(To christians... ) So.... just hypothetically....what if Jesus returns... (Serious responses only p

reply to post by sk0rpi0n

None of Christs sheep will be taking up arms to fight a Jihad.

Yet, Christs followers have been depicted being involved in a fight against the beasts armies.
Revelations 17:14 says Jesus will call his people....during his battle with the beasts armies.

In as much however, Christ in Matthew 24:23 does warn us of this gorilla leader pseudo-Jesus the op writes about reading, "Then if any man shall say unto you, Lo, here is Christ, or there; believe it not. For there shall arise false Christs, and false prophets, and shall shew great signs and wonders; insomuch that, if it were possible, they shall deceive the very elect. Behold, I have told you before. "

How to react? Don't believe it, it isn't Christ.

My threads idea is that Jesus returns secretly and completes his mission of killing the anti-christ.
Nobody would be saying "Lo, here is Christ, or there".

So Jesus returning to fight among the ONLY other believers, apart from Christians NOT too far fetched.

Originally posted by sk0rpi0n
reply to post by sk0rpi0n

 

None of Christs sheep will be taking up arms to fight a Jihad.

Yet, Christs followers have been depicted being involved in a fight against the beasts armies.

Revelations 17:14 says Jesus will call his people....during his battle with the beasts armies.

I didn't agree with your private interpretation of that verse the last time you argued the point. What you're saying isn't true based on corresponding text that dictates another truth far different than what you think the one verse says. Nevertheless, perhaps we may have to simply agree to disagree.

In as much however, Christ in Matthew 24:23 does warn us of this gorilla leader pseudo-Jesus the op writes about reading, "Then if any man shall say unto you, Lo, here is Christ, or there; believe it not. For there shall arise false Christs, and false prophets, and shall shew great signs and wonders; insomuch that, if it were possible, they shall deceive the very elect. Behold, I have told you before. "

How to react? Don't believe it, it isn't Christ.

My threads idea is that Jesus returns secretly and completes his mission of killing the anti-christ.
Nobody would be saying "Lo, here is Christ, or there".

So Jesus returning to fight among the ONLY other believers, apart from Christians NOT too far fetched.

edit on 19-3-2012 by sk0rpi0n because: (no reason given)

edit on 19-3-2012 by sk0rpi0n because: (no reason given)

If we are speaking of Jesus of Nazareth, the Christ of God who died for our sins and three days later rose from the grave then yes one is being far fetched because not only has one refused words from Christ speaking of false christs in the given days and times but one has also created a scenario entirely contradictory to said Christ's very teachings. God is not man to fight as we do. Who can stand against God?

Either we believe Christ and what and how he says it will be or we are no longer talking about the same Jesus.

Swords don't work well against bullets. I am locked and loaded!

reply to post by HeFrippedMeOff


Im speaking of the Jesus, born of a virgin... who will return to kill the anti-christ.

reply to post by sk0rpi0n


Wouldn't tell anybody to show the world they have it wrong lol.

Originally posted by sk0rpi0n
reply to post by HeFrippedMeOff

 

Im speaking of the Jesus, born of a virgin... who will return to kill the anti-christ.

You mean Jesus who, when that Wicked be revealed, shall consume him with the spirit of his mouth, and shall destroy with the brightness of his coming? (2 Thessalonians 2:8-9)

That Jesus? or the unbiblical secret coming Che Guevara type Jesus that bands up with his Christians to fight like mere men?

reply to post by HeFrippedMeOff

You mean Jesus who, when that Wicked be revealed . . .

The wickedness was revealed back when the second letter to the Thessalonians was forged.
The evil is taking the mild Jesus and turning him into a mass murderer.
Same goes for the forgeries of 2 Peter and Jude.
Throw in the Babylonian book of Revelation while at it.
What we have is the New Testament, and the anti-new testament thrown into a single binding.
People who follow the false books follow the anti-christ and the evil god, aka Satan.

Originally posted by jmdewey60
reply to post by HeFrippedMeOff

 

You mean Jesus who, when that Wicked be revealed . . .

The wickedness was revealed back when the second letter to the Thessalonians was forged.
The evil is taking the mild Jesus and turning him into a mass murderer.
Same goes for the forgeries of 2 Peter and Jude.
Throw in the Babylonian book of Revelation while at it.
What we have is the New Testament, and the anti-new testament thrown into a single binding.
People who follow the false books follow the anti-christ and the evil god, aka Satan.

