Total Posts:40|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Jesus is in the way.

Human_Joke65
Posts: 127
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/4/2013 3:15:47 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
God's wrath climaxed at the crucifixion. Since then, Jesus' provision of free forgiveness has 'impeded' the incredible hulk's rampaging tantrums. Only until the Book of Revelation does the wrath make a comeback. Raises the question, does it not? If God's wrath was supposed to be satiated, why is it back? Why is Old Testament wrath returning, and worse than ever? Is the Antichrist really that underestimated based on limited description? How many purposes will the rapture serve other than the obvious?

If you don't really care about this cuz you're an atheist or of another faith, humor me. If you are a sorry excuse of a philosophical Christian who is skeptical at the necessity for an Antichrist, humor me. Predictable responses like," who cares", "you are overthinking it", lmao, etc. need not enter through here. Thank you for enabling me. Heh.
God's a comedian and atheism is a punch line waiting to happen.
CanWeKnow
Posts: 217
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/4/2013 3:21:00 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
It's the rise of the Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster. Nothing on this planet is as crude and insulting to God as the growing popularity of the Church of FSM. He's just waiting for enough people to join up and then he will crush them all to make an example out of them. I'm hoping it's either plague style or just regular being struck down by God. Either way works for me.
Drayson
Posts: 288
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/4/2013 4:32:34 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
Christopher Hitchens pointed out that one disturbing theme in most religions is a deeply ingrained desire for everything to end. It's not just that the followers and founders of the religion BELIEVE that this "Judgement Day" is coming, they actually WANT it to happen.

I personally think the reason for that is human neuroses surrounding death, and the general egocentric nature of the religious mind. It seems that fear of death also means they cannot handle the thought that the world will carry on without them once they're gone, so they naturally gravitate toward the idea of the world discontinuing along with them.

That's why so many of them think that it's actually going to happen within their lifetime.
"I'm not saying I don't trust you...and I'm not saying I do. But I don't"

-Topper Harley
Sower4GS
Posts: 1,718
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/4/2013 4:53:05 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/4/2013 3:15:47 PM, Human_Joke65 wrote:
God's wrath climaxed at the crucifixion. Since then, Jesus' provision of free forgiveness has 'impeded' the incredible hulk's rampaging tantrums. Only until the Book of Revelation does the wrath make a comeback. Raises the question, does it not? If God's wrath was supposed to be satiated, why is it back? Why is Old Testament wrath returning, and worse than ever? Is the Antichrist really that underestimated based on limited description? How many purposes will the rapture serve other than the obvious?

If you don't really care about this cuz you're an atheist or of another faith, humor me. If you are a sorry excuse of a philosophical Christian who is skeptical at the necessity for an Antichrist, humor me. Predictable responses like," who cares", "you are overthinking it", lmao, etc. need not enter through here. Thank you for enabling me. Heh.
Watch this, Yahushua's arrival is not far off:

http://youtu.be...
Fruitytree
Posts: 2,176
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/5/2013 5:36:44 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
So you think God was Happy that Jesus was "crucified" ?!

Does it even make a sense ?!

God wrath for evil doers was and is always there, there is no reason it should cease unless they sincerely repent and do good deeds.

And Anti-Christ has a mission, for your knowledge, a lot of those who disbelieved in Jesus will believe the Anti-Christ and follow him. What a deception!

Antichrist is a turmoil , the greatest mankind have known.
dattaswami
Posts: 322
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/18/2013 11:43:19 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
World Religions

If anyone says that his/her religion is the only path to God and that other paths lead to hell, I have one humble question. The question is for every religion without any trace of partiality. The simple question is: Today I have heard your Religion and if I follow that, I reach God and if I refuse I will go to the hell for my own fault. This is very much reasonable. But before your ancestors discovered our country, the literature or even the name of your religion was not known to our ancestor and he could not reach God for no fault of him. But your ancestor reached God through your religion at that time.

Even if I assume that My ancestor will take rebirth now and will follow your religion to reach God, such possibility is ruled out because you say that there is no rebirth for the soul. Thus my ancestor suffered forever for no fault of him and the responsibility for this falls on the partiality of God. Had the God been impartial, He could have revealed your religion to all the countries at a time. Had that happened, my ancestor might have also reached God as your ancestor. Therefore your statement proves your own God partial.

The only way left over to you to make your God impartial is that you must accept that your God appeared in all the countries at a time in various forms and preached your path in various languages. The same form did not appear everywhere and the same language does not exist everywhere. The syllabus and explanation are one and the same, though the media and teachers are different. Can you give any alternative reasonable answer to my question other than this? Certainly not! Any person of any religion to any other religion can pose this question.

Moreover every religion states that their God only created this world. Unfortunately this world is one only and every God cannot create the same world. There are no many worlds to justify that each God created His own world. Therefore any human being with an iota of commonsense has to agree that there is only one impartial God who created this one world and He came in different forms to different countries and preached the same path in all the languages simultaneously at one time.

At 7/4/2013 3:15:47 PM, Human_Joke65 wrote:
God's wrath climaxed at the crucifixion. Since then, Jesus' provision of free forgiveness has 'impeded' the incredible hulk's rampaging tantrums. Only until the Book of Revelation does the wrath make a comeback. Raises the question, does it not? If God's wrath was supposed to be satiated, why is it back? Why is Old Testament wrath returning, and worse than ever? Is the Antichrist really that underestimated based on limited description? How many purposes will the rapture serve other than the obvious?
dattaswami
Posts: 322
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/18/2013 11:45:33 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
Essence Of Jesus Preaching - Real Saving

Merely by accepting the human incarnation (Jesus) as Saviour cannot save you. It is told in the Bible that He came to save His people. Who are His people? They are His beloved devotees. They follow His instructions. Jesus did not give attention even to see His mother, when He was with His disciples. When a woman shouted that the Mother of Jesus was blessed, Jesus did not agree and told that blessed are those who followed His instructions. He says that one should leave parents, wife or husband, children and must be prepared even to carry on his own cross for the sake of Jesus. This means that one should be prepared to sacrifice even his life. Therefore, it is a narrow path with thorns. Even to hear this statement your mind is turmoiled with chaotic disturbance. That is the reason why He says that He has not come to give peace to you and that He is holding the sword of knowledge in His hand. Therefore, you can be saved only when you reach that state.

If you say to the Judge that you accept him as your saviour, will he save you and cancel his judgement? If you say to the jailor that you will accept him as your saviour, will he relieve you from the jail? Therefore, He saves only His dearest devotees. He underwent the suffering of His people only on the Cross. He did not suffer for the sake of all the people and released all the people from their sins. If such thing is done the justice is destroyed. The administration becomes meaningless. When a devotee leaves everybody and everything for the sake of such human incarnation and participates in His service, such people are called as His people. Such devotees will never agree for the crucification of the Lord for their sake. Therefore, real saving is only at that stage.

