when will jesus return?

Author: BigPimpDaddy

Posts

Total: 207
Deb-8-a-bull
Deb-8-a-bull's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,940
3
2
3
Deb-8-a-bull's avatar
Deb-8-a-bull
3
2
3
-->
@949havoc
What about if we get a bunch of ummmm,  top scholars if you will, and they give there interpretation of each scripture. 
And maybe ( dumb it down a little.*)  
Then compile all of the interps .  Find the " most popular " interp
Then scrub out scripture and replace it with a eazy-2-read bible verse meaning. 
You know what i mean Hav?

Instead of the prince John james or what ever it is version , have a " tell it like it is " version. 

Now i know over time that people have done and  do this and have been killed for such things but. 
But. 

I would buy a. Bible that scriptures have been replaced buy . 
100 bishops true meaning of a scripture.
Or.
The .   ( 1000 cardinals version  )    scriptures replaced with eazy to follow what they think it means. 
And COMPILE. 
It has to be better then the current versions.   
Deb-8-a-bull
Deb-8-a-bull's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,940
3
2
3
Deb-8-a-bull's avatar
Deb-8-a-bull
3
2
3
Imagine 
A 10 popes version. 
Ten popes give there meaning of each scipture. 
COMPILE.  AND BAMMMMMMMMMMMMM.  
The ultimate 

Deb-8-a-bull
Deb-8-a-bull's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,940
3
2
3
Deb-8-a-bull's avatar
Deb-8-a-bull
3
2
3
-->
@949havoc
In this bible of mine. I have gone through and scrubbed out every word ( JESUS )  and replaced it with ( God ) 
TO SIMPLIFY.  

Straight forward.

 

Deb-8-a-bull
Deb-8-a-bull's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,940
3
2
3
Deb-8-a-bull's avatar
Deb-8-a-bull
3
2
3
We need to start arsking people high up in the jesus game simple straight forward question. 
So when someone asks.   
When will jesus return?  
We can say. Well hear is what  
314 priests.
44 cardinals. 
Half a dozon or so arch bishops. 
188 biblical scholars 
 

say

We could narrow this bitch down to a
( jesus will return  on a sunday Afternoon around  4 .33 pm est time to 4.40 pm est time. 
June the 15th 
2031.

 
Deb-8-a-bull
Deb-8-a-bull's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,940
3
2
3
Deb-8-a-bull's avatar
Deb-8-a-bull
3
2
3
Overcast ?
Correct. 
949havoc
949havoc's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 816
3
2
8
949havoc's avatar
949havoc
3
2
8
-->
@Deb-8-a-bull
Find the " most popular " interp
Who decides what's most popular? A vote? A poll? What are their qualifications of scholarship? Isn't that just about exactly how we have a Bible at all, today, performed over a few hundred years after the first millennium, so, already a thousand years after just the latest events occurred?

And, that being the case, what of repeating an action, expecting different results? Isn't that time for the white coats from lalaland?

Need I reply to the rest?
949havoc
949havoc's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 816
3
2
8
949havoc's avatar
949havoc
3
2
8
-->
@Deb-8-a-bull
But, to play your game, I'll give it you in two simple verses, since on their effect "hang the law and the prophets."

"Jesus said unto him, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind.
And the second is like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself." Matt 22: 37, 39

If we truly kept these two commandments, every word of them, we are already keeping the rest. If we're only keeping one, we're breaking both; the same effect as keeping none.

Tell me what other commandment, parable, or psalm is not accomplished by the keeping of these two, alone?
secularmerlin
secularmerlin's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,093
3
3
3
secularmerlin's avatar
secularmerlin
3
3
3
-->
@949havoc
Leviticus 11:10

But anything in the seas or the rivers that has not fins and scales, of the swarming creatures in the waters and of the living creatures that are in the waters, is detestable to you.

Leviticus 19:28

You shall not make any cuts in your body for the dead nor make any tattoo marks on yourselves: I am the Lord.

