PDA

View Full Version : Christianity's Biggest Blunders



disturbo
November 5th, 2015, 09:14 PM
Futurist only please.

Being raised Catholic, I can tell you that it never hurt me to get on my knees to pray and say the pledge of allegiance in every day at the beginning of class in Catholic school. After moving on from there to several different denominations I still call myself 'mostly' Catholic today but I'm a futurist and non-trinitarian. And that's the first blunder I would like to address.

The trinity

The bible clearly teaches that Jesus is God but that God is yet greater. Jesus admitted that the Father was greater and that God knew things he didn't know. Some people confuse diety with trinity. Jesus is GOD, but God, Jesus, and the Holy Spirit are not coequal.
Question: Why is the Holy Spirit no found in the depiction of God's throne when Jesus is IF He is a member of this 'trinity'?


Going to heaven after we die.

The bibles says many things about the intermediate state but not once does it state we go to heaven until after we get our glorified bodies. There variations are either being awake or brain dead for a while until the resurrection. All that is a matter of debate. But why do so many churches teach we go to heaven when it's clear we go to paradise to await the resurrection.


Preteriblationism. This one astounds me.

What makes pre-tribbers think that when God does remove His own, planes, trains, and automobiles would crash killing millions and causing havoc all over the earth? Why would people want to turn to God knowing he just murdered millions just to take you to 'heaven?' Sounds more like a terror attack to me. They make the rapture appear more like a destructive and sloppy transition from earth to heaven rather than a kind and loving act of God. Worst yet is preterism.


Preterism

It is the most destructive thing that has ever entered the church. God's power, wisdom and foreknowledge is proven by prophecy. Preterisn is a prophetic cop out. It's so easy to take a prophecy and find some history, especially from the first century, that's remotely similar to a prophecy AND CLAIM it's already fulfilled. Preterism is an awful denial of God's prophetic Word. It takes so much away from God's purpose in prophecy just before the return of His Son Jesus Christ.

There really isn't much difference between full and partial preterism.


The Revived Roman empire.

This is a colossal blunder and yet people still believe it even though there's no evidence of it and a classic misinterpretation of the great statue of Daniel 2. People are moving away from it for very simple reasons. The reformers and those that followed in their eschatological footsteps are responsible for an incredible amount of misleading prophecies because of it.

The challenge on this one is for anyone on the forum to show me ONE verse of prophecy where Rome, Catholicism, The EU, or America is implied anywhere in ebd-time prophecy.


Globalsim.

Does the bible really teach that in the end a demonic duo would somehow rise and unite the worlds governments and religions? Does it really predict an end-time world dictator? Do you really think all of the world's governments would relinquish their political and governing authority over to one man? How would one man accomplish such an enormous task?

This blunder primarily comes from a misinterpretation of about three simple words. ALL, WORLD, AND END. Neither will there be a global mark of the beast. The mark will be limited to the empire or caliphate of the Islamic beast in the Arab world headquartered in the Dome complex in East Jerusalem and probably will spill over to other Muslim dominated countries.


The Anti-Christ. He's NOT an global dictator and...

Some people say there not once is someone called "the anti-Christ' in the bible. This is not true as he is called the anti-Christ. Some say the anti-Christ is a system, a spirit, or a plurality of persons. That's not true either since several times personal pronouns are attributed to him.

This is the way 1John 2:18 is translated in the KJV and it's actually incorrect.

Little children, it is the last time: and as ye have heard that antichrist shall come, even now are there many antichrists; whereby we know that it is the last time.

If you look at several other translations you'll see it translated differently because that's the way it is in the Greek interlinear.
The correct rendering of 1st John 2::18 is more like this.

New International Version

Dear children, this is the last hour; and as you have heard that the antichrist is coming, even now many antichrists have come. This is how we know it is the last hour.

This is actually the most accurate and 'reader friendly' one to understand.

New Living Translation

Dear children, the last hour is here. You have heard that the Antichrist is coming, and already many such antichrists have appeared. From this we know that the last hour has come.

Berean Study Bible

Children, it is the last hour; and just as you have heard that the antichrist is coming, so now many antichrists have appeared. This is how we know it is the last hour.

NET Bible

Children, it is the last hour, and just as you heard that the antichrist is coming, so now many antichrists have appeared. We know from this that it is the last hour.

Aramaic Bible in Plain English

My children, it is an end time, and according to what you have heard that The False Messiah comes, already there have been many false messiahs, and by this we know that it is an end time.

The fact that the word THE is in the interlinear, I say the passage indicates a coming antichrist as well as many antichrist.


The primary Protestant view of Daniel 7.

How can Daniels first beast similar to a lion rise from the sea, when the date of the vision occurred in the first year of Belshazzar who was the last king of Babylon? The Babylonian Empire had already risen decades before and was on it's way out when Daniel 7 was written! Why would Daniel prophesy about a kingdom that was already in existence for about 50 years and soon to end? Some atheist have actually caught onto this blunder and used it to debunk the bible by calling Daniel a false prophet which he would certainly be, since he prophesied about something already in existence. But you know wht? Christians typically don't care.

A PROPHET CANNOT PROPHESY ABOUT SOMETHING ALREADY IN EXISTENCE WITHOUT TRULY BEING A FALSE PROPHET!


Attributing APOSTASY to the church.

Let no man deceive you by any means: for that day shall not come, except there come a falling away first, and that man of sin be revealed, the son of perdition;

From the word 'except' in verse 3c, to the end of verse 12, the church is not implied in any way. In fact the words "but we" in verse 13 prove that the church is not part of the apostasy! The word but is a conjunction that shows distinction and opposition to a previous statement. It opposes persons to persons or things previously mentioned or thought of. The distinction in this passage is between the followers of Christ as opposed to the man of sin and his followers. The church is not implied whatsoever. Everything is attributed to the anti-Christ and his followers.

2Thes. 2:13 But we are bound to give thanks alway to God for you, brethren beloved of the Lord, because God hath from the beginning.

JonahofAkron
November 5th, 2015, 09:24 PM
I think I agree with most of these.

patrick jane
November 5th, 2015, 09:30 PM
Futurist only please.