At 7/5/2013 5:36:44 PM, Fruitytree wrote:
So you think God was Happy that Jesus was "crucified" ?!
Naysayer
Posts: 746
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/19/2013 5:27:20 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/4/2013 3:15:47 PM, Human_Joke65 wrote:
God's wrath climaxed at the crucifixion. Since then, Jesus' provision of free forgiveness has 'impeded' the incredible hulk's rampaging tantrums. Only until the Book of Revelation does the wrath make a comeback. Raises the question, does it not? If God's wrath was supposed to be satiated, why is it back? Why is Old Testament wrath returning, and worse than ever? Is the Antichrist really that underestimated based on limited description? How many purposes will the rapture serve other than the obvious?

Jesus stood in the synagogue in Nazereth and read from the scriptures in Luke 4:
16 And he came to Nazareth, where he had been brought up: and, as his custom was, he went into the synagogue on the sabbath day, and stood up for to read.
17 And there was delivered unto him the book of the prophet Esaias. And when he had opened the book, he found the place where it was written,
18 The Spirit of the Lord is upon me, because he hath anointed me to preach the gospel to the poor; he hath sent me to heal the brokenhearted, to preach deliverance to the captives, and recovering of sight to the blind, to set at liberty them that are bruised,
19 To preach the acceptable year of the Lord.

He was reading Isaiah 61:
1 The Spirit of the Lord God is upon me; because the Lord hath anointed me to preach good tidings unto the meek; he hath sent me to bind up the brokenhearted, to proclaim liberty to the captives, and the opening of the prison to them that are bound;
2 To proclaim the acceptable year of the Lord, and the day of vengeance of our God; to comfort all that mourn;

He left off the bold part, rolled up the scroll and sat down.

Everything else that He read in that prophesy, He fulfilled in his first coming. He still has a mission to finish the last two parts, which Revelation tells us is still expected to be fulfilled. When He wipes away all tears (Rev. 21:4) and even the memory of it (Isaiah 65) his mission will be complete.

It's also of note that we have this image of the antichrist as being a scary, fire breathing monster and everyone thinks, "I wouldn't worship that, but he's a popular guy. Everyone likes him. He's a crowd pleaser. He's not going to come slaying the nations. He's going to unwillingly do what needs to be done in war and when he establishes his "peace" the world goes nuts for him. Except those trouble making Israelis who won't quit causing problems and just get along. Never mind that he's sitting in their temple, proclaiming himself to be God.
annanicole
Posts: 19,787
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/19/2013 5:52:40 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
"Only until the Book of Revelation does the wrath make a comeback. Raises the question, does it not? If God's wrath was supposed to be satiated, why is it back? Why is Old Testament wrath returning, and worse than ever?"

The Apocalypse pictures, in Jewish apocalyptic style, the persecutions of the early church against the combined forces of Judaism, heathenism, and "militarism" (or national Rome). Of the three, Judaism was the major impediment to Christianity until AD 70. After AD 70, pagan Rome was the major persecutor. The book is a collection of signs and symbols including grotesque "beasts" and "dragons" and "horses" with various "colors", but it all simply represents the church - Christianity - as victorious over its persecutors. It is not to be considered as a book foretelling literal events stretching down the millennia.
Madcornishbiker: "No, I don't need a dictionary, I know how scripture uses words and that is all I need to now."
Naysayer
Posts: 746
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/19/2013 7:57:30 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/19/2013 5:52:40 AM, annanicole wrote:
"Only until the Book of Revelation does the wrath make a comeback. Raises the question, does it not? If God's wrath was supposed to be satiated, why is it back? Why is Old Testament wrath returning, and worse than ever?"

The Apocalypse pictures, in Jewish apocalyptic style, the persecutions of the early church against the combined forces of Judaism, heathenism, and "militarism" (or national Rome). Of the three, Judaism was the major impediment to Christianity until AD 70. After AD 70, pagan Rome was the major persecutor. The book is a collection of signs and symbols including grotesque "beasts" and "dragons" and "horses" with various "colors", but it all simply represents the church - Christianity - as victorious over its persecutors. It is not to be considered as a book foretelling literal events stretching down the millennia.

You need to go back and spend some time with the Old Testament prophets. God promised Israel He wasn't done with them and what shows up in Revelation, in large portion is echoed back in the Old Testament. God is not done with Israel. They have to go through a Great Tribulation and He will reveal himself to them and restore them as his people just before the battle of the nations in Revelation 19.
annanicole
Posts: 19,787
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/19/2013 8:22:59 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/19/2013 7:57:30 AM, Naysayer wrote:
At 7/19/2013 5:52:40 AM, annanicole wrote:
"Only until the Book of Revelation does the wrath make a comeback. Raises the question, does it not? If God's wrath was supposed to be satiated, why is it back? Why is Old Testament wrath returning, and worse than ever?"

The Apocalypse pictures, in Jewish apocalyptic style, the persecutions of the early church against the combined forces of Judaism, heathenism, and "militarism" (or national Rome). Of the three, Judaism was the major impediment to Christianity until AD 70. After AD 70, pagan Rome was the major persecutor. The book is a collection of signs and symbols including grotesque "beasts" and "dragons" and "horses" with various "colors", but it all simply represents the church - Christianity - as victorious over its persecutors. It is not to be considered as a book foretelling literal events stretching down the millennia.

You need to go back and spend some time with the Old Testament prophets. God promised Israel He wasn't done with them and what shows up in Revelation, in large portion is echoed back in the Old Testament. God is not done with Israel. They have to go through a Great Tribulation and He will reveal himself to them and restore them as his people just before the battle of the nations in Revelation 19.

Oh, I have gone back and looked at Old Testament prophesies - many times. Certainly God is not "done" with Israel: they have the same opportunity to trust in Jesus Christ and obey the gospel that the rest of us have. The "Great Tribulation" does not apply to Israel - it applied to Christians, and they went through it.

In Rev 1, before a sign or apocalyptic figure was ever introduced, John plainly told his readers that "the time is fulfilled", and he is describing events that are to "shortly come to pass." He says in the prologue, in fact within the first three verses.

It is a horrid anachronism, I believe, to try to string out Revelation over twenty-one centuries when the "time was fulfilled" for all these things way back then. It is the cause of much needless speculation and in fact carries numerous false implications, one of which would be that the gospel is insufficient. Another is that Christ's kingdom never came. Another is that Jesus Christ is not now reigning. Another is that Jesus is not now on David's Throne. And on and on.
Madcornishbiker: "No, I don't need a dictionary, I know how scripture uses words and that is all I need to now."
Naysayer
Posts: 746
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/19/2013 9:57:22 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/19/2013 8:22:59 AM, annanicole wrote:
At 7/19/2013 7:57:30 AM, Naysayer wrote:
At 7/19/2013 5:52:40 AM, annanicole wrote:
"Only until the Book of Revelation does the wrath make a comeback. Raises the question, does it not? If God's wrath was supposed to be satiated, why is it back? Why is Old Testament wrath returning, and worse than ever?"

The Apocalypse pictures, in Jewish apocalyptic style, the persecutions of the early church against the combined forces of Judaism, heathenism, and "militarism" (or national Rome). Of the three, Judaism was the major impediment to Christianity until AD 70. After AD 70, pagan Rome was the major persecutor. The book is a collection of signs and symbols including grotesque "beasts" and "dragons" and "horses" with various "colors", but it all simply represents the church - Christianity - as victorious over its persecutors. It is not to be considered as a book foretelling literal events stretching down the millennia.

