The Great Tribulation? Very Controversal and The Second Coming of Christ (merged)

[jonathan7]

You've been drinking haven't you? As that is the only way I can possible see how, not knowing me, you would think I was 'preaching at you'.

 

Why do you feel it is your obligation to preach Jesus to others? If others care, they'll convert their own. I've always believed public preaching should be treated as a public indecency.

 

I know you have some strange wish to paint me as a straw man, but let me correct a few of your fallacies a) I'm a lefty b) If I was American (which I'm not, I'm Welsh) I would vote Obama.

 

Finally if you decide to read a thread like this

expect to come across a few religious posts

 

 

And I presume, having seen my signature you don't have a clue who Nietzsche is.

[Q]

I've always believed public preaching should be treated as a public indecency.

No arguments here, as long as that belief is equally held where non-believers are concerned. Some of them can be rather preachy as well.

[cire992]

Nah, I don't drink Jonathan. I get a little carried away sometimes, sorry man. And I didn't think you were preaching to me. If I did, my response would have gotten me banned.

 

@ Qliveur - Everyone's preachy and opinionated, the disturbance starts when no one wants to hear about it anymore. Preach Darwinism in the 'god-belt' and you're a public disturbance. So you're right, it goes both ways.

[jonathan7]

Nah, I don't drink Jonathan. I get a little carried away sometimes, sorry man. And I didn't think you were preaching to me.

 

No worries, wires crossed; I'd presumed the comment was specifically for me as you had quoted me above.

 

If I did, my response would have gotten me banned.

 

I doubt it

 

@ Qliveur - Everyone's preachy and opinionated, the disturbance starts when no one wants to hear about it anymore. Preach Darwinism in the 'god-belt' and you're a public disturbance. So you're right, it goes both ways.

 

Depends what you mean by "preach", I vehemently believe in the freedom of speech - of some nut wants to get up and preach about the flying spaghetti monster he should be afforded that right - but only in certain places. People don't have to listen to said nut; I just get uncomfortable when governments try and shut people up.

 

And as mentioned earlier I like Voltaire's way of doing things; I disagree with what you have to say, but defend to the death your right to say it.

 

With regards Darwinism, people should be allowed to discuss it - indeed if people want to go and preach it in the street (in certain places) they should be afforded that right.

[Ctrl Alt Del]

EDIT: And, Achilles, just because Salvation is gained by faith does not mean that a Christian should not do good things. It's not part of getting into the Kingdom, as evidenced by the Thief, but it should be done.

In fact, it's on the Catholic church deepest beliefs that salvation also comes from good deeds.

 

Hmmm...wouldn't that be impossible considering that new people are born every second? Seems like logistics alone would make that one difficult.

I don't see how it would be, considering children are sinless. Besides, God isn't a bureaucrat, if He arrived now he wouldn't just send Joe Doe who just aged, I dunno, 13 yesterday to hell because he's an unbeliever.

 

A few months ago my church thought Putin was the antichrist... Then it was Al Gore, and now Obama...

Then I see little point on gathering arguments to use to convince them otherwise. If not Obama, then tommorrow Mugabe (well, I'd even agree he's something similar to the devil).

 

They're not all to different than Christians on this forum.

That's quite the statement, which I disagree wholeheartedly.

[General LiWar]

So please explain to me how Obama, who has professed faith in and love for Christ, could possibly be an antichrist. I don't agree with everything Obama or McCain do politically, but that has nothing to do with their religious views. I'd argue that Obama has tried to put his faith into action by championing social issues that are designed to make people's lives better and thus could not possibly be an antichrist.

 

I'm don't think he is either, but the antichrist will be elected and seem good to all until later in his terms. I just saying that the possibility is there though it is doubtful.

 

In my opinion I don't think we'll know who the antichrist is until the treaty is signed and we probably won't know who an antichrist is until anti-christ deeds are committed.

[Jae Onasi]

cire: Definition of 'grace' from dictionary.com:

5. mercy; clemency; pardon: an act of grace.

 

You're confusing the act of grace with the honorific afforded a duke, "Your Grace".

 

Heaven would be a democracy for us westerners

I've always believed public preaching should be treated as a public indecency.

So, democracy and freedom of speech are allowed only for atheists?

 

Jesus has done so many good things--why would I not want to share the good news? If someone is interested in chatting with me about it, fine, if not, they can always ignore my posts on the subject if it's here (particularly in a religion thread). If we're in person, someone can ask me if we can talk about something else, and I'm happy to honor their request.

[Rev7]

In fact, it's on the Catholic church deepest beliefs that salvation also comes from good deeds.

