|
Post by fixit on Feb 3, 2021 20:52:35 GMT -5
Exactly. Apocalyptic preaching, and pushing has been one of the most mis-used tools in the religious world for thousands of years. And this stuff about the G H Bush is not only just garbage, it is lies, and it would be defamatory if published in commercial media. One day, the people in Nathan's meeting will come across this stuff that he writes, and the workers, and read what he has written about them. If they do nothing it will be for one of three reasons, 1) he has something over them, or 2) they see him as a problem best kept inside on some sort of leash, or 3) they see him as simply someone to be humoured because he has issues. If it is because they agree with him, then God help his meeting, and the state of the church in his area. I don't care how long he has been spewing this stuff, telling a lie for 20 years doesn't make it true, it just means he's had this problem for 20 years
*** The Truth will prevail, mate. People can Google and find out the history of George H. Bush! Is NOT very good... Involement of JFK assassination when he was a CIA , Bringing Cartel Cocaine into U.S. to sell to the black and Americans in 1980s. George Bush is the instigator of 9/11 and invasion of Iraq war. Google George H. Bush and you, the friends, and the workers can find out the truth. Don't take my words for it, it's history, I didn't write these things. It's time you learned that discernment is needed when deciding what to believe on the internet.
|
|
|
Post by nathan on Feb 3, 2021 21:28:43 GMT -5
*** The Truth will prevail, mate. People can Google and find out the history of George H. Bush! Is NOT very good... Involement of JFK assassination when he was a CIA , Bringing Cartel Cocaine into U.S. to sell to the black and Americans in 1980s. George Bush is the instigator of 9/11 and invasion of Iraq war. Google George H. Bush and you, the friends, and the workers can find out the truth. Don't take my words for it, it's history, I didn't write these things. It's time you learned that discernment is needed when deciding what to believe on the internet. *** Let the readers do their own research and find out the truth for themselves like I did.
|
|
|
Post by Roselyn T on Feb 3, 2021 21:39:02 GMT -5
It's time you learned that discernment is needed when deciding what to believe on the internet. *** Let the readers do their own research and find out the truth for themselves like I did. The readers have done their research nathan, why do you think you are getting push back from others? Repeating lies does not make them true.
|
|
|
Post by Roselyn T on Feb 3, 2021 21:40:18 GMT -5
*** The Truth will prevail, mate. People can Google and find out the history of George H. Bush! Is NOT very good... Involement of JFK assassination when he was a CIA , Bringing Cartel Cocaine into U.S. to sell to the black and Americans in 1980s. George Bush is the instigator of 9/11 and invasion of Iraq war. Google George H. Bush and you, the friends, and the workers can find out the truth. Don't take my words for it, it's history, I didn't write these things. It's time you learned that discernment is needed when deciding what to believe on the internet. Exactly fixit ! It's time nathan and shushy woke up or started their own church !
|
|
|
Post by fixit on Feb 3, 2021 22:04:01 GMT -5
This topic is terrifying in it corruption and volume and what these sons/daughters of Cain have been doing to our children. Why are you not enraged? Because it's mostly lies and fantasy Shushy.
|
|
|
Post by Roselyn T on Feb 3, 2021 22:07:51 GMT -5
I have no desire to start a church I co Pastored a church many yrs ago and the blessing of God was on it Are you looking for a Pastor? I am an atheist shushy.
|
|
|
Post by nathan on Feb 3, 2021 22:17:05 GMT -5
*** Let the readers do their own research and find out the truth for themselves like I did. The readers have done their research nathan , why do you think you are getting push back from others? Repeating lies does not make them true. It's no lie, you doubting Thomas don't believe it simple as that... who cares what you unbeliever believe it or not I just keep on passing the information and hope people like Shushy! are there will WAKE UP! before it too late.
|
|
|
Post by Roselyn T on Feb 3, 2021 22:21:32 GMT -5
The readers have done their research nathan , why do you think you are getting push back from others? Repeating lies does not make them true. It's no lie, you doubting Thomas don't believe it simple as that... who cares what you unbeliever believe it or not I just keep on passing the information and hope people like Shushy! are there will WAKE UP! before it too late.It is lies nathan, you cannot prove any of the BS you post, that is why you don't speak about this BS in Sunday meetings because you know what would happen. You are so full of your own importance !
