/ Topic > Re: rapture / Date > 15 Feb 2000 / Newsgroup > alt.religion.christian.biblestudy /
.
>> textman wrote: You can find no mention of it in the Bible for a very good reason; namely,
>> the Bible makes no mention of it. Therefore, if the Bible makes no mention of it, why on
>> earth should Christians bother their silly heads about it?
.
> On 14Feb2000 Fred A Stover wrote: Your Bible seems to be missing a lot of verses.
.
textman answers: Dear Fred, I don't think so. In fact, *my* Bible of sacred scriptures very probably has thousands more verses than yours, as it includes not only the deutero-canonicals (which Protestants wrongly call 'Apocrypha') but also the tritero-canonicals (which include the sacred books once recognized as inspired by the early Greek churches (eg. 1&2Clement, Barnabas, etc) but *NOT* by the Emperor's corrupt episcopal muffinheads). ... So who do you think is more reliable as a witness to authentic Christian faith: the self-serving and compromising priests, or the early Greek believers who wrote the Greek Christian scriptures ... hmmmm?
.
> The rapture is in the Bible (explicitly described in 1Thess 4:15-17,
.
For we tell you this by the word of the Lord, that we who are alive, who are left until the coming of the Lord, will surely not go ahead of those who have fallen asleep. For the Lord himself will come down from heaven with a shout of command, with the voice of an archangel, and with the trumpet of God, and the dead in Christ will arise first. Then we who are alive, who are left, will be snatched up together with them in the clouds to meet the Lord in the air. And so we will be with the Lord always. -- 1Th.4:15-17
.
So this event that Paul predicted would happen to the believers *of his generation* did NOT come about; neither in his day nor in all the centuries following. Clearly Paul was wrong about this. It was a false prophecy that failed to materialize. This does not bother me since even the greatest prophets can occasionally be wrong. What *does* bother me is that supposedly sensible believers even today await in expectation an event that is nothing other than sheer fantasy!
.
> Rev 11:11-12).
.
But after three and half days a breath of life from God entered them and they stood on their feet, and tremendous fear seized those who were watching them. Then they heard a loud voice from heaven saying to them: "Come up here!" So the two prophets went up to heaven in a cloud while their enemies stared at them. -- Revelation 11:11-12
.
I see nothing here that could justify the absurd idea that the prophet of Patmos and Paulos of Damascus are both speaking of the same thing. On the contrary, the text makes it quite plain that these are two very different events. The similarities that exist (eg. clouds, voice; ie. standard apocalyptic symbols) are purely superficial. Moreover, it is very *very* inadvisable to treat the prophets as a grab-bag providing verses that one can mix and match so as to create an apocalyptic smorgasbord tailored to the individual fancies of this or that believer. ... That's NOT what I call respecting the Word of God!
.
> It is the catching up of His at His coming.
.
John does NOT speak of "the catching up of His". Rather he speaks of the two prophets going up to heaven (note: NOT meeting the Lord "in the air") in a cloud. Methinks you are deliberately confusing two very different books (ie. two very different prophetic visions).
.
> It has been church doctrine from day one, which a search using "caught up" at the site of the
> 38 volumes of The Early Church Fathers will reveal.
.
Church doctrine is full of errors and inaccuracies. In fact, some of the early Church Fathers deliberately promoted ideas that they knew to be false (for the greater good of the church, of course). So if the great prophet Paul could be wrong (which he was), why should we believe that the framers of church doctrines were free from all error? Especially when it is *obvious* that they were NOT!
.
> A few other verses which may be missing from your Bible: "A man that is an heretic after the first
> and second admonition reject; knowing that he that is such is subverted, and sinneth, being
> condemned of himself" (Tit 3:10-11).
.
I just checked my Bible, and guess what? It's in there. How about that? ... btw: Are you implying that the cyber-prophet is a heretic? Would that be because I favor a rational approach to the scriptures and the Faith? All those who wish to be sensible believers take note. In exercising your mind for the Lord you WILL be reviled and rejected and labeled a heretic!
.
> There are a number of methods you may want to employ to check for missing Bible pages. If, for
> example, the last verse on the left page is numbered higher than the next verse on the right page,
> there is at least one missing page. Another example, if the title of the book on the left page is
> Genesis and the title of the page on the right is Jude, there is at least one missing page.
.
Oh, at least ... :)
.