Judges 1:19

And the LORD was with Judah; and he drave out the inhabitants of the mountain; but could not drive out the inhabitants of the valley, because they had chariots of iron.

Psalms 137:9

A blessing on anyone who seizes your babies and smashes them against a rock!

Leviticus 18

The Lord said to Moses, 2 “Speak to the Israelites and say to them: ‘I am the Lord your God. 3 You must not do as they do in Egypt, where you used to live, and you must not do as they do in the land of Canaan, where I am bringing you. Do not follow their practices. 4 You must obey my laws and be careful to follow my decrees. I am the Lord your God. 5 Keep my decrees and laws, for the person who obeys them will live by them. I am the Lord.
6 “‘No one is to approach any close relative to have sexual relations. I am the Lord.
7 “‘Do not dishonor your father by having sexual relations with your mother. She is your mother; do not have relations with her.
8 “‘Do not have sexual relations with your father’s wife; that would dishonor your father.
9 “‘Do not have sexual relations with your sister, either your father’s daughter or your mother’s daughter, whether she was born in the same home or elsewhere.
10 “‘Do not have sexual relations with your son’s daughter or your daughter’s daughter; that would dishonor you.
11 “‘Do not have sexual relations with the daughter of your father’s wife, born to your father; she is your sister.
12 “‘Do not have sexual relations with your father’s sister; she is your father’s close relative.
13 “‘Do not have sexual relations with your mother’s sister, because she is your mother’s close relative.
14 “‘Do not dishonor your father’s brother by approaching his wife to have sexual relations; she is your aunt.
15 “‘Do not have sexual relations with your daughter-in-law. She is your son’s wife; do not have relations with her.
16 “‘Do not have sexual relations with your brother’s wife; that would dishonor your brother.
17 “‘Do not have sexual relations with both a woman and her daughter. Do not have sexual relations with either her son’s daughter or her daughter’s daughter; they are her close relatives. That is wickedness.
18 “‘Do not take your wife’s sister as a rival wife and have sexual relations with her while your wife is living.
19 “‘Do not approach a woman to have sexual relations during the uncleanness of her monthly period.
20 “‘Do not have sexual relations with your neighbor’s wife and defile yourself with her.
21 “‘Do not give any of your children to be sacrificed to Molek, for you must not profane the name of your God. I am the Lord.
22 “‘Do not have sexual relations with a man as one does with a woman; that is detestable.
23 “‘Do not have sexual relations with an animal and defile yourself with it. A woman must not present herself to an animal to have sexual relations with it; that is a perversion.
24 “‘Do not defile yourselves in any of these ways, because this is how the nations that I am going to drive out before you became defiled. 25 Even the land was defiled; so I punished it for its sin, and the land vomited out its inhabitants. 26 But you must keep my decrees and my laws. The native-born and the foreigners residing among you must not do any of these detestable things, 27 for all these things were done by the people who lived in the land before you, and the land became defiled. 28 And if you defile the land, it will vomit you out as it vomited out the nations that were before you.
29 “‘Everyone who does any of these detestable things—such persons must be cut off from their people. 30 Keep my requirements and do not follow any of the detestable customs that were practiced before you came and do not defile yourselves with them. I am the Lord your God.

Exodus 21:20 and 21

20 Anyone who beats their male or female slave with a rod must be punished if the slave dies as a direct result, 21 but they are not to be punished if the slave recovers after a day or two, since the slave is their property.
Deb-8-a-bull
Deb-8-a-bull's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,940
3
2
3
Deb-8-a-bull's avatar
Deb-8-a-bull
3
2
3
-->
@949havoc
Nice response man. 
Nice post. 

▪°•▪°•▪°•▪°•▪°• 


The most popular is decided by the most popular response.  
So we ask 74 priests what they think this one scripture means. ( in layman ) 
lets say 30 or 40 priests  out of 74 think it means ( __________ this __________and that________ . 
Then simply scratch out the scripture and replace it with what that largest number of higher level theists think the actual meaning is. 

