Split Thread Signs of the End Times

[halleyscomet]

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

Pot. Kettle.

Imaging Cliff Clavin's voice when reading your posts is a remarkable fit.

 

[halleyscomet]

You missed the nail and hit your thumb.

You need to throw a few more "uhhh" in to really complete the transformation into Cliff Clavin as a religious nut.

For example:

You've, uhhh, missed the nail and hit your, hit your, uhh, thumb there buddy.

 

[Jodie]

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."

According to the scriptures that Paul is going by in Revelations there won't be a need for a prophet to announce the end time. It will be obvious to everyone.

 

[Jodie]

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

See my response to Craig above. The Lord won't need any help from you, he's got this according to Revelations.

 

[Craig B]

According to the scriptures that Paul is going by in Revelations there won't be a need for a prophet to announce the end time. It will be obvious to everyone.

Not only that; it

Revelation 1:1 ... must shortly come to pass​

which isn't how I would refer to a delay of 2000 years, but I didn't write the New Testament.

 

[Border Reiver]

Soon - in a geologic time sense - it must come to pass.

 

[Thor 2]

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.

I'll answer this one for Paul. Your off to hell without passing go for sure you fornicator. Mind you so am I so I'll see you there.

 

[Meadmaker]

I mentioned earlier how the idea of sex=marriage might affect people in abusive relationships, but the situation with abandonment is even worse. Consider the situation:

Two devout Christians, both virgins, marry each other. However, as sometimes happens, the man grows tired of his wife, and abandons her in favor of a new partner. According to Paul Bethke's theology, the wife would be committing a sin if she were to seek a new partner.

That's absurd, and it is not Biblical. In this insane scheme of things, God demands that she remain unloved and childless, with the only possible loophole to get out of this situation being that her husband could be tracked down and stoned to death. In today's America, I suppose it would be up to her to fulfill God's law by tracking him down and killing him herself, since the community would refuse to do it. Then, if she can avoid capture by the authorities, there would be some chance that she can seek love elsewhere.

I don't want to put words in Paul's mouth, and I know he hasn't explicitly advocated such a solution as a way of dealing with the problem of abandonment, but I cannot see any other solution for her. The logical alternatives are that God wishes her to remain unloved and childless for the rest of her days, or God wishes her to hunt him down and kill him in accordance with divine law. I don't see any other alternative for her.

However, I also don't see that she really ought to do that. Neither common sense nor the Bible demands it.

 

[Meadmaker]

I'll answer this one for Paul. Your off to hell without passing go for sure you fornicator. Mind you so am I so I'll see you there.

Well, sure, but just in case God comes to me and softens my heart, and I wish to repent of my sins, but I do not wish to live as a monk, I'd kind of like to know who I'm married to so that I can live with her after my conversion.

 

[Paul Bethke]

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.

Postponed for a greater display of power.

 

[Paul Bethke]

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.

It is worth considering—but where do you come by all this?

 

[Paul Bethke]

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.

As I said at the time of those predictions, I was not aware of the exact plan—now the plan has become clear.
The plan is that the Church must first be purged of all the dross, then the other demonstrations can take place.
You see SV, it is no good if there is no true Church to help sinners who want to repent, so there must be a Church that is perfect for that purpose.
So now as I have said, I am waiting to begin the purge when the time comes—elementary?

 

[Paul Bethke]

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

The understanding is that the Creator is a real person who has revealed himself through the Scriptures in a way that is tangible.

 

[Craig B]

It is worth considering—but where do you come by all this?

Do you know nothing of this kind of study? Presumably you don't; because to you the NT is not a text containing internal evidence capable of being examined, like that of any other book. You perceive it as a supernatural compendium of magic spells.

It is almost touching to see the wide eyed wonder with which you confront simple propositions that a huge tribe of scholars has been exhausting the world's supply of paper and ink discussing since the eighteenth century Enlightenment - nay, even before that.

 

[Thor 2]

Well, sure, but just in case God comes to me and softens my heart, and I wish to repent of my sins, but I do not wish to live as a monk, I'd kind of like to know who I'm married to so that I can live with her after my conversion.

Well then if you live with her, (whoever), do you copulate? Is copulation allowed in heaven?

 

[Paul Bethke]

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.


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".




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.


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...



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".




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.



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.



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



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.

The problem that is present, not that it is a problem, is how the section of Scripture understood in this day and age is?

The reason being that prophecy has its fulfillment right through out, until fulfilled.
The 144k are an elect group of people—so who makes up that selection today?
The term virgin when used of a person is to indicate their purity, this is used a few times in the Scriptures.