|
|
|
Post by nathan on Feb 3, 2021 22:51:26 GMT -5
It's no lie, you doubting Thomas don't believe it simple as that... who cares what you unbeliever believe it or not I just keep on passing the information and hope people like Shushy! are there will WAKE UP! before it too late. It is lies nathan , you cannot prove any of the BS you post, that is why you don't speak about this BS in Sunday meetings because you know what would happen. You are so full of your own importance ! I have spoken some of these things in Sunday morning and Union meetings but many 2x2s did NOT understand or believe it just like many of you doubting Thomas and unbelievers on TMB.... That is understandable.
|
|
|
Post by xna on Feb 3, 2021 23:10:59 GMT -5
It is lies nathan , you cannot prove any of the BS you post, that is why you don't speak about this BS in Sunday meetings because you know what would happen. You are so full of your own importance ! I have spoken some of these things in Sunday morning and Union meetings but many 2x2s did NOT understand or believe it just like many of you doubting Thomas and unbelievers on TMB.... That is understandable. The Doubting Thomas story is probably an embellishment to help sell the original story, as told in Mark. Mark is the earliest of the gospels by several decades, and Mark gives no account of anyone seeing Jesus as does Matthew, Luke, and John. Mark also has no mention of a virgin birth.www.biblicalarchaeology.org/daily/biblical-topics/new-testament/the-strange-ending-of-the-gospel-of-mark-and-why-it-makes-all-the-difference/
|
|
|
Post by Roselyn T on Feb 3, 2021 23:11:18 GMT -5
It is lies nathan , you cannot prove any of the BS you post, that is why you don't speak about this BS in Sunday meetings because you know what would happen. You are so full of your own importance ! I have spoken some of these things in Sunday morning and Union meetings but many 2x2s did NOT understand or believe it just like many of you doubting Thomas and unbelievers on TMB.... That is understandable.Oh so you have spoken about JC living in Venus, in a Sunday meeting have you nathan ?
|
|
|
Post by Ross.Bowden on Feb 3, 2021 23:55:55 GMT -5
It would be more correct to say that Mark is the earliest gospel by nearly two decades - not several. Whilst there is little doubt that Mark 16:9-20 was not in his original manuscript (which virtually every Bible translation references), Mark clearly mentions in verses 6 and 7 (completely undisputed text) that: - Christ had risen from the place where he was buried; - That he was going ahead of Peter and the disciples into Galilee and that "there you will see him, just as he told you.” In other words, Mark clearly and unequivocally references the resurrection of Jesus and where He would appear to the disciples. Other gospels have more detailed accounts of the risen Lord. John goes into particular detail regarding Thomas which adds to the information of what Christ did after His resurrection and before His ascension.
|
|
|
Post by nathan on Feb 4, 2021 0:24:16 GMT -5
John Mark or Mark who wrote the gospel of Mark was a nephew to Barnabas, who was 1 of the 70 that Jesus sent forth in Luke 10. Mark didn't appear until Acts 15. Luke didn't appear until Luke 16. Paul the apostle appeared on the scene in Acts 7: 58-60 and Acts 9. Mark and Luke got their gospels stories from those who had lived and saw Jesus in person.... Like Mary the mother of Jesus, Matthew and John the apostle and from his uncle Barnabas Luke 10 Jesus sending of the 70 more apostles in the ministry.
John and Matthew were apostles who had lived with Jesus 31/2 years during His Itinerant ministry on earth. John Mark or Mark and Luke had NEVER seen or met Jesus.
|
|
|
Post by Roselyn T on Feb 4, 2021 3:07:55 GMT -5
I have spoken some of these things in Sunday morning and Union meetings but many 2x2s did NOT understand or believe it just like many of you doubting Thomas and unbelievers on TMB.... That is understandable. Oh so you have spoken about JC living in Venus, in a Sunday meeting have you nathan ? Did you miss my post nathan !