That first commandment, Commandment # 1 .  It is beautiful.
Very well thought out.

Why It must have taken a few decades to come up with that one alone. 


Stephen
Stephen's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 8,254
3
2
2
Stephen's avatar
Stephen
3
2
2
-->
@949havoc

 Gods do not finish speaking to man. Never have, never will.


English Standard Version
Then the LORD said, “My Spirit shall not abide in man forever, for he is flesh: his days shall be 120 years.” Genesis 6:3

Sounds like total abandonment to me. Except when he wants to impart unknown "wisdom" to the Reverend "Tradey" Tradsecrete, then he's there in a flash.


Tradesecrete wrote:  I asked him [god] for wisdom and he gave it to me.  ..............
 I prayed to the Holy Spirit for wisdom and the Holy Spirit told me - "don't trust the book of Mormon - it is a fake.".#53





Deb-8-a-bull
Deb-8-a-bull's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,940
3
2
3
Deb-8-a-bull's avatar
Deb-8-a-bull
3
2
3
I don't mindThe Mormons Christians. 
They are my 7th favorite 

And the way the book of Mormons come to be is a lot more believable then the other " mainstream " ones.  


949havoc
949havoc's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 816
3
2
8
949havoc's avatar
949havoc
3
2
8
-->
@secularmerlin
I have no idea to what your #38 refers. A bunch of OT citations. And?
Do they have some relevance to anything?
Want to explain yourself?
949havoc
949havoc's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 816
3
2
8
949havoc's avatar
949havoc
3
2
8
-->
@Deb-8-a-bull
Both 1 & 2 were not new to Matthew:

 1. "Hear, O Israel: The Lord is our God, the Lord alone. You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your might."  Deut. 6: 4,5

2. "You shall not take vengeance or bear a grudge against any of your people, but you shall love your neighbor as yourself: I am the Lord." Levit 19: 18
secularmerlin
secularmerlin's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,093
3
3
3
secularmerlin's avatar
secularmerlin
3
3
3
But, to play your game, I'll give it you in two simple verses, since on their effect "hang the law and the prophets."

"Jesus said unto him, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind.
And the second is like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself." Matt 22: 37, 39

If we truly kept these two commandments, every word of them, we are already keeping the rest. If we're only keeping one, we're breaking both; the same effect as keeping none.

Tell me what other commandment, parable, or psalm is not accomplished by the keeping of these two, alone?
I have no idea to what your #38 refers. A bunch of OT citations. And?
Do they have some relevance to anything?
Want to explain yourself?

secularmerlin
secularmerlin's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,093
3
3
3
secularmerlin's avatar
secularmerlin
3
3
3
Also it was 98
Tradesecret
Tradesecret's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 3,325
3
2
6
Tradesecret's avatar
Tradesecret
3
2
6
-->
@949havoc
That is when Revelation was "sealed up".  And that is when the NT was completed.  
And that, as you say, is incorrect. Was there a New Testament when John completed Revelation? No, not yet. I know the verse declaring that no one should alter that book. That book was Revelation, not the entire Bible, which was yet centuries into the future. Come on , you know this.  So you say God no longer reveals to prophets. Which God? God the Father? That appears to be your interpretation, by your instance on Hebrews. So, God, the Son, Jesus Christ. And he said to his disciples that after his departure, he would send the Holy Ghost, the God, Holy Spirit, to speak to man. I, ay least, acknowledge prophets beyond the NT. I acknowledge prophets, today, and whether the inspiration to them, and to myself, frankly, for affairs that concern me, personally, bot not for the world at large because I do not have that responsibility, is by God the Father, Jesus Christ, of the Holy Ghost, it is revelation, and it matters not, according to Jesus, who is the inspiriator; it is all as if from the mouth of God, the Father.
I did not refer to the verse you are pointing to at the end of the book of Revelation. Because although that verse may well indicate that people who add to or take away from the bible have certain consequences for them, I also know that verse is equivalent to the verses elsewhere in the OT and may well have a different meaning. I NEVER use that particular verse for referring to the end of fresh revelation from God, save and except when to offer support for the primary verses and contexts in Scripture.   I think pointing me to this verse and then dismissing is - akin to a strawman argument. 

