Split Thread Signs of the End Times

[Paul Bethke]

You've hit the nail square on the head.

You missed the nail and hit your thumb.

 

[Paul Bethke]

Wow! I can't wait to see the sun dancing about!
When can we expect that to happen, please, Paul?

It is the Creator who decides the times and date, I will let you know beforehand.

 

[Rincewind]

It would be like being in a supersonic plane that crashed into a cliff face, so don't worry, you'd know nothing about it.

If the [url="http://image.gsfc.nasa.gov/poetry/ask/q1168.html]Earth stopped spinning[/url] suddenly, the atmosphere would still be in motion with the Earth's original 1100 mile per hour rotation speed at the equator. All of the land masses would be scoured clean of anything not attached to bedrock. This means rocks, topsoil, trees, buildings, your pet dog, and so on, would be swept away into the atmosphere.​

There'll be nothing to worry about - after all it's described in the bible, so it must be true, because the bible says it is!

So - if you're not watching the sun, you won't notice anything...

 

[Paul Bethke]

I see four possibilities, listed in order of how likely I think they are.

1. Because dodging the question amuses him.

2. She's dead and it's a painful topic for him.

3. She left him but he remains chaste and he believes she is as well and believes admitting this would damage his credibility.

4. He's really a 20-something in Chicago who made up a character for trolling online back when he was a teenager and has stuck with the act out of habit for over a decade.

Personally I think he's dodging the question for the lolz as it would be consistent with the rest of his routine.

Your problem is that you do a lot of nonsensical thinking.

 

[abaddon]

It is the Creator who decides the times and date, I will let you know beforehand.

Like you let us know that you would wither the grass at the 2010 World Cup?

How did that work out for you?

 

[Paul Bethke]

Right!

Like the grass...um...NOT withering at the World Cup...

(You do remember that you bragged about that, right?)

Now the grass was premature in the events planned—you see SV what I did not take into account is that all predictions must take place through PURGED Church.
So the grass withering stint did not take that into account, so subsequently I have focused my actions on that. The Church must arise to the full status that Yahweh has planned.
But do not be dismayed, it will be more spectacular than withering a few blades of grass!

 

[Craig4]

You by this time should be familiar with my definition of marriage, so what is the problem—I have answered the question.

Yep, she left you.

 

[Craig B]

It is the Creator who decides the times and date, I will let you know beforehand.

The Creator will tell you in advance of the rest of humanity? That's convenient. But if God wants to "let us know" why can't he tell us himself? A Voice from Above would be more impressive (and credible) than a man wandering about with a sandwich board inscribed with the words "The End Is Nigh!" telling passersby: "God has told me the sun will start going backwards across the sky but I'm not sure when that's going to happen."

 

[Craig4]

Now the grass was premature in the events planned—you see SV what I did not take into account is that all predictions must take place through PURGED Church.
So the grass withering stint did not take that into account, so subsequently I have focused my actions on that. The Church must arise to the full status that Yahweh has planned.
But do not be dismayed, it will be more spectacular than withering a few blades of grass!

So what happens when you get your purged church and your predictions fail, again? Of course you won't actually be able to purge your church because the pastors keep throwing you out. I suspect football fans and grass lovers alike have nothing to fear from you.

 

[Craig4]

The Creator will tell you in advance of the rest of humanity? That's convenient. But if God wants to "let us know" why can't he tell us himself? A Voice from Above would be more impressive (and credible) than a man wandering about with a sandwich board inscribed with the words "The End Is Nigh!" telling passersby: "God has told me the sun will start going backwards across the sky but I'm not sure when that's going to happen."

Or maybe Paul's god could just say to everyone, "hey, stop doing that". Of course one would hope he'd mention something about killing and violence and people putting ketchup on bratwurst, things that matter. You'd think he'd have the good grace to stay out of people's relationships.

 

[Paul Bethke]

As usual, you use dodging and obfuscation to avoid addressing the actual argument.

You have been shown multiple places where "scripture" flatly contradicts itself...just read the differing accounts of the nativity.

None of which rescues the fac that you pretend "virgin" means something it does not--in order to be able to alter the clear meaning of "scripture".

I do not pretend that virgin means anything other than what is stated—what I am saying is that the term virgin applies to those who are pure. So to use the term pure in heart qualifies a person to see God.

