Printable View
@totar relism: Surely Jesus can't be the last prophet when revelation talks about the two prophets in the end times?
In fact, what about Paul's comments:
"Having then gifts differing according to the grace that is given to us, whether prophecy, let us prophesy according to the proportion of faith (Romans 12:6)"
Granted there might be some subtlety that has been lost in translation, I wouldn't know.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gaius Scribonius Curio
true for sure, but given the passages sited i see no reason to take them any other way but literal,in fact what would they mean if not. But i really dont care of talking on mormons and if they are christian anymore,nothing to do with topic.
i care not to talk of mormons anymore, i will say this last. they are completely diffident religion not a different denomination,the rest just shows again your bigotry and not wanting to see the truth of who/what Mormons are.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sigurd
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rhyfelwyr
great point sir,but who are the two witnesses? are they not Moses and Elijah?. They are not new sent, they are old returning. Also surely you would not claim this refers to jospeh smith?.
yes many gift given to some,not new prophet scripture added as mormons have done.
I don't regard Joseph Smith as a prophet. Elijah and Moses are not new as such, although I guess they are still to come - but I guess there's no point arguing this because it really just depends on how you want to define things.Quote:
Originally Posted by total relism
But what about what Paul wrote in Romans 12:6 - does that not indicate that prophecy was a gift that believers were granted, at least in the early (yet post-Resurrection) church?
I think TR realizes that he has been defeated on this issue and is trying to wiggle out of it without losing his position on the high horse.
To put a nail into this issue once and for all:
Now there were in the church that was at Antioch certain prophets and teachers; as Barnabas, and Simeon that was called Niger, and Lucius of Cyrene, and Manaen, which had been brought up with Herod the tetrarch, and Saul.
(Acts 13:1)
And Judas and Silas, being prophets also themselves, exhorted the brethren with many words, and confirmed them.
(Acts 15:23)
And as we tarried there many days, there came down from Judæa a certain prophet, named Agabus. And when he was come unto us, he took Paul’s girdle, and bound his own hands and feet, and said, Thus saith the Holy Ghost, So shall the Jews at Jerusalem bind the man that owneth this girdle, and shall deliver him into the hands of the Gentiles.
(Acts 21:10-11)
Not going to interpret this. Let the Bible speak its literal KJV self.
Thread needs moar Navaros. :sad:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rhyfelwyr
agreed fully, but do you see a differences in a spiritual gift and new scripture being written?. These gifts were taken after apostle age as well. They were there to confirm who was from god or of god/holy spirit in early church. You can have gist of profacy in nt apostle times,without being a prophet.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sigurd
I would say i make distinction from spiritual gift given and new scripture written as josph smith.These gifts were taken after apostle age as well. They were there to confirm who was from god or of god/holy spirit in early church. The fact remains basically jospeh smith/mormons are not christian. That is last post on off topic mormons for me. You can have gist of profacy in nt apostle times,without being a prophet. In fact i gave mutiple bible verse saying jesus was last such as matt 21,jude and duternomy, but here is another.
luke 16.16
heb 1 1-2
b-4
matt 21
jude
deuetrnomy
I believe the general theory for most of the last 1800~ years is that one of the witnesses is Elias and the other Enoch.Quote:
Originally Posted by Rhyfelwyr
Clearly Agabus was not just confirming what was from God and what was not.. He gave a specific prophecy about what would happen to Paul.Quote:
Originally Posted by total relism
The Bible name them prophets. All after Christ's death. I am not even interpreting these scriptures. You said Jesus was the last prophet. Yet the Bible name several people prophets in Acts.. the book written about the time after Christ's ministry. And it is you who keep bringing in Mormons here... I didn't even mention them in my last post.
Does the Bible name these men as prophets or not?
Oh c'mon, it aint no fair to bring logicalz inta a godheads talkin!Quote:
Originally Posted by Sigurd
Pipe down - without us there'd be no priests' daughters.Quote:
Originally Posted by Kadagar_AV
So be quiet and grateful.