You need to go back and spend some time with the Old Testament prophets. God promised Israel He wasn't done with them and what shows up in Revelation, in large portion is echoed back in the Old Testament. God is not done with Israel. They have to go through a Great Tribulation and He will reveal himself to them and restore them as his people just before the battle of the nations in Revelation 19.

Oh, I have gone back and looked at Old Testament prophesies - many times. Certainly God is not "done" with Israel: they have the same opportunity to trust in Jesus Christ and obey the gospel that the rest of us have. The "Great Tribulation" does not apply to Israel - it applied to Christians, and they went through it.

In Rev 1, before a sign or apocalyptic figure was ever introduced, John plainly told his readers that "the time is fulfilled", and he is describing events that are to "shortly come to pass." He says in the prologue, in fact within the first three verses.

It is a horrid anachronism, I believe, to try to string out Revelation over twenty-one centuries when the "time was fulfilled" for all these things way back then. It is the cause of much needless speculation and in fact carries numerous false implications, one of which would be that the gospel is insufficient. Another is that Christ's kingdom never came. Another is that Jesus Christ is not now reigning. Another is that Jesus is not now on David's Throne. And on and on.

Christ's kingdom hasn't come. Christ is on the right hand of the Father right now. There is no confusion about that. The judgement hasn't come yet. The earth has not been made new. There is a lot of Revelation that hasn't come to pass and no real reason to think it's all just handy little types.

Shall shortly come to pass does not mean it's already happened. Where in John 1 does he say it's already occured or been fulfilled?
Revelation covers a lot of time, which would be perfectly in keeping with all the other prophesies from the O.T. that jump around like crazy. I don't understand why that's an issue for you. In fact, Revelation is one of the most clear and laid out prophetic books in the Bible.
annanicole
Posts: 19,787
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/19/2013 12:45:25 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
"Christ's kingdom hasn't come. Christ is on the right hand of the Father right now. There is no confusion about that."

There must be A LOT of confusion: Paul was already in the kingdom, as was the entire Colossian church - in the first century. John was already in the kingdom, as were the first readers of Revelation - in the first century.

"The judgement hasn't come yet. The earth has not been made new. There is a lot of Revelation that hasn't come to pass and no real reason to think it's all just handy little types."

No, the final judgment hasn't come yet. Judgment has come against Judaism, however. Sure it's all types and figures: the angel sign-ified it to John.

"Shall shortly come to pass does not mean it's already happened."

No, it doesn't means that - it means it was shortly to happen.

"Where in Rev 1 does he say it's already occured or been fulfilled?"

It doesn't. It says it was to "shortly come to pass" at the time it was written. It was to "shortly come to pass" because "the time is fulfilled".

"Revelation covers a lot of time, which would be perfectly in keeping with all the other prophesies from the O.T. that jump around like crazy. I don't understand why that's an issue for you. In fact, Revelation is one of the most clear and laid out prophetic books in the Bible."

It is very clear if it was to "shortly come to pass" in the first century. It's about as clear as mud, with every speculator seeing "end times this" and "end times that" if it's strung out over twenty millennia.
Madcornishbiker: "No, I don't need a dictionary, I know how scripture uses words and that is all I need to now."
Naysayer
Posts: 746
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/19/2013 2:30:12 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/19/2013 12:45:25 PM, annanicole wrote:
There must be A LOT of confusion: Paul was already in the kingdom, as was the entire Colossian church - in the first century. John was already in the kingdom, as were the first readers of Revelation - in the first century.

There are two kingdoms in the gospels. The Kingdom of God, which is within us (spiritual), and the Kingdom of Heaven, which is a real, physical kingdom. The Kingdom of Heaven is compared to a field of wheat, which grows and then at the end of the world, the tares are bound up and the wheat harvested.

"The judgement hasn't come yet. The earth has not been made new. There is a lot of Revelation that hasn't come to pass and no real reason to think it's all just handy little types."

No, the final judgment hasn't come yet. Judgment has come against Judaism, however. Sure it's all types and figures: the angel sign-ified it to John.

And neither has half of the rest of the book of Revelation.

No, it doesn't means that - it means it was shortly to happen.
It doesn't. It says it was to "shortly come to pass" at the time it was written. It was to "shortly come to pass" because "the time is fulfilled".
It is very clear if it was to "shortly come to pass" in the first century. It's about as clear as mud, with every speculator seeing "end times this" and "end times that" if it's strung out over twenty millennia.

And for a God whose perspective implies a day is as a thousand years and a thousand years is a day, shortly come to pass is in what time frame?

"Behold, I come quickly."

He ain't here yet. Clearly there's some discrepency in your logic.
annanicole
Posts: 19,787
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/19/2013 3:02:19 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
"There are two kingdoms in the gospels. The Kingdom of God, which is within us (spiritual), and the Kingdom of Heaven, which is a real, physical kingdom. The Kingdom of Heaven is compared to a field of wheat, which grows and then at the end of the world, the tares are bound up and the wheat harvested."

The kingdom of God and the kingdom of heaven are synonyms. The two terms are used interchangeably. It's sort of a made-up, concocted distinction, but it's a distinction without a difference. There is no such thing as two separate kingdoms: the concept is a contrived theory that allows a millennialist to hop around from "kingdom is here" to "kingdom yet future". There is but one kingdom. It is not two places at the same time.

"And for a God whose perspective implies a day is as a thousand years and a thousand years is a day, shortly come to pass is in what time frame? "Behold, I come quickly." He ain't here yet. Clearly there's some discrepency in your logic."

He "came quickly" in judgment against Jerusalem just as He had done against other ancient cities. Judgments against Babylon and other governments were referred to as a "coming of the Lord." So the Lord "came" quite a few times, actually - and one of those "comings" was against Jerusalem, in judgment for its national crime, in AD 70.

The "discrepancy" is this: your millennial doctrines reduce the dozens and dozens of references to "the time is fulfilled", it is to "shortly come to pass", it is "at hand" to absolutely meaningless. The words mean nothing in your doctrine - and if you think they do, then tell us exactly what they mean.

Was the time for the events described in the Apocalypse already fulfilled in the 1st century? Of course it was! John said, basically, "There things are to shortly come to pass because the time is fulfilled." Millennialists come along with their speculations and say, "Wait a minute. One day is as a thousand years! On with the speculating!"

Is there any instance in all of prophetic history in which the terms "shortly come to pass" and "at hand" meant 2,000 years? Of course not. How about 1,000 years? Certainly not.
Madcornishbiker: "No, I don't need a dictionary, I know how scripture uses words and that is all I need to now."
Naysayer
Posts: 746
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/19/2013 7:45:16 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/19/2013 3:02:19 PM, annanicole wrote:
The kingdom of God and the kingdom of heaven are synonyms. The two terms are used interchangeably. It's sort of a made-up, concocted distinction, but it's a distinction without a difference. There is no such thing as two separate kingdoms: the concept is a contrived theory that allows a millennialist to hop around from "kingdom is here" to "kingdom yet future". There is but one kingdom. It is not two places at the same time.

They aren't synonyms. Their description isn't the same as I've shown. One is spiritual and occurred directly after Christ rose when the Holy Spirit came and the other physical and occurs at the end of the world. You're correct though, that it's not at the same time.