> If the page number on the right page is not consecutive to the page number on the left page,
> you've got at least one page missing. Another tip is that, if you add 1 to the page number on
> the left page and subtract it from the page number on the right page, the result is the number
> of pages which are missing. -- His, Fred
.
Gee Fred, your math is astounding. Too bad your prophetic thinking leaves so much to be desired.
"When the world began,
the Word was already there. The Word was with God,
and the nature of
the Word was the same as the nature of God.
The Word was there
in the beginning with God.
It was through the
agency of the Word that everything else came into being.
Without the Word not
one single thing came into being."
-- John 1:1f /
Barclay's New Testament
/ Topic > Re: Question on prophesy?-1 / Date > 7 Nov 2000 /
/ Newsgroups > alt.christnet.theology, alt.bible.prophecy, alt.religion.christian.pentecostal, alt.religion.christian.biblestudy /
.
> On 2Nov, David' Chariot wrote: Please contribute your opinion. ><> Isaiah 8:21
.
And when they say to you, "Consult the mediums and the wizards who chirp and mutter," should not a people consult their God? Should they consult the dead on behalf of the living? To the teaching and to the testimony! Surely for this word which they speak there is no dawn. They will pass through the land, greatly distressed and hungry; and when they are hungry, they will be enraged and will curse their king and their God, and turn their faces upward; and they will look to the earth, but behold, distress and darkness, the gloom of anguish; and they will be thrust into thick darkness. -- Isaiah 8:19-22 / RSV
.
textman answers: Dear David, that's "thick darkness" eh? Well then, my opinion is that this prophecy is in effect today, and indeed is being realized even now in the spiritually hungry land called America where the People do indeed consult the "wizards" of Wall Street and Hollywood, hearing and heeding empty words of illusion and darkness. Are they not distressed and desolate? And if not, then they damn well oughtta be! ... Check it out.
.
><> Jeremiah 30:9
.
But they shall serve the LORD their God and David their king, whom I will raise up for them. -- Jeremiah 30:9/RSV
.
><> Ezekiel 34:23-24 / Ezekiel 37:23-24 / Hosea 3:5 /
>
> What is the identity of the two, that are spoken of in the prophesy, in each of the above five instances?
> Thanking you in advance. Peace be with you through our Lord Jesus Christ, and to Almighty God the
> Glory for ever and ever -- the charioteer
.
Well, sir charioteer, that's certainly a most curious question you have there. You want to know the identity of the two people mentioned in the prophecies, is that right? I'd say it would depend on whether or not you wish to remain within the specific historical context of each book and prophet. A more general Christian reading of, 4X, Jer. 30:9 might identify "the LORD their God" as the Heavenly Father (ie. the God of Jesus Christ), and "David their king" as a reference to Jesus Christ (who was indeed raised up for them (ie. for the new People of God)).
.
In the same way, the same sort of identification can be made with reference to Hosea's prophecy:
.
For the children of Israel shall dwell many days without king or prince, without sacrifice or pillar, without ephod or teraphim. Afterward the children of Israel shall return and seek the LORD their God, and David their king; and they shall come in fear to the LORD and to his goodness in the latter days. -- Hosea 3:4-5/RSV
.
Of course, such a current reading only works if we violate the more immediate context and intention of the good servant Hosea. So although the prophet may not have foreseen the advent of the new Christian churches as the new "children of Israel", it is nevertheless right and proper to understand the prophets from the Lord's wider and more generous vision. In this case, the specific mention of "the latter days" more than justifies our view that the prophecy can and should be applied to the current generation of the People of God . . .
.
For there are no days more "latter" than these.
.
For the children have already dwelt "many days without" ...
P.S. The first pillar of Islam: "That Allah is the only God,and that Muhammad is Allah's final and true apostle."
Final apostle! Final prophet! Final revelation! Finally, absolutely, irrevocably, ultimately closed canon of sacred scriptures! Sayeth the Lord God Allah: "Byte Me!" ... Yeah, right. Why does everything have to be so bloody FINAL with so many believers all the time, eh? That's what I'd like to know.
/ Topic > Re: Question on prophesy?-2 / Date > 15 Nov 2000 /
/ Ngz: alt.christnet.theology, alt.bible.prophecy, alt.religion.christian.pentecostal, alt.religion.christian.biblestudy /
.
>> textman previously wrote: Dear David, that's "thick darkness" eh? <snip remainder>
.
> On 14Nov David Chariot replied: Hey textman, Thanks for that. As time goes forward into what
> is these "latter days", is it not already notable that Christendom has lost the Way, Truth and life?
