I personally think some of the comments on this site can get pretty ridiculous at times, more importantly, they can utterly obliterate an otherwise important message. However, you know what is said about opinions and how they are like a particular body part (everybody’s got one, and they all stink). The thing I have seen that truly ruins credibility is when atheists/agnostics/whatever pontificate about the Bible, yet they don’t believe in it in the first place.
Comments (193)
sorted by:
I completely disagree.
For example, I grew up in church, went my entire life until a few years ago.
And I studied HARDCORE when it came to eschatology. I could literally write books. I have a very firm grasp of every position held, from the Tim Layhaye brand of pre-trib rapture, to mid and post trib rapture, to preterism, the list goes on.
After studying my entire life, and finding major faults and contradictions with most versions of eschatology, I started to study historical spiritual symbolism.
Then everything clicked into place. Suddenly, all the symbolism unlocked the spiritual truths, vs the literal insanity that is preached at the pulpit.
So, that said, I dont believe in the bible in the traditional sense. I believe it in a spiritually significant sense.
But.... because I went through the gamut of study, I fully understand the current insanity as it is attributed to the bible. And I also understand WHY it is happening this way, despite my personal beliefs. I wont get into WHY, because I dont want to offend frens here, as this is a sensitive topic.
Actually, there are TWO potential WHYS. And one is benign, and the other is not.
So, I am really hoping "Timeline A" is the actual reason why this is happening the way it is, and not "Timeline B" so to speak.
Among other things, the symbols reveal a cycle that repeats due to ignorance of the meaning behind the symbols. Updoot
Updooted
Double updooted
:)
Haha was just about to tag you. Figured you would enjoy the comment lol
DootFest !
Tippy Top Kek
Kek
✨Throw your doots in the air like you just don't care ✨
Shadilay~
Such is life.
Oh come on don't tease us fren 😂🤣 what's your theory. How do you see revelation playing out. Please expand on your comment
Yes please
When you know their playbook, and they want to play it out literally...
Yup, replacing the spiritual with the physical is the part Christians miss.
Babylon is not a physical city, it is a spiritual reality.
Corrrect
Could evil be trying to fullfil prophecy and really be tricking many of the Christians because they begin looking for the typical understanding of revelation(pre trib, post trib ect) and miss out on the work God is actually doing.
Ding ding ding....
Winner chicken dinner...
'Self fulfilling prophecy'
Funny enough I was just talking to some church members about this. Planting seeds. One of them did kinda laugh it off. It does make sense for Satan to try to fullfil prophecy based of wrong understanding humans have. Then they become easier to control and manipulate. Take for instance this...if any like trump brings peace to middle east by eliminating the cabal, many Christians are gonna claim he is the anti Christ because of the common understanding of things. I think trump will counter this though by giving glory to God. I think him and Q team know who is truly in charge and running things. Every knee will bow
Back to my discussion with church members though. It was a decent conversation. They know I have a heart for Jesus so they do allow me to freely speak my mind. I am someone that isn't afraid to speak a narrative that goes against the grain. I meet with my pastor every week and have been planting some seeds. God has been guiding me through it so I don't get to deep to quick. It's been truly awesome to watch Jesus working in my pastor
Good thoughts. On the right track, IMHO.
Remember what Q said...
Does Satan exist?
Does the THOUGHT of Satan exist?
This is a self answering question.
The answer is no.
Because Satan is an alternate name for Saturn.
Everything for the ancients is based on the sky and the human body. That's all they (thought) they knew.
Satan aka Saturn isn't a being. It's a state of mind.
The black cube.
But the new Jerusalem is the clear cube.
It's blackened thought, vs, clearness of mind.
Connection with lower states of awareness, vs higher.
Such symbolism, but it's beautiful when you understand history and the way they thought.
Because, were still humans, and think the same way... Separated by thousands of years.
Nutshell it's this;
NPC vs. Awake
This sounds like new age philosophy to me.🤷♀️
When Jesus was in the desert being tempted by Satan...was that Saturn?
To me that blows that whole narrative out of the water.
That's if you discount all the other Biblical references to Satan as a real entity, not just a state of mind
I see it in a very similar way :) It got to point where it was information overload and I asked the Lord what is the truth in all this. And what I got was something different than expected. We keep falling into these generational curses and that can change if we are willing to humble our hearts and and lean on the Lord rather than our own understanding. I’m still seeking and things are unfolding day by day. It’s been a wild ride haha.
The information overload is that everything in Revelation is based on OT Prophecy. It's not for us to speculate, but to find the connection.
And the main theme is Faithfulness through difficulty: "she that endures to the end shall be Saved."
satan doesn't want anyone hearing that, and our flesh is entirely too eager to agree with him:
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=QWNh1IyFdvM&pp=ygUncGV0cmEgZG9uJ3QgbGV0IHlvdXIgaGVhcnQgYmUgaGFyZGVuZWQg
I agree, it won’t be easy. But the point I am coming from is that the 1rst coming of Jesus was also OT prophecy, and everyone still got it wrong of how it actually happened. They expected a warrior, a champion, and some dug their heels in and refused to let go of their own understanding and missed what was right in front of them. There are major truths in revelation that yes, we can’t get away from. Enduring to the end is one of them. I think how it actually plays out is something the church has interpreted, I don’t want to say entirely wrong, but not complete. So that is what I meant by info overload, not the book itself but all the various interpretations and debates of what is right and wrong.
