Why Aliens; Fallen Angels have not overrun the earth yet - A response to Edgar Mitchell statement

reply to post by Marty D

I would like to remind you of the quote you made a few posts ago. Here it is
People who experienced NDE ALWAYS remarked on tremendous love they felt. Those people are from wide variety of backgrounds and beliefs.

Well, I made a mistake lol. Im human.

However, it doesn't change the fact that the experiences are consistent. Those who have experienced "hell" who have gotten out of it and went to a better place have experienced this love.

Yes, there are some people who have experienced hell who haven't gone to a better place. Maybe they didn't think to ask or the doctors have brought them back to life quickly. Some people might have forgotten much of the experience quickly. It's like when you have forgotten your dreams.

I will respond to the rest tomorrow.

Originally posted by ufosd
What seems odd to me, is scripture says don't add to it or take away from it ,,,,lest a bad thing come on you.

(Rev 22:18 KJV) For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book:

(Rev 22:19 KJV) And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book.

That's a warning to not add anything to the book of Revelation. The New Testament didn't exist when Revelation was composed. And who name the book "Revelation?" The Catholics call theirs the book of Apocalypse, no? So it's not saying no more revelation is allowed after the book of Revelation was written. And the book of Revelation almost didn't make it into the bible in the first place. But quotes from the book of Enoch did get included:

6And the angels who did not keep their positions of authority but abandoned their own home—these he has kept in darkness, bound with everlasting chains for judgment on the great Day. 7In a similar way, Sodom and Gomorrah and the surrounding towns gave themselves up to sexual immorality and perversion. They serve as an example of those who suffer the punishment of eternal fire.

Originally posted by ufosd
Seems we have a difference of opinion,,,, for me God has more credentials then any scientist, so for the sake of respecting your right to choose what you want or who you want to believe I will let you have the last word, for me this is a spiritual battle for the souls of men, biblical text makes it very clear,,, God has been protecting mankind from Satan's all out assault and attacks since the beginning of time, when the time of tribulation starts the bible makes it clear Satan will have control over the world and world governments plus a perverted world religion, something resembling New Age yet as radical as fundamentalist types who will kill you if you do not submit to their way of thinking.
The terms are already in place you will reconize one of them as ,,,,,the New World Order, plus all that interlocks into that concept.
Nice chatting with you.

Nice post UFOSD

i just read the terra papers as well, looks like the "GOD" your refering to in this thread would be the Lord God RA ..just trying to connect puzzle pieces.

Originally posted by Matrix1111

Originally posted by ufosd
What seems odd to me, is scripture says don't add to it or take away from it ,,,,lest a bad thing come on you.

(Rev 22:18 KJV) For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book:

(Rev 22:19 KJV) And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book.

That's a warning to not add anything to the book of Revelation. The New Testament didn't exist when Revelation was composed. And who name the book "Revelation?" The Catholics call theirs the book of Apocalypse, no? So it's not saying no more revelation is allowed after the book of Revelation was written. And the book of Revelation almost didn't make it into the bible in the first place. But quotes from the book of Enoch did get included:

6And the angels who did not keep their positions of authority but abandoned their own home—these he has kept in darkness, bound with everlasting chains for judgment on the great Day. 7In a similar way, Sodom and Gomorrah and the surrounding towns gave themselves up to sexual immorality and perversion. They serve as an example of those who suffer the punishment of eternal fire.



Ufosd's reply;

"That's a warning to not add anything to the book of Revelation. The New Testament didn't exist when Revelation was composed."

I thought you would go there, but consider this

Tell me who has the authority to add to what the Apostles and the prophets have set forth ,,,John was the last remaining apostle who personally walked with Christ, and the one to complete the revelation that God has for man,,, NO ONE after him has the authority to add to church Cannon
We can try to interpret. but not add to,,,, New age or humanistic,,,,, Kabala, or channeled messages from someone having a new word from the Lord or visitors from space, or a message from Mother earth believers is not to be tolerated.

(Deu 4:2 KJV) Ye shall not add unto the word which I command you, neither shall ye diminish ought from it, that ye may keep the commandments of the LORD your God which I command you.

