Matthew 24:52,53

[JayJayDee]

Agreed. But not even the understanding changes; it is just clarified and specified.

Let me put it this way...when Catholicism introduced many doctrines that were a fusion of "Christianity" and pagan Roman sun worship, corruption of truth took place. God was made into a triune godhead, which was a totally different god to the one God worshipped by the Jews. Jesus went from being the son of God, to being God himself...something he never claimed.

Along with elevating Jesus to God, they then had to invent doctrines concerning his mother, Mary. All of a sudden this humble woman became a goddess herself, immaculately conceived and titled as "Mother of God". It was blasphemy piled on blasphemy!

Belief in an immortal soul was adopted from Greek influence. The Jews never had a belief in an immortal soul because their scriptures taught only bodily resurrection. They understood "souls" to be living breathing creatures.

With the notion of an immortal soul came the need for a place for them to go at death.
Resurrection meant sleeping in death with a restoration to life at some time in the future; an immortal soul cannot die, so they needed somewhere to go right away. Those who did not go to heaven had to be punished in the most heinous fashion, so a hell of fiery torment was fashioned around Jesus' mention of "gehenna" (Jerusalem's garbage dump where the bodies of executed criminals were cast, consumed by a fire that was kept burning perpetually with the addition of brimstone, and resulting in the complete destruction of the individuals bodies. They had no resting place and were not considered worthy to be remembered by God or man.)

Catholicism went even further by inventing other places like purgatory and limbo. No such places exist in scripture.

The form of worship that developed was so distorted that it did not even resemble the original church formed by Jesus and the apostles. The "weeds" were foretold and that's what grew. They got away with their despotic reign of terror for 1500 years, then the Reformation took place. Protestantism was born. What were they 'protesting' about? The deplorable state of the church and its corrupt teachings and practices.

Did Protestantism fix the problems of pagan doctrine, corrupt heirarchy and rank idolatry? Not really.
It broke the power of the Roman church, but it kept many of her erroneous doctrines.
It broke up into faction after faction, following the interpretation of many self proclaimed teachers, till we have what is presented today...literally thousands of differing sects and denominations, all claiming to teach the truth.

I see nothing about challenging mainstream beliefs in the Scripture you quoted. And I read the entire chapter.

Hopefully you will now.

When Daniel said that a cleansing, whitening and refining were going to take place in this time of the end....that was an understatement!
Cleansing means that there was soiling, whitening means that unsightly stains were in evidence and refining indicated the need for impurities to be brought to the surface and discarded. This is what Jehovah's people did. We examined all of the church's doctrines in the light of scripture and got rid of everthing that did not find support in the Bible. It was a process that took place over time, but gradually the refining produced a purer form of Christianity that is centered on the work that Jesus assigned to all of his followers....preaching "the good news of God's kingdom in all the inhabited earth". (Matt 24:14; 28: 19,20)

No one single united body of Christians has fulfilled that command like Jehovah's Witnesses have done.

Paul also said that the Church is the pillar and ground of the Truth in 1 Timothy 3:15.

The "Church" is not the weeds sown by the devil, but the wheat that have always been with us. The "Church" would never have tortured and murdered its own people for disagreeing with its unholy doctrines and corrupt practices.

The fact that your church got things wrong in the first place shows that yours is not the Church of which Paul speaks.

Understanding was not granted all at once. Refining is a process that takes time, effort and patience.

The Catholics are pretty well-known for evangelization. The Orthodox have done a pretty good job of it too. So have Mormons and Protestant groups.

I think we all know how Catholicism did its evangelizing.....did Jesus force conversion at the point of a sword? And if others have preached different doctrines as Christian truth, how is that preaching the good news of God's kingdom? (1Cor 1:10)
They don't even have a clear cut definition of what God's kingdom is or the good news concerning it, so what are they preaching except confusion ?

You should consider why the "accepted Christian doctrines" are accepted by every other Christian group, including isolated groups that had very little contact or influence from others.

Perhaps you should be asking the reverse. The wheat were to separate from the weeds. They would not resemble one another in this "time of the end".

But then the question comes, what IS "false Christianity"? The answer is not as clear-cut as you would like it to be.

It is very clear from where I am standing.

 

[Shiranui117]

Let me put it this way...when Catholicism introduced many doctrines that were a fusion of "Christianity" and pagan Roman sun worship, corruption of truth took place. God was made into a triune godhead, which was a totally different god to the one God worshipped by the Jews. Je88sus went from being the son of God, to being God himself...something he never claimed.

Do you have a lick of proof stating that Catholicism's view of God is a mix of Christianity and Roman paganism?

Along with elevating Jesus to God, they then had to invent doctrines concerning his mother, Mary. All of a sudden this humble woman became a goddess herself, immaculately conceived and titled as "Mother of God". It was blasphemy piled on blasphemy!

I get the impression that you don't fully understand what "Mother of God" means. I also get the impression that you don't know what the Immaculate Conception exactly means.

Belief in an immortal soul was adopted from Greek influence. The Jews never had a belief in an immortal soul because their scriptures taught only bodily resurrection. They understood "souls" to be living breathing creatures.

Jesus seems to distinguish between body and soul quite clearly. Also, I see you're not familiar with what the Jews believed about Sheol in Jesus' time.

