that instead of as they had lived before?
Could it be that they didn't believe it necessary to store up food etc. for any long haul because Jesus had said that none of them would "taste death" before he came back?
Also why weren't any of the gospels written before 70 AD, -40 years after Jesus death? Could it be for the same reason?
There wouldn't need to be any written word about him if Jesus was coming back at any time?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 20, 2016 15:28:11 GMT -5
There are so many interpretations of how to believe what Jesus said about coming back. “Truly I tell you, some who are standing here will not taste death before they see the Son of Man coming in his kingdom.”
Instead of trying to interpret what he said should we perhaps take what Jesus said as meaning just what he said? See if what happened afterwards makes better sense that all this guessing.
After Pentecost his disciples began to live together holding all property in common and giving to each person as needed at the time
Why would they do that instead of as they had lived before?
Could it be that they didn't believe it necessary to store up food etc. for any long haul because Jesus had said that none of them would "taste death" before he came back?
Also why weren't any of the gospels written before 70 AD, -40 years after Jesus death? Could it be for the same reason?
There wouldn't need to be any written word about him if Jesus was coming back at any time? we've had this debate before and there are a some who disagree that the gospels were written after 70 AD
|
|
|
Post by rational on May 20, 2016 17:25:34 GMT -5
What are you trying to say by "too many translations"? Translating a document does not change the original document. No matter how many translations are made, whether they're good translations, bad translations, perfect translations, imperfect translations, literal, paraphrase, etc., no matter how many times documents are translated or by whom, translations have no effect on whether or not the original documents were true or the circumstances surrounding their writing. Neither do unanswered questions. :) But when you don't have the original documents how can you know what has survived are accurate 'copies' or translations?
|
|
|
Post by sharingtheriches on May 20, 2016 17:44:38 GMT -5
I studied this not long ago and it seems to me that this goes along with The God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. Noting Jesus said that God is God of the "living" and not the dead. Those who are spiritually alive. I feel he was speaking to those he considered spiritually alive for eternity. I'm personally not sure I could grasp that. The apostle john who was also there and who did see jesus coming in his kingdom spoke about the talk that was going around that he wouldn't die - Similar to that jesus didn't say that there were folks there who wouldn't taste death but only that there were some who would see jesus in his kingdom before they tasted death. Stephen also saw that and maybe others. Could also be the transfiguration since that happens right after that statement - the next verse in Mark says it was 6 days later. The scriptures do say that abraham and isaac and others did die - Hebrews 11:13 - so I have a hard time thinking that they did not taste death. On the other hand jesus did come into his kingdom - which he witnessed before pilate is not of this realm - and described using the present tense and it wasn't the kingdom that was coming but the revelation of jesus coming in his kingdom and that things were happening there as in Matthew 11:12 and 12:28 and 13:11 even if the fullness of things such as the purging of the kingdom are yet to come. Interesting to think on but whats sure is that he was saying some of the people there wouldn't die before seeing jesus coming in the kingdom. Some say Jesus has returned once. When he told Mary to go and tell his apostles that he was risen and that he was going to their God and his God, their Father and his Father. He apparently had to ascend immediately after resurrection to fulfill being the holy sacrifice as well as being the Priest forever after the order of Melchizedek. Other words fulfilling that of entering into the Holiest of Holy as priest AND sacrifice so when he came back to comfort his own he was able to open the Holiest of Holy to them.. Enlightening them that he indeed had come into his kingdom.
|
|
|
Post by Roselyn T on May 20, 2016 18:15:27 GMT -5
calleduntoliberty , have you seen the "original documents" you are talking about ? Changing words, adding words, taking out books ....and all of this has no effect! As to unanswered question, here is one for you, should the bible be taken literally? If not which parts should be & which parts shouldn't be? Going back to translations, the game Chinese Whispers comes to mind! You're suggesting translations of translations of translations, which is far from the norm, if it ever happens. Most translations are from the original-language Hebrew and Greek texts that have been passed down through the centuries by copying. "Taking out books" hasn't happened. There may have been slight disagreement over a very small number of books, one or two, around the third century, but nothing that effects the status of the other books. If you're referring to the Apocrypha, these are books of historical value but which are not generally recognized as being inspired Scripture. And translating a document does not in any way change the status of the document. As for changing and adding words, the Biblical texts have been remarkably well-preserved through history. For instance, the oldest known copies are in strong agreement with numerous copies made in the late medieval period. What copying errors or interpolations or other differences that are found have no impact of doctrinal significance. The major events and doctrines are represented in multiple books. What do you mean by taking the Bible literally? calleduntoliberty where is the original copy of the bible ? It doesn't exist ! Why were the extra 16 books in the 1611 King James Bible ? But now they are not, if the whole bible was inspired by God, why were they then taken out? What I mean by taken the bible literally is this, do you believe the flood actually happened, was Jonah swallowed by a whale ?
|
|
|
Post by rational on May 20, 2016 18:33:23 GMT -5
You're suggesting translations of translations of translations, which is far from the norm, if it ever happens. Most translations are from the original-language Hebrew and Greek texts that have been passed down through the centuries by copying. "Taking out books" hasn't happened. There may have been slight disagreement over a very small number of books, one or two, around the third century, but nothing that effects the status of the other books. If you're referring to the Apocrypha, these are books of historical value but which are not generally recognized as being inspired Scripture. And translating a document does not in any way change the status of the document. As for changing and adding words, the Biblical texts have been remarkably well-preserved through history. For instance, the oldest known copies are in strong agreement with numerous copies made in the late medieval period. What copying errors or interpolations or other differences that are found have no impact of doctrinal significance. The major events and doctrines are represented in multiple books. What do you mean by taking the Bible literally? calleduntoliberty where is the original copy of the bible ? It doesn't exist ! Why were the extra 16 books in the 1611 King James Bible ? But now they are not, if the whole bible was inspired by God, why were they then taken out? What I mean by taken the bible literally is this, do you believe the flood actually happened, was Jonah swallowed by a whale ? Or that there is any point in the universe where all the kingdoms of the earth are visible?
|
|
|
Post by calleduntoliberty on May 20, 2016 18:38:28 GMT -5
Why would there be any need for the originals when there are so many copies?
There were no extra books in the 1611 King James Bible. Did you see what I wrote about the Apocrypha?
Yes, the accounts of the flood and of Jonah are historic accounts. There are people who believe some accounts were intended to be allegorical but I do not see any reason or justification for that in these instances.
|
|
|
Post by rational on May 20, 2016 18:44:19 GMT -5
Why would there be any need for the originals when there are so many copies? To determine if the copies are accurate? There are known errors shown when the copies are compared.
|
|
|
Post by Roselyn T on May 20, 2016 19:46:20 GMT -5
calleduntoliberty, where are these records that there was a flood or that Jonah was swallowed by a whale ? Was the flood the whole world or just in one area ? I will get back to you in regard to the 1611 KJV having the extra books
|
|
|
Post by calleduntoliberty on May 20, 2016 19:47:02 GMT -5
To determine if the copies are accurate? There are known errors shown when the copies are compared. Various copying errors in 2000-year-old documents do not invalidate the fact that the various copies are in agreement about the events that occurred. You can make a lot of word changes in 1000 pages of text without significantly changing the main substance of the message.
|
|
|
Post by Roselyn T on May 20, 2016 20:12:20 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by joanna on May 20, 2016 20:38:52 GMT -5
dmmichgood highlighted a false prophecy allegedly attributed to Jesus " “Truly I tell you, some who are standing here will not taste death before they see the Son of Man coming in his kingdom" and apologists predictably claim that "death" in this context does not mean death in the literal sense. What is the state of a person's mind, what degree of bias must they possess, to enable a manipulation of the term "death" to defend Jesus' status as one with psychic and supernatural powers in the previous instance, yet concurrently believe that when he allegedly died on the cross this really meant cessation of life despite the nonsensical claim he rose from the dead three days after crucifixion.
|
|
|
Post by dmmichgood on May 20, 2016 20:40:55 GMT -5
I studied this not long ago and it seems to me that this goes along with The God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. Noting Jesus said that God is God of the "living" and not the dead. Those who are spiritually alive. I feel he was speaking to those he considered spiritually alive for eternity. I'm personally not sure I could grasp that. The apostle john who was also there and who did see jesus coming in his kingdom spoke about the talk that was going around that he wouldn't die - Similar to that jesus didn't say that there were folks there who wouldn't taste death but only that there were some who would see jesus in his kingdom before they tasted death. Stephen also saw that and maybe others. Could also be the transfiguration since that happens right after that statement - the next verse in Mark says it was 6 days later. The scriptures do say that abraham and isaac and others did die - Hebrews 11:13 - so I have a hard time thinking that they did not taste death. On the other hand jesus did come into his kingdom - which he witnessed before pilate is not of this realm - and described using the present tense and it wasn't the kingdom that was coming but the revelation of jesus coming in his kingdom and that things were happening there as in Matthew 11:12 and 12:28 and 13:11 even if the fullness of things such as the purging of the kingdom are yet to come. Interesting to think on but whats sure is that he was saying some of the people there wouldn't die before seeing jesus coming in the kingdom. No interpretations that anyone has given has explained what Jesus said would happen when he returned. This is what Jesus said in Matthew 24:29-35 “Immediately after the suffering of those days the sun will be darkened, and the moon will not give its light; the stars will fall from heaven, and the powers of heaven will be shaken. Then the sign of the Son of Man will appear in heaven, and then all the tribes of the earth will mourn, and they will see ‘the Son of Man coming on the clouds of heaven’ with power and great glory.
And he will send out his angels with a loud trumpet call, and they will gather his elect from the four winds, from one end of heaven to the other.“From the fig tree learn its lesson: as soon as its branch becomes tender and puts forth its leaves, you know that summer is near. So also, when you see all these things, you know that he is near, at the very gates. Truly I tell you, this generation will not pass away until all these things have taken place. Heaven and earth will pass away, but my words will not pass away."
Should any one of those things have happened anywhere in the world wouldn't it have had a tremendous affect on the whole world?
Did any of these things happen world wide or at any of the possible events which have been mentioned? 1. the Transfiguration. 2. outpouring of the Holy Spirit at Pentecost, 3. the sacking of the temple in AD 70
Isn't that is an indication that Jesus has NOT yet returned and the "generation" that he said would not pass away has passed away a long time ago and been dust for quite some time?
|
|
|
Post by rational on May 20, 2016 21:46:39 GMT -5
To determine if the copies are accurate? There are known errors shown when the copies are compared. Various copying errors in 2000-year-old documents do not invalidate the fact that the various copies are in agreement about the events that occurred. You can make a lot of word changes in 1000 pages of text without significantly changing the main substance of the message. If you call something inerrant and actually mean it there shouldn't be any errors. The first question to ask is whether the first copy was a true copy and if not, what were the errors. Since the original is not available there is no way to know if Bob (the copy person) decided he didn't think the third verse truly reflected what Jesus meant so changed it because he considered it a better fit. Every copy after that agreed with Bob's. Does that mean they all accuratly reflect the original? Nope - they reflect what Bob thought.
|
|
|
Post by dmmichgood on May 20, 2016 23:00:47 GMT -5
It's clear that Jesus wasn't referring to His second coming unless He was speaking of spiritual, not natural, death. There are three main possibilities: 1.It refers to the next event in the Gospels - the Transfiguration. 2.It refers to Pentecost, the outpouring of the Holy Spirit. 3.It refers to AD70. There has been a lot written about it all - likely a reference to AD70. I believe it's death to self, we won't taste of that death until we see the son of man coming in his kingdom. We firstly hear the word of God from those who belong to God, then if we truly believe and repent, then we are forgiven of our sins. The kingdom of God is within us. So first we have to receive the revelation that Jesus is the Christ, and once we see and have faith and start to obey God, then Christ enters into our hearts, and we are baptised of the spirit and we will taste death to self. Because if Christ is in our hearts, we will be being put to death by the spirit and we will be dying to the sins of the flesh by the spirit, but we are alive in God and the spirit is doing the works within. Except that is NOT what Jesus said! He simply didn't say anything about a "death to self."
He wasn't even referring to the individual person, -he said this "generation." That is a whole lot of people.
|
|
|
Post by maryhig on May 20, 2016 23:28:13 GMT -5
I believe it's death to self, we won't taste of that death until we see the son of man coming in his kingdom. We firstly hear the word of God from those who belong to God, then if we truly believe and repent, then we are forgiven of our sins. The kingdom of God is within us. So first we have to receive the revelation that Jesus is the Christ, and once we see and have faith and start to obey God, then Christ enters into our hearts, and we are baptised of the spirit and we will taste death to self. Because if Christ is in our hearts, we will be being put to death by the spirit and we will be dying to the sins of the flesh by the spirit, but we are alive in God and the spirit is doing the works within. Except that is NOT what Jesus said! He simply didn't say anything about a "death to self !"When Jesus entered this flesh, he came and he suffered. He went through the sufferings that we do, he was tempted on all points. He tasted death. But he never sinned, he was dead to this world and alive God. We on the other hand are sinners, we are alive in this world and dead to God. We must die to let God live. We must die to self, like Paul says I die daily. And when we do this, we partake in the sufferings of Christ and he is able to strengthen us. We first first hear the word from a man of God, who is our first point of tasting death, when they tell us that must go through the suffering and die to this world. But we don't taste it fully until the spirit of Christ enters into the heart and starts to put us to death by spirit. And we then begin to partake his sufferings. By suffering persecution outwardly, and denying ourselves inwardly, thus baring our cross. And Christ is giving us the strength to overcome the world, as he did. Without him we are dead in our sins. But with him, we are alive in God. We have gone from darkness and entered into light, from death to life becoming a living walking temple of God, not made by the hand of man, but by the living God. And there's no better life to live, because we're free! By the way, Jesus did return when he said he would, in that generation.
|
|
|
Post by dmmichgood on May 20, 2016 23:37:00 GMT -5
Except that is NOT what Jesus said! He simply didn't say anything about a "death to self !" When Jesus entered this flesh, he came and he suffered. He went through the sufferings that we do, he was tempted on all points. He tasted death. But he never sinned, he was dead to this world and alive God. We on the other hand are sinners, we are alive in this world and dead to God. We must die to let God live. We must die to self, like Paul says I die daily. And when we do this, we partake in the sufferings of Christ and he is able to strengthen us. We first first hear the word from a man of God, who is our first point of tasting death, when they tell us that must go through the suffering and die to this world. But we don't taste it fully until the spirit of Christ enters into the heart and starts to put us to death by spirit. And we then begin to partake his sufferings. By suffering persecution outwardly, and denying ourselves inwardly, thus baring our cross. And Christ is giving us the strength to overcome the world, as he did. Without him we are dead in our sins. But with him, we are alive in God. We have gone from darkness and entered into light, from death to life becoming a living walking temple of God, not made by the hand of man, but by the living God. And there's no better life to live, because we're free! By the way, Jesus did return when he said he would, in that generation. Whatever you want to believe about all that, it still has nothing to do with what he said about his return.
