when is jesus speaking directly to his followers?

[URAVIP2ME]

that was an interesting read, but why did you avoid what i so clearly pointed out...?
john thought he was in the last hour... he says it himself. you interpret what john says to apply to today...2000 yrs later. is it possible for you to read what he says without reading into it? why must the bible be so cryptic? especially revelations, seems john was on hallucinogenic mushrooms.
are you throwing out red herrings to avoid looking at these passages without any preconceived notions, or are you just ignoring what i previously pointed out to you?
can you look at the passages i posted and refute my point by using these same passages within it's original context without cherry picking irrelevant ideas?

John knew it was the last hour for the apostles on earth. Not the last hour before Jesus takes the action described at Isaiah 11v4; Rev 19vs11,14,15

The setting of Revelation [1v10] is set for our day or time frame.

Isn't there a minor and a major fulfillment to Matthew 24 and Luke 21?

The tribulation of Matthew 24v21 has not happened yet.
The great multitude of Rev 7v14 has not come out of it yet.

The political 'kings' or world rulers of Rev 17v2 have not yet turned on the world's false religious sector or false religious 'queen' of Rev 18vs7,8.
So, how can anyone say it is passed when this is ahead of us?

 

[waitasec]

John knew it was the last hour for the apostles on earth. Not the last hour before Jesus takes the action described at Isaiah 11v4; Rev 19vs11,14,15

The setting of Revelation [1v10] is set for our day or time frame.

Isn't there a minor and a major fulfillment to Matthew 24 and Luke 21?

The tribulation of Matthew 24v21 has not happened yet.
The great multitude of Rev 7v14 has not come out of it yet.

The political 'kings' or world rulers of Rev 17v2 have not yet turned on the world's false religious sector or false religious 'queen' of Rev 18vs7,8.
So, how can anyone say it is passed when this is ahead of us?

well i guess you can't then...
34 Truly I tell you, this generation will certainly not pass away until all these things have happened.

luke was written after the destruction...
mark the first gospel was written after the destruction...no minor fulfillment
the major fulfillment... well uh, that generation passed away.

isaiah 11:4
It was not until the close of the first period of Jewish history that God 'refused the tabernacle of Joseph (Hebrew Bible), and chose not the tribe of Ephraim, but chose the tribe of Judah, the Mount Zion which he loved' (Ps. 78:67, 68). When the Ark was removed from Shiloh to Zion the power of Ephraim was sequestered." talk about holding a grudge...


~wiki

revelations 1:10
"Lord's Day is a Christian name for Sunday, the day of communal worship...According to the New Testament, some Christians held corporate worship on Sunday in the first century.
The author of Rev. 1:10 ("I was in the Spirit on the Lord's Day") uses kyriake hemera in a way apparently familiar to his readers. First-day Sabbatarians hold that this means he was worshipping on Sunday, resurrection day"...apparently john ate some magic mushrooms on a sunday :yes:

here's another link
Dictionary - Definition of LORD'S DAY

~wiki

 

[URAVIP2ME]

waitasec-

'Sunday' was never the Lord's day.
'Sunday rest day' started with Constantine not Scripture
The Bible's definition of the Lord's day is the 'day' the Bible is talking about.

Isaiah 11v4 is in reference to Rev 19v15 Jesus will smite the earth with the rod of his mouth, and with the breath of his lips slay the wicked. Psalm 92v7
Before Jesus ushers in Peace on Earth, with the words from his mouth he will rid the earth of the wicked. Psalm 37vs11,29,38

Except for John's gospel, the other three were written before the year 70.

The generation of Matthew 23v36 is not the same generation of Matthew 24v34.
The generation of verse 34 is in connection to our day.

 

[waitasec]

waitasec-

'Sunday' was never the Lord's day.
'Sunday rest day' started with Constantine not Scripture
The Bible's definition of the Lord's day is the 'day' the Bible is talking about.

Isaiah 11v4 is in reference to Rev 19v15 Jesus will smite the earth with the rod of his mouth, and with the breath of his lips slay the wicked. Psalm 92v7
Before Jesus ushers in Peace on Earth, with the words from his mouth he will rid the earth of the wicked. Psalm 37vs11,29,38

Except for John's gospel, the other three were written before the year 70.

The generation of Matthew 23v36 is not the same generation of Matthew 24v34.
The generation of verse 34 is in connection to our day.

"Lord's Day" is the English translation of the ancient Greek kyriake hemera, a term that first appears in Christian literature in the latter half of the first century. Within a few decades, however, the term kyriake hemera became ubiquitous in Christianity, so that hemera was ellided. Thus, when a Christian writer referred to the kyriake, his readers understood that Sunday was meant.

The first appearance of the term kyriake hemera is in the New Testament, in the Book of Revelation, which was written in the latter decades of the first century. In Rev. 1:10, the author writes, "I was in the Spirit on the Lord's Day." Most Christian commentators interpret Rev. 1:10 as a reference to Sunday, but some argue that because Revelation contains numerous eschatological visions, kyriake hemera in this passage should be taken as a reference to the end of the world or Judgment Day, which Old Testament prophets often called the Day of the Lord. However, in the Septuagint, the Greek translation of the Old Testament, as well as in the original Greek texts of the New Testament, the eschatological judgment day is called hemera tou kyriou, never kyriake hemera. It is possible that when Christians began to call Sunday "the Lord's Day," they opted for kyriake hemera because hemera tou kyriou already had acquired its own connotation or meaning due to the Septuagint rendering.

Dictionary - Definition of Lord's Day

so if you want to argue with webster...go ahead...

 

[URAVIP2ME]

Sabbath was originally: Saturday.
There is No Scripture of a new sabbath after Jesus death.
There is a difference between the day of the Lord and the: Lord's day or Rev 1v10.
A sabbath was Not part of first-century Christianity.
Not until 321 that Constantine decreed dies Solis ['Sun'day] or sun worship.
It was Sabbatum, not sabbath or dies Domini [Lord's day], to be a day of rest for everyone expect the farmers. So Constantine, not Scripture, first decreed issuing the first law prohibiting work on Sundays.

Biblical usage of 'day' denotes periods of time [ Gen 2v4; John 8v56; 2Pt3v8].
The Lord's day of Rev 1v10 is not a 24-hr day, or a particular day of the week.
All those events described in Revelation would take more than a literal 24-hr day.
[which include the abyssing of Satan for a thousand years during the Lord's day.
besides the resurrection during Jesus 1000-year reign] or Jesus millennial-long day of reigning over earth.

 

[waitasec]

Sabbath was originally: Saturday.
There is No Scripture of a new sabbath after Jesus death.
There is a difference between the day of the Lord and the: Lord's day or Rev 1v10.
A sabbath was Not part of first-century Christianity.
Not until 321 that Constantine decreed dies Solis ['Sun'day] or sun worship.
It was Sabbatum, not sabbath or dies Domini [Lord's day], to be a day of rest for everyone expect the farmers. So Constantine, not Scripture, first decreed issuing the first law prohibiting work on Sundays.

Biblical usage of 'day' denotes periods of time [ Gen 2v4; John 8v56; 2Pt3v8].
The Lord's day of Rev 1v10 is not a 24-hr day, or a particular day of the week.
All those events described in Revelation would take more than a literal 24-hr day.
which include the abyssing of Satan for a thousand years during the Lord's day.
besides the resurrection during Jesus 1000-year reign] or Jesus millennial-long day of reigning over earth.

when did i ever mention sabbath? :areyoucra
is that a purposeful red herring or are you intentionally not reading my reference
sunday was the day jesus "rose from the dead" and then it became the lords day...

the Greek translation of the Old Testament, as well as in the original Greek texts of the New Testament, the eschatological judgment day is called hemera tou kyriou, never kyriake hemera. It is possible that when Christians began to call Sunday "the Lord's Day," they opted for kyriake hemera because hemera tou kyriou already had acquired its own connotation or meaning due to the Septuagint rendering

you can call an apple an orange all you want but it's still an apple.

it is irrelevant that these events would take more than 24 little hours...
there are many references that indicate these early followers believed jesus was coming back within their lifetime...in the entire new testament...

 

[Thief]

it is irrelevant that these events would take more than 24 little hours...
there are many references that indicate these early followers believed jesus was coming back within their lifetime...in the entire new testament...

Any chance that Jesus might be there....standing over you....
when you lay down to breathe your last breath?

 

[dogsgod]

Any chance that Jesus might be there....standing over you....
when you lay down to breathe your last breath?

Oh brother.

 

[waitasec]

Any chance that Jesus might be there....standing over you....
when you lay down to breathe your last breath?

that may be from your subjective point of view...
but since jesus hasn't been empirically identified to be who you claim he is i would say no...

 

[Thief]

that may be from your subjective point of view...
but since jesus hasn't been empirically identified to be who you claim he is i would say no...

I have made no claim....but if I did...please remind me.

And if He was not able to 'crossover'...then who else might?

When you 'crossover'...who will stand over you?
If not the Carpenter...perhaps then...the devil?

 

[Thief]

Oh brother.

You too.....

 

[waitasec]

I have made no claim....but if I did...please remind me.

please read the next 2 quotes...those are subjective claims

And if He was not able to 'crossover'...then who else might?

When you 'crossover'...who will stand over you?
If not the Carpenter...perhaps then...the devil?

 

[Thief]

please read the next 2 quotes...those are subjective claims

No...these are questions I would be asking you.

 

[waitasec]

No...these are questions I would be asking you.

you are assuming these things will happen
which is subjective

 

[Thief]

you are assuming these things will happen
which is subjective

That doesn't mean the logic isn't there.

You will...like everyone else...surrender you last breath.
If there is life after death...someone will stand over you as that happens.

And the angels have no interest in what stands up from the dust?
Really?

However....I do not assume eternal life is guaranteed.

 

[waitasec]

That doesn't mean the logic isn't there.

You will...like everyone else...surrender you last breath.
If there is life after death...someone will stand over you as that happens.

And the angels have no interest in what stands up from the dust?
Really?

However....I do not assume eternal life is guaranteed.

that is your personal subjective point of view

 

[Thief]

that is your personal subjective point of view

well...
If you want to call belief in life after death....a personal item?....okay.

How does the 'personal' part reduce the concept?

 

[waitasec]

well...
If you want to call belief in life after death....a personal item?....okay.

How does the 'personal' part reduce the concept?

because it is yours not mine
your conjunction is purely subjective

imo, if god were to be an empirically objective truth (or life after death), then we would all have the same understanding of it. for example, we agree that the earth revolves around the sun, we interpret colors the same and that 1+1=2. since there are so many definitions or interpretations of what god is this idea is purely subjective and personal.

 

[Thief]

because it is yours not mine
your conjunction is purely subjective

imo, if god were to be an empirically objective truth (or life after death), then we would all have the same understanding of it. for example, we agree that the earth revolves around the sun, we interpret colors the same and that 1+1=2. since there are so many definitions or interpretations of what god is this idea is purely subjective and personal.

for clarity...no...

That the earth orbits the sun is true we know....
but not before the telescope.
Some people are color blind.
Numbers have limitations. I've seen a savant interviewed who tried to explain how and why....but to know such things as he does?

Personal perspectives are sharp.
First hand experience would be difficult to deny.

That you will die?...yes of course....guaranteed.
And do you need 'personal experience' to affirm the pending event?

Life after death?...for sure?...no.
It is not guaranteed.
But if there is life after death, someone will be there....to watch you do so.

 

[waitasec]

for clarity...no...

That the earth orbits the sun is true we know....
but not before the telescope.
Some people are color blind.
Numbers have limitations. I've seen a savant interviewed who tried to explain how and why....but to know such things as he does?

how about you get wet when your in a swimming pool
or if you touch fire, you'll get burned
:areyoucra
you are sidestepping the obvious point i'm making
these are things we know to be empirically objective truths

Personal perspectives are sharp.
First hand experience would be difficult to deny.

for yourself that is...
it would be empirically objective if we were to experience it and interpret it the same way

That you will die?...yes of course....guaranteed.
And do you need 'personal experience' to affirm the pending event?

there is empirical evidence for this which is why you and i can interpret death the same. the end of life as we know it.

Life after death?...for sure?...no.
It is not guaranteed.

again this is a personal point of view...purely subjective

But if there is life after death, someone will be there....to watch you do so.

a conjunction existing on principles that are not objectionable.