Split Thread Signs of the End Times

[Craig4]

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?

What are you waiting for?

 

[Paul Bethke]

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.

Your case is not unique, and is part of what has to be dealt with. I have dealt with many men who have had casual sex with girls who are not virgins, this is the state of the world today.

Now those men are committing adultery, but sadly those girls are also committing adultery, but with the girls they can never be forgiven [unless they take a vow to abstain from sex) as they are in a permanent state of sin, so anyone who wishes to make those girls his wife will be committing adultery.

The men can be forgiven if they repent, but sadly the girls have been persuaded to forfeit their virginity, that is why the Churches are guilty of not teaching this concept of marriage.

So with you Laura would be your wife, but now Laura has supposedly gone and married someone else. So you and Laura are in a state of adultery.

We have to stay with what the Creator ordained, it is a very simple concept. A man who persuades a virgin to have sex with him, he is marrying the girl.

It is not my intention to pry-In hindsight, why did you not stay with Laura, what means did you use to persuade her to have sex with you?

 

[fagin]

Why do you think women need persuasion to have sex? I have had a few ask me (I am a handsome devil). I needed no further persuasion.

 

[Paul Bethke]

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

No it must be announced to happen on an exact month, day and hour, this is the way it is done.


Rev_9:15 And the four angels who had been kept ready for this very hour and day and month and year were released to kill a third of mankind.

 

[Paul Bethke]

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.

That is partly true, but since I came onto the Forum, I have had to consider all the evidence that has been presented.This spurs me on to look at these 1001 contradictions.

There is always an explanation.

 

[Paul Bethke]

Why do you think women need persuasion to have sex? I have had a few ask me (I am a handsome devil). I needed no further persuasion.

It may not always be the best thing to do--there is the jealous man.

Pro 6:32 But a man who commits adultery lacks judgment; whoever does so destroys himself.
Pro 6:33 Blows and disgrace are his lot, and his shame will never be wiped away;
Pro 6:34 for jealousy arouses a husband's fury, and he will show no mercy when he takes revenge.
Pro 6:35 He will not accept any compensation; he will refuse the bribe, however great it is.

 

[Rincewind]

Paul - did you manage to read post 2300?

I'm curious to see your response.

 

[Meadmaker]

Your case is not unique, and is part of what has to be dealt with. I have dealt with many men who have had casual sex with girls who are not virgins, this is the state of the world today.

Now those men are committing adultery, but sadly those girls are also committing adultery, but with the girls they can never be forgiven [unless they take a vow to abstain from sex) as they are in a permanent state of sin, so anyone who wishes to make those girls his wife will be committing adultery.

The men can be forgiven if they repent, but sadly the girls have been persuaded to forfeit their virginity, that is why the Churches are guilty of not teaching this concept of marriage.

So with you Laura would be your wife, but now Laura has supposedly gone and married someone else. So you and Laura are in a state of adultery.

We have to stay with what the Creator ordained, it is a very simple concept. A man who persuades a virgin to have sex with him, he is marrying the girl.

It is not my intention to pry-In hindsight, why did you not stay with Laura, what means did you use to persuade her to have sex with you?

Ok. So, it's not symmetrical male-female. I'm not married to Jane because she wasn't a virgin, but I was, but I'm a guy so my virginity didn't matter. However, with Laura, it was important because she was a virgin. Ok.

As to your question, there isn't one, single, easy to answer "why" I left her. I graduated college and took a job in a distant location. That was the occasion of our split, but I'm not sure it was the reason. We just weren't very committed to each other. As to your second question, I don't recall it requiring a whole lot of "persuasion" on my part. It was more like an offer she readily accepted. Just in case it matters, I made sure to tell her that as much as I enjoyed her company, I did not love her, and I did not intend for our relationship to be permanent. She didn't consider that a problem.

In my particular case, I only ever had sex with one virgin. If I had had sex with another, what then? What would be the marital implications of that second tryst?

 

[Border Reiver]

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.

You are missing the point - Jesus is the product of a "Virgin birth" according to Luke and Matthew with Yahweh as the Daddy. This makes the genealogy of Joseph irrelevant to Jesus, as Joseph is NOT his father.

If Joseph is the father, and Yahweh is not, then establishing Jesus' right to rule by tying him into the old royal bloodline is necessary. The problem is that neither author compared their crib notes and they each dreamed up a different set of names. The only thing they had to go on was the name of Jesus' "daddy" - Joseph, and that he was allegedly a descendant of King David. And those are the only points of agreement in the two genealogies. The Jews did not trace genealogy different from other people - they traced through the father. This is why you get such nasty penalties for women who had sex outside of marriage, males ensured that only their sons would inherit their stuff and the only way they could be sure that Junior was really theirs was to ensure that their wives didn't have sex with anyone other than them.