I think that you might be mis-understanding Corinthian. I think. I don't think that you can gain salvation by just doing good deeds. Just by 'being a good-person' or a 'good [insert religon here]' doesn't mean that you are going to get salvation. Sorry, but I believe that the only way to salvation is 'by faith in Jesus Christ'...and truly living your life according to the Word. I don't want to get all preach-y though, that is not the point of this thread. However that doesn't mean that we cannot do good deeds. That is my

 

(Not really directed to you Ctrl Just putting out what I think)

 

More on topic--I am still studying, but I know that Jesus will come again. Emphasis on the 'I'

 

I will try and come back to talk later... :/

[Emperor Devon]

Jesus has done so many good things--why would I not want to share the good news?

 

First, it's a few thousand years too old to be news. Whether Jesus existed or not.

 

Secondly, because most street preachers come off as incessant zealots who only sour non-christians against whatever it is they're trying to preach. It's sanctimonious of them to devote time and effort converting people to Jesus (or at least trying to) instead of doing something constructive.

[Samuel Dravis]

In fact, it's on the Catholic church deepest beliefs that salvation also comes from good deeds.

Technically that's untrue. They believe in salvation through grace-- but you might have a difficult time finding one who thinks of salvation as something distinct from living "religiously" (and doing good works is very often part of that religious life).

[Totenkopf]

 

No need to retaliate.

 

_EW_

 

Yeah, yeah, just go and try to suck all the fun of of life, why don't ya.

[Rabish Bini]

Are you saying you're a Christian? Because I am too. Or are you saying that you believe that Obama's the Antichrist?

 

If that's the case, then.... :/

 

 

_EW_

Technically I'm Roman Catholic. And, no I don't think anyone is the Anti-Christ

 

They're not all to different than Christians on this forum.

Now I know that's not me, not once in my life have I tried to force my Religion on anyone.

[Corinthian]

I disagree with a lot of Catholic Doctrine, Ctrl, one being their fixation on works. I feel it denigrates what Christ did on the Cross - when he said 'It is finished' I believe he meant it, like he meant everything else he said. I don't think any more needs to be done. It should be done, but as a byproduct of salvation, not the source of it.

[EnderWiggin]

Technically I'm Roman Catholic. And, no I don't think anyone is the Anti-Christ.

Then obviously you were not in the group that I was referring to.

 

_EW_

[Ctrl Alt Del]

I think that you might be mis-understanding Corinthian. I think. I don't think that you can gain salvation by just doing good deeds. Just by 'being a good-person' or a 'good [insert religon here]' doesn't mean that you are going to get salvation. Sorry, but I believe that the only way to salvation is 'by faith in Jesus Christ'...and truly living your life according to the Word. I don't want to get all preach-y though, that is not the point of this thread. However that doesn't mean that we cannot do good deeds. That is my

 

Technically that's untrue. They believe in salvation through grace-- but you might have a difficult time finding one who thinks of salvation as something distinct from living "religiously" (and doing good works is very often part of that religious life).

 

Yes, good works alone won't save people, but they're a step closer to God. Specially the works done thinking on Him and His words. And that might be a shot on the dark, but I'm pretty sure every other christian religion out there respect the teaching of loving our brothers as Jesus loved us.

 

I disagree with a lot of Catholic Doctrine, Ctrl, one being their fixation on works. I feel it denigrates what Christ did on the Cross - when he said 'It is finished' I believe he meant it, like he meant everything else he said. I don't think any more needs to be done. It should be done, but as a byproduct of salvation, not the source of it.

The same answer as before serve for this statement. While Christ has indeed finished his work at the Cross, the good works are a signal that a person is close to God.

[Samuel Dravis]

I disagree with a lot of Catholic Doctrine, Ctrl, one being their fixation on works. I feel it denigrates what Christ did on the Cross - when he said 'It is finished' I believe he meant it, like he meant everything else he said. I don't think any more needs to be done. It should be done, but as a byproduct of salvation, not the source of it.

Perhaps you didn't read what I wrote a few posts above. This might also be helpful to you in correcting your misunderstanding. Good works are not the source of salvation for Catholics any more so than they are for you.

[Rabish Bini]

Then obviously you were not in the group that I was referring to.

 

_EW_

It's pretty much the same thing, with minor differences.

[Darth InSidious]

I disagree with a lot of Catholic Doctrine, Ctrl, one being their fixation on works. I feel it denigrates what Christ did on the Cross - when he said 'It is finished' I believe he meant it, like he meant everything else he said. I don't think any more needs to be done. It should be done, but as a byproduct of salvation, not the source of it.