I think if we get too planted in how we think things will go, we can miss something right in front of us. Have our foundation but remember to look up too. Does that make sense? God and His infinite wisdom lol.
Also, I hope you’ve well CIAMM! Things have been pretty crazy here. The Lord has certainly been pushing us out of our comfort zone and growing us! It’s been wild haha.
This sounds interesting. Any suggestions of places where I could further explore these ideas on my own?
Thank you! Awesome input I look forward to exploring.
Bill Donahue
must have read Rev 2:9 and 3:9 who we are up against now.
Decades ago.
What's even more ironic is when certain Anons in one thread will quote Q with utmost confidence saying "It will be Biblical," but in another thread they argue that "duH bIbLe HaS bEeN ChanGEd!"
smh...
It will be biblical and the Bible has been changed. These aren't contradictory statements. Have you read the removed books of the Bible?
The corruptions of the Bible is now a proven fact. If the scriptures weren't corrupted, we would not have been able to read them in the first place. During the 4th century when Emperor Constantine inserted Pagan doctrines into Christianity, the Essenes, Ebionite Nazirenes and Gnostics vowed to preserve the scriptures and prevent them from being tampered by Rome. The result? Those books were violently burned and buried along with their believers.
The claim that the Bible has been irrevocably corrupted during the 4th century under the influence of Emperor Constantine is not supported by ANY credible historical scholarship. Let's address this assertion and provide some context:
Corruption of the Bible: While there have been variations in biblical texts over time due to copyist errors, variations between manuscripts, and translation differences, these variations do not necessarily equate to corruption. Biblical scholars and textual critics have worked diligently to reconstruct the original texts of the Old and New Testaments by comparing and analyzing the thousands of available manuscripts. Modern translations are based on careful scholarship and aim to provide accurate renderings of the biblical texts.
Constantine's Influence: Emperor Constantine played a significant role in the history of Christianity, most notably through the Edict of Milan in 313 CE, which granted religious tolerance to Christians. However, the idea that Constantine inserted Pagan doctrines into Christianity is a contentious assertion and lacks strong historical evidence. Constantine's primary role was to convene the First Council of Nicaea in 325 CE to address theological disputes, particularly the Arian controversy, not to insert pagan doctrines.
Essenes, Ebionite Nazirenes, and Gnostics: These were various groups with diverse beliefs and practices within early Christianity. While they had their unique perspectives, they were not the sole preservers of Christian scripture. Early Christianity was marked by theological diversity, and the process of canonization of the New Testament involved the wider Christian community. Certain texts, such as Gnostic writings, were not included in the New Testament due to their theological differences and later development.
Violent Suppression: The claim that books were violently burned and buried, along with their believers, needs to be substantiated with credible historical sources. While there were periods of religious conflict in the early Christian history, making such a sweeping statement without specific historical references is problematic.
It's essential to approach historical and religious claims with a critical and balanced perspective, relying on reputable sources and scholarly research. The development of the biblical canon, the influence of early Christian figures, and the spread of Christianity are complex historical subjects, and they should be examined with nuance and care.
Gnosticism is an ancient heresy.
Thank you.
What you're missing is the whole Church knew what books were inspired,by 180 AD at the latest.
The whole idea of "Canonization" is misunderstood, and blown entirely out of proportion.
The Church preserved Scripture, and handed it down to us. Constantine had basically nothing to do with that, except to end persecution for a while.