.
textman answers: Dear David, that's exactly what I've been preaching for the last three years: that the Faith was and is being corrupted and debased by churches and individuals eager to play the whore by selling out the faith of the apostles, prophets, and saints in order to score points with the masses by showing them how incredibly liberal, enlightened, and politically-correct all these new and improved "progressive" churches really are.
.
> We can see even here in these newsgroups division and hatred for the truth that Jesus
> Christ has a God, indicating that he is not God.
.
The fact that Jesus never claimed to be God is apparent in the title that he most often used when referring to himself: the Son of Man. This title in and of itself shows that Jesus had no delusions of god-hood. All that came later when piety went mad and ran rampant over all sense of decency and proportion.
.
> The traditions of men say that this man was God.
.
The question first arose in earnest during the early decades of the fourth century. Prior to the Arian controversy few people were willing to shed their blood over the question.
.
> But when the reality sets in *God* is all in all. The commandment that was forsaken and is truly
> misunderstood in these "latter days", is to worship God with all of your heart, mind, body and soul.
.
This command asks a great deal of human nature . . . Maybe more than most can give.
.
> But men have estranged themselves and followed the pastors and ministers who have twisted the Word
.
The 'Twisted Ones' in particular will follow *anyone* who can tickle their itching ears.
.
> and worshipped a prophet sent by God, evidenced within the prophecies and fulfilled in our day.
> What does it mean? "Sell all that you have and give to the poor!", "Follow me!", "Love thy neighbour
> as thyself." Who is your "enemy"?
.
The cost of faith is obviously much too high for those who place their trust in money, fame, power, comfort, security, and luxury. It's far much easier to sell your soul to Satan, and then just go to church and *pretend* to be a Christian!
.
> I see much hatred for what I say in giving my opinion, in e-mail and here on these newsgroups.
.
New thoughts must always be threatening to the old illusions that so comfort and soothe.
.
> There are many who despise me,
.
Join the club! :)
.
> and all in all, those who despise me the most are those declaring Christianity.
.
Same here. It's the ones who have all the answers, and know all that there is to know about the scriptures, who are the most certain that I am wrong (about everything). Which only goes to show that their "knowledge" is made up of 50% vanity and 50% arrogance!
.
> Again, thank you for your views.
.
Yer welcome I'm sure.
.
> Peace be with you through our Lord Jesus Christ, and to Almighty God the Glory for ever and ever
.
Ditto
P.S. "To pretend that truth is so deeply hidden from us, and that it is hard to distinguish it from falsehood, is quite preposterous: the truth remains hidden only while we have nothing but false opinions and doubtful speculations; but hardly has truth made its appearance than its light will dispel dark shadows." -- Galileo
/ Topic > Re: puzzlement / 23Sept2000 / Ngz: alt.religion.christian.biblestudy, alt.religion.christian.anabaptist.brethren /
.
> On 13Sept David Mycoff wrote: Crossan's book
.
textman asks: Dear David, which book do you have in mind please?
.
> is hardly original in directing attention to dangers in applying the classical doctrine of atonement,
.
I agree. This idea has deep roots in biblical science. In 'The Riddle of the New Testament' by Hoskyns & Davey (1931), one can find a clear exposition on how the Christian interpretation of various OT texts was used to make the crucifixion intelligible to the early Greek churches by means of atonement theology. 4X: H&D point out the many significant parallels in these two passages:
.
For to this you were called, since Christ also suffered for you, leaving an example for you to follow in his steps. He committed no sin nor was deceit found in his mouth. When he was maligned, he did not answer back; when he suffered, he threatened no retaliation, but committed himself to God who judges justly. He himself bore our sins in his body on the tree, that we may leave sin behind and live for righteousness. By his wounds you were healed. For you were going astray like sheep but now you have turned back to the shepherd and guardian of your souls. -- 1Peter 2:21-25/NETbible
.