The NT was completed by AD 70.  Yes there are conjectures about times that the books were written.  Yet the evidence clearly fits the timeframe. I refer you to a delightful book by Dr Kenneth Gentry.   It's free and you can get it on pdf.  It has its flaws - but overall it is well written and argued.  Your argument seems to imply that the law of gravity was not really in existence until the scientists postulated the law.   A little like a birth certificate somehow makes the birth real. 

As for your notion that there are prophets beyond the Scripture, that is a matter entirely for you - but it is not Christian nor biblical. Which God? There is only ONE God. My words did not infer the Father. Nor did they not.  God spoke in the past - that is God the TRINITY.  GOD spoke now through his Son. AGAIN GOD the Trinity.  The Spirit of God did remind Jesus' disciples of all that Jesus had said.  This is what the NT is. 

Your revelation is not revelation from GOD. GOD has sealed the vision until the LAST DAY.  This is the meaning of 1 Corinthians 13:8.  This is the meaning of Hebrews 1. This is the meaning of Daniel 9.  It is consistent and it is entirely spirit breathed. 


And thus, the Book of Mormon. Another testament of Jesus Christ. Another scripture. If you read it, cover to cover, and applied the challenge therein to find the truth of it, you would know. There's more. Gods do not finish speaking to man. Never have, never will.
But that is the point - I have read the book of Mormon from cover to cover and I did apply the challenge. And my prayer for wisdom was answered.  Why won't you accept my testimony?  Do you think that the Holy Spirit lied to me? 

949havoc
949havoc's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 816
3
2
8
949havoc's avatar
949havoc
3
2
8
-->
@Tradesecret
that verse may well indicate that people who add to or take away from the bible have certain consequences for them,
No. That verse applied only to John's Revelation; that book alone. You still say it refers to the Bible, which did not exist in the era Revelation was written, and not for several hundred added years. Come on, you know this stuff, just don't want to admit it.

The NT was completed by AD 70.  
Not at all. As a complete tome, all 27 books, was not assembled and canonized until the ninth decade of the fourth century, https://religionfacts.com/canonization-new-testament
not 70 AD.
And John probably composed Revelation in the last decade of the first century https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/apocalypse/revelation/white.html  
zedvictor4
zedvictor4's avatar
Debates: 22
Posts: 11,066
3
3
6
zedvictor4's avatar
zedvictor4
3
3
6
-->
@949havoc
So the Bible is a mish mash of made up stuff.

We already know that.


And Mormon is just another Abrahamic business model.

So what's new?
Tradesecret
Tradesecret's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 3,325
3
2
6
Tradesecret's avatar
Tradesecret
3
2
6
-->
@949havoc
that verse may well indicate that people who add to or take away from the bible have certain consequences for them,
No. That verse applied only to John's Revelation; that book alone. You still say it refers to the Bible, which did not exist in the era Revelation was written, and not for several hundred added years. Come on, you know this stuff, just don't want to admit it.
So you want to continue the strawman argument? Why should that surprise me? I understand some people's point of view. I suspect you chose not to read the book I referred you to.  It has great arguments that you have totally ignored.  And then to refer me to other stuff. Why should I read that when you refuse to read what I suggest? 

To add body to what I said: The book of Revelation existed prior to AD 70.  That is when fresh revelation finished.  I know this stuff and I will forcefully prove it if necessary. 


The NT was completed by AD 70.  
Not at all. As a complete tome, all 27 books, was not assembled and canonized until the ninth decade of the fourth century, https://religionfacts.com/canonization-new-testament
not 70 AD.
And John probably composed Revelation in the last decade of the first century https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/apocalypse/revelation/white.html  
As I said above, writing the doctrine of the law of gravity does not mean gravity did not exist prior to that time.  You simply refuse to acknowledge this. Your problem, not mine. 