"They write down not what they find but what they think is the meaning; and while they attempt to rectify the errors of others, they merely expose their own" – St. Jerome, Epist. lxxi.5
"Learned men, so called Correctores were, following the church meeting at Nicea 325 AD, selected by the church authorities to scrutinize the sacred texts and rewrite them in order to correct their meaning in accordance with the views which the church had just sanctioned.” – Eberhard Nestle
"...theological disputes, specifically disputes over Christology, prompted Christian scribes to alter the words of scripture in order to make them more serviceable for the polemical task. Scribes modified their manuscripts to make them more patently ‘orthodox’ and less susceptible to ‘abuse’ by the opponents of orthodoxy” – Bart D. Ehrman, The Orthodox Corruption of Scripture
"The manuscripts of the New Testament preserve traces of two kinds of dogmatic alterations: those which involve the elimination or alteration of what was regarded as doctrinally unacceptable or inconvenient, and those which introduce into the Scriptures proof for a favorite theological tenet or practice" – Vincent Taylor, The Text of the New Testament
"In the year 325 A.D. was perpetrated one of the most colossal frauds and deceptions in the annals of history. This was the date of the Council of Nicea, whose task it was to create a new religion that would be acceptable to Emperor Constantine..." – R. W. Bernard, The Historical Apollonius Versus the Mythical Jesus
“Constantine himself said, “Let us then have nothing in common with the detestable Jewish crowd.” – Eusebius, Life of Constantine 3, 18-19, Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, 1979, second series, Vol. 1, pp. 524-525
"The Council of Nicea was a pivotal event in the history of Christianity. The sudden adoption of a quasi-philosophic term to define the historic Jesus as equal to God was a major departure from scripture and tradition. Further, the use of this term 'trinity' in a Creed meant that, from 325 on, Nicenes could and did proclaim other dogmas that have no basis in Scripture" – State Church of the Roman Empire; Ben H. Swett; 1998
In regard to the fourth point:
"The day was to come when the Nicene party won out completely and then the emperors... decreed that one who denied the Trinity should be put to death […] the conquest of the East was immediately followed by an edict which announced their total destruction“ – The Church of our Fathers - 1950, pg. 46
“The doctrine that Jesus Christ the Son of God was God the son was decreed by worldly and ecclesiastical powers. Men were forced to accept it at the point of the sword or else, Thus, the error of the trinity was propounded to the end that ultimately people believed it to be the truth. Thus Christianity became in essence like Babylonian heathenism, with only a veneer of Christian names.” — Victor Paul Wierwille (1983), Forgers of the Word
You're referring to Latin.
0 parts of the Bible were written in Latin.
It's entirely possible to translate directly from the original Greek into English, which bypasses everything you've referring to.
Not nearly enough work has been done to group original manuscripts into families. That work is ongoing right now. Each family of manuscript needs to be translated separately. Westcott and Hort prevented that, and Nestle Arland is only starting to recognize the massive problems caused by that; hopefully they will actually take corrective action.
All your claims about Constantine are false, and written by idiots.
That was false. I have always been referring to the Greek texts, especially the Byzantine texts. The Eastern Roman Empire did not use the Latin Vulgate. Their official language was Greek.
What a sad attempt at interjection. You are like many others who prefer hearsay to inconvenient historical facts and solid proofs.
All your ideas on this topic are completely devoid of historical fact.
Thanks fren for your detailed analysis. But on the other hand, if history is written by the winners, how accurate will that version of events be. Given that the printing press hasn't been invented just quite yet back then, how many copies of alternative facts would be available and how easy or hard would it be to destroy all remaining evidence? Just a thought.
Early Christians were anything but the "winners." They were killed for their beliefs well into the 2nd century. Christianity flourished at the sharp end of the sword during that time. And we have the overwhelming majority of the Bible written down in it's entirety well before the 2nd century.
Im not talking about early christians, I'm referring to the source you quote for the following assertion:
"However, the idea that Constantine inserted Pagan doctrines into Christianity is a contentious assertion and lacks strong historical evidence."
Ultimately, I think the majority of confusion on this matter arises from the fact that Christianity became the State religion during the time of Constantine, and this presented a major problem for all the Pagan religions at the time. They needed to adjust their religious system to accommodate Christianity or face serious repercussions.
Enter Catholicism...
Catholicism is the main culprit for merging Paganism into Christianity, not Constantine.
Satan basically said, "I can't beat/kill the Christians. Might as well join them!"
Oh, I see.
It appears you are referring to the sources and quotes that were provided in a previous response to support the assertion about Constantine's influence on Christianity. Let's address those sources and quotes in that context:
Eberhard Nestle: Eberhard Nestle is known for his work in the field of New Testament textual criticism. The quote attributed to him suggests that "correctors" were selected to scrutinize sacred texts after the Council of Nicaea in 325 AD. While it acknowledges the role of correctors, it does not necessarily imply that Constantine inserted Pagan doctrines into Christianity. The work of correctors primarily focused on textual variations and consistency rather than the introduction of new doctrines.
R. W. Bernard: R. W. Bernard's quote asserts that in 325 AD, a "colossal fraud" occurred at the Council of Nicaea, which aimed to create a new religion acceptable to Emperor Constantine. It's important to note that this view represents a minority perspective and is not supported by mainstream historical scholarship (this phrase will probably make some cringe in here, but in some discussions it matters where one gleans their info from) . The Council of Nicaea primarily addressed theological disputes, particularly the Arian controversy, rather than creating an entirely new religion.
Eusebius: Eusebius was an early Christian historian and bishop. The quote attributed to him mentions Emperor Constantine's preference to disassociate from the Jewish community. While Constantine's views on religious matters were influential during his reign, this quote does not directly support the assertion that Pagan doctrines were inserted into Christianity.
The majority Biblical of scholars do not support the idea that Constantine introduced Pagan doctrines into Christianity, but rather that he played a role in addressing theological disputes and granting religious tolerance to Christians. The quotes provided represent alternative viewpoints, and it's important to evaluate them in the context of broader historical consensus.
Everything in the Nicene Creed was always believed by the Church, and is based entirely on Scripture.
You can study the Council of Nicest, to learn what it was about. The false ideas on this topic flying around here serve satan.
Thoroughly impossible.
The more you know ...
Wow, did ChatGTP just enter?