Being raised Catholic, I can tell you that it never hurt me to get on my knees to pray and say the pledge of allegiance in every day at the beginning of class in Catholic school. After moving on from there to several different denominations I still call myself 'mostly' Catholic today but I'm a futurist and non-trinitarian. And that's the first blunder I would like to address.



Preteriblationism. This one astounds me.

What makes pre-tribbers think that when God does remove His own, planes, trains, and automobiles would crash killing millions and causing havoc all over the earth? Why would people want to turn to God knowing he just murdered millions just to take you to 'heaven?' Sounds more like a terror attack to me. They make the rapture appear more like a destructive and sloppy transition from earth to heaven rather than a kind and loving act of God. Worst yet is preterism.






Your a non-trinity thinker and catholic. I think the idea of crashing vehicles and planes is absurd, it's a warped view of the rapture. I believe exactly what the Bible tells us in Thess. God can work His Will in many different ways and we shouldn't try filling in the blanks with our imaginations.

jamie
November 5th, 2015, 10:29 PM
Why is the Holy Spirit no found in the depiction of God's throne when Jesus is IF He is a member of this 'trinity'?


The Holy Spirit is Jesus' father.


Now the birth of Jesus Christ was as follows: After His mother Mary was betrothed to Joseph, before they came together, she was found with child of the Holy Spirit. (Matthew 1:18 NKJV)

But while he thought about these things, behold, an angel of the Lord appeared to him in a dream, saying, “Joseph, son of David, do not be afraid to take to you Mary your wife, for that which is conceived in her is of the Holy Spirit. (Matthew 1:20 NKJV)

jamie
November 5th, 2015, 10:34 PM
Apostles' Creed

(1) I believe in God the Father Almighty;
(2) And in Jesus Christ, His only Son, our Lord;
(3) Who was born of the Holy Ghost and of the Virgin Mary;
(4) Crucified under Pontius Pilate and buried;
(5) The third day He rose again from the dead,
(6) He ascended into Heaven,
(7) Sitteth at the right hand of the Father,
(8) Whence He shall come to judge the living and the dead.
(9) And in the Holy Ghost,
(10) The Holy Church,
(11) The forgiveness of sins;
(12) The resurrection of the body.

(http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/01629a.htm)

brewmama
November 6th, 2015, 12:14 AM
Apostles' Creed

(1) I believe in God the Father Almighty;
(2) And in Jesus Christ, His only Son, our Lord;
(3) Who was born of the Holy Ghost and of the Virgin Mary;
(4) Crucified under Pontius Pilate and buried;
(5) The third day He rose again from the dead,
(6) He ascended into Heaven,
(7) Sitteth at the right hand of the Father,
(8) Whence He shall come to judge the living and the dead.
(9) And in the Holy Ghost,
(10) The Holy Church,
(11) The forgiveness of sins;
(12) The resurrection of the body.

(http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/01629a.htm)

Ooops, you left out something! He descended into hell... and the communion of saints

brewmama
November 6th, 2015, 12:16 AM
Futurist only please.

Being raised Catholic, I can tell you that it never hurt me to get on my knees to pray and say the pledge of allegiance in every day at the beginning of class in Catholic school. After moving on from there to several different denominations I still call myself 'mostly' Catholic today but I'm a futurist and non-trinitarian. And that's the first blunder I would like to address.

The trinity

The bible clearly teaches that Jesus is God but that God is yet greater. Jesus admitted that the Father was greater and that God knew things he didn't know. Some people confuse diety with trinity. Jesus is GOD, but God, Jesus, and the Holy Spirit are not coequal.
Question: Why is the Holy Spirit no found in the depiction of God's throne when Jesus is IF He is a member of this 'trinity'?


Going to heaven after we die.

The bibles says many things about the intermediate state but not once does it state we go to heaven until after we get our glorified bodies. There variations are either being awake or brain dead for a while until the resurrection. All that is a matter of debate. But why do so many churches teach we go to heaven when it's clear we go to paradise to await the resurrection.


Preteriblationism. This one astounds me.

What makes pre-tribbers think that when God does remove His own, planes, trains, and automobiles would crash killing millions and causing havoc all over the earth? Why would people want to turn to God knowing he just murdered millions just to take you to 'heaven?' Sounds more like a terror attack to me. They make the rapture appear more like a destructive and sloppy transition from earth to heaven rather than a kind and loving act of God. Worst yet is preterism.


Preterism

It is the most destructive thing that has ever entered the church. God's power, wisdom and foreknowledge is proven by prophecy. Preterisn is a prophetic cop out. It's so easy to take a prophecy and find some history, especially from the first century, that's remotely similar to a prophecy AND CLAIM it's already fulfilled. Preterism is an awful denial of God's prophetic Word. It takes so much away from God's purpose in prophecy just before the return of His Son Jesus Christ.

There really isn't much difference between full and partial preterism.


The Revived Roman empire.

This is a colossal blunder and yet people still believe it even though there's no evidence of it and a classic misinterpretation of the great statue of Daniel 2. People are moving away from it for very simple reasons. The reformers and those that followed in their eschatological footsteps are responsible for an incredible amount of misleading prophecies because of it.

The challenge on this one is for anyone on the forum to show me ONE verse of prophecy where Rome, Catholicism, The EU, or America is implied anywhere in ebd-time prophecy.


Globalsim.

Does the bible really teach that in the end a demonic duo would somehow rise and unite the worlds governments and religions? Does it really predict an end-time world dictator? Do you really think all of the world's governments would relinquish their political and governing authority over to one man? How would one man accomplish such an enormous task?

This blunder primarily comes from a misinterpretation of about three simple words. ALL, WORLD, AND END. Neither will there be a global mark of the beast. The mark will be limited to the empire or caliphate of the Islamic beast in the Arab world headquartered in the Dome complex in East Jerusalem and probably will spill over to other Muslim dominated countries.


The Anti-Christ. He's NOT an global dictator and...

Some people say there not once is someone called "the anti-Christ' in the bible. This is not true as he is called the anti-Christ. Some say the anti-Christ is a system, a spirit, or a plurality of persons. That's not true either since several times personal pronouns are attributed to him.

This is the way 1John 2:18 is translated in the KJV and it's actually incorrect.

Little children, it is the last time: and as ye have heard that antichrist shall come, even now are there many antichrists; whereby we know that it is the last time.