|
|
|
Post by chuck on Feb 4, 2021 4:51:55 GMT -5
Just like Mark's description of the Angel in the Tomb, He was just a "man in a white robe". A western mind mostly see harp playing cherubs.... Look past the literalness of the word's to find real meaning. The literal words with a westerners mind imagines Heaven in the clouds with a Dude on a throne Judging people and tossing people not like them into hell in the centre of the earth with lots of fire and a guy with a swishing tail and a pitchfork. A Hebraic perspective would see A quality of life that was in order, compassionate, loving, merciful, graceful and generous(Heaven),or a life of chaos, that was angry, jealous, envious, spiteful, power hungry, selfish(Hell). The very first book of the bible describes this, creation brings order to chaos.........it still applies today. Chaos ensues when you try to master Good and Evil, which is exactly what religion does, 2x2ism included. The Church and worship were never intended to bring chaos but to bring order, but man wanting other man to "see it my way" or "you will be done away" "God will judge you" "Hell is waiting" with has taken over the Church and Fellowship in many instances. This is why both Nathan and wally avoid this like the plague........ "If I don't see it your way will I burn?" It's very confronting..... 15 “Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You travel over land and sea to win a single convert, and when you have succeeded, you make them twice as much a child of hell as you are. - Matthew 23:15 www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew23:15&version=NIV
|
|
|
Post by Annan on Feb 4, 2021 5:50:23 GMT -5
Oh so you have spoken about JC living in Venus, in a Sunday meeting have you nathan ? Did you miss my post nathan ! We should start a "questions Nathan refuses to answer" thread. Seriously. He ignores what he knows outs his lies.
|
|
|
Post by Roselyn T on Feb 4, 2021 5:53:55 GMT -5
We should start a "questions Nathan refuses to answer" thread. Seriously. He ignores what he knows outs his lies. Yep !!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 4, 2021 6:51:55 GMT -5
It would be more correct to say that Mark is the earliest gospel by nearly two decades - not several. Whilst there is little doubt that Mark 16:9-20 was not in his original manuscript (which virtually every Bible translation references), Mark clearly mentions in verses 6 and 7 (completely undisputed text) that: - Christ had risen from the place where he was buried; - That he was going ahead of Peter and the disciples into Galilee and that "there you will see him, just as he told you.” In other words, Mark clearly and unequivocally references the resurrection of Jesus and where He would appear to the disciples. Other gospels have more detailed accounts of the risen Lord. John goes into particular detail regarding Thomas which adds to the information of what Christ did after His resurrection and before His ascension. The important question is how did the author of Mark find out that “Christ has risen”? If the bible is true then we know that the three women at the tomb didn’t tell anyone what they had seen or had heard in relation to Jesus having risen for “they went out quickly and fled from the tomb, for they trembled and were amazed. And they said nothing to anyone, for they were afraid”. If they told no one then how did the author of Mark come to learn of it? And if they told someone then clearly this part of the gospel isn’t true which raises the question of whether other parts of the gospel also aren’t true. And how do we know that the bloke in the white robe told the women the truth when he said “he has risen”? The original version of Mark’s Gospel only tells us that this is what he told the women. It doesn’t tell us that this is what actually happened. Could he have removed the body and put it elsewhere. It certainly seems peculiar for a man to be found sitting in an empty tomb. If he wasn’t there to interfere with the body what was he doing there? Why was he hanging around in an empty tomb after the body had up and left? It all seems peculiar. Referring to other gospels which were written later and which used Mark as one of their sources does not explain away the hugely inconvenient fact that the original version of Mark omits to say anything about anyone having seen the resurrected Jesus which is surely the most crucial event of his life. This is akin to writing a biography of JF Kennedy and forgetting to mention the assassination or of Neil Armstrong and failing to mention the moon landing. Why this should be requires some explanation. The most credible explanation is that the resurrection didn’t happen. And if you are referencing Matthew or Luke because you believe them to be true independent accounts which corroborate Mark’s account then we need to be clear that it is well established that they aren’t independent of Mark. It is also clear that the accounts of Mark, Matthew and Luke can’t all be true for Mark tells us that it was a young man in a white robe who the women encountered at the tomb, Matthew tells us that it was an angel of the Lord while Luke tells us that it was two men in dazzling apparel. Clearly at least two of these accounts are false. Why this should be also requires some explaining. The most credible explanation is that the stories are all made up. Which brings us to John. The author of John would have us believe that it was Mary Magdalene who went to the tomb alone. And when she found it empty she thought the body had been removed and then ran and brought Peter and another disciple to the tomb. But instead of seeing a young man in a white robe inside they see only the linen wrappings. And they go home. But Mary stayed on and then after a short conversation with some angels she turned around to find Jesus. The Bible is either 100% factually correct or it isn’t. And based on the accounts of the resurrection it clearly isn’t. And if the accounts aren’t true then what basis is there to believe in the rather far fetched story of the resurrection other than religious conditioning and wishful thinking. Matt10
