The Miracles of Christ
- Thread starter herald
- Start date
lol It could be. They only had 4 elements back in the old days; earth, fire, water, and wind.
.... and Bible-thumping.
The people that wrote the book should have left out the Twilight Zone tales of magic and mysticism and just wrote about how people should behave.
.... and Bible-thumping.
The people that wrote the book should have left out the Twilight Zone tales of magic and mysticism and just wrote about how people should behave.
Well, all I know is that if this was a contest, I have to say the Bashers are ahead of the Thumpers at this point... :lol: The question is...will a real winner emerge?
It's funny that bashers make fun of people taking the Bible's words too literally, and yet people that worship the Bible have all kinds of routes around the literal meanings, expecting the bashers to be very specific while the thumpers expect to be able to twist meanings into anything they like.
Kinda' has some similarities to a battle between two groups of lawyers, no?
For what it's worth (probably nothing), I think the Bible does provide guidance and inspiration for many people, even though they might all have a slightly different take on it. As with anything else, the subject usually heats up a bit when people with extreme points of view get into it. Buy hey, that's all part of life.
As the old saying goes, "If two people agree on everything all the time, one of them probably isn't necessary."
In one post you say it must have been a miracle, in this post there is no such thing as a miracle. That is all I was referencing. Talking to any believer is not going to have any effect on your position. The authority I have is the right to decide what topics I will discuss with you. Are you saying quoting ths Bible is a bad way to discuss topics that are in the Bible. Two reasons I post the reference verses. 1, I assume most people would be too lazy to stop and look it up and read it before moving on. 2, a slight variation in the wording can make a huge difference in the meaning of the verse, if the wording I have read is read by somebody else it should be mean the same to whoever reads it. It isn't an attempt to drown you with words, at the same time trying to get your opinion on if the Bible points to the rain falling but there not being any run-off and at the end of the 40 days the water was 21ft deep over the land, the mountain tops had 21 ft and the hills had 21 ft. I have no desire to bring something like that up with somebody that has the view you do. It would be a waste of time for both of us. You do the same dance on every Bible thread, that's fine you certainly have that right.
We have a lake to the south of us called Hotfish Lake. I wonder why it was named that?
In a Faith as diverse as Christianity (where, ironically, the message has often been said to be acceptance and tolerance) can one really condemn another to a lake of fire or eternal damnation for not thinking by the same numbers?
Last edited:
I was thinking along the lines of fire in the lake...sort of our own little hell on earth. Yikes.
I don't think that's quite true, but religion meant something quite different to the Romans than it did to the Jews and Christians. The Romans' general attitude was to let people have whatever religion they liked as long as it didn't interfere with the empire's business, and they'd often try to incorporate other nations' gods into their own pantheon. Religion was part of the social fabric of the empire and involved a certain amount of veneration of emperors, which Jews and Christians refused to do.
I've been doing some reading (Jonathon Kirsch's A History of the End of the World in particular), and it appears that there's now some dispute among the historians about the real nature and extent of Roman persecution of Jews and Christians. The immediate result in the context of this discussion is that the evidence for Domitian's persecution in particular isn't really very good. Domitian had a lot of trouble with the senate and the nobles, and it seems they're the ones who controlled the records, so the accusations against him are being reassessed and he's to some extent being rehabilitated. I haven't found out anything yet that materially alters my position, but I'll have to rephrase a few things. Rather than saying Revelation is about the persecution under Domitian, I'll have to change it to say it's about the perceived injustice of the Roman overlords. This is probably related to the social nature of Roman religion. Pagan polytheisms are generally much more willing to accept the existence of other deities in other nations than are monotheisms, and Romans perceived Jews and Christians as stiff-necked atheists in a sense, who refused to take part in the social and cultural life of the empire. In other words, they would not integrate, but remained as a disruptive fringe element.
It's pretty clear though that John of Patmos, whoever he was, perceived great injustice against Christians at the hands of the Romans, much of the book is a diatribe against them. He was also pretty scornful of most of his fellow Christians for being insufficiently zealous, and of Jews for refusing to accept the Messiah. He took the most extreme view, "if you're not with me you're against me." His text is only one of dozens of apocalyptic writings from around that time, but because his made it into the Bible, it provides scriptural authority for some of the worst of human behaviours, like demonizing your enemies, wreaking horrible vengeance upon them, and enjoying it... I think it's the work of a lunatic extremist, the sort that these days sends out suicide bombers, and a source of much dangerous religious eccentricity.