This completes the two witnesses needed to be consider valid cannon

Jesus fulfilled all the word from the Old Testament and the Apostles including John explained what He accomplished and what our part is in abiding within that revelation,, anything new out side of their revelation
( by that I mean interpretation ) has to pass the test of harmony with the rest of the Old and and New Testament
So I believe the following again is good council

New age which is a broad based deception,,or humanistic,,,,, Kabala,,, or channeled messages from someone having a new word from the Lord or visitors from space, or a message from Mother earth believers is not to be tolerated.

The scripture and interpretations is to be based upon the Apostles and prophets.

"And the book of Revelation almost didn't make it into the bible in the first place."

But it did.....make it,,,,

Thanks again for sharing your views, I think we just have a difference on the points of reference that can be used.

Originally posted by ufosd
Tell me who has the authority to add to what the Apostles and the prophets have set forth ,,,John was the last remaining apostle who personally walked with Christ, and the one to complete the revelation that God has for man,,, NO ONE after him has the authority to add to church Cannon

Where does the bible say that is the rule? The theme of the gospels is clear to me that nobody understood Jesus, not even his own disciples. The scene of the Garden of Gethsemane shows that. He pleaded with his disciples to stay awake and they couldn't. Even Peter denied him. All of them scattered and went into hiding. None were willing to give their lives to stand up for him.

The fact that they lived with Jesus didn't guarantee they had greater knowledge. It was Jesus' resurrected spirit that ended up educating them for 40 days. That means what they learned came from a spirit, not a living person. Aren't you the one saying you can't trust spirits?

Paul was not even accepted by the disciples at first (if ever) because of his never being educated firsthand by Jesus. They questioned his teachings (perhaps rightly so). But the disciples were clueless too. That's why Jesus said he had to go (be crucified), because they were hopeless ignorant. Otherwise the Spirit of truth wouldn't come and teach them "all the truth."

Did the Spirit of truth come? Was it the resurrected Jesus? The Pentacost Holy Spirit? Has all the truth appeared? If so, why does Revelations say the mysteries of God won't be explained until Christ returns? Did Jesus teach everything at the time of the Pentacost or not?

Your claim doesn't hold water. It's typical church politics. Scholars even suspect that warning of not adding to the bible (the book) was put in by someone other than John.

Btw, none of the gospels were written by any of the disciples. (Maybe the epistle of Peter.) So everything you claim to be the final word authority is acutally secondhand information. And Paul's teachings are in complete opposition to their version of Jesus. So really this whole discussion of who's truth is best is just a matter of opinion. (Because no truth (religion) is 100% accurate. That's just the nature of imperfect, sinful man. Imperfect people cannot create perfection.)

[edit on 8/4/2008 by Matrix1111]

reply to post by Matrix1111

You are wrong on nearly every point,,,,,Matthew Mark, John,,,,Peter,,,,Paul were apostles and the others were companions of the former, so it is obvious you have not got a clue, how to correctly represent the word of truth,,,,The apostle Paul
was fully informed in his knowledge of the plan of God, nothing further needs to be added,
New age twisting and modern day channeling are fully exposed by the revelation that has come to us through the apostles.

Here is the proof, but I really doubt you will buy into it.

(Eph 3:2 KJV) If ye have heard of the dispensation of the grace of God which is given me to you-ward:

(Eph 3:3 KJV) How that by revelation he made known unto me the mystery; (as I wrote afore in few words,

(Eph 3:4 KJV) Whereby, when ye read, ye may understand my knowledge in the mystery of Christ)

(Eph 3:5 KJV) Which in other ages was not made known unto the sons of men, as it is now revealed unto his holy apostles and prophets by the Spirit;

(Eph 3:6 KJV) That the Gentiles should be fellowheirs, and of the same body, and partakers of his promise in Christ by the gospel:

(Eph 3:7 KJV) Whereof I was made a minister, according to the gift of the grace of God given unto me by the effectual working of his power.