I and others have already addressed the entire Thessalonians thing from the proposed date of penning to one saying the other is fake in a whole other thread so as I and Skorpion did, so too must you and I agree to disagree. For me personally, the message of love, salvation, and escaping God's judgment held within scripture speaks for itself and to each letters authenticity in inspiration.

reply to post by Mykahel

. Neither Jews nor Muslims would declare Jesus as God and therefor have a VERY FUNDAMENTAL difference in their understandings of God.

They both understand God as one and do not believe in the trinity.
So it is the christians who have a different understanding of God.

Muslims deny Jesus was God in the flesh and teach that he was only a prophet (although they revere him as a great prophet). In this way they are similar to Jews in their view of God, but the Jews vehemently deny Jesus and Mohammad as being prophets of God.

Muslims accept Jesus as the messiah who will return to slay the anti-christ.
This is the part thats either ignored or misquoted by christian preachers... who try to conceal the truth.

Allah was not considered the only deity but was one of many and was believed to have been the creator god as well as the one who sent the rain. some consider him to have been a tribal god. His symbol was the crescent moon, and after Mohammad finished his campaign and took over Mecca, Allah became the chief deity with all others being removed from Mecca. Of course the new religion also kept the previous name and symbol for their god, and declared that it was the same god that the Jews and Christians worshiped.

The fundamentalists who propagate such lies have obviously not read the Koran.

Look up the Koran and you will see that Allah does the following....
- creates the universe in 6 days
- banished Adam and Eve from the garden
- Guided Noah in building the ark
- Chose Abraham, prevented him from killing his son
- Saved Lot and destroyed Sodom
- Gave the law to Moses
- Punished the pharoah-
- Sent Jesus to the womb of Mary

Here's a whole wiki page

Anybody who still insists that Allah is a different God from the God of the bible is simply in denial.

reply to post by HeFrippedMeOff

. . . so too must you and I agree to disagree.

You choose to not present a contradictory argument and I agree that I am ok with you not wanting to defend your position.
That being said, I feel no restraint on my part from lodging my objections whenever the opportunity arises, where the anti-christ is being promoted using forged letters of Satan.
To me, quoting from letters like 2 Thessalonians is no more authoritative than, for example, quoting the Book of Enoch.

reply to post by HeFrippedMeOff

If we are speaking of Jesus of Nazareth, the Christ of God who died for our sins and three days later rose from the grave then yes one is being far fetched because not only has one refused words from Christ speaking of false christs in the given days and times but one has also created a scenario entirely contradictory to said Christ's very teachings. God is not man to fight as we do. Who can stand against God?

Either we believe Christ and what and how he says it will be or we are no longer talking about the same Jesus.

Interesting that you bring this up, I am sure this knowledge has been posted before?
I am aware of what it says....
"And in the sixth month the angel Gabriel was sent from God unto a CITY of Galilee, named Nazareth, To a virgin espoused to a man whose name was Joseph, of the house of David; and the virgin’s name was Mary." (Luke1.26,27)
Nazareth is not mentioned once in the entire Old Testament.
The Book of Joshua (19.10,16) – in what it claims is the process of settlement by the Tribe of Zebulon in the area – records twelve towns and six villages and yet omits any 'Nazareth' from its list.
The Talmud, although it names 63 Galilean towns, knows nothing of Nazareth, nor does any other early rabbinic literature that I am aware of. No Ancient historian or geographer mentions Nazareth. It is first noted at the beginning of the 4th century.
Even though Christians will say this is a lie, the truth is, Nazareth did not exist in the time of Jesus.

Can you show me proof that Jesus is the son of a God, and who this God is, exactly? The Gods of the Bible are many, and most are Tribal Gods. The True Creator/ess does not bear human children, but is the Father and Mother of us all. No one can claim Divine Right like in the Ancient Times. Secondly, we have to delineate between the various men named Jesus in those times.
Josephus, whom most Christians say wrote about Jesus, mentions no fewer than nineteen different Yeshuas/Jesii in his writings. Some of these are:
Jesus ben Phiabi
Jesus ben Sec
Jesus ben Damneus
Jesus ben Gamaliel
Jesus ben Sirach
Jesus ben Pandira
Jesus ben Ananias
See all of the Virgin Born, Crucified Saviors here:
The World's Sixteen Crucified Saviors
Not a single one of these men ever said they were a God.