John composed revelation prior to AD 70 or the Spirit of God was wrong. Daniel 9:27.  The fact that you miss this point is understandable. Children or novices ought to pretend they are read to lead.  You are a novice. And you do not know your Scriptures. 
Tradesecret
Tradesecret's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 3,325
3
2
6
Tradesecret's avatar
Tradesecret
3
2
6
-->
@zedvictor4
So the Bible is a mish mash of made up stuff.

We already know that.


And Mormon is just another Abrahamic business model.

So what's new?

The Bible is pretty clear and well established. 

The Book of Mormon well - an American invention. 
zedvictor4
zedvictor4's avatar
Debates: 22
Posts: 11,066
3
3
6
zedvictor4's avatar
zedvictor4
3
3
6
-->
@Tradesecret
"The Bible"

Which translation /interpretation might that be?
secularmerlin
secularmerlin's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,093
3
3
3
secularmerlin's avatar
secularmerlin
3
3
3
-->
@Tradesecret
@949havoc
You two arguing about biblical "truth" weakens both your positions.

IF the bible is the TRUTH but only "when interpreted correctly" THEN the bible is by necessity an insufficient source of truth as a stand alone work. 

If the bible is insufficient to reveal truth as a stand alone work THEN without some definitive method of determining which interpretation is "correct" both your arguments are equally uncompelling.
Tradesecret
Tradesecret's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 3,325
3
2
6
Tradesecret's avatar
Tradesecret
3
2
6
-->
@secularmerlin
You two arguing about biblical "truth" weakens both your positions.

IF the bible is the TRUTH but only "when interpreted correctly" THEN the bible is by necessity an insufficient source of truth as a stand alone work. 

If the bible is insufficient to reveal truth as a stand alone work THEN without some definitive method of determining which interpretation is "correct" both your arguments are equally uncompelling.

We are not arguing about biblical truth.   949havoc is not arguing about biblical truth - he is arguing for extra biblical truth.  Nor are we arguing over the interpretation of a text.  

Your assertion is as helpful as two CHOs arguing the science of the pandemic and coming to two different conclusions.  Both cannot be correct - and yet both claim the science of their positions.   

The bible is sufficient.  
Tradesecret
Tradesecret's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 3,325
3
2
6
Tradesecret's avatar
Tradesecret
3
2
6
-->
@zedvictor4
-->@Tradesecret
"The Bible"

Which translation /interpretation might that be?
I hold to an inclusive view.  I don't take the view that any specific translation is better than another per se- although there is good science to differentiate the way each is translated.  The fact is every translation has multiple experts translating.  


secularmerlin
secularmerlin's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,093
3
3
3
secularmerlin's avatar
secularmerlin
3
3
3
-->
@Tradesecret
We are not arguing about biblical truth.   949havoc is not arguing about biblical truth - he is arguing for extra biblical truth.  Nor are we arguing over the interpretation of a text.  

Your assertion is as helpful as two CHOs arguing the science of the pandemic and coming to two different conclusions.  Both cannot be correct - and yet both claim the science of their positions.   

The bible is sufficient.  
Then why the disagreement? I feel like a book which represented the word of any respectable god would be clear cut enough to avoid confusion like this. Terrible communication skills that. Apparently not part of his omnipotence. 
Tradesecret
Tradesecret's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 3,325
3
2
6
Tradesecret's avatar
Tradesecret
3
2
6
-->
@secularmerlin
We are not arguing about biblical truth.   949havoc is not arguing about biblical truth - he is arguing for extra biblical truth.  Nor are we arguing over the interpretation of a text.  

Your assertion is as helpful as two CHOs arguing the science of the pandemic and coming to two different conclusions.  Both cannot be correct - and yet both claim the science of their positions.   