He "came quickly" in judgment against Jerusalem just as He had done against other ancient cities. Judgments against Babylon and other governments were referred to as a "coming of the Lord." So the Lord "came" quite a few times, actually - and one of those "comings" was against Jerusalem, in judgment for its national crime, in AD 70.

You're going to have to show me some verses there. Just saying it doesn't make it true. I didn't find any phrases of the Lord coming quickly in judgment against Babylon or other governments.

The "discrepancy" is this: your millennial doctrines reduce the dozens and dozens of references to "the time is fulfilled", it is to "shortly come to pass", it is "at hand" to absolutely meaningless. The words mean nothing in your doctrine - and if you think they do, then tell us exactly what they mean.

There is no phrase the time is fulfilled anywhere in Revelation. It only appears once in reference to the Kingdom of God being at hand, which it clearly was.

Was the time for the events described in the Apocalypse already fulfilled in the 1st century? Of course it was! John said, basically, "There things are to shortly come to pass because the time is fulfilled." Millennialists come along with their speculations and say, "Wait a minute. One day is as a thousand years! On with the speculating!"

I don't play the time game. With every day equaling 1000 years in the Bible. I'm not sold on Larkin at all. That's not what I said. I said that God's reference on time is not the same as ours, so when he says quickly or shortly, it's not the same as our reference.

There is no way that a reasonable person that believes the Bible can claim that Jesus Christ is currently reigning on this earth. The only ones that claimed that was the Roman Catholics because it justifies their entire system of anti-biblical or extra-biblical teaching if they can claim THEY are the kingdom of God and THEY led us into Christ's kingdom, which is ridiculous, because what they did was establish the dark ages and murder the saints in the name of Jesus.

Is there any instance in all of prophetic history in which the terms "shortly come to pass" and "at hand" meant 2,000 years? Of course not. How about 1,000 years? Certainly not.

Shortly meant 400 years according to you in Ezekiel if the destruction of Jerusalem was the judgment being spoken of. Of course that judgment wasn't Christ coming, but the Roman Empire which isn't the same at all. God is not done with Israel yet. God has not fulfilled the Great Tribulation. It's yet to come. Christ will come back and claim his bride and call out 1/3 of Israel (144,000 men) and fight against the antichrist before establishing his millennial reign where He will rule with a rod of iron.

It's yet to come.
Fruitytree
Posts: 2,176
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/19/2013 7:55:07 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/18/2013 11:43:19 PM, dattaswami wrote:
World Religions
Well this is the position of Islam about people who don't know or can't know , knowing that Islam is the closure of messages from God till the day of judgement: Allah Says (interpretation of meaning): {And We never punish until We have sent a Messenger (to givewarning).}[17:15].The Prophet (Sallallahu Alaihi wa Sallam) said: "On the Day of the Resurrection, four kinds of people will dispute." A deaf man, a mad man, a man in the feeblest old age and a man who died in natural disposition. The deaf says: Oh, my God! Islam came to me but I couldn't hear anything of it. The mad man says: Oh, my God! Islam came while children were slinging excrement of camels at me. The man of the feeblest old age says: Oh, my God! Islam had come while I was bad at understanding. As for that the one who died in the innate peculiarity of character he says: Oh, my Lord! I didn't hear of your Messenger. Then, they make a solemn covenant with Allah to obey Him. After that, He sends to them a Messenger saying to them: Enter the Hell-fire. The Prophet(Sallallahu Alaihi wa Sallam) said: "By Whom my soul in His hands, if they enter the Hell-fire, they will find it cool and peaceful."
Fruitytree
Posts: 2,176
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/19/2013 7:59:22 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/18/2013 11:45:33 PM, dattaswami wrote:
Essence Of Jesus Preaching - Real Saving

Merely by accepting the human incarnation (Jesus) as Saviour cannot save you. It is told in the Bible that He came to save His people. Who are His people? They are His beloved devotees. They follow His instructions. Jesus did not give attention even to see His mother, when He was with His disciples. When a woman shouted that the Mother of Jesus was blessed, Jesus did not agree and told that blessed are those who followed His instructions. He says that one should leave parents, wife or husband, children and must be prepared even to carry on his own cross for the sake of Jesus. This means that one should be prepared to sacrifice even his life. Therefore, it is a narrow path with thorns. Even to hear this statement your mind is turmoiled with chaotic disturbance. That is the reason why He says that He has not come to give peace to you and that He is holding the sword of knowledge in His hand. Therefore, you can be saved only when you reach that state.

If you say to the Judge that you accept him as your saviour, will he save you and cancel his judgement? If you say to the jailor that you will accept him as your saviour, will he relieve you from the jail? Therefore, He saves only His dearest devotees. He underwent the suffering of His people only on the Cross. He did not suffer for the sake of all the people and released all the people from their sins. If such thing is done the justice is destroyed. The administration becomes meaningless. When a devotee leaves everybody and everything for the sake of such human incarnation and participates in His service, such people are called as His people. Such devotees will never agree for the crucification of the Lord for their sake. Therefore, real saving is only at that stage.



At 7/5/2013 5:36:44 PM, Fruitytree wrote:
So you think God was Happy that Jesus was "crucified" ?!

You make some sense, also He asked the people to keep the commands, if He was dying for their sins, why would he ask them to keep the commands ?
Naysayer
Posts: 746
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/19/2013 8:11:35 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/5/2013 5:36:44 PM, Fruitytree wrote:
So you think God was Happy that Jesus was "crucified" ?!

Isaiah 53:
10 Yet :t pleased the Lord to bruise him; he hath put him to grief:

In short...Yes.
annanicole
Posts: 19,787
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/19/2013 11:08:25 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
Anna: "The kingdom of God and the kingdom of heaven are synonyms. The two terms are used interchangeably. It's sort of a made-up, concocted distinction, but it's a distinction without a difference. There is no such thing as two separate kingdoms: the concept is a contrived theory that allows a millennialist to hop around from "kingdom is here" to "kingdom yet future". There is but one kingdom. It is not two places at the same time.

Naysayer: They aren't synonyms. Their description isn't the same as I've shown. One is spiritual and occurred directly after Christ rose when the Holy Spirit came and the other physical and occurs at the end of the world. You're correct though, that it's not at the same time.

Anna: Yeah, they are: they are used, especially in Matthew vs Mark, 100% interchangeably:

Mark 1: 14, 15 "Now after that John was put in prison, Jesus came into Galilee, preaching the gospel of the kingdom of God, and saying, The time is fulfilled, and the kingdom of God is at hand: repent ye, and believe the gospel."

Matthew 4:17 "From that time Jesus began to preach, and to say, Repent: for the kingdom of heaven is at hand."

Same event, recorded by two different gospel writers - and the phrases are used interchangeably.

You say, "Their description isn't the same as I've shown." Your description/definition is fabricated - someone simply made it up to accommodate his theories. There is no such thing as separate "spiritual kingdoms" and "physical kingdoms".

*****

Naysayer: "You're going to have to show me some verses there. Just saying it doesn't make it true."

Anna: Keep that in mind as you make your assertions about "kingdom of God" and "kingdom of heaven." I didn't think you wanted any passages because you didn't supply any.

Anyway,

Exodus 9:3 - "The hand of the LORD will come with a very severe pestilence on your livestock which are in the field, on the horses, on the donkeys, on the camels, on the herds, and on the flocks." (This judgment coming concerned Egypt and was fulfilled in the time of Moses as a part of the ten plagues.)

Psalm 144:5-7 - "Bow Thy heavens, O LORD, and come down; Touch the mountains, that they may smoke. Flash forth lightning and scatter them; Send out Thine arrows and confuse them. Stretch forth Thy hand from on high; Rescue me and deliver me out of great waters, Out of the hand of aliens." (This coming was requested by David against the foreign military enemies of his own day.)

Isaiah 19:1 - "The oracle concerning Egypt. Behold, the LORD is riding on a swift cloud, and is about to come to Egypt; The idols of Egypt will tremble at His presence, And the heart of the Egyptians will melt within them." (As is obvious from the quoted text, this coming was against the nation of Egypt and result in their military defeat by the Assyrians in 670 B.C.)

Isaiah 26:21 - "For behold, the LORD is about to come out from His place To punish the inhabitants of the earth for their iniquity; And the earth will reveal her bloodshed, And will no longer cover her slain." (This prediction of the LORD's coming was made after a series of specific prophecies concerning the destruction of Assyria, Philistia, Moab, Aram, Israel, Cush, Egypt, Babylon, Edom, Arabia, and Tyre. The judgment on each of nations subsequently fell on these nations, primarily through the invading Assyrian army)

Isaiah 31:4 - "The LORD of hosts come down to wage war on Mount Zion and on its hill." (In this coming, the LORD protected Jerusalem from Assyrian aggression and ultimately destroyed Assyria's capital city, Nineveh, in 612 B.C.)

Micah 1:3-4 - "The LORD is coming forth from His place. He will come down and tread on the high places of the earth. The mountains will melt under Him, And the valleys will be split, Like wax before the fire, Like water poured down a steep place." (This coming concerned the destruction of Samara, and was fulfilled in 722 B.C.)

As demonstrated above, there are numerous non-bodily judgment "comings" of the Lord recorded throughout the Hebrew Scriptures. The Lord did not appear personally (i.e. in bodily form) in any of these historical comings. Instead, His coming was by way of sending judgment upon specific sinful groups. This idea of the "coming" of the Lord was much used throughout the Hebrew Scriptures, and usually resulted in the destruction of a particular city or nation (just as Jerusalem was destroyed in AD 70).

Naysayer: "There is no way that a reasonable person that believes the Bible can claim that Jesus Christ is currently reigning on this earth."

Anna: Sure there is: His kingdom came; He sits on His throne; He reigns; He is king. His territory is the hearts and minds of men as they follow Him. Every Christian is a citizen of this kingdom. The Bible states all of the above.

I am glad that you do not play the "time game". For instance, the 70 went about, two by two, proclaiming "the kingdom of heaven is at hand." Alright. That was one Jew preaching to answer. Well, was it "at hand"?

NO! - according to these millennialists. It's as if now, nearly 2,000 years later, God comes along and says, "Bazinga! Y'all fell for one of my classic pranks! You all just thought it was "at hand" and to "shortly come to pass" because the "time was fulfilled." Y'all forgot that "one day is as a thousand years." Gotcha on that one!"

What does the repeated statement with reference to the kingdom, "The time is fulfilled" mean anyway? Does it not mean that EVERY CONDITION spoken by the prophets with reference to this kingdom was IN PLACE? I'll say this much: the imagination of current millennialists certainly makes dimwits of men like Joseph of Arimethea who KNEW the time was fulfilled. That's why he was "patiently waiting for the kingdom." Even Jesus had said, "Verily I say unto you, There are some here of them that stand by , who shall in no wise taste of death, till they see the kingdom of God come with power." I'd had people try to tell me that Jesus referred to the transfiguration when He said that! Can you imagine? If so, WHY were they all STILL LOOKING FOR IT after the transfiguration?

Naysayer: "Shortly meant 400 years according to you in Ezekiel if the destruction of Jerusalem was the judgment being spoken of."

Anna: Give the passage - and notice the disclaimer: "IF .. IF .. IF the destruction of Jerusalem in AD 70 was the judgment being spoken of." I doubt very seriously is "near to you" ... "at hand" ... "shortly come to pass" could possibly mean 2,000 years. Such an interpretation smacks at the very heart of prophetic veracity.
Madcornishbiker: "No, I don't need a dictionary, I know how scripture uses words and that is all I need to now."
Fruitytree
Posts: 2,176
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/19/2013 11:48:20 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/19/2013 8:11:35 PM, Naysayer wrote:
At 7/5/2013 5:36:44 PM, Fruitytree wrote:
So you think God was Happy that Jesus was "crucified" ?!


Isaiah 53:
10 Yet :t pleased the Lord to bruise him; he hath put him to grief:

In short...Yes.

Well, I didn't mean happy with jesus, but with the transgressors, the people who agreed to slay Jesus for no good reason!
dattaswami
Posts: 322
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/20/2013 6:05:06 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
How different religions formed "

The Lord is universal but the human beings in the universe differ in their attitudes. The same single Lord adopts a different procedure in a different region and such a different procedure appears as a different religion. A few people criticize the Lord of other religions. You do not criticize the Lord of your own religion.

The external behavior of the Lord differs due to different internal and external behaviors of the human beings in this universe. The external form, dress, language, food habits and culture of human beings differ from one region to the other.

Accordingly the external form, dress, food habits, language and culture of the Lord also differ to suit that particular region. The internal Lord and the internal essence of the same Lord is one and the same in His different human incarnations, which have come in different regions or religions.

Why other religions still exist "

If your religion is really the absolute truth, I shall put a simple question to you. So much time has gone since your religion appeared on this earth. By this time why have all people on this earth not followed it? Why do other religions still exist? Do you mean to say that so many people of other religions are fools and go to hell permanently? Do you think that the people of your religion alone are wise and reach God? You eat bread and jam. I eat rice. Other people eat food in some other form. You say that your food alone gives health and energy and all other forms of foods create illness.

You are not realizing that all the forms of food are the same chemicals like carbohydrates, proteins and minerals. This truth is realized only by chemical analysis. You say that the analysis should not be done and you insist only on your food. The same food exists in different forms to suit to the liking of the different people and every form of food is good and energetic. You must also realize that any form of food may be poisoned. Any poisoned food leads to disease or death and any good food gives health.

The poison is conservatism and egoism. Every religion says that it alone is correct and all other religions are wrong. Every religion says that I should accept its holy scripture without any analysis since God is beyond logic. Now please tell Me which religion should I accept? If there is only one religion, I would have simply accepted it without analysis. But there are several religions, which are fighting with each other and every religion utters the same statement. In such a case, which religion should I accept without analysis? All of you discuss with each other and come to a conclusion so that I will accept that religion which is finally concluded by all of you.

At 7/19/2013 7:59:22 PM, Fruitytree wrote:
At 7/18/2013 11:45:33 PM, dattaswami wrote:
At 7/5/2013 5:36:44 PM, Fruitytree wrote:
So you think God was Happy that Jesus was "crucified" ?!
You make some sense, also He asked the people to keep the commands, if He was dying for their sins, why would he ask them to keep the commands ?
Naysayer
Posts: 746
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/20/2013 9:02:04 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/20/2013 6:05:06 AM, dattaswami wrote:
How different religions formed "

The Lord is universal but the human beings in the universe differ in their attitudes. The same single Lord adopts a different procedure in a different region and such a different procedure appears as a different religion. A few people criticize the Lord of other religions. You do not criticize the Lord of your own religion.

The external behavior of the Lord differs due to different internal and external behaviors of the human beings in this universe. The external form, dress, language, food habits and culture of human beings differ from one region to the other.

Accordingly the external form, dress, food habits, language and culture of the Lord also differ to suit that particular region. The internal Lord and the internal essence of the same Lord is one and the same in His different human incarnations, which have come in different regions or religions.

Why other religions still exist "

If your religion is really the absolute truth, I shall put a simple question to you. So much time has gone since your religion appeared on this earth. By this time why have all people on this earth not followed it? Why do other religions still exist? Do you mean to say that so many people of other religions are fools and go to hell permanently? Do you think that the people of your religion alone are wise and reach God? You eat bread and jam. I eat rice. Other people eat food in some other form. You say that your food alone gives health and energy and all other forms of foods create illness.

You are not realizing that all the forms of food are the same chemicals like carbohydrates, proteins and minerals. This truth is realized only by chemical analysis. You say that the analysis should not be done and you insist only on your food. The same food exists in different forms to suit to the liking of the different people and every form of food is good and energetic. You must also realize that any form of food may be poisoned. Any poisoned food leads to disease or death and any good food gives health.

The poison is conservatism and egoism. Every religion says that it alone is correct and all other religions are wrong. Every religion says that I should accept its holy scripture without any analysis since God is beyond logic. Now please tell Me which religion should I accept? If there is only one religion, I would have simply accepted it without analysis. But there are several religions, which are fighting with each other and every religion utters the same statement. In such a case, which religion should I accept without analysis? All of you discuss with each other and come to a conclusion so that I will accept that religion which is finally concluded by all of you.



At 7/19/2013 7:59:22 PM, Fruitytree wrote:
At 7/18/2013 11:45:33 PM, dattaswami wrote:
At 7/5/2013 5:36:44 PM, Fruitytree wrote:
So you think God was Happy that Jesus was "crucified" ?!
You make some sense, also He asked the people to keep the commands, if He was dying for their sins, why would he ask them to keep the commands ?

II Timothy 3:
13 But evil men and seducers shall wax worse and worse, deceiving, and being deceived.
14 But continue thou in the things which thou hast learned and hast been assured of, knowing of whom thou hast learned them;

Sounds like a pretty strong argument for conservatism. It's also a strong argument for what exactly is going on. Men get worse and worse. The farther we get along, the farther we get from the message that God gave us. Until we end up as you are, telling everyone that we can worship any way we want, it doesn't matter.

Just making up whatever you want and assuming God will accept it is not a new concept. It's the religion of Cain from way back in Genesis 2. Your fruit isn't worth squat to God. You can keep pushing it at him, but He's provided a way to get to him and you need to accept it.

Jesus Christ said, "I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me."

Christ made us free from sin. Our liberty is in serving God. That's why we're to keep the law, to please him, because He saved us. It's meant to be a natural desire now, not one of burden and enslavement.

I John 5:
3 For this is the love of God, that we keep his commandments: and his commandments are not grievous.
dattaswami
Posts: 322
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/20/2013 10:35:09 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
Message of Shri Datta Swami ...

My main aim to propagate the divine knowledge
On this earth is Universal Spirituality
For World Peace, because there should not be difference
Based on the religion, two people should not fight
For the sake of Nivrutti, which is reaching the Lord.
Nivrutti is related to Lord and is very sacred.
Should one stab another for the sake of this?
In India have you not heard of a Muslim stabbing Hindu
And vice-versa just for the sake of religion?

There is meaning if two fight for wealth etc.,
Which is Pravrutti, Pandavas and Kauravas fought
With each other for wealth, it is justified
Both belong to the same Hindu religion
They did not fight for the religion
It is shameful for the Lord to see such fights!
The same Lord is in two different dresses.
And you both are fighting for the difference in the dress!
You are not recognizing that the same teacher came
And taught the same syllabus in two different languages.
To one class He came in red shirt and to another class
He came in white shirt, you are fighting for His shirts!
You are fighting for the two languages, which differ.
The teacher is the same and the syllabus is the same.
You sit and analyze the contents of His teaching.
You treat the teacher as your Master in your section.
Is He not the Master for the other section also?
Both the sections constitute the whole school.
You say that He is the Master of the whole school.

The school consists off two distinct sections vividly.
If you say that He is the Master of the whole school,
The school must contain only your section, then only
Your statement is right, but the school shows two sections.
Your statements are contradicting each other clearly.
Hindus say that Brahman is the creator, Muslims say
That Allah is creator, Christians say that the creator is
Jehovah, all say that the creation is this entire world.
If Hindus say that Brahman created India, and if
Muslims say that Allah created Arabian countries and
If Christians say that Jehovah created the western countries,
The problem is solved, there can be three Gods together,
Who have created the three parts of the earth separately.
But this is not so, each religion says that their God only
Created the entire world, unfortunately there is one world!
One world only! Come on, all of you sit together here
And give me the final conclusion after debate, otherwise,
The scientists are laughing on all of you! Shame to all!

They criticize that these religions do not have even
The basic logic, which is the fundamental common sense.
Because of you, the greatest God is also mocked by them
They say that the religions are rigid conservatism!
Even a small boy is putting this question to all of you.
Stop all your discourses and first answer this question.
If you want to say that God created the entire world,
You have to accept that there is one God only always
And that His names are all the above three names.
We see in the world a single person having three names.
If there is one God, He only created this entire world.
All the human beings are invariably His children only.
No Father is partial to a single child and therefore
He must have preached the same knowledge to all
In different languages and in different methodologies
To different levels, this is Universal Spirituality.

At 7/20/2013 9:02:04 AM, Naysayer wrote:
Sounds like a pretty strong argument for conservatism. It's also a strong argument for what exactly is going on.
Naysayer
Posts: 746
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/20/2013 11:00:27 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/20/2013 10:35:09 AM, dattaswami wrote:
Message of Shri Datta Swami ...

My main aim to propagate the divine knowledge
On this earth is Universal Spirituality
For World Peace, because there should not be difference
Based on the religion, two people should not fight
For the sake of Nivrutti, which is reaching the Lord.
Nivrutti is related to Lord and is very sacred.
Should one stab another for the sake of this?
In India have you not heard of a Muslim stabbing Hindu
And vice-versa just for the sake of religion?

There is meaning if two fight for wealth etc.,
Which is Pravrutti, Pandavas and Kauravas fought
With each other for wealth, it is justified
Both belong to the same Hindu religion
They did not fight for the religion
It is shameful for the Lord to see such fights!
The same Lord is in two different dresses.
And you both are fighting for the difference in the dress!
You are not recognizing that the same teacher came
And taught the same syllabus in two different languages.
To one class He came in red shirt and to another class
He came in white shirt, you are fighting for His shirts!
You are fighting for the two languages, which differ.
The teacher is the same and the syllabus is the same.
You sit and analyze the contents of His teaching.
You treat the teacher as your Master in your section.
Is He not the Master for the other section also?
Both the sections constitute the whole school.
You say that He is the Master of the whole school.