If you look at several other translations you'll see it translated differently because that's the way it is in the Greek interlinear.
The correct rendering of 1st John 2::18 is more like this.

New International Version

Dear children, this is the last hour; and as you have heard that the antichrist is coming, even now many antichrists have come. This is how we know it is the last hour.

This is actually the most accurate and 'reader friendly' one to understand.

New Living Translation

Dear children, the last hour is here. You have heard that the Antichrist is coming, and already many such antichrists have appeared. From this we know that the last hour has come.

Berean Study Bible

Children, it is the last hour; and just as you have heard that the antichrist is coming, so now many antichrists have appeared. This is how we know it is the last hour.

NET Bible

Children, it is the last hour, and just as you heard that the antichrist is coming, so now many antichrists have appeared. We know from this that it is the last hour.

Aramaic Bible in Plain English

My children, it is an end time, and according to what you have heard that The False Messiah comes, already there have been many false messiahs, and by this we know that it is an end time.

The fact that the word THE is in the interlinear, I say the passage indicates a coming antichrist as well as many antichrist.


The primary Protestant view of Daniel 7.

How can Daniels first beast similar to a lion rise from the sea, when the date of the vision occurred in the first year of Belshazzar who was the last king of Babylon? The Babylonian Empire had already risen decades before and was on it's way out when Daniel 7 was written! Why would Daniel prophesy about a kingdom that was already in existence for about 50 years and soon to end? Some atheist have actually caught onto this blunder and used it to debunk the bible by calling Daniel a false prophet which he would certainly be, since he prophesied about something already in existence. But you know wht? Christians typically don't care.

A PROPHET CANNOT PROPHESY ABOUT SOMETHING ALREADY IN EXISTENCE WITHOUT TRULY BEING A FALSE PROPHET!


Attributing APOSTASY to the church.

Let no man deceive you by any means: for that day shall not come, except there come a falling away first, and that man of sin be revealed, the son of perdition;

From the word 'except' in verse 3c, to the end of verse 12, the church is not implied in any way. In fact the words "but we" in verse 13 prove that the church is not part of the apostasy! The word but is a conjunction that shows distinction and opposition to a previous statement. It opposes persons to persons or things previously mentioned or thought of. The distinction in this passage is between the followers of Christ as opposed to the man of sin and his followers. The church is not implied whatsoever. Everything is attributed to the anti-Christ and his followers.

2Thes. 2:13 But we are bound to give thanks alway to God for you, brethren beloved of the Lord, because God hath from the beginning.

I agree with everything you said except for the Trinity. I certainly believe in that.

Most of that stuff is just kind of wacko Protestant stuff.

Jerome84
November 6th, 2015, 01:46 AM
God is everywhere. People do not need to visit churches to be "nearer" God.

To pray on a lawn in front of a factory is as powerful as praying in a cathedral.

I criticize Catholicism.

Lazy afternoon
November 6th, 2015, 03:36 AM
The Holy Spirit is Jesus' father.


Now the birth of Jesus Christ was as follows: After His mother Mary was betrothed to Joseph, before they came together, she was found with child of the Holy Spirit. (Matthew 1:18 NKJV)

But while he thought about these things, behold, an angel of the Lord appeared to him in a dream, saying, “Joseph, son of David, do not be afraid to take to you Mary your wife, for that which is conceived in her is of the Holy Spirit. (Matthew 1:20 NKJV)

I would rather say the Father fathered Jesus by His Holy Spirit.

LA

Lazy afternoon
November 6th, 2015, 03:38 AM
God is everywhere. People do not need to visit churches to be "nearer" God.

To pray on a lawn in front of a factory is as powerful as praying in a cathedral.

I criticize Catholicism.

Welcome.

While God hears all, at the same time He is a Presence which is not everywhere.

LA

Lazy afternoon
November 6th, 2015, 03:50 AM
The primary Protestant view of Daniel 7.

How can Daniels first beast similar to a lion rise from the sea, when the date of the vision occurred in the first year of Belshazzar who was the last king of Babylon? The Babylonian Empire had already risen decades before and was on it's way out when Daniel 7 was written! Why would Daniel prophesy about a kingdom that was already in existence for about 50 years and soon to end? Some atheist have actually caught onto this blunder and used it to debunk the bible by calling Daniel a false prophet which he would certainly be, since he prophesied about something already in existence. But you know wht? Christians typically don't care.

A PROPHET CANNOT PROPHESY ABOUT SOMETHING ALREADY IN EXISTENCE WITHOUT TRULY BEING A FALSE PROPHET!

Rev 18:1 And after these things I saw another angel come down from heaven, having great power; and the earth was lightened with his glory.
Rev 18:2 And he cried mightily with a strong voice, saying, Babylon the great is fallen, is fallen, and is become the habitation of devils, and the hold of every foul spirit, and a cage of every unclean and hateful bird.
Rev 18:3 For all nations have drunk of the wine of the wrath of her fornication, and the kings of the earth have committed fornication with her, and the merchants of the earth are waxed rich through the abundance of her delicacies.
Rev 18:4 And I heard another voice from heaven, saying, Come out of her, my people, that ye be not partakers of her sins, and that ye receive not of her plagues.
Rev 18:5 For her sins have reached unto heaven, and God hath remembered her iniquities.




Attributing APOSTASY to the church.

Let no man deceive you by any means: for that day shall not come, except there come a falling away first, and that man of sin be revealed, the son of perdition;

From the word 'except' in verse 3c, to the end of verse 12, the church is not implied in any way. In fact the words "but we" in verse 13 prove that the church is not part of the apostasy! The word but is a conjunction that shows distinction and opposition to a previous statement. It opposes persons to persons or things previously mentioned or thought of. The distinction in this passage is between the followers of Christ as opposed to the man of sin and his followers. The church is not implied whatsoever. Everything is attributed to the anti-Christ and his followers.

.

It depends on understanding the distinction between the churches (assemblies of believers) and the Church (the elect).

At the fall of OT Israel, the faithful were scattered, others were bound, and the wicked ruled.

The apostacy at the end is that of the churches, which of course in tandem with the unchurched world will turn away from Christ as we see in motion today in many places.

This can only refer to the nations which are/were the home of the gospel, the modern day Babylon, the once caretaker of the saints, from King Neb right though to the ten toes of Rev.