And I'm still completely certain that Revelation is NOT about the future, as a work of prophecy it is self-evidently false. It predicts repeatedly, as other New Testament scriptures do, including the words of Jesus himself, that the end will be soon. Every generation since it was written has had people who expected to witness the end as described in Rev. 19:11-18. That's the part herald's going on about, where Jesus returns with an army of saints and martyrs and the attitude, "if you're not with me you're against me and I'll cast you into the lake of fire." It's been almost 2000 years, the time for "soon" is long past.
How many billions of Christians have died in the last 2000 years spent their whole lives waiting for Armageddon in vain? What a colossal waste of life. Life is to be lived in the present. Waiting for the future or next life is an avoidance of life, which if one believes in a creator god, is counter to the point of creating life in the first place. Not only is it a waste, it is just plain ridiculous.
Anyone familiar with Chris de Burgh's song Crusader? Here's the heart of it:
"What do I do next?" said the bishop to the priest,
"I have spent my whole life waiting, preparing for the feast,
And now you say Jerusalem has fallen and is lost,
The king of heathen Saracen has seized the holy cross."
Then the priest said "Oh my bishop, we must put them to the sword,
For God in all His mercy will find a just reward,
For the noblemen and sinners, and knights of ready hand,
Who will be the Lord's Crusaders, send word through all the land."
"Tell me what to do", said the king upon his throne,
"But speak to me in whispers for we are not alone.
They tell me that Jerusalem has fallen to the hand,
Of some bedevilled eastern Heathen who has seized the Holy Land."
Then the chamberlain said "Lord, we must call upon our foes
In Spain and France and Germany to end our bitter wars,
All Christian men must be as one and gather for the fight,
You will be their leader, begin the battle cry."
"What do I do now?" said the wise man to the fool,
"I have spent my whole life searching, to find the Golden Rule,
Though centuries have disappeared, the memory still remains,
Of those enemies together, could it be that way again?"
Then the fool said "Oh you wise men, you really make me laugh,
With your talk of vast persuasion and searching through the past,
There is only greed and evil in the men who fight today,
The song of the Crusader has long since gone away."
Seems to me that's pretty much how different faiths see each other, and sometimes I despair for humanity because of it. We keep fighting over minor differences in belief and useless bits of territory, when there's no real justification for believing in any of it. The chorus of that song is "Jerusalem is lost" repeated three times as a rising lamentation. Jerusalem as the centre of three major faiths could and should have been an international city belonging to no one and every one, a model of the peaceful coexistence and mutual respect every faith purports to value. Instead it's the centre of multiple murderous conflicts. Truly, Jerusalem IS lost.
"What do I do next?" said the bishop to the priest,
"I have spent my whole life waiting, preparing for the feast,
And now you say Jerusalem has fallen and is lost,
The king of heathen Saracen has seized the holy cross."
Then the priest said "Oh my bishop, we must put them to the sword,
For God in all His mercy will find a just reward,
For the noblemen and sinners, and knights of ready hand,
Who will be the Lord's Crusaders, send word through all the land."
"Tell me what to do", said the king upon his throne,
"But speak to me in whispers for we are not alone.
They tell me that Jerusalem has fallen to the hand,
Of some bedevilled eastern Heathen who has seized the Holy Land."
Then the chamberlain said "Lord, we must call upon our foes
In Spain and France and Germany to end our bitter wars,
All Christian men must be as one and gather for the fight,
You will be their leader, begin the battle cry."
"What do I do now?" said the wise man to the fool,
"I have spent my whole life searching, to find the Golden Rule,
Though centuries have disappeared, the memory still remains,
Of those enemies together, could it be that way again?"
Then the fool said "Oh you wise men, you really make me laugh,
With your talk of vast persuasion and searching through the past,
There is only greed and evil in the men who fight today,
The song of the Crusader has long since gone away."