But he lifted up our illnesses, he carried our pain; even though we thought he was being punished, attacked by God, and afflicted for something he had done. He was wounded because of our rebellious deeds, crushed because of our sins; he endured punishment that made us well, because of his wounds we have been healed. All of us had wandered off like sheep, each of us had strayed off on his own path, but the LORD caused the sin of all of us to attack him. He was treated harshly and afflicted, but he did not even open his mouth. Like a sheep led to the slaughtering block, like an ewe silent before her shearers, he did not even open his mouth. He was led away after an unjust trial. But who even cared? Indeed, he was cut off from the land of the living, because of the rebellion of his own people he was wounded. They intended to bury him with criminals, but he ended up in a rich man's tomb, because he had committed no violent crime, nor had he spoken deceitfully. Though the LORD desired to crush him and make him ill, once restitution is made, he will see descendents and enjoy long life, and the LORD's purpose will be accomplished through him. Having suffered, he will reflect on his work, he will be satisfied when he understands what he has done. My servant will acquit many, for he carried their sins. -- Isaiah 53:4-11/NETbible
.
> but it seems puzzling to me that somebody would think that a critique focused on that doctrine
> would be particularly pertinent to an anabaptist community, since the Anabaptists have by and
> large never made it the center of their Christology,
.
It is not so puzzling to me, David. At the e-groups web-site, the Anabaptist group lists seven beliefs apparently unique to Anabaptists. None of these make mention of the Atonement; but before one can join the Anabaptist e-list, you are requested to answer "a few questions about your beliefs". One of these questions reads, in part: "Do you believe that Jesus bodily died on the Cross to pay for the sins of humankind"? This certainly suggests to me that the Atonement is a central feature of Anabaptist beliefs.
.
> especially in texts of the foundational period of the sixteenth-century.
.
In the centuries between then and now, the Anabaptist churches have seen many changes. The most significant of these is, I think, that whereas the early 16C Anabaptists were fearless tradition-breakers, the 21C Anabaptists have become (like every other church) staunch and conservative tradition-keepers!
.
> In Hubmaier and Simmons, for instance, atonement theory is not used as a basis for excluding
> anyone from the possibility of salvation. Otherwise, how could they argue that unbaptised infants
> and children are covered by grace and not - contrary to the Augustinian doctrine of infant damnation
> - in a state of damnable sin?
.
Overcoming Augustine's influence is *still* a major problem for Christian theology!
.
> The theory instead becomes the foundation of a doctrine of freedom. Christ restores to human beings
> the freedom of their will to chose good and to act on that choice, thereby reclaiming original freedom,
> and with it, responsibility for their own misuse of freedom. These notions reject predestinarianism and
> in some instances at least seem to lead to universalism, the belief that at length all humanity will chose
> to accept grace, and not by coercion.
.
Origen forwarded a very similar proposal way back in the third century CE. He even went so far as to suggest that even Satan was not absolutely beyond all possibility of redemption.
.
> The muslim borther who has been sending these posts to the newsgroup seems to think that all
> Christians are calvinists?
.
I get the same sort of thing from atheists and other unbelievers.
.
> I guess that if I were to pose a possible question for discussion it would be whether members
> of the newsgroup continue to understand atonement in ways consistent with these early
> anabaptist emphases, or have they adopted the more usual emphases of most evangelical
> Christianity in America? -- David Mycoff
.
My guess is that Fundyism has indeed infected Anabaptism in many and various ways; and that not all of these adaptations are to the benefit of the Faith or the People of God. The problem seems to be rooted in a fundamental inability to read the sacred scriptures with respect and passion and imagination, and with a strong sense of the relevance of early church history to the way we should read and understand the NT. Saying that the Bible is inerrant and infallible - and treating this doctrine as if it were itself an infallible revelation from on high - is very *NOT* my idea of showing due respect for the Word of God!
.
> Wayne Sutton wrote: This opening quote of Crossan's book (from Jaydee's post) seems calculated
> to offend: "God sacrifices his own son in place of humans who needed to be punished for their sins
> might make some Christians who love Jesus, but it is an obscene picture of GOD. It is almost heavenly
> child abuse, and may infect our imagination at more earthly levels as well. I do not want to express
> my faith through a theology that picture GOD demanding blood sacrifices in order to be reconciled to
> us." (Page 145-146)
.
textman answers: Dear Wayne, the page numbers of this quote are worse than useless if we do not know in *which* book this quote can be found! Therefore -> What is the title of the book in question *PLEASE*?!
.
BTW, I can't speak for anyone else, but I personally am not offended. Indeed, I think Crossan makes a darn good point here. Just why should the Creator of the Cosmos require blood, violence, and death in order for reconciliation to occur? Is it not remotely conceivable that God could get by without blood sacrifices at all? Did not the prophet speak truly when he spoke thusly:
.