 

[Craig B]

That is partly true, but since I came onto the Forum, I have had to consider all the evidence that has been presented.This spurs me on to look at these 1001 contradictions.

There is always an explanation.

Yes. The explanation is that most of these stories are mythical, and where we get the same myth from two independent sources, they don't agree. Example: Mt says Mary and Joseph lived in Bethlehem. Lk says they went there especially for a census and were sheltering in a stable. The stories are irreconcilable, because they're both false. Their authors decided Jesus had to be born in Bethlehem because it was David's home town, and Jesus was in their understanding a Davidic messiah. That's how the mythical mind works - by symbolism, not historical fact.

They both had to get Jesus to Bethlehem to be born, but he was a Galilean, from the other side of the country. So they invented appropriate stories, but they worked independently, so the stories are different.

 

[turingtest]

Yes. The explanation is that most of these stories are mythical, and where we get the same myth from two independent sources, they don't agree. Example: Mt says Mary and Joseph lived in Bethlehem. Lk says they went there especially for a census and were sheltering in a stable. The stories are irreconcilable, because they're both false. Their authors decided Jesus had to be born in Bethlehem because it was David's home town, and Jesus was in their understanding a Davidic messiah. That's how the mythical mind works - by symbolism, not historical fact.

They both had to get Jesus to Bethlehem to be born, but he was a Galilean, from the other side of the country. So they invented appropriate stories, but they worked independently, so the stories are different.

That's a sensible explanation, one that explains the contradiction without regard to the faith; when Paul says "there is always an explanation," he doesn't mean one that sensibly explains, he needs one that just removes the contradiction and keeps the faith whole.

 

[fagin]

Why do you think women need persuasion to have sex? I have had a few ask me (I am a handsome devil). I needed no further persuasion.

It may not always be the best thing to do--there is the jealous man.

Pro 6:32 But a man who commits adultery lacks judgment; whoever does so destroys himself.
Pro 6:33 Blows and disgrace are his lot, and his shame will never be wiped away;
Pro 6:34 for jealousy arouses a husband's fury, and he will show no mercy when he takes revenge.
Pro 6:35 He will not accept any compensation; he will refuse the bribe, however great it is.

Perhaps I'm missing the point. There were no jealous men. Have you ever heard of a single lady?
Especially a hot single lady.

 

[Foster Zygote]

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

The problem is that your definition of marriage extends to divorced couples who have separated and have been remarried to other individuals. Your definition of marriage is such that, while the two individuals live, they can never be un-married. If someone divorces one spouse, and later marries another, you consider that person to be committing adultery because he/she is, in your eyes, still unbreakably bound to the first marriage.

So the answers you've given could be interpreted to mean that your wife has left you but that, to your mind, she is still considered to be your wife. Since you don't recognize divorce to be a valid dissolution of a marriage, your statement, "we are still in holy matrimony" still doesn't address my question. Your seeming reluctance to give a simple 'yes' or 'no' answer only makes it seem as though you are attempting to something.

 

[Foster Zygote]

Postponed for a greater display of power.

And then further postponed for an even greater display of power, no doubt.

Interestingly, the Apocalypse of John was written by an individual who was distraught at seeing his world fall apart around him. Two millennia from now, your predictions will be as unfulfilled as John's.

 

[Paul Bethke]

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!

The 144k mentioned in Revelation 7 are not the same 144k mentioned in Revelation 14.
Those of Rev. 7 are Jews from the twelve tribes of Israel, which to my mind are still identifiable, by God.
Those 144k who kept themselves pure are the Gentile Church.

There is no amalgamation between the Jews and the Gentile Church at the moment, mainly because the Jews see the Gentile Jesus who has abolished the Torah, until this is clarified, the Jews reject Jesus as the Messiah.

What we have at this time is the Messianic believers, it is the Jews who acknowledge Jesus as the Messiah. Many Gentiles have joined these assemblies, but these Messianic believers are also rejected by the Jews.

So I am a gentile believer who has embraced the Torah as the teachings of Jesus.

 

[Paul Bethke]

And then further postponed for an even greater display of power, no doubt.

Interestingly, the Apocalypse of John was written by an individual who was distraught at seeing his world fall apart around him. Two millennia from now, your predictions will be as unfulfilled as John's.