True! If it has been changed, how many times? Who did it benefit? What did they not want us to know? Pieces were hidden and have been found... this is also interesting. I have been a practicing catholic my whole life and when I found out this, I started to investigate and have now, grown so much.
Yes.
The idea that "books were removed from the Bible" is to announce that you have no idea what the Bible IS, how it was created, or how we got it.
it's literally called the King James Version
as in his version of the Bible.
yet so controversial to some to suggest
Because it has been controversial since its inception. When the first version of the KJV was completed in 1609 (not 1611) there had already been opposition by the public. King James had always wanted to replace the Geneva Bible which the people of England used at that time. It wasn't until his son Charles I who banned the GNV that KJV began to have a place among the populace.
Gospel Simplicity: An introduction to the Apocrypha
Or even compared texts between say, KJV and septuagint? There are translational issues alone that can change meaning and significance. Ezekiel is full of them for example
You can't compare the texts of the LXX with the KJV. LXX was the OT translated from Hebrew into Greek at the last time when people who knew the OT were fluent in both. It was completed circa 250 BC.
The OT in KJV was translated from the Masoretic text which wasn't completed until 900 AD, or maybe 950. Jews changed it to obfuscate that Jesus is the Christ. The Church ALWAYS used the LXX until Martin Luther. Jesus read the LXX, as did His disciples.
You can compare a translation into English of the LXX to the KJV, but let's not confuse people.
Excellent input, fren.
Yes sorry I wasn't more clear. Meant translation comparison
👍
Septuagint / LXX is something that gets thrown around so much, and many readers don't actually know what's being discussed. Familiarity, contempt, and all that.
Yes, there are some places where LXX is surprisingly different from KJV, and more than just quirks of old English.
I have a Lexham Septuagint along with my KJV study Bible, and a JPS Tanakh which is Masoretic, and numerous other helps, it is fascinating indeed to study the differences.
The things done by the Masoretic translation to muddle the proof of Christ are incredibly obvious when you compare Masoretic and Septuagint, and I find Septuagint most convincing bc it PREDATES Jesus yet describes him so accurately!
Quite the epic.
I could say: I am going Old testament on your ass. It does not mean I berate old Testament or belief it. It simply is. Like the Iliad and the Odyssey, The Nibelungen, or more modern: The Song of Ice and Fire.
If you're going to write that you absolutely need some quotes from Pulp Fiction ;)
"If you don't believe as I do and practice religion the same way I do, you don't qualify to comment on what's written in my holy book."
LOL
Not at all what I wrote. The more accurate alternate title might be “Since I don’t believe in unicorns, it would be silly for me to argue that male unicorns are always blue and never green.”
Why did you not write that?
We could then have an argument on the silliness, especially since that is not a fact but an opinion.
What if the bible is in fact made up to control you? Would that make you the biggest 'body part?' You can't answer that because the problem with faith is it disallows you from even considering that what you believe in could be wrong.
True faith does not disallow you to question your beliefs.
Right, that is the problem. From my perspective to fully mature as a thinking human being it is necessary to deeply explore whether everything one thinks and believes is wrong.
Correct, examining one's beliefs whether spiritual or political is important. If you cannot defend your own opinions to yourself how can you defend them to anyone else. I welcome discussions with those that disagree with me whether they be leftists or atheists.
Our country would be a better place if people could have discussions without anger and frustration. The issue with that is, many many people have emotional attachments to their beliefs and the emotions often times outweigh facts.
That being said, faith is something a little different. Faith does not need to be backed up with facts/science.
The anger you refer to is intentionally added by subverters. The CFR was created in 1921, and everyone was taught in school to behave irrationally as you describe, due to their influence.
Some of just rebel against their agenda :)
Yes! More emphatically, Jesus teaches us to do this, repeatedly.
Why then do they try to discredit God, Jesus, the Bible? Makes no sense. First the Bible was made up to control us, that didn't work, now it's obsolete?
I don't understand what you are saying here. If it is a lie then it doesn't matter if anyone "tries" to discredit it. It would be a lie no matter what. Once it was known then obsolescence would naturally follow.
And if it's not a lie?
Then it would be true wouldn't it?
At least part of the truth. There's some thought experiments that tie us deeper to more being IS-BEs, to more than just one creator, to multiple realms. Which lead to one creator which is not the creator only of this but of many realms. And that we are creators, as well. But I still believe the Bible is part of the truth, and it stands for the truth of this realm. Or maybe I'm completely fucked up and have no idea what's going on and am completely lost. The thing is: I don't feel lost, I feel more whole than ever before. And I still believe in God our creator and Christ, his Son. Christ is the key.
Have you ever considered existence could have always been therefore there is no creator? No big bang, no creation event, just existence doing what it does with no beginning. Our apparent need to believe in a creator would be a product of a certain bio-chauvinism in our species; our parents create us then we live and die so existence must be the same. It shows in creation myths worldwide perhaps including the big bang.
Yes I have. Pure existence, pure consciousness. Why did we loose it? Who did it to us? Where did our physical shell come from? It's not nessesary to to have a shell to simply exist. Did we create it? If not, who did?