Originally posted by jmdewey60
reply to post by HeFrippedMeOff

 

. . . so too must you and I agree to disagree.

You choose to not present a contradictory argument and I agree that I am ok with you not wanting to defend your position.
That being said, I feel no restraint on my part from lodging my objections whenever the opportunity arises, where the anti-christ is being promoted using forged letters of Satan.
To me, quoting from letters like 2 Thessalonians is no more authoritative than, for example, quoting the Book of Enoch.

edit on 20-3-2012 by jmdewey60 because: (no reason given)

The contradictory argument was made in the proper thread. There is nothing anti-Christ about any of those books you listed or perhaps in another thread you would care to quote scripture in context where you feel the infringement upon Christ, God's love toward us, and salvation in Jesus name is concerned in any of the letters to the Churches or elsewhere.

Nevertheless, to each his own but being the resident ATS Thessalonian Troll isn't necessary or helpful when your claims have been refuted. I understand you will continue your unruly hostility regardless of the truth contained in the words themselves, i will not stop you, but the Word testifies of itself to anyone who would seek it out. I'm not concerned about the authenticity and I, like you, will continue to share Christ and his return which is the Gospel.

Happy hunting

reply to post by autowrench


"ATTENTION: The scholarship of Kersey Graves has been questioned by numerous theists and nontheists alike; the inclusion of his The World's Sixteen Crucified Saviors in the Secular Web's Historical Library does not constitute endorsement by Internet Infidels, Inc. This document was included for historical purposes; readers should be extremely cautious in trusting anything in this book. " -www.infidels.org...

There's a lot there to read though I will likely try and get through some of it and double check it with other sources, but that's the kind of thing that will take a great amount of time, something I don't actually have too much of atm with my other responsibilities/engagements. Just thought I'd point that out though.

reply to post by HeFrippedMeOff


Excuse me but what would be a more appropriate thread to bring this up, than one on the return of Jesus, since the whole little scenario is dependent on 2 Thessalonians, where without it, the whole scheme falls on its face?

Originally posted by autowrench
reply to post by HeFrippedMeOff

 

If we are speaking of Jesus of Nazareth, the Christ of God who died for our sins and three days later rose from the grave then yes one is being far fetched because not only has one refused words from Christ speaking of false christs in the given days and times but one has also created a scenario entirely contradictory to said Christ's very teachings. God is not man to fight as we do. Who can stand against God?

Either we believe Christ and what and how he says it will be or we are no longer talking about the same Jesus.

Interesting that you bring this up, I am sure this knowledge has been posted before?
I am aware of what it says....
"And in the sixth month the angel Gabriel was sent from God unto a CITY of Galilee, named Nazareth, To a virgin espoused to a man whose name was Joseph, of the house of David; and the virgin’s name was Mary." (Luke1.26,27)
Nazareth is not mentioned once in the entire Old Testament.
The Book of Joshua (19.10,16) – in what it claims is the process of settlement by the Tribe of Zebulon in the area – records twelve towns and six villages and yet omits any 'Nazareth' from its list.
The Talmud, although it names 63 Galilean towns, knows nothing of Nazareth, nor does any other early rabbinic literature that I am aware of. No Ancient historian or geographer mentions Nazareth. It is first noted at the beginning of the 4th century.
Even though Christians will say this is a lie, the truth is, Nazareth did not exist in the time of Jesus.

Can you show me proof that Jesus is the son of a God, and who this God is, exactly? The Gods of the Bible are many, and most are Tribal Gods. The True Creator/ess does not bear human children, but is the Father and Mother of us all. No one can claim Divine Right like in the Ancient Times. Secondly, we have to delineate between the various men named Jesus in those times.
Josephus, whom most Christians say wrote about Jesus, mentions no fewer than nineteen different Yeshuas/Jesii in his writings. Some of these are:
Jesus ben Phiabi
Jesus ben Sec
Jesus ben Damneus
Jesus ben Gamaliel
Jesus ben Sirach
Jesus ben Pandira
Jesus ben Ananias
See all of the Virgin Born, Crucified Saviors here:
The World's Sixteen Crucified Saviors
Not a single one of these men ever said they were a God.

