Probably be a good idea to keep your theology to yourself as it makes no sense whatsover. Maybe take your pills and let those who've studied the subject take the floor sap.Really?? The only 'proof' is some obscure historical document that may or may not be accurate. I doubt modern Christians even have the authors right. They certainly don't when it comes to the Gospel of John. The other 3 would be written by Peter (Matthew) James for Mark and the later book bearing his name and his brother John wrote Luke.
The Disciples that came to take away Paul's blindness were gathered after the cross, the cross was the only thing that stood in the way of the Scribes writing the books as that was to be done with some assistance from the Holy Spirit.
What Peter talked about to the Gentiles after Acts:10 is the same message he would have talked to the Jews about during the 30 years it took for Luke:21:12-24 to be fulfilled. That is the same message Saul was delivering to the Gentiles in his visits.
I suppose the Luke:21:12-24 prophecy was written in hindsight as it was referencing 70AD in it's last verse. I think not. James starts out mentioning the scattering and that did not take place until 70AD so that book was not written before then and it references a prophecy from De:4:30. The point of the Gospels is they were written by Jewish people but the writing was in Greek, perfect Greek and that should not have been possible as the Jews never had any contact with any Gentiles until more than 3 1/2 years after the cross.
If you can mistake the concept of these verses then the rest of your doctrine will be even more flawed.
Joh:21:24:
This is the disciple which testifieth of these things,
and wrote these things:
and we know that his testimony is true.
1Jo:1:1-3:
That which was from the beginning,
which we have heard,
which we have seen with our eyes,
which we have looked upon,
and our hands have handled,
of the Word of life;
(For the life was manifested,
and we have seen it,
and bear witness,
and shew unto you that eternal life,
which was with the Father,
and was manifested unto us
That which we have seen and heard declare we unto you,
that ye also may have fellowship with us:
and truly our fellowship is with the Father,
and with his Son Jesus Christ.
If you don't want the book to be viewed as being 'divine' then you have to muddy such things. 3 Apostles see 3 events and today the 3 books that cover those events is attributed to anybody but those same 3 Apostles. That is equal to putting in overtime.
For The Time Will Come
- Thread starter Motar
- Start date
The time has come. Sound doctrine is offense. Desire rules. There are many teachers.
"Not many of you should become teachers, my fellow believers, because you know that we who teach will be judged more strictly." (James 3:1 NIV)
Keep your head and preach the word,he said ...
But how is it possible to preach the word with a cutted head ?
I think that the Coran is better :
a) you keep your head
b) you cut the heads of the others
c) you have right for 72 Virgins.
But the paradise have a cost :
No more beer
No more alcool
No more pork
...And the Virgins could be stupid and ugly ....
But how is it possible to preach the word with a cutted head ?
I think that the Coran is better :
a) you keep your head
b) you cut the heads of the others
c) you have right for 72 Virgins.
But the paradise have a cost :
No more beer
No more alcool
No more pork
...And the Virgins could be stupid and ugly ....
Welcome to the discussion, Ungern.
To preach is to proclaim publically. The fullness of public declaration involves not just words, but conduct. We are all quick to dismiss a preacher who says one thing and does another. One whose walk does not match his talk is considered a hypocrite. So when we consider the Biblical admonition to preach, we understand that actions can and very often do speak louder than words.
To preach truth is to live it.
I want to thank you two for your comments.
I can understand (without agreeing with them) the things you write about but you cannot understand the thing I write about (God especially). It would appear that you two are the ones that are confused, to the point you even missed this point.
When you mentioned that you follow one of the older religions were you promoting that it was the most valid or that it has had the best chance of being corrupted from the first concept?
It is not a matter of not understanding your point of view. It is a matter of your interpretation being out to lunch on a book that is mostly a rehash of older texts that really has no basis in reality.
I don't follow any religion. Not sure where you got that idea from. Probably from the same place you get your interpretation of the bible, your tortured imagination. But I do commend you on speaking your truth, as skewed as it might be.
It is a list of two things that must happen before the 'gathering can take place', it was assuring them it would not happen in their lifetime as they were the ones receiving the truth first hand so they did not also want to be the ones that became disbelievers. The verse later in that chapter is referring to this prophecy as being what is 'holding back' the gathering, the last event is the revealing on who the man of sin is. (the most powerful man would be the 1 of 10 kings that takes control of 3 of the 10 kingdoms somehow)
Apostasy is not new to our day, LL. There have been myriad infidelities since the original one in Eden.
Motar that has absolutely nothing to do with what I was talking about. Maybe you should spend less time discussing things with Megaloon .