LA

jamie
November 6th, 2015, 04:40 AM
I would rather say the Father fathered Jesus by His Holy Spirit.


Yes, the Holy Spirit is the power of the Highest.


And the angel answered and said to her, "The Holy Spirit will come upon you and the power of the Highest will overshadow you; therefore, also, that Holy One who is to be born will be called the Son of God." (Luke 1:35 NKJV)

nikolai_42
November 6th, 2015, 08:06 AM
Futurist only please.

Being raised Catholic, I can tell you that it never hurt me to get on my knees to pray and say the pledge of allegiance in every day at the beginning of class in Catholic school. After moving on from there to several different denominations I still call myself 'mostly' Catholic today but I'm a futurist and non-trinitarian. And that's the first blunder I would like to address.

The trinity

The bible clearly teaches that Jesus is God but that God is yet greater. Jesus admitted that the Father was greater and that God knew things he didn't know. Some people confuse diety with trinity. Jesus is GOD, but God, Jesus, and the Holy Spirit are not coequal.
Question: Why is the Holy Spirit no found in the depiction of God's throne when Jesus is IF He is a member of this 'trinity'?


Who is it that we "see" in Isaiah 6 "...sitting upon a throne, high and lifted up"? Should we believe that Jesus is "the King, the Lord of hosts" (Isaiah 6:5) but not equal with the Father? And don't forget to read John 12:35-41 if you don't think that Isaiah's vision showed him the Son.

As for the Holy Spirit, Jesus is said to have the seven spirits of God (Rev 3:1) and Rev 4:5 clearly depicts the presence of these seven spirits at the throne.

Remember, though, the character and nature of the Holy Spirit is not to be seen (John 3:8 and John 16:13, for example) but points men to Christ.


Going to heaven after we die.

The bibles says many things about the intermediate state but not once does it state we go to heaven until after we get our glorified bodies. There variations are either being awake or brain dead for a while until the resurrection. All that is a matter of debate. But why do so many churches teach we go to heaven when it's clear we go to paradise to await the resurrection.


Preteriblationism. This one astounds me.

What makes pre-tribbers think that when God does remove His own, planes, trains, and automobiles would crash killing millions and causing havoc all over the earth? Why would people want to turn to God knowing he just murdered millions just to take you to 'heaven?' Sounds more like a terror attack to me. They make the rapture appear more like a destructive and sloppy transition from earth to heaven rather than a kind and loving act of God. Worst yet is preterism.


Preterism

It is the most destructive thing that has ever entered the church. God's power, wisdom and foreknowledge is proven by prophecy. Preterisn is a prophetic cop out. It's so easy to take a prophecy and find some history, especially from the first century, that's remotely similar to a prophecy AND CLAIM it's already fulfilled. Preterism is an awful denial of God's prophetic Word. It takes so much away from God's purpose in prophecy just before the return of His Son Jesus Christ.

There really isn't much difference between full and partial preterism.


The Revived Roman empire.

This is a colossal blunder and yet people still believe it even though there's no evidence of it and a classic misinterpretation of the great statue of Daniel 2. People are moving away from it for very simple reasons. The reformers and those that followed in their eschatological footsteps are responsible for an incredible amount of misleading prophecies because of it.

The challenge on this one is for anyone on the forum to show me ONE verse of prophecy where Rome, Catholicism, The EU, or America is implied anywhere in ebd-time prophecy.


Globalsim.

Does the bible really teach that in the end a demonic duo would somehow rise and unite the worlds governments and religions? Does it really predict an end-time world dictator? Do you really think all of the world's governments would relinquish their political and governing authority over to one man? How would one man accomplish such an enormous task?

This blunder primarily comes from a misinterpretation of about three simple words. ALL, WORLD, AND END. Neither will there be a global mark of the beast. The mark will be limited to the empire or caliphate of the Islamic beast in the Arab world headquartered in the Dome complex in East Jerusalem and probably will spill over to other Muslim dominated countries.


The Anti-Christ. He's NOT an global dictator and...

Some people say there not once is someone called "the anti-Christ' in the bible. This is not true as he is called the anti-Christ. Some say the anti-Christ is a system, a spirit, or a plurality of persons. That's not true either since several times personal pronouns are attributed to him.

This is the way 1John 2:18 is translated in the KJV and it's actually incorrect.

Little children, it is the last time: and as ye have heard that antichrist shall come, even now are there many antichrists; whereby we know that it is the last time.

If you look at several other translations you'll see it translated differently because that's the way it is in the Greek interlinear.
The correct rendering of 1st John 2::18 is more like this.

New International Version

Dear children, this is the last hour; and as you have heard that the antichrist is coming, even now many antichrists have come. This is how we know it is the last hour.

This is actually the most accurate and 'reader friendly' one to understand.

New Living Translation

Dear children, the last hour is here. You have heard that the Antichrist is coming, and already many such antichrists have appeared. From this we know that the last hour has come.

Berean Study Bible

Children, it is the last hour; and just as you have heard that the antichrist is coming, so now many antichrists have appeared. This is how we know it is the last hour.

NET Bible

Children, it is the last hour, and just as you heard that the antichrist is coming, so now many antichrists have appeared. We know from this that it is the last hour.

Aramaic Bible in Plain English

My children, it is an end time, and according to what you have heard that The False Messiah comes, already there have been many false messiahs, and by this we know that it is an end time.

The fact that the word THE is in the interlinear, I say the passage indicates a coming antichrist as well as many antichrist.


The primary Protestant view of Daniel 7.

How can Daniels first beast similar to a lion rise from the sea, when the date of the vision occurred in the first year of Belshazzar who was the last king of Babylon? The Babylonian Empire had already risen decades before and was on it's way out when Daniel 7 was written! Why would Daniel prophesy about a kingdom that was already in existence for about 50 years and soon to end? Some atheist have actually caught onto this blunder and used it to debunk the bible by calling Daniel a false prophet which he would certainly be, since he prophesied about something already in existence. But you know wht? Christians typically don't care.

A PROPHET CANNOT PROPHESY ABOUT SOMETHING ALREADY IN EXISTENCE WITHOUT TRULY BEING A FALSE PROPHET!