So today those who have not defiled themselves by committing adultery will be considered as the elect, including other prerequisites.
So I know of a few men who will qualify as far as this requirement is concerned.

So when you take the accusations Jesus brings against some of the Churches in the Revelation, it is clear that there was sexual immorality in the Churches.

This also was a problem that Paul encounted---(2Co_12:21 I am afraid that when I come again my God will humble me before you, and I will be grieved over many who have sinned earlier and have not repented of the impurity, sexual sin and debauchery in which they have indulged.

And Jesus states---(Rev 2:14 Nevertheless, I have a few things against you: You have people there who hold to the teaching of Balaam, who taught Balak to entice the Israelites to sin by eating food sacrificed to idols and by committing sexual immorality.)

And again---(Rev 2:20 Nevertheless, I have this against you: You tolerate that woman Jezebel, who calls herself a prophetess. By her teaching she misleads my servants into sexual immorality and the eating of food sacrificed to idols.)

And again—(Rev_3:4 Yet you have a few people in Sardis who have not soiled their clothes. They will walk with me, dressed in white, for they are worthy.

So you see SV the Church had those in it that were not pure.—( Rev 3:16 So, because you are lukewarm—neither hot nor cold—I am about to spit you out of my mouth.)

So the 144k were those who did not defile themselves with woman—they kept themselves PURE.

 

[Paul Bethke]

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

You see my contention is that Luke or Matthew, would not cause confusion by giving what seems conflicting genealogies—this can be understood as some say in the way Jews presented genealogies.
I will ask the Messianic teachers—lets us see what they say.

 

[Craig B]

You see my contention is that Luke or Matthew, would not cause confusion by giving what seems conflicting genealogies—this can be understood as some say in the way Jews presented genealogies.
I will ask the Messianic teachers—lets us see what they say.

It appears, from an examination of internal evidence, that Mt and Lk copied Mk, and they agree when they are following Mk's guidance. They also agree when they are citing sayings of Jesus not found in Mk, so then had in all probability another common source consisting of a list of Jesus' sayings. But outside of these areas they disagree. Areas of disagreement include:

The ancestry and birth of Jesus
The resurrection of Jesus and subsequent events

These stories are not in Mk, presumably because they weren't invented yet when MK wrote.

So the reason why the genealogies disagree is:
They are false, inserted for ideological reasons, to "prove" that Jesus was the Davidic Messiah.
Their authors worked separately and independently and neither coordinated nor copied each other.
The NT is not the inerrant Word of God.

 

[Craig4]

The understanding is that the Creator is a real person who has revealed himself through the Scriptures in a way that is tangible.

Your "creator" revealed himself by producing a book of stories, the majority of which cannot possibly be true? This somehow proves he exists?

 

[Rincewind]

The problem that is present, not that it is a problem, is how the section of Scripture understood in this day and age is?

The reason being that prophecy has its fulfillment right through out, until fulfilled.
The 144k are an elect group of people—so who makes up that selection today?
The term virgin when used of a person is to indicate their purity, this is used a few times in the Scriptures.

So today those who have not defiled themselves by committing adultery will be considered as the elect, including other prerequisites.
So I know of a few men who will qualify as far as this requirement is concerned.

So when you take the accusations Jesus brings against some of the Churches in the Revelation, it is clear that there was sexual immorality in the Churches.

This also was a problem that Paul encounted---(2Co_12:21 I am afraid that when I come again my God will humble me before you, and I will be grieved over many who have sinned earlier and have not repented of the impurity, sexual sin and debauchery in which they have indulged.

And Jesus states---(Rev 2:14 Nevertheless, I have a few things against you: You have people there who hold to the teaching of Balaam, who taught Balak to entice the Israelites to sin by eating food sacrificed to idols and by committing sexual immorality.)

And again---(Rev 2:20 Nevertheless, I have this against you: You tolerate that woman Jezebel, who calls herself a prophetess. By her teaching she misleads my servants into sexual immorality and the eating of food sacrificed to idols.)

And again—(Rev_3:4 Yet you have a few people in Sardis who have not soiled their clothes. They will walk with me, dressed in white, for they are worthy.

So you see SV the Church had those in it that were not pure.—( Rev 3:16 So, because you are lukewarm—neither hot nor cold—I am about to spit you out of my mouth.)

So the 144k were those who did not defile themselves with woman—they kept themselves PURE.

Paul - the 144K are clearly stated to be 12K from each of the tribes of Israel.

Possibly, as God managed to lose 10 of the tribes, there may still be a few tickets available.

Unless you're from one of the tribes of Israel, forget about it!