What is matter? Where did it come from? Does matter exist?
100% false.
All you're saying is that you have no idea what Faith is ( as the word is used in this context)
complete trust or confidence in someone or something
strong belief in God or in the doctrines of a religion, based on spiritual apprehension rather than proof.
You're attempting to define Faith as belief, and this doesn't seem circular to you.
You would do much better to admit the topic is foreign to you.
faith is more like an oath, correct?
This is both difficult, and worth the answer to try to address!
I like starting with the lives of not only Abraham but also Isaac and Jacob are recorded to SHOW us what Faith is. Since that's so very clearly true, I try to avoid being flippant with an answer. It's SO easy to give the wrong impression that sells the subject short, and God isn't fooled by any of that.
In the context of Christianity, "Faith" is an enduring concept. It's alive and it grows. It cannot be contained. This adds a great deal of complexity to the task of trying to define "it," because it's neither static nor necessarily the same from one person to another.
We're told it can have a finite and tiny beginning, being compared to a mustard seed. And yet there we see a great Truth hidden in God's Word, that seeds reproduce "after their own kind." It's supposed to multiply! And that's supposed to take time.
Compare to why God picked Moses: he took the time to actually observe what could have been a very mundane thing, and only 5-10 minutes later did it become apparent that this was miraculous.
Faith is like that :)
Because I am not that much of an idiot.
“Faith” has been hijacked by Atheists over the past few decades and has been redefined to mean “blind faith.”
Biblical faith is anything but blind.
Biblical faith was always based on evidence.
Christianity is a look before you leap kind of faith, not a leap before you look kind.
That which has evidence requires no faith. You are just aware of the evidence.
~ Hebrews 11:1
That is retarded.
The concept of "faith" in the Bible is distinct from what some might describe as "blind faith." Biblical faith is often portrayed as belief or trust in God based on evidence, revelation, and experience.
Faith Rooted in Evidence and Revelation:
Faith and Personal Experience:
Witnesses and Testimonies:
Evidence in the Life of Jesus:
Prophecies and Fulfillment:
Recognize that the biblical concept of faith is not devoid of evidence or reason. Rather, it involves trust and confidence in God based on the evidence, revelation, and experiences that God has provided. Biblical faith is often seen as a response to God's self-revelation and an acknowledgment of His character and promises.
Still retarded?
1828 definition
Belief; the assent of the mind to the truth of what is declared by another, resting on his authority and veracity, without other evidence; the judgment that what another states or testifies is the truth. I have strong faith or no faith in the testimony of a witness, or in what a historian narrates.
The assent of the mind to the truth of a proposition advanced by another; belief, or probable evidence of any kind.
In theology, the assent of the mind or understanding to the truth of what God has revealed. Simple belief of the scriptures, of the being and perfections of God, and of the existence, character and doctrines of Christ, founded on the testimony of the sacred writers, is called historical or speculative faith; a faith little distinguished from the belief of the existence and achievements of Alexander or of Cesar.
Evangelical, justifying, or saving faith is the assent of the mind to the truth of divine revelation, on the authority of God's testimony, accompanied with a cordial assent of the will or approbation of the heart; an entire confidence or trust in God's character and declarations, and in the character and doctrines of Christ, with an unreserved surrender of the will to his guidance, and dependence on his merits for salvation. In other words, that firm belief of God's testimony, and of the truth of the gospel, which influences the will, and leads to an entire reliance on Christ for salvation.
~ Hebrews 11:1
That’s true of blind faith. I prefer to be an Acts 17:11 kind of guy.
How do you decide if something in the scriptures is true?
That’s for each individual to decide on their own. My point with the post is it’s silly to argue about what scripture does and doesn’t say if you don’t believe in it in the first place. As I’ve commented elsewhere here, that’s like arguing about what color male unicorns are when you don’t believe in unicorns in the first place.
It's not like arguing about that at all. It's like someone telling you they read an ancient account that male unicorns are white with shades of purple therefore that is the truth and you doubting the veracity of the account.
Which fits perfectly the original point. In your scenario here, the person does believe in unicorns, he/she is just skeptical about the specifics of the white and purple thing. My argument is the person who doesn’t believe in unicorns sounds silly arguing about the color of said unicorns.
How could you know if they believe in unicorns without asking? Anyway they could look at the same text and point out it doesn't say that at all. It says they are white with shades of blue. You aren't able to discuss things you don't believe?
Whenever I ask, I get no answer. You are still missing a key point to this unicorn analogy - technically, we are currently discussing unicorn colors, even though (I assume) neither of us believe in unicorns. The point though is neither of us are saying “X cannot be true, because male unicorns are Y color.“ So to complete the circle here, it makes no sense to argue about biblical translations, which ones are true and which ones are not, if you don’t believe in the first place.
"Agree with me or else"
The more accurate alternate title might be “Since I don’t believe in unicorns, it would be silly for me to argue that male unicorns are always blue and never green.”