Attributing APOSTASY to the church.

Let no man deceive you by any means: for that day shall not come, except there come a falling away first, and that man of sin be revealed, the son of perdition;

From the word 'except' in verse 3c, to the end of verse 12, the church is not implied in any way. In fact the words "but we" in verse 13 prove that the church is not part of the apostasy! The word but is a conjunction that shows distinction and opposition to a previous statement. It opposes persons to persons or things previously mentioned or thought of. The distinction in this passage is between the followers of Christ as opposed to the man of sin and his followers. The church is not implied whatsoever. Everything is attributed to the anti-Christ and his followers.

2Thes. 2:13 But we are bound to give thanks alway to God for you, brethren beloved of the Lord, because God hath from the beginning.

I will avoid the eschatological points you are making since I'm not a futurist.

jamie
November 6th, 2015, 09:09 AM
Should we believe that Jesus is "the King, the Lord of hosts" (Isaiah 6:5) but not equal with the Father?


Yes, if you take him at his word.


You have heard Me say to you, "I am going away and coming back to you." If you loved Me, you would rejoice because I said, "I am going to the Father" for My Father is greater than I. (John 14:28 NKJV)

Jesus also said, "I am ascending to My Father and your Father, and to My God and your God." (John 20:17 NKJV)

We have the same father as Jesus so Jesus is our brother.

chrysostom
November 6th, 2015, 09:20 AM
God is everywhere. People do not need to visit churches to be "nearer" God.

To pray on a lawn in front of a factory is as powerful as praying in a cathedral.

I criticize Catholicism.

the church is a place to gather in His name
the church is a place to get fed
Jesus asked peter three times
to feed His sheep

brewmama
November 6th, 2015, 11:41 AM
the church is a place to gather in His name
the church is a place to get fed
Jesus asked peter three times
to feed His sheep

Hey, don't confuse them with Scripture!

OCTOBER23
November 6th, 2015, 12:07 PM
DISTURBO,

YOU BETTER KEEP PRAYING

CAUSE YOU NEED IT.

Have a nice prayer.

aikido7
November 6th, 2015, 12:18 PM
Futurist only please.

Being raised Catholic, I can tell you that it never hurt me to get on my knees to pray and say the pledge of allegiance in every day at the beginning of class in Catholic school. After moving on from there to several different denominations I still call myself 'mostly' Catholic today but I'm a futurist and non-trinitarian. And that's the first blunder I would like to address.

The trinity

The bible clearly teaches that Jesus is God but that God is yet greater. Jesus admitted that the Father was greater and that God knew things he didn't know. Some people confuse diety with trinity. Jesus is GOD, but God, Jesus, and the Holy Spirit are not coequal.
Question: Why is the Holy Spirit no found in the depiction of God's throne when Jesus is IF He is a member of this 'trinity'?


Going to heaven after we die.

The bibles says many things about the intermediate state but not once does it state we go to heaven until after we get our glorified bodies. There variations are either being awake or brain dead for a while until the resurrection. All that is a matter of debate. But why do so many churches teach we go to heaven when it's clear we go to paradise to await the resurrection.


Preteriblationism. This one astounds me.

What makes pre-tribbers think that when God does remove His own, planes, trains, and automobiles would crash killing millions and causing havoc all over the earth? Why would people want to turn to God knowing he just murdered millions just to take you to 'heaven?' Sounds more like a terror attack to me. They make the rapture appear more like a destructive and sloppy transition from earth to heaven rather than a kind and loving act of God. Worst yet is preterism.


Preterism

It is the most destructive thing that has ever entered the church. God's power, wisdom and foreknowledge is proven by prophecy. Preterisn is a prophetic cop out. It's so easy to take a prophecy and find some history, especially from the first century, that's remotely similar to a prophecy AND CLAIM it's already fulfilled. Preterism is an awful denial of God's prophetic Word. It takes so much away from God's purpose in prophecy just before the return of His Son Jesus Christ.

There really isn't much difference between full and partial preterism.


The Revived Roman empire.

This is a colossal blunder and yet people still believe it even though there's no evidence of it and a classic misinterpretation of the great statue of Daniel 2. People are moving away from it for very simple reasons. The reformers and those that followed in their eschatological footsteps are responsible for an incredible amount of misleading prophecies because of it.

The challenge on this one is for anyone on the forum to show me ONE verse of prophecy where Rome, Catholicism, The EU, or America is implied anywhere in ebd-time prophecy.


Globalsim.

Does the bible really teach that in the end a demonic duo would somehow rise and unite the worlds governments and religions? Does it really predict an end-time world dictator? Do you really think all of the world's governments would relinquish their political and governing authority over to one man? How would one man accomplish such an enormous task?

This blunder primarily comes from a misinterpretation of about three simple words. ALL, WORLD, AND END. Neither will there be a global mark of the beast. The mark will be limited to the empire or caliphate of the Islamic beast in the Arab world headquartered in the Dome complex in East Jerusalem and probably will spill over to other Muslim dominated countries.


The Anti-Christ. He's NOT an global dictator and...

Some people say there not once is someone called "the anti-Christ' in the bible. This is not true as he is called the anti-Christ. Some say the anti-Christ is a system, a spirit, or a plurality of persons. That's not true either since several times personal pronouns are attributed to him.

This is the way 1John 2:18 is translated in the KJV and it's actually incorrect.

Little children, it is the last time: and as ye have heard that antichrist shall come, even now are there many antichrists; whereby we know that it is the last time.

If you look at several other translations you'll see it translated differently because that's the way it is in the Greek interlinear.
The correct rendering of 1st John 2::18 is more like this.

New International Version

Dear children, this is the last hour; and as you have heard that the antichrist is coming, even now many antichrists have come. This is how we know it is the last hour.

This is actually the most accurate and 'reader friendly' one to understand.

New Living Translation

Dear children, the last hour is here. You have heard that the Antichrist is coming, and already many such antichrists have appeared. From this we know that the last hour has come.

Berean Study Bible

Children, it is the last hour; and just as you have heard that the antichrist is coming, so now many antichrists have appeared. This is how we know it is the last hour.

NET Bible

Children, it is the last hour, and just as you heard that the antichrist is coming, so now many antichrists have appeared. We know from this that it is the last hour.