The bible is sufficient.  
Then why the disagreement? I feel like a book which represented the word of any respectable god would be clear cut enough to avoid confusion like this. Terrible communication skills that. Apparently not part of his omnipotence. 
You make an interesting point.  And I respect your opinion. The disagreement exists - as it will - in any sphere - between the orthodox and those who are not orthodox.   The Bible is pretty clear.  99% of churches hold to similar views and doctrines.  As I have said in another place-  the main points of disagreement are in respect of church polity, and the method or mode of the sacraments.    I am a Presbyterian. Yet I agree with most of the doctrines of the Catholic, Orthodox, Episcopalian, Baptist, etc.  It is only very a minor number of positions I disagree with.  And this is entirely consistent throughout the orthodox or mainline churches.  The Mormon church or the JW or even the SDA have a different revelation and therefore different doctrines.  

949havoc stands outside the Christian Tradition - that is why we disagree.  I would not argue such with most of the Christian Religion - but for those outside of what is considered acceptable - there is and MUST be disagreement. 

I don't see it as reflection on God at all. Sin perhaps. But that is humanity. 
zedvictor4
zedvictor4's avatar
Debates: 22
Posts: 11,066
3
3
6
zedvictor4's avatar
zedvictor4
3
3
6
-->
@Tradesecret
That old "sin" thing again.

Do you really think that an omni-sensible GOD would be worried about sin.....Or ritual methodology for that matter.


I find it odd that theists who revere an omni-everything  GOD, always make it out to be so stupid.

secularmerlin
secularmerlin's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,093
3
3
3
secularmerlin's avatar
secularmerlin
3
3
3
-->
@Tradesecret
I mean you both have "faith" and so does a bhudist. Pedantry aside it is different than having faith in mathematical truth or peer reviewed scientific observation. As an outsider how am I to accurately assess which "faith" is "correct" to have? What is the difference between the book(s) that you all point to as claim and evidence all in one? 
Tradesecret
Tradesecret's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 3,325
3
2
6
Tradesecret's avatar
Tradesecret
3
2
6
-->
@zedvictor4
That old "sin" thing again.

Do you really think that an omni-sensible GOD would be worried about sin.....Or ritual methodology for that matter.


I find it odd that theists who revere an omni-everything  GOD, always make it out to be so stupid.
Sin  is the difference between heaven and earth.  Sin is the issue for a Holy God.  It is what separated humanity from God. It is why Jesus died on the cross. It is the problem between people. 

God is not worried about sin.  What a silly thing to say.  Yet that does not mean that God is going to tolerate sin.  

God's solution to the world's problems is to deal with sin. That is what he has done through Jesus.  

One heart at a time - reconciling humanity to God.  

Saying God should not be concerned about sin is like saying humans should not be worried about murder or pedophilia.  Or that 2 + 2 doesn't equal 4.  


Tradesecret
Tradesecret's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 3,325
3
2
6
Tradesecret's avatar
Tradesecret
3
2
6
-->
@secularmerlin
I mean you both have "faith" and so does a bhudist. Pedantry aside it is different than having faith in mathematical truth or peer reviewed scientific observation. As an outsider how am I to accurately assess which "faith" is "correct" to have? What is the difference between the book(s) that you all point to as claim and evidence all in one? 
Fair questions to ask. 

I mean you both have "faith" and so does a bhudist
Yes and no.  My faith is a set of doctrines. It is not just a feeling.   The Faith is a set of doctrines that bind me to the Living God.  

A peer reviewed scientific observation does not make the science true, does it?  Like a consensus of scientific opinion does not make it true either.  It might be true - but it might be wrong.  Studies show that science itself has a half life.  Science changes. 

My point is that people trust or believe in the principles of logic - not by a logical process - but out of faith.  I love science - I just don't think all scientists actually use the scientific method properly.  A mathematical truth requires the system of logic to be logically true.  How does one prove logic to be logically true? You can't. You just have to believe it is.  And moreover you have to believe it is always true - by faith. I am happy to say it - because I believe in a God who is eternal and always true - and who created such laws. 

Without God, a person has to endeavour to construct a position to enable chance, randomness, to develop or evolve or bring laws into existence from nothing. This is faith.  And it is blind faith. Not reasonable faith.