"You see that a man is justified by works and not by faith alone" - James 2:24;

 

"... so also faith without works is dead" - James 2:26

 

Would it help to point out that John was gnostic

Do you think you could provide a source for this claim? It's not one I'm familiar with - and certainly, his writings bear few if any thematic links with the gnostic works that I've read.

 

@Topic:

"At that time the kingdom of heaven will be like ten virgins who took their lamps and went out to meet the bridegroom. Five of them were foolish and five were wise. The foolish ones took their lamps but did not take any oil with them. The wise, however, took oil in jars along with their lamps. The bridegroom was a long time in coming, and they all became drowsy and fell asleep. "At midnight the cry rang out: 'Here's the bridegroom! Come out to meet him!' "Then all the virgins woke up and trimmed their lamps. The foolish ones said to the wise, 'Give us some of your oil; our lamps are going out.' " 'No,' they replied, 'there may not be enough for both us and you. Instead, go to those who sell oil and buy some for yourselves.' "But while they were on their way to buy the oil, the bridegroom arrived. The virgins who were ready went in with him to the wedding banquet. And the door was shut.

 

"Later the others also came. 'Sir! Sir!' they said. 'Open the door for us!'

"But he replied, 'I tell you the truth, I don't know you.'

"Therefore keep watch, because you do not know the day or the hour.

You also must be ready, because the Son of Man will come at an hour when you do not expect him."

He said to them: "It is not for you to know the times or dates the Father has set by his own authority.

Matter settled, I think.

 

@Rabish: Could you elaborate on what you mean here?

[Rev7]

 

Matter settled, I think.

QFT.

[Rabish Bini]

@Rabish: Could you elaborate on what you mean here?

Elaborate on what?

[Achilles]

OK, I said "I don't think". It was still qualified.

I was more concerned with this part:

I'm a pre-millenialist so the rapture is supposed to come prior to the tribulation

 

That doesn't sound like an opinion. That sounds like a statement. Again, if you're telling me that it was intended to be an opinion, then I'll take you at your word and we can move on.

 

Why? You're never going to accept their writings anyway, so I suspect it'd be a waste of time.

It seems incredibly insincere to first invite to a dialog and then refuse to participate once I accept.

 

Either you are interested in having a dialog in good faith or you are not. If it the latter, please let me know so that I can take your future remarks in the proper context. Thanks.

 

You subscribe to a ultra-liberal view of the Bible that is not accepted by most serious Biblical scholars.

Considering that you either admitted that you are not a biblical scholar, I am curious as to why you see fit to speak for them now. Help please?

 

I don't agree with either your views on the Bible or your sourcing of those views.

Without asking for them or knowing what they are? You've already made your conclusions about my arguments before I've presented them. Again, this makes it difficult for me to accept that you're even slightly interested in an open-minded dialog.

 

Well, they saw Christ return after resurrection to His spiritual kingdom. John was allowed to see a preview of Christ's second return. Either or both could apply. I'm not sure what you're getting at here.

Those certainly are possible interpretations. Whether either of them are valid or should be considered valid is another question though. The larger point being that the author of that passage (as well as the authors of passages like them) sure did seem to think that the end was nigh. In other words, thinking that the end times are upon is us not a recent social phenonenon; this has been going on since the christianity was founded.

 

This is the passage I was referring to:

<snip>

Yes, since you've quoted it before I suspected that it was. However I don't see how it conflicts with or contradicts what the author of G.Matthew writes in the passage I quoted.

 

"Sometime between now and the time you die XYZ will occur"

"You won't know the exact hour in which XYX will occur. You must be ready for XYZ to occur"

 

I don't see a problem there.

 

Justification by faith does not remove our responsibility to do good works. A Christian who thinks they can just sit back and do nothing because they're saved by faith is mistaken.

According to your interpretation anyway.

 

John was most certainly not a Gnostic.

Please let me know how you intend to support this argument.

 

All you have to do is read the Gospel of John to know that he's not a Gnostic.

Funny. I would say that all you have to do is read G.John and Revelation (and have some knowledge of gnosticism) to see that he was

 

No serious Biblical scholar has ever even suggested John was a Gnostic--that's left to some liberal fringe types who are uncomfortable with either Christ's divinity or His humanity, or both.

Again, these are very curious comments coming from someone who earlier professed not to be a biblical scholar. This leads me to suspect that you are either jumping to conclusions which will be difficult for you to support or you are simply parroting arguments that you've picked up from other sources.

 

No serious scholar would suggest this? How do you know? Who gets to decide which scholars are "serious" and which ones aren't? You? Someone else? Who gave you or these other people the authority to decide?

 

These are not rhetorical questions so I would appreciate you replying with answers.

 

I've read Revelation a number of times. I view it as written by a guy who was shone things from the future and had to try to explain it in language that his contemporaries could understand. How would someone from the 1600's who was shown a glimpse of the 21st century handle explaining ICUs, TVs, computers, the internet, credit cards, ATM machines, atomic bombs, DNA or even cars to someone else from the 1600's? It'd be pretty tough.

That's certainly one possible explanation. Another is that they were written by a guy who lived on an island that is rumored to have lots of hallucenegenic mushrooms. I find that explanation lacking though as it is based on rumor and the writing is consistent with other gnostic writing, meaning that accepting John as a gnostic would be a much simpler (and more likely) explanation.

 

I don't see how it would be, considering children are sinless.

Source please?

 

Besides, God isn't a bureaucrat,

Source please?

 

if He arrived now he wouldn't just send Joe Doe who just aged, I dunno, 13 yesterday to hell because he's an unbeliever.

Source please?

 

Do you think you could provide a source for this claim? It's not one I'm familiar with - and certainly, his writings bear few if any thematic links with the gnostic works that I've read.

A second century Greek writing that focused primarily on sprit over flesh, light vs. dark, etc doesn't strike you as being thematically consistent with gnosticism? I sincerely apologize for responding to your question with another question, but I'm at a loss for how else to reply.

[EnderWiggin]

It's pretty much the same thing, with minor differences.

 

Roman Catholics pretty much think that Obama is the antichrist?

 

Sorry, no.

 

Elaborate on what?

 

Your opinion that all sects of Christianity are the same.

 

That doesn't sound like an opinion. That sounds like a statement. Again, if you're telling me that it was intended to be an opinion, then I'll take you at your word and we can move on.

You knew what she meant.

Source please?

Source please?

Source please?

Funny, yet unnecessary. There's obviously no real proof here.

 

_EW_

[Achilles]

You knew what she meant.

Careful. I do indeed have an opinion on what I think she meant. My purpose here is to find out if what she said and what she meant are the same.

 

Funny, yet unnecessary. There's obviously no real proof here.

Either he has valid sources that I should consider and my skepticism is unfounded or his point are unfounded and therefore should only be considered with a huge chuck o' salt. The most generous way to find out which of these scenarios is the case is to give him the benefit of the doubt and ask for his sources.

[The Source]

Quick question and pause:

Correct me if I'm wrong, but the word 'tribulation' is a recent concept? Christian groups in the late 1990s created the term.

I've been hearing a lot lately from many of the people I know in real life that they think the Great Tribulation, (prophecied in the Bible) is going to happen soon. All of the people I go to church with think Obama might be the Antichrist.

When an individual is able to amass large groups of individuals, people on the outside tend to make a connection with demonic forces. Thoughout the history of religious groups and world leaders, people such as Obama have the potential of becoming overwhelmed with power. Does this mean that Obama is the Anti-Christ? No. If you look at some of the historical figures of both good and evil, you will find that Obama has similarities with them all. Anyone who can move so many people with slogons and punchlines is a problem. Jimmy Jones, Hitler, JFK, and Martin Luther King all shared the 'Utopian Society' perspective. Even though they shared the same philosophies, (change, hope, and government participation), they were morally different at the core.

 

Remember this quote, "Its not who we are on the inside, but what we do that defines us." When someone uses the phrases 'change', 'hope', and 'I will set you free", the first thing you should ask is, "What do you mean?"

 

When it comes to the Anit-Christ perception of Obama, his lack of definition is what is making people worry. Anyone who can get 200,000ish people to gather into one place, and has done nothing to deserve such recognition, has to be approached with cautious skepticism (sp?).

 

As far as I'm concerned, only the devil can amass such large groups.

[EnderWiggin]

Careful. I do indeed have an opinion on what I think she meant. My purpose here is to find out if what she said and what she meant are the same.

 

Ok then.

Either he has valid sources that I should consider and my skepticism is unfounded or his point are unfounded and therefore should only be considered with a huge chuck o' salt. The most generous way to find out which of these scenarios is the case is to give him the benefit of the doubt and ask for his sources.

 

He's making a normative and not a descriptive claim. It's all his interpretation.

 

When it comes to the Anit-Christ, Obama's lack of definition is what is making people worry. Anyone who can get 200,000ish people to gather into one place, and has done nothing to deserve such recognition, has to be approached with cautious skepticism (sp?).

As far as I'm concerned, only the devil can amass such large groups.

 

{snip} Threats of physical harm, even "semi" veiled, have no place here. - d3

This is so ridiculous I'm going to leave this thread because I don't want an infraction.

 

_EW_