Aramaic Bible in Plain English

My children, it is an end time, and according to what you have heard that The False Messiah comes, already there have been many false messiahs, and by this we know that it is an end time.

The fact that the word THE is in the interlinear, I say the passage indicates a coming antichrist as well as many antichrist.


The primary Protestant view of Daniel 7.

How can Daniels first beast similar to a lion rise from the sea, when the date of the vision occurred in the first year of Belshazzar who was the last king of Babylon? The Babylonian Empire had already risen decades before and was on it's way out when Daniel 7 was written! Why would Daniel prophesy about a kingdom that was already in existence for about 50 years and soon to end? Some atheist have actually caught onto this blunder and used it to debunk the bible by calling Daniel a false prophet which he would certainly be, since he prophesied about something already in existence. But you know wht? Christians typically don't care.

A PROPHET CANNOT PROPHESY ABOUT SOMETHING ALREADY IN EXISTENCE WITHOUT TRULY BEING A FALSE PROPHET!


Attributing APOSTASY to the church.

Let no man deceive you by any means: for that day shall not come, except there come a falling away first, and that man of sin be revealed, the son of perdition;

From the word 'except' in verse 3c, to the end of verse 12, the church is not implied in any way. In fact the words "but we" in verse 13 prove that the church is not part of the apostasy! The word but is a conjunction that shows distinction and opposition to a previous statement. It opposes persons to persons or things previously mentioned or thought of. The distinction in this passage is between the followers of Christ as opposed to the man of sin and his followers. The church is not implied whatsoever. Everything is attributed to the anti-Christ and his followers.

2Thes. 2:13 But we are bound to give thanks alway to God for you, brethren beloved of the Lord, because God hath from the beginning.

The Holy Spirit is always mediated through the interpretations of men.

This is why the theology of the Fourth Gospel can state “I and the Father are One” as well as “the Father is greater than I.”

It’s all about interpretation.

Ben Masada
November 6th, 2015, 01:17 PM
Apostles' Creed

(1) I believe in God the Father Almighty;
(2) And in Jesus Christ, His only Son, our Lord;
(3) Who was born of the Holy Ghost and of the Virgin Mary.
(4) Crucified under Pontius Pilate and buried;
(5) The third day He rose again from the dead,
(6) He ascended into Heaven,
(7) Sitteth at the right hand of the Father,
(8) Whence He shall come to judge the living and the dead.
(9) And in the Holy Ghost,
(10) The Holy Church,
(11) The forgiveness of sins;
(12) The resurrection of the body.



(1) So do I.

(2) I don't. According to the Scriptures Jesus always referred to as the Word of God, the son of God is Israel. (Exod. 4:22,23) "Israel is My son."

(3) Jesus was born of Joseph and Mary. To deny that, we are simply agreeing with John 8:41.

(4) I agree with that too.

(5) I can't agree because Jesus would be in contradiction with II Sam. 12:23; II Sam. 14:14; Isa. 26:14 and Job 10:21)

(6) I can't agree with that either. See #5 above.

(7) - I can't agree with that either. Jesus said that HaShem is a Spirit. (John 4:24) A Spirit does not have a behind to seat it on a throne.

(8 ) The living yes; the dead no. The Lord is not a God of the dead but of the living only. (Mark 12:27)

(9) The Father and the Holy Ghost are one and the same. That's the Spirit Jesus said HaShem is. (John 4:24)

(10) And the holy Church! Most definitely not! The Church has no inheritance with the son of God aka Israel. (Exod. 4:23,24)

(11) Only if the forgiveness of sins is followed by repentance and return to the obedience of God's Law. (Isa. 1:18,19)

(12) Absolutely not according to II Sam. 12:23; II Sam 14:14; Isa. 26:14; and Job 10:21)

heir
November 6th, 2015, 01:47 PM
Christianity's Biggest BlundersA few things top the list:

preaching a gospel that is not the gospel of our salvation
confusing prophecy and mystery
making the Bible one pot meal

genuineoriginal
November 6th, 2015, 01:57 PM
The trinity

The bible clearly teaches that Jesus is God but that God is yet greater. Jesus admitted that the Father was greater and that God knew things he didn't know. Some people confuse diety with trinity. Jesus is GOD, but God, Jesus, and the Holy Spirit are not coequal.
Question: Why is the Holy Spirit no found in the depiction of God's throne when Jesus is IF He is a member of this 'trinity'?
As far as the trinity goes, we can either accept the clear statements of the scriptures on the relationship between God, Jesus, and the Holy Spirit, or we can accept the extra-Biblical revelation that was given to the Nicene Council four hundred years later.



Going to heaven after we die.

The bibles says many things about the intermediate state but not once does it state we go to heaven until after we get our glorified bodies. There variations are either being awake or brain dead for a while until the resurrection. All that is a matter of debate. But why do so many churches teach we go to heaven when it's clear we go to paradise to await the resurrection.
Where we go before resurrection is not clear.
When Jesus spoke to the thief on the cross, He said, "Today I tell you, you will be with me in paradise." He did not say, "I tell you, you will be with me in paradise today."

It is my understanding that Christians go to sheol (the grave) since the graves open up in the resurrection.


Preteriblationism. This one astounds me.

What makes pre-tribbers think that when God does remove His own, planes, trains, and automobiles would crash killing millions and causing havoc all over the earth? Why would people want to turn to God knowing he just murdered millions just to take you to 'heaven?' Sounds more like a terror attack to me. They make the rapture appear more like a destructive and sloppy transition from earth to heaven rather than a kind and loving act of God. Worst yet is preterism.
There is no justification for a "Rapture" to happen before the resurrection.
Since the resurrection happens when Jesus returns, and Jesus returns after the great tribulation, then the doctrine of the "Rapture" before the great tribulation is a false doctrine.



Preterism

It is the most destructive thing that has ever entered the church. God's power, wisdom and foreknowledge is proven by prophecy. Preterisn is a prophetic cop out. It's so easy to take a prophecy and find some history, especially from the first century, that's remotely similar to a prophecy AND CLAIM it's already fulfilled. Preterism is an awful denial of God's prophetic Word. It takes so much away from God's purpose in prophecy just before the return of His Son Jesus Christ.