Apparently my comment went over your head, you present your platform as being the only one and all others are discreditable, falling into a "believe ne or else" fallacy similar to that of the pharises. Allow for open discussion and put peoples intepretations to task. Remember; its not your debate opponent you're teying to convince, its the onlookers.
Seems you’re over your own head, friend. I simply posited an opinion for others to ponder and comment on as they saw fit. Kind of a Steven Crowder “here’s my stance on x issue, change my mind” type of thing.
Seems you’re over your own head, friend. I simply posited an opinion for others to ponder and comment on as they saw fit. Kind of a Steven Crowder “here’s my stance on x issue, change my mind” type of thing.
I don't have to belief in unicorns to debate about unicorns since I simply like the idea of unicorns .....
I agree. My experience is that people who change what the Bible says, do it because they don't like what the Bible says.
In the New Testament Israel is spiritual Israel
https://communities.win/c/RevelationOfJesusChrist/p/17rSVHs5ft/israel/c
The state of Israel is a sovereign nation having nothing to do with spiritual Israel.
Physical Isreal is being used in war PSYOP directed at us all. Don't take a side, let sovereign nations work their business out.
Making a "spiritual Israel" makes God a promise breaker. There is still a physical Israel that is keeping all of the prophecy and promises. The modern day Jews are not God's Israel. Revelation 2:9.
Israel is a people, not a geographical location.
This is correct. One of the main problems today with interpreting the bible is the nonsense of spiritualizing everything. There is no spiritual Israel. Israel is real. They are the same people today, all descended from Jacob. To suggest otherwise is to try to make God a promise breaker. He made three very real physical promises to Abraham, Isaac and Jacob that their actual seed would become. There are actually over 100 promises about true physical Israel. They are still being kept today. You just have to interpret the world in light of the bible. Most of Christianity has been taught to try to make the bible fit what they see in the world. It doesn't work that way. The bible is a beautiful love story. Israel is God's wife and he didn't change wives in the new covenant.
I disagree with you on a few things.
Spiritual things are real things.
The Bible teaches spiritual reality.
Downplay Spiritual things shows a lack of understanding of spiritual.
Israel is a people, it is a people that submit to God perfectly.
If Israel is God's wife, Israel is the body and church of Jesus Christ.
Isaiah 45:5 and Daniel 2:44. There is no covenant with any other people. Jeremiah 31:31-33, repeated in Hebrews 8:8-10. If you don't know the story of God's marriage to Israel. https://www.gospelminutes.org/remarry.php
All the law and prophets speak of Jesus Christ.
John 5:36 “I have testimony weightier than that of John. For the works that the Father has given me to finish—the very works that I am doing—testify that the Father has sent me. 37 And the Father who sent me has himself testified concerning me. You have never heard his voice nor seen his form, 38 nor does his word dwell in you, for you do not believe the one he sent. 39 You study[c] the Scriptures diligently because you think that in them you have eternal life. These are the very Scriptures that testify about me, 40 yet you refuse to come to me to have life.
The Revelation of Jesus Christ is about the Bride of Christ.
We live in the New Testament age, the whole Old Testament points to Jesus Christ and the life of Christ that is in the New Testament, there is no longer a seperation between Jew and Gentile, all nations are blessed in Jesus Christ.
In the Hebrew and Greek there is no Jew and Gentile. The English translations have been rather misleading. Some more than others. The KJV and Strongs both were translated and written before the Koine Greek was known. They did a fairly good job, but they did a fair amount of guessing and protecting of existing church doctrine. It is a good idea to check word meanings.
Isnotreal
LOL,
I'm an extreme dyslexic.
I mostly misspell Israel with Isreal.
I like your isnotreal though
:)
Updoot
Greekish, love the name.
I often misspell Greek with Greak
It's only getting worse, I have to check spellings constantly.
Thank you for your patience.
:)
Every comment here attacking Christianity and/or the Bible proves my point precisely. If you don’t believe in those things, why would you cite them in your arguments about Israel?
If you’re not a believer, your opinion about modern day Israel should be a stand-alone argument. I feel bad for you, and pray you’ll have the most important awakening in the universe before it’s too late, but at least you can have some credibility in your argument from a purely logical perspective: “I’m an atheist/agnostic/what have you, therefore I don’t believe the Bible is the title deed to a piece of land in the Middle East.”
However, if you claim to be a Christian, but don’t believe in the Bible, you’re beginning every associated argument on the quicksand foundation of not having a logical basis for being a Christian in the first place.
So what's your argument, then? I don't believe modern day israelis have any biological or cultural claim to biblical Israel, and I vehemently oppose any Christian or 'christian' who make any demand of spiritual obligation to ally with the state of israel.
That’s my point- I don’t know what the argument may be without knowing the foundation of your position. If you’re an atheist, or agnostic as your nom de plume might suggest, then I don’t have an argument with you at all because your stance is perfectly logical in that case.