The school consists off two distinct sections vividly.
If you say that He is the Master of the whole school,
The school must contain only your section, then only
Your statement is right, but the school shows two sections.
Your statements are contradicting each other clearly.
Hindus say that Brahman is the creator, Muslims say
That Allah is creator, Christians say that the creator is
Jehovah, all say that the creation is this entire world.
If Hindus say that Brahman created India, and if
Muslims say that Allah created Arabian countries and
If Christians say that Jehovah created the western countries,
The problem is solved, there can be three Gods together,
Who have created the three parts of the earth separately.
But this is not so, each religion says that their God only
Created the entire world, unfortunately there is one world!
One world only! Come on, all of you sit together here
And give me the final conclusion after debate, otherwise,
The scientists are laughing on all of you! Shame to all!

They criticize that these religions do not have even
The basic logic, which is the fundamental common sense.
Because of you, the greatest God is also mocked by them
They say that the religions are rigid conservatism!
Even a small boy is putting this question to all of you.
Stop all your discourses and first answer this question.
If you want to say that God created the entire world,
You have to accept that there is one God only always
And that His names are all the above three names.
We see in the world a single person having three names.
If there is one God, He only created this entire world.
All the human beings are invariably His children only.
No Father is partial to a single child and therefore
He must have preached the same knowledge to all
In different languages and in different methodologies
To different levels, this is Universal Spirituality.


At 7/20/2013 9:02:04 AM, Naysayer wrote:
Sounds like a pretty strong argument for conservatism. It's also a strong argument for what exactly is going on.

Galatians 1:
6 I marvel that ye are so soon removed from him that called you into the grace of Christ unto another gospel:
7 Which is not another; but there be some that trouble you, and would pervert the gospel of Christ.
8 But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed.
9 As we said before, so say I now again, if any man preach any other gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him be accursed.
Naysayer
Posts: 746
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/20/2013 11:48:24 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/19/2013 11:08:25 PM, annanicole wrote:
Anna: Yeah, they are: they are used, especially in Matthew vs Mark, 100% interchangeably:

Mark 1: 14, 15 "Now after that John was put in prison, Jesus came into Galilee, preaching the gospel of the kingdom of God, and saying, The time is fulfilled, and the kingdom of God is at hand: repent ye, and believe the gospel."

Matthew 4:17 "From that time Jesus began to preach, and to say, Repent: for the kingdom of heaven is at hand."

The Kingdom of Heaven was at hand. And Elias had come (John the Baptist). The Jews rejected Christ, so they were put off. He's going to come back and make one more pass through and this time, they will weep over him who they'd pierced and recognize him and go into the Kingdom of Heaven victorious.

Same event, recorded by two different gospel writers - and the phrases are used interchangeably.

Similar circumstances don't mean the same event. Jesus healed blind men going in and coming out of Jericho in similar circumstances. It's not a typo. They're different events.

You say, "Their description isn't the same as I've shown." Your description/definition is fabricated - someone simply made it up to accommodate his theories. There is no such thing as separate "spiritual kingdoms" and "physical kingdoms".

Fabricated in the Bible? Since we're discussing time, let me ask you where that thousand years is. Because as you pointed out, it's been 2000 so far. If this is the Kingdom of Heaven, God is asleep at the wheel or He'd have wrapped things up by now. The description doesn't fit, even assuming a metaphorical 1000 years.

Naysayer: "You're going to have to show me some verses there. Just saying it doesn't make it true."

Anna: Keep that in mind as you make your assertions about "kingdom of God" and "kingdom of heaven." I didn't think you wanted any passages because you didn't supply any.

Anyway,

Exodus 9:3
Doesn't say quickly.

Psalm 144:5-7

Doesn't say quickly.

Isaiah 19:1

Possibly, not certainly. Your interpretations are adamant when the passages are anything but.

Isaiah 26:21

Again, that's an assumption. And it still doesn't say quickly, which is the dispute.

Isaiah 31:4

Again.

Micah 1:3-4

The mountains melted? The valleys split? I don't think so.

Anna: Sure there is: His kingdom came; He sits on His throne; He reigns; He is king. His territory is the hearts and minds of men as they follow Him. Every Christian is a citizen of this kingdom. The Bible states all of the above.

And Christians are anything but faithful and loyal subjects. The Bible (Psalm 2) says that Christ will rule with a rod of iron. He's going to break the heathen like smashing pottery. There's more to come. Revelation speaks specifically about what will come.

NO! - according to these millennialists. It's as if now, nearly 2,000 years later, God comes along and says, "Bazinga! Y'all fell for one of my classic pranks! You all just thought it was "at hand" and to "shortly come to pass" because the "time was fulfilled." Y'all forgot that "one day is as a thousand years." Gotcha on that one!"

Millenialists are not sitting there thinking they're missing something. God said He's longsuffering, not willing that any should perish. The Thessalonians were sitting around waiting on the rapture to take place. Paul said get back to work. The early Christians still expected a physical return of Christ and a set up of the physical Kingdom. The misunderstanding was how soon it would be. Quickly in God's time isn't quickly in ours.

What does the repeated statement with reference to the kingdom, "The time is fulfilled" mean anyway? Does it not mean that EVERY CONDITION spoken by the prophets with reference to this kingdom was IN PLACE? I'll say this much: the imagination of current millennialists certainly makes dimwits of men like Joseph of Arimethea who KNEW the time was fulfilled. That's why he was "patiently waiting for the kingdom." Even Jesus had said, "Verily I say unto you, There are some here of them that stand by , who shall in no wise taste of death, till they see the kingdom of God come with power." I'd had people try to tell me that Jesus referred to the transfiguration when He said that! Can you imagine? If so, WHY were they all STILL LOOKING FOR IT after the transfiguration?

Joseph of Arimethea, what? Where is this phrase the time is fulfilled you keep talking about? It's not in association with Joseph. He waited for the Kingdom of God. Patiently is an assumption.

Naysayer: "Shortly meant 400 years according to you in Ezekiel if the destruction of Jerusalem was the judgment being spoken of."

Anna: Give the passage - and notice the disclaimer: "IF .. IF .. IF the destruction of Jerusalem in AD 70 was the judgment being spoken of." I doubt very seriously is "near to you" ... "at hand" ... "shortly come to pass" could possibly mean 2,000 years. Such an interpretation smacks at the very heart of prophetic veracity.

There's nothing in expecting prophesy to come out in due time that questions prophecy. The prophesy of the seed of a woman took quite a much longer time. The prophesy of another prophet being raised up took just as much time.

There is one issue that should be addressed, though.

II Peter 3:
3 Knowing this first, that there shall come in the last days scoffers, walking after their own lusts,
4 And saying, Where is the promise of his coming? for since the fathers fell asleep, all things continue as they were from the beginning of the creation.
5 For this they willingly are ignorant of, that by the word of God the heavens were of old, and the earth standing out of the water and in the water:
6 Whereby the world that then was, being overflowed with water, perished:
7 But the heavens and the earth, which are now, by the same word are kept in store, reserved unto fire against the day of judgment and perdition of ungodly men.
8 But, beloved, be not ignorant of this one thing, that one day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day.
9 The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some men count slackness; but is longsuffering to us-ward, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance.