You sound like some sort of prophet, false I must admit---you see I am one of those that Jesus spoke of---
Mar 9:1 And he said to them, "I tell you the truth, some who are standing here will not taste death before they see the Kingdom of God come with power."

 

[Slowvehicle]

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

How...odd. You claim that this "day and age" is corrupt; yet you alter the clear words of your "scripture" to fit this corrupt day and age. It is as if the actual meaning of the clear words of your "scripture" is not good enough for you, so you make free to pretend it means whatever you want it to mean...

The reason being that prophecy has its fulfillment right through out, until fulfilled.

...even if you claim that the "prophecy" means something different than it did when it was said to be said to have been prophesied...

Again, it is as if the actual meanings of the actual words in your "scriptures" does not matter to you.

The 144k are an elect group of people—so who makes up that selection today?

Actually, the "144k" were a group of men in a vision. According to your "scriptures", they were characterized as the "ones who had not defiled themselves with women"--that is, they were "virgin" (a technical term with a precise meaning--that is, "ones who has not had sex"). It is dishonest to pretend that, in this case (and this case only) "virginity" might encompass sexually active men. It is dishonest of you to pretend that "defiled" and "women" are equally ambiguous.

It is, however, patently clear to the most casual observer (to say nothing of those of us who actually read the languages involved, as you confess you do not) that your manufacture of a spurious ambiguity is the only way you can continue to pretend that a sexually active man can be accurately described as "virgin"...

...I wonder if it has occurred to you that a homosexually active man would qualify as not having "defiled himself" with "women"...

The actual meanings of the actual words in the actual contexts of your "scriptures" are immaterial to your fantasies.

The term virgin when used of a person is to indicate their purity, this is used a few times in the Scriptures.

No, not once. The passage in Corinthians is a simile (it might even be considered a metonymy, but that's a discussion for a different, more gramatically rigorous, audience).

So today those who have not defiled themselves by committing adultery will be considered as the elect, including other prerequisites.

Not if you want to pretend that παρθένος actually has a lexical meaning.

So I know of a few men who will qualify as far as this requirement is concerned.

Despite your need to pretend that you are (or will be) numbered in that number "that no man can number" the one who "qualify" (if your "scriptures" are to be taken to have any meaning at all) as παρθένοι are the ones who "have not defiled themselves with women" (which, among other things, gives a not-very-reassuring picture of the mindset of whoever actually wrote the "Book of 'John's' Revelation").

QUOTE=Paul Bethke;11392445]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.<scripturesnip>

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.[/QUOTE]

No, not at all. what made the "144K" in the hallucination
καθαρόι was that they had not ἐμολύνθησαν with γυναικῶν; that is, they were παρθένοι.

No matter how often you fallaciously attempt to pretend it works backwards.

 

[Slowvehicle]

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.

The "genealogies" are inherently contradictory; invented, as they were, to serve two contradictory purposes.

 

[Slowvehicle]

You sound like some sort of prophet, false I must admit---you see I am one of those that Jesus spoke of---
Mar 9:1 And he said to them, "I tell you the truth, some who are standing here will not taste death before they see the Kingdom of God come with power."

I wonder if you realize that you have just claimed to be over 2000 years old...

 

[Paul Bethke]

The problem is that your definition of marriage extends to divorced couples who have separated and have been remarried to other individuals. Your definition of marriage is such that, while the two individuals live, they can never be un-married. If someone divorces one spouse, and later marries another, you consider that person to be committing adultery because he/she is, in your eyes, still unbreakably bound to the first marriage.

So the answers you've given could be interpreted to mean that your wife has left you but that, to your mind, she is still considered to be your wife. Since you don't recognize divorce to be a valid dissolution of a marriage, your statement, "we are still in holy matrimony" still doesn't address my question. Your seeming reluctance to give a simple 'yes' or 'no' answer only makes it seem as though you are attempting to something.

Now you are really confused—marriage in its pure state, is as Jesus state, the two become one, and as such will remain together until death takes one.

If a man divorces his wife and marries another woman, he will be an adulterer, and the wife if she marries another man while her husband is alive will become an adulteress.

So holy matrimony means holy not defiled---to marry another woman while the wife is still alive will result in the defilement of the parties involved.( Lev_18:20 "'Do not have sexual relations with your neighbour’s wife and defile yourself with her. )

So a man defiles himself in this way----(Luk 16:18 "Anyone who divorces his wife and marries another woman commits adultery, and the man who marries a divorced woman commits adultery.)

So to be in holy matrimony is as God ordained.