So your problem with all that I said was with "of Nazereth," even though we all know that the title is simply one of many monikers and then you criticize me for needing to delineate which Jesus I'm talking about? Mercy

Can you show me proof that Jesus isn't the son of a God, who is Love, and showed us His love through giving us His son to die for our sins on the cross raising him to new life after 3 days? Gamaliel said it himself, kill Jesus and his followers will disband just as all the other christs and their followers have done throughout all history. Jesus disciples however, did not disband. They sacrificed their lives and belongings for who, a dead man? Truth is, Christ is alive and is the only exception in all history but perhaps you don't see the historical relevance of the acts of Jesus and his followers or the logic behind those acts as proof that Christ is risen. It is, however, physical proof enough for me but is not how I came to faith.

As per many Gods in the Bible, I'm not sure from which version, translation, or interpretation you draw your inspiration from but in the KJV it is abundantly clear God is one and Jesus is Son unless you speak of the
Trinity as being many, or little g gods/lords who merely represent one being who possesses power over another but neither of these changes the truth of the matter. How is it one criticizes claiming God doesn't bear children and then immediately says He is Father of us all?... even though He is despite many rejecting Him

The truth is the truth. The way is broad that leads to destruction but straight is the way and narrow is the gate that leadeth unto eternal life. There is but One God and one sacrifice, one exception, has He given us through Jesus Christ our Lord. Divinity is God's and glory is His alone to impute unto the Lamb.

reply to post by Mykahel

I first heard and read about the 16 here: jesusneverexisted.com...
Most of these listed "Saviors" can in fact be researched and read about. The curious thing is, we can find nothing about the man Christians worship as God, save the NT, and it's authorship is very questionable. Read here:
Martyrs to the Cause: Those "Suffering Disciples"
Most "Gospel" stories stem from the "Q" Document.

The document he was discussing is a reconstructed Greek text (with an immense scholarly apparatus) of "Q," as biblical scholars have named a hypothetical first-century work composed mostly of sayings of Jesus. The first installment was published last spring by the Belgian firm Peeters under the series title Documenta Q. Many scholars believe that Q served as a literary source ("Q" is short for Quelle, the German word for "source") for the Gospels of Matthew and Luke, which contain numerous parallel passages. Other scholars believe it never existed -- there are no manuscripts of Q or references to it in ancient literature. Contained in Q, or at least in the parallel passages of Matthew and Luke for which Q is the hypothetical source, are many of the teachings of Jesus that Christians placed near the heart of their faith: the Lord's Prayer, the Sermon on the Mount, the Beatitudes, the Golden Rule, and the famous admonition "You cannot serve God and Mammon." It would therefore seem at first glance as though Q were a thoroughly Christian text, not the threat to Christianity that Mack describes. Believing that something like Q might have existed does not in itself entail a rejection of Christianity. Indeed, many scholars who are Christian believers endorse the Q hypothesis.

Source

Indisputable errors and contradictions in the Crucifixion and Resurrection Accounts!

Why would they martyr themselves for a false belief?

Originally posted by jmdewey60
reply to post by HeFrippedMeOff

 

Excuse me but what would be a more appropriate thread to bring this up, than one on the return of Jesus, since the whole little scenario is dependent on 2 Thessalonians, where without it, the whole scheme falls on its face?

Scripture of the marriage feast, parables of the return of the master, parables of the wise virgins, all of revelation (most notably Thyatira), Jesus himself speaking of his return as being like a thief in the night although we are not of darkness and he will not have us overtaken but will know when the time gets here, Jesus saying that when he returns he would to find us in faith, returning like the flash of a bolt of lightning from the east to the west....etc etc etc. His return is the Gospel, the good news and it is everywhere in scripture not just in Thessalonians wherein you still haven't provided a scriptural basis for claiming one proclaims the other a fake.

Harpazzo falls flat on it's face? I think not

reply to post by HeFrippedMeOff

Scripture of the marriage feast,

The wedding? Think of David as an example of this concept. David goes to the front line between the Israelites and the Philistines, he sees Goliath blaspheming The Lord, asks why no one does anything about it, apparently people are afraid to fight him. David asks the king if he could fight him, "and by the way, if I do kill him, does that mean I can marry your daughter?" To the victor goes the spoil. That's what that means, despite all these fancy interpretations to Christianize Revelation.

parables of the return of the master, parables of the wise virgins, all of revelation (most notably Thyatira), Jesus himself speaking of his return as being like a thief in the night although we are not of darkness and he will not have us overtaken but will know when the time gets here, Jesus saying that when he returns he would to find us in faith, returning like the flash of a bolt of lightning from the east to the west....etc etc etc.

Those are every one of them the pronouncement of doom on the rulers of the temple and its cult in Jerusalem, and was fulfilled by what we now know was to come with its destruction by the Romans in 70 AD.

His return is the Gospel, the good news and it is everywhere in scripture not just in Thessalonians wherein you still haven't provided a scriptural basis for claiming one proclaims the other a fake.

Jesus preached the Gospel of the Kingdom of God appearing in the person of himself, and he was the visitation of The Lord prophesied in former times, and again by the contemporary prophet, John the Baptist.

Harpazzo falls flat on it's face? I think not

It does, and the word itself usually has a connotation of judgment and destruction of the one who is being harpazzo'ed.

Originally posted by jmdewey60
reply to post by HeFrippedMeOff

 

Scripture of the marriage feast,

The wedding? Think of David as an example of this concept. David goes to the front line between the Israelites and the Philistines, he sees Goliath blaspheming The Lord, asks why no one does anything about it, apparently people are afraid to fight him. David asks the king if he could fight him, "and by the way, if I do kill him, does that mean I can marry your daughter?" To the victor goes the spoil. That's what that means, despite all these fancy interpretations to Christianize Revelation.

How about we think of Christ and what he means when He is teaching about his future return, and those who will live with him in the new Jerusalem/Bride. By the way, the parable of the marriage feast is in the Gospels although it does speak directly to the Revelation of Jesus. He goes to prepare a place for us, and if he goes to prepare a place for us, he is coming again to receive us unto himself (also direct words of Jesus). Stop being so hung up on the religious label of Christianity and see Christ and his teachings for what they are on their own merit. This isn't religious opinion or "accepted without reason" dogma we are discussing here. This is the Word speaking to us in the Flesh.

parables of the return of the master, parables of the wise virgins, all of revelation (most notably Thyatira), Jesus himself speaking of his return as being like a thief in the night although we are not of darkness and he will not have us overtaken but will know when the time gets here, Jesus saying that when he returns he would to find us in faith, returning like the flash of a bolt of lightning from the east to the west....etc etc etc.

Those are every one of them the pronouncement of doom on the rulers of the temple and its cult in Jerusalem, and was fulfilled by what we now know was to come with its destruction by the Romans in 70 AD.

You are mistaken about those, every one of those. Yes, judgment exists in them all but so too does salvation and redemption and all regard the return of the One who owns it all. The particular parable of the master who returns after the caretakers murder his son is a testament to the authenticity of the message of Gods wrath to come in Revelation but corroboration seems to mean nothing to you. Too, Jesus told us he will not have us see God's wrath, those being the ones who were looking for him when he comes because many come out of great tribulation but again, what does corroborative scripture mean to those who don't accept the Spirit contained within the Word?

His return is the Gospel, the good news and it is everywhere in scripture not just in Thessalonians wherein you still haven't provided a scriptural basis for claiming one proclaims the other a fake.

Jesus preached the Gospel of the Kingdom of God appearing in the person of himself, and he was the visitation of The Lord prophesied in former times, and again by the contemporary prophet, John the Baptist.

The good news is that He is come, and not dead, and he is coming again. We don't have to be slaves to this world or the vanity. We have hope. Don't you see?

Harpazzo falls flat on it's face? I think not

It does, and the word itself usually has a connotation of judgment and destruction of the one who is being harpazzo'ed.

edit on 20-3-2012 by jmdewey60 because: (no reason given)

We shall shed this corruptible mortality and be clothed with immortality. This life is vain and too our our lusts and desires for the material things of this world. Life is so much more than what we now know in the flesh. There is much evidence to the harpazzo if you would but see. Nevertheless, it is a special gift for those who are looking and long for it but is not the culmination of the entire population that will be saved.

reply to post by HeFrippedMeOff

The particular parable of the master who returns after the caretakers murder his son is a testament to the authenticity of the message of Gods wrath to come in Revelation but corroboration seems to mean nothing to you.

It would mean something to me if it was in fact corroboration. It isn't. What you are doing is taking two very dissimilar things and saying one proves the other because they both have some elements in them that can be associated with the concept of judgment.
The "wrath to come" is today the wrath that came, which was on the temple cult in Jerusalem and its leaders, the very people who had Jesus crucified. Revelation is a very odd book of unknown origin but internal evidence points to an Eastern religious tradition outside of Christianity and Judaism but only colored on the surface with Hebrewisms and the name of Jesus tacked onto the beginning and the end.