There really isn't much difference between full and partial preterism.
I am a Historicist, so I will disagree with you on that one.
There was an event in 70 CE that was so significant that the effects of it are still felt today in 2015 CE.
That event was the destruction of the Temple in fulfillment of the prophecy given by Jesus in the Olivet Discourse.

Futurism is mistaken in ignoring that event.


The Revived Roman empire.

This is a colossal blunder and yet people still believe it even though there's no evidence of it and a classic misinterpretation of the great statue of Daniel 2. People are moving away from it for very simple reasons. The reformers and those that followed in their eschatological footsteps are responsible for an incredible amount of misleading prophecies because of it.

The challenge on this one is for anyone on the forum to show me ONE verse of prophecy where Rome, Catholicism, The EU, or America is implied anywhere in ebd-time prophecy.
The revived Roman Empire comes more from the "gap" that futurists put between the 69th and 70th "week" of years in the prophecy of the seventy weeks found in Daniel 9 than anywhere else.
The Roman Empire as the fourth beast or the legs of iron in the statue are valid interpretations for the time that Jesus was on earth.
A revived Roman Empire is not a valid interpretation for the time of the return of Jesus since the beast of Revelation combines features from all four beasts in Daniel, so is not the fourth beast.
In our time, America is the only empire that matches the descriptions of the beast in Revelation.



Globalsim.

Does the bible really teach that in the end a demonic duo would somehow rise and unite the worlds governments and religions? Does it really predict an end-time world dictator? Do you really think all of the world's governments would relinquish their political and governing authority over to one man? How would one man accomplish such an enormous task?

This blunder primarily comes from a misinterpretation of about three simple words. ALL, WORLD, AND END. Neither will there be a global mark of the beast. The mark will be limited to the empire or caliphate of the Islamic beast in the Arab world headquartered in the Dome complex in East Jerusalem and probably will spill over to other Muslim dominated countries.
It is possible that the mark will be limited to the land of Israel, since the word interpreted as "world" is also the word for "land".


The Anti-Christ. He's NOT an global dictator and...

Some people say there not once is someone called "the anti-Christ' in the bible. This is not true as he is called the anti-Christ. Some say the anti-Christ is a system, a spirit, or a plurality of persons. That's not true either since several times personal pronouns are attributed to him.
. . .

The fact that the word THE is in the interlinear, I say the passage indicates a coming antichrist as well as many antichrist.
There are prophecies about the "son of perdition" and about the "beast". Either of these terms is more accurate than "the Anti-Christ".



The primary Protestant view of Daniel 7.

How can Daniels first beast similar to a lion rise from the sea, when the date of the vision occurred in the first year of Belshazzar who was the last king of Babylon? The Babylonian Empire had already risen decades before and was on it's way out when Daniel 7 was written! Why would Daniel prophesy about a kingdom that was already in existence for about 50 years and soon to end? Some atheist have actually caught onto this blunder and used it to debunk the bible by calling Daniel a false prophet which he would certainly be, since he prophesied about something already in existence. But you know wht? Christians typically don't care.

A PROPHET CANNOT PROPHESY ABOUT SOMETHING ALREADY IN EXISTENCE WITHOUT TRULY BEING A FALSE PROPHET!
There are other examples in the Bible of a prophet being shown a vision of something already in existence, so you don't have any justification for calling Daniel a false prophet.
The vision Daniel was given showed the Babylonian empire first in order to show that the next three empires would succeed the Babylonian empire.



Attributing APOSTASY to the church.

Let no man deceive you by any means: for that day shall not come, except there come a falling away first, and that man of sin be revealed, the son of perdition;

From the word 'except' in verse 3c, to the end of verse 12, the church is not implied in any way. In fact the words "but we" in verse 13 prove that the church is not part of the apostasy! The word but is a conjunction that shows distinction and opposition to a previous statement. It opposes persons to persons or things previously mentioned or thought of. The distinction in this passage is between the followers of Christ as opposed to the man of sin and his followers. The church is not implied whatsoever. Everything is attributed to the anti-Christ and his followers.
The time of Antiochus Epiphanes was 200 years before the writing of the New Testament.
The people had a clear idea what happened then because of the written accounts and the festival that was created to commemorate the Maccabean Revolt.
The reason the Maccabees revolted against Antiochus Epiphanes was because he brought in apostasy into Judaism.
Paul said that there would be another time like that when apostasy would again be an issue, only this time it would be an issue for Christianity instead of for Judaism.

disturbo
November 8th, 2015, 09:22 AM
The Holy Spirit is Jesus' father.


Now the birth of Jesus Christ was as follows: After His mother Mary was betrothed to Joseph, before they came together, she was found with child of the Holy Spirit. (Matthew 1:18 NKJV)

But while he thought about these things, behold, an angel of the Lord appeared to him in a dream, saying, “Joseph, son of David, do not be afraid to take to you Mary your wife, for that which is conceived in her is of the Holy Spirit. (Matthew 1:20 NKJV)

Can't agree when the Church teaches the Holy Spirit is the so called THIRD, UNnamed PERSON of the so called TRINITY. You're answer is meaningless since that's the teachings of the Church with no credible explanation.

When Jesus says God is greater. When Jesus says he doesn't know the day or hour of his return. That means JESUS AND GOD ARE NOT CO-EQUAL. You've accepted one of many GLOB theories. You've let others do your homework and ultimately they've formed your beliefs.

disturbo
November 8th, 2015, 09:23 AM
Apostles' Creed

(1) I believe in God the Father Almighty;
(2) And in Jesus Christ, His only Son, our Lord;
(3) Who was born of the Holy Ghost and of the Virgin Mary;
(4) Crucified under Pontius Pilate and buried;
(5) The third day He rose again from the dead,
(6) He ascended into Heaven,
(7) Sitteth at the right hand of the Father,
(8) Whence He shall come to judge the living and the dead.
(9) And in the Holy Ghost,
(10) The Holy Church,
(11) The forgiveness of sins;
(12) The resurrection of the body.

(http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/01629a.htm)

I was born of my father. But I'm not my father. Jesus is God, but God is yet greater! Jesus even admits that!

disturbo
November 8th, 2015, 09:30 AM
I think I agree with most of these.

There are more...

SPEAKING IN TONGUES

THE FLOOD OF NOAH WAS GLOBAL AND HE PUT THE DINOSAURS ON THE ARK

ONCE SAVED ALWAYS SAVED TO INCLUDE THE PROTESTANT BLUNDER OF "YOU ARE SAVED BY GRACE" OR, "ALL YOU HAVE TO DO IS BELIEVE!"

Catholics, Seven Day Adventist, Mormons, Jehovah's Witnesses and similar cults are not saved.

ONE PERSON ON THE FORUM SAID,


"YOUR RELIGION DOESN'T SAVE OR CONDEMN YOU"
ABSOLUTELY TRUE!

Televised Word of faith, knowledge, and healings.

It really makes Christianity look fake. I can't believe that Popoff is still soliciting donations. He's the most corrupt of them all and is an abomination.

Prophets, false prophets, false teachers, and heresy.

Most Christians have no clue about them! They typically believe what they've been taught!

disturbo
November 8th, 2015, 09:32 AM
God is everywhere. People do not need to visit churches to be "nearer" God.

To pray on a lawn in front of a factory is as powerful as praying in a cathedral.

I criticize Catholicism.

You criticize Catholics. I criticize Protestants!

disturbo
November 8th, 2015, 09:39 AM
Nikolia-42 said,


Who is it that we "see" in Isaiah 6 "...sitting upon a throne, high and lifted up"? Should we believe that Jesus is "the King, the Lord of hosts" (Isaiah 6:5) but not equal with the Father? And don't forget to read John 12:35-41 if you don't think that Isaiah's vision showed him the Son.

I have no problem with deity. Jesus if God. I have a problem in how the Church teaches this so called 'trinity' saying Jesus is equal to the Father when Jesus himself admits He IS NOT!


As for the Holy Spirit, Jesus is said to have the seven spirits of God (Rev 3:1) and Rev 4:5 clearly depicts the presence of these seven spirits at the throne.

Remember, though, the character and nature of the Holy Spirit is not to be seen (John 3:8 and John 16:13, for example) but points men to Christ.

And that's kind of the way I view the Holy Spirit. The Holy Spirit IS the Seven Spirits of God and can be Jesus Himself or the presence of God's Holy angels.

disturbo
November 8th, 2015, 09:42 AM
DISTURBO,

YOU BETTER KEEP PRAYING

CAUSE YOU NEED IT.

Have a nice prayer.

And what I don't need is people like you telling people like me about something I already do MORE that you!

disturbo
November 8th, 2015, 10:00 AM
genuineoriginal said,


Where we go before resurrection is not clear.
When Jesus spoke to the thief on the cross, He said, "Today I tell you, you will be with me in paradise." He did not say, "I tell you, you will be with me in paradise today."

Your quote is terribly flawed. The verse DOES NOT indicate that 'TODAY' Jesus tells the penitent thief he will be with him in paradise. That's the fabricated nonsense of some Protestants! It's beyond me why a dying man on a cross would have to remind another dying man on a cross that what he's being told is being told to him, 'TODAY'!

And Jesus said unto him, Verily I say unto thee, To day shalt thou be with me in paradise.

The words 'to day' are better translated, "this day".

I've had Vines Expository Dictionary of New Testament Words since 1973. I don't care where anybody looks, whether in the lexicons or the interlinear, I KNOW the correct rendering of this verse. Anybody who fabricates this verse to FIT their false theology has no clue HOW to interpret or rightly divide God's Word.

The clause containing semeron is sometimes introduced by the conjunction hoti, "that," e.g., Mar 14:30; Luk 4:21; 19:9; sometimes without the conjunction, e.g., Luk 22:34; 23:43, where "today" is to be attached to the next statement, "shalt thou be with Me;" there are no grammatical reasons for the insistence that the connection must be with the statement "Verily I say unto thee," nor is such an idea necessitated by examples from either the Sept. or the NT; the connection given in the AV and RV is right.

disturbo
November 8th, 2015, 10:23 AM
I am a Historicist, so I will disagree with you on that one.
There was an event in 70 CE that was so significant that the effects of it are still felt today in 2015 CE.
That event was the destruction of the Temple in fulfillment of the prophecy given by Jesus in the Olivet Discourse.

Futurism is mistaken in ignoring that event.

I don't know of one futurist who denies the destruction of the temple. So what are you getting at?


The revived Roman Empire comes more from the "gap" that futurists put between the 69th and 70th "week" of years in the prophecy of the seventy weeks found in Daniel 9 than anywhere else.

The Roman Empire as the fourth beast or the legs of iron in the statue are valid interpretations for the time that Jesus was on earth.

A revived Roman Empire is not a valid interpretation for the time of the return of Jesus since the beast of Revelation combines features from all four beasts in Daniel, so is not the fourth beast.

In our time, America is the only empire that matches the descriptions of the beast in Revelation.

I don't accept the futurist view of Daniel 9.

You've also accepted the traditional view of Daniel 2. It would also be impossible for the legs of iron to be Rome.

How were the arms of silver 'inferior' to Babylon when the word inferior is the word "earth, world, ground" and the Medo-Persian Empire was 3-4 times the size of Babylon?

How can Rome be the legs of iron and/or toes 'mingled' with iron and clay when the word 'mingled' is the word, 'arab?'


It is possible that the mark will be limited to the land of Israel, since the word interpreted as "world" is also the word for "land".


You probably believe that because you've accepted Daniel's 70th week, and globalsim.


There are other examples in the Bible of a prophet being shown a vision of something already in existence, so you don't have any justification for calling Daniel a false prophet.

Show me where. And I DID NOT call Daniel a false prophet. What I am saying is that the typical (false) Protestant interpretation of Daniel 7 absolutely MAKES Daniel a false prophet (if it were true) AND THE ATHEIST KNOW IT! NO PROPHET can prophesy about a beast RISING from the sea WHEN that beast (Babylon) had already risen some 50 years before. The atheist know it. I know it. And CHRISTIANS DON'T CARE! It's more important for Christians to stick to their beliefs than admit a mistake.


The vision Daniel was given showed the Babylonian empire first in order to show that the next three empires would succeed the Babylonian empire.

Daniel 2 and 7 are completely different prophecies. Was there something deficient about Daniel 2 where God found it necessary repeat the prophecy in Daniel 7?