Seems to me that's pretty much how different faiths see each other, and sometimes I despair for humanity because of it. We keep fighting over minor differences in belief and useless bits of territory, when there's no real justification for believing in any of it. The chorus of that song is "Jerusalem is lost" repeated three times as a rising lamentation. Jerusalem as the centre of three major faiths could and should have been an international city belonging to no one and every one, a model of the peaceful coexistence and mutual respect every faith purports to value. Instead it's the centre of multiple murderous conflicts. Truly, Jerusalem IS lost.
Last edited:
During the time of Jesus's ministry Rome was in and around Jerusalem. Jesus may not have singled them out but there are a handful of instances where He gladly interacted with them. At His 'trial' it was a Roman who suggested He should be released. Why would Revelation be 'encoded' to fool the Romans when there is a Book in the NT entitled 'Romans'. Chapter 13 quite plainly give them the authority to use their sword as a means to fight evil traits that some people have. A few decades later write a book that undermines all that. God doesn't work like that. The OT had prophets that spelled it out quite plainly, the NT Writers also spoke out quite plainly. In the Book that has some very key verses that link previous said prophecies together is going to be shrouded. The ones that try and make other passages mean something other than what they plainly say. It was Romans that the Gospel was taken to first out of all the Gentiles. Christian will respect their Laws that govern social conduct but worship is not included. Why would the Romans persecute a group that trying to not create disturbances. The disturbances were areound Jewish houses of worship. That is where the Apostles taught first in the new world. You can figure out who the persecuters are in one verse. Roman soldiers would not bother to wait till Christians were in a Jewish house of Worship before taking action against them. The many times they did end up at one of those Houses was to quell riots started by the Jews against the Apostles. As an instigator they would have also been labled trouble-maker and arrested. Compare that to how the Jews in Jerusalem would have been treated when the revolt was happening near 70AD. Instant justice at the end of some weapon of war. Those are the ones the Romans would have fed to the lions. The 3/5 books attributed to John would have been written/read while they were in the Gentile Nations, no harsh speeches against the Gentiles, those that had become Christians were called children. Is that a code-word also?? lol
If it was examined enough I would bet that there was a difference in how a Christian Jew was treated compared to a Christian Gentile after the Jewish revolt in 70AD. The persecution would have been based on their Israeli heritage rather than the fact they were Christians (mocked for it but not the motive for deadly acts against them). The stats would show me wrong if Gentile Christians were being killed at the same rate as Jewish Christians. Normally the ones doing the revolting would be the ones dieing, that would be the Jews who had authority in any synagogue in the Roman Empire, they would be the 90% who dies as entertainment for the rulers of Rome.
I'm happy to see you didn't go any further down that path. It's very true that those things exist but the words 'abomination to God' can be easily slipped into that same sentence and it will be a true statement.
The writer was in an open-air prison on a Greek Island, hardly something that makes them public-enemy #1. Jews were actively trying to get them put out of commission. Gentiles more often that not wanted to hear more.
John was taking dictation, the Book is about how God feels about getting things back to the original way of doing things. God was using Rome, it was their forces that leveled the Temple. (have you read the account that gave specific instructions that the Temple was supposed to not hurt. Specific orders that in the heat of battle (fog of war) were totally ignored?) In reality God made sure it happened, an act of God. That means He also had some part in the revolt's beginning to get the Romans coming in force. That it was 40 years is not an accident in time.
Revelation is not a book by itself, it is the last book in a manuscript that has many books, some larger, some smaller. It's time is known, it is in the time of the generation that will see Christ's return.
Knowing how much you hate these long posts could be a motive for me but it isn't. In just verses alone just this part has about a page or 10 in just the summary passages.
Once you read them all (in Revelation) that overview has some serious flaws.
Ever read the Book of Enoch, rather than fanciful stories it is full of fanciful places and fanciful beings. There are some things written about watchers, they would have been on Earth prior to the flood. The 10,000 saints I mentioned are Holy Angels that 'made sure' none of them were in operation after the flood. The passages in Jude and Peter are the main references I use for who the ungodly ones are, the twice dead because their fate is in the Lake, their victims, the fleshy beings of the earth only experience a small taste of what the lake has to offer.
Christ is one chapter I believe. The vast majority is about Enoch cruising around in a what I would call a 'very fast space-craft' Make for a great I-MAX ride but I got off at the first stop. Very odd that a search for the words 'ten thousand' comes back with that very number lol
To the question, according to that book how tall are fallen angels?