He's coming back. It's going to be physical. And we're to wait for him and not give up hope. This was written after the Holy Spirit was given. It directly references Christ coming back, so clearly they are not the same event. His time reference is not the same as ours. Just because it's quickly to him or soon to him doesn't mean a set amount of time. God has a different perspective as one would expect out of a God out of time. He's on his own time schedule and nothing in the Bible declares it has to come in this amount of time.
annanicole
Posts: 19,787
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/20/2013 12:40:35 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
Something tells me that I've already discussed this very subject with you.
Madcornishbiker: "No, I don't need a dictionary, I know how scripture uses words and that is all I need to now."
dattaswami
Posts: 322
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/22/2013 1:57:21 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
Q) Jesus said that one can reach His Father through Him only and that He is the only path. Does this not mean that we have to follow only Jesus? In such case how to accept your Universal Religion? (A question posed to Swami by several Holy Christians from all over the world).

Answer by Shri Datta Swami:
My dear devoted Holy Christian souls, Does Jesus represent a human body? Or a word? Or both?
If human body is represented: Such a human body does not exist now. Only a particular human generation, that too, in a particular place was favoured by the association of the human body of Jesus. Is it not the partiality of God?

If word is represented:- The previous human generations before the birth of Jesus were not favoured with this word and this also leads to the partiality of God.

If both are represented: - Both the above objections will attack together strengthening the partiality of God.

God is impartial. He created this entire Universe. He should not favour a part of infinite time and a particular piece of the world. Since there is no re-birth of the soul, as you say, all those unlucky souls fell permanently in the hell. Now such souls cannot take human re-birth to pray Jesus for the salvation. If you say that some other prophet by name Mosses or some other name, equal to Jesus, existed before the birth of Jesus, then, "Jesus alone is the Saviour" will be wrong. If you say that Mosses was also the same Jesus, then, why not some other person, X or Y or Z, after the birth of Jesus also be Jesus? In such case Jesus exists before and after the birth of Jesus. Then Jesus is omniscient and omni-potent. In such case Jesus in some other human forms by some other names must have existed always. In such case, Jesus can exist in different human forms simultaneously also in different countries during the same human generation to avoid the partiality, because the different countries might not have contact with each other during a particular old human generation.

In fact, this was true because the countries were not having any contact with each other, a few centuries ago. God is the Father of all the people in all the countries of this Universe and therefore, He should be impartial to all His children. You have to agree with this point because only one God created this whole Universe. It will be further better to replace the word Jesus by a general word like "Holy Spirit", because the word Jesus signifies a particular human body only according to general sense of the public. The word "Holy Spirit" does not signify any particular human body and therefore it will be reasonable to say that the Holy Spirit is the God and this Holy Spirit existed in all those divine human forms. Infact, the Holy Spirit is the purest power of God that enters a particular chosen deserving human body in every country during the same human generation. By this, every country gets equal benefit. When Jesus existed in a particular place, the other countries were not having any communication with that Holy place of Jesus. Those human generations in other countries must have gone to the hell because Jesus was the only saviour. Of-course, some people who were associated with Jesus also went to hell since they disbelieved Him. But those people, atleast, got the chance of association with Holy Jesus because they existed in that place. Had that chance of association been given to the people of other countries also, there might have been a fraction of the people, which, might have believed Jesus and might have been liberated. Such salvation of a fraction of people happened in that Holy place where Jesus lived. This objection will charge Jesus or (and) God with lack of planning and lack of impartiality. To remove this charge, the above Universal Concept has to be accepted by open minds following a logical scientific path of analysis, which is essential in any line of knowledge including the spiritual knowledge.

Oh! Great Christians! I appreciate you from the bottom of my heart for your one pointed faith and sincerity towards God. Who can be compared with you, in this world, for your practical sacrifice in the mission of God and for your kindest hearts in the service rendered to the downtrodden people? Fortunately you are also the toppers in Science, which, is the result of most powerful practical analysis of any concept. Thus you are the best cream of this creation in all the aspects. But, why don"t you apply a trace of that powerful systematic logical scientific analysis in this spiritual knowledge also? Why should you follow the interpretations of your fellow human beings, who are just equal to you? You can yourselves analyse the divine statements of God Jesus with your own intellectual faculty based on simple logical analysis. Since only one God created this Universe, since only God is the father of all the human beings in this world and since the father must be impartial to all the children, the same God must have written all the Religious Scriptures. These Scriptures cannot and should not contradict each other. If there is any contradiction, that must have been the mis-interpretation of some closed minds.
annanicole
Posts: 19,787
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/23/2013 2:40:11 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
Naysayer: "There's nothing in expecting prophesy to come out in due time that questions prophecy. The prophesy of the seed of a woman took quite a much longer time. The prophesy of another prophet being raised up took just as much time.

Anna: So? There were no time constraints involved in Gen 3: 15. That's the difference. What if God had said,

"The time is fulfilled. The time for him bruise thy head is at hand, and thou shalt bruise his heel shortly. These things will shortly come to pass." - then God waited 4,000 years to do it?

Actually, the statements relating to "at hand" and "shortly come to pass" are not prophesies, strictly speaking. They are just simple statements. The statement "the time is fulfilled" eliminates the prophetic nature of "shortly come to pass."

Naysayer: There is one issue that should be addressed, though.

II Peter 3:

3 Knowing this first, that there shall come in the last days scoffers, walking after their own lusts,
4 And saying, Where is the promise of his coming? for since the fathers fell asleep, all things continue as they were from the beginning of the creation.
5 For this they willingly are ignorant of, that by the word of God the heavens were of old, and the earth standing out of the water and in the water:
6 Whereby the world that then was, being overflowed with water, perished:
7 But the heavens and the earth, which are now, by the same word are kept in store, reserved unto fire against the day of judgment and perdition of ungodly men.
8 But, beloved, be not ignorant of this one thing, that one day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day.
9 The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some men count slackness; but is longsuffering to us-ward, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance.

He's coming back. It's going to be physical. And we're to wait for him and not give up hope. This was written after the Holy Spirit was given. It directly references Christ coming back, so clearly they are not the same event. His time reference is not the same as ours. Just because it's quickly to him or soon to him doesn't mean a set amount of time. God has a different perspective as one would expect out of a God out of time. He's on his own time schedule and nothing in the Bible declares it has to come in this amount of time."

Anna: I know that you're trying to make some point - but I fail to see it. The passage referenced up there refers to the 2nd coming of Christ. True, there were other "comings" such as the coming in judgment against Jerusalem in AD 70, but that passage refers to the 2nd coming.

The 2nd literal coming of Christ was never described as imminent, to shortly come to pass, at hand or anything else. No apostle expected the Lord's 2nd literal coming to be soon. They did, however, expect Him to come in judgment against Judaism - their chief persecutor - soon. They looked forward to the ultimate triumph of Christianity. So .....

I guess I do not know what you are trying to say.
Madcornishbiker: "No, I don't need a dictionary, I know how scripture uses words and that is all I need to now."