If you do not believe that land belongs to Israel there are three “argument” options as I see them:
Lemmie see if I can make chocolate with it:
I am sure such a discussion indeed would be totally historical and probably intelligent, but I would presume you meant: an intelligent debate about the history?
it depends, of course, what you would consider foundational. It all hinges on assumptions. Going by what John wrote in his gospel, a person could be a christian without what you call, foundational documents. However, a gnostic Christian would probably expand on that, whereas an orthodox christian would feel quite unpleasant. Hence, the albigensian crusade.
As already indicated, the historics cannot be dismissed.
Hold you horses .... I can belief the bible while totally disagreeing with you, since, my understanding of it may depend on: 1. translation used, 2.understanding of the original languages in which it was written, 3. methods of interpretation, 4. suspicions of being left with only a portion of what should have been Christian writings, and 5. the most foundational question: why o why did the Old Testament not mention Gobleki Tepi.
So, when I go through your argument, the belief point is rather moot, isn't it. So, you either come across two types. Either, someone shares your belief regarding the "prophesies" (teachings) or not. And the wider position on the bible is actually moot, isn't it, as you would gladly resort to history.
So, can we then put this whole thing to bed and remain on the topic of history?
Gospel Simplicity: The Early Church and Second Temple Judaism
TLDR: modern Judaism is made up in reaction to the growth of Christianity
I am the type who cares more about what the Hebrew and Greek say, not different versions of the Bible. The modern day Jews are not, and have never been, God's Israel people as proven by the bible, history and Jewish writings. As a people they are anti-Christ and enemies of God. By their own writings, 90% are of Khazar, Ashkenaz descent. Esau is Edom, Genesis 36. "Edom is in modern Jewry", The Jewish Encyclopedia. 9% are of Edomite, Canaanite descent. Blessing God's enemies brings punishment to us and they know about Balaam.
Bullshit. You're just claiming to be a "scholar" of the Greek and Hebrew b/c you think it makes it less likely you'll be busted not knowing basics.
You'd have an opinion of which version if you studied the Greek and Hebrew.
You'd also know that the Bible shows that Jesus Himself prophesied in Matt. 24 that the generation alive when Israel becomes a nation again, and a bunch of other Revelation prophecies all occur will see the end of the world.
You can only argue replacement theology (God's promises to the Jews are now only applicable to Christians) but that's really hard to do when Israel recently (1948) fulfilled a major requirement of becoming a nation again. (people don't appreciate what a HUGE miracle it is for a nation to re-assemble after 2,000 years).
The Bible also predicts Jews will continue to reject Jesus until the VERY end. Events are actually building towards another proof of the truth of the Bible there. A Jewish state that recognizes Jesus as King for the last 75 years? Is that what you want? THAT would prove the folks in Israel aren't the predicted Jews.
If you knew your Bible better, you'd know all of that....
You did a really great job of impolitely repeating the nonsense the anti-Christ's have infiltrated into the churches. The word Jew as it is understood today is not in the Greek and Hebrew word meaning. The Latin word Gentile was inserted to hide the meaning of goy and ethnos which is simply just Nation. The context determines the who. Several times it is the Ten Northern Tribes after the divorce. Spend some time digging in. I won't mind helping if you are interested.
That's not what got means.
At all.
I don't believe you.
Show evidence of this claim.
Hehe, do your own research. It is out there, although they are making it harder to get. Ok, one source from me. In 1976 Jewish author Arthur Koestler wrote a book that was in the top ten NYT list. I have the book. Read it. You want more, you're on your own.
Those who have actually researched this, say you're 100% wrong.
The empire of Kazaria disappeared, about 1,000 years ago. DNA of modern European (white) Jews shows absolutely no link to that empire.
I certainly won't claim no Jew alive today has any ancestry from them. Likewise, I'd hope you aren't trying to claim no Jew alive has any ancestry from Abraham Isaac and Jacob. Either would be awfully hard to prove, and Scripture tells us this is not what matters. Scripture also warns about the rich, repeatedly; and in ways that seem to very much line up with those who own the central banks such as Rothschilds which includes Klaus Schwab. There's overlap, but the issue is criminal behavior, not family tree.
Why do they say that? Question everything. Do they have a financial motivation? King Joseph, the king of Kazaria, would tell you differently. Scripture tells us who is true Israel today and it tells us that the Jews who argued with Christ were not of Israel. They were of Edom. "Edom is in modern Jewry", The Jewish Encyclopedia. The forever enemy of God/Christ is a part of today's Jews. There is so much more.
You're trying to turn God into a eugenecist. He isn't.
"But avoid foolish questions, and genealogies, and contentions, and strivings about the law; for they are unprofitable and vain. (Titus 3:9)
How could you forget about Titus 3:9?
Haven't forgotten. That verse is often taken out of context. The scripture makes a big deal of Israel from the time of Jacob till the end of Revelation. It is important to God.
For the record, I believe and believed the state of Israel was Biblical Israel since shortly after being born again (when I even first heard the concept), my paradigm was rocked pretty recently
If you don't believe in big-foot, your comments on big-foot lacks credibility.
Your argument simply means that your measure for credibility is not factual, but fictional, and represent s the antithesis of free thought and logical thinking.