The inhabitants of Sheol were the "shades" (rephaim), entities without personality or strength.[2] Under some circumstances they could be contacted by the living, as the Witch of Endor contacts the shade of Samuel for Saul, but such practices are forbidden (Deuteronomy 18:10).[3] While the Old Testament writings describe Sheol as the permanent place of the dead, in the Second Temple period (roughly 500 BCE-70 CE) a more diverse set of ideas developed: in some texts, Sheol is the home of both the righteous and the wicked, separated into respective compartments; in others, it was a place of punishment, meant for the wicked dead alone.[4] When the Hebrew scriptures were translated into Greek in ancient Alexandria around 200 BC the word "Hades" (the Greek underworld) was substituted for Sheol, and this is reflected in the New Testament where Hades is both the underworld of the dead and the personification of the evil it represents.[5]

With the notion of an immortal soul came the need for a place for them to go at death.

A role which Sheol already filled.

Resurrection meant sleeping in death with a restoration to life at some time in the future; an immortal soul cannot die, so they needed somewhere to go right away.

No, "resurrection" means to be revived in general.

Those who did not go to heaven had to be punished in the most heinous fashion, so a hell of fiery torment was fashioned around Jesus' mention of "gehenna" (Jerusalem's garbage dump where the bodies of executed criminals were cast, consumed by a fire that was kept burning perpetually with the addition of brimstone, and resulting in the complete destruction of the individuals bodies. They had no resting place and were not considered worthy to be remembered by God or man.)

So Revelations is wrong? Jesus' warnings about what would happen to the wicked were either lies or flowery imagery?

Catholicism went even further by inventing other places like purgatory and limbo. No such places exist in scripture.

The Orthodox would agree with you here.

The form of worship that developed was so distorted that it did not even resemble the original church formed by Jesus and the apostles.

How? What about it was "distorted"?

The "weeds" were foretold and that's what grew. They got away with their despotic reign of terror for 1500 years, then the Reformation took place. Protestantism was born. What were they 'protesting' about? The deplorable state of the church and its corrupt teachings and practices.

They threw out the baby with the bathwater, but at least they had the sense to keep the bathtub.

Did Protestantism fix the problems of pagan doctrine, corrupt heirarchy and rank idolatry? Not really.

There's no idolatry in Catholicism, nor is there pagan doctrine.

It broke the power of the Roman church, but it kept many of her erroneous doctrines.

Actually, it got rid of the erroneous doctrines, but also got rid of a lot of the right practices and beliefs.

It broke up into faction after faction, following the interpretation of many self proclaimed teachers, till we have what is presented today...literally thousands of differing sects and denominations, all claiming to teach the truth.

Yeah, kinda annoying.

Hopefully you will now.

I'm with you on Protestantism and Catholicism. But the Orthodox Church has not changed its faith ever since the time of the Apostles.

When Daniel said that a cleansing, whitening and refining were going to take place in this time of the end....that was an understatement!
Cleansing means that there was soiling, whitening means that unsightly stains were in evidence and refining indicated the need for impurities to be brought to the surface and discarded. This is what Jehovah's people did. We examined all of the church's doctrines in the light of scripture and got rid of everthing that did not find support in the Bible. It was a process that took place over time, but gradually the refining produced a purer form of Christianity that is centered on the work that Jesus assigned to all of his followers....preaching "the good news of God's kingdom in all the inhabited earth". (Matt 24:14; 28: 19,20)

And you seem to have gotten rid of a lot of the things that the Apostles themselves believed in the process.

No one single united body of Christians has fulfilled that command like Jehovah's Witnesses have done.

Well, the Orthodox converted the whole of the Roman Empire, then converted the Bulgarian Empire, the Armenians, the Ethiopians, the Egyptians, many in India, the Serbians, the Russians and Ukrainians... I'd say we've done pretty well despite being fiercely persecuted almost perpetually over the past 2000 years: for 300 years by Romans, for 1400 years by Muslims, and for 70 years by the Communists.

The "Church" is not the weeds sown by the devil, but the wheat that have always been with us. The "Church" would never have tortured and murdered its own people for disagreeing with its unholy doctrines and corrupt practices.

Agreed.

Understanding was not granted all at once. Refining is a process that takes time, effort and patience.

The Church is the "house of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth." The Church CANNOT get anything wrong, since Christ Himself promised to protect it, and ensure that the gates of Hell will never prevail against it The Body and Bride of Christ falling into error is unthinkable. He didn't say that the gates of Hell would win for 1900 years, and THEN the Church would be protected.

I think we all know how Catholicism did its evangelizing.....did Jesus force conversion at the point of a sword? And if others have preached different doctrines as Christian truth, how is that preaching the good news of God's kingdom? (1Cor 1:10)

The Orthodox converted the Romans peacefully, and the Russians, Bulgarians, Serbians, Ethiopians, Armenians, Georgians and Indians accepted it of their own accord.

They don't even have a clear cut definition of what God's kingdom is or the good news concerning it, so what are they preaching except confusion ?

You don't understand what they actually teach, do you?

Perhaps you should be asking the reverse. The wheat were to separate from the weeds. They would not resemble one another in this "time of the end".

"Asking the reverse"? What does that even mean? God wants His truth to shine brightly for all to see, not to cover it up for 1900 years while His people go astray and fall into condemnation.

It is very clear from where I am standing.

And from where I'm standing as well.

 

[JayJayDee]

Shiranui, I would answer in more detail but I can only access this site on my android, which places me at a disadvantage. Still I would like to address your points even in a limited way.

Do you have a lick of proof stating that Catholicism's view of God is a mix of Christianity and Roman paganism?

Please Google "sun worship in Roman Catholicism". Any church that uses the cross as their symbol is participating in sun worship.

I get the impression that you don't fully understand what "Mother of God" means. I also get the impression that you don't know what the Immaculate Conception exactly means.