The term virgin was also used bu Paul in his reference to the Church, where there is a mixture of people.( 2 Co_11:2 I am jealous for you with a godly jealousy. I promised you to one husband, to Christ, so that I might present you as a pure virgin to him.

As recorded, this Church was made up of ex sinners (1Co 6:11 And that is what some of you were. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the Name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God. )

1Co 6:9 Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders

So for those penitent sinners to be referred to as “PURE virgin” clearly demonstrates that the term virgin can be applied, without distorting the truth to people who have been cleansed.

So now in this day and age, the way to understand this section is that the 144k are those who as virgins did not defile themselves---in other words like the Church at Corinth—they were washed and cleansed.

Back to my view, a man must marry a virgin, otherwise he will be committing adultery, so today this is still applicable.

1Co_7:36 If anyone thinks he is acting improperly toward the virgin he is engaged to, and if she is getting along in years and he feels he ought to marry, he should do as he wants. He is not sinning. They should get married.

So to end with, the man must marry a virgin.

But thank you for the clarity.

The two genealogies is still a mystery to me—there are many explanations, so maybe one of them is right.

 

[Paul Bethke]

Like you let us know that you would wither the grass at the 2010 World Cup?

How did that work out for you?

Not bad at all--I have greater insight than I had before.

 

[abaddon]

Not bad at all--I have greater insight than I had before.

Like Harold Camping, David Koresh and every end times prophet before you, you are proven to be a false prophet.

You cannot change that. You are a false prophet. Your prophecies failed.

Your post hoc excuses will not change that.

 

[Craig B]

The two genealogies is still a mystery to me—there are many explanations, so maybe one of them is right.

Try this: they are both mythical, intended to demonstrate that Jesus was of the House of David through Joseph. Later on, another mythical theme came to dominate the ideas of this sect, that Jesus was born in Bethlehem (from a misinterpretation of Micah) of a virgin (from a mistranslation of Isaiah) and the genealogies were suitably but crudely interpolated to reflect this. The Virgin story has two quite different forms in Matthew and Luke, just as the genealogies have, which indicates that these authors neither collaborated nor copied each others' work.

They both copied Mark, and disagree only where they depart from his guidance. Mark knows nothing about genealogies or virgins or anything of that sort. These particular myths hadn't been invented yet, when Mark wrote.

 

[Slowvehicle]

Now the grass was premature in the events planned—you see SV what I did not take into account is that all predictions must take place through PURGED Church.
So the grass withering stint did not take that into account, so subsequently I have focused my actions on that. The Church must arise to the full status that Yahweh has planned.
But do not be dismayed, it will be more spectacular than withering a few blades of grass!

A lot of words to avoid admitting that you did, in fact, make a prediction (and IIRC you were calling it a "prophecy", then), and that prediction did not come true in any way at all.

 

[Craig4]

Not bad at all--I have greater insight than I had before.

No, you really don't. Greater insight would be understanding that you don't have an imaginary friend.

 

[Slowvehicle]

I do not pretend that virgin means anything other than what is stated—what I am saying is that the term virgin applies to those who are pure.

This sentence is self-contradictory. You begin by pretending to accept the actual meaning of the technical term, παρθένος, then immediately claim that it "really means" something else.

No matter how often you obfuscate, παρθένος refers to a person who has not had sex. Period. A chaste husband and wife, who have only experienced sexual congress with each other within the compass of "holy matrimony" may qualify as "pure", but they are not, not can they honestly or accurately be said to be, παρθένοι . To claim otherwise is to stray from the lexicographical truth.

Grammar and lexicon are our only tools against the darkness.

So to use the term pure in heart qualifies a person to see God.

Which does not even begin to address the fact that καθαροὶ τῇ καρδίᾳ ("the ones who are 'pure in heart' ") is a different term from παρθένος; "purity of heart" and "virginity" are not the same thing.

It is, in fact, possible to be a virgin, and NOT be "pure of heart".

The term virgin was also used bu Paul in his reference to the Church, where there is a mixture of people.( 2 Co_11:2 I am jealous for you with a godly jealousy. I promised you to one husband, to Christ, so that I might present you as a pure virgin to him.

How dishonest of you to pretend that your error here has not been pointed out to you before.