~;)
As much as I like the intention of what you say... I am for a world where girls sexuality wouldn't have to be stigmatised by their upbringing.Quote:
Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla
The christian church view on sex create more problems than they solve, imho.
Oh mY God !! Why you Think Catholicism Is The Main Christianity ?!?! Catholicism was made by some selfish priests & & Cardinals & popes in 500 AD !!
We Have a better Christianity like Protestanism & Armenian Orthodox and the extincted ARYAN CHRISTIANITY !! They Believe that Jesus was a great person sent by god ! simply like Gandhi & Mother Teresa & ..... !! How a Wise man can accept that Jesus is GOD ?!? and Their power equal ?!! but they created Laws and som nonsense shits about Christianity (like that Priests & Nuns Never should marry!!)
Everything Good that would go to Europe & Western, would be Preversed & Corrupted in Those Times(Specially Ancient Rome & Greece), Even Christianity !! (and even Mithrayism!!)
It would help if you quote the post you object to. I can't see that any of us have promoted Catholicism as the main Christian faith.Quote:
Originally Posted by Empire Of Kurdistan-Medya
That's absurd.Quote:
Originally Posted by Empire Of Kurdistan-Medya
Isn't it the largest denomination, in terms of numbers of believers?Quote:
Originally Posted by Sigurd
Maybe so, I guess it's just speculation though. Maybe I've been lazy in just going along with the Evangelical trend of thinking it is Elijah and Moses - come to mention it I've no idea why we set on those two.Quote:
Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla
I thought your claim was that Jesus was the last prophet of any sort - rather than anything relating in particular to scripture.Quote:
Originally Posted by total relism
Elijah and Enoch are the only Prophets recorded as ascending to heaven alive. Most theologians agree that Moses died, although it is euphemistically stated, because no other fate is recorded for him. Enoch was carried up in a whirlwind and Elijah rode a chariot of fire into heaven.Quote:
Originally Posted by Rhyfelwyr
In traditional Christian theology, Moses would have been in Hell, possibly still is.
Doesn't it only say that Elijah went to heaven (and even then there could be some subtlety lost in translation, since Jesus says no man has ascended to heaven)? We are not told where Enoch went. Still, you may well be right it could be those two - maybe we'll find out at the time!Quote:
Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla
What sort of traditional Christian theologian says this?!Quote:
Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla
I'm pretty sure the standard Protestant respose is that the Old Testament saints were saved by faith in Jesus the same way Christians have been since the Resurrection.
And I'm not sure but I think Catholics say that Moses etc went to heaven after the Resurrection, having been in purgatory or Abraham's Bosom or whatever beforehand.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sigurd
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rhyfelwyr
as i said b-4 i make distinction, it was my fault falsely assuming others had my starting meaning of word so my bad. When i think of prophets i think who is of god who is not, Muhammad, jospeh smith etc that was what brought us on this talk. When i think prophet, i think adding scripture, not a early spiritual gift given to true believers [no longer] for a short time proving the work of god/holy spirit in nt times. Bible is done,no more prophets adding scripture, revaluations was last.
matt 17 1-11Quote:
Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla
hebrews 11 23-29
In the Catholic Medieval theology (so that's the first 1500 years) the Jewish prophets were in Hell, though possibly without torment, until Jesus freed them when he himself entered Hell.Quote:
Originally Posted by Rhyfelwyr
The Protestant response - method of saving aside - would need to be the same. Nobody gets into heaven (dead) until after Christ's Death.
Now - the "possibly still is" comes from the fact that certain Christian sects interpret entry into heaven as only coming after the Apocalypse -in which case everyone who dies is currently in some kind of Limbo, in Hell, because there's nowhere else to go.
Which is quite aligned to Rhyf's belief in Abraham's bosom. The spirits in prison/paradise.Quote:
Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla
But you have the canonical claim that Elijah and Moses appeared to Peter, James and John on the mount of transfiguration as TR referenced in his last post. This was before Christ's death. Now if Moses couldn't be released from Hell/Paradise before Christ's death, then you must assume that he didn't die, like Elijah and Enoch.