(Eph 3:8 KJV) Unto me, who am less than the least of all saints, is this grace given, that I should preach among the Gentiles the unsearchable riches of Christ;

(Eph 3:9 KJV) And to make all men see what is the fellowship of the mystery, which from the beginning of the world hath been hid in God, who created all things by Jesus Christ:

(Eph 3:10 KJV) To the intent that now unto the principalities and powers in heavenly places might be known by ( or through )the church the manifold wisdom of God,

and finally for this post the clincher.

(2 Tim 2:14 KJV) Of these things put them in remembrance, charging them before the Lord that they strive not about words to no profit, but to the subverting of the hearers.

(2 Tim 2:15 KJV) Study to show ( study what ? ) thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth.

(2 Tim 2:16 KJV) But shun profane and vain babblings: for they will increase unto more ungodliness.

(2 Tim 2:19 KJV) Nevertheless the foundation of God standeth sure, having this seal, The Lord knoweth them that are his. And, Let every one that nameth the name of Christ depart from iniquity.

.(2 Tim 2:23 KJV) But foolish and unlearned questions avoid, knowing that they do gender strifes.

(2 Tim 2:24 KJV) And the servant of the Lord must not strive; but be gentle unto all men, apt to teach, patient,

(2 Tim 2:25 KJV) In meekness instructing those that oppose themselves; if God peradventure will give them repentance to the acknowledging of the truth;
The Apostles had a ring side seat,,,,and the HOLY Spirit was faithful to guide them into all truth, just as Jesus promised.

(John 16:13 KJV) Howbeit when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will guide you into all truth: for he shall not speak of himself; but whatsoever he shall hear, that shall he speak: and he will show you things to come.

(John 16:14 KJV) He shall glorify me: for he shall receive of mine, and shall show it unto you.

There is no need of new information on Jesus ,,,,Channeled or other wise,,, no man has the credential these men had.


Finally; Paul Said Know this evil men will pervert the gospel.

(2 Tim 3:13 KJV) But evil men and seducers shall wax worse and worse, deceiving, and being deceived.

(2 Tim 3:14 KJV) But continue thou in the things which thou hast learned and hast been assured of, knowing of whom thou hast learned them;

Nothing else is needed they had all they needed to be saved and so do we.

Originally posted by ufosd
reply to post by Matrix1111

You are wrong on nearly every point,,,,,Matthew Mark, John,,,,Peter,,,,Paul were apostles and the others were companions of the former, so it is obvious you have not got a clue,

1. The Early Christian tradition attributes the Gospel to Matthew, one of Jesus' disciples. Some scholars date back the tradition to the middle of the second century CE. [1][2][3] Beginning in the 18th century scholars have increasingly questioned that traditional view, and today most scholars agree Matthew did not write the Gospel which bears his name.

en.wikipedia.org...

2. The text of the Gospel According to Mark does not specifically identify anyone as the author. Not even “Mark” is identified as the author — in theory, “Mark” could have simply related a series of events and stories to someone else who collected them, edited them, and set them down in the gospel form. It wasn't until the second century that the title “According to Mark” or “The Gospel According to Mark” was affixed to this
document.

atheism.about.com...

3. Traditionally, people have believed the Gospel to have been written by John son of Zebedee, who is identified as "the disciple whom Jesus loved" and which seems to be indicated in 21:24; "this is the disciple which testifieth of these things, and wrote these things: and we know that his testimony is true". However, the majority of scholars cast doubts upon this claim.

The earliest references to the apostle John come in Justin Martyr's work, around the middle of the second century. When he writes of John, he says that the Apocalypse (Revelation) is his work (Dial. lxxxi.4) but makes no mention of the Gospel at all, let alone that John wrote it.

geocities.com...

4. Paul was not an apostle. He was not one of the twelve. Acts was written by Luke. Luke was only an eyewitness of Paul's missionary work. So the four synoptic gospels were not written by actualy eyewitnesses of Jesus' life.


I see no further purpose to discussing this topic with you.

Originally posted by Anonymous ATS
These responses are a really good example of what happens when people do not regard the word of God as authoritative, these are the the people who have been blinded by the god of this world and will be a part of The Strong Delusion, I would venture to say they have never cracked the book, but live on someone Else's views, always learning but never coming to the knowledge of the truth. "Lord Please open their eyes before it is too late".