"Of what importance to me are your many sacrifices?" says the LORD. "I am stuffed with burnt sacrifices of rams and the fat from steers. The blood of bulls, lambs, and goats I do not want. When you enter my presence, do you actually think I want this: animals trampling on my courtyards? Don't bring anymore meaningless offerings; I consider your incense detestable. You observe new moon festivals, sabbaths, and convocations, but I cannot tolerate sin-stained celebrations. I hate your new moon festivals and assemblies; they are a burden that I'm tired of carrying. When you spread out your hands in prayer, I look the other way; when you offer your many prayers, I don't listen, because your hands are covered with blood. Wash! Cleanse yourselves! Remove your sinful deeds from my sight. Stop sinning! Learn to do what is right! Promote justice! Give the oppressed reason to celebrate! Take up the cause of the orphan! Defend the rights of the widow!" -- Isaiah 1:11-17 / NETbible
.
> As a christian and as an anabaptist, I am thankful that Jesus bore my sins upon the cross.
> I haven't read his book,
.
Which book is that?
.
> but in this particular quote, Crossan seems to be audaciously judging God - as though he sees
> himself morally superior to God.
.
I don't think this judgment is justified at all. Crossan is simply questioning the image of God that atonement theology presents us with. As a theologian, it is his duty to question such things.
.
> "Should the clay say to the potter 'What are you doing?'" ISAIAH 45:9
.
Perhaps not. But we *are* made in the image of God, and therefore have the ability, and perhaps even the right, to question. Think of it this way: It is a sign of spiritual maturity that we can look back at the religious ideas and practices of our spiritual ancestors, and find them wanting. Indeed, this is precisely what Jesus did. He went to the Temple, saw the animals being slaughtered for God, and was revolted by the spectacle (as you, no doubt, would also be). He responded to these ancient practices by introducing the disciples to a new form of Passover ritual: the bloodless sacrifice of bread and wine. Jesus was a radical reformer who would have been perfectly happy to see the end of priestly bloodletting. In due course, it was the Romans who put an end to the bloody rituals; by burning Jerusalem to the ground!
.
> I think that this passage from the apostle Paul, answers Crossan best: "For the message of
> the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to those who are being saved it is
> the power of God. ... <snip rest of quote> 1COR 1:15-25
.
It does not seem to me that this passage answers Crossan at all. Rather, you appear to be using it to show that we have no right to question the thinking of the biblical authors. If that is the case, then we may as well do away with all the theological and biblical sciences altogether. That way we can all remain firm and strong in our abounding ignorance! But Paulos did not preach ignorance. Rather, he preached knowledge through Jesus Christ. In the same way, God is not against miracles *or* wisdom; for these too have their place in the Faith.
.
<snip remainder>
.
Knowledge and faith *together* are the only sure way to God. This is the constant message of the NT prophets; from Paulos of Damascus, in the middle of the first century, to the prophets of Egypt (Jacob, Judas, and 2Peter) in the middle of the second.
.
Please *do* check it out!
On Creating Prophets.
And Moses went out and told the people the words of the LORD ... He then gathered seventy men of the elders of the people and had them stand around the tabernacle. And the LORD came down in the cloud and spoke to them, and he took some of the Spirit that was upon him, and put it on the seventy elders. When the Spirit rested upon them, they prophesied, but did not do so again. But two men remained in the camp; the name of the one was Eldad, and the name of the other Medad. And the Spirit rested upon them. Now they were among those in the registration, but had not gone to the tabernacle. So they prophesied in the camp. And a young man ran and told Moses, and he said, "Eldad and Medad are prophesying in the camp!" And Joshua the son of Nun, the servant of Moses, one of his choice young men, answered and said, "My lord Moses, you must stop them!" And Moses said to him, "Are you envious for me? Oh that all the LORD's people were prophets, that the LORD would put his Spirit upon them!" And Moses returned to the camp, he and the elders of Israel. -- Numbers 11:24-30 / NETbibleNote on NETbible Num.11:25 -> "In fact there is no consensus among scholars as to the origin and meaning of the verb 'prophesy' or the noun 'prophet'. It has something to do with speech, being God's spokesman or spokeswoman or making predictions or authoritative utterances or ecstatic utterances. It certainly does mean that the same Holy Spirit, the same divine provision that was for Moses to enable him to do the things that God had commanded him to do, was now given to them. It would have included wisdom and power with what they were saying and doing; in a way that was visible and demonstrable to the people! The people needed to know that the same provision was given to these men, authenticating their leadership among the clans. And so it could not simply be a change in their understanding and wisdom."