By all means explain from scripture how Mary is the immaculately conceived "Mother of God".

Jesus seems to distinguish between body and soul quite clearly.

Jesus knew that the soul is the person which cannot exist apart from the body.
In the resurrection the person gets a new body. Those who are not considered worthy of a resurrection are in gehenna, not hades. Those in hades are resurrected.

Also, I see you're not familiar with what the Jews believed about Sheol in Jesus' time.

The inhabitants of Sheol were the "shades" (rephaim), entities without personality or strength.[2] Under some circumstances they could be contacted by the living, as the Witch of Endor contacts the shade of Samuel for Saul, but such practices are forbidden (Deuteronomy 18:10).[3] While the Old Testament writings describe Sheol as the permanent place of the dead, in the Second Temple period (roughly 500 BCE-70 CE) a more diverse set of ideas developed: in some texts, Sheol is the home of both the righteous and the wicked, separated into respective compartments; in others, it was a place of punishment, meant for the wicked dead alone.[4] When the Hebrew scriptures were translated into Greek in ancient Alexandria around 200 BC the word "Hades" (the Greek underworld) was substituted for Sheol, and this is reflected in the New Testament where Hades is both the underworld of the dead and the personification of the evil it represents.[5]

As your quote clearly demonstrates, the Jews originally believed that sheol was the "permanent place of the dead". In case you hadn't noticed, Judaism had well and truly gone off the rails by the time Jesus arrived. He consigned the religious leaders of his day to gehenna not hades. (sheol)

A role which Sheol already filled.

Exactly. Sheol is the place where both the righteous and unrighteous "sleep in death". Jesus calls all the dead out of the same place. (John 5:28, 29)

"resurrection" means to be revived in general.

Resurrection literally means "standing up again" which is what God will do for all in hades.

So Revelations is wrong? Jesus' warnings about what would happen to the wicked were either lies or flowery imagery?

The Revelation is presented in symbolic language. The imagery is indeed pictorial. The lake of fire "means the second death" not an eternal torture chamber.
Can you cite one scripture where God tortured anyone in Israel for any reason? There were not even any prisons.

How? What about it was "distorted"?

I am so limited in what I can show you right now, but the distortion is not questioned because its the only "Christian" doctrine that people have ever known.

They threw out the baby with the bathwater, but at least they had the sense to keep the bathtub.

The bathtub was full of mud! Everyone who bathed in it came out dirty.

There's no idolatry in Catholicism, nor is there pagan doctrine.

I'm with you on Protestantism and Catholicism. But the Orthodox Church has not changed its faith ever since the time of the Apostles.

And you seem to have gotten rid of a lot of the things that the Apostles themselves believed in the process.

If your church promotes the beliefs mentioned in my last post to you, then it doesn't teach what the apostles believed.

Well, the Orthodox converted the whole of the Roman Empire, then converted the Bulgarian Empire, the Armenians, the Ethiopians, the Egyptians, many in India, the Serbians, the Russians and Ukrainians... I'd say we've done pretty well despite being fiercely persecuted almost perpetually over the past 2000 years: for 300 years by Romans, for 1400 years by Muslims, and for 70 years by the Communists.

Jesus words apply to all who spread falsehood as truth. Matt 23:15.

The Church is the "house of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth." The Church CANNOT get anything wrong, since Christ Himself promised to protect it, and ensure that the gates of Hell will never prevail against it The Body and Bride of Christ falling into error is unthinkable. He didn't say that the gates of Hell would win for 1900 years, and THEN the Church would be protected.

The wheat were always present among the weeds. They survived all through history and God raised them up as the last days approached.
Ezekiel prophesied about this . (Ezek 37:1-14)

The Orthodox converted the Romans peacefully, and the Russians, Bulgarians, Serbians, Ethiopians, Armenians, Georgians and Indians accepted it of their own accord.

The Jews didn’t force conversion either, but it didn't stop Jesus condemning them.

You don't understand what they actually teach, do you?

I understand false doctrine when I hear it.

God wants His truth to shine brightly for all to see, not to cover it up for 1900 years while His people go astray and fall into condemnation.

You don't understand what Babylon the great is, do you? God's "people" have to get out of her. (Rev 18:4, 5) How did they come to be in Babylon the great in the first place?

And from where I'm standing as well.

To each his own. We will all be where we have placed ourselves on judgment day.

 

[Shiranui117]

Shiranui, I would answer in more detail but I can only access this site on my android, which places me at a disadvantage. Still I would like to address your points even in a limited way.

Ahh, sucks. I know how that is; I had to use the Wii for my internet needs for several months when one of my old laptops broke. It sucked sooooo much :thud:

Please Google "sun worship in Roman Catholicism". Any church that uses the cross as their symbol is participating in sun worship.

No. Have you read the Gospels and Epistles before? You know, the ones that talk about Jesus's being crucified on a cross, and what that cross means for us?

Galatians 6:14
But God forbid that I should boast except in the cross of our Lord Jesus Christ, by whom the world has been crucified to me, and I to the world.

Ephesians 2
For He Himself is our peace, who has made both one, and has broken down the middle wall of separation, 15 having abolished in His flesh the enmity, that is, the law of commandments contained in ordinances, so as to create in Himself one new man from the two, thus making peace, 16 and that He might reconcile them both to God in one body through the cross, thereby putting to death the enmity.

Colossians 1:19-23
19 For it pleased the Father that in Him all the fullness should dwell, 20 and by Him to reconcile all things to Himself, by Him, whether things on earth or things in heaven, having made peace through the blood of His cross.
21 And you, who once were alienated and enemies in your mind by wicked works, yet now He has reconciled 22 in the body of His flesh through death, to present you holy, and blameless, and above reproach in His sight— 23 if indeed you continue in the faith, grounded and steadfast, and are not moved away from the hope of the gospel which you heard, which was preached to every creature under heaven, of which I, Paul, became a minister.


Colossians 2
13 And you, being dead in your trespasses and the uncircumcision of your flesh, He has made alive together with Him, having forgiven you all trespasses, 14 having wiped out the handwriting of requirements that was against us, which was contrary to us. And He has taken it out of the way, having nailed it to the cross.

By all means explain from scripture how Mary is the immaculately conceived "Mother of God".

Well, Jesus is God, first off (John 1:1c, John 1:14, Colossians 2:9, John 8:58) and Mary is Jesus' mother. Therefore, Mary is the Mother of God. It's really not hard to figure out.

The Immaculate Conception is something that only the Roman Catholics dogmatized; most if not all Orthodox reject the doctrine because it depends on the Augustinian doctrine of Original Sin.

Jesus knew that the soul is the person which cannot exist apart from the body.

Matthew 10:28
And do not fear those who kill the body but cannot kill the soul. But rather fear Him who is able to destroy both soul and body in hell.

If the soul is the person which cannot exist apart from the body, then Jesus is either wrong or lying in that verse. Because if the soul can't exist apart from the body, then when the body is killed, so is the soul.

In the resurrection the person gets a new body.

No, they get their old bodies back, but their bodies are transformed. We'll rise from the dead just as Jesus did: In our old bodies.

Those who are not considered worthy of a resurrection are in gehenna, not hades. Those in hades are resurrected.

Everyone gets resurrected, not just those who are "worthy." None of us are "worthy" of anything, BTW. And everyone is in the same place before the Resurrection. If Gehenna is pre-resurrection, then it's a compartment of Hades.

As your quote clearly demonstrates, the Jews originally believed that sheol was the "permanent place of the dead". In case you hadn't noticed, Judaism had well and truly gone off the rails by the time Jesus arrived. He consigned the religious leaders of his day to gehenna not hades. (sheol)

The Jews also originally didn't believe in the resurrection of the dead, either. Should we throw that idea out as well?

Exactly. Sheol is the place where both the righteous and unrighteous "sleep in death". Jesus calls all the dead out of the same place. (John 5:28, 29)

So you admit that EVERYONE is in Sheol? So no one's in Gehenna instead of Sheol, as you asserted a couple points above?

Resurrection literally means "standing up again" which is what God will do for all in hades.

i.e. everyone.

The Revelation is presented in symbolic language. The imagery is indeed pictorial. The lake of fire "means the second death" not an eternal torture chamber.

So all the parts about "eternal torment" and "weeping and gnashing of teeth" in the Bible are just symbolic language?

Can you cite one scripture where God tortured anyone in Israel for any reason? There were not even any prisons.

Psalm 79:11
Let the groaning of the prisoner come before You; According to the greatness of Your power Preserve those who are appointed to die;

Psalm 102:20
To hear the groaning of the prisoner, To release those appointed to death,

Psalm 146:7
Who executes justice for the oppressed, Who gives food to the hungry. The Lord gives freedom to the prisoners.

There most certainly were prisons in Israel during Jesus' time. They put Jesus somewhere before He was brought before Pilate, and Barabbas was being held somewhere before he was released.

I am so limited in what I can show you right now, but the distortion is not questioned because its the only "Christian" doctrine that people have ever known.

The bathtub was full of mud! Everyone who bathed in it came out dirty.

An emoticon without any words typically doesn't work for countering someone's argument.

If your church promotes the beliefs mentioned in my last post to you, then it doesn't teach what the apostles believed.

Except we have more writings of the Apostles than what's in the Bible. And we have the writings of those who were personally taught by the Apostles. We can trace our every teaching all the way back to the first and second centuries, back to the age of the Apostles. We're not fumbling around in the dark here; we have a teaching we inherited from the Apostles and from their students.

Jesus words apply to all who spread falsehood as truth. Matt 23:15.

Indeed. Like those who invent new doctrines alien to the Faith of the Apostles.

The wheat were always present among the weeds. They survived all through history and God raised them up as the last days approached.
Ezekiel prophesied about this . (Ezek 37:1-14)

That's a prophecy of the resurrection of the dead, not of the resurrection of the Church.

The Jews didn’t force conversion either, but it didn't stop Jesus condemning them.

That wasn't the point that I was responding to. You were touting the JW's evangelization all over the world. I was just bringing up how the Orthodox had converted entire populations and entire cultures. And I didn't even name off all the examples; I could have gone further.

I understand false doctrine when I hear it.

How do you know it's false when you don't even know what it means?

You don't understand what Babylon the great is, do you? God's "people" have to get out of her. (Rev 18:4, 5) How did they come to be in Babylon the great in the first place?

Babylon the Great is the city of Rome.

To each his own. We will all be where we have placed ourselves on judgment day.

Indeed. I've come to my place after praying long and hard before God, getting to know the teachings of Christ and of His Apostles, and how the Church grew from a small community of 70, to 3000 at Pentecost, and to more and more as the Church grew. I also got to know what that early Church believed and practiced and taught, and how it lived. Even now I still ask for His guidance, that He may continue to guide me in the path that He has set me on.

 

[Weatherlawyer]

So the "word" of God is incomplete?

You hope to trip up the unwary but if there is a god then he will prevent his sheep from being harmed.
To answer your question as far as I can.

The Bible is obviously unfinished as it states in several places that we do not see it completely. If we could all see as plainly as you wish us to then we would have answers to things that even Jesus admitted not knowing the answers to.
Besides the fact that your religious intolerance requires everything be in black and white (a state of mind that god tended to frown on I believe) we have to allow leeway for some to see the answers he understands in a manner similar to you; either because that is how he has been taught, or that is how he has learned to think.
We can't all have great military minds all the more so when some of us don't feed it on hunting techniques.
If he has taught himself to keep his mind simple then learn to deal with it in the spirit of comprehension of all things. It is disingenuous of you to ask where we come from since you don't know.
In fact if you reduce your question to the level that it can be understood by and answered by monkeys, if you believed (I am not saying you do) that we evolved then you would have to appreciate at it's simplest the evolutionsist has to agree that he came from a rock.

You only have to watch one or two videos from Kent Hovind on you tube to see that doesn't get you very far. But that is fine, if you don't wish to believe what others do then by all means don't. To purse empty arguments just because they are there to be made doesn't accomplish anything does it?

Or will you feel successful to have upset someone?
You can catch anyone on a bad day and make him shriek and throw a tantrum. It is dispirititing. There is more to answering questions than that isn't there?

 

[Weatherlawyer]

I dont think any of it happened. The whole stories are made up.

Such thoughts are fair enough the whole story is exceptional and I don't believe even the Jehovah's Witnesses feel constrained to believe it categorically.
Never the less the account is quite specific, further more there is anecdotal evidence the earth was under seismic pressure at the time.
In the garden where Jesus awaited arrest he appears to have been sweating profusely. Some take the account where it says his shirt was covered as though with blood to mean he was literally sweating blood. Such a phenomenon is hard to believe because you can't see blood by moonlight even Full Moon.
It is interesting that lunar tables specify the times of the two phases leading up to the ruptures were the same. Whether such a run of phases at the astronomical period could produce the weather could be studied. Whether they could produce the same effects again are a lot harder to study.

The account holds a reference to Elijah was it his body or Elishah's the produced a resurrection (an alleged resurrection that is?) If so it is not without bounds the death of Christ would have supplied the power needed to do the same with more effect.

But where does the term Holy Ons come from. Non Christian Jews would have viewed the resurrected as unclean since they had just touched human corpses. Or were they called holy ones after getting ceremonially cleansed at the Temple according to the Law?

Then there is the darkness, that appears to have been the sort of cloud that brings darkness following an eruption.
There is far too much going on in the story for it to be acceptable to the casual reader.
Yet the man who compiles the NASA catalogue is still alive, you can ask him what degree of accuracy he can give to the times of the phases back then. I think the timing is out by 3 hours or so but is the timing out by the exact amount?
If so it may be possible to go through 200 years of history and find out how geo-phenomena behaved in similar situations.

And finally we can use the account to compare differences in understanding. How was the attitude of some wrong? And what can reasoning get out of it?
Jesus emphasised only that we were to be aware that the reasons some people think and feel the way they do is that they are suffering yeast infections. How much more so where the religious leaders who persisted in hushing-up the whole affair?

The fact is that some things are hard to believe and some thing even start out on the wrong foot. The only sure answer is possible only if god exists. Or rather there are two answers :
I. God doesn't exist
2. If god exists ask him for the answer.

They could have been taken up to Heaven as Hitchey said; in fact, I think the Gospel of Nicodemus corroborates this opinion.

What does the gospel of Nicodemus have to say on it?
Are there no further accounts of a great earthquake?
How extra-ordinary is it for graves to be opened and the contents somehow to be taken or carried into a town?

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

If you don't wish to believe what others do then by all means don't. To purse empty arguments just because they are there to be made doesn't accomplish anything does it?

Or will you feel successful to have upset someone?
You can catch anyone on a bad day and make him shriek and throw a tantrum. It is dispirititing. There is more to answering questions than that isn't there?

Just happened to end up in here having seen it risen to the recent activity list and saw that you only have two posts, both of which were to this 2+ year old thread. Figured I'd be the first to let you know not to expect a reply.

But also, I thought your specific point above was very interesting. Do you not realize that, even if it isn't a person's actual intention in doing so, proselytizing your faith to anyone who doesn't believe as you do is basically the same as the "bad behavior" you admonish against above? Perhaps you wouldn't consider your arguments as "empty" if you were trying to "save souls", but I certainly would. Especially if you quoted enigmatic scripture as support for your arguments. And sometimes (and I know this from experience) the goal of the one positing faith as "the answer" IS ENTIRELY INTERESTED IN UPSETTING their intended target - and I am sure they do feel quite successful when they have done so. How else do you explain a conversation that starts with "Do you know where you will go when you die?" The intent of that question is to upset - to claim otherwise is naive. And I know that not all people who seek to convert others to their ways use those same tactics, but aren't all Christians called to get the word out? To witness to others? If God always "prevents His sheep from being harmed", then what do you feel He thinks of His followers who use the tactics that you openly deplore here? Why does He allow some Christians (some of His sheep) to represent Him in this way? Wouldn't He steer them clear of things that would likely scare some off of wanting to come in contact with another Christians?

 

[Weatherlawyer]

Do you not realize that, even if it isn't a person's actual intention in doing so, proselytizing your faith to anyone who doesn't believe as you do is basically the same as the "bad behaviour" you admonish against above?

I wonder how you work that out. You seem to know this is a forum for discussing religion.
You don't seem to realise that adding paragraphs makes what you have to say a little more lucid. You should try it.

Perhaps you wouldn't consider your arguments as "empty" if you were trying to "save souls", but I certainly would.

I am not sure what that sentence means but I did notice the emphasis. What is the reason for that?

Especially if you quoted enigmatic scripture as support for your arguments. And sometimes (and I know this from experience) the goal of the one positing faith as "the answer" IS ENTIRELY INTERESTED IN UPSETTING their intended target - and I am sure they do feel quite successful when they have done so.

Pardon?

How else do you explain a conversation that starts with "Do you know where you will go when you die?" The intent of that question is to upset - to claim otherwise is naive.

I think you have the wrong person. I don't know where we go when we die that's the whole point of being dead isn't it?

And I know that not all people who seek to convert others to their ways use those same tactics, but aren't all Christians called to get the word out? To witness to others?

Are you discharging society from society except Christians?
Why the bias?

If God always "prevents His sheep from being harmed", then what do you feel He thinks of His followers who use the tactics that you openly deplore here?

If god didn't prevent his sheep from being harmed?

I can't help thinking you have some tangled emotional issues but unless I re read my OPs I can't fathom what on earth you are saying that I said.. I can only assume that you read the wrong posts and assumed I wrote them. Perhaps next time you post and if you add enough paragraph spaces you can help me understand what you are trying to say.

Why does He allow some Christians (some of His sheep) to represent Him in this way? Wouldn't He steer them clear of things that would likely scare some off of wanting to come in contact with another Christians?

That is a good question if you had the calm collection to digest it. If you are emotionally inflamed I can't help you. Look at what you asked:

Do you not realize that proselytizing is.. ...the same as the "bad behaviour" you admonish against above?

That is the whole ethos of proselytising and thus Christianity and all other religions is it not?
The alternative is called preaching to the choir. I am not trying to be funny at your expense but there is a lot of humour in what you have to say. I wonder if it would be unforgivable for me to take your quotes and use them elsewhere.

Don't worry I am not going to but I am the sort of person who would do such things. I hope you can appreciate the warning. The internet is a very big place.

 

[viole]

I wonder how you work that out. You seem to know this is a forum for discussing religion.
You don't seem to realise that adding paragraphs makes what you have to say a little more lucid. You should try it.



I am not sure what that sentence means but I did notice the emphasis. What is the reason for that?



Pardon?



I think you have the wrong person. I don't know where we go when we die that's the whole point of being dead isn't it?



Are you discharging society from society except Christians?
Why the bias?



If god didn't prevent his sheep from being harmed?

I can't help thinking you have some tangled emotional issues but unless I re read my OPs I can't fathom what on earth you are saying that I said.. I can only assume that you read the wrong posts and assumed I wrote them. Perhaps next time you post and if you add enough paragraph spaces you can help me understand what you are trying to say.



That is a good question if you had the calm collection to digest it. If you are emotionally inflamed I can't help you. Look at what you asked:



That is the whole ethos of proselytising and thus Christianity and all other religions is it not?
The alternative is called preaching to the choir. I am not trying to be funny at your expense but there is a lot of humour in what you have to say. I wonder if it would be unforgivable for me to take your quotes and use them elsewhere.

Don't worry I am not going to but I am the sort of person who would do such things. I hope you can appreciate the warning. The internet is a very big place.

May I ask what is the purpose , or ethos, of proselytizing about Christianity?

Ciao

- viole

 

[Scott C.]

Matt.24: 52 And the graves were opened: and many bodies of the saints which slept (died) arose, 53, and came out of the graves after his (Jesus) resurrection, and went into the holy city and appeared to many.

Where are those people today?

They live in Heaven with God as resurrected beings.

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

I wonder how you work that out. You seem to know this is a forum for discussing religion.
You don't seem to realise that adding paragraphs makes what you have to say a little more lucid. You should try it.

Not sure how you don't seem to grasp what I had said. Oh well, I guess?

I am not sure what that sentence means but I did notice the emphasis. What is the reason for that?

Again here, not sure quite how it is that you failed to see the point of what I was saying - especially considering the emphasis. I'm not going to explain it to you. Just being honest here, but from the replies you've given it doesn't appear worth it.

Pardon?

Again here, given that you have some elementary reading and comprehension skills, I am not sure how you can apparently completely fail to understand what I wrote. You keep talking about things "not being helpful". Try "Pardon?" on for size and see how helpful you would find it if you were in my position.

I think you have the wrong person. I don't know where we go when we die that's the whole point of being dead isn't it?

Hmm... being Christian I figured you had some idea. And the point I was making is that, as a Christian using "Do you know where you are going to go when you die?" as the start of a proselytizing "mission" statement, usually means one is looking to force the intended audience to contemplate that they are going to hell if they do not believe as the Christian does. And if they have no idea why they are being asked, then the Christian will usually be quick to explain that so-called "fact" to them - and along with that assume that they are living a hedonistic life of sin. Believe me - I wouldn't be saying this if it hadn't happened to me nearly EVERY TIME a Christian has come to my door looking to hand me some pamphlet or, ultimately, attempt to invite me to their church. And yes, in fact, I do have somewhat hurt feelings over these encounters for a few reasons:

1. A Christian does not really wish to connect with me, personally, as they are not out to "save" me for their own reasons. They are doing it according to "God's will". In the end, I am of the belief that they are not really interested in me, personally. It is all an attempt to please their figurehead. Their "care" for me is really hinged on whether or not I take up arms beside them and join the Christian cause. I mean, if I were to continually reject their religion, or, in turn, proselytize my own beliefs before them, do you really think they would continue to pursue connection with me? I mean honestly? Perhaps a select few - a very rare breed indeed. But for most, the answer is a marked "no", they would not. Hence my feeling that they do not truly care about me. What they care about is some amorphous, non-existent "lost soul" as a part of the greater humanity that their God told them to seek out and "help". Not me. Never me.
2. They have chosen to start their encounter with me with an attempt to prove that they know "how things work" better than I do. And in the realm of faith, where hard facts are scarce to non-existent, claiming that you know better than another person the supernatural goings on of the universe is an insult to that other's intelligence. A proselytizer has no choice but to make the claim that they know better than you do, that they are better informed, and that you are currently living in ignorance. How am I not supposed to feel insulted when another person comes along and tells me that I am not smart enough to come to my own conclusions? That I therefore need "guided onto the path"?

Are you discharging society from society except Christians?

I'm sorry, but what in the hell does this mean? I honestly can't make heads or tails of what you are asking or getting at. This is one of the reasons I said that trying to explain prior points of mine you had problems understanding wasn't worth it. You just don't seem altogether able to comprehend certain aspects of my writing style, or writing in general. I'm not trying to insult you - though I am sure you'll take it that way. I'm just being honest.

If god didn't prevent his sheep from being harmed?

Again here - I don't think you understood this part of my reply because I just can't fathom this is a counter-reply. Are you asking this because you think I said/asked it? Do you think I said something I didn't? What is this? I'm seriously trying to understand.

I can't help thinking you have some tangled emotional issues but unless I re read my OPs I can't fathom what on earth you are saying that I said.. I can only assume that you read the wrong posts and assumed I wrote them. Perhaps next time you post and if you add enough paragraph spaces you can help me understand what you are trying to say.

The entire point of my replies was simply this: "IT IS DISPIRITING TO BE PROSELYTIZED TO BY CHRISTIANS AND YET, IN THE FACE OF SOMEONE DOING THEIR OWN FORM OF THE SAME YOU COMPLAIN THAT THE ACT IS DISPIRITING." An atheist attempting to get people of faith to question their beliefs through reason and rational thought is no different from a Christian trying to win over a soul to "the way" in my opinion. In fact, the Christian attempt to convert is actually the worse of the two. At least the atheist isn't usually trying to actually "convert" someone, since there isn't a clear definition or set of beliefs at that point to convert to. You saw the original poster's comments as being an attempt to "trip up the unwary" or "harm sheep" - and, being a non-believer, I see the attempt at talking people into believing as you do as the same sort of trickery. Catch the person who hasn't figured things out for themselves, prey on their emotional weakness - assume that they are lost without God - get them to believe in the irrational, and become something you want them to be. It is a kind of harm. And I'll mention once again that ALL Christians - at least as far as I have heard from every Christian I have ever discussed it with, are called to participate in this attempt at transforming others. At assuming others' "weakness" and "folly". Called to presume they know more, know better, and should foist those ideas on everyone they come in contact with. Tell me I'm wrong. Whatever. It doesn't matter. You have done no more than call a black kettle black when you are no more than a black pot.

That is a good question if you had the calm collection to digest it. If you are emotionally inflamed I can't help you. Look at what you asked:

Oh, believe me, I know it is a good question. And I know also that you have no answer for it because there is no good answer.

That is the whole ethos of proselytising and thus Christianity and all other religions is it not?

Haha! Finally we appear to be on the same page! And yes - yes it is. And it is a rotten practice. Rotten to its very core.

The alternative is called preaching to the choir.

Isn't this what happens every Sunday in churches across the world full or parishioners who are already believers? You make it sound as if this is a worthless endeavor.

I am not trying to be funny at your expense but there is a lot of humour in what you have to say. I wonder if it would be unforgivable for me to take your quotes and use them elsewhere.

Believe me... you're not funny. And why on Earth would I care if you use or quote my words elsewhere? I again find myself confused. You have no idea who I am or what I am about. You want to go show something I have said to your cronies so you can all have a good long laugh because you remain under delusion as to what I am saying? Sure, fine by me. As if I could care about that. Besides - do you think I wouldn't stand up for and be able to defend anything I have said against any form of "attacks" you might feel I would come under as a part of your sharing my comments wherever with whoever? Please - give me a break.

Don't worry I am not going to but I am the sort of person who would do such things. I hope you can appreciate the warning. The internet is a very big place.

Confused again here. Neither you, nor anyone you might share any of my quotes with know who I am, and as I said, I feel no shame in anything I have written. Share away. I will give my condolences preemptively to anyone who really ends up giving a crap - as it means their lives must be terribly boring. I honestly don't feel I have said anything noteworthy to any outside party whatsoever.

 

[URAVIP2ME]

Matt.24: 52 And the graves were opened: and many bodies of the saints which slept (died) arose, 53, and came out of the graves after his (Jesus) resurrection, and went into the holy city and appeared to many.
Where are those people today?

Do you mean Matthew 27:52-54 ?

Matthew 27:51 informs us there was an earthquake, That quake caused the graves or tombs to crack open and expose dead bodies ( corpses exposed )
Jesus was Not resurrected the day Jesus died - Acts of the Apostles 2:27, so the ' after the resurrection ' - Matthew 27:53 - are living persons who went into the city and appeared to many and they were Not the dead bodies, but living people who were there at the time of the quake.
No one was resurrected to heaven before Jesus - John 3:13
Jesus would be ' first ' - 1 Corinthians 15:20; 1 Corinthians 15:23
Acts of the Apostles 24:15 uses the ' future tense ' that there ' is going to be ' a resurrection.....
Notice the time of the first or earlier resurrection taking place at 1 Corinthians 15:23 B ; Revelation 20:6
So, resurrection would be by rank, so to speak, the saints or holy ones - Daniel 7:18 - have the first or earlier resurrection - Revelation 20:6
Whereas, the majority or most of mankind will have a healthy physical resurrection back to life on earth during Jesus' coming 1,000 year governmental rulership over earth.

 

[URAVIP2ME]

Well that's the point of this thread. The "word" of God says they came out of their graves and walked in the holy city which is Jerusalem. So where are they today and how come the Bible nor any other book from that time tells us where they are?

Please see my above post # 52 because the ' they ' are Not the dead bodies, but ' living people ' who were present when that earthquake happened - Matthew 27:51-53

 

[URAVIP2ME]

"faith" is guessing without evidence.

Guessing without evidence is Not faith but is credulity or blind faith.

Jesus based his faith by his logical reasoning on the old Hebrew Scriptures.
That is why Jesus often prefaced his statements with the words, "It is written " Written where but in the old Hebrew Scriptures.
So, Jesus was quoting or referring to the old Hebrew Scriptures as the final authority on matters.

 

[leibowde84]

Matt.24: 52 And the graves were opened: and many bodies of the saints which slept (died) arose, 53, and came out of the graves after his (Jesus) resurrection, and went into the holy city and appeared to many.

Where are those people today?

If that happened, there would have been official records of it. Romans were good at that kind of thing, yet nothing but claimed 3rd hand stories exist in scripture. Not very substantial, imho.

 

[Weatherlawyer]

Nothing but claimed 3rd hand stories exist in scripture. Not very substantial, imho.

The whole point in having faith is that you can ask the god of your belief. And if you get dissatisfaction, you can complain to him about it. I replied to this thread originally because I was interested in the geo physics. Here is something that has occurred in reply to some of my questions: http://weatherlawyer.altervista.org/earthquakes-wednesday-9th-december-2015/

 

[Weatherlawyer]

Not sure how you don't seem to grasp what I had said. Oh well, I guess?
Again here, not sure quite how it is that you failed to see the point of what I was saying - especially considering the emphasis. I'm not going to explain it to you. Just being honest here, but from the replies you've given it doesn't appear worth it.

You failed to quote me properly so I couldn't follow what you were implying or tell for a fact what it was I had said. I wasn't going to wade through all those previous posts to attempt to sort out your misapprehensions. I am a Christian but my beliefs are not well understood by you.
You are hardly a circumspect or even a rational thinker. Don't subscribe to what others ascribe to and others won't ascribe to you what you don't subscribe to as someone once said.

[/quote] me? or you?
Again here, given that you have some elementary reading and comprehension skills, I am not sure how you can apparently completely fail to understand what I wrote. You keep talking about things "not being helpful". Try "Pardon?" on for size and see how helpful you would find it if you were in my position.[/quote]

You had not written anything comprehensible so I was only able to guess your meanings. I formed the opinion you had lost track of who said what.

Hmm... being Christian I figured you had some idea.

About what?
Only a fool would believe anyone knows where anyone goes when they die. If you don't understand that then you have too much too learn. Or do you want me to get involved in a pointless argument?
To what end?

Believe me - I wouldn't be saying this if snipped...hurt feelings over these encounters for a few reasons:

Not my problem, nor is it on topic. I don't know if you understand about "topics for discussion". If you stick to a point you can learn to develop a thread or you can just bury it in a mire of foolishness and hurt feelings. Also don't misquote people if you can help it.

 

[Oldsoul]

.

Where are those people today?

They are probably regulars at Starbucks. ..

 

[Weatherlawyer]

Talking about life after death: It is not rational to believe something you can't either see or prove.
Plenty of people delude themselves about eternity. All we are told is that Adam died.

We don't know if he died and went to heaven.
It seems putting him on earth in the first place was pretty pointless if he ended up in heaven. I refuse to believe he ended up in hell. Nowhere does any scripture say he did and it rather abuses the personality of the creator to think he plans evil like that.

The original scripture OP'ed is very unusual and it is only possible to understand it with faith or to dismiss it entirely. Prior to Jesus' death he is alleged to have brought Lazarus to life. If you can believe that, you can believe the rest as literal or you can suppose he was talking about the disposal of bodies disinterred by a quake.
So why bother ripping the curtain?
Only the people who killed Jesus would get to find out about that?
Did some priests repent and whistle-blow or was there a freedom of information act in those days?
Some religions believe in an afterlife. Where do they draw what lines?
Are there rats and mice in heaven how do you know what animals god likes, go where?

 

[Unification]

Matt.24: 52 And the graves were opened: and many bodies of the saints which slept (died) arose, 53, and came out of the graves after his (Jesus) resurrection, and went into the holy city and appeared to many.

Where are those people today?

Those words are still pertaining to today, with people waking up and becoming aware internally.

We have all been the walking dead, most still are....alive and existing but living in our unconscious slumber/ego's.

The dead as in not literally dead, but having a conscious mind separation.

When one wakes up and becomes aware of themselves, the resurrection is occurring within the body and mind of the human being. . the holy city being Jeru-Salem which means to find peace. (not a literal city)

The old ways passed, the new ways of peace have come. Entering the holy city is entering a state of peace/finding peace within.

I suppose it helps that the Christ isn't a literal dude or deity, but rather the Christ is something within the human body that rises.

One finding peace and appearing to many others as being a changed and new man/woman.... that's the evidence.