Interesting take on the posters here. We should not, however, put ourselves in a position to judge. I for one feel that every person is on a journey to find their ultimate destiny. NO ONE has ALL the answers. And MANY questions remain, at least for me. I would say that MOST all the posters here are truly searching and want to find truth. Each of us must press through to find it for ourselves. It is there for the getting...freely and generously. I too pray that all that seek truth will find Truth. We all must speak our mind and stay open to that which resonates in our spirit. We need each other. My best blessings to you all my friends....

reply to post by Matrix1111
Origin of the canonical Gospels
Main article: Synoptic problem
The dominant view today is that Mark is the first Gospel, with Matthew and Luke borrowing passages both from that Gospel and from at least one other common source, lost to history, termed by scholars 'Q' (from German: Quelle, meaning "source"). This view is known as the "Two-Source Hypothesis". John was written last and shares little with the synoptic gospels.

The general consensus among biblical scholars is that all four canonical Gospels were originally written in Greek, the lingua franca of the Roman Orient.


[edit] Dating
Estimates for the dates when the canonical Gospel accounts were written vary significantly; and the evidence for any of the dates is scanty. Because the earliest surviving complete copies of the Gospels date to the 4th century and because only fragments and quotations exist before that, scholars use higher criticism to propose likely ranges of dates for the original gospel autographs. Scholars variously assess the consensus or majority view as follows:

Mark: c. 68–73,[6] c 65-70[1]
Matthew: c. 70–100.[6] c 80-85.[1] Some conservative scholars argue for a pre-70 date, particularly those that do not accept Mark as the first gospel written.
Luke: c. 80–100, with most arguing for somewhere around 85,[6], c 80-85[1]
John: c 90-100,[1] c. 90–110,[7] The majority view is that it was written in stages, so there was no one date of composition.
Traditional Christian scholarship has generally preferred to assign earlier dates. Some historians interpret the end of the book of Acts as indicative, or at least suggestive, of its date; as Acts does not mention the death of Paul, generally accepted as the author of many of the Epistles, who was later put to death by the Romans c. 65.[citation needed] Acts is attributed to the author of the Gospel of Luke, and therefore would shift the chronology of authorship back, putting Mark as early as the mid 50s. Here are the dates given in the modern NIV Study Bible (for a fuller discussion see Augustinian hypothesis):

Mark: c. 50s to early 60s, or late 60s
Matthew: c. 50 to 70s
Luke: c. 59 to 63, or 70s to 80s
John: c. 85 to near 100, or 50s to 70

[edit] Location
Matthew was probably written in Syria, perhaps in Antioch,[1] an ancient Christian center. Mark has traditionally been associated with Peter's preaching in Rome, and it is well-suited to a Roman audience.[1] Various cities have been proposed for the origin of Luke, but there is no consensus on the matter. Ephesus is a popular scholarly choice for the place of origin for the Gospel of John.[1]


[edit] Content of the Gospels
The four gospels present different narratives, reflecting different intents on the parts of their authors.[8]

All four gospels portray Jesus as leading a group of disciples, performing miracles, preaching in Jerusalem, being crucified, and rising from the dead.

The synoptic gospels represent Jesus as an exorcist and healer who preached in parables about the coming Kingdom of God. He preached first in Galilee and later in Jerusalem, where he cleansed the temple. He states that he offers no sign as proof (Mark) or only the sign of Jonah (Matthew and Luke).[9] In Mark, apparently written with a Roman audience in mind, Jesus is a heroic man of action, given to powerful emotions, including agony.[1] In Matthew, apparently written for a Jewish audience, Jesus is repeatedly called out as the fulfillment of Hebrew prophecy.[1] In Luke, apparently written for gentiles, Jesus is especially concerned with the poor.[1] Luke emphasizes the importance of prayer and the action of the Holy Spirit in Jesus' life and in the Christian community.[10] He appears as a stoic supernatural being, unmoved even by his own crucifixion.[8] Luke insists that salvation offered by Christ is for all, and not the Jews only.[10]