It exemplifies the above.
Let's reason about this shall we. So, there is a guy who is building a temple, and,for some reason, thinks it a good idea to slaughter tens of thousands of animals. Although, this factoid alone may trigger people of a certain persuasion, the real question is: where are the ashes. What was the supply chain? How were the fires maintained, etc.
The closest experience in mass slaughter of animals of certain races was the Mad Cow disease. If you wish, you can still read what is needed to dispose of a carcass by burning. You'll be amazed.
These same believers also have a hard time questioning the logistics of the holohoax.
A whatever-person may think logically on this, with the capabilities of them days in mind, and think: this is a bunch of hyperbole. When reading the same book, pontificating the seed of Israel, such a person may very well question the validity of an a priori: the indispensable, and all that is connected to it.
Should such a person be berated for not having credibility due to a lack of belief?
And what do you know. Such a whatever is not the first, and surely not the last. It would be quite enlightening to peek in the book written by Douglas Reed.
But by all means. As per your pontificated reasoning, you can simply disregard ANY argument by positing: you are not a believer.
Now, where have I heard that thought-stopper before ..... Ah. ..you did nazi that coming ....you conspiracy theorist right wing domestic terrorist, now did you?
“Holohoax.” I wish I had my reading glasses on the first two times I suffered through your nonsensical diatribe. I was assuming you were just not very bright, possibly retarded, so I was doing my best to be patient and loving, and formulate sentences even the simplest among us could understand. Had I caught your “holohoax” reference on first reading, I would have realized, while you still may very well be stupid/retarded, your main problem is you are a scumbag, not worth trying to reason with any further.
hahahaha, typical!. Indeed, it is not your reading glasses but your mental filters, rendering the potential for discussion demonstrably neither historical nor intelligent or reasonable..
It simply shows where you are coming from. I can respect that. Yet, pontificating your righteousness in the way you do negates what you purport to stand for. Belief systems and emotions are a powerful thing. Greatawakening is a bitch as it requires the let go of a lot of preconceptions. Your choice to make.
Cheers.
You can read the Bible without believing certain elements (the supernatural aspects) are true. If you're using facts you found in the Bible to make your argument, what does it matter if you believe Jesus is the son of God?
Does the Bible magically change its contents depending on who is reading it? No.
Just because someone might not believe in the supernatural aspects to the Bible doesn't mean they can't use it as a contemporary text of the time. Some places and people mentioned in the Bible are certainly real, as are historic occurrences. Those things can be used to make an argument no matter if the person making the argument is Christian or not.
As long as someone can differentiate between fact and opinion, it shouldn't matter if a person is Christian or not, in this case.
It's also an issue of being able to use the content found in the Bible as the basis for an argument, even if you don't believe in the supernatural elements of the Bible.
For instance, someone can agree with the teachings of Jesus that are found in the Bible without actually believing in the divinity of Jesus.
Well, it depends on who you depend for a translation.
For instance, Jesus is quoted as saying: truly truly I say to you today you will be with me in paradise.
Knowing that the greek text does not contain interpunction, how this text is to be understood differes depending on persuasion and logical reasoning.
With regards to missing interpunction, especially given the fact that vowels are simply missing in Paleo-Hebrew, Genesis 1:1 could also be read as: in your head is the creation of the powers, heavens and earth.
So, doe sthe content magically differ? I would argue: yes, it could.
The Living Word!
It makes sense for atheists and agnostics to discuss Biblical prophecy if they're analyzing real world events involving believers in those prophecies.
For example, many atheists realize the importance of the fact that world leaders regularly gather to worship a giant owl in the woods.
Just as I suspected...
The lower I scrolled down, the hair splitting ego-centric, ZERO Christ Consciousness/Holy Spirit containing arguments started...
If you enjoy cutting off other parishioners in the parking lot after mass, so you can be first in line at the local breakfast swinefest, you might also:
Argue about what "division" of Christianity is "correct" - E.G. - Catholic vs Baptist vs (pick one) - all are supposed to believe in The Christ, right?
Argue about which version of the Bible is "official" or "Correct"
Split hairs over interpretation of passages - such a good little parrot
Anything else that is stuck in the ego/mind and is completely unloving and devoid of the Spirit - which is why these books mean little to me anymore.
Grew up Roman Catholic...was an alter boy + 9 years of Catholic school - took the off ramp when my Spirit grew tired of starving. Read the Enuma Elish & other texts & know the god of the bible isn't the Creator of the Universe. The True God - the one with no name - doesn't EVER get jealous of ANYTHING - EVER!
Many are simply not mature enough to have an adult conversation about the True God - the Creator of the Universe and the One who is ALL PERVASIVE in EVERYTHING. Sorry, but sky god in the bible isn't.
There are practically ZERO conversations EVER that discuss SPIRIT from a perspective other than ego/mind. All caught up in "being right" - so much so that you act like a complete jackass to your fellow man - and you have ZERO clue regarding Christ's greatest commandment - to love your neighbor as yourself. ZERO.
If what I wrote upsets you, please forgive me.