|
|
|
Post by xna on Feb 4, 2021 10:14:43 GMT -5
It would be more correct to say that Mark is the earliest gospel by nearly two decades - not several. From what I read no one knows who, or when exactly each of the gospel books were written. People have made educated guesses, but there is not a date certain, or a person certain, which can be shown to be the fact of the matter. What we have are educated guesses, where each thinks theirs is the "more correct" answer. Other gospels have more detailed accounts of the risen Lord. John goes into particular detail regarding Thomas which adds to the information of what Christ did after His resurrection and before His ascension. What I find suspicious about the gospel of Mark is, the absence of the virgin birth, and very little if any about the resurrection of Jesus. While latter accounts have many more details, if the virgin birth and life after death was true this would be miraculous and when telling the story one would take a lot of time going over these major events. It's like telling the story of NASA and omitting the moon landing. That's would make no sense. Since the later gospels add lots of details on the virgin birth and life after death, it makes me wonder if like many fish stories the fish gets bigger the more often it's told.
|
|
|
Post by xna on Feb 4, 2021 10:20:00 GMT -5
It would be more correct to say that Mark is the earliest gospel by nearly two decades - not several. Whilst there is little doubt that Mark 16:9-20 was not in his original manuscript (which virtually every Bible translation references), Mark clearly mentions in verses 6 and 7 (completely undisputed text) that: - Christ had risen from the place where he was buried; - That he was going ahead of Peter and the disciples into Galilee and that "there you will see him, just as he told you.” In other words, Mark clearly and unequivocally references the resurrection of Jesus and where He would appear to the disciples. Other gospels have more detailed accounts of the risen Lord. John goes into particular detail regarding Thomas which adds to the information of what Christ did after His resurrection and before His ascension. The important question is how did the author of Mark find out that “Christ has risen”? If the bible is true then we know that the three women at the tomb didn’t tell anyone what they had seen or had heard in relation to Jesus having risen for “they went out quickly and fled from the tomb, for they trembled and were amazed. And they said nothing to anyone, for they were afraid”. If they told no one then how did the author of Mark come to learn of it? And if they told someone then clearly this part of the gospel isn’t true which raises the question of whether other parts of the gospel also aren’t true. And how do we know that the bloke in the white robe told the women the truth when he said “he has risen”? The original version of Mark’s Gospel only tells us that this is what he told the women. It doesn’t tell us that this is what actually happened. Could he have removed the body and put it elsewhere. It certainly seems peculiar for a man to be found sitting in an empty tomb. If he wasn’t there to interfere with the body what was he doing there? Why was he hanging around in an empty tomb after the body had up and left? It all seems peculiar. Referring to other gospels which were written later and which used Mark as one of their sources does not explain away the hugely inconvenient fact that the original version of Mark omits to say anything about anyone having seen the resurrected Jesus which is surely the most crucial event of his life. This is akin to writing a biography of JF Kennedy and forgetting to mention the assassination or of Neil Armstrong and failing to mention the moon landing. Why this should be requires some explanation. The most credible explanation is that the resurrection didn’t happen. And if you are referencing Matthew or Luke because you believe them to be true independent accounts which corroborate Mark’s account then we need to be clear that it is well established that they aren’t independent of Mark. It is also clear that the accounts of Mark, Matthew and Luke can’t all be true for Mark tells us that it was a young man in a white robe who the women encountered at the tomb, Matthew tells us that it was an angel of the Lord while Luke tells us that it was two men in dazzling apparel. Clearly at least two of these accounts are false. Why this should be also requires some explaining. The most credible explanation is that the stories are all made up. Which brings us to John. The author of John would have us believe that it was Mary Magdalene who went to the tomb alone. And when she found it empty she thought the body had been removed and then ran and brought Peter and another disciple to the tomb. But instead of seeing a young man in a white robe inside they see only the linen wrappings. And they go home. But Mary stayed on and then after a short conversation with some angels she turned around to find Jesus. The Bible is either 100% factually correct or it isn’t. And based on the accounts of the resurrection it clearly isn’t. And if the accounts aren’t true then what basis is there to believe in the rather far fetched story of the resurrection other than religious conditioning and wishful thinking. Matt10 Very well said.
|
|
|
Post by nathan on Feb 4, 2021 10:45:03 GMT -5
John Mark or Mark who wrote the gospel of Mark was a nephew to Barnabas, who was 1 of the 70 that Jesus sent forth in Luke 10. Mark didn't appear until Acts 15. Luke didn't appear until Luke 16. Paul the apostle appeared on the scene in Acts 7: 58-60 and Acts 9. Mark and Luke got their gospels stories from those who had lived and saw Jesus in person.... Like Mary the mother of Jesus, Matthew and John the apostle and from his uncle Barnabas Luke 10 Jesus sending of the 70 more apostles in the ministry.
John and Matthew were apostles who had lived with Jesus 31/2 years during His Itinerant ministry on earth. John Mark or Mark and Luke had NEVER seen or met Jesus.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 4, 2021 11:15:49 GMT -5
It would be more correct to say that Mark is the earliest gospel by nearly two decades - not several. Whilst there is little doubt that Mark 16:9-20 was not in his original manuscript (which virtually every Bible translation references), Mark clearly mentions in verses 6 and 7 (completely undisputed text) that: - Christ had risen from the place where he was buried; - That he was going ahead of Peter and the disciples into Galilee and that "there you will see him, just as he told you.” In other words, Mark clearly and unequivocally references the resurrection of Jesus and where He would appear to the disciples. Other gospels have more detailed accounts of the risen Lord. John goes into particular detail regarding Thomas which adds to the information of what Christ did after His resurrection and before His ascension. The important question is how did the author of Mark find out that “Christ has risen”? If the bible is true then we know that the three women at the tomb didn’t tell anyone what they had seen or had heard in relation to Jesus having risen for “they went out quickly and fled from the tomb, for they trembled and were amazed. And they said nothing to anyone, for they were afraid”. If they told no one then how did the author of Mark come to learn of it? And if they told someone then clearly this part of the gospel isn’t true which raises the question of whether other parts of the gospel also aren’t true. And how do we know that the bloke in the white robe told the women the truth when he said “he has risen”? The original version of Mark’s Gospel only tells us that this is what he told the women. It doesn’t tell us that this is what actually happened. Could he have removed the body and put it elsewhere. It certainly seems peculiar for a man to be found sitting in an empty tomb. If he wasn’t there to interfere with the body what was he doing there? Why was he hanging around in an empty tomb after the body had up and left? It all seems peculiar. Referring to other gospels which were written later and which used Mark as one of their sources does not explain away the hugely inconvenient fact that the original version of Mark omits to say anything about anyone having seen the resurrected Jesus which is surely the most crucial event of his life. This is akin to writing a biography of JF Kennedy and forgetting to mention the assassination or of Neil Armstrong and failing to mention the moon landing. Why this should be requires some explanation. The most credible explanation is that the resurrection didn’t happen. And if you are referencing Matthew or Luke because you believe them to be true independent accounts which corroborate Mark’s account then we need to be clear that it is well established that they aren’t independent of Mark. It is also clear that the accounts of Mark, Matthew and Luke can’t all be true for Mark tells us that it was a young man in a white robe who the women encountered at the tomb, Matthew tells us that it was an angel of the Lord while Luke tells us that it was two men in dazzling apparel. Clearly at least two of these accounts are false. Why this should be also requires some explaining. The most credible explanation is that the stories are all made up. Which brings us to John. The author of John would have us believe that it was Mary Magdalene who went to the tomb alone. And when she found it empty she thought the body had been removed and then ran and brought Peter and another disciple to the tomb. But instead of seeing a young man in a white robe inside they see only the linen wrappings. And they go home. But Mary stayed on and then after a short conversation with some angels she turned around to find Jesus. The Bible is either 100% factually correct or it isn’t. And based on the accounts of the resurrection it clearly isn’t. And if the accounts aren’t true then what basis is there to believe in the rather far fetched story of the resurrection other than religious conditioning and wishful thinking. Matt10 how "selective" of you when you try and quote scripture...here is what mark actually says Mar 16:7 But go your way, tell his disciples and Peter that he goeth before you into Galilee: there shall ye see him, as he said unto you. Mar 16:8 And they went out quickly, and fled from the sepulchre; for they trembled and were amazed: neither said they any thing to any man; for they were afraid. its obvious here from scripture that they went and told peter and the others as ordered, what verse 8 is relaying is that they probably said nothing to anyone near the tomb nor on their way to peter and the others...