The Gospel of John represents Jesus as an incarnation of the eternal Word (Logos), who spoke no parables, talked extensively about himself, and did not explicitly refer to a Second Coming.[1] Jesus preaches in Jerusalem, launching his ministry with the cleansing of the temple.[1] He performs several miracles as signs, most of them not found in the synoptics.

reply to post by Matrix1111
Paul the Apostle
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
(Redirected from Paul of Tarsus)
Jump to: navigation, search
Saint Paul
St Paul, by El Greco
Apostle to the Gentiles, Martyr
Born no scholarly consensus on date, in Tarsus (Acts 22:3)
Died 64-67 AD, in Rome during Nero's Persecution (EH 3.1)
Venerated in All Christianity
Major shrine Basilica of Saint Paul Outside the Walls
Feast January 25 (The Conversion of Paul)
February 10 (Feast of Saint Paul's Shipwreck in Malta)
June 29 (Feast of Saints Peter and Paul)
November 18 (Feast of the dedication of the basilicas of Saints Peter and Paul)
Attributes Apostle; Missionary; Martyr; sword
Saint Paul the apostle (Hebrew: שאול התרסי‎ Šaʾul HaTarsi, meaning "Saul of Tarsus", Ancient Greek: Σαούλ Saul and Σαῦλος Saulos and Παῦλος Paulos[1]), the "Apostle to the Gentiles"[2] (ca 5 - 67CE) was, together with Saint Peter and James the Just,[3] the most notable of early Christian missionaries. Unlike the Twelve Apostles, there is no indication that Paul, born in Tarsus, ever met Jesus before the latter's crucifixion.[4] According to Acts, his conversion took place as he was traveling the road to Damascus, and experienced a vision of the resurrected Jesus.[5] Paul asserts that he received the Gospel not from man, but by "the revelation of Jesus Christ".[6]

Fourteen epistles in the New Testament are traditionally attributed to Paul, though in some cases the authorship is disputed. Paul had often employed an amanuensis, only occasionally writing himself.[7][8] As a sign of authenticity, the writers of these epistles[9] sometimes employ a passage presented as being in Paul's own handwriting. These epistles were circulated within the Christian community. They were prominent in the first New Testament canon ever proposed (by Marcion), and they were eventually included in the orthodox Christian canon of Scripture. They are believed to be the earliest-written books of the New Testament.

Paul's influence on Christian thinking arguably has been more significant than any other New Testament author.[10] His influence on the main strands of Christian thought has been demonstrable: from St. Augustine of Hippo to the controversies between Gottschalk and Hincmar of Reims; between Thomism and Molinism; Martin Luther, John Calvin and the Arminians; to Jansenism and the Jesuit theologians, and even to the German church of the twentieth century through the writings of the scholar Karl Barth, whose commentary on the Letter to the Romans had a political as well as theological impact.

Contents [hide]
1 Sources of information
2 Early life
3 Mission
3.1 First missionary journey
3.2 Council of Jerusalem
3.2.1 Paul's visits to Jerusalem in Acts and the epistles
3.3 Second missionary journey
3.4 Third missionary journey
4 Arrest and death
5 Writings
5.1 Authorship
5.2 Paul and Jesus
5.3 Holy Spirit
5.4 Relationship with Judaism
5.5 Resurrection
5.6 The World to come
6 Speculative views
7 Sickness
8 See also
9 Notes
10 References
11 External links

Originally posted by Sweet Paula

Originally posted by Anonymous ATS
These responses are a really good example of what happens when people do not regard the word of God as authoritative, these are the the people who have been blinded by the god of this world and will be a part of The Strong Delusion, I would venture to say they have never cracked the book, but live on someone Else's views, always learning but never coming to the knowledge of the truth. "Lord Please open their eyes before it is too late".

Interesting take on the posters here. We should not, however, put ourselves in a position to judge. I for one feel that every person is on a journey to find their ultimate destiny. NO ONE has ALL the answers. And MANY questions remain, at least for me. I would say that MOST all the posters here are truly searching and want to find truth. Each of us must press through to find it for ourselves. It is there for the getting...freely and generously. I too pray that all that seek truth will find Truth. We all must speak our mind and stay open to that which resonates in our spirit. We need each other. My best blessings to you all my friends....

SO ARE YOU SAYING EVRYONE SHOULD DO WHAT IS RIGHT IN THEIR OWN MIND?
That is sweet, but hardly addresses the issue,,,Jesue Christ is truth, if you look for truth in other places you are only finding opinion.
However I agree it is your mind your reality, you have a right to look further, for truth if you so choose. I will give an account for my life just as you will give an account for yours,,,thanks for the Post.

reply to post by Matrix1111

Who wrote the New Testament.
Please follow this link.

en.wikipedia.org...

reply to post by ufosd

Who wrote the New Testament Part 2

www.layhands.com...

reply to post by CleverPig


Boy have we strayed from the original post?,,,,,,,

This is what Dr Mitchell said:
Mitchell says that the aliens mean no harm and are not hostile to man's interests.

"If they were, we'd be gone by now," Dr Mitchell said. "Our technology is not nearly as sophisticated".


A response to Edgar Mitchell statement:

Many individuals who are researching UFOs today believe that if the occupants of UFOs wanted to harm us as a planet they could have done so long ago, what is not known to these researchers is the reason this has not happened in a completed sense is because the Hebrew - Christian God and creator has been restraining them to this point, while they have been allowed to have influence on this planet for thousands of years they have not been allowed to completely over run it, here are a few scriptures to show how God has been restraining.

Originally posted by ufosd
reply to post by Matrix1111
Origin of the canonical Gospels
Main article: Synoptic problem
The dominant view today is that Mark is the first Gospel, with Matthew and Luke borrowing passages both from that Gospel and from at least one other common source, lost to history, termed by scholars 'Q' (from German: Quelle, meaning "source"). This view is known as the "Two-Source Hypothesis". John was written last and shares little with the synoptic gospels.

The general consensus among biblical scholars is that all four canonical Gospels were originally written in Greek, the lingua franca of the Roman Orient.


[edit] Dating
Estimates for the dates when the canonical Gospel accounts were written vary significantly; and the evidence for any of the dates is scanty. Because the earliest surviving complete copies of the Gospels date to the 4th century and because only fragments and quotations exist before that, scholars use higher criticism to propose likely ranges of dates for the original gospel autographs. Scholars variously assess the consensus or majority view as follows:

Mark: c. 68–73,[6] c 65-70[1]
Matthew: c. 70–100.[6] c 80-85.[1] Some conservative scholars argue for a pre-70 date, particularly those that do not accept Mark as the first gospel written.
Luke: c. 80–100, with most arguing for somewhere around 85,[6], c 80-85[1]
John: c 90-100,[1] c. 90–110,[7] The majority view is that it was written in stages, so there was no one date of composition.
Traditional Christian scholarship has generally preferred to assign earlier dates. Some historians interpret the end of the book of Acts as indicative, or at least suggestive, of its date; as Acts does not mention the death of Paul, generally accepted as the author of many of the Epistles, who was later put to death by the Romans c. 65.[citation needed] Acts is attributed to the author of the Gospel of Luke, and therefore would shift the chronology of authorship back, putting Mark as early as the mid 50s. Here are the dates given in the modern NIV Study Bible (for a fuller discussion see Augustinian hypothesis):

Mark: c. 50s to early 60s, or late 60s
Matthew: c. 50 to 70s
Luke: c. 59 to 63, or 70s to 80s
John: c. 85 to near 100, or 50s to 70

[edit] Location
Matthew was probably written in Syria, perhaps in Antioch,[1] an ancient Christian center. Mark has traditionally been associated with Peter's preaching in Rome, and it is well-suited to a Roman audience.[1] Various cities have been proposed for the origin of Luke, but there is no consensus on the matter. Ephesus is a popular scholarly choice for the place of origin for the Gospel of John.[1]


[edit] Content of the Gospels
The four gospels present different narratives, reflecting different intents on the parts of their authors.[8]

All four gospels portray Jesus as leading a group of disciples, performing miracles, preaching in Jerusalem, being crucified, and rising from the dead.