Briefly, it is wrong of you to continue to pretend that using a term in a simile extends its technical meaning.

As recorded, this Church was made up of ex sinners (1Co 6:11 And that is what some of you were. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the Name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God. )

1Co 6:9 Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders

So for those penitent sinners to be referred to as “PURE virgin” clearly demonstrates that the term virgin can be applied, without distorting the truth to people who have been cleansed.

You continue to dishonestly avoid admitting that the passage in II Corinthians is a simile; the author is said to be presenting the church "as a pure virgin". Odd that, in your own claim to "purity", you are so lax on the whole "false witness" thing...

So now in this day and age, the way to understand this section is that the 144k are those who as virgins did not defile themselves---in other words like the Church at Corinth—they were washed and cleansed.

Thank you for admitting that your "understanding" of a passage in "scripture" ("in this day and age") involves pretending that the actual words of the passage "really mean" something other than their actual, demonstrable, lexical, meanings. So much for preaching "scripture".

Back to my view, a man must marry a virgin, otherwise he will be committing adultery, so today this is still applicable.

I have highlighted the bit that demonstrates the problem. "Your view" requires pretending that "scripture" means somehting that it does not say (as in your silly "dark skin is a curse of 'god' for eating monkey meat" justification for your bigotry).

You continue to make the logical error that using "virgin" as a metaphor for "purity" allows you to pretend that "pure" and "virgin" are interchangeable concepts. Your persistence in your error makes it look less and less like a mistake and more and more like dishonesty.

1Co_7:36 If anyone thinks he is acting improperly toward the virgin he is engaged to, and if she is getting along in years and he feels he ought to marry, he should do as he wants. He is not sinning. They should get married.

So to end with, the man must marry a virgin.

One wonders how you think this passage applies. Paul's reluctant, misogynistic "permission" for a man to marry his virgin fianceé cannot in any honest way be said to mean that, when the two are married, and he "does what he wishes" to her, that either of them can still be considered a "virgin". They may be "pure". but they are not "virgin" any more.

But thank you for the clarity.

Now, if you would only use the clarity to abandon your error...

The two genealogies is still a mystery to me—there are many explanations, so maybe one of them is right.

The "explanation" is that the two "genealogies" actually do contradict each other. No attempt at forcibly harmonizing them changes that (or changes the fact that "Joseph's" genealogy is irrelevant.

 

[Jodie]

You know several women who have done this?

I find it hard to understand how women can convert to a religion that subjugates them.

Yes, some of my patients who want a female provider. Of course I never ask but I can't understand how they can go from the culture here in the USA to that.

There is also a fundamentalist sect near me that want a midwife as a provider because they think it will save them from having C/S. They don't believe in birth control either and always let their husbands do all of the talking at the prenatal visits.

 

[Border Reiver]

The genealogies of Jesus are a clear demonstration that the Bible cannot be accepted as literal truth.

The idea that the 'Son of God' needs his human genealogy developed through the male line is laughable. Whereas, if he was human and needed to establish bonafides to rule, say by claiming descent from the former royal house, then one would hope they would not be different.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Meadmaker]

Back to my view, a man must marry a virgin, otherwise he will be committing adultery, so today this is still applicable.

I'm still confused by this. Does the man have to be a virgin as well? Is it adultery because the non-virgin he marries is married to someone else?

It goes back to my earlier question, taking my specific example this time.

I had sex with a few women who were not virgins. The first one was named Jane. Then, I had sex with a virgin named Laura. Then, I had sex with a couple of other non-virgins, including one whom I subsequently married (i.e. in the legal sense, not necessarily in the eyes of God.) Subsequent to my marriage, I've never had sex with anyone except my wife.

So, now who is married to whom, in the eyes of God? Am I married to Jane? Or Laura? Or my wife? I never saw Laura again after we broke up, but is it possible for her to marry anyone else? Or is she permanently married to me? Is there any possible way for me and my wife to ever become truly married?

If you want to say that there was, and probably still is, a whole lot of sinning in my life, I can accept that. Perhaps some day I'll regret that. (For the moment, there were some happy memories involved in my recollection of past sinning.) However, I just can't make sense out of this whole sex=marriage concept. If it made any sense then somewhere along the line some sort of marriage must have occurred in my life, but I can't work out when it happened.