|
|
|
Post by xna on Feb 4, 2021 11:19:26 GMT -5
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 4, 2021 11:46:05 GMT -5
dating of the gospels and the NT are relatively subjective to whomever the "biblical scholar" is... this "biblical scholar" puts mark more around the mid 40's www.amazon.com/Date-Marks-Gospel-Christianity-Testament/dp/0567081958i also think 1-2 more books were around the mid-late 40's also and about 2 were in the 50's with the rest being in the late 50's and early to mid 60's with revelation being around 90 AD or so....
|
|
|
Post by xna on Feb 4, 2021 11:52:24 GMT -5
dating of the gospels and the NT are relatively subjective to whomever the "biblical scholar" is... this "biblical scholar" puts mark more around the mid 40's www.amazon.com/Date-Marks-Gospel-Christianity-Testament/dp/0567081958i also think 1-2 more books were around the mid-late 40's also and about 2 were in the 50's with the rest being in the late 50's and early to mid 60's with revelation being around 90 AD or so.... I see many different estimates for each book of the bible. This is what can be said as true about the authors of the books of the bible; - No one knows WHO wrote them - No one knows WHEN they were written.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 4, 2021 12:00:34 GMT -5
dating of the gospels and the NT are relatively subjective to whomever the "biblical scholar" is... this "biblical scholar" puts mark more around the mid 40's www.amazon.com/Date-Marks-Gospel-Christianity-Testament/dp/0567081958i also think 1-2 more books were around the mid-late 40's also and about 2 were in the 50's with the rest being in the late 50's and early to mid 60's with revelation being around 90 AD or so.... This is what can be said as true about the authors of the books of the bible; - No one knows WHO wrote them - No one knows WHEN they were written. that is not necessarily true....a number of books actually state who wrote them. if it was a scribe that actually wrote it that doesn't take away from who actually gave the testimony for it as the "author"...in a number of cases the actual content of each book gives us a good idea when they were written...
|
|
|
Post by nathan on Feb 4, 2021 12:14:10 GMT -5
** That's about right it was written the gospel of Mark about 70 A.D. John Mark or Mark appeared unto the Scence Acts 13 after Acts 26 Paul was beheaded by Nero in 68 A.D.
|
|
|
Post by nathan on Feb 4, 2021 12:37:17 GMT -5
dating of the gospels and the NT are relatively subjective to whomever the "biblical scholar" is... this "biblical scholar" puts mark more around the mid 40's www.amazon.com/Date-Marks-Gospel-Christianity-Testament/dp/0567081958i also think 1-2 more books were around the mid-late 40's also and about 2 were in the 50's with the rest being in the late 50's and early to mid 60's with revelation being around 90 AD or so.... I see many different estimates for each book of the bible. This is what can be said as true about the authors of the books of the bible; - No one knows WHO wrote them - No one knows WHEN they were written. *** The early church fathers or 2nd century apostles KNEW who wrote the 4 gospels and other gospels which the RCC did not approve of.
|
|