The synoptic gospels represent Jesus as an exorcist and healer who preached in parables about the coming Kingdom of God. He preached first in Galilee and later in Jerusalem, where he cleansed the temple. He states that he offers no sign as proof (Mark) or only the sign of Jonah (Matthew and Luke).[9] In Mark, apparently written with a Roman audience in mind, Jesus is a heroic man of action, given to powerful emotions, including agony.[1] In Matthew, apparently written for a Jewish audience, Jesus is repeatedly called out as the fulfillment of Hebrew prophecy.[1] In Luke, apparently written for gentiles, Jesus is especially concerned with the poor.[1] Luke emphasizes the importance of prayer and the action of the Holy Spirit in Jesus' life and in the Christian community.[10] He appears as a stoic supernatural being, unmoved even by his own crucifixion.[8] Luke insists that salvation offered by Christ is for all, and not the Jews only.[10]

The Gospel of John represents Jesus as an incarnation of the eternal Word (Logos), who spoke no parables, talked extensively about himself, and did not explicitly refer to a Second Coming.[1] Jesus preaches in Jerusalem, launching his ministry with the cleansing of the temple.[1] He performs several miracles as signs, most of them not found in the synoptics.

 

Obfuscation. Pure pbfuscation.

Tradition does not make belief true. New truth will come with Christ's return. No doubt about it. We certainly are in desperate need of it.

So I went to the angel and asked him to give me the little scroll. He said to me, "Take it and eat it. It will turn your stomach sour, but in your mouth it will be as sweet as honey." I took the little scroll from the angel's hand and ate it. It tasted as sweet as honey in my mouth, but when I had eaten it, my stomach turned sour. Then I was told, "You must prophesy again about many peoples, nations, languages and kings."

But the new truth won't be all nice and sweet. It seems it will be a hard thing to digest. Who knows? Maybe it will even conflict with traditional views of the bible. Then what? A repeat of history?

What amazes me is the willingness to allow modern scholars to right off the history we have from reliable sources that were much closer to the real event then we.

Why claim,,, they are deceivers but we modern thinkers are not?

What concerns me is,,, if Satan can appear as an angel of light and ancient text say he will be driven back to the earth and the whole world will embrace him,,, except for the true followers of Christ, should we not be careful of where this new truth comes from?

Jesus said that when ( he ) Satan appears,,, he will deceive the whole world, even the elect if that were possible. ( which it is not ) because we have a point of reference to test the spirit to see if it is from God

Why is it the new information more valuable then what the Apostles and Prophets who were much closer to the issue shared? ,,,,sounds dangerous to me,,,,Paul said because people refused to believe the truth God is going to allow them to be deceived,,,,believe the new if you must,,,,but regardless of what modern scholars suggest,,,, I will trust the ancient text.

again thanks for sharing

reply to post by Matrix1111

Rev 10 verse 9 thru 11
So I went to the angel and asked him to give me the little scroll. He said to me, "Take it and eat it. It will turn your stomach sour, but in your mouth it will be as sweet as honey." I took the little scroll from the angel's hand and ate it. It tasted as sweet as honey in my mouth, but when I had eaten it, my stomach turned sour. Then I was told, "You must prophesy again about many peoples, nations, languages and kings."

But the new truth won't be all nice and sweet. It seems it will be a hard thing to digest. Who knows? Maybe it will even conflict with traditional views of the bible. Then what? A repeat of history?

On this issue I believe the rest of Revelation is what this statement is all about,,,,John discloses many woes after that,

Thanks hope this helps clarify a bit.

I think if you really look at all the information these aliens(fallen angels) aren't here to help us. They abduct people and do all kinds of things to them and they also kill cattle and so on. You hear story after story how all they want to do is denounce Jesus Christ. Why would they do that and no other gods ? Because there is only one God !!! And his name is Jesus Christ !!!

Originally posted by CleverPig
You hear story after story how all they want to do is denounce Jesus Christ. Why would they do that and no other gods ? Because there is only one God !!! And his name is Jesus Christ !!!

Links, please? This is the first time I have heard of this. My favorite topic is aliens and ufos as you probably figured it out.