PS: Where did he Jesus did return in that generation?
|
|
|
Post by maryhig on May 20, 2016 23:45:21 GMT -5
When Jesus entered this flesh, he came and he suffered. He went through the sufferings that we do, he was tempted on all points. He tasted death. But he never sinned, he was dead to this world and alive God. We on the other hand are sinners, we are alive in this world and dead to God. We must die to let God live. We must die to self, like Paul says I die daily. And when we do this, we partake in the sufferings of Christ and he is able to strengthen us. We first first hear the word from a man of God, who is our first point of tasting death, when they tell us that must go through the suffering and die to this world. But we don't taste it fully until the spirit of Christ enters into the heart and starts to put us to death by spirit. And we then begin to partake his sufferings. By suffering persecution outwardly, and denying ourselves inwardly, thus baring our cross. And Christ is giving us the strength to overcome the world, as he did. Without him we are dead in our sins. But with him, we are alive in God. We have gone from darkness and entered into light, from death to life becoming a living walking temple of God, not made by the hand of man, but by the living God. And there's no better life to live, because we're free! By the way, Jesus did return when he said he would, in that generation. Whatever you want to believe about all that, it still has nothing to do with what he said about his return.
PS: Where did he Jesus did return in that generation?
Yes it has everything to do with his return, because these things happened when he returned and happen at his return now. He rose and came back firstly in his apostles and through every generation since in his church, who are his people. Once we are resurrected with him we put off the old man and put on the new. And we are alive in God in our new resurrected bodies. We are a new heaven and a new earth made by the hand of God. We pass from death to life. We are dead in our graves without Christ, but we are alive and risen with him when his spirit is alive within us. He is the only way back to God!
|
|
|
Post by dmmichgood on May 21, 2016 1:14:47 GMT -5
Whatever you want to believe about all that, it still has nothing to do with what he said about his return.
PS: Where did he Jesus did return in that generation?
Yes it has everything to do with his return, because these things happened when he returned and happen at his return now.
He rose and came back firstly in his apostles and through every generation since in his church, who are his people. Once we are resurrected with him we put off the old man and put on the new. And we are alive in God in our new resurrected bodies. We are a new heaven and a new earth made by the hand of God. We pass from death to life. We are dead in our graves without Christ, but we are alive and risen with him when his spirit is alive within us. He is the only way back to God! Maryhig, -are you saying that the prophecy that Jesus stated in Matthew 24:31 concerning his return has already happened at his (supposed) resurrection?
If that was what he meant, then where were the "angels with their loud trumpet call" at his resurrection?
If his prophecy was full-filled at that time then his elect have already been "gathered from the four winds, from one end of the heavens to the other."
If his "elect" has already been gathered where does that leave you at this time?
Matthew 24:31. "And he will send his angels with a loud trumpet call, and they will gather his elect from the four winds, from one end of the heavens to the other."
|
|
|
Post by maryhig on May 21, 2016 1:53:10 GMT -5
Yes it has everything to do with his return, because these things happened when he returned and happen at his return now.
He rose and came back firstly in his apostles and through every generation since in his church, who are his people. Once we are resurrected with him we put off the old man and put on the new. And we are alive in God in our new resurrected bodies. We are a new heaven and a new earth made by the hand of God. We pass from death to life. We are dead in our graves without Christ, but we are alive and risen with him when his spirit is alive within us. He is the only way back to God! Maryhig, -are you saying that the prophecy that Jesus stated in Matthew 24:31 concerning his return has already happened at his (supposed) resurrection?
If that was what he meant, then where were the "angels with their loud trumpet call" at his resurrection?
If his prophecy was full-filled at that time then his elect have already been "gathered from the four winds, from one end of the heavens to the other."
If his "elect" has already been gathered where does that leave you at this time?
Matthew 24:31. "And he will send his angels with a loud trumpet call, and they will gather his elect from the four winds, from one end of the heavens to the other."
He's talking in the spirit. I'm not going over it all and I'm not getting into yet another debate. And I'm not going to go through all the verses and go over them one by one. What i will say is this, God doesn't lie. And Jesus didn't lie, he said that he was coming back in that generation and he did. I've only said what I did to show that Jesus was telling the truth. It's clear when we read the Bible that Christ Jesus came back in his people and that he has returned, and that it happened in that generation and it's still happening now, he's still gathering his people. By the way, it's not that I don't believe that there won't be a natural end, i believe that there will. But only God knows when.
|
|