About Enoch: Genesis 5:24 claim that God took him.
The LDS faith (sorry TR) claim that Enoch with his entire city of Zion was taken from the earth and will at a future day return with all its citizens. Not entirely baseless as you will find references for this in the Apocrypha (2 Baruch , Apocryphon of John).
Jude in the New Testament quotes Enoch..
It was to them that Enoch, the seventh in descent from Adam, directed his prophecy when he said: 'I saw the Lord come with his myriads of angels, to bring all men to judgement and to convict all the godless of all the godless deeds they had committed, and of all the defiant words which godless sinners had spoken against him.'
(Jude:14-15)
The book (Book of Enoch?) this quote is from, is lost. A missing scripture that was quote-worthy in the early church.
[/B]Quote:
Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla
All inhabitants of the earth will worship the beast—all whose names have not been written in the Lamb’s book of life, the Lamb who was slain from the creation of the world.
revaluations 13.8
There's the book of revaluations again. Can anyone explain to me what its central tenet is, and how it affects the themes of Christianity?Quote:
Originally Posted by total relism
It's actually really interesting when you read it in it's literary context (Classical literature and dream-visions).Quote:
Originally Posted by Pannonian
The most interesting thing is that John describes everything in two dimensions, rather than three, which implies he's recounting images he's seen rather than events he's "experienced" for lack of a better word.
Basically though - the world is going to end now that Christ is dead, and then God will decide who goes to heaven and who doesn't. The rest is window dressing.
It is interesting to read a first person account (kinda sorta) of what happens when god stops caring about human free will and decides to clean the slate.
You know, in the narritive of the bible, I wonder if god did that sort of thing every time he did a do-over, and Noah just missed it.
Unless its about what humans will "freely create"; liberated by Christ yet refusing to follow the path of peace.
That's the Book of Revelations, isn't it? I'm wondering what the Book of Revaluations describes, and what its literary, cultural and historical context is. Perhaps it was written after a particularly bad bout of inflation during the late Roman empire, and the government wanted to enlist the church's help in propagating a new currency standard by finding support for it in the bible.Quote:
Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla
In that context, the lamb in total relism's quote could refer to the old debased currency that was increasingly adulterated with base metals and was thus purged from the economy ("slain from the creation of the world"), and the beast whom all inhabitants of the earth shall worship could refer to the brand spanking new currency.Quote:
Originally Posted by total relism
I expect that what you consider to be 'free will' is really no freedom at all.Quote:
Originally Posted by Greyblades
If I'm not mistaken, it was written by Marcus Aurelius's accountant after he came across some mushrooms during the conquest of the Germanic tribes.Quote:
Originally Posted by Pannonian
What is free will?
Is it the ability to choose without influence of an outside agency?
The ability to choose without a predetermined outcome based on fixed internal rules?
Is free will an illusion or does a RNG break the first order illusion to replace it with a second order one?
Free Will is arguably the internal decision created in the mind. However, there are many external influences which can affect the internal judgement, such as social constructions: conformity, authority, etc artificial inducers: drugs (medicine and illegal), shock therapy.
So one could hypothetical argue that whilst we have Free Will, people would choose free tasty cookies over the contents of a public toilet. So the feedback from the decisions created by free will are statistically measurable and thus, could be altered for you to produce a more desired outcome, such as replacing the public toilet option for £20.
Hey, don't judge me, I'm only parroting what they teach me.Quote:
Originally Posted by Rhyfelwyr
"Mr priest why doesn't god stop people from being bad"
"Why my son, it's because god loves us and doesn't want to infringe on our free will."
"Oh, but why does god make the pharaoh harden his heart when he's asked to free the jews?"
"Just shut up and drink your communion wine already kid, you're holding up the line."
I remember that one. It was the companion piece to Meditations, titled Hallucinations.Quote:
Originally Posted by drone
How did God plan the free will, together with the brain altering parasites that has infected roughly 50% of the human population?Quote:
Originally Posted by Tiaexz
In religion, free will is the ability to choose evil over good. "I give unto you a commandment, but you may act according to your own conscience". Free will does however not exempt from any consequences.Quote:
Originally Posted by Papewaio
Well you couldn't be held responsible without free will.
But you can be held responsible for imperfect knowledge?
If you have some sort of internet connection, in many situations.... YES!Quote:
Originally Posted by HopAlongBunny
Married? I'm pretty sure saying "I didn't know" is a winning position with the wife...Quote:
Originally Posted by HopAlongBunny
It just strikes me as ironic to have a "perfect" god, create imperfect beings, and then threaten to burn them in Hell for imperfections built into them.
Hmmm, not ironic i guess: cruel/sadistic perhaps.
When I first found out about that parasite I had nightmares (I was about 15 at the time).Quote:
Originally Posted by Kadagar_AV
Quote:
Originally Posted by HopAlongBunny
that is islam, this thread is suppose to be bible. Read op for biblical answer.
read opQuote:
Originally Posted by Kadagar_AV
total relism's MO:Quote:
Originally Posted by total relism
1. Unable to answer question?
2. "read op".
“Free will does however not exempt from any consequences.” Ah, the same free will that have the abused women at home. “But darling, I don’t want to beat you up. I love you. But you force me to beat you up because you don’t do as you are told, you don’t freely obey the Rules I imposed so I am obliged to beat you up… And you love me too, or I will take care of the second eye...”
Jesus doesn't beat women... couldn't resist.Quote:
Originally Posted by Brenus
But yeah, men are free to beat up women if that's their fantasy. Consequences for such is not.
It is the religious answer to free will. You are free to choose damnation and likewise choose liberation. But the small writing says damnation is default unless you utter "Jesus is Lord" (Christianity).
Even the most pious person, the most innocent infant is damned by default without Jesus. This is my understanding of Christian salvation. But according to Calvinism you are predestined to damnation whether you choose it or not. Likewise those predestined to salvation. Its a rigged system.
Pannonian MOQuote:
Originally Posted by Pannonian
1] dont read op, than post on thread
2 objection answered on op so ignore.
I have to honest, I prefer Supernatural (TV shows) approach to it all. It is basically a parallel universe where mythology, legends and religion are all true.
i prefer there be no god and i decide truth and what i want to be true,were party and adultery are good things. That is utill the day b-4 i die, than i want their to be haven with me included no matter what.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tiaexz
What's wrong with partying?
Same question. And with adultery if partners are willing?
They pray to a wine creating deity who even feasts when he's about to get killed, so I guess there can't be much wrong with partying according to their religion...Quote:
Originally Posted by Hax
That's easy - when you get married you promise not to commit adultery.Quote:
Originally Posted by Brenus
Want to have lots of sexual partners?
Don't get married.
Want to get married?
Don't complain.
Isn't sex before marriage against Christian beliefs?Quote:
Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla
So is killing - but the Templars did a lot of killing keeping the roads open in the Holy land (and not just Muslims).Quote:
Originally Posted by Moros
Adultery is a far worse sin than "fornication". The Former involves one person breaking an oath, which is one of the greatest sins for a Christian, and it harms the cuckold despite them having done nothing wrong. Adultery also often leads to violence, family breakup, not uncommonly people are injured or murdered, sometimes the children also.
The issue around sex is something that has bothered the clergy but it honestly wasn't a big deal until the Renaissance.
Read Dante's Inferno, see where "lust" is in Hell as compared to betrayal.
"That's easy - when you get married you promise not to commit adultery." Only in the Religious ones. The Laic one, you promise to rise yours kids and to help each others (well, if I remember well, as it was a long time ago).
My guess you are not married... :sneaky:Quote:
Originally Posted by Brenus
It's not because the Scandinavians forgot how to oppress women, everybody else did. ~;)Quote:
Originally Posted by Sigurd
Twice...~;)
Well, technically its believed the proper translation of the original text was "thou shalt murder" not "thou